U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) makes his case against the withdrawal of U.S. Marines from Lebanon, because that would send a message that the U.S. “is giving up on its efforts to bring about a stable Lebanon”. The Marines should remain to retain leverage for a peaceful political settlement and ceasefire in the country. He is thankful for Rep. Lee Hamilton’s (D-IN), statement and agrees with it. Rep. Hamilton jokes that Rep. Hyde’s statement was “unusually articulate”; Rep. Hyde (o/s) laughs. Rep. Hamilton recognizes Rep. Edward “Larry” Winn Jr. (R-KS), who states his concerns about a possible Israeli-Syrian clash. He asks U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger what the Israeli view is on the presence of U.S. forces in Lebanon. Eagleburger concurs with the opinion of Israel’s Ambassador Meir Rosenne, which he cited in his opening statement, that withdrawing U.S. Marines from Lebanon would be dangerous for the U.S.; adult Caucasian males seated in BG.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative and Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Dante Fascell (D-FL) off camera, recognizes Rep. Donald Bonker (D-WA); adult Caucasian males seated in BG. Rep. Bonker (D-WA) believes there should be debate within Congress on the issue of U.S. Marines in Lebanon. He contends the Middle East has been a dominant foreign policy issue for years, but the issue of U.S. Marines in Lebanon adds a new dimension. Rep. Bonker asks U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to further explain how the idea of using United Nations peacekeeping troops, supported by the U.S. was able to be rejected by Syria, who is not a member of the U.N. Security Council. Eagleburger directs the question to Ambassador Richard Fairbanks, but states that his use of the word "veto" does not refer to the Security Council vote. When Syrians rejected U.N. observers, the U.N. was not going to put observers in an area where one of the parties in the current conflict would not accept it.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Donald Bonker (D-WA) responds to U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, drawing a distinction between implied actions and the fact that United Nations forces are in the Golan Heights, subject to renewal “every six months or so and have not been subject to a veto”. Rep. Bonker asks: “Unless we really take this matter squarely to the Security Council of the U.N., how do we know what the response would be? And do you not think it is worth the effort in any case?” Ambassador Richard Fairbanks explains the back-channel negotiations which originated from a "cryptic clause in the second section of the cease-fire agreement which calls for neutral forces". He explains the United Nations Treaty Supervisory Force was the obvious choice, but Syria, messaging through allies would not accept that. And a special emissary dispatched to the U.N. by Lebanon, found that the Soviet Union would reject a formal U.N. force; adult Caucasian males and females seated in BG.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Donald Bonker (D-WA), off camera, asks if the Soviet Union told U.S. representatives that they would veto any resolution; adult Caucasian males and females seated in BG. Ambassador Richard Fairbanks states that is the case and their defense is that they do not want “a green light established which would separate Lebanon”. Fairbanks: “Obviously, the intent of the cease fire agreement we negotiated was not there would be one simple line of observers, but rather the observers would be deployed on all axes throughout the region as I had said in the document.” To Rep. Bonker, it seems that the Soviet Union and Syria want the U.S. out of region, militarily. He suggests the United Nations peacekeeping force is still the best solution, and the Soviet Union should be put on the defensive by bringing the matter directly to the United Nations Security Council, where the Soviet Union would be forced to go on the record with their vote and show where they stand.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger seeks to make a point to U.S. House Representative Donald Bonker (D-WA) that the Soviet Union had made clear what their intentions were, but for the sake of argument, if the Syrian and Soviet government did acquiesce to the idea of United Nations peace-keeping forces in Lebanon, the situation in Lebanon is so unstable in the view of the U.S., that it is unlikely U.N. members would want to a peace-keeping force into that situation; adult Caucasian males seated in BG. Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), off camera, states Rep. Bonker’s time has expired and turns to Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA).
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Gerry Studds (D-MA) is taken aback, but not surprised, by the rhetoric coming from U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger when it comes to debate and dissent regarding U.S. foreign policy issues; adult Caucasian female stands in BG, taking notes. Rep. Studds: “My general observation is that I am not sure it is helpful constructive or realistic to suggest that Members of Congress withhold debate on a matter of substance and controversy simply because the President of the United States has made what unarguably is his constitutional judgment. We also have a constitutional responsibility as members of Congress. We would renege on that responsibility if we were to follow your advice and simply keep quiet.” Rep. Studds notes that, instead of being a strictly peace-keeping force, staying neutral, U.S. Marines now to seem to be supporting one faction among many in a complex civil war that currently exists within Lebanon’s government.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Gerry Studds (D-MA) proceeds to read out portions of the 1982 U.S. - Lebanese Agreement which was used as the basis for allowing U.S. forces to be sent to Lebanon; adult Caucasian female taking notes in BG. Rep. Studds: “Now, that appeared to be the case when this Congress was first presented with the administration's rationale for participation by our country in a multinational force in Lebanon. It is no longer even arguably the case. We have been under assault by more than one of the factions. The Government of Lebanon undertook to assure us that would not occur.” Rep. Studds argues that the situation has now changed, the agreement is no longer being adhered to, and so the Congressional authority to use U.S. military forces, contingent upon those original conditions, is no longer valid. He invites U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to respond to his observations.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger first clarifies that debate is a legitimate part of the legislative process, but argues that debate did take place four months ago; adult Caucasian males and females seated in BG. A bipartisan compromise was reached that allowed U.S. Marines to be stationed in Lebanon for eighteen months. Eagleburger admits that four months later, there has been a change in the situation in Lebanon, specifically with the loss of hundreds of Marines. However, Eagleburger argues that the purpose of the Marines has not changed. The Marines continue to be a “neutral symbolic peacekeeping force there to assist the constitutional government of Lebanon. Not Mr. Gemayel or any specific government in Lebanon, but indeed the constitutional government of Lebanon. And the government now conceived to be the government of Lebanon is, I believe by all parties, recognized to have arrived at its position through constitutional means."