ML: For the benefit of the listeners who may not know very much about NEAL, can you tell us a little about NEAL and its aims.
JH: Definitely, but let me first say a brief word. The Lebanese and the American Lebanese living in the States are really appreciative of the support of Australia and its government to the US government. We heard this morning that Australian government has dispatched its first contingent of troops to support the US build up in the Gulf. We also have been hearing about the fires in Canberra, we feel a lot of sympathy, and we hope they have been brought down. To tell you a little bit about NEAL (New England Americans for Lebanon), it was founded about a year ago by myself and a number of Lebanese Americans in the area here. We focus our activities in the regional area of New England, which is made up of the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The aim of NEAL is to really gather the efforts of the local community in support of a Free and Sovereign Lebanon, along the lines of the Free Patriotic Movement. An example of our efforts has been the lobbying of the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. John Kerry who is presenting himself as a candidate for President of the United States on behalf of the Democratic Party. Weıve met twice so far with his staff and are constantly in touch with them to make sure that Lebanon is on his agenda.

ML: It seems that many congressmen and women in the US are aware of Lebanonıs plight in relation to the Syrian occupation and seem to want to help Lebanon, particularly when it comes to the Syria Accountability Act. Why are congressmen of Lebanese origin, such as Darryl Issa so supportive of the current regime?
JH: Thatıs a multi-layered question and obviously it has many answers. One of them is really a fundamental question that we ask ourselves all the time here. It has social and historic underpinnings. As you know, Lebanese immigration to the US is one of the oldest to this country, and there seems to be an identity crisis between one's Lebanese identity and one's Arab identity if I may say so. In relation to the political climate in the US, Lebanese Americans are split between the Lebanese cause on one hand, and the broader, more global Arab cause on the other. People like Darryl Issa, as politicians, are interested in appealing to the broader context, and as such tend to sacrifice Lebanon in the process, which is really unfortunate. In our opinion, the two are not mutually exclusive. You do not need to sacrifice Lebanon in order to support, say, the Palestinian cause. And many of the early Lebanese immigrants brought with them, as some would say, the mentality of Dhimmis, which means second class citizenship, which many Lebanese are experiencing in Lebanon today, and they cannot get rid of that mentality. The other aspect of this is that some people in the United States, such as congressman Darrell Issa have not really understood the implications of Sept 11, and continue to deal with the Middle East fdrom the perspective of what preceded Sept 11. They continue to deal with the elite, with the political, religious and business elite, since they themselves see themselves as being part of the elite. They do not consider the welfare of the people of the Middle East, and particularly the people of Lebanon who have been suffering for 30 years.

ML: What role does Lebanese politician Issam Fares play in relation to promoting Syriaıs interests in the United States?
JH: A very big role. Mr. Fares is the deputy Prime Minister of the Lebanese government. He is one of a club of wealthy businessmen who very early in the war in Lebanon, decided that business and making money come before principles. They have undertaken a number of actions, particularly in the Boston area, where Mr. Harriri for instance, the prime minister, has been putting a lot of money into Boston University. He actually has buildings named after him. Mr. Fares has focused on Tufts University, which is also in the Boston area, and has actually created the Fares Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, that funds research that sometimes includes Israeli academics who come to visit. We hear Lebanese and Syrian officials accusing those of us in the US of speaking with Jewish congressmen when we work for Lebanon, as if it were an act of treason. And here is a perfect example of a high-ranking official in the Lebanese government who is sponsoring research by Israeli academics.

ML: The Assad regime seems entrenched in its determination to hold on to Lebanon. Can you see any possibility of Syria deciding to totally withdraw from Lebanon on itıs own account? JH: Probably not. Itıs almost an impossible proposition because Syria has been enmeshed in Lebanon since the early 1970ıs, even before the official 1975 start of the war. Syria does not recognize Lebanonıs right to exist as a distinct nation. Syria has constantly refused to exchange Ambassadors between Beirut and Damascus on the grounds that if it were to do that, it would be recognizing Lebanon as an independent nation. We have a very serious issue with Syriaıs ideological position relative to the existence of Lebanon. There is an annexationist ambition based on the Greater Syria scheme of the Baath party, very similar to Saddamıs ambitions over Kuwait. In Saddamıs case he claimed that English colonialism divided Kuwait from Iraq, the Syrians blame French Colonialism. But they forget that Lebanon had been a virtually autonomous state within the Ottoman Empire since the 1500ıs.

ML: In an article you wrote on the 23rd December last year, named ³The War for Democracy in the Middle East², you talk about the Bush administration lack luster agenda for the promotion of democracy in the Middle East. Can you personally see a Middle East moving towards democratization and what should the US do to promote its spread?
JH: We certainly hope that the Middle East is going to move towards democratization and we definitely hope the US will do what it must to assist that. Historically the US has ignored the aspirations for democracy on the part of the peoples of the Middle East for decades. The reason is the duality of the 2 interests the US thinks it has in the Middle East, Israel and oil. Essentially what successive US governments have done is to collude with Arab regimes of all colours, whether they be secular or religious, it didn't matter. What mattered was that the US was protecting its primary interests, oil and interests. Now Sept 11 has really changed that equation. We can really feel it in the gut of the American people and in the Administration, that the United States has finally understood that the triggers for Sept 11 are much more fundamental, and much more threatening to its interests than the threat to oil for example. The lack of stability, the lack of democracy, the lack of development, freedom and human rights, those are at the roots of the terrorism that brought Sept 11 to the shores of the United States.

ML: I agree with you, and I do see that the United States does seem to understand the implications of a lack of democracy in the Middle East, but this understanding does not seem to extend to the State Department which still seems to want to deal with the region in a similar light. How do we convince the State Department that democratization is important for the Middle East?
JH: Thatıs a really good point and we think about this particular problem all the time. As you know there is duality in the United States as to who is in charge of foreign policy. Of all the functions of government in the US, the State Department has essentially monopolized foreign policy. Congress generally speaking cannot enact foreign policy in the US, at least traditionally it has not been able to. I personally see the State Department as divided into 2 groups. You have, generally speaking, the pro-Israel faction, and then as a reaction to that you have the pro-Arab faction. The problem for Lebanon is that we fall in the middle, we are not really Arab, and we definitely are not Israeli, so the Lebanese problem has really received very little attention. Lebanon has always been liable to be sacrificed in that simple duality between Arabs on one hand, and Israel on the other. People they call the Arabists like Richard Murphy, Edward Djeredjian, David Satterfield, are of that school of thought that thinks of Lebanon as a very secondary issue, and thereıs more of these people in the State Department. We are very hopeful that September 11 is going to change that mentality and a new generation of civil servants and diplomats are going to start operating within the State Department.

ML: War in Iraq seems inevitable. What flow on effects do you think this conflict may have in the Middle East?
JH: The war on Iraq, if it happens, and we think it will, will definitely have a big impact on the countries of the region. I cannot imagine a scenario in which the United States, one way or another, has set up a form of government that is pro-US, I cannot imagine that a new Iraq not be felt as a threat by the Syrians or even the Saudis nearby. You can already see Syria is in a state of panic, trying to drive a wedge for instance, between the Europeans and the Americans in regard to Iraq. I think that panic is motivated by the extreme fear that one day the Syrian people will look across the border into Iraq, and will see a peaceful prosperous country. They will see their Iraqi brethren without any dictators over their head and it's very doubtful that a society like the Syrian or the Saudi will want to maintain the status quo.

ML: Do you think the US will continue with its war on terror? and if so, do you see Hizballah as a potential target ?
JH: Of course, the US is determined. The war on Iraq is primarily driven by the war on terrorism. The main argument for the war on Iraq, is that if Iraq develops weapons of mass destruction the United States and the free world in general are worried that those weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. President Bush was put under a lot of pressure to convince the world that while Saddam Husseinıs regime was not directly implicated in the Sept 11 attacks, it's just merely the potential is there for a similar type of activity to occur should Iraqıs weapons of mass destruction get into the hands of a terrorist group. There is no doubt that the war on terrorism will continue. There is a determination there, and that commitment could take any number of forms. It is not necessarily a military war, itıs a political war, itıs a social war, as our earlier example of the war for democracy. The war could take the form of covert action and so on. In terms of whether Hizbullah could be a target, itıs really hard to imagine otherwise. It doesnıt have to be a military target, nobody is really advocating that. Weıve heard from American officials that Hizballah is the ³A² Team of terrorism, and there is a perception on the part of the Americans that there is a blood debt owed by Hizballah for all the anti-American attacks they carried out in the 1980s. The Lebanese government has been saying that Hizballah has mutated into a social, political welfare group which makes it a little more difficult to make the argument against Hizballah. There clearly is a motivation on the part of Hizballah that goes beyond merely liberating the South, and they want to go on. There were a couple of statements made by Ghazi Aridi, the Lebanese Minister of Information, a couple of days ago in which he was actually advocating that the resistance (Hizballah) now goes into that broader war against the United States. It will definitely be a target but it does not have to be a military one.

ML: The voice of the Lebanese in the Diaspora is growing louder and louder, and NEAL is an example of that. What do you say to those Lebanese who say that since they no longer live in Lebanon, what happens there is not their concern?
JH: The Lebanese Diaspora, those who immigrated at some point, left Lebanon over the past 10, 20, 30 years, if you put yourself in their shoes, and I personally have lived some of that, there is a fatigue element that has taken over the Lebanese. At one point we felt that the world has abandoned us, there is no point in fighting back, that there is no point in speaking up. They have become a little bit fatalistic in that sense. But one thing that I have discovered in my own experience, and thatıs something that the Lebanese have to be aware of, is that thinking that way is not going to help. We live in democratic societies, we grew up in a democratic Lebanon, how can we abandon that? How can we not speak up for that? We have families there, we have a heritage, we have an identity. As American Lebanese or as Australian Lebanese we have an opportunity to speak up and understand that individual action really matters, and not be fatalistic and say that somebody has to come and liberate me. I think as human beings in general we should be concerned with human rights and freedoms, not just in Lebanon but all over the world.

ML: One person, one group that thinks that the Lebanese in the Diaspora can make a difference are the Syrians. What are your thoughts on Lebanese prosecutor general Adnan Addoumıs threats to prosecute those abroad who are speaking out against the occupation? Is this something that has scared you off your work ?
JH: No not at all. Iım actually flattered by that. You put it very well. If they think that we are making a difference then thatıs a very good thing. Adnan Addoum is really merely a tool in the hands of the Syrians first of all. Second of all he has no serious legal ground for the threats that he has been making against us and others, and thirdly his threats have been primarily against those who have supported the Syria Accountability Act. That is really proof, or evidence that the Syria Accountability Act has struck deep fear in the hearts of Mr. Addoum and his masters in Syria. If I may, Iıd like to tell people a little about where the Syria Accountability Act stands right now. We have a new Congress and what the Act has essentially done is to put a Syria file on the US agenda. It didnıt exist before, and it was a taboo to bring it up thanks to State Department Arabists. Now Syria is on the agenda, and really the only debate right now is again who implements foreign policy in the United States, the Executive (President) or the Legislature (Congress), and thatıs the little tug of war that we have seen. So to all those defeatists who say, well weıre not talking about it anymore, itıs out of the picture; I can certainly tell you that this is not the case at all. The new congress is going to reconsider it, and it may need to be amended to adapt to the new situation, but this is a file that is moving, and we certainly hope to see it get done in 2003.

ML: Do you have any message you would like to share with those listening to Marhaba Lubnan?
JH: I see a lot of Lebanese people in the States and elsewhere who support us with words and say and feel the right things, but we donıt see a lot of action. I think that every one of your listeners should really act. Action is really critical here. It could be donating a little money, it could be talking to your government, to your representatives, and we must act collectively. The Lebanese in general are very good at individual action, but we're not good at collective action. The message is that we should learn to work collectively for the benefit of Lebanon, so action is the word.

ML: Joseph Hitti, thank you very much for joining us on Marhaba Lubnan. And on behalf of our listeners here in Australia and everywhere else on the Internet I ask you to please keep up the good work