https://now.mmedia.me
July 26, 2013

Ana Maria Luca talk to U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Maura Connelly, on aid, refugees, and solutions for Syria

In her office in the U.S. embassy compound in Awkar, a town just north of Beirut, NOW spoke to Maura Connelly, who served as Washington’s ambassador to Lebanon for the past three years. Lebanon is not always the easiest country to represent U.S. interests in, even for a 25 year veteran in the Foreign Service like Connelly. The Syrian crisis next door has kept Connelly and her staff working very long hours.

Connelly says she is most-impressed by the Lebanese people, many of which are very poor yet still welcome Syrian refugees. That’s where a large portion of the separate, bilateral development aid for Lebanon has been going lately. But Connelly also stressed that the Syrian crisis is, above all, the international community’s responsibility, and Connelly would like to see the Gulf states pitch in with more aid. 

NOW: How does money get to the Syrian refugees in Lebanon?

Maura Connelly: Most contributions go to the UN organizations, especially UNHCR. We have a long standing partnership with the UNHCR. It was not easy for them to operate here with all the political instability. But they have done a great job. Smaller amounts also go to local NGOs, which fill in around the UN agencies, which is really important. I am really impressed by the Lebanese communities, how they adapted to take in this wave of refugees. Of course, some are related, some simply reacted to the crisis, but what they have done is nonetheless impressive. 

We are also focusing our development assistance to support the Lebanese host communities, because building capacity at a local level is also very important. This means that when we have a list of programs submitted for funding, we prefer those targeting host communities.

NOW: You have always praised the Lebanese communities for taking in the Syrian refugees. But how do you assess the Lebanese government’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis?

Connelly: I think they deserve more credit than they generally get. Politically, it was not easy at the outset for Lebanon. First of all, I think it was to accept the idea that instead of being a refugee sending country, Lebanon was a refugee receiving country. And that’s a very different situation for Lebanon to be in, and so the first issue was really to establish an understanding of Lebanon’s obligation to protect refugees. They’re not a signatory of the convention for refugees, but generally Lebanon aimed to meet those obligations. There are other conventions that have applicability here. 

The first and most important thing was to achieve consensus within the government that Lebanon was obliged to receive the refugees and provide them protection. And they did it. Even though it was a hard adjustment to make, they did do it. At the beginning, nobody had any idea really of the level of the crisis. And the next thing, I think was for the government to adjust to the idea that it was going to be a big issue and not just an ephemeral issue. It was going to be something they’d really have to plan for and learn how to mobilize resources for, and I think we saw both Prime Minister Mikati and the Minister of Social Affairs, Wael Abou Faour, they really charged ahead on this against frequent opposition within the cabinet. 

It wasn’t always popular. Now I think there’s a much greater agreement across the parties that these people are here, and we need to do something. But when they were first trying to organize themselves that wasn’t always the case. I think Wael Abou Faour has really done an awful lot. He’s made the right contacts with the international community, with the UN agencies, with the other NGOs, with anybody who really can help; he’s been right there, always available and responding to whatever comes up. I remember when the Arab League was holding a meeting in January, he went with the foreign minister and got off the plane to make a presentation. So, he’s really been on top of this all along. 

In another country with more resources, with fewer political disagreements, maybe you would have seen a more classic refugee response. But, you know refugees cannot choose where to go to when they’re fleeing danger, and I think now things are on a pretty good track in terms of Lebanon’s ability to work with the international community.

NOW: Jordan and Turkey managed the refugee influx by setting up camps. Lebanon hasn’t done that. However, it was reported in the news that the UN agencies want to set up twelve refugee camps in Lebanon. Would the U.S. support such an initiative? 

Connelly: Camps have advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages is that they make service delivery easier, but as we have seen in the Zaatari camp in Jordan, [the Syrian refugees] are unhappy there. Their inclination is to avoid camps. But, they may need to adapt if there is a great influx of refugees where camps may be a choice. I know it has been discussed in the cabinet and we will support this to the extent it is needed.

NOW:  Humanitarian aid is always required, but if the crisis continues, it will ask for more and more aid. Shouldn’t these measures be accompanied by a political solution to the crisis?

Connelly: People who are in need, are in need. We will continue to give aid no matter what happens, and there are no political strings attached. We separate things. There is no link between a political solution and sending aid to the Syrian refugees. Politically, we have been engaged in supporting the Geneva II [peace conference] initiative. I think we cannot impose on the Syrian opposition the positions they take. We have been trying to facilitate [their participation], but the positions they take are theirs. The same thing happens in the case of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Nobody can impose on them participation [in a peace conference]. [The Embassy is] not directly involved in this process, but my impression is that the key players haven’t reached an agreement.

At the same time, the Congress has been looking at the question of providing military aid to the rebels. We consider this reluctantly, as we don’t want to fuel the violence – even if it may be necessary. Bashar al-Assad is totally rigid in his position and his willingness to deploy chemical weapons. Given the lack of prospects, we are reluctantly moving in this direction.

NOW: Most refugees risk their lives to reach Lebanon, and the idea of a humanitarian corridor has often popped up. Is the option still discussed?

Connelly: There have been several possibilities discussed. But a humanitarian corridor has to be enforced somehow, and the prospects of getting outside forces to secure it are very complicated, especially since it needs the approval of the UN Security Council.

NOW: Would the U.S. accept Syrian refugees to ease the burden of the neighboring countries?

Connelly: If we move to resettlement, the U.S. is traditionally among the countries taking in the largest number of refugees. We are still processing Iraqi refugees here at this embassy. We still hope that these people can go back home. But yes, in the case of resettlement, the U.S. would take in some of the refugees.