FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 27, 1999

• 0911

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This morning we're very privileged to have with us the Honourable Amine Gemayel. He was president of Lebanon from 1982 to 1988. Last night I heard some rumours that this may be a reoccurrence for you. The committee is very happy to have you here this morning. I think the Middle East is an area of interest for a number of us on this committee, and we're very interested to hear what you have to say.

Mr. Gemayel, perhaps you could introduce the guests you have with you. The general format of the committee is that you will make a presentation and we will take turns asking you questions. So if you'd like to begin now, we welcome you.

Mr. Amine Gemayel (Former President of Lebanon): I'll begin with a short presentation in English, and then I can answer your questions in French, if you like.

With me is Mr. Toupic Soyad, who is associated with me in my work; Joseph Chami, who is established here in Canada and also involved with us to promote the Lebanese cause; and the same for Mr. George Karam, who is based in Montreal and also doing the same work.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Maybe you'd like to begin your presentation.

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Mrs. President—I don't know how you address the president of the committee—and distinguished members of the committee, good morning. I'm really pleased to appear here to share with you my thoughts on conditions in Lebanon and how they relate to the larger issue of peace in the Middle East. I welcome this opportunity not because you are esteemed parliamentarians, but because I deeply respect the role Canada plays in international relations, particularly its steadfast defence of democratic principles.

Canada's current membership in the United Nations Security Council reassures people throughout the world who are struggling for human rights that they have an ally in one of the most important forums of politics. Furthermore, your country has earned the gratitude of governments and peoples in the region for its leadership in the Middle East peace process. One manifestation of this leadership has been Canada's exemplary participation in the refugee working group established in January 1992. Finally, Canada's commitment to the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon has been deep and ongoing, as demonstrated by the involvement of Canadian personnel in the supervisory organization from 1944 to the present, the observer group from 1958 to 1959, and the 1978 interim force.

• 0915

Mrs. President and members of the committee, my homeland of Lebanon has a long tradition of peace, democracy, and tolerance. Lebanon is also the crucible of the Middle East in which the region's diverse political dogmas, religious tenets, and cultural trends interact in a dynamic fashion.

In the course of history, Lebanese society has sometimes exploded in episodes of communal and religious conflict. However, most of these instances were the result of foreign meddling.

Any Middle East peace that aspires to be comprehensive and lasting must also guarantee a genuine peace for Lebanon; a peace that is just and restores the very sovereignty and independence of the country. I must emphasize the point that we cannot envisage a just and lasting peace in the Middle East if Lebanon is excluded from meaningful participation in the process.

Fortunately, the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David accords of 1978, the 1993 Oslo agreement between Israel and the PLO, and the Israel-Jordan treaty signed at Arava/Araba in 1994 have led to the foundations for a broader peace. With the election of Ehud Barak as Prime Minister of Israel, a real window of opportunity has opened for the achievement of peace between Israel, Lebanon, and Syria.

For the Lebanese people, this opportunity carries both great promise as well as great peril. The promise of peace rests in the fact that it's the essential foundation of Lebanon's very existence as a viable nation. This is true, because as long as Israel and Syria remain in a state of war, they will view Lebanon's people, resources, and territory as strategic assets to be exploited. For the Lebanese, the peril of peace resides in the fear that it will be achieved at the expense of their sovereignty and national will.

If I appear before this committee in a state of anxiety, it is because I'm reflecting the national anxiety felt by the Lebanese people, as well as Muslims and Christians, who feel their country might be the victim of an unjust peace, rather than the beneficiary of a true peace.

The Lebanese people fear one form of peace because they don't want that peace to mean the compromise of their cherished nationhood and traditions, such as democracy and tolerance. The Lebanese feel their cause will be sacrificed on the altar of realpolitik, and their nation's destiny will be confiscated as a prerequisite for peace between stronger regional powers.

Lebanon's representation at future peace negotiations must be genuine, and to be genuine it must reflect the freely expressed will of the Lebanese people. As with any free and sovereign people, only the Lebanese can define their own national interest and only the Lebanese can secure it by means of an independent diplomatic strategy.

Today Lebanese territory is occupied by two foreign powers. In the south, Israel has unilaterally declared, enforced, and maintained a self-styled security zone. This region is patrolled jointly by Israeli troops and an Israeli-sponsored militia known as the South Lebanese Army.

The brutality of the Israeli military garrison in Lebanon was demonstrated in 1996 when the Israel defence forces carried out what they called Operation Grapes of Wrath. During this operation, Israeli forces conducted a massive bombardment of positions illegally held by anti-Israeli guerrillas. Whatever number of guerrillas may have been killed or neutralized, what we do know is that the Israelis shelled a UN compound in which hundreds of innocent civilians had taken refuge. Dozens of people were killed, including women and children. These are the kinds of threats to life and limb that the Lebanese people experience on a daily basis.

In addition to foreign occupation, we know that Lebanon's national institutions are under extreme duress. We know that Lebanon's presidency, prime ministry, cabinet, parliament, and armed forces are all under the sway of a dictatorship in Damascus. We know that serious pervasive influence over all aspects of Lebanese political life, enforced by means of assassination, disappearance, arrest, forced exile, and physical coercion is inconsistent with the true aspirations of the people.

• 0920

In the words of the U.S. Department of State's human rights report, published in February 1999, “The relationship with Syria does not reflect the will of most Lebanese citizens.” I quote from this authoritative source, not because of its American origin, but because it represents a synthesis of State Department materials, as well as documents prepared by the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and grassroots human rights organizations inside Lebanon.

While there is a Lebanese government in Beirut that nominally oversees Lebanese national affairs, true power in the country is wielded by Syria and its overt and covert agents. The Lebanese administration is a cynical expedient structure dedicated to promoting Syrian interests under the guise of what purports to be Lebanese national policy.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, you need not accept my analysis of Syria's intention to control Lebanon. For confirmation of the situation as I have described it, you need only review the persistent calls for the creation of a greater Syria that have been made by leaders in Damascus since the forties. At long last the current Syrian government has fulfilled this historic ambition by effectively turning Lebanon into a Syrian province. What's going on actually is creeping annexation.

For President al-Assad, the only task that remains is to legitimize Syrian control of Lebanon by means of upcoming regional peace negotiations. These negotiations may well fix your political alignment in the Middle East for hundreds of years. Thus, as the Lebanese know well, the very future of their nation is at stake.

The reality of Syrian domination of Lebanon was confirmed by no less an authority than the official radio of Damascus. In a May 22 broadcast, Syrian state radio urged the new Israeli Prime Minister to negotiate with Lebanon and Syria simultaneously as one issue, since—and I quote the Syrian radio itself; it's an official radio talking on behalf of the Syrian government—“the two are unified”. The Syrian radio mentioned that the two countries, Lebanon and Syria, are unified as such, as bluntly as that. Thus, for the time being, Lebanon, as a sovereign and independent country, exists only in the hearts and minds of its patriotic citizens.

I would like to turn your attention to a particularly dangerous episode in recent Lebanese history that has undermined the country's demographic equilibrium. In 1994, the Government of Lebanon published an official decree, a copy of which I have with me today, that is 1,200 pages long. Unfortunately it's in Arabic, but you can look at it, and maybe my friend, Mac Harb, can give you an idea of what it's about. This book is the official gazette in Lebanon. There are 1,273 pages, just in this document I have here, and it lists the names of families that have been given Lebanese citizenship without any kind of legality. It's at your disposal.

In this document, the Government of Lebanon published an official decree, a copy of which I have with me today, that is more than 1,200 pages long. The text of this massive document consists entirely of the names of families that have been granted, with the stroke of a pen, full Lebanese citizenship. The decree includes absolutely no explanatory or background material describing who these people are, what their place of origin is, or why they are entitled to Lebanese citizenship. In fact, the decree does not even list individual names. It includes only family names, so there is no way of knowing for sure how many people it benefits. Some have estimated the total number of persons covered by the decree to be at least 500,000. If so, that means that a minimum of 500,000, half a million citizens, have been absorbed into the Lebanese population of about three million.

• 0925

To compare these figures with the 1996 Canadian population statistics, it would be as if five million naturalized citizens suddenly joined 29 million Canadians, with no information or justification provided by the government.

With this manoeuvre, the Syrian-controlled Lebanese government engineered a one-sixth increase in the country's population, a feat accomplished by means of an executive edict for which there is absolutely no precedent in Lebanese law or traditions.

Obviously, the implications of this demographic attack on the Lebanese nationality are profound. To take just an example, these new Lebanese have been permitted to vote in the country's local and national elections, obviously tilting the electoral balance in favour of pro-Syrian candidates.

The citizenship decree was immediately challenged in the courts, but to date, the competent tribunal has failed to respond to the complaint in any meaningful fashion.

This phenomenon reminds us a little bit of the Soviet manoeuvres—how to invade other states within the Soviet Union. Syria is trying, by this decree, really to dismantle not only the Lebanese institutions but also the very demography of the country, to establish a fait accompli in Lebanon and to change the population itself, replacing the Lebanese population with the Syrian population. This is a first decree, and I heard there is another one in preparation. So maybe a new half a million—it means a third of the Lebanese population, and without any reaction from the world.

In a December 1996 address in Washington, D.C., Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy outlined your government's policies toward Lebanon. He stated that:

Canada strongly supports: the sovereignty of Lebanon; the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 425; respect for the provision of the Taïf Agreement; and extension of the authority of the Lebanese government to all its territory.

I would like to address briefly each of the policies cited by Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Axworthy and explain how utterly far from achieving them we are today.

First, the sovereignty of Lebanon has never been in greater jeopardy. Lebanon today exists within a brutal framework of occupation and dictatorship—foreign dictatorship. What we have in Lebanon is merely the appearance of sovereignty and stability, but the false security and peace that prevails in Lebanon should fool neither this committee nor any foreign observer.

History demonstrates that such security is not durable over the long term. In this regard, we can turn to the case of Yugoslavia, which for decades appeared to be an exemplar of stability under Marshal Tito. However, a decade after his death, Tito's creation splintered into a series of bloody ethnic wars, the latest of which we are witnessing in Kosovo.

When viewing the tragic images of hundreds of thousands of Kosovo refugees fleeing from massacres and ethnic cleansing, my thoughts turn to my own country, which I know could very well suffer a similar fate, and you have experienced a sample of that.

• 0930

Second, UN Security Council resolution 425 was passed in 1978, in the aftermath of an Israeli invasion of Lebanese territory. Resolution 425 stipulates that Israeli forces must withdraw from Lebanese territory and states they should be replaced by UN peacekeepers. Lebanon has been prevented from negotiating with Israel on the basis of resolution 425 because Syria does not want an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon until it also gives up the Golan Heights, seized from Syria in 1967.

As a former President of Lebanon, I would like to go on record as stating my sympathy for the argument that Lebanon and Syria, as Arab powers and neighbours, must coordinate their strategic policies. However, Syria's diktat, barring any and all expressions of independent Lebanese will, violates the most fundamental principles of sovereignty, and thus it's unacceptable.

Third, according to the provisions of the Taïf Agreement, as Minister Axworthy said, signed between Lebanon and Syria in 1989, Syria should have redeployed its military forces away from Beirut and Lebanon's heavy populated coastal areas to the Biqaâ Valley. To date, Syria has failed to honour this commitment, and its 35,000 troops in Lebanon still enjoy free reign throughout the country, except for Israel's self-declared security zone in the south. Because of the complex and technical nature of Syrian deployments in Lebanon, I will not go into further detail in this statement, but I can answer any questions the committee may have regarding this matter.

Fourth, and finally, regarding the extension of the authority of the Lebanese government to all the territory of Lebanon, the entire thrust of my testimony demonstrates that the very opposite is the case. In fact, the Lebanese government enjoys virtually no liberty of action of any of its territory, including the presidential palace itself. Incredibly, as we have seen, the Lebanese regime has even conspired with Syria to disrupt the country's demographic balance and artificially implant a vast pro-Syrian constituency inside the country.

In conclusion, distinguished President and members of the committee on foreign affairs, I urge you to reject the path of expediency and accommodation. The guiding principles of Canada's policies as outlined by Foreign Minister Axworthy in 1996 are still valid and vital. Canada, as a member of the Security Council and a leader in the Middle East peace process, must actively assist the Lebanese to regain their national independence. Should you abandon Lebanon, your country would fail to live up to the great moral principles that have made Canada, in terms of promoting democracy and human rights, a true global superpower. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Your Excellency, thank you very much for coming to the committee today, and thank you for bringing your colleagues with you. Indeed, it was very interesting, I'm sure, for all of us.

I have a couple of questions. First, this reminds me not only of Yugoslavia, but also of what's going on in Tibet and so many other parts of the world right now. It seems to me that if we're going to get some kind of resolution, the state parties that are involved in this have to get together to talk about it. Do you see that there is a movement or a possibility of calling a meeting of the state parties, with Prime Minister Barak coming to the helm in Israel, involving him, involving Hafez Assad, involving Egypt and Jordan, and the other state parties in the region, to come together to discuss not only this but other Middle East issues, to begin a dialogue that will start a process of repatriation for the people of Lebanon, and perhaps have a UN mediation?

Secondly, forgive me, I don't know when your last election was, and I don't know when your next election is. Do you have an election coming up? If so, when is it?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: The last one was in 1996; the legislative elections took place in 1996. The next one is 2000.

Mr. Keith Martin: Are they fair elections?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: That's legislative elections.

Mr. Keith Martin: What I'm trying to understand is Syrian control—

• 0935

Mr. Amine Gemayel: But how can you talk about democratic elections when those elections took place under a very severe and strong Syrian control?

Mr. Keith Martin: In other words, you're saying they were not fair elections. If they were not fair elections, do you think in the next election there should be involvement by the United Nations to ensure those elections take place in a fair and democratic fashion?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Sure. We are calling for a kind of international involvement. The situation in Lebanon is actually similar to what prevailed during World War II in Europe in the forties. It's exactly the same situation as when the Nazis occupied part of Europe.

You remember when the Americans and other allies decided to invade the mainland in Europe. Without this invasion, the situation would have remained under German control. I'm not talking at all about military action, but we really need international political involvement to ensure Lebanon has real sympathy for its cause. We need to try to hold—as you have mentioned, and I fully sympathize with the idea—an international conference to help Lebanon restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Mr. Keith Martin: Your Excellency, thank you very much for your answer. In short, if you were to make a wish list of actions that needed to be taken at an international level to resolve this issue and ensure that the Lebanese people will get their sovereignty back and be able to be masters of their destiny, what would it include, in terms of actual process? Would you call for an ongoing meeting of state parties to resolve this? Would you call for this just to be brought up again and again at the UN? Or would you suggest something else?

[Translation]

Mr. Amine Gemayel: I will answer in French for the benefit of our friends. In my view, it is essential that one thing be done first. Once that is done, everything else will follow. First, the international community needs to open its eyes to the injustices being perpetrated in Lebanon. Once that happens and once Canada, the United States and Europe have taken a stand on this matter of principle and recognized that the situation in Lebanon is artificial and unjust, then everything else will fall into place. Lebanon is a country occupied by several armies. The government in power is a puppet government. This must be stated clearly because everyone knows that this is true. When one reads reports by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the State Department or Canadian associations, it's clear that everyone recognizes that human rights are being violated everyday as a result of the occupation of the country by Israeli and Syrian forces.

When the world's great powers, the champions of democracy and democratic values, decide to cast aside this political pragmatism and open their eyes to what is happening in Lebanon, then I can assure you that everything will fall into place on its own. People need to become aware of the situation. Until now, the international community has given its blessing to the events taking place. The settlement process in southern Lebanon has become a fait accompli.

• 0940

We, the Lebanese, are sometimes criticized for defending or advocating our cause on the international stage. People say: What does Mr. Gemayel, a fanatical Christian, want to talk about now? The Lebanese are responsible for the situation in their country because they destroyed it with their in-fighting. Syria is doing a good job. Syrians are sympathetic, kind people. Syria is a democratic nation that upholds human rights. It is not a dictatorship. It is a very democratic, very liberal nation and it is doing a commendable job of handling the situation in Lebanon. Mr. Gemayel will say just about anything.

When we get together with Canadian, American or European officials, unfortunately, we get the impression that we ourselves are at fault. We are the once defending our own cause and the victim becomes the aggressor. Since you asked the question, let me be brutally honest with you. The first thing we want is for the international community to open its eyes to the situation. We ask that it not make the mistake that Chamberlain made in Munich in 1939 when he agreed with Hitler on Czechoslovakia and Europe subsequently exploded, or the mistake that Tito made and that we are now paying for in Kosovo. We mustn't make these same two mistakes because we would be creating a new problem in the Middle East and we could be witnessing the start of a new, very serious human crisis because in Lebanon, as your researchers will confirm, the situation is fairly similar to what we are seeing in Kosovo.

That is my impression of the situation. Canada, the United States and Europe must wake up and face the facts and shed their attitude of political pragmatism, an attitude that has characterized international diplomacy. Only then can we move on to the next stage and see what can be done. However, as long as the world's major powers stand by and do nothing, there is nothing stopping the official radio of Damascus from proclaiming with impunity that "The two are unified". The Washington Post printed the same report on May 22 and there was no reaction to the report whatsoever. The Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs did not raise any questions. It did not summon the Syrian ambassador to Canada and request an explanation. Neither the United States nor Europe asked Syria to explain its statement.

To my knowledge, I was invited here as the representative of the people of an independent nation. However, according to the official statement made on the radio of Damascus, I do not represent an independent country. I am a rebel and an outsider because I am speaking on behalf of a country which, as far as Damascus is concerned, no longer exists because Lebanon and Syria are now united as one.

That's what I mean. To answer your question, the international community needs to open its eyes. When that happens, Damascus will no longer be able to issue this kind of statement. It has to be made to understand that this situation is unjust and illegal, that international law is being violated and that any self-respecting country rejects this kind of formal declaration by a foreign government claiming to be united with another country, when in fact Lebanon continues to assert its independence.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

• 0945

[Translation]

Ms. Debien.

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Your Excellency, on behalf of my party, the Bloc Québécois, I'd like to welcome you to Ottawa. You have described very clearly the political situation in your country. In fact, your description corresponds, at least as far as we're concerned, to virtually all of the political analyses that I've read of your country.

You stated that Damascus wielded tremendous political power in Lebanon. Yet, the political power is still officially in the hands of the Lebanese. How do you account for the fact that Damascus seems to be in control? Of course, the armed forces have something to do with it, but you also talked about repression, assassinations and restricted freedom of expression. Are there other serious problems that might explain the hold Damascus appears to have over the Lebanese government? Undoubtedly, corruption is a problem. You didn't actually say so, but I would imagine that that is the case. I would be interested in hearing your views on the subject.

My second question relates to an entirely different matter, namely the rebuilding of Lebanon. When the war ended, a two-stage rebuilding effort was launched. As I understand it, the second phase, which involved the rebuilding of the central core of Beirut, should be completed shortly. Could you tell us a little more about the post-war reconstruction of Lebanon and give us some idea of where things stand at this time. I understand that there were some problems with foreign investment and I seem to recall that the government was looking for $3 or $5 billion for the rebuilding effort. Could you give us a status report on the post-war reconstruction of Lebanon?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: To answer your first question regarding the current situation and the responsibility of the Lebanese people, as I stated in my opening remarks, there are problems between the Lebanese people. Regardless of where you live in the world, be it in Canada or in Belgium, problems will always be present.

However, from the day Lebanon gained its independence in 1943 up until 1975 when the war broke out, the Lebanese people were able to create a unified society in which people harmoniously coexisted. Our country was the best example of harmonious coexistence between members of different communities, the best example of democracy in this troubled region of the Middle East. We demonstrated to the world that we were capable of resolving our conflicts through political and peaceful means until the day the war broke out. Problems surfaced within our society and obviously, we take full responsibility for this. However, we have demonstrated that we are capable of resolving our own problems amongst ourselves, when given the opportunity to do so.

Corruption, on the other hand, is a more widespread problem, one that is quite prevalent primarily in underdeveloped countries. It is far less common in Lebanon then it is in other countries. Lebanon is not generally singled out as a country in which corruption is rampant. Perhaps you have heard it mentioned in connection with our country because there is little openness and people are talking about it. In other Middle Eastern countries, corruption is so widespread that people no longer even speak about it. It has become second nature. In Lebanon on the other hand, corruption is the exception rather than the norm.

Regarding the rebuilding effort and Lebanon's internal problems, I don't want to take up too much of your time because I know it is at a premium. I brought along with me a document that dates back to my time in office. My government tried very hard to achieve a reconciliation among the Lebanese people. My primary goal was to bring people together and achieve a reconciliation. We did make some significant progress on this front. However, I sensed that we had reached an impasse of sorts and that something was preventing further progress. Muslims and Christians wanted to agree but unfortunately, just when there appeared to be an agreement of some kind, the following day, it would unravel.

• 0950

My foreign affairs minister drew up this report that I have brought with me today. It bears his signature. He is a highly respected individual and is currently serving as dean of a university in Beirut. He is also the former dean of Johns Hopkins University in the United States. This highly respected figure is Elie Salem. In his report, a copy of which I can make available to you, he notes the following:

[English]

U.S. Ambassador John Kelly called me and said he wanted to see me this afternoon. He came to my office and told me the following:

The mufti, Shaykh Hasan Khalid...

And this document will tell you a little bit about how the Syrians are doing in Lebanon and what kind of policy they are implementing in Lebanon.

Shaykh Hasan Khalid is the head of the Sunni Muslim community in Lebanon. Khalid sent a special emissary to see Ambassador Kelly to tell him that the position of the Sunnis, including the position of Salim al Huss, who was the Sunni Prime Minister, on power sharing was that of President Amine Gemayel. So the Muslims were close to my position. Although Huss accepted under pressure the formulation in Damascus, under Syrian pressure, Huss was obliged to say other things completely. Also, the Sunnis do not want the Prime Minister...

Kelly continued, saying:

This is exactly what President Gemayel has told me, and I have reported it to Washington. I am disappointed that Dr. Huss changes his mind so often that I no longer know where he stands. Mr. Huss is again the Prime Minister, representing the Sunnis, the Muslims.

The President has helped me a lot and has improved my credentials in Washington, because Kelly said:

I'm always reporting to Washington the position of President Gemayel and his consistency, and I'm not proven correct by events, although there are a number of people in Washington...

The three lines at the end of the report are the most important:

I am sorry that I am losing also confidence in the judgment of Speaker Husseini, who also seems to be speaking a different language in Syria than the one he speaks to us.

Husseini is the Speaker.

Listen to this last sentence:

Clearly Muslim leaders live in fear and are taking positions under Syrian pressure.

That is the statement given by the U.S. ambassador officially, and it is on the record:

Clearly Muslim leaders live in fear and are taking positions under Syrian pressure.

That is the report. I can give you a copy if you need one.

[Translation]

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Each time we manage to work out a compromise between Christians and Muslims, pressure is put on the two parties and any forward progress is blocked. It's a classic example of divide and conquer. If Christians and Muslims could agree today, there would be no reason for the Syrians to remain in our country. They are preventing us from achieving this reconciliation in order to maintain their hold on our homeland. I could show you the reports of ambassadors with whom we have dealings. They all stress the fact that Muslims and even some Christians take different stands in private and in public because they are pressured by the Syrians.

• 0955

I'm not talking about my brother, the former president who was assassinated. We know who the assassins were. We have proof of their identity. Each time Lebanese move one step closer to reconciliation and to building a future together, they are either assassinated or sent into exile. I'm a perfect example of this because I have been banned from returning to my country. I am appealing to you, as fathers and defenders of the tenets of human rights.

I have not come here to discuss my personal situation, but since the question has come up, I will tell you that I have come here to convey to you the situation that the Lebanese people are facing on a daily basis. My son is getting married in two months and I am not permitted to attend the ceremony in Beirut. This is one example of how families are being torn apart, of how pressure is being put on people and of how human rights are being violated in our country.

My daughter was married not long ago and I wasn't permitted to return to Lebanon to attend her marriage. As I said, I won't be able to attend my son's upcoming marriage either. Many other families are being torn apart in this manner. I prefer to keep my personal problems to myself, but since you asked me, these are some concrete examples of the pressures that are preventing the Lebanese people from achieving reconciliation or from returning to Lebanon, pressures that are preventing the process of democracy from taking hold.

The leaders who are fighting for Lebanon's independence and for unity are either assassinated, like my brother was, or forced into exile, as I was. Muslims such as Mufti Khalid whom I spoke about earlier and who is the focus of this letter, have been assassinated. Mufti Khalid was gunned down in Beirut between two Syrians checkpoints. Another Muslim, Kamal Jumblatt, was also assassinated for opposing the incursion of the Syrian army in 1975. All those who refuse to toe the line are either assassinated or taken out. Unfortunately, the great champions of democracy and human rights appear to be turning a blind eye to incidents of this nature.

I will now attempt to respond to your second question concerning the rebuilding effort. Briefly, I'd like to say three things. First of all, no right-minded individual would expect to see a normal rebuilding effort under way given the unhealthy political climate and the occupied status of the country. A genuine development effort is impossible given the circumstances that prevail in our divided homeland. Buildings are being reconstructed, but what about the people?

Secondly, admittedly there is a rebuilding effort under way. Beirut has been rebuilt and a number of development projects have been undertaken. I'll spare you the details, because I see Madame Chair checking the time, but I will say that I would like to see a parliamentary delegation investigate the legality of the reconstruction project being carried out by Solidere. I'm sure you'll discover that this is the biggest scam of the century. The whole of the downtown area has been handed over to a private corporation under the most bizarre of circumstances. And no one seems to have anything to say about this. It's a little like this document. It recounts incidents that are so outlandish that no one talks about them anymore because it's become commonplace.

• 1000

How much time do I have left, Madame Chair?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): You have until 10.30 a.m. I don't mean to be rude or to push you, but there are a number of members waiting to ask questions, including myself.

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Your responses are very passionate and very interesting, so I'm reluctant to interrupt you.

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Thank you. I'll be very short.

[Translation]

Quite simply, the property deal involving the downtown core is a scam. The downtown area was sold to an unknown corporation. There is a law on the books in Lebanon which prohibits or restricts land ownership by foreigners. However, the downtown area was excluded and now, it no longer belongs to us. We don't know who owns it, whether its a Saudi, an American or a Canadian corporation. We've sold off a part of our national heritage.

Ms. Maud Debien: You're referring to Solidere?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Yes. I take full responsibility for what I'm saying. I'm saying that the downtown area has been the target of land piracy.

The third comment I'd like to make concerns the other projects now underway. When I left Lebanon, the national debt exceeded $800 million U.S. Today, it stands at $20 billion. Therefore, our debt rose from $800 million to $20 billion. According to official Lebanese government reports, the projects now underway are not valued at more than $3 billion. In order to proceed with the reconstruction, we have burdened the country with a $20 billion debt load, the interest on which alone totals 110 per cent of the country's GNP.

For those of you who are familiar with Lebanon's economic and financial situation, this represents a major catastrophe and we are heading for bankruptcy. Lebanon will not be in a position to even make the interest payments on this $20 billion debt, since they are higher than the country's GNP.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): This may be the first meeting I've ever lost total control over, and I mean that humorously. It's a compliment to you. But I'd like to give Dr. Patry and others an opportunity.

Dr. Patry.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madame Chair. Welcome to Canada, Mr. Gemayel. Two years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Beirut and of witnessing firsthand some of the problems to which you alluded this morning.

My question relates to the election of Mr. Barak, the new Israeli President, and to the statements he has made. He has said that he foresees a lasting peace between Lebanon and the state of Israel within two years. How do you feel about the theory whereby, given the economic challenges that Lebanon must overcome and that you alluded to, any support to the opposition could weaken the country further and endanger its recovery? According to some statements coming out of Syria, it seems that it would like to act as a spokesperson...

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Pardon?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Apparently, Syria would like to negotiate with Israel on behalf of Lebanon.

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Jut a minute. We need to separate events and people. I learned back in grade school that apples and oranges don't add up. The same is true of people. Lebanese sovereignty and independence are one thing, while the economy is quite another.

As I mentioned at the outset, the notion of development outside the context of sovereignty or political normalization is, to all intents and purposes, sheer heresy. A minimum amount of logic must prevail.

• 1005

Obviously, the important thing from an economic standpoint is to make an effort. We, the opposition, are prepared to assist the Lebanese state in getting its economy back on solid ground. The situation is extremely serious and this $20 billion debt could prove to be our downfall.

Again, I will spare you the details. Occasionally, we have paid anywhere from 25 to 30 per cent interest on treasury bonds, whereas the interest rate on the LIBOR stood at four, five and six percent. Imagine a 25 per cent interest rate on a $20 billion debt.

The situation has gotten completely out of hand. Reality is become stranger than fiction. Who would have imagined the day when 500,000 foreigners could be granted citizenship with the stroke of a pen?

The economy is a very important consideration. We're prepared to help out on this front because the situation is extremely serious. The government has a responsibility to act. Would like to know why the debt has soared to $20 billion? The reason is that much of this money has been funnelled to Syria. Since Syria is occupying Lebanon and is involved in all of the large-scale projects under way, some Syrian officials are receiving kickbacks.

Two cellular telephone companies are now doing business in Lebanon, this only after the majority of the shares were granted to Syrians. Let us consider some of the large-scale projects being carried out and the field of education.

Currently, there are one million Syrian laborers working in Lebanon without a work permit. They don't pay a penny in taxes and they are draining the country's reserves. Each day, they take our dollars back to Syria.

That accounts for a portion of the $20 billion debt. The unnatural state of affairs in Lebanon has also contributed to the country's debt load.

You mentioned the election of Mr. Barak. We all applauded this development because it has given renewed hope to the peace process. We'll have to see if he can move forward, because he doesn't have a majority in the Knesset. His party holds only 26 seats whereas it needs 61 for a majority. Therefore, he will have to work out agreements with other parties. Under the circumstances, it remains to be seen whether he can truly put forward a new policy that will not be blocked by the other parties, which have other ideas.

In any case, we are sympathetic to the new approach taken by Mr. Barak.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I have a paper here. Our Foreign Affairs website has your debt in 1996 at $10.3... Is that million or billion?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Billion. I don't know where you got those figures, but in fact today the official figures given by the Minister of Finance are $18 billion.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): U.S.?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: That's U.S. dollars. I have mentioned $20 billion because $2 billion have not been declared until now. In fact, the real figure is $20 billion. I didn't invent that figure, and I'm talking on the record.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Okay, and this is also 1996.

Mr. Amine Gemayel: In 1996 it was already $14 billion or $15 billion. For 1996 those figures are not accurate.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier) : Okay, thank you.

• 1010

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Perhaps we can get the department to update these figures.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm sorry, Madame Debien.

Madame Finestone, please.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much. I heard this morning, coming in from Montreal, that the withdrawal of troops from Lebanese territory has started. I hope this is a sense of encouragement that Mr. Barak can put together a cabinet, which I realize is difficult, and that it will address some of the issues you have pointed out.

But I'd like to ask you, in realpolitik as opposed to wishful thinking or wishful hope, can we really proceed to negotiate separately with Lebanon and Syria given the very distressful portrait you have brushed for us this morning, which I don't doubt to be truthful and very real? How do we approach our Minister of Foreign Affairs and say we agree with the points you've brought forward, but how in realpolitik can we move forward?

[Translation]

Mr. Amine Gemayel: I understand perfectly what you're saying. Initially, I was reluctant to discuss the various stages of this process. I merely stated that the international community needed to open its eyes to the fact that Lebanon was an occupied country and that the Lebanese government wasn't really free to speak on behalf of the Lebanese people.

Once the world's great powers have come to this realization, we will have no objections whatsoever to dealing with Syria and to being its partner because, as you said, realpolitik is such that we need to engage in discussions with Syria.

As I stated in my opening remarks, and I believe you heard me say it, it is to our advantage to deal with Syria. We have no desire to be enemies. It is our neighbour and we want to be on excellent terms with this nation.

If we succeed in restoring sovereignty in Lebanon, we will be able to forge much healthier and amicable relations with Syria. That is our objective. We want to work within a strategic context and cooperate with Syria so that we can work out a package deal as far as Lebanon is concerned.

We fully realize that no one is about to wave a magic wand and suddenly, Syria and Israel will pull out of Lebanon. We know it's not that simple. First, people need to open their eyes to the situation and once that happens, and the official radio of Damascus stops proclaiming that Lebanon and Syria are one country, then we will be able to sit down with the Syrians and Israelis and negotiate a withdrawal.

This withdrawal could take place in stages. Either the Israelis or the Syrians could withdraw first. That will happen when people start acting in good faith and common sense prevails.

Ms. Sheila Finestone: I understand. According to reports, and I hope they are true, Israel is taking the first tentative steps this morning. I do, however, agree with you on one thing, namely that people need to open their eyes to what is happening.

My colleague, Dr. Martin, talked about a multilateral meeting on Middle Eastern issues, and in particular on the Lebanese question. Should this be the first step, or would it be better to start with a bilateral meeting? If you had a choice, what would you prefer?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: The Lebanese government is not the master of its own destiny at this point in time. I respect the newly elected president of the Republic. He is an honest person and he has the interest of his country at heart but unfortunately, he is not free to make choices, not as long as pressure is being exerted on him. The same holds true for the government. As long as the Lebanese are not free to make their own choices, the preferred option is to debate the issue within the context of an international conference where the principles of international law will be upheld, notwithstanding the fact that the President of the Republic may or may not be able to speak on behalf of Lebanon. Just as France and Europe were in 1940, Lebanon is not a free country today. When Marshall Pétin was the French head of state, the people of France were not free either.

• 1015

Ms. Sheila Finestone: I visited Lebanon with Minister Axworthy less than one year ago. We went to Beirut and we saw firsthand the rebuilding underway. We met with people in Sidon. The presence of the Palestinians in Lebanon and the role they play complicate not only relations between Israel and Syria, but our own relations with the Palestinians as well. What is your role in this? How free are you to intervene? What voice will you have in future discussions?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: It is in the best interests of the Lebanese people to work out some kind of compromise for dealing with Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Unfortunately, around 1975, relations weren't very good with the PLO. However, since the Oslo agreement and the normalization of international relations with the Palestinians through diplomatic negotiations, we are now on better terms. We know that Lebanon must assume its responsibilities along with other powers and that we face a serious refugee problem. Lebanon is currently home to approximately 200,000 Palestinian refugees whose fate remains undecided. We realize full well that they cannot return to Israel because they are 1948 refugees who came from the actual Israeli state, and not from the West Bank or the territories. Therefore, we need to address this problem.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Canada has played a very important role. I, along with the people I represent, believe that it is vitally important that we work together in Lebanon under Canada's leadership to find a formula that is as just as possible for the Palestinians and that allows Lebanon to assume its responsibilities without anyone suffering serious consequences. Lebanon must cooperate and we must work out a compromise that safeguards the vital interests of the Lebanese nation.

Ms. Sheila Finestone: May I ask another brief question?

[English]

In 1994 you talked about the decree of 1,270 pages that brought approximately 500,000 people of Syrian background into the Lebanese citizenship.

Mr. Amine Gemayel: That's a minimum. Maybe some figures talk about 700,000.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I want to talk about the principle of ethnic diversity. Here you have an ethnic diversity you had not invited but that is on the soil today. With regard to the Palestinians who are there, which is one group of people, the Syrians who are now there in the form of Lebanese, and the Lebanese who are there and who are of two different streams perhaps, if you could put it that way, is there a mechanism you could see where the diversity, the pluralism, or the multiculturalism of the region could be established in a peaceful and harmonious way, or do you only see Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Tibet, or Cambodia—we can point to so many countries—as the road?

• 1020

Canada being such a multicultural country, it's hard for us to assume how another country could manage the diversity they live with. We live with it in one way, and I wondered if there were any way in which the movement toward a multicultural perspective, with peaceful and harmonious respect for difference, could exist in a new Lebanon that was negotiated.

[Translation]

Mr. Amine Gemayel: I'm sorry, Madame, but you're confusing the players.

Ms. Sheila Finestone: That's quite possible.

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Indeed you are. First of all, as for the Lebanese people themselves, we have presented evidence that in 1920, when Lebanon was formed, Christians and Muslims were united. We all agreed to live together in Lebanon, within the current borders and according to the democratic system now in place.

In 1943, Christians and Muslims fought a common battle. My father was arrested during the struggle for independence along with Muslim leader Riyad as-Sulh. Christian and Muslim leaders fought together for independence in 1943, after which they worked side-by- side to build a democratic, liberal Lebanese nation which was a showcase for democracy in a region of the Middle East where democracy had not easily gained a foothold.

We, the Lebanese people, believe that first of all, we need help to cast aside foreign pressure so that we can reclaim our nation and our sovereignty and liberate the national government from foreign control. That's the first thing that must be done. Therefore, we mustn't confuse the players.

The biggest problem is the fact that Lebanon cannot speak for itself and cannot defend the rights of its people. We have been stripped of this right. A similar situation once existed in France, back when Marshall Pétin wasn't speaking on behalf of the French people. Today, unfortunately, despite its goodwill, the Lebanese leadership does not speak on behalf of the Lebanese people. Therefore, we need to restore some cohesion and reclaim our status as spokesperson for the people and defender of fundamental rights.

The second group of players involved are the Palestinians. A Lebanese spokesperson could be brought in to discuss the Palestinian refugee problem and to work out an agreement with the Palestinians. Such an agreement would determine who have to leave Lebanon, how the withdrawal would take place and where these refugees would ultimately settle. This poses a technical problem and Canada has a vital role to play in resolving this issue. If you are willing to take the initiative, I'm prepared to meet, on a personal, unofficial basis, with Canadian officials in charge of this matter and to put forward some solutions to the Palestinian problem. As you know, when I was in politics and serving in office, I was deeply concerned about this issue. I have a number of ideas on how the Palestinian problem could be addressed.

The third group of players we have to contend is the large number of people recently granted Lebanese citizenship. This is an unfair, totally artificial situation, even more so in that few of these new citizens actually live in Lebanon. When the elections were held, they arrived by the bus load from Syria to vote at the polling stations. The mayors were not consulted, as they should have been, to confirm that these individuals did in fact live in Lebanon. As it happens, the majority of these people were not residents of the country, but had been granted Lebanese citizenship simply to skewer the country's demographics and to offset the number of Lebanese nationals.

It's a similar to what the Russians did with certain Soviet states. They invaded certain states and sent in Russians to alter the demographics.

• 1025

This is a separate issue. This decree is being formally challenged. All we are asking is that cabinet be allowed to rule on this decree which was illegal.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Assad, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. President, I've enjoyed your visit and your comments very much. Obviously, we have been monitoring the situation for some time now. Many people are aware of Lebanon's place on the world scene, particularly since it gained its independence. It has become a cultural, financial and business center in the Middle East. In some respects, it has become the Switzerland of the Middle East.

I think people are unaware of one aspect of Lebanon's history since its creation following World War I. Lebanon was one country which opened its doors to Armenians who fled their homeland and were victims of genocide. Lebanon also opened its doors to the Palestinians and later, to the Kurds.

There are only a handful of countries in the world that have welcomed dispossessed people like Lebanon has. I can't count the number of Armenians and Palestinians whom I've met who grew up in Lebanon and benefited from all this country has to offer.

Very few countries in the world can boast of a similar accomplishment. Lebanon was a springboard for many people who found their way to Canada. Many Armenians have told me, and I'm flattered to hear it, that their parents were Armenians, but they consider themselves Lebanese.

If there is one nation that deserves the help of the international community to regain its sovereignty, it's clearly Lebanon. It frustrates and puzzles me sometimes to see that the international community has allowed a country to languish in a state of civil war for 14 or 15 years. The international community has done very little to alleviate Lebanon's woes.

A number of resolutions have been put to the United Nations. Even Canada has renewed its commitment to Lebanon to help it reclaim, and that's the correct term, its sovereignty.

I have a very simple question, Mr. President. What can Canada do to promote genuine sovereignty for the Lebanese people? Canada hold a seat on the Security Council, but our neighbours to the South wield considerable power. What can we do to advance this cause which has been unresolved for far too long?

Mr. Amine Gemayel: Thank you very much for your timely comments. You rightly pointed out that Lebanon is a country that has always taken in refugees and should continue to do so. The Lebanese people mustn't become refugees themselves, as I am, and as are many of my fellow countrymen who were banished from their homeland and forced to emigrate to Canada or Australia.

Now then, what can Canada do? There's a lot it can do. Canada is a member of the Security Council; it heads up the refugee working group established after the Madrid conference in 1992; it is also involved in a number of peacekeeping missions throughout the world.

There's no question that Canada plays an important role on the international stage. It is an economic power and increasingly, its actions can tip the balance.

• 1030

We hope that the international community will opened its eyes and take a firm stand. The situation today in the 1990s is a far cry from what it was during the 1970s. Back then, statements in favour of states and causes were merely symbolic. We were still in the cold war era and international institutions were limited as to what they could do. The statements issued amounted to nothing more than pious wishes. Today, however, a new international climate prevails. The Berlin Wall has come down and a movement is underway to free people and restore state sovereignty. A statement by Canada and efforts in support of Lebanese independence and the restoration of sovereignty would be important initiatives.

We need to shake ourselves out of this state of torpor that we have been in. Canada should help us and proclaim to international authorities, to the Americans, the Europeans and other states, that an artificial, unfair situation prevails in Lebanon, one that could lead to a crisis like the one now unfolding in Kosovo. As I said earlier, Canada's support could prove very valuable to us and serve as a starting point for a concerted effort to assist Lebanon. That would be just what we need.

As I said to the honorable member, no one has a magic wand. I served as the President of the Republic and I know what I'm talking about. There is no magic wand or ready-made solution. There is, however, much work to be done to devise often complex solutions. But first, we have to take that initial step, meaning we have to realize what is happening. Once we have done that, we can work together to arrive at a solution. We mustn't put the cart before the horse. First, the international community must recognize what is going on in Lebanon and acknowledge the artificial, unfair situation that prevails. Once this has been done, then we can move forward. I'm sorry for repeating myself, but I have to stress that a statement of this nature by Canada in 1999 would have an entirely different effect than a similar statement would have had in the 1970s or 1980s, when international diplomacy was stalled.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Madame la présidente, before we go—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm not sure what that alarm is. We did manage to stop the construction at the beginning, but we told them until 10.30 a.m. I don't know if this is a fire alarm.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: There's an important issue coming up.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Please forgive the resumption of the noise.

Mr. Patry, you have 30 seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I simply wanted to say that I will be tabling within the prescribed time frame a draft resolution which could be adopted by this committee following this morning's meeting. This resolution will call on the Government of Canada to work toward restoring Lebanese sovereignty, something that will be achieved with the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces, and empowering the Lebanese people to decide their own future, especially now that the fate of Middle Eastern countries is being decided within the context of the peace talks. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you. It's a notice of motion. We'll table that.

There is a fire alarm, so we must adjourn.