I thank the gentleman. I think that this House has concurrence, that we share concern about Lebanon. I certainly do, having had the chance, twice in the last 2 years, to not only visit the country, the northern and the southern part, but…
I thank the gentleman.
I think that this House has concurrence, that we share concern about Lebanon. I certainly do, having had the chance, twice in the last 2 years, to not only visit the country, the northern and the southern part, but to meet with all the parties to the disputes.
One of the things that I thought was most telling was that there was a concern about working out an agreement without the interference of outside parties, without the interference of Iran or the interference of the United States. There is a feeling of Lebanon-for-Lebanon that exists very strongly in Lebanon. Yet the Lebanese have not had the opportunity to really stand that way.
Having gone to Lebanon, as I did right after the war that went past one month in the summer of 2006, and seeing the devastation there, there is no appetite for war on the part of the Lebanese people.
The role of Hezbollah is certainly worth looking at. It's also worth considering the depth of support they have among the Lebanese people.
We have to be very careful about how we dictate a certain policy in Lebanon for its effect on Lebanon and for its effect on the region. So, therefore, I must reluctantly oppose this resolution, as well intended as it might be, because I'm concerned that it will be seen by some as the United States trying to instigate more civil unrest in Lebanon at the same time that we say that we're supporting the central government.
I have met with Prime Minister Siniora. He has been a good friend of the United States. But he had to sit by while the United States either looked the other way or encouraged, depending on whose story you accept, the continued bombing of Lebanon, which actually undermined his government.
So we have a condition in Lebanon that really has been going on now for over 25 years, with Lebanon having only tenuous control of their own affairs, with the interference of so many outside governments.
We should be doing everything we can to strengthen a process of dialogue in Lebanon. I don't believe that this resolution accomplishes that. I think it accomplishes the opposite.
Again, I'm in support of whatever we can do to stabilize Lebanon. I just have my doubts that this resolution will accomplish that. I appreciate the concern of the sponsors. I think we need to have more of a discussion----
I certainly will.
I appreciate your pointing it out.
I agree with you, and I appreciate your correcting the record in that he wasn't for it, that's for sure. But I'm suggesting to you that the fact that we had someone who was supporting us, and yet we continued as a government, our government did nothing to discourage the continued bombing of Lebanon during that period after the 6 days that Israel thought they basically had accomplished their objectives.
I was in southern Lebanon. I saw the devastation. And I talked to people both on the Israeli side and on the Lebanese side, and I see that there was a desire to stop but it continued. We undermined the Siniora government. What I'm suggesting is that it's the United States interference in Lebanon that does not serve the country's purpose of peace well. I don't see our purpose there as being benign, to my good friend, and I say this having talked to all sides. Let Lebanon be for Lebanon. Let the United States and all the other nations of the world provide some support when asked for it, but we have to be very careful about injecting ourselves in a way that we try to determine the outcome for that country. We do not do well when we try to determine the outcome of who should govern another country. It always, in the last few years, has been very difficult for us to do that.
I appreciate, though, the dedication that my good friend has to peace in Lebanon. We both agree on the necessity of civility there. We may have differences as to how that would be achieved.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, will my friend yield?
I'm maintaining that our government, the United States, has really not been for dialogue so as to try to bring all the parties together. We have pursued a path that has been quite narrow and that, in effect, keeps the conflict going. So I have concerns about that.
I would agree that Mr. Siniora is trying to do everything he can, but I also think that he's limited to what he can do because of the parameters that he has to work within in order to keep the confidence of the administration in Washington, DC. And that's my concern.
So this resolution, I don't think, really addresses the much deeper need for dialogue within Lebanon by the Lebanese instead of the United States injecting its point of view and its mandate onto Lebanon.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
My concern is this: that you had an assistant Secretary of
State for the U.S., David Welch, who went to Lebanon, and he went there to basically make sure that the government took a hard-line position and that it would forestall the possibility of any dialogue. And then one of the clients of the United States, or so-called clients, basically escalated the situation by taking on the issue of disarmament of Hezbollah, which really ought to be done within the parameters of the Lebanese discussion.
Will my friend yield?
How much more effective it would be if the disarming of Hezbollah, which should occur, would occur within the context of an agreement within Lebanon as opposed to being imposed by someone else. The Lebanese should have control of their own government.