|
'We support Siniora's bid for a future' January 24th, 2006
Adla Massoud interviewed U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch exclusively for The Daily Star. Welch was on a visit to Lebanon recently, which sparked heavy criticism and controversy as certain forces claimed he was the embodiment of America's interference in Lebanon's internal affairs.
Q: Many Lebanese worry that American involvement in Lebanon is geared toward securing Israeli interests. Is this the case?
A: First of all, we have been friends with Lebanon in good times and bad: when Israel was in Southern Lebanon and before it was in Southern Lebanon, and after it had withdrawn from Southern Lebanon. So to implicate the U.S.-Lebanese relationship with the interest of any other country is not correct. We in particular support the (Premier Fouad) Siniora government's efforts to carve out a new future for Lebanon based on a comprehensive reform program: economic, political and social.
Q: As a gesture of goodwill, why doesn't the U.S. exert pressure on Israel to return the Shebaa Farms?
A: The Shebaa Farms question was resolved by the United Nations in 2000 when it declared for the purposes of Resolution 425, which applies to Israel's entry into Lebanon, that Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon pursuant for the requirements of that resolution. In order to be able to make that judgment the UN had to go and examine the maps to decide what was Lebanon, and occupied in 1978 by the Israeli forces, and what was not. It made a decision and the international community accepted that decision. One party in Lebanon, perhaps instigated from the outside, has chosen to contest that view but it has never provided any credible information that would substantiate that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese.
Q: If Syria continues to obstruct the UN probe, what serious actions will the U.S. take?
A: We prefer to see this investigation pursued without obstruction. That would mean anybody that has been told to cooperate should do so. We believe that anybody with any information should volunteer to cooperate. As you know, it's an international investigation led by a UN-appointed team, headed now by Mr. Serge Brammertz. And if they want to interview anybody they should be provided that opportunity without hesitation. We believe Syria has hesitated and is obstructing the course of this investigation. If there is no Syrian guilt then why are they hesitating? Others are perfectly willing to step forward and cooperate. It seems, of course, that the investigation is most interested in Syrian witnesses and we hope and expect that Syria will provide access to those witnesses and any other information in its possession. However, so far they have not done so to the satisfaction of the commission. It can be in the power of the commission to report this noncooperation to the Security Council. When it does so, the Security Council will decide what steps to take. Under those circumstances, the U.S. will support a vigorous action in response. We are not contemplating any military solutions to this problem. Syria has the option to change its behavior and that is the best option.
Q: Many believe that Bashar Assad is using his support of the insurgency in Iraq to broker a deal with the U.S. regarding the killing of former Premier Rafik Hariri. Could that happen?
A: No. There will be no deals with Damascus on this subject or on Iraq. That is beyond the realm of possibility. It's a dream that exists somewhere in Damascus. Perhaps they talk about it among themselves but I can assure you that it's nothing that the United States is contemplating or would contemplate doing.
Q: Would the United States consider backing Syria's exiled former Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam?
A: We believe that there are many voices in Syria who deserve to be heard. There are quite a few people who have come out of Syria to give their opinion on what is going on inside the country. We're not backing any individuals. What we're backing is the right of people who express dissent and advocate a better future for their country; in this case, Syria. But we're not endorsing any particular person or belief in that regard.
Q: You don't want to see a regime change in Syria?
A: That's up to the Syrian people. I would hope that they are given a choice.
Q: What do you think about the Saudi mediation plan for Lebanon and Syria? Does the U.S. support it?
A: No, we do not.
Q: Did u know about it?
A: We were informed about it as it was happening.
Q: Syria and Iran are both accused of sponsoring terrorism and are the main backers of Hizbullah. What right does the U.S. have to consider Hizbullah a terrorist group?
A: We have the inherent right to consider those who attacked us as our enemies. And this group has used terrorism in the past, including against Americans, that bears responsibility for those actions. Therefore we designated it as a terrorist group. We have this right and I don't see why anybody should question it. It's not something that we just dreamed up and decided to use. We believe that we have very real facts about Hizbullah's support for terrorism.
Q: How do you plan on dealing with Hizbullah?
A: Same way we have been for years. We will not deal with them.
Q: With Syria under pressure to cooperate with the UN investigation team, and with the Palestinian elections coming up on January 25, do you think Iran's recent confrontational actions are a way to help ease pressure on Syria and also to influence the Palestinian elections in a negative way?
A: I certainly do. I think that the Iranian regime has instigated difficulties in Iraq and through Syria, inside Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. They are doing so for their reasons, not because they are genuine supporters of any cause in Lebanon or in the Palestinian territories. That's a very cynical manipulation of the cause of others. And we consider it highly dangerous.
| 
