American Enterprise Institute

February 26, 2007

[Edited transcript from audio tapes]

3:15 p.m.	Registration
3:30	Introduction:	Danielle Pletka, AEI
	Address:	Walid Jumblatt, Lebanese parliament
4:45	Adjournment

Proceedings:

Danielle Pletka:  Good afternoon everybody.  Before I even start, let me just ask people to ensure that their cell phones are turned off or on vibrate.  It is a courtesy to our guest.  Thank you.  Good afternoon everybody and welcome to the American Enterprise Institute.  I'm Danielle Pletka.  I'm the Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies. 

It is a great pleasure for me to welcome Walid Jumblatt to AEI.  Most of you know him as one of the leaders of the March 2005 Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and head of the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon.  Jumblatt is allied with the March 14th forces, an anti-Syria coalition which formed in the wake of the Cedar Revolution.  Mr. Jumblatt has called for both Hezbollah’s disarmament and the establishment of an international tribunal to try the murderers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. 

He is here in Washington this week to press forward on some of these issues and to insist that after this long interval, that the tribunal is in fact created in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions; and in the wake of the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri, many of us had hoped that the subsequent retreat of Syrian forces and the cohesion of Lebanese patriots from all religious groups and parties would usher in a Lebanese renaissance. 

In part, due to disagreements among those forces and, in part, due to Iran and Hezbollah’s proxy war against the Lebanese people, in part due to inaction from the international community, that renaissance remains a distant hope.  Right now, there are daily bombings in Beirut.  Hezbollah is rearming in the south and attempting to topple the Siniora government.  Syria and appointed President Emil Lahoud are threatening to stay past his already extended term, and we still have no final agreement on that tribunal to try the assassins of Prime Minister Hariri.  It is no small challenge, but if there is to be democracy in the Arab world, its heart may well be in Lebanon. To discuss prospects for the future and the challenge at hand, please join me in again welcoming Walid Jumblatt.

Walid Jumblatt:  Thank you for this invitation to be able to present some ideas.  The premises of the Cedar Revolution started in 2004, with the minority and the Lebanese parliament and somewhere behind us was the late Prime Minister Hariri.  When we refused the orders of the Syrian leadership to renew the mandate of the actual President Lahoud, we were, at that time, 29 members of parliament out of 128, and when we refused the dictates of Syrian regime, it started the bloody events. 

The first victim, he escaped by miracle, was Marwan Hamadeh.  They sent him a car bomb.  Then [U.N. resolution] 1559 was issued, which is a resolution that was applied happily.  Syrian troops later on redeployed or went out of Lebanon, but local militias in Lebanon stayed well armed.  Slowly but surely, with the late Prime Minister Hariri, we succeeded.  We started establishing a wide coalition called the Cedar Revolution. 

And then, the Syrians went out, but the price was terrible because it needed the blood of Prime Minister Hariri for them to get out and at the same time, of course, we were helped by the International Community, by the Bush administration, by Jacques Chirac, by others who got the Syrians out officially.  But from that time on, the sequence of terror has not stopped, and the latest victim was Pierre Gemayel, a prominent member of parliament and minister in Lebanon.  All who refused or questioned Syrian terror were killed. 

But the Lebanese people will not abide by Syrian terror.  Among them was, of course, Samir Kassir, a prominent journalist who was among the first pioneers to say that there will not be democratic stability in Lebanon as long as you have the regime in Damascus.  Among them is prominent politician, George Hawi.  Among them is Gebran Teuni, the Chief Editor of the Nahar Newspaper, the newspaper of the Arab World, the free newspaper of the Arab World.  He was killed because they wanted to -- maybe his killing, his assassination -- to kill the newspaper Al Nahar.  They failed. 

Of course, you have people who escaped, by miracle, death:  May Chidiac, LBC; Elias El Murr, minister of defense, and many other innocents.  When Gebran Teuni was killed, we decided to have the tribunal of an international character.  So to be able to bring those murderers to trial and that day -- it was on the 12th of December 2005.  That day the ministers of Hezbollah and Amal resigned from the government. 

Then we followed the path and we are about to fix up this tribunal with the United Nations and the convention was finally ratified by the United Nations, was sent back to Lebanon to be ratified by the Lebanese parliament.  That day, on the 11th of November last year, 2006, the ministers of Hezbollah and Amal resigned because the main issue they are supporting the Syrian regime against Israel, against questioning, against to stop -- they do not want to stop the Syrian regime, or do not want to challenge the Syrian regime’s dictates and terror in Lebanon.  And from that time on, we are in the big crisis. 

The problem with Syria is they do not even recognize the fact of Lebanon.  When you go back to some ideas on clichés of the Syrian regime, the father of this guy, [indiscernible], he used to say one people in two countries leads automatically to the concept of Anschluss, the concept used by Adolf Hitler when he united, by force, Austria to Germany.  And then as now, we have a new concept by Ahmadinejad, which is much more dangerous also, of course, the same danger like the other that comes with -– when Ahmadinejad says, “We are, in Tehran from Persia and Iran, the same body.”  We are not the same body.  But also, it is a kind of annexation of Lebanon to the Persian Empire. 

We got the Syrians out and officially, the Cedar Revolution started on the 14th of March 2005, 14 days after the killing of Prime Minister Hariri.  From that time on, we were able to resist Syrian terror and occupation and orders.  Of course, the price was terrible.  Losing people, losing prominent journalists, prominent thinkers, and to be always under the threat of being killed, but at the same time it was a success.  A success story for the West, for the US because they did not pay any single blood.  The success story for the whole Middle East, that in the Middle East, we can rule ourselves by ourselves and we can have a democracy in the Middle East.  Lebanon was a democracy, which was hindered by a Syrian presence for the last 50 years. 

Now, they are out.  What is left is, of course, much more difficult because at stake is the model of Lebanon.  Lebanon is a mostly confessional society.  A diverse society.  You have a free press, you have a free economy, free enterprise, free country -- not yet, but on the way. 

We are faced by the allies of Syria, by Hezbollah.  A totalitarian party, with a totalitarian ideology, backed by two totalitarian regimes, the Syrians and the Iranians.  This is the biggest challenge, how to establish, to confront, to establish democracy, to implement democracy faced with totalitarianism next door.  Next door, I'm saying Syria then Iran.  And this is where, of course, I'm seeking support, I have not denied that.  And I have sought support, and I did find support in the States, in France, in Western Europe, because I think it is worth paying the price to have a free Lebanon, democratic Lebanon, faced with others like -– Robert Kaplan calls them “the barbarians at the gate.” 

At stake is the presence of Lebanon, the values of Lebanon, the values of democracy and freedom versus a party and versus states that want to use Lebanon endlessly for their purpose and destroy the whole of Lebanon.  The last war during the summertime was triggered by the Iranians, and the Lebanese government did not have anything to do with it and Hassan Nasrallah said, apologized in one of his famous speeches and said, “Well, if we knew that the consequences could have been that disastrous, we would not have launched at all.”  But the war was there and it cost Lebanon billions of dollars and a thousand or more innocents and so many injured, 100,000 destroyed homes in the south and in Beirut.  He did not care. 

So this is what we are facing, an internal de facto state that will try to overthrow a de jure state.  If we succeed in disarming them peacefully -- we cannot do it but peacefully -- we can have a strong Lebanese State, entire state, if we fail, you will have the model not only in Lebanon, maybe in the whole of the Middle East.  The de jure state and de facto state, a militia somewhere controlling the faith of the citizens, beating Jordan, beating Egypt, beating someone else, and –- or like in Iraq, the de jure state unable to fix up its future. 

So, this is where the challenge is and this is where we do insist upon abiding by all international resolutions -- 1559, the 1701, the Taif.  This is where we insist upon that the state, only the State of Lebanon, should be responsible for holding the weapons, should be the exclusive authority to declare peace and war in summertime.  He declared peace.  He declared peace unilaterally against all Lebanese wishes, and this is where we also insist upon having this tribunal with the international character.  Without this tribunal, there is no way to punish the killers.  Why the international character?  Because when you are ruled by a foreign power for the last 30 years, what is left of your justice is minimal.  You see, we still have good judges, but I mean, we need international support because we are faced by an alliance, very important alliance, and very dangerous alliance, the Syrians and the Iranians. 

This is why we are seeking international support.  We got it, but now, we are on the verge of a very important issue:  Either we can vote in the Lebanese parliaments if the speaker of the parliament decides to open the extraordinary session; either we vote and ratify the convention and send it back to the United Nations, or we fail and if we do fail, well, the whole existence of Lebanon, stability of Lebanon, is at stake and the whole process of justice as at stake. 

So, it is a question of weeks.  It is not a question of months.  It is next week.  On the 20th of March will be the issue of either Nabih Berri, the speaker of parliament, opens the parliament after a majority or he decides to kidnap the parliament. 

The government stays kidnapped and we go into the unknown.  The unknown is very dangerous for everybody.  Some people might say that, well, it is a time like some here senior, some journalist in the New Yorker maybe, that, well, certain community Lebanon is asking for a fair share of power.  That is not true.  We have this fair distribution of power under the auspices of Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Hariri at that time in 1989, between all the various communities of Lebanon, between the Muslims, the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Christians. 

That is not true that now, we are about -- I mean, a certain community is absent from power, not at all.  We would like one day to achieve maybe a secular regime to separate state from religion.  This is far away.  But for the time being, the Taif Agreement is very important and gives all the minorities of Lebanon an equal distribution of power.  So I just –- I totally disagree with the people saying that while the Hezbollah’s aim is to have a better share of power, then a better share of power needs, should I say, to accept to abide by the classical rules of democracy.  I mean, the classical rules of democracy, I do not see, I think, in the States, the democrats or other parties being able to have weapons or rockets to change the rules of the game. 

I mean, there you have -- actually, on the ground, you have enclaves close to the Lebanese State ruled by Hezbollah in all matters and having their rockets, their weapons, and even last week in total violation with the 1701, a tank full of mortars was circulating in Beirut and was, by accident, captured by the Lebanese army.  But it means that, well, now, they can do anything in violating the basic rules of democracy and the international resolutions.  And by the way, the mortars were 60-millimeter mortars having been unfortunately long time ago to war, the 60-millimeter mortars means street warfare.  It is very dangerous.  It is very risky, but this is the case.  So, this is where, if they want a better share in power, they should resign, abide by the rule of law.  They should give their weapons to the Lebanese army.  We should enforce between us and the state of Israel the Armistice Agreement signed in 1949. 

We should allow the United Nation forces now heavily concentrated in the south to do that job and there is a very important issue; we should be able, with international assistance, to control our borders with Syria. If we are not able to control our border with Syria and if the flow of weapons, and our mission, and terrorist is to continue flowing from Syria to Lebanon, we will not ever have stability.  We will not ever have stability in Lebanon and Hezbollah and their allies will be able always to create instability at the price of the independence and democracy of Lebanon. 

As I said, the consequence of failure would be enormous for the whole Middle East if this emerging democracy, thanks to, again, to the free world, is to crumble.  State of instability will rule everywhere.  Who knows?  Everywhere.  It will be the end of the moderates, intellectuals, politicians, rulers, and the whole Middle East will have everywhere rulers [indiscernible], or somebody else [indiscernible].  And also, to the end of this prosperous model of co-existence, multi-confessional system of Lebanon diversity, free market, free press.  I think we deserve to stay alive.  We have to stay alive.  I mean, thanks to your help. 

We deserve to stay in our country not to have to see our young people emigrate going anywhere in this world.  We have equality.  We have elites here, everywhere that should come back to Lebanon, but they need stability.  The ways to achieve success, from the beginning we said, “No,” and we paid the price and the price was blood, and we are ready to pay the price, and the price is going to be blood -– Pierre Gemayel will not be the last victim, but we will continue our path and we proved on the last meeting on the 14th of February, the second commemoration of Rafik Hariri’s death, we prove that we are still there willing to pay the price, political price, willing to defend Lebanon, willing to defend the values of Lebanon, the values of freedom, of democracy.  We intend to defend our pure existence and saying “no” to the Syrian tyrants, no at any price.  We will not ever, ever let him come back, no. 

And also saying no to the Syrian allies because they cannot stay like that, a state within a state within the state and army next to the official army and declaring war and peace whenever they feel like.  We are at odds with them ideologically, economically, politically. 

How to do it?  It is not easy.  How to do it?  You have -- I mean, I have been discussing this issue here time and time again here with the administration.  How to change Syrian behavior?  It is like asking a wolf to be a sheep.  It is not easy.  But the key issue, how to contain the Syrians and how to make them respect Lebanese independence, well, a long time ago I have said it.  It is not a secret.  If there is no changing of kind of regime in Syria, helping the same opposition to change this regime, we will not have peace in Lebanon and nobody will have peace -– the moderates around the world will not have peace either.  So, there is a need to speak with the same opposition.  You have a credible opposition, the Salvation Front.  They need to speak with them.  They might offer another alternative for the Syrian people so to have peace in the Middle East and peace in Lebanon. 

Our parties have long, as I said; the price is going to be enormous.  But after all, we will win.  I mean, I used to like war movies during my childhood.  There is one movie, A Bridge Too Far, I think you have seen it.  A Bridge Too Far, of course, the allies went too far, but finally they took the bridge and they held and they defeated the totalitarians, the fascist regime of Germany.  We will win in Lebanon, thanks to you.

Danielle Pletka:  Mr. Jumblatt has graciously agreed to take questions.  If I can just ask you to abide by our rules and that is to, please, wait for the microphone.  When you receive it, please identify yourself and do, please, put your statement in the form of a brief question.  Thank you.  Back to you Mr. Jumblatt.

Farid Ghadry:  Mr. Jumblatt, thank you very much.  My name is Farid Ghadry.  I'm with the Reform Party of Syria.  It is very, very refreshing to see how courageous, how steadfast, and how great it is for a Lebanese to fight for their freedom and for you, especially, to stand tall and to fight the Syrian regime.  I really applaud you for that.

Walid Jumblatt:  But if you could help me more, it will be better.

Farid Ghadry:  My question to you, Mr. Jumblatt, is the following:  You mentioned earlier that you wish upon Lebanon to be secular.  You talked about the diversity.  You talked about multiculturalism.  You talked about the fact that Lebanon is a pluralistic country and it is all very true and that is what makes Lebanon so unique.  But at the same time, you wish upon Syria an opposition that is represented by Islamists and by Baathists who have proven in the past to be not very democratic. 

So, my question to you is, why is it fair for Lebanon to have a pluralistic society and not fair for Syria to have a pluralistic and democratic society.  Thank you.

Walid Jumblatt:  Okay.  Let me answer back.  I have not said that I have chosen, I have decided that the Syrian opposition should be mainly Baathist or Muslim brothers.  It is up to you if you do represent the Syrian opposition, as I do know, or as I have heard a long time ago to choose your way, not up to me.  But again, I quote Samir Kassir, saying that there will not be a free independent Lebanon, a diverse Lebanon, a multi-confessional Lebanon, a stable Lebanon, without a regime change in Syria.  This is why the Syrian regime killed him.  But now, it is up to you to decide the future of Syria, not up to me.  If you want our help, I'm ready.  But I think we have enough problems for the time being.  But it is up to you.

Danielle Pletka:  The gentleman right here.

Christopher Isham:  Chris Isham from ABC News.  Could you comment with the status, on what you think the status is of the moment of the Saudi initiative to try to hammer together some compromise that would increase Hezbollah representation in the government in exchange for approval of the tribunal?  You know, where that is at the moment?  Did you approve it?  Has it been approved by Iran?  Do you see that going anywhere?

Walid Jumblatt:  There were talks between the Saudi officials and the Saudi king and the Iranian envoy, Larijani, the last three weeks.  And according to what we have heard that while these Saudis were adamant, we are firm about the question of the tribunal.  And to have all the Iranians, that if their allies, their proxies, in the Syrian regime are to refuse the tribunal, it could lead, as it could lead, to sectarian strife in Lebanon and in the Middle East and according also to news that will -- not recent news -– that the Iranians might have accepted to the idea of the tribunal. 

Are they sincere?  I mean, when you speak about the Iranians, you know, it is an old, tricky civilization, but very tricky and perfidious at some time.  Are they sincere, can they deliver, can they oblige Bashar?  I have no idea.  I just have no idea, but I know by fact that while the Saudis or the French, the Americans -- I just met with President Bush now -- and they are adamant about the tribunal because it is the only way to counterbalance Syrian terror and their allies in Lebanon.

Nadine:  Nadine [indiscernible], Reuters Television.  Two questions, please.  First, what is the purpose of your visit to Washington and what do you think the Bush administration can do more to help Lebanon?  Secondly, what kind of incentives do you think the Lebanese government can give to Hezbollah to disarm?

Walid Jumblatt:  Look, from the start, when we started the road, the path of refusing Syrian dictates and when I said we, I mean myself, the late Prime Minister Hariri, my comrades from the opposition now, some of them unfortunately died, okay.  The Bush administration stood firm with us and they have warned the Syrians not to renew the mandate of Lahoud and we had the 1559.  And when we say the 1559, there is no difference between the 1559 and the Taif Agreement because it implicates withdrawal of foreign troops.  Okay, the Syrians went out, but disarming the militias. 

We cannot live in a country ruled by militias next to the official army and state.  That is impossible.  We cannot also live next to a militia at any time, declaring war and peace for the sake of the Syrian regime or the Iranian policy against Israel.  As I said bluntly and clearly with Israel, there is an Armistice Agreement signed in 1949.  We want to stick with it.  Later on, when the Palestinians will find a solution, I mean, if there is going to be a solution for the Palestinian problem, a state in Palestine, we will see, as Lebanese, if we can go into peace with Israel or no.  Others have chosen peace. 

Others, I mean, the Jordanians and the Egyptians, even Bashar is offering to settle peace.  Why are we forbidden as Lebanese not to choose our own way, and I said our own way is to just have disbanding the militias, peace in the whole country, and only the State of Lebanon can declare war and peace.  We do not want others to declare war and peace. 

[cross-talking]

Danielle Pletka:  No, please.  I'm sorry.  Thank you.

Nadine:  Thank you.

Danielle Pletka:  The gentleman back there.  Back there.

Female Voice:  [indiscernible]

Danielle Pletka:  That is fine.

Female Voice:  The White House.

Walid Jumblatt:  The White House.  I will answer.  I mean, we got tremendous support getting the Syrians out lately, I mean, today, a very important moral and particular support about the necessity of fixing the tribunal and before forgetting the Paris III conference whereby the United States contributed an amount of, I think, a billion dollars and out of $7 or $8 billion, not bad.  Okay?

Connie Zulam:  My name is Connie Zulam, I’m with the American Kurdish Information Network here in DC.  In the revolutionary war here in 1776, France helped the Americans not because they liked Americans, but they disliked Great Britain.  In your meeting with President Bush, do you really think he would stand for your aspirations or the democratic aspirations of people like yourself or do you think the possible attack on Iran might help people like yourself?

Walid Jumblatt:  Look.  Let's -- you mentioned the American independence -- okay.  And all countries who were occupied at one time in history, the people of this country needed foreign help.  It is a classical scheme, okay?  The Americans needed the help of the French, the French needed the help of the Americans and British during the Second World War.  What else?  We need the support of the West at one time when we were occupied by the Ottomans.  I'm coming here.  It is not a secret. 

Yes, I'm seeking assistance.  I got the assistance I wanted at one time.  I need more assistance politically, military, against indirect Syrian occupation because the direct Syrian occupation is no more, but you have the indirect Syrian occupation through the Hezbollah and the allies.  It is very complicated because of the Iranian ambitions, the Persian empire, but I have fixed my path and I will do anything to liberate my country from indirect Syrian occupation.

Mahtab Farid:  Hi, I'm Mahtab Farid from Radio Farda.

Walid Jumblatt:  From Radio?

Mahtab Farid:  Farda.  That is -- it is in Farsi.  We go to Iran.

Walid Jumblatt:  Yes.

Mahtad Farid:  I was in Lebanon.  I just returned from Lebanon and I was amazed to see the infiltration and the influence of Iranians in South Beirut.  They were selling Mr. Ahmadinejad’s t-shirts in the gift stores.  How could your government lessen that kind of influence, which is widely spread in South Lebanon?  How could you even --?

Walid Jumblatt:  I know that, but this is why we need to enforce the security between our borders and the borders of Syria.  I mean, the flow of weapons and money.  I forgot the money, and they call it divine or clean money is coming through bags to Lebanon, transported by Iranian airplanes from Tehran to Damascus with all impunity, landing in Damascus and then coming to Lebanon, weapons, money, and terrorists.  This is why, I mean, you cut the line, you cut the supply lines, maybe they will change the t-shirts.

Female Voice:  Thank you.  [indiscernible] with Arabiya Television.  I just want to follow up --

Walid Jumblatt:  What TV?

Female Voice:  Arabiya.

Walid Jumblatt:  Arabiya.

Female Voice:  I just wanted to follow up on the diplomatic initiatives in addition to Tehran and Riyadh.  There is also the Arab league led by Amr Mussa.  How do you evaluate this initiative?  Do you see them contradictory?  Do you see them as complementary?  Do they all end up to this same purpose of really enforcing Chapter 7 and coming out with the same result with the tribunal?

Walid Jumblatt:  When Amr Mussa came to Beirut, we were about to fix up a settlement based on, first, implementing the tribunal.  The actual government implements the tribunal.  Second, Nabih Berri opens the door of the kidnapped parliament so that we will ratify the convention.  Third, we call for the presidential election.  Fourth, we discuss electoral law, okay.  But we had four logical steps and suddenly, of course, the other side, the other part of the issue is refused the fact because the question circles around the tribunal because in case, I mean, what is the importance of the tribunal? 

Suppose, we have it, we will have it, we will have it.  Suppose a minor Syrian official is indicted.  Minor, not major -- I hope major -– minor.  The whole structure of the Syrian terrorist regime is at stake and I think if I think Mr. [indiscernible] approves, also there is a Syrian public opinion.  They will know that while somewhere the regime was implicated in the murder of Hariri and the others, it will shake the whole section.  This is why the allies of Syria are adamant defending the regime of Syria and this is the main question.

Female Voice:  [indiscernible].  Sir, last year, at the Brookings Institution you said that Hamas differs from Hezbollah.  Would you please explain to me how?

Walid Jumblatt:  The problems in Palestine are different than the problem of Lebanon.  After all, in Palestine, they have not been able until now to achieve the goals of establishing a viable state next to the State of Israel.  I think in Palestine you have the horrible issues or facts, the wall, the settlements, the harassment of the population, so many Israeli barrage  on the West Bank, 500 to 600.  The problems are totally different there. 

We cannot compare Palestine to Lebanon.  Lebanon was freed from Israeli occupation in the year 2000.  We did not need another liberation war in the year 2006.  Lebanon is a free country.  Palestine, until now, is not a free country.  It is going to be free I hope one day.  Maybe thanks to the Mecca initiative, but it is totally different.  There is no parallel between us and Palestine.

Male Voice:  [indiscernible].  It is perfectly obvious now how Hezbollah managed to kidnap the Shia community, then with the Shia community to kidnap Lebanon.  What is the March 14th strategy to reach out to other factions within the Shia community rather than Hezbollah and Amal, and to bypass the illusion that Nabih Berri will wake up one morning and join the revolution?

Walid Jumblatt:  First, from the point of view of terminology, it will be a mistake to say that the Shiite, include all the Shiites together.  It is a big mistake, that is one.  Two, on the 14th of February, the second anniversary of the murder of Hariri, we had a prominent cleric saying -- who had excellent, maybe the best speech there, downtown, asking for justice.  So, when the cleric says that, I mean, the mufti of Jebal Ali is asking for justice.  It is a very, very important message to the whole Shiite community.  So, let's speak about -- Amal, Hezbollah, you have a silent majority and you have also, at the same time, people ready to defy the terror of Hezbollah and Amal ready to speak among them.

Steven Morris:  Steven Morris, Johns Hopkins SAIS.  I was just in Lebanon in January and during this time, I was told by a number of people there that journalists who try to enter the squatter zone set up by Hezbollah in the center of town, a number of journalists were detained by this illegitimate Hezbollah authority and for entering the zone without permission.  Now, I do not know what you know about whether these Hezbollah authorities were carrying weapons into the center of Beirut or not.  But is there any way in which people visiting Lebanon in the future can resist the power of Hezbollah thugs to detain them?

Walid Jumblatt:  As long as you have this militia not abiding by the law, as long as you have your separate state -- part of the South, part of Beirut -- this enclave now in downtown which has ruined the economy, which has closed hotels and restaurants, which has destroyed the whole downtown city.  It is in our city.  I mean, you have to expect more harassment.  Are there now weapons inside?  I do not know.  I hope not.  But I mean, what I do know that will to go in -– I'm not the one to go there now -– to go in, you need, of course, the permission from the security of Hezbollah.  Yes.  And all the employees working in the compound because you have the journalist compound downtown and even the older visitors, they need the permission form the so-called Amal Hezbollah, security of Hezbollah.

Rend Al-Rahim:  Rend Al-Rahim from the Iraq Foundation.  Thank you very much for your speech.  It is a pleasure to hear you.  I have two very quick questions.  One of them is that I was in Lebanon and I go to Lebanon a lot -- I have family there -- during Christmas.  And we talked to a number of Shia families from the South who actually said that they were not for Hezbollah, but that they were intimidated and could not speak out.  And therefore, they either had to hold their silence or outwardly had to show support for Hezbollah. 

I do not see how this problem is going to be treated in Lebanon, how it is going to be resolved.  And very quickly, I want to ask you to draw any parallels, if you can, and if it is valid, between what it is going in Lebanon and what is going on in Iraq.  It seems to me that either –- [cross-talking]

Walid Jumblatt:  Not to reach the –- I’m sorry to say the situation of Iraq or of Baghdad, okay.  And I do not think we will reach it.  And at the same time, I hope that the new security plan of Baghdad will succeed as proposed by the actual administration because if it fails, well, it is a big disaster for the Iraqis and it might have a backlash on Lebanon.  But I understand that not all the Shiites are pro-Hezbollah.  And to remind you also that a part of the South of Lebanon was calm and peaceful and was in a way -- not all of it -- part of it was also prosperous.  Thanks to the Shiite community living in West Africa and they used to send lots of money to Bint Jbeil, to Khiam and Kharees , and all of these villages.  You have prosperous villages. 

Suddenly, came one guy in the name of God, declared war and brought destruction.  It is not funny, I mean.  I mean, it is not funny that the sheer number of total destroyed homes or partly destroyed homes is around 100,000.  It is not funny.  I do not see them always willing to have their houses being destroyed and living in the state of instability, but what can they do?  This is why, again, I say we have to address ourselves very patiently to the Shiite majority, refusing the dictate of Hezbollah, and to the Shiite liberal-minded people, like Sayed Ali Amin, and so many others, so to be able to tell Hezbollah, “Please cool it down.”

Sharwel Mussa [phonetic]:  Sharwel Mussa , Georgetown University.  Thank you for the elegant speech.  You have alluded several times to thank US support for the plan of liberation of Lebanon, but our experience speaks for itself.  How confident are you that the US support will remain in a post-Bush administration?

Walid Jumblatt:  And it would be also at the same time an error for the people who are willing to succeed Bush -- democrats or other than democrats -- to say that, well, let's quit about this idea of Lebanon.  Let's forget about Lebanon.  It is so troublesome.  Let's get out of Iraq as soon as possible.  Let’s go follow a kind of isolationist policy.  It is easier for us.  It would be a disaster for us in this, the moderates of the Arab world, and there are a lot of moderates in Arab world who are willing to cooperate with the US, okay, for a stable Middle East, for a democratic Middle East. 

So, it is not a question just on Bush policy.  I mean, to see after that, after Bush policy.  Until now, I can tell you I'm confident because I have experienced the Bush policy, fact on the ground from the Syrian withdrawal, to the tribunal, to the several United Nation resolutions, while they were clear-cut minded, I have no doubt.  But also, at the same time, I have to address the others and we have, us Lebanese, because a lot of Lebanese here in the States, we have to address also to others, democrats or republicans, not to forget about the Middle East.

Male Voice:  [indiscernible].  In the US, republicans and democrats share power.  In Lebanon, 70 percent of the Christians are not currently represented, because the Free Patriotic Movement is not in the government.  Why do you not accept the FTM to share in power in the government?

Walid Jumblatt:  He was – General Aoun, he was a political supporter of the independence of Lebanon at one time.  And he was, I think, the one behind the 1559 resolution and if my memory is correct, also, he was behind the Syrian Accountability Act.  Suddenly, I do not know why his memory is failing, or he forgot all these past deeds, okay, and he decided to fix up an alliance with the Hezbollah and anyway legalize our presence.  So, you have to ask not to be --

Female Voice:  [indiscernible].  I'm also from Georgetown University.  I just have a brief question for you.  How would you recommend tackling with the threat that Hezbollah brings to the table because of not only its military presence, but also its presence in social services that it brings to certain pockets of Lebanese people living in Lebanon, and is in that context, is military aid from the West enough to deal with them?

Walid Jumblatt:  I did not get your question.  Please, could you repeat?

Female Voice:  Sure.  I mean, just in terms of reading the press, it seems that Lebanon is asking of military aid from the West.  And my question is, is that sufficient?  When Hezbollah is not only seems to be strong in military, but also, it is -- [cross-talking]

Walid Jumblatt:  We are not asking military aid –- we are asking military aid for the State of Lebanon.  Either there is a state in Lebanon, either there is one authority being able to exert the right to have weapons, which is the army, the police; or you have several armies, several polices and it leads to chaos -- that is it.  We have support from the West, from Saudi Arabia, from the Emirates.  We have to support our State.  Later on, if they are convinced, because their timetable, as I said before, is totally different than our timetable. 

There is no Lebanese timetable with the people of Hezbollah.  They have an Iranian-Syrian timetable.  The one who gives you money and weapons is the one who orders.  Plus, of course, the question of –- how should I say -– the delegation of power from the Supreme Leader of Iran, Khomeini, he has delegated his power to Nasrallah.  This is a theological approach.  You might ask [indiscernible] here.  He knows about it.  So, these elements make the Hezbollah not Lebanese.  I want my state, my army; and I do not want other states on my ground.  That is it.

Danielle Pletka:  I think the question she was asking was also about the social networks that Hezbollah has created to deliver services?  How do you --?

Walid Jumblatt:  Social network.  Of course, they have their social network and all other communities also, they do have their social network.  Okay, this is not new for Lebanon.  Also, the Christians have their social network and the Muslims have their social network.  Okay, but different than Hezbollah, the Hezbollah have a social network and weapons.  We do not have weapons.  That is it.  We do not have private armies.  Social networks, sometimes you need a social network, because of the lack of response of the official state.

Sam:  Sam [indiscernible] from [indiscernible].

Walid Jumblatt:  Hello Sam.

Sam:  The other day, Mohammad Raad was talking in a speech some place in the South of Lebanon.  The whole speech, he never mentioned your name.  He is talking about some place, something about Mukhtara and why all the decision has to come from Mukhtara, and Mukhtara is becoming a murabba.  I wish somebody will tell those guys [indiscernible].

[Cross-talking]

Sam:  Somebody will tell those guys that Mukhtara has never been a murabba or a [indiscernible].

[Cross-talking]

Walid Jumblatt:  Mukhtara is in Lebanon.  I'm not getting my orders from Tehran.

Sam:  [indiscernible], even before the Pentagon was born.

Walid Jumblatt:  Pentagon.

Danielle Pletka:  Okay, does anyone have an actual question?  How about this young lady here?  She looks like she has a real question.

Amalya Khairallah:  Yes, hello.  Amalya Khairallah from the Washington Institute.  The US Treasury just considered Jihad Al Binaa as a terrorist organization, and they do not want to give credit for Hezbollah for rebuilding the country after leading it to war.  Do you think the Lebanese government agrees on not giving Hezbollah the opportunity to take credit for rebuilding?  And do you think they have the power to not let them increase their support by rebuilding?

Walid Jumblatt:  The Lebanese government is rebuilding part of the South.  Thanks to Arab assistance, Saudi and Emirati assistance.  The Lebanese government has given up to now thousands and thousands of checks and credits to the people who had their houses destroyed or damaged. 

But, of course, the policy of the Hezbollah is to prevent the Lebanese citizens from [indiscernible] or from Adahi to get directly the money from the State.  They want it to be channeled through Jihad Al Binaa, which is something not acceptable.  After all, we do not think we could recognize Jihad Al Binaa as being the institution to reconstruct the South of Lebanon or Adahi.  After all, we have the Lebanese state obligation that is to give the citizens of Lebanon, be it in Bint Jbeil or Adahi, they are due because of Israeli aggression. 

Can we implement it whereby the Lebanese state is paying the money we are able.  In other areas, because you have other areas that were taken into directly by the state of Qatar, to be rebuilt by the state of Qatar.  I do not know.  I cannot really answer you back.  I just do not know what is really going on there.  I mean, I do not know.

Firas Maksad:  Yes, hello.  Firas Maksad of the Eurasia Group.  Two-part question for you, Mr. Jumblatt.  The first being, you mentioned that the Saudis were adamant on the passage of the tribunal.  How adamant were they also in not granting Hezbollah the blocking rights in the Cabinet, and how adamant are you in that regard, or is that something that is questionable?  If that is out of question and the deal does not go through, then my question would be what is your sense about possible US support for a Chapter 7 resolution in the Security Council for the tribunal knowing that Jacques Chirac is out of office by mid-May.

Walid Jumblatt:  When you want to give your opponents, it is not the normal opposition, leaving aside Michel Aoun, but I may be speaking about the Hezbollah.  When the official state delivers, the unofficial state, the blocking minority, it means you are relinquishing all your powers.  When as an official state, I'm giving the unofficial state, de facto state on the ground, a blocking minority, you just get paralyzed on all issues.  So we have to solve the basic issue.  Will they stay a state within a state, or will they abide by the rules of the Lebanese State?  That only the Lebanese State is the sole protector of the country and able to hold weapons and ammunition and declare war and peace.  As for Chapter 7, I have no answer now.

Danielle Pletka:  This will be our last question from the audience, right here.

Male Voice:  Mr. Jumblatt, [indiscernible].  My question actually continues with Firas’ question about Chapter 7.  I know you do not have an answer to that right now, but some of us, I'm not as optimistic on the diplomatic front on what is going on with Syria and Iran.  I'm wondering is it not to the advantage of democratic movements in the Middle East for Chapter 7 to be passed for the international tribunal.  That, at least, opens up sanctions with the UN and maybe even possibly military action, if that is what is necessary.

Walid Jumblatt:  Let's hope that the Speaker of the Parliament, Nabih Berri, according to the constitution, if they still recognize the constitution, okay?  Because when he was in Tehran before noon, before seeing Khomenei, he said that our government was legal.  When he saw the spiritual guide, he said that our government is illegal.  Let's hope that he abides by the constitution and he should be able to open the doors of the Parliament on the 20th of March and we will go there and we will vote and ratify the convention of the tribunal and we will safeguard Lebanon from troubles, havocs.  I hope so.  As for Chapter 7, I said it before, I have no answer.

Danielle Pletka:  I'm now taking my privilege as the moderator to ask you the last question and liberate you from this very pressing audience.  But I want to follow up on a question that you were asked before and to which, I think, you were allowed to get away with an answer that is a little too easy.  You said that Hamas and Hezbollah are two very different organizations and yet I recall it, Hamas, the leader is in Damascus working closely with the government of Bashar al-Assad.  They receive money and instructions from Tehran.  I wonder why you wish the Palestinian people to have the same fate as the Lebanese people in being controlled by a group that is, in fact, orchestrated from Damascus and Tehran.

Walid Jumblatt:  I have said there is no parallel between Palestine and Lebanon.  Okay, now, if you want to ask me about Hamas and Hezbollah, yes.  Part of Hamas is being financed by the Iranians, and part of the leadership of Hamas is living in Damascus, Khalid Masaal, yes.  It is well know that after the death of Arafat, Arafat protected the so-called national will or national unity of the Palestinians until the end of his life.  They were about to have a civil war last month. 

Yes, I know that.  I hope that the Mecca agreement will deliver a sustainable compromise, so to be able to later on fix up an overture, a dialogue, sort of fix up the Palestinian states. 

But I spoke about the difference between Palestine and Lebanon.  Lebanon is a free country.  We want to have this freedom, to enhance this freedom, entrench this freedom, finally against the Syrian regime and their allies.  Palestine is not a free country.  I agree that Hamas and Hezbollah, some way do interact, but there is a big difference between the situation of Palestine and Lebanon.

Danielle Pletka:  Thank you all and thank you to our interns especially.

[End of file]

[End of transcript]