Orbstandard Editor Adam Roufberg's Interview with Secretary General of American
Lebanese Coordination Council

On November 17, after a lecture at Syracuse University in NY regarding the latest attitude of the
US government towards Syria, Pierre Maroun, Secretary General of the ALCC, demanded the
UN Security Council respect its decisions and to implement all of its resolutions; diplomatically
if possible, by force if necessary.

In response to the lecture and his comments I posed a series of questions to him which he was
kind enough to take the time to answer. While I thoroughly intended to comment on his answers I
have been too tied up - as of late - and do not want to delay the posting of his response,
received on November 29, any further. I encourage y’all to send me, and/or Mr. Maroun your

AR - Do you believe regime change in Syria is the responsibility of the US?

PM - I believe that regime change in any country should be the responsibility of the people of
that country. However, a tyrant, oppressive, and radical regime like the Ba’ath of Syria, which
killed thousands of its own people, occupied a neighboring country, and has been harboring,
training, and exporting terrorism to the world is the responsibility of the United Nations, which
the United States is a permanent member of its security council.

AR - Do you believe that committing more US citizens’ tax dollars to more war is appropriate?

PM - Committing US citizen’s tax dollars to fight terrorism abroad and to secure the US interest
is money well spent. Had we done this earlier, we would not be paying billions of dollars to
rebuild the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and we would have saved the lives of the
3000 innocent victims that fell on that horrible day.

AR - Do you think it is contradictory to criticize the Syrian government for meddling in Lebanese
affairs while at the same time advocating that the US meddle in Syrian and other Middle
Eastern affairs?

PM - When the US intervene in other countries affairs, it does it for the best interest of the
people of that country and for world’s peace and security. We brought freedom and
independence to Afghanistan; to Iraq; to the Lebanese; and so on. However, when Syria
intervened in Lebanon’s affairs, it did so for its own interest. The Syrian troops bombed and
destroyed entire towns; they massacred innocent people indiscriminately; and they corrupted
the Lebanese regime beyond what the mind could imagine. Billions of dollars have been stolen
from Lebanon; drug trafficking is a routine business in Syrian occupied territories; money
laundering and counterfeiting foreign currencies are the norm in the Biqa’ Valley. Kidnapping,
raping, and bombing are their favorite methods in which they use to terrorize the Lebanese
population to keep them subjugated. Besides, Syria filled Lebanon with armed terrorist
organizations and radical groups who take orders directly from their mentors in Syria.
Accordingly, the security situation in the whole region is subject to the will and wishes of the
Syrian Ba’ath regime. Now, this is meddling in other countries affairs, which we oppose.
However, this is different from the US intervention which is aimed at its strategy to spread
freedom and democracy.

AR - Do you think it is appropriate to use force against Syria incurring more civilian casualties
and US and coalition casualties for a furthering of what appears to be a completely failed US
Neo-conservative War-Hawk agenda?

PM - I respectfully disagree with the formation of your question. The US foreign policy in the
greater Middle East is not a failure. On the contrary, it is a great success. If you ask the freed
people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Lebanon about the new US policy, the majority will reply by
asking: What took you so long to save us?

AR - Do you believe it is within the legal framework of the United States Constitution, the UN
Charter, and the Nuremberg Principles (emphasis on the US Constitution) to use military force
against a country which has not attacked the US or threatened it. Further, do you believe regime
change is legal within the context of the US Constitution?

PM - When a rogue state becomes a danger to world peace and security, then it becomes, not
only within the legal framework of international laws to change the given regime, but within the
legal and ethical responsibility of the UN and the US to act. International laws, including the
Nuremberg Principals, were put in place to prosecute tyrant leaders and to prevent state
sponsored terrorism from killing people and not to provide them with an umbrella.

God gave equal rights and freedom to all mankind. However, many around the world have lost
this gift due to aggression. The US is only helping these people regain their rights and freedom.
No more; no less.

Thank you,

Pierre A. Maroun
Secretary General
American Lebanese Coordination Council

* * *