[Senate Hearing 116-225]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-225
LEBANON AND IRAQ PROTESTS: INSIGHTS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND OBJECTIVES FOR U.S. POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EAST,
SOUTH ASIA, CENTRAL ASIA,
AND COUNTERTERRORISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 4, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-801 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TODD, YOUNG, Indiana CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EAST, SOUTH ASIA,
CENTRAL ASIA, AND COUNTERTERRORISM
MITT ROMNEY, Utah, Chairman
TED CRUZ, Texas CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
RAND PAUL, Kentucky TIM KAINE, Virginia
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Romney, Hon. Mitt, U.S. Senator From Utah........................ 1
Murphy, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator From Connecticut.......... 2
Hood, Hon. Joey, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Hon. Joey Hood to Questions Submitted by Senator Ted
Cruz........................................................... 24
Amer Fakhoury's Legal Team Document Submitted by Senator Jeanne
Shaheen........................................................ 25
(iii)
LEBANON AND IRAQ PROTESTS: INSIGHTS, IMPLICATIONS, AND OBJECTIVES FOR
U.S. POLICY
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2019
Subcommittee on the Near East, South Asia,
Central Asia, and Counterterrorism,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mitt Romney,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Romney [presiding], Cruz, Murphy,
Shaheen, and Kaine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MITT ROMNEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Romney. The hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
on the Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and
Counterterrorism will come to order.
I am going to note in advance that, given the fact that
there are votes being undertaken right now on the floor, we are
going to stay here for probably 15 minutes or so, maybe 20
minutes. Then we are going to run down, I think probably all of
us. We will take a short break. We will run down and vote on
two different matters and then come back for the next round.
The focus of today's hearing is to assess the implications
of the protest movements in Lebanon and Iraq and understand the
impact of these on U.S. policy in each of these countries.
I want to thank our witness, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State Joey Hood, for being here today. I note that
Senator Murphy and I had the pleasure of spending some time
with Mr. Hood when we were in Iraq in the spring. His
perspectives and understanding of the region were most
impressive.
Both Iraq and Lebanon are geographically significant from a
regional security perspective. They also face similar
challenges. They are fragile democracies. They have faltering
domestic economies, and there are increasing efforts by Iran
and Iranian-backed groups to gain greater influence over their
respective governments and civil societies. Both countries are
currently engaged in protests, with civilians decrying
corruption, high unemployment, and what they perceive as
Iranian intervention.
The current situation in Lebanon poses complex challenges
for our involvement there. Hezbollah is a terrorist
organization. Yet, the Iranian-backed group and its allies hold
seats in parliament. They control ministerial positions. This
is the same group that bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, the
Marine barracks in 1983, and regularly targets our ally Israel.
They now control parts of southern Lebanon, as well as
neighborhoods in Beirut. Lebanon is on the brink of financial
ruin. People are prohibited from withdrawing more than a few
hundred dollars a week from their banks. Corruption is rampant.
Protesters are demanding government resignations and reforms.
The country will exhaust its currency reserves by February.
It could face currency devaluation or default on its debt
obligations if it does not receive foreign funding soon. CEDRE
has pledged $11 billion in funds to Lebanon, but these funds
are contingent on government reforms. Prime Minister Hariri
resigned in October, and President Aoun is now only starting to
form a new government.
The U.S. is to provide military aid to the Lebanese armed
forces, but the administration had previously placed that aid
on hold. I am glad the aid has now been released. I know that
the subcommittee will be interested in hearing the reasons for
the delay in that funding.
The Iraqi protests are similarly significant, recently
resulting in the prime minister's resignation. Iraq faces major
security and economic challenges, among them how to build an
independent and unified nation, how to sustain an economy,
whether and how to assimilate returning ISIS fighters, and how
to counter excessive Iranian influence. What happens there
matters greatly for our regional security interests, and any
mention of Iraq must, of course, be accompanied with a
recognition and honor and respect for the 4,565 American
service members who gave their lives in that country.
Mr. Hood, I hope that you can help us have a better
understanding of the intent of the protest movements and the
related economic factors and the position the protesters are
taking regarding Hezbollah and the Iranian-backed militias. I
would also appreciate your take on the professionalism of the
Lebanese armed forces and whether it has the support of the
Lebanese people, whether it can counter Hezbollah, and the
state of U.S. aid for the Lebanese armed forces. And finally,
the implications of these situations for U.S. national security
interests in the Middle East is most interesting and important.
Increasing instability in both countries would have serious
repercussions throughout the region, and the U.S. must have an
effective strategy on how best to partner with these nations to
support our mutual interests.
And with that, I will turn the time over to Senator Murphy
for his remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hood, very good to see you again after our visit to
Baghdad earlier this year.
Listen, let us face the obvious. Everywhere we look in the
Middle East today we are seeing easily avoidable mistakes by
the President and his team that are weakening our allies,
increasing the threat of attack against the United States, and
abandoning our allies. To the extent there is a common thread
to the President's actions in the region, it is a myopic, but
often counterproductive, focus on Iran. But because of this
obsession, seeing everything through an Iran prism, the
administration is missing key opportunities to advance U.S.
interests in other countries.
The demonstrations that have gripped Lebanon and Iraq are
remarkable. These protesters are non-ideological. They are
multi-ethnic and nonsectarian. So many of the things they are
demanding of their governments--to be responsive and
accountable to everyday needs, to tackle rampant corruption, to
create economic opportunities and public services that work for
all of their citizens--these are exactly the kind of priorities
that align with U.S. interests. But at this critical moment of
change in both countries, the United States is missing the
opportunity.
I agree that the United States has got to push back against
Iranian influence in the Middle East, but we cannot let our
focus on Iran destabilize other parts of the region, especially
when it seems like this Iran strategy is not actually working
in the first place.
In Lebanon, where I was just a week ago, U.S. policy has
long been aimed at reducing outside influence in that country.
Well, over the past couple months, we have seen a lot of
popular anger on the streets in Lebanon. It is directed against
political elites and outside actors like Hezbollah. And with
their political power under threat, Hezbollah is putting thugs
out to violently attack these nonviolent protesters,
threatening to plunge the entire country into chaos.
And yet at this critical moment, the United States is not
supporting the very actor inside that country, the Lebanese
armed forces, who have stepped up to defend the peaceful
protesters. Instead, we withheld U.S. aid just at the moment
that we should have been supporting them. When I was in Lebanon
a week ago, no American official could give me a reason as to
why the aid was held up or what the LAF needed to do to get
unstuck. And I agree with Senator Romney. We will be seeking
answers to those questions today.
We are also missing an opportunity in Iraq. As with
Lebanon, I am in awe of the courage of these protesters who
have refused to back down from their peaceful demands even when
more than 400 people were killed when those demands were met
with gunfire. Sadly, it seems that security forces in Iraq are
looking more towards Iran on how to deal with peaceful protests
rather than where they should be looking towards: the LAF in
Lebanon. And just as we have seen in Lebanon, much of the
protesters' anger in Iraq is directed towards the established
elites, including figures backed by Iran.
So did the United States seize this opportunity, surging in
our best and brightest diplomats to try to calm the situation
and support popular demands for responsive government? No. We
have largely stayed on the sidelines, hobbled by an
unjustifiable decision to completely gut our diplomatic corps
in Iraq.
Now, I have warned that we were making a disastrous mistake
by slashing the number of diplomats at the U.S. embassy in
Baghdad to just 15 people doing principal diplomacy back in
July. Today the shortsightedness of that decision is painfully
clear. And yet the administration apparently still thinks that
somehow we can manage this crisis with a skeleton crew inside
Baghdad.
We have a lot to discuss today. I know the decisions that
are being made that I am critical of are made far above the
head of our guest, but he is an able, capable, and experienced
diplomat in the region. I look forward to his testimony.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
Joey Hood is Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for Near Eastern Affairs. He has served as deputy chief of
mission in Iraq and in Kuwait, as well as counsel general and
principal officer in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Prior to these
assignments, Mr. Hood was acting director of the Office of
Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. Mr. Hood has
also served in Riyadh, where he coordinated U.S.-Saudi military
cooperation in Asmara where he was a liaison to rebel leaders
from Sudan's Darfur region. He has also been assigned to U.S.
embassies in Yemen and Qatar.
I look forward to hearing his insights today.
We will now turn to our witness, Mr. Hood. Thank you for
your willingness to testify here today. Your full statement
will be included in the record, without objection. So if you
could please keep your remarks to no more than 5 minutes or so,
we would appreciate it so that we can engage in questions and
vote. With that, thank you, Mr. Hood.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEY HOOD, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Hood. Thank you, Chairman Romney, Ranking Member
Murphy, Senator Kaine. Thank you for the kind words, first of
all. Thank you for the kind words also about me in the Salt
Lake Tribune back in May. My family appreciated that as well.
But I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the
situation in Iraq and Lebanon and the ways in which the United
States is helping and can help the citizens of those countries
achieve the stability, security, and economic prosperity that
their leaders have not delivered.
People across the region, in particular its youth, wish to
overcome the economic and political stagnation that has left
many of them no better off today than they were 10 years ago.
In Iraq, the demonstrations are also fueled by anger over
Iran's destabilizing influence. As recently as last weekend,
Iran's chief exporter of terrorism, Qassem Soleimani, was
widely reported to have been in Baghdad once again meeting
with, threatening, and cajoling politicians.
Iran has exploited the dysfunction not just within the
Iraqi body politic, but also in Lebanon. Iran supports the
terrorist group, Hezbollah, and has contributed to the group's
ability to put its own interests over those of the nation. In
Iraq, people are demanding an end to Iran's Mafioso tactics
such as arming terrorist groups like Kata'ib Hezbollah, calling
the shots among political party bosses, dumping agricultural
goods on Iraqi markets, and peddling counterfeit or expired
pharmaceuticals.
In this context, it is imperative that the United States
remain, as Secretary Pompeo has said, a force for good across
the region.
In stark contrast to Iran, the United States has partnered
with the Lebanese people through a range of humanitarian,
economic, and security assistance. Since 2006, we have provided
more than $2 billion to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces.
In fiscal year 2018, we obligated and are currently expending
$115 million in economic support funds to promote employment,
good governance, and economic growth. Since the start of the
Syrian crisis, we have also provided over $2.3 billion in
humanitarian assistance for refugees and the people who host
them, including food, shelter, water, medical care, education,
and psychological services. That is what we mean when we say
America is a force for good in Lebanon.
In Iraq, we remain a steadfast partner of the Iraqi people.
With our coalition partners, we continue to ensure that the
Iraqi security forces can ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS.
As the country's largest humanitarian donor, we have also
provided more than $2 billion in food, water, medicine, and
shelter since 2014 alone. We are also the largest donor to
stabilization, funding the rehabilitation of more than 500
schools, 100 health centers, and 50 water treatment plants so
far. We are also the largest donor to demining, having removed
thousands of explosive hazards so people can return to their
homes. That is what we mean when we say we are a force for good
in Iraq.
And our relationship with Iraqis remains vital for U.S.
national interests. Bolstering Iraq as a sovereign, stable,
united, and democratic partner of the United States with a
viable Kurdistan region as a component of it continues to be
our principal objective.
If we see Iraqi leaders willing to address the demands of
their people, we will join with the U.N. and others to support
badly needed electoral and economic reforms. And as Secretary
Pompeo said recently, we will not hesitate to use tools such as
designations under the Global Magnitsky Act to sanction
individuals who are stealing the public wealth of the Iraqi
people and killing or wounding peaceful protesters.
The popular protests underway today show that people are
finally fed up with the damage that corruption causes. We are
offering to partner with those who want to unlock the potential
of people across the region because we understand that a
country is most successful when its people are secure,
prosperous, and free.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hood follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joey Hood
Chairman Romney, Ranking Member Murphy, Members of the Committee: I
am honored to appear before you today to discuss U.S. policy in several
Middle Eastern countries in which public demonstrations have erupted
over citizens' frustrations with their governments all the way from
Iran to Algeria. Specifically, I look forward to discussing the ways in
which the United States can help the citizens of Iraq and Lebanon
achieve the stability, security, and economic prosperity that their
leaders have not delivered. Allow me to start by identifying two
threads linking these protests.
The first lies in the longstanding desire of people across the
region--in particular among its youth--to overcome the economic and
political stagnation that has squandered the promise of a better
future. They have not seen nearly enough investment in expanding
economic opportunities, leaving many young people no better off today
than they were 10 years ago. This frustration is compounded by years of
rampant corruption and political systems that treat government services
as patronage rather than public obligations. Today's protests over
these circumstances share a common thread with others in the recent
past, including the ``you stink'' demonstrations over failed garbage
collection in Lebanon and protests by Iraqis in Basra during the summer
of 2018.
In this context, it is imperative that the United States remain, as
Secretary Pompeo has said, a force for good across the region. We offer
a partnership that is unmatched. It reflects our values. It also
supports the region's security and stability. Our help can provide the
people of the region the security and stability they need to face
challenges with a modern vision anchored in universal rights and
fundamental freedoms.
In Iraq, it is also of note that the demonstrations are fueled by
anger arising from the results of Iran's destabilizing influence. As
recently as this weekend, Iran's IRGC-QF (or IRGC-Qod Force) commander,
Qassem Soleimani, who remains under a U.N. Security Council travel ban,
was widely reported to have been in Baghdad once again meeting with,
threatening, and cajoling politicians. This is just the type of
unacceptable interference Iraqis are protesting in the streets.
Both Iraq and Lebanon have systems of government that are largely
formed along sectarian lines, fomenting corruption to maintain
influence, and inviting in external backers. Iran has exploited the
dysfunction within both systems, exacerbating the fault lines in each.
In Lebanon, Iran's support to the terrorist group Hezbollah has
contributed to the group's ability to exert domestic influence and put
its own interests over those of the nation., leaving the Lebanese
people on the losing end. In Iraq, people are demanding an end to
Iran's mafioso rules, such as arming terrorist groups like Kata'ib
Hezbollah, calling the shots among political party bosses, dumping
agricultural goods on Iraqi markets, and peddling counterfeit or
expired pharmaceuticals. Allow me to address the situations in both
countries in greater detail.
For almost 2 months, Lebanon has experienced an unprecedented
popular movement led by ordinary citizens fed up with corruption and
ineffective political leaders that have too often put their own
interests over their own people. In a country known for its multi-
religious character, these protests have been unparalleled in their
national character and the way that Lebanese citizens--across the
nation, across sects, and across socio-economic levels--have become
involved. While the demonstrations were at first triggered by an absurd
proposed tax on voice-over-internet-protocol calls (such as WhatsApp),
it became clear within hours that the tax was just the final straw.
Even after the proposal was withdrawn and Prime Minister Saad Hariri
announced a package of economic reforms 4 days later, protesters,
skeptical of more empty promises from the very political leaders who
failed to deliver for years, remained on the streets and demanded the
resignation of his government. Hariri stepped down on October 29, and
since then declared that he would return only if he could lead a
cabinet of experienced, non-political individuals (often referred to as
``technocrats'') as the protesters were demanding. Hezbollah and its
political partners refused, and last week the former prime minister
announced he would not seek another term.
Since Hariri's resignation, the government has been in caretaker
status, which means it has limited power and cannot pass any of the
reforms Lebanon desperately needs to stabilize the economy. The last
time Lebanon's political leadership had to form a government it took
them 9 months. We do not believe the Lebanese people want another
drawn-out contest over political spoils. As each day ticks by, the
delays demonstrate a determination by the country's political elite,
especially the sectarian leaders behind most of the political parties,
to protect their own interests and not to serve the interests of the
Lebanese people.
We have repeatedly urged Lebanon's political leaders to respond to
their people's demands for a properly functioning country through
immediate reforms. We are working with key allies and the international
community to discuss how we would assist with these reforms to avert a
full-blown economic crisis and create the conditions for economic
recovery. Until the sectarian leaders that fuel the political parties
support real and immediate reforms, Lebanon will go nowhere, whether it
has a new government or not.
The United States supports the rights of the brave men and women of
Lebanon to meet on their streets and squares to express themselves
through peaceful demonstrations without fear of retribution or
violence. However, the ability to do that is under constant threat.
Over the last 2 months, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Internal
Security Forces (ISF) have stepped in to protect protesters from thugs
threatening and using violence in an effort to send them home. For
example, on November 24, Hezbollah and Amal partisans confronted
peaceful protesters with violence and sectarian slogans, trying to prod
them with old resentments into a new clash that would undermine their
demands. Intervention by security personnel stopped the situation from
escalating before dispersing both groups with tear gas. None were
injured that day, but the pressure from these politically motivated
groups to either get protesters off the streets or undermine their
demands with an appeal to divisive sectarianism remains a significant
threat.
The United States also remains concerned about the role being
played by Hezbollah, and its benefactor Iran. During these protests,
Hezbollah, with some echoes from Russia, has tried to blame the United
States for instigating the protests. Those efforts have fallen short.
Protesters in Lebanon know they are not the puppets of external
influence. As noted in our statement on November 18, ``the popular
demonstrations we have witnessed over the past weeks in Lebanon have
clearly shown that it is the Lebanese people that are working together
to hold their leaders to account. Any argument to the contrary is
frankly insulting to their perseverance and determination to work
towards a brighter future.''
In stark contrast to Iran and Russia, the United States has
partnered with the Lebanese people through a range of humanitarian,
economic, and security assistance. Since 2006, we have provided more
than $2 billion to help strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces. In FY
2018, we obligated, and are currently expending, $115 million in
Economic Support Funds for initiatives in Lebanon that promote
employment, good governance, social cohesion, and economic growth. Our
projects also improve access to clean water and education, especially
in areas heavily impacted by the influx of Syrian refugees. Since the
start of the Syrian crisis, the United States has also provided over
$2.3 billion in humanitarian assistance for refugees in Lebanon, as
well as the Lebanese communities that host them, including food,
shelter, water, medical care, education, and psychological services.
This is what we mean when we say America is a force for good in
Lebanon.
In Iraq, where I was privileged to serve for 2 years as the Deputy
Chief of Mission and Charge d'Affaires, the demonstrations that swept
Baghdad and the southern provinces in the last 2 months have exposed
growing revulsion for Iraq's political elite by the rest of the
population. Although exact numbers are debated, it is clear that
hundreds of Iraqis have been killed and as many as 20,000 injured so
far. What began as a wave of primarily Iraqi youth demanding the
elimination of corruption and greater economic opportunity has
transformed into a broader societal movement, with demonstrators
spanning religious sect, gender, occupation, and generational lines.
Like in Lebanon, these protests arose from popular discontent with
endemic corruption and mismanagement, high unemployment, and poor
delivery of basic services. The demonstrators want better from their
leaders.
Not surprisingly, an important element of this movement has been
rejection of Iran's corrupting influence, including anger at Iranian-
supported political parties and armed groups. Iraqis increasingly view
Iran as having coopted and exploited Iraq's political system, its
economy, and its security at the expense of the Iraqi people, and this
has clearly made Iran nervous. Thus far, Iran's public attempts to spin
the narrative have been met with immediate scorn and mockery, and
further lowering the regime's standing with the Iraqi people. At the
same time, many protesters have rejected being painted as tools of
American influence.
Although many protesters are too young to remember Saddam's
tyranny, most are intimately familiar with the shortcomings of
political elites that many believe the United States is responsible for
bringing to power. We must acknowledge and respect the fact that what
is occurring in Iraq is indigenous to it and reflects its citizens'
needs and desires.
Like in Lebanon, we have called for the government to respect
Iraqis' freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Their voices
should be heard without fear of retribution or violence. We are deeply
concerned by the killing, kidnapping and intimidation of protesters and
civil rights leaders and have demanded that the government protect them
and lift restrictions on all forms of media. We are working with our
allies to echo this message, and we welcome efforts by the U.N.
Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) to assist with electoral reform, in
accordance with its U.N. Security Council mandate.
As Secretary Pompeo has said, the United States welcomes any
serious efforts to address the protesters' demands. But like in
Lebanon, nothing will change until political leaders decide that
government agencies should provide public services rather than serve as
ATM machines for their parties. Until that happens, the people's
demands for a clean and effective government will not be met, no matter
who serves as Prime Minister or in Cabinet positions.
Meanwhile, we will remain a steadfast partner of the Iraqi people.
With our International Coalition partners, we will continue to ensure
that the Iraqi Security Forces can ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS,
which just 3 years ago occupied a third of the country. We will remain
the country's largest humanitarian donor. Since 2014 alone, we have
provided more than $2 billion in food, water, medicine, and shelter. We
are the largest donor to stabilization, as well, rebuilding more than
500 schools, 100 health centers, and 50 water treatment plants, with
many more projects coming soon. We are the largest donor to demining,
having removed thousands of explosives hazards so people can return to
their homes. This is what we mean when we say we are a force for good
in Iraq.
Our relationship with Iraqis remains vital for U.S. national
security interests and regional security, and bolstering Iraq as a
sovereign, stable, united, and democratic partner of the United States,
with a viable Kurdistan Region as a component of it, continues to be
our principal objective.
If we see Iraqi leaders willing to address the demands of their
people, we will join with UNAMI and others to support badly needed
electoral and economic reforms. Whether we have partners among Iraqi
leaders or not, Secretary Pompeo has said, we will not hesitate to use
all the tools at our disposal, including designations under the Global
Magnitsky Act, to sanction corrupt individuals who are stealing the
public wealth of the Iraqi people and those killing and wounding
peaceful protesters.
Together, the popular protests in Lebanon and Iraq show that people
are finally fed up with the damage that corruption does to government's
willingness and ability to provide the basic services that people need
to live and thrive. In stark contrast to Iran, which uses corruption to
create openings to extend its influence, we are offering a positive
vision, a force for good willing to partner with those who want to
unlock the potential of people across the region. We understand that a
country is most successful when its people are secure, free, and
prosperous.
We are committed to a vision of shared prosperity, regional and
global security and stability, and lasting partnership with the people
of Lebanon and Iraq.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today, and I look forward
to your questions.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Hood.
Now we will turn to questions. A couple of things. First of
all, as we look at the protests that are going on, surely the
state of the economy is one of the reasons for the anger on the
part of, particularly, so many of the young protesters. That
economy has been buffeted by the decline in tourism, by the
fact that Syria next door is in turmoil. And apparently
remittances from Lebanese workers working in Saudi Arabia or
other places throughout the Middle East have declined
precipitously.
Is there a realistic prospect of economic vitality that
will meet the demands of these protesters?
Mr. Hood. Yes, Senator, in a word. Lebanon is capable of
much better economic performance. But we need to see major
reforms. Some of these are quite simple. It is about literally
picking up the trash. You were Governor of Massachusetts. You
understand better than most probably what kind of services a
government has to provide to meet the basic needs of its
citizens. And it is just not happening in Lebanon. You will
recall a couple of years ago maybe the ``You Stink'' protests
over the trash collection problem. Some of these are basic
fixes. They are not difficult to do. But the leaders have to be
committed to that. And if they are not committed to basic and
wide-ranging reform, then it does not really matter what faces
they put in the government. It will be like rearranging the
deck chairs on the Titanic. So that is what we are pushing for,
is real reform.
Senator Romney. What kind of confidence do you have in the
new leadership that is in Lebanon, and is there a capacity to
really form a new government based upon your perspective?
Mr. Hood. Right now there is not a new government. They are
still in the caretaker mode. The president only just today I
saw as I was coming in here called for binding negotiations
between the parties for formation of a new government. There is
no telling how long that is going to take. The last time they
formed a government, it was 9 months. One would hope that with
the pressure from the street they will have gotten the message
that they need to act quickly and they need to act seriously on
reform. And if they do--you mentioned in your opening remarks,
Senator, that they have CEDRE funding of over $11 billion
waiting to help, but there is no Western country that is going
to jump in there and say we are going to bail you out this time
once again even though you have not gotten the message from
your people and even though you have not committed to reform.
Senator Romney. As you know, Congress appropriated $105
million to support LAF and their effort there. Why was that
held up?
Mr. Hood. Senator, I cannot get into the internal
deliberations. It is true that bureaucratic processes often
work more slowly than we would like them to. I am daily
frustrated with that myself. But what I can say is that no
delivery of materiel, no assistance was delayed or prevented
from going to the LAF because of these internal deliberations.
The money has been approved for expenditure, and now we are in
the process of what you normally do for FMF funding: letters of
requests, letters of offer and assurance, and so forth.
Senator Romney. Are you saying that the delay was due to
bureaucratic processes as opposed to policymaking from the
highest levels of our government?
Mr. Hood. Yes, sir, internal deliberations, policy
deliberations that often accompany big decisions like this.
Senator Romney. I am told that we have about a minute--
excuse me--about 4 minutes. So I am going to turn to Senator
Kaine and let him ask some questions because I am going to be
coming back.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator
Murphy.
Just on that, so I get we are not asking about internal
deliberations, but the funding was mandated by Congress.
Mr. Hood. Yes, sir.
Senator Kaine. We are appropriators and we put it into an
appropriations bill, and the President signed it. And so I
think we are entitled to know the reason why it was held up.
Internal deliberations are, what were the discussions of the
pros and cons and the backs and forths. I am not interested in
any of that. I want to know, was there a decision that was made
in the White House to withhold these funds?
Mr. Hood. Sir, I would refer you to the White House for
what White House thinking is. But in terms of----
Senator Kaine. Let me ask you it this way. Are you aware of
whether there was a decision at the White House to withhold the
funds?
Mr. Hood. I am not aware of that decision. What I am aware
of is that there was lots of robust discussion about this
before I arrived in my job and afterwards.
Senator Kaine. Was the discussion about whether we would
ignore Congress? Or what was the discussion about?
Mr. Hood. No, sir.
Senator Kaine. So when Congress mandates it, what is the
deliberation past that point?
Mr. Hood. We need to make sure that what we are providing
and how we are providing it is not only in line with
congressional appropriations but also with the best stewardship
of taxpayer money.
Senator Kaine. Were there concerns about Lebanon's
stewardship of these dollars, and what were those concerns?
Mr. Hood. Senator, that is one of the things that we always
deliberate before we undertake assistance programs. We need to
make sure that military units, for example----
Senator Kaine. But in this particular case, you are saying
that one of the reasons for the delay was particular concerns
about the LAF and their use of these funds?
Mr. Hood. No, sir. I do not want my comments to be
construed that way. It is just that in general when we talk
about providing assistance to any other country, we have all
sorts of discussions about making sure that----
Senator Kaine. Do you know whether the timing of the
release of the funds was dictated by the State Department or by
the White House or by the DOD?
Mr. Hood. Sir, that is internal deliberations that I cannot
get into, unfortunately.
Senator Kaine. So you know the answer to the question, but
you do not want to testify to it?
Mr. Hood. I would not say that either, but I cannot get
into the internal deliberations of how we are making the
sausage on this or any other particular decision.
Senator Kaine. Yes. Again, I am going to ask it for the
record, too, because we are not asking you about internal
deliberations of something that is on your side of the aisle.
When we specify that the dollars shall be spent in this way,
and then we have to find out in the newspaper that the
administration is withholding the dollars against our mandate,
you can understand the concern that we have.
One other question. You talked about the administration's
willingness to use the Global Magnitsky Act, and you have used
it in some instances. But this committee sent a letter to the
administration about the Global Magnitsky Act and the Crown
Prince in Saudi Arabia with respect to the murder of Virginia
resident, Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The
administration refused to answer the question that the Global
Magnitsky Act requires: was this individual culpable in a human
rights violation? Do you have any knowledge about why the
administration refused to answer the question that the Global
Magnitsky Act required an answer for?
Mr. Hood. Well, Senator, we certainly share your concerns
over that horrible murder. But I do not have a specific answer
for you on that today. I can assure you that we have held
accountable more than 100 people so far in that----
Senator Kaine. Do you know whether there are any ongoing
efforts still to determine whether the Crown Prince was
culpable in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi? Is that matter a
closed matter as far as the State Department is concerned?
Mr. Hood. As far as I know, Senator, we are not holding any
individual outside the scope of who we would hold accountable
for this.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Romney. We are going to take a break right now. We
will be back in approximately 10 minutes. So it is a 10-minute
break. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Romney. Mr. Hood, thank you for remaining here. We
are back in session and I am going to turn to Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just, if I could, complete the series of questions
you were getting from Senator Kaine about the rationale for the
hold. As you know, the reason that we are concerned and
inquiring about the hold on funding for the Lebanese military
is that it had an impact. It is true that the aid is now
flowing, but remember, we are outside the bounds of the fiscal
year. We are in the next fiscal year and we are operating on a
continuing resolution. But we went effectively into overtime
before this funding was released, and people on the ground in
Lebanon noticed. It had an impact even though the funding was
eventually released because, at the very moment that the LAF
was literally standing in between peaceful protesters and
Hezbollah, there were stories circulating in the press about
the fact that the United States was perhaps going to walk away
from our funding commitment to them at the very moment that
they were advertising to the world how different they were than
the other militaries in the region.
So I hope the administration knows that when it holds
funding, whether it be for policy reasons, which I think we can
agree are not allowable if those policies are not articulated
in the statute or for bureaucratic reasons, it has an effect.
But let me just get back to that fine point. I mean, you
would agree that the administration cannot attach conditions to
funding, policy conditions to funding that are not in the
underlying statute. I understand what you said. You need to
make sure that the money is going to the right place, but it is
Congress that decides whether there are going to be policy
conditions on funding, whether it be to Lebanon or any other
country. Is that not correct?
Mr. Hood. Thank you, Senator.
Yes. We have not attached any policy conditions on this
funding and no expenditures or deliveries or purchases of
military materiel were delayed. So we explained to Lebanese
officials that this was just part of our internal process. We
remain committed to our longstanding partnership with them. As
I said earlier, no one working in the bureaucracy is happy with
the speed at which we do things, but, in this case, the delay
was not related to anything having to do with the protests. The
Lebanese armed forces, as you said, have shown themselves to be
a model for security forces in region with how well they have
done to protect the peaceful protesters and how few incidents
they have been involved in that have to be followed up on. We
believe strongly that strengthening the capacity of the LAF is
critical to securing Lebanon's borders, defending its
sovereignty, and preserving its stability. And so that is why
we all made sure as an interagency that nothing was delayed, no
expenditures, no purchases, no deliveries. And as I said, the
funding has been approved.
Senator Murphy. So thank you for that statement in support
of our continued partnership and training with the LAF. You
would agree that they have made remarkable progress over the
course of the last decade in improving their ability to provide
security for the people of Lebanon and securing the borders,
something that was not done by the Lebanese military only a
short time ago. You would assess that they have made tremendous
progress in terms of professionalization and capability.
Mr. Hood. That is right, Senator, largely due to our
assistance. Just a little over a decade ago, it was the Syrian
military that was on the borders of Lebanon. Now it is the
Lebanese armed forces. We have not seen a substantial ISIS
presence in Lebanon even though there was one directly over the
border because of the professionalism and the capability of the
Lebanese armed forces. They have coordinated with us on a
number of counterterrorism operations that have taken down a
number of plots that were not able to see their way to
fruition. And as I pointed out again earlier--and it bears
emphasizing--their role in protecting the peaceful protesters
from Hezbollah thugs and Amal thugs has been absolutely
extraordinary.
Senator Murphy. And last question on this topic. What would
be the impact if the capabilities of the LAF were severely
curtailed? Hezbollah's claim is that they are the only
legitimate defender of the people of Lebanon, and every day and
week that the LAF becomes more capable of defending the
country, my impression is that it is a blow to Hezbollah's
arguments that only they can be trusted with defending the
security of that nation. My impression, especially having spent
some time on the ground there, is that if the LAF is weakened,
then it accrues to the benefit of Hezbollah. They seem to be
the counterweight.
Mr. Hood. You have got it absolutely right, Senator. Let us
enter your remarks as my answer to your remarks.
No. You are exactly right. And you see people out in the
streets right now who are starting to say, well, look, we do
have a pretty good army. We do have a nonsectarian, non-
ideological, pan-Lebanese institution that is doing a really
good job defending us and our rights to raise our voices. And
so the more that that happens, the less legitimate are
Hezbollah's arguments for having their own armed force right
alongside the legitimate institutions of the state.
Senator Murphy. Let me turn to Iraq. What level of detail
can you provide to the committee about the drawdown of
diplomatic presence in Baghdad? The reports that I stated at
the outset suggest that there are perhaps six USAID staffers
and maybe over a dozen diplomats. What is our diplomatic and
USAID presence today in Baghdad, and how does that compare to
what it was perhaps when you showed up on the ground there
several years ago?
Mr. Hood. Sir, primarily for security reasons, we do not
get into discussions of specific numbers. But I have personally
come up and briefed staff members of the SFRC and the SASC
folk, and I would be willing to do so again in as much detail
as they would like.
But we believe that the numbers that we have now are
exactly what we need, no more or no less, to get the mission
accomplished. And that is something that we worked, and I
personally worked very hard on before I left, to get those
numbers right. We are always reviewing our numbers, weighing
security risks, weighing what the mission is before us in every
high threat post, but especially in Iraq. But to emphasize
again, we believe that we have got exactly the right number
there that we need to get the mission done. And they are doing
a tremendous job under Ambassador Tueller's leadership, having
lots and lots of meetings with Iraqis from across the spectrum,
including those in Tahrir Square, and they are sending lots of
good reporting back to us.
I would like to welcome my Senator, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Murphy. Okay. So I will take your reservation for
sharing numbers with us in open session. But as you know, Iraq
has always been a very dangerous post, and we are so thankful
for both the military and diplomatic personnel who are willing
to put their lives at risk by serving in a place where you are
constantly under threat of attack. But it is a little hard to
sort of accept as the rationale for the drawdown the security
risk given the fact that I think we can all agree that the
security risk was probably much higher during a time in which
we were in active combat in large parts of the country and
large parts of the capital city. And yet we managed to have
thousands of personnel there. And maybe it is coincidental that
the political and security situation has unraveled in Iraq at
the exact same moment that our diplomatic drawdown has
happened, but maybe it is not. Maybe the fact that we do not
have the personnel there that we used to in order to go out and
try to convince our friends to make the right decisions when
encountering difficulty is in fact correlated.
And so, again, I understand you cannot share with us the
intel on the security threats, but is it not true that Iraq has
always been a place where there was threat of attack against
diplomatic personnel and we were able to manage that threat
because we thought it was so important to have hundreds of
diplomats rather than a handful of diplomats? If we could do it
in 2006 and 2007, why can we not manage that security risk
today?
Mr. Hood. Well, Senator, a few points on that. Compared to
2006 and 2007, we had probably 150,000 American troops in the
country, which is a very different story than today. We, from
time to time, review our numbers and our capabilities and our
mission set in front of us, and that is what we did in Iraq.
And we believe that we have got the right mix of people there
now.
I would invite you to visit again. I know all three of you
on the committee right now have been out there this year, and I
think it is just invaluable to have you out there to help brief
you on these things in detail. I can say the Ambassador and his
team are as active as ever. They are just making even more
meetings than ever before and having just as much an impact as
ever before. So I think that their capability is there, and if
he were to ask us for more capabilities in this area or that
area, we certainly would not be in a position to say no.
Senator Murphy. Well, let me just submit that I disagree
with you. I do not think you can cover the panoply of threats
in that country presented to us and to our allies with the
numbers that you have. I do think there is a correlation
between the two.
And the last comment I will make before turning it over is
that I accept your invitation. I thank you for how hard you
worked to make Senator Romney's and my visit productive. But I
will also say it has never been harder than today for Members
of the Senate or Congress to visit Iraq. This administration is
making it very difficult for Members to get there and do the
kind of oversight that we would like. When we were there, we
were able to see our diplomatic personnel, but we were not able
to go and visit our military personnel. And I have heard from
other Members expressing the same frustration with our ability
to see how our taxpayer dollars are being spent there. And,
again, I am speaking above your pay grade, but I just think it
is important to state for the record that many Members of the
Congress would like to be there, would like to accept that
invitation but find it often hard to do so given some of the
constraints. But I appreciate the invitation.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Hood, it is very nice to have you here. Thank you
for your service and for being such a great host when Senator
Reed and I visited Iraq and Senator Jones. And we are very
proud of your service in New Hampshire and are glad you are
where you are.
I appreciate your pointing out in your opening remarks the
situation of Amer Fakhoury who, as you know, is a constituent
of mine from New Hampshire and an American citizen who has been
illegally detained in Lebanon since September the 12th. He is
currently hospitalized and is in very serious medical
condition.
Would you agree that a country or official that imprisons
an innocent individual without charge for months on end and
does not allow the prisoner any appropriate due process to
prove their innocence is committing a human rights violation?
Mr. Hood. Thank you for the question, Senator Shaheen.
We have no higher calling than to protect American citizens
living and traveling overseas. Every day the U.S. embassy team
in Beirut is working very hard to secure the release of the
unjustly detained Amer Fakhoury. They last visited him just
today and gave me a report that I will share with you, if we
have time, afterwards. And I spoke with Ambassador Richard as
well on the phone earlier today. She follows the case daily in
a very personal way.
Anyone in New Hampshire's seacoast region who loves Middle
Eastern food, as I do, is a fan of Little Lebanon To-Go, and I
know that Mr. Fakhoury's customers miss him. His family misses
him. And we hope to see him come home very, very soon.
You are absolutely right that there are grave concerns
about the process and the way he is being treated, but we are
making this our absolute highest priority at the embassy and
here at the State Department.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I
very much appreciate all the assistance from Ambassador
Richard. And I have spoken with Deputy Secretary Sullivan. I
know that at the highest levels of our State Department people
have been concerned about Mr. Fakhoury. I believe that if he
dies in the custody of Lebanese officials, that Lebanon should
be subject to sanctions under section 703(1)(c) of the State
Department and Foreign Operations Act, which states--and I
quote--``any officials of foreign governments and their
immediate family members about whom the Secretary of State has
credible information have been involved in a gross violation of
human rights shall be ineligible for entry into the United
States.'' I think this is a very serious situation that has not
been taken seriously by the officials of the Lebanese
Government, and they need to be on notice that we are looking
very carefully and closely at what they are doing.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record
documents that have been provided by Mr. Fakhoury's lawyer that
clearly indicate that he is not the individual that the
Lebanese and Hezbollah-linked papers allege him to be.
[The information referred to follows:]
[The information referred to above is located at the end of
the hearing.]
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hood, I look forward to working with
you, with Ambassador Richard, with Secretary Pompeo and
continuing to do everything we can to ensure that Mr. Fakhoury
gets back home. Again, I think his health is very critical, and
we do not want a situation where he dies in Lebanese custody.
That would not be good obviously for Lebanon, for the United
States, and it would be a tragedy for Mr. Fakhoury and his
family.
Mr. Hood. Hear, hear.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, so I want to go to some of
the other concerns that Lebanon is confronting right now with
unrest because one of the things that I think we are seeing is
that Hezbollah and Iran view the protests in Lebanon as a
threat to their influence within the country, and the reports
that I have seen suggest that the Lebanese people are very
concerned about what Hezbollah is doing there and the continued
corruption that they are seeing in the country, and that there
will be efforts on the part of Hezbollah to influence any new
cabinet and government that is formed.
So can you talk about what we are doing to try to address
the Iranian and Hezbollah influence in Lebanon as they look to
form a new government?
Mr. Hood. Well, Senator, as I said in my opening statement,
we view Iran's role in both of these countries as very
unhelpful, and the people agree with that assessment. We think
one of the major ways that we can try to diminish that is
through our maximum pressure campaign, which is denying the
regime in Tehran the revenues that it used to have to fund
groups like Hezbollah and Kata'ib Hezballah and the Houthis and
others. For the first time ever recently, Hassan Nasrallah had
to go on TV and do a telethon to try to get donations for
Hezbollah. That is a sign that the decreasing revenues in
Tehran are having an effect on his funding. And that is, I
think, a very appropriate use of the power of our financial
system, the power of our sanctions.
We are also using our bully pulpit. We are calling out this
activity, and we are naming and shaming. We are using the
legislative authorities that we have to sanction individuals.
Something like more than 1,000 individuals and organizations
just in the past couple of years we have sanctioned with regard
to Iran and its malign activities throughout the region.
So this is obviously having an effect on the pocketbook,
and the people themselves are standing up and saying, you know,
I know how life looks on the outside. I know what people in the
United Arab Emirates live like, for example. I do not have to
live like this. I do not have to live under this sort of
condition. And I think they are gaining inspiration as well
from each other and from the protests in Iran, which we have
not talked about but which have been just as terrible in terms
of their repression and possibly more. We cannot know exactly
how many people have been killed there because of the
throttling of the Internet and the regime keeping such a
blackout, but it is clear that it is bad what is going on
there.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I am glad that you mentioned that
because, again, the news reports suggest that these are the
worst protests in Iran since 1979 and that close to 800 people,
that we know about, have been killed by the regime.
Are there ways in which we can try and address the Iranian
people who are being repressed such that they understand that
there is an interest in seeing that they have some
opportunities in the future to ultimately get out from under
the current leadership?
Mr. Hood. Absolutely, Senator. The Secretary, the President
have been very clear in standing with the Iranian people who
are, we should not forget, the longest suffering victims of
this regime. We are committed to promoting accountability. I
have talked about the sanctions that we have levied. We will
continue to make public statements not just from our own podium
but from cooperation in U.N. forums to strengthen the
international community's resolve.
And we do see that, whatever our disagreements may be on
policy approaches, the Europeans are taking some similar steps.
Denmark and France and the Netherlands went to the European
Union to get sanctions levied on the Iranians for assassination
plots that had taken place in their countries. France, Germany,
and Britain came out and condemned the September 14th missile
attacks on Saudi Arabia.
So we have to be careful not to try to portray these
protests as pro-American. I think they are pro-Iranian. They
are nationalists. They want to be living like normal people.
And we hold out a great hope as a force for good, as I talked
about earlier, for countries like Iran, Iraq, Lebanon. We have
got a $22 trillion economy. We have got a lot of private
investment that could go forward. We have got a lot of programs
and assistance that we could provide if they are just ready to
start acting like a normal government again. And that is the
hope that we hold out.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Senator.
I am going to ask a couple of questions. Then I am going to
leave and Senator Murphy is going to ask questions, and then he
is going to gavel us out. He may never gavel you out, but we
will see.
A couple of things. Turning to Iraq and the protests there,
what is the administration's posture with regards to the
protesters in Iraq? Are we supportive of their effort? Are we
helping the protesters? Are we opposed to the protesters? Or
exactly what is our posture with regards to what is happening
in Iraq?
And I say that because, when we there with you some months
ago, there was a perspective that given energy shortages and
likely power blackouts, that there would be protests during the
summer. But I do not think there was any indication at that
time that protests would be going on through November, that
hundreds of people would be killed, and that there was no end
in sight to these protests. So it has, obviously, taken on a
different character than what we were thinking about, or at
least the Government of Iraq was thinking about, when we were
there.
What is your perspective, and what is the impetus for these
protests? And what is our national policy with regards to them?
Mr. Hood. Well, Senator, we absolutely support the
protesters' right to peacefully demonstrate and express
themselves. We also strongly support and have talked about this
many times at the highest levels from Secretary Pompeo on down.
We think that they have a right to free media. As you may
have seen, the government shut down nine television stations
last week. There have been mysterious third parties that have
raided media headquarters and that have harassed reporters and
other journalists. And we are calling this out at every
opportunity.
We again, like in Lebanon, have to be careful not to
portray these protesters as pro-American because they do not
want to be. They want to be seen as Iraqis first and foremost.
So we extend to them this offer of being a force for good, a
partnership with leaders that they want to see, we think, just
like we do in putting in place reforms that would allow the
economy to open up and grow and for people to get meaningful
jobs and for the government to just do its job providing
services.
So we have been calling for all of this at the highest
levels, making it clear to them that we support their
legitimate rights and calling out the government and
individuals, both privately and publicly, when we see that they
are not holding up those rights. We will hold accountable those
individuals over time as we find out who is responsible for
killing and wounding the protesters, and we will continue to do
that. But we do hope that soon we will get partners in the
Iraqi Government, throughout the Iraqi Government, that are
willing to work with us on real reform.
Senator Romney. There are some conflicting reports about
who it is that has been killing protesters. Some have indicated
that perhaps Iranian sharp shooters have done so. Others, of
course, point to the Iraqi military itself. Do you have any
perspective on who might be responsible at this stage for the
hundreds of deaths that have been reported?
Mr. Hood. Yes, sir, and no, sir. Yes, in the sense that
there have been Iraqi military leaders and units implicated,
such as in the deaths of upwards of 40 people in Nasiriya last
weekend. That general, as I understand it, has been arrested
and brought up on charges.
But there are many other cases where it is not entirely
clear who is doing what. Some of the Iranian-supported proxies
in Iraq are very good at hiding their affiliations. You see
them in black uniforms with no insignia in the videos. But
Secretary Pompeo and Special Representative Hook have called
for Iraqis to share with us the videos and pictures that they
have so that we can go through those, and we can try to help
identify those people and hold them accountable even if Iraqi
Government leaders now or in the future do not want to.
Senator Romney. Thank you. I am going to ask Senator Cruz
to take over and ask any questions he might have. I need to go
vote, and I hope to see you again soon.
Mr. Hood. I hope you will be back, Senator.
Senator Cruz [presiding]. Well, thank you, Mr. Hood, and
thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here.
Let us start by talking about Lebanon. Over the past
decade, the United States has spent over $2 billion in aid to
the Government of Lebanon and specifically to the Lebanese
armed forces. According to Congress, the goal of funding the
Lebanese army is so that the army can meet its obligations
under U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 to disarm
Hezbollah. According to the administration, the goal of
supporting the government is to build a free, democratic, U.S.-
oriented governmental institution in Lebanon.
But by any measure, our policy is failing right now.
Lebanon's government institutions have disintegrated. The
ministries that are still running are marked by endemic
corruption, and Hezbollah has amassed over 100,000 rockets and
missiles pointed at Israel and regularly moves personnel and
weapons into Syria. Hezbollah functionally runs major ports and
parts of Beirut's international airport.
I have a couple questions I want to ask. Number one,
Congress has authorized the administration to distribute
security assistance to the Lebanese armed forces so that they
can meet their obligations under U.N. Security Council
resolution 1701 to disarm groups south of the Litani River, by
which the resolution meant Hezbollah. What percent of our
security assistance to the army has gone to disarming Hezbollah
in recent years?
Mr. Hood. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
We think that we would disagree with your assessment that
our policy is failing, especially when it comes to the Lebanese
armed forces. I think we see that no more starkly than in the
streets as we speak, where the LAF is regularly getting in
between Hezbollah thugs and Amal thugs and the peaceful
protesters and protecting them. We see the people raising their
voices, Shia for the first time saying, Hezbollah is not what I
want. I want the Lebanese armed forces. I want something that
is nonsectarian, non-ideological, pan-Lebanese, something that
is responsive to our elected leaders and not what we see with
Hezbollah and its armed wings.
So I think that we are actually seeing a Lebanese armed
forces that is coming into its own now vis-a-vis Hezbollah. It
is a political decision in that country as to whether they want
to send that army into direct combat with Hezbollah. It is not
our decision. I can understand, however, that the Lebanese,
after so many years of bloody civil war want to try to resolve
this problem as peacefully as they can. They probably
understand better, as well as anyone, the challenge that they
face in doing that.
So our best approach is to make sure that the LAF remains
strong and becomes even stronger in the face of Hezbollah,
which is now backed into a corner with its revenues going down
because Tehran is squeezed for funding, and with the people out
in the street saying, this is not what we want to see anymore.
Senator Cruz. I want to make sure I understand your
testimony. You view and the administration views Lebanon as a
success story?
Mr. Hood. We view the Lebanese armed forces and our
investment in it as a succeeding investment. We are not there
yet, but it is money that is, so far, well spent. If you look
back a little over a decade, it was the Syrians that were on
the border of Lebanon. Now it is the Lebanese armed forces.
They regularly go into the Beqaa Valley. They conduct
operations. They do not answer to the orders of Hezbollah. And
they are growing in their capacity. So I would say that
investment is a success.
Senator Cruz. Well, let me go back to my initial question,
which you did not answer. What percent of our security
assistance to the army has actually gone to disarming Hezbollah
in recent years?
Mr. Hood. Senator, I am not aware that the Lebanese
Government has directed the armed forces to go and disarm
Hezbollah. That is a decision for them to make and not for us.
Senator Cruz. So we do not have any say on what happens
with Hezbollah? There is no U.S. policy on Hezbollah. Is that
what you are saying?
Mr. Hood. There is absolutely a U.S. policy on Hezbollah.
We are taking every measure that we can to squeeze its funding
out by our maximum pressure campaign on the regime in Tehran
and designating individuals and institutions, such as the
Jammal Trust Bank, that have any role in moving people or money
on behalf of Hezbollah, and we see that this is having a real
effect. But the biggest effect----
Senator Cruz. But am I understanding your testimony
correctly that right now none of our funds are going to
disarming Hezbollah?
Mr. Hood. I would say, Senator, that that is not a decision
for us to take on behalf of the Lebanese Government, but----
Senator Cruz. How many billions of dollars have we given
them? At some point we get to make some decisions when we are
writing really big checks.
Mr. Hood. As I was reminded earlier, policy conditions on
assistance are the domain of Congress. So I will leave that to
you.
Senator Cruz. But apparently you are telling me the
administration's policy is to be agnostic whether they are
combating Hezbollah, whether they are funding Hezbollah,
whether they are in bed with Hezbollah. Are you telling me the
administration has no views? It is just, hey, whatever floats
your boat?
Mr. Hood. No, Senator. What I am saying is we think we are
making strategic investments in this nonsectarian, non-
ideological, highly effective security force and that we need
to continue doing that because the strategy is working. We have
got people out in the streets right now saying this is the
security force we want to see. This is the legitimate face of
the Lebanese Government, not Hezbollah. And I think that is
where we all want to be.
Senator Cruz. What would you say is the role of Hezbollah
right now within the LAF and within the governmental
institutions such as they exist in Lebanon?
Mr. Hood. Senator, I would say the role is they are trying
to maintain the status quo. They want to maintain a corrupt
system over which they have great influence so that they can
use ministries as a source of revenue rather than a way to
provide services to the people. And so I think that is what the
people are reacting to and they are saying no more. This is not
what our government is supposed to be. And I think they would
like to have influence over the Lebanese armed forces. They are
not. That is why, in October, you saw the LAF get in front of a
bunch of Hezbollah thugs on motorcycles and say you are not
coming in here to terrorize the protesters. We saw it again
just a couple of weeks ago where they did the same thing. They
got in between the Hezbollah thugs and the protesters and said
this is not happening today.
Senator Cruz. Well, let me be clear on something. You
referenced our maximum pressure campaign on Iran, and I am a
vocal proponent of maximum pressure meaning maximum pressure on
Iran. At the same time and for the same reasons, in Lebanon and
elsewhere, we should not be funding and we should not be
supporting people who want to kill us, and Hezbollah falls into
that camp of people who want to kill us and kill our friends
and allies. And so let me encourage the administration to focus
on those core priorities more than I fear you are doing now.
Mr. Hood. Let me assure you, Senator, that our commitment
to the security of friends in the Middle East, especially the
State of Israel, is unshakeable, and we will continue to work
with them and with others to make sure that the Iranians are
not able to carry out their agenda without costs anywhere in
the region.
Senator Cruz. Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Senator Cruz.
I think we all share in the objective of lessening
Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon and let me sort of restate in
a different way a question I asked you earlier. It is the State
Department's belief that helping to stand up the LAF as an
independent, nonsectarian guarantor of security in Lebanon is a
part of our strategy to decrease the influence of Hezbollah
inside Lebanon.
Mr. Hood. Yes, sir.
Senator Murphy. I just have a couple additional questions
to close out.
So there was a real sense, when I was on the ground there a
week ago, that this crisis of leadership could not last much
longer and that those nations that have typically stood by the
side of Lebanon--the United States at the top of that list--
needed to play a more active role in trying to help resolve it.
There were reports you mentioned, literally as you were coming
in to see us today, that there may be a pending breakthrough, a
businessman who is being put forward as perhaps the next prime
minister.
But what role do you think is appropriate for the United
States and others to play in trying to help bring an end to
this moment of political instability? And how confident are you
that we are on the same page with other international players?
It obviously worries many of us when we see the President
departing in a huff from a NATO summit at the way that he was
treated by the exact allies that we are supposed to be talking
to about how we land a very difficult political crisis in
Lebanon. How confident are you that we are working in a
multilateral way to try to help end this leadership crisis in a
country that matters so much to our interests?
Mr. Hood. Senator, I am very confident that we are working
multilaterally in an effective way. In fact, Assistant
Secretary Schenker is, right now, on a trip to consult with
British counterparts. Last week he was in France and Italy
doing the same thing with counterparts there. And we believe
that they do share our goal of making sure that whatever
government comes along next in Lebanon is not just a set of
pretty faces but is a group that is entirely committed to real
reform and is backed up by those sectarian leaders and others
who have influence in the country, whether we like it or not,
with a real commitment to reform because if they do not have
that commitment, then it really does not matter who they put in
what chair.
But what we are proposing, the way we are trying to help is
not by saying pick this one and not that one, but by holding
out that hand and saying we got a $22 trillion economy here. We
have got a pretty robust assistance budget thanks to the
Congress. We have got a lot of tools and levers that we can use
to help a reform-minded government. And so take our hand. Take
that $11 billion in CEDRE funding. Take the private investments
that we would be able to advocate for if the environment
allowed for it.
Senator Murphy. One last question on Iraq, and I am sorry
if this ground has been covered. Tell me if it has been. But we
have spent $5 billion to train Iraqi security forces, and today
we are spending about 3 or 4 times as much money on security
assistance as we are in reconstruction, rebuilding, and
economic aid, which I do not understand. I do not understand
the justification for that division of funding.
But we now are seeing reports that it may be that U.S.-
trained units were amongst those involved in the killing of
around 400 civilian protesters. We need to make sure that our
dollars are not going to security forces that are firing on
peaceful protesters. What is being done about accountability
for the decisions that were made to potentially turn U.S.-
trained and U.S.-funded forces on protesters in Iraq?
Mr. Hood. I appreciate that question, Senator, because we
have a full-time staff dedicated to Leahy Law vetting to figure
out exactly the answer to this question. And that person works
50-60 hours a week with other colleagues just on this very
question. I am looking at one of the individuals that has been
responsible for that right now sitting behind you, John Weadon.
They do a tremendous job. It is a lot of hard work, a lot of
slogging through the data, and making important decisions and
recommendations. This is exactly the kind of oversight and
policy deliberations I was trying to explain to Senator Kaine
earlier that we go through for this sort of funding.
So rest assured we will take it very seriously. We are
taking it very seriously, and we will make sure, as we have
done in the past in Iraq and elsewhere, that any unit or leader
that is implicated in human rights abuses will be barred from
our assistance through the Leahy Law.
Senator Murphy. Well, this is a perilous moment, but it is
a moment that also is flush with opportunity. These are
protesters who are not seeking to increase the ideological
divides and separation in the region. They are seeking to unite
folks around a common set of good governance and economic
demands. And I think you and those that work with you are doing
a very, very good job amidst difficult circumstances.
But one of those circumstances is the person you work for,
who is sending mixed messages every single day about whether we
support or do not support these protesters. The idea that the
President was asked whether we supported the protests in Iran
and said that he did not want to get into it, but the answer
was no, only to correct himself an hour later, makes your job
and others' immensely, immensely difficult and sends a signal
of mixed policy to the region that ultimately may mean that we
miss this opportunity to support these, I think, very, very
promising protest movements.
But thank you for the good work that you do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Romney. [presiding]: Thank you, Senator Murphy.
Mr. Hood, I have just got a couple more questions for you.
One is what Iran's involvement is now with the protests in
Iraq. I think the modus operandi of Iran in circumstances where
there is turmoil is to step in and try and provide the, I will
call it, help, with quotation marks around the word ``help,''
that the government might be looking for. They might step in
and try and take advantage of the circumstance to strengthen
their hand with the government and to aid in repression of
violence which they may be helping to stimulate in some
respects.
What is our sense of their involvement in these protests
occurring in Iraq today?
Mr. Hood. Well, Senator, it is clear that they do not want
things to change. This setup that they have got in Iraq now,
where they have got proxy armed groups that also have political
parties, that also have economic offices--you know, it is a
pretty good deal for them. But the Iraqi people are standing up
and saying no. This does not work for me anymore.
And so as I said earlier, we saw Qassem Soleimani in
Baghdad just a few days ago meeting with political party
leaders. This is completely abnormal for the special forces
commander of some other country to swoop in and be caucusing
with political party leaders in another country. It is up to
those party leaders and Iraqis of all stripes to stand up and
say this does not work for me anymore, and we see a substantial
number of people doing that on the streets right now at great
peril to their own lives, as you pointed out.
So we think that Iran is trying to play its usual role of
unacceptable influence, but Iraqis are pushing back. And what
remains to be seen now is how Iraqi leaders will respond to
that malign influence. So far it does not seem that they are
entirely getting the message from the street, but we hope that
they do.
Senator Romney. Well, given the extent of our financial and
personnel commitment to their country, you would anticipate
that we could have some influence about whether or not they are
going to be influenced by an individual from Iran of that
nature and indicating to them that that kind of behavior is
unacceptable, that kind of involvement and participation with
them is unacceptable to us, and that our continuing support
relies upon them being an independent nation but not being one
that is under the thumb of Iran and its most malign influence.
One more simple question, which is when we were last there,
we spoke about the fact that Iraq was flaring billions of
dollars of natural gas a year. Here we are sending billions of
dollars. They are flaring natural gas worth billions of
dollars. At that time--this was in May--they said they were at
the cusp of signing an agreement with a major corporation to
make the technology investments necessary to capture the value
of that natural gas. Has that contract been signed, and if not,
why the heck not?
Mr. Hood. No, sir, it has not been. And that is exactly our
question every single day. We continued to get those messages
right up until the time the prime minister resigned. But the
fact of the matter is it has not been signed, and we continue
to push and we would like to see negotiations restarted. The
fact of the matter is my children breathed the fumes from that
flared gas just across the border in Kuwait for 5 years. We
feel it more acutely than probably just about any other
American. But the real people who suffer here are the Iraqis
from all that money that is burned off into the atmosphere so
that they can then purchases electricity from Iran? This is
nuts. It is like carrying coals to Newcastle.
So we have got the companies that are ready to do that
work, and they are ready to do it in a very transparent, non-
corrupt way, which is I think part of why it is a challenge to
get this thing signed because, up until now, a lot of party
leaders and their Iranian backers have not wanted to see a non-
corrupt, very transparent deal be put in place for the benefit
of the Iraqi people. That is not what they are working for. A
lot of these guys are working for their own benefit and the
benefit of Iran.
Senator Romney. It strikes me that the administration has
been effective from time to time employing our leverage where
we have it, such as on the Chinese for instance, and saying,
hey, we got leverage on you. You want access to our markets. We
are going to put some tariffs on your products to get you to do
some things that are important to us. That philosophy may want
to be employed as we deal with Iraqi leadership with regard to
them solving, whether it is with an American company or some
other company that has the technology to take advantage of that
natural gas, to say, guys, we are not going to keep funding at
this level perhaps or we are not going to keep making the
investments we are making if you do not get something done on
this in a hurry. And I would imagine that that would also be
related to the involvement of Iran and its malign actors in the
affairs of Iraq.
Mr. Hood, thank you for being with us today. It is good to
see you again. I appreciate your perspectives and help.
And until next time, this hearing is adjourned.
[Pause.]
Senator Romney. So let me read the other things I am
supposed to say at the very end here. So we will open for just
a moment. I know I have a script, which is in here somewhere.
There it is. We will get to it. I am supposed to keep the
record open. There we go.
Thank you for our witness.
And for the information of members, the record will remain
open until the close of business on Friday, including for
members to submit questions for the record.
And with the thanks of the committee, the hearing is now
adjourned again.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Response of Hon. Joey Hood to Question
Submitted by Senator Ted Cruz
Question. Does the State Department assess that it would be in
America's national security interest to provide money to the Government
of Lebanon even if that government was controlled or unduly influenced
by Hezbollah?
Answer. The U.S. government works assiduously to prevent the use of
U.S. government funds from benefitting individuals or entities
associated with terrorist groups, particularly Hezbollah. U.S. foreign
assistance to Lebanon aims to counter Hezbollah's narrative and
influence and build the institutions of the Lebanese State. U.S.
economic aid is not provided directly to the Lebanese government, but
implemented through NGOs and international organizations. U.S. security
assistance provides training and equipment to the Lebanese Armed Forces
and Internal Security Forces to build capable and committed partner
forces for the United States.
Question. What percent of U.S. assistance to Lebanon was used for
activities or operations aimed at disarming Hezbollah in 2019? A rough
estimate or a range will be sufficient.
Answer. U.S. military assistance to the LAF does not focus on
direct disarmament, but rather focuses on developing the LAF as an
institutional counterweight to Hezbollah's influence and freedom of
action. Since 2006, the United States has provided over $2 billion in
security assistance to the LAF and ISF. U.S. assistance to the LAF has
helped it to increase its ability to act as the exclusive legitimate
defender of Lebanon's sovereignty, enabling it to defend Lebanon from
violent extremist organizations, including ISIS.
Question. What percent of U.S. assistance to Lebanon was used for
activities or operations aimed at disrupting Hezbollah activities short
of disarming them in 2019, e.g. through roadblocks? A rough estimate or
a range will be sufficient.
Answer. With complementary diplomatic efforts, the entirety of U.S.
security assistance to Lebanon since 2006 has been an integral part of
the Department's strategy to support state institutions and security
agencies in order to bolster stability and counter Hezbollah's malign
influence in Lebanon and in the region. Over the past several months,
the LAF has undertaken a series of security actions, including
maintaining security cordons and roadblocks, that have prevented or
deterred Hezbollah from intimidating or harming peaceful protesters.
Question. You testified on December 4 that funding the Lebanese
Armed Forces (LAF) bolsters American national security because it helps
to dissolve Hezbollah's narrative that they are the only legitimate
defender of the people of Lebanon. Please describe: Which parts of
Hezbollah's narrative have been dissolved due to U.S. assistance since
2006? Which parts of Hezbollah's narrative remain to be dissolved?
According to State Department assessments, how much more assistance
from the U.S. will be necessary to dissolve these remaining parts of
Hezbollah's narrative?
Answer. According to a December 2019 GAO Report, the LAF's border
security and counterterrorism capabilities notably improved from 2013
to 2018, undercutting Hezbollah's long-standing, disingenuous claim
that state institutions are not sufficient to protect Lebanon. With the
support of U.S. training and equipment, the LAF has defeated ISIS in
Lebanon, reasserted control over Lebanese territory along its border
with Syria, and increased its presence in southern Lebanon in support
of UNIFIL. These improvements undercut Hezbollah's unfounded argument
that its weapons are necessary to protect Lebanon's sovereignty. During
the recent protests, the LAF helped contain the violence and protect
protestors.
Question. You testified on December 4 that the LAF hasn't moved to
disarm Hezbollah pursuant to their obligations under U.N. Security
Council resolution 1701 because the Government of Lebanon has not
directed them to do so. You added that it is a decision for them to
make. Please describe: Why hasn't the Government ordered the LAF to
disarm Hezbollah? The degree to which the LAF is under the authority of
Lebanon's civilian government. The degree to which the LAF is
independent of Lebanon's civilian government.
Answer. The LAF's leadership acts to fulfill its mission under the
guidance of Lebanon's civilian leadership. It is unlikely the LAF,
which responds to the civilian authorities in Lebanon, would be ordered
to disarm Hezbollah by force.
Question. Please describe the degree to which Hezbollah exercises
influence or control over the Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport
or facilities located within the airport.
Answer. The United States government is concerned about Hezbollah's
influence at ports of entry into Lebanon, including at the airport. As
U.S. Treasury Assistant Secretary Marshall Billingslea stated publicly
last September, Hezbollah ``engages in a wide range of illicit business
activities in Lebanon, [that are] well outside the financial sector,''
including, he said, ``the abuse of the airport and the seaports.''
Question. Please describe the degree to which Hezbollah exercises
influence or control over the Port of Beirut or facilities located
within the port.
Answer. The influence Hezbollah exerts over ports of entry remains
of considerable concern and denies the Lebanese people the benefit of
customs revenue, significant given the large budget deficits Lebanon
continue to face. In order to combat Hezbollah's influence, the U.S.
Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
designated under Executive Order 13224 Hezbollah security official
Wafiq Safa for acting for or on behalf of Hezbollah. As head of
Hezbollah's security apparatus, Safa exploited Lebanon's ports and
border crossings to smuggle contraband, facilitate Hezbollah travel,
and facilitate the passage of illegal drugs and weapons into the
seaport of Beirut, routing certain shipments to avoid scrutiny.
Question. Hanin Ghaddar, an expert on Lebanon from The Washington
Institute for Near East Politics, testified to Congress in November
that should the U.S. fail to cover the salaries of LAF soldiers, those
soldiers may be unable to prevent Hezbollah from seizing U.S. weapons:
Has the State Department conducted an assessment regarding the
likelihood of such scenarios? What measures has the State Department
taken to ensure that weapons we've provided to Lebanon do not fall into
Hezbollah's hands, whether or not we pay for LAF salaries? Have you
briefed the relevant committees of jurisdiction on those contingencies,
and if so, at what level?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID work assiduously to
prevent the use of U.S. government funds from benefitting individuals
or entities associated with terrorist groups, particularly Hezbollah.
The LAF places a high priority on maintaining its exemplary track
record with U.S. government-provided equipment and fully complies with
end-use monitoring requirements that mitigate the risk of any
assistance being diverted to Hezbollah. We assess that given the LAF's
strong track record, it will continue to execute its mandate
effectively.
Question. How many operations against ISIS did the LAF conduct in
2019?
Answer. In 2019, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) facilitated the
arrests of approximately 25 individuals associated with ISIS, including
individuals who carried out terrorist attacks in Lebanon and those
planning attacks. The Department can provide more detailed information
on LAF operations in a classified setting.
__________
Amer Fakhoury's Legal Team Document
Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Amer Fakhoury: A Gravely Ill American Citizen
Illegally Detained in Lebanon
(Information Compiled by the Legal Team of Amer Fakhoury)
Amer Fakhoury is an American citizen who, in contravention of
Lebanese and international law, has been detained without charges in
Lebanon since September 12, 2019. He is gravely ill and requires urgent
medical treatment in the United States. His family, lawyers, and the
U.S. Government are urging the Lebanese Government to release him on
humanitarian grounds.
background
Amer grew up in Marjeyoun, in the south of Lebanon. In 1983, he
joined the Southern Lebanese Army (SLA). He was assigned to Khiam
Prison from 1989 to 1996. He was never involved in the interrogation or
torture of prisoners. In 1996 he left the SLA, after advocating for an
end to the occupation. He started a building materials business. When
the occupation ended in May of 2000, those who had served with the SLA,
including Amer, received credible death threats. Amer fled Lebanon,
through Israel, for his safety as well as the safety of his family--
eventually settling in the United States. He traveled on ``laissez-
passer'' documents. He never held an Israeli passport. After arriving
in the United States, Amer did not cross the Atlantic until he returned
to Lebanon in September of 2019. Amer is a United States citizen.
prior to his arrival in lebanon in september, there were no
pending cases, charges or accusations against amer
Over the last three decades Khiam prison and the SLA have been
investigated and documented exhaustively by journalists, international
organizations, NGOs, political groups, and agencies of the Lebanese
Government. In 2018, a 1996 collaboration charge and conviction against
Amer officially was dismissed under Article 163 of the Lebanese penal
code. As such, under Lebanese law, he cannot be charged with this crime
again. Despite all of the investigations and the coverage of Khiam
Prison, no other charges or accusations, official or unofficial, were
lodged against Amer.
In fact, in August of 2018, Amer received official acknowledgement,
in writing, that there were no accusations against him in Lebanon from:
1) the Military Tribunal; 2) the General Directorate of General
Security and the Ministry of Justice; 3) the Internal Security Forces
in the form of Attestation of no Legal Pursuits; and 4) the Internal
Security Forces in the form of the standard Record of No Conviction.
In September 2018, Amer met a senior official of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs \1\ at an event at the Our Lady of the Cedars of
Lebanon Church in Boston, Massachusetts. Amer told this official about
his background, and that he had received legal clearance from the
Lebanese Government. The official told Amer to send his complete file
to the embassy and that he would have his subordinates check to assure
that there were no matters that might preclude his return. He
encouraged Amer to come back to Lebanon. Amer then received assurances
from Lebanese government officials that there were no legal matters
that might interfere with his return.
Based on the official documents and assurances from Lebanese
officials, Amer returned to Lebanon for a brief visit on September 4.
His passport was seized at the airport. A week later, on September 12,
an article appeared in Al Akhbar newspaper. This article contained a
series of new and false accusations, including that Amer was called
``the Butcher of Khiam'' and that he was guilty of torture and murder.
On the same day the al Akhbar article appeared, Amer was arrested.
Certain outlets in the Lebanese media have subsequently smeared Amer
and accused him of taking part in a number of crimes. These allegations
are patently false. Some of the allegations contained in these reports
occurred during a period when Amer was not at the Khiam prison
barracks.\2\ Others are alleged to have taken place in locations other
than Khiam \3\ and have been attributed until now to other men.\4\
Finally, some of these false reports contain accusations from
individuals who have written extensively of their experiences in Khiam
without ever before accusing Amer of any crimes or abuse.\5\
amer is being held without bond presumably for accusations
that cannot possibly lead to charges under lebanese law
Amer has been unable to obtain appropriate due process before the
Military Tribunal. The accusations against him are for alleged crimes
that are more than two decades old, well outside the maximum non-
tolling 10-year statute of limitations, and yet he remains uncharged,
and incarcerated without bond.\6\
The U.S. Government as well as Amer's lawyers have spoken with
Lebanese officials at the highest levels. These officials freely admit
that ``the file is empty,'' and that Amer received legitimate and
official legal clearance before traveling to Lebanon citing that under
Lebanese law ``there can be no legal charges against him.'' Yet, Amer
remains in custody, without charges and with limited time to seek
adequate medical attention to treat his life-threatening illness.
amer's medical situation is critical
Amer's medical condition has deteriorated throughout his time in
custody. Amer arrived in Lebanon in good health. During his initial
interrogation by Lebanese General Security officials he sustained
multiple injuries, including rib fractures. Since then his condition
has rapidly deteriorated. Two months after his initial arrest, Amer has
experienced: a bacterial infection; enlarged lymph nodes; an enlarged
spleen; splenopathy; coagulopathy (bleeding disorder); polyps in the
stomach; abdominal cysts; pancytopenia, low WBC, RBC, and platelets
(indicative of bleeding); blood in stool; gastric and large intestinal
issues (the probable source of bleeding); rib fractures; abnormal liver
tests; bone pain; 40 pound weight loss; night sweats; and coughing up
blood. While incarcerated, he developed what doctors believe is a very
aggressive form of lymphoma. In the past 2 weeks it has moved from his
abdomen to his neck.\7\ It is medically and physically evident that
Amer Fakhoury could die in Lebanese custody, or, if he is not released
soon, the lymphoma could spread to the point that it will be
untreatable even once he is released.
----------------
Notes
\1\ The identity of this official is known and confirmed and has
been relayed to the U.S. Government.
\2\ Despite the fact that Amer did not work at Khiam at the time,
Amer is accused in the 1986 death of Ali Abdullah Hamzeh.
\3\ Anwar Yassine was imprisoned at Swareem prison in Israel from
1987 and then he was transferred to Bitah Tekfa, a prison also in
Israel. (Alsafeer Article dated May 1, 2003 at bintjbeil.com); Nabih
Awada was arrested in September 1988 and was imprisoned at Tabraya
Prison and Askalan Prison. (elwatannews.com, article dated April 17,
2016); Ahmad Taleb stated in an article in alahednews.com that the
Lebanese Forces (militia) arrested him on a ship at Jounieh Port and
tortured him for 2 years, and then he was transferred to prison in
Israel (elwatannews.com).
\4\ Accuser Souha Bechara wrote a book called Resistance; my life
for Lebanon. In it she documents her treatment at Khiam prison and
names other men. She never mentions Amer Fakhoury, but mentions an
``Amer'' who attended a Red Cross visit with her.
\5\ Id.
\6\ During questioning and in discussion with Fakhoury's attorneys,
the investigative judge raised possible legal issues surrounding the
possession of an Israeli passport, which may, according to him,
indicate ongoing collaboration. There has been no evidence presented
against Amer on these issues, and no charges. A review of official
United States State Department documents, produced by Amer's defense,
show that he has not held an Israeli passport and has not travelled
overseas for over 20 years.
\7\ His family recently was allowed to employ private doctors to
attempt to stabilize him and perform surgery on his neck. They are
awaiting pathology reports on the removed lymph nodes and a biopsy on a
bone in his leg.