LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 29/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 6,12-16. In those days he departed to the mountain to pray, and he spent the night in prayer to God. When day came, he called his disciples to himself, and from them he chose Twelve, whom he also named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called a Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Pope Benedict XVI
General Audience of 03/05/2006 (©Libreria Editrice Vaticana)
"He called his disciples to himself, and from them he chose Twelve, whom he also named apostles"
The apostolic Tradition is not a collection of things or words, like a box of dead things. Tradition is the river of new life that flows from the origins, from Christ down to us, and makes us participate in God's history with humanity. This topic of Tradition... is of great importance for the life of the Church. The Second Vatican Council pointed out in this regard that Tradition is primarily apostolic in its origins: "God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations. Therefore, Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the Most High God is summed up (2Cor 1,20; and 3,16-4, 6), commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel and communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline" (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation 'Dei Verbum', n. 7). The Council noted further that this was faithfully done "by the Apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit" The Council adds that there were "other men associated with the Apostles, who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing". As heads of the eschatological Israel, and likewise as Twelve, the number of the tribes of the Chosen People, the Apostles continued the "gathering" begun by the Lord and did so first and foremost by transmitting faithfully the gift received, the Good News of the Kingdom that came to people in Jesus Christ. Their number not only expresses continuity with the holy root, the Israel of the twelve tribes, but also the universal destination of their ministry, which brought salvation to the very ends of the earth. This can be understood from the symbolic value that the numbers have in the Semitic world: twelve results from the multiplication of three, a perfect number, and four, a number that refers to the four cardinal points, hence, to the whole world.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Senior Al Qaeda member killed in US raid in Syria, officials say-Los Angeles Times 28/10/08
Hitting Syria, Five Years Late-Wall Street Journal 28/10/08
Analysis: Raid into Syria complicates Iraq's ties-The Associated Press 28/10/08
The Nasrallah-Hariri meeting opens up many - but not all - of the right doors-The Daily Star 28/10/08
Is Lebanon about to get caught between America and Syria? By Marc J. Sirois-Daily Star 28/10/08
To understand 'second world' countries like Lebanon, it's the.Daily Star 28/10/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for October 28/08
Barak: IDF better prepared for conflict than in Lebanon war-Jerusalem Post
Sending the Lebanese a message-Jewish Telegraphic Agency
In wake of US attack, Syria shuts down American institutions-Ha'aretz
Syria Halts Diplomacy After US Military Strike-Wall Street Journal
Iraqi antiquities seized in Lebanon: customs-AFP
SYRIA: Attack's aftershocks continue-Los Angeles Times
Geagea: A Wide Gap Separates Us from Aoun-Naharnet
Aoun: Geagea is Part of the Problem-Naharnet
Bush's parting shots at Syria-Los Angeles Times
Syria raid 'killed major target'-BBC News
US official: Raid on Syria killed leader of cell-The Associated Press
Syria seethes at deadly US incursion, vows to resist further ...Daily Star
Under-the-carpet bombing-guardian.co.uk
France 'worried' about Syria raid-The Press Association
Syria: US goes it alone again-guardian.co.uk
US Says Curbing Iran's Nuclear Program in Moscow's Interest-Voice of America
Eastern Catholic prelates appeal for peace in Lebanon, Iraq and India-Catholic News Agency
Nasrallah and Hariri break the ice during secret weekend meeting-(AFP)
Iran's Al-Quds Octopus Spreads its Arms-Jerusalem Post
Lebanese Army bans hunting south of Litani following Israeli complaints ...Daily Star
UNIFIL says Graziano meeting with Barak was nothing unusual-Daily Star
Druze Council blasts allegations of extremism in media
Sleiman, Siniora, Hizbullah condemn US air raid on Syria-(AFP)
Army denies handing over any suspects to resistance-Daily Star
UNIFIL says Graziano meeting with Barak was nothing unusual-Daily Star
Phalange official frets Hizbullah's 'ideology'-Daily Star
Hajj Hassan condemns attacks on Iraqi Christians-Daily Star
Iraqi refugees drive in Romania with illegal Lebanese licenses-Daily Star
EIU cuts growth forecast for Lebanon-Daily Star
Beirut market sees drop in trading as investors await effects of bailout plans-Daily Star
Religious leaders discuss how to combat HIV/AIDS-Daily Star
LAU event launches new academic year in pharmacy-Daily Star
Army bans hunting south of Litani following Israeli complaints about noise-Daily Star
Aoun Hammers Neutrality, The US Administration and Jumblat-Naharnet
Graziano: Not Worried about Security Situation in the South-Naharnet
Nasrallah-Jumblat Meeting in the Making, Reports-Naharnet
Fatah Re-arranges itself in Lebanon-Naharnet
Intelligence Warnings by Egyptian Envoy-Naharnet
Berri Foresees Permanent Spring-Naharnet
Jumblat: Nasrallah-Hariri Meeting Stresses Differences are Political, Not Sectarian-Naharnet
Much-Awaited Nasrallah-Hariri Meeting Finally Came About-Naharnet
Moussa Says Hariri-Nasrallah Talks Consolidate National Dialogue-Naharnet
Hizbullah Condemns 'Terrorist Crime' Committed by U.S. in Syria-Naharnet
Pope to Receive Suleiman Friday-Naharnet
Phalange Party Welcomes Hariri-Nasrallah Meeting-Naharnet
Geagea Ready to Meet Franjieh, Praises Nasrallah-Hariri Meeting-Naharnet
Salafis Postpone Dialogue with Hizbullah-Naharnet
Suleiman Declares Solidarity with U.S.-Targeted Syria-Naharnet
Hariri Briefs Officials, Allies on Talks with Nasrallah-Naharnet
Lebanon Condemns U.S. Raid in Syria-Naharnet

US Raid in Syria Targets Al-Qaida Weapons Smuggler
By VOA News
28 October 2008
A U.S. official says a helicopter attack in Syria is believed to have killed the head of a network that had been smuggling weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq.
U.S. news agencies quote the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, as saying the man targeted was Abu Ghadiya. The U.S. Treasury Department previously identified Ghadiya as a major terrorist financier to al-Qaida in Iraq. Syria is accusing the United States of "terrorist aggression" for the raid, which Damascus says killed eight civilians The White House, U.S. State Department, and Pentagon have refused all official comment on the incident. But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack acknowledged Monday that Syria lodged an official protest. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said in London the raid happened during daylight Sunday. He said that shows it was not a mistake, but "blunt determination." He warned if another raid happens, Syria will defend its territory. Syria's state news agency, SANA, says thousands of people attended the funerals Monday of those killed in the raid. State media earlier reported a married couple, a man and his four sons, and another man were killed. Journalists in Syria report seeing seven people buried. Syria says U.S. soldiers emerged from four helicopters and stormed a civilian building under construction in the town of Abu Kamal, eight kilometers from the Iraqi border. State media say the helicopters flew back to Iraq after the attack. Iraq's government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the raid happened in an area used by insurgents plotting attacks on Iraqi soil. Russia and the Arab League have condemned the raid.

Hitting Syria, Five Years Late
By:IMF French Kiss
The Wall Street Journal
OCTOBER 28, 2008
Soliciting Assad was one of Bush's biggest war mistakes.
After five years and six months during which Syria has been an active accomplice to the insurgency in Iraq, the U.S. has finally struck back. Historians will be left to ponder how the course of the Iraq war might have changed if President Bush had acted sooner.
U.S. military sources are confirming that on Sunday U.S. special forces raided a location in eastern Syria that was being used by a network of Syrian military officials and al Qaeda-connected groups to smuggle foreign jihadists into Iraq. The Syrians, predictably, denounced the raid as "an outrageous crime" and an "unprovoked" attack on a "sovereign country."
The Syrians have an interesting definition of unprovoked and a curious notion of sovereignty. Even before U.S. troops took Baghdad, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explicitly warned that Syria was shipping military equipment to help Saddam Hussein, including night-vision goggles and antitank weapons. Only days after Baghdad fell, Mr. Bush warned Damascus against becoming a safe haven for top Iraqi Baathist officials. "We expect cooperation," he said, "and I'm hopeful we'll receive cooperation." Siding with Secretary of State Colin Powell over Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush dispatched Mr. Powell to Damascus in a show of postinvasion diplomatic goodwill.
President Bashar al Assad did not reciprocate, and Damascus soon became the capital in exile from which the Sunni insurgency was financed, organized and directed. In late 2003, Cofer Black, the State Department's Counterterrorism Coordinator, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Syria "needs to do a lot more" to stop terrorist infiltration, but added that he "remained optimistic that continued engagement with Syria will one day lead to a change in Syrian behavior."
It didn't. The following May, Mr. Bush ordered the minimum possible sanctions on Damascus under the Syria Accountability Act of 2003. Though Damascus offered some token intelligence cooperation, it also turned Damascus International Airport into the central hub through which jihadists from Morocco to Saudi Arabia could reach Iraq. Insurgent leaders were brazen enough to hold meetings, in Damascus hotels, that were known both to Syrian and U.S. intelligence.
Administration hawks urged more forceful action, including Predator missile strikes against terrorist hideouts in Syria. But the CIA and others valued ties to Syrian intelligence, and in January 2005 Mr. Bush decided instead to send then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to Damascus to read Mr. Assad the riot act. Mr. Armitage succeeded in getting the Syrians to turn over Saddam's half-brother, Sabawi Ibrahim Hassan, a ringleader of the insurgency. This token cooperation, along with episodic Syrian efforts to police their border with Iraq, served mainly to disguise their ongoing support for the insurgency.
By the time the insurgency reached its height in 2006, more than 100 jihadists were coming into Iraq from Syria every month. According to U.S. military estimates, they accounted for between 80% and 90% of the suicide attacks, mainly against Iraqi civilians. Thanks to a combination of the surge, the Sunni Awakening and better internal monitoring by the Saudis and others of just who was boarding planes to Damascus, that flow has now slowed to about 20 a month.
Yet the Syrians continue to show little interest in aiding the U.S., despite recent efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to court her Syrian counterpart, Walid Al-Moallem. Those efforts include inviting Syria to last year's Annapolis conference on Arab-Israeli peace and face-to-face meetings in Egypt and, just last month, New York.
Little wonder, then, that even the Iraqi government, which has sought good relations with its neighbor, has lost patience. "This area was a staging ground for activities by terrorist organizations hostile to Iraq," said Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, in reference to the American raid. "The presence in Syria of groups that are hostile to Iraq and who contribute to terrorist activity against Iraqis hinders the progress of our relationship."
We wonder how differently the war in Iraq might have gone had the U.S. conducted this kind of raid as often as necessary in 2003 and 2004, or if it had put Mr. Assad on notice that his survival in power was at risk if he continued to support the insurgency. Our guess is that the war would have been shorter, far less bloody for American and Iraqi troops, and less politically costly to Mr. Bush.
There's a lesson in these Bush Administration mistakes for the next President, particularly if he is Barack Obama. The Syrians interpreted diplomatic accommodation in the face of their anti-American acts as a sign of weakness to exploit. Mr. Obama has promised he'll engage Syria diplomatically as part of an overall effort to end the conflict in Iraq. If he really wants to end the war faster, he'll pick up on Syria where the Bush Administration has now ended.

Senior Al Qaeda member killed in U.S. raid in Syria, officials say
By Greg Miller and Josh Meyer
October 28, 2008
Reporting from Washington -- U.S. commandos crossing into Syria in an unprecedented raid this weekend killed a senior Al Qaeda associate accused of funneling fighters, weapons and cash to the insurgency in Iraq, U.S. officials familiar with the operation said Monday.
Abu Ghadiyah, the chief of a Syrian smuggling network who was killed in the controversial operation Sunday, was "one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent, facilitators of foreign fighters going into Iraq for Al Qaeda," a senior U.S. official said.
The raid was the latest sign that the U.S. is now willing to mount attacks in sovereign nations in pursuit of insurgent groups operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as those who support them. Last month, U.S. special operations forces carried out a similar raid in the tribal border region of Pakistan, drawing loud criticism from the Pakistani public and senior government officials in Islamabad, the capital.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said the U.S. committed "criminal and terrorist aggression" by conducting a raid in which seven civilians died, including three children, a woman and a fisherman.
Two U.S. helicopters flew about five miles into Syria, he said, with one landing at a farm while the second provided cover. A villager told the Associated Press he saw at least two men taken into custody by U.S. forces and whisked away by helicopter. He spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he feared for his life.
U.S. officials did not say how many people died in the raid.
Abu Ghadiyah, an Iraqi native believed to be in his late 20s, has for several years been a key figure in the flow of foreign fighters and weapons into Iraq, American officials said. "He comes from a family of smugglers," said the senior U.S. official. "He seems to have turned the family business toward the movement of terrorists, explosives, weapons, etc., into Iraq."
That official, along with others, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the operation.
Other than reporting Abu Ghadiyah's death, U.S. officials offered few details about the raid. Pentagon officials declined to comment. The rationale for using commandos was unclear. Since the terrorist attacks on America in 2001, the United States has carried out dozens of missile strikes, mostly in Pakistan, but also in Yemen and elsewhere, aimed at killing Al Qaeda operatives. However, almost all of those operations have relied on CIA-operated Predator drones firing Hellfire antitank missiles. The use of U.S. soldiers carries significantly greater risk and often leads to diplomatic strain, as has been the case with Pakistan.
U.S. counter-terrorism experts described Abu Ghadiyah, who is from Anbar province in western Iraq, as the head of a successful terrorist financial network supporting Iraq's Sunni Arab-led insurgency and a close associate of Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders.
"He's the classic example of a terrorist facilitator and financier," said Matthew Levitt, who from 2005 to early 2007 helped oversee a U.S. government crackdown on Abu Ghadiyah's financial network while deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Treasury Department.
However, Abu Ghadiyah's death is unlikely to decimate the network because of its strong funding streams and because other members, including a brother, have been active, said Levitt, now with the Institute for Near East Policy, a Washington-based think tank. The Treasury Department had previously imposed financial sanctions on Abu Ghadiyah and family members, saying they facilitated and controlled the flow of money, weapons, terrorists and other resources through Syria to Iraq. The effectiveness of such financial enforcement actions has been questioned. The actions target militants and those providing financial or material support, freezing any known assets under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting U.S. firms and individuals from doing business with them.
U.S. officials said Abu Ghadiyah, a nickname for Badran Turki Hishan Mazidih, was appointed by former Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab Zarqawi to be the group's Syrian commander for logistics in 2004. After Zarqawi's death in 2006, Abu Ghadiyah began working for the new leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub Masri, according to U.S. officials.
Abu Ghadiyah provided and arranged false passports, weapons, guides, safe houses and allowances to foreign terrorists preparing to enter Iraq, Treasury officials said. U.S. officials maintain that Syria has long functioned as a hub for terrorist financing in Iraq, coordinating the movement of recruits and money between cells in Europe and Ansar al Islam training camps in northern Iraq.
In Baghdad, the Shiite Muslim-led Iraqi government said it wanted good ties with Syria but that Damascus needed to do more to stop fighters from slipping across its borders.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh described the region targeted by the Americans as the "scene for many terrorist activities of the last few months," including the killing of 13 policemen in an Iraqi border village in Anbar province. Staunch Syrian ally Iran, which holds enormous sway over the Baghdad government and opposes the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, condemned the U.S. operation.
"We condemn any attack which leads to the killing of innocents and civilians," Foreign Ministry official Hassan Qashqavi told reporters in Tehran.
*Miller and Meyer are Times staff writers.
greg.miller@latimes.com
josh.meyer@latimes.com
Times staff writers Ned Parker and Saif Hameed in Baghdad, Borzou Daragahi in Beirut and Julian E. Barnes in Washington and special correspondent Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran contributed to this report.

Analysis: Raid into Syria complicates Iraq's ties
By ROBERT H. REID
BAGHDAD (AP) — The deadly U.S. raid into Syria may complicate efforts to win approval for a new U.S.-Iraqi security deal by drawing attention to a fact many Iraqis detest — that they can't control everything American forces might do.
Syrian officials say U.S. troops and helicopters launched the raid Sunday inside Syrian territory close to the Iraqi border, killing eight people.
The U.S. command in Baghdad would not comment, but a U.S. military official said American special forces targeted the network that smuggles fighters and weapons into Iraq. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the raid was classified.
In a sign of how sensitive such attacks can be for Iraq's government, Syria summoned the top Iraqi diplomat in Damascus and demanded that Iraq "shoulder its responsibilities" and prevent the use of Iraqi territory "for aggression against Syria."
That strikes at the heart of Iraqi criticism over the security agreement — that Iraqis cannot take control of their own country so long as big U.S. military forces remain on their soil.The raid could also encourage Syria and Iran to step up pressure on Iraqi lawmakers to reject the deal. Parliament must approve the measure before the U.N. mandate expires Dec. 31, and Iraqi Shiite lawmakers have expressed doubts the current version would pass.
"It will be used against the agreement and will give the Iranians reason to increase their interference here against the agreement," Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman predicted.
"Now neighboring countries have a good reason to be concerned about the continued U.S. presence in Iraq," he said.
The Iraqi government has so far issued no formal statement about the raid, but the chief spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh noted that the reported target was a center of "anti-Iraq terrorist activity."But another lawmaker — this one a prominent Shiite who has not taken a public stand on the deal — said the raid would hurt the security agreement's chances of approval because it sends "a message that Iraq is not in control of its own affairs." He spoke on condition of anonymity because the issues are sensitive. The proposed deal would allow American troops to stay in Iraq through 2011 to help build up Iraq's own forces and fight the remaining al-Qaida militants and Shiite extremists. But critics inside Iraq believe the agreement would tie Iraq to American political and military policies in the region. That could harm Iraq's efforts to build good relations with neighbors like Syria and Iran — who aren't on good terms with Washington.
U.S. officials insist the agreement respects Iraqi sovereignty.
But critics maintain that there is no way that Iraq will be anything but a junior partner. That's not an image Iraqis relish, even though many privately hope U.S. troops will stay here until Iraq's own security forces can maintain order.
On the other hand, the security agreement could help curb U.S. actions such as the Sunday raid. The draft agreement rules out the use of Iraqi territory as a base for U.S. aggression against other countries. Iraq insisted on such language to assure Iran that it would not assist any U.S. attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Also, the agreement would require the U.S. to coordinate military operations with a joint U.S.-Iraqi commission, giving Iraq the chance to raise objections before U.S. raids.Regardless, opponents of the deal are likely to see the U.S. raid on Syria as reinforcing their view that Iraq would be powerless to prevent the United States from military action. For many Iraqis, the feeling they run their own country means more than the deal's fine print.
Complicating the situation is the complexity of Iraq's relations with Syria. When Saddam Hussein was in power, the two countries were ruled by rival wings of the Baath party. Many former Saddam loyalists fled to Syria after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, and U.S. officials believe the country serves as a base for Sunni extremists to smuggle weapons and fighters to Iraq.
But relations between Iraq and Syria have improved somewhat, and earlier this month the Syrians sent an ambassador to Baghdad for the first time since the 1980s.
"We're trying to contain the fallout from the incident," a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official, Labid Abbawi told The Associated Press. "It is regrettable and we are sorry it happened."
**Robert H. Reid is AP's bureau chief in Baghdad and has reported from Iraq since 2003.
Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Bush's parting shots at Syria
Los Angeles Times
There'll be a new president soon, and he'll inherit the fallout from a U.S. attack inside Syria.
October 28, 2008
Just a little more than a week before the presidential election, the United States on Sunday began a dramatic escalation of the conflicts in the Middle East, launching what is believed to be the first attack on Syrian soil by U.S. troops. Although both the outcome and the purpose of this raid remain vague, what's certain is that the next president is going to pay a heavy diplomatic price for it.
Washington is tight-lipped, but officials have confirmed that special operations forces entered Syria to target the head of a cell that has been sending foreign fighters into Iraq. Syrian media claim that four U.S. helicopters crossed the border and landed troops on a farm, where eight people, including four children, were killed.
The raid is notable not just because it seems to open a new front in the war on terror but because of its strange timing. For one thing, it comes when Syria has been showing unusual cooperation and willingness to negotiate with the West. Two weeks ago, Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered his government to establish full diplomatic relations with Lebanon, the first step in repairing decades of troubled ties between the two countries. This month, the former U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, praised Syria's cooperation in policing its borders to stop foreign fighters from crossing over, and last month Syria and Washington seemed to be nearing a thaw in their chilly relations when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Foreign Minister Walid Moallem. That's over now; on Monday, Moallem called the U.S. attack an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression."
The raid also comes during extremely sensitive negotiations on a security agreement in Iraq. Opponents of the deal, which calls for U.S. troops to leave the country in 2011, argue that if it's signed, Iraq would be used as a staging ground for the U.S. to launch attacks on neighboring countries, such as Iran and Syria. Sunday's incursion will doubtless complicate efforts to produce a new agreement before the current one expires Dec. 31.
Finally, there's the issue of the presidential election. Some pundits have suggested that the attack is a parting shot from President Bush, his last attempt to exact vengeance on a longtime rival before leaving office. That's a bit cynical even for Bush critics, including this page, but it's notable that in the closing months of the administration, the military has grown considerably more aggressive in pursuing foreign insurgents -- especially in Pakistan, where U.S. attacks across the Afghanistan border have become almost commonplace. Bush, it appears, is conducting yet another experiment in Middle Eastern cowboy diplomacy, with the advantage (for him) that if it all blows up, someone else will have to pick up the pieces.

Sleiman, Siniora, Hizbullah condemn US air raid on Syria
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman on Monday denounced the US air raid on Syria as a "flagrant violation of a sisterly Arab state's sovereignty," according to a statement released by his media office. Official Syrian media reported that American helicopter-borne troops from Iraq launched an assault on a building site Sunday in the village of Al-Sukkiraya in the border Bou Kamal region, killing eight people. "The attack that was carried out on Sunday contradicts international law," Sleiman told his Syrian counterpart, Bashar Assad, in a telephone conversation. He also expressed "solidarity with Syria in defending its sovereignty over all its territories." Sleiman called for settling differences and conflicts between states in line with the United Nations Charter and international laws.Also on Monday, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora accused the US military of an "unacceptable" violation of Syrian sovereignty. "The raid by US helicopters on Syrian territory ... constitutes a violation of Syrian sovereignty and thus is a dangerous, unacceptable attack that we condemn," said a statement from his office. "Any military attack against an Arab country or on a small country by a larger country is an act we reject," it added. Syria maintained troops in Lebanon for almost 30 years until 2005 but still wields considerable influence in its smaller neighbor. Earlier this month, Syria and Lebanon formally established diplomatic ties for the first time since independence 60 years ago. Also condemning the attack, Hizbullah issued a statement on Monday accusing the US of "going overboard." "All Arab countries are urged to put an end to the US' blatant violation of the sovereignty of an Arab state," the statement said.The Hizbullah statement also called on the Arab League to take "fast and firm" action against such violations."The United Nations is to assume its responsibilities too," the statement added. - AFP, with The Daily Star

Nasrallah-Jumblat Meeting in the Making, Reports
Naharnet/ Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat will reportedly hold a meeting with Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
Al-Akhbar newspaper reported on Tuesday that a Hizbullah delegation will meet Jumblat in the coming few days.
Hizbullah and the PSP had agreed to postpone the meeting between their leaders until after Mustaqbal movement chief Saad Hariri's talks with Nasrallah for political reasons, the report said. However, pan-Arab newspaper al-Hayat said the Jumblat-Nasrallah meeting would be held in any minute, whereas talks between Hariri and Speaker Nabih Berri are expected to take place in the near future. On the Hariri-Nasrallah meeting, al-Akhbar reported that it went on for hours and was interrupted by dinner. Al-Hayat reported it lasted three and a half hours and the discussions were marked by deep frankness. The two leaders tackled the most important events that have taken place in Lebanon starting with the July 2006 war until the May 7 clashes this year, al-Hayat reported. Al-Akhbar said the two leaders hugged and kissed at the beginning of the meeting and Hariri inquired about Nasrallah's health after rumors that he was a victim of a poison attack. The two leaders, according to al-Hayat, agreed on assigning Hariri's bureau head Nader Hariri and Nasrallah's political assistant Hussein Khalil to hold constant and direct contacts to solve any urgent matter or clashes among the two parties' supporters. The meeting didn't discuss any possible alliance in the upcoming parliamentary elections or cooperation of any kind, according to the reports. Beirut, 28 Oct 08, 09:37

Intelligence Warnings by Egyptian Envoy
Naharnet/ Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has reportedly made a decision to send Deputy Head of Egyptian Intelligence General Omar Qinawy to Beirut, following reports that the security situation in Lebanon might deteriorate unless Cairo makes a quick move.
The daily al-Akhbar on Tuesday quoted an Egyptian source as saying that "it would have been easy for President Mubarak to send his Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit to Lebanon. However, he felt that it would be best for those concerned in Lebanon to hear first hand what information Egypt has about the issue."
Concerned Lebanese parties have been calling for a revival of Egypt's political role in Lebanon following an agreement to set up diplomatic relations between Beirut and Damascus, al-Akhbar explained. The paper stated that General Qinawy will present Hizbullah with "an Egyptian proposal" for the Shiite group to send a high level delegation to Cairo for official talks. Al-Akhbar said the Egyptian invitation had stirred the Israeli government to conduct intensive contacts with Cairo.
Egypt responded however that there was no invitation for the time being.
Some sources in Beirut described Qinawy's visit as fact finding, while others said sending the deputy head of intelligence means that his visit is "specific."
The same sources added that Cairo "has sent someone for an initial fact finding mission."
The visit has three goals: "to follow up on the Egyptian track that seeks to open up to all parties, attempt to revive the Egyptian role on the Arab scene and gather information that will allow Egypt to politically move on the Lebanese" issue, sources said. Al-Akhbar stated that Qinawy did more listening than talking and posed a number of questions concerning the chances of the national dialogue's success and what the Lebanese expect from the Egyptian role. He also asked about what Egypt could do to help solve the Shebaa Farms issue, stressing that Cairo won't interfere in relations between Beirut and Damascus.
During a meeting with Qinawy, Former President Amin Gemayel brought up the issue of Hizbullah's arms and said a solution could be found for the Shebaa Farms.
Gemayel suggested that "Lebanon could do exactly what Syria is doing regarding the occupied Golan Heights via indirect negotiations with Israel that would lead to returning Shebaa Farms," al-Akhbar said. Gemayel was keen to state to Qinawy during their meeting that "Christians in Lebanon are no longer hostile to Egypt as in the fifties and expressed hope that Egypt would play a role in easing relations between Beirut and Damascus," according to al-Akhbar.
On Monday, General Qinawy visited Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Saniora. "Egyptian officials were pleased with what they heard from visiting Lebanese officials. Egypt feels that this is a period to strengthen Lebanese consensus and is looking forward to support the national dialogue scheduled to begin November 5th at the Presidential Palace," Saniora said. He denied that the meeting had tackled the issue of Palestinian refugee camps.
Qinawy also met with former Prime Minister Salim Hoss whose office later stated that "discussions focused on the Egyptian initiative to reach consensus among the Palestinians."The general met with former PM Omar Karami who later stated "discussions followed up from what we had previously covered during my recent visit to Cairo.""We hope that their efforts would help reach calm and stability in this country on all levels," Karami added. Qinawy is expected to meet on Tuesday with Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun and with Hizbullah. Beirut, 28 Oct 08, 10:24

Fatah Re-arranges itself in Lebanon
Naharnet/ Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' special envoy to Lebanon Adib al-Husan commenced his duties by re-arranging Fatah's military, political and financial position in the country. The daily al-Akhbar reported on Tuesday that al-Husan has taken a number of steps in this regard including the dismissal of a number of officers from military service among them the Secretary-General of the Palestinian mainstream Fatah movement in Lebanon Sultan Abul Ainain.
The Palestinian special envoy has also started a dialogue regarding the status of Fatah's official at the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp Munir al-Maqdah.
This also includes a standing issue with one Khaled Aref who is refusing to leave Lebanon and accept a new position at Palestine's embassy in Korea.
Al Husan also visited a number of Lebanese political, religious and security officials al-Akhbar reported Beirut, 28 Oct 08, 11:32

Graziano: Not Worried about Security Situation in the South
Naharnet/ United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Deputy Assistant Spokesperson Andrea Tinti stated that UNIFIL Commander Major-General Claudio Graziano is "not worried about the deterioration of the security situation in south Lebanon. The situation is stable since the UNIFIL's strengthened presence, cooperation with all parties is good and we are supported by all these parties in implementing resolution 1701."Regarding recent Israeli movements Tinti pointed "nothing abnormal happened at the Fatima Gate, there is no violation of the Blue Line." He added that the U.N. "forces were present on the ground; movements were made based on information that a smuggling act might take place. However, we found that none of that happened." In relation to the effects of what the world financial crisis might have on funding and reducing the UNIFIL force "I don't think this situation will affect UNIFIL, we are proceeding with our mission. However, we cannot predict the future, our current situation is unaffected by the world financial crisis," Tinti said. Beirut, 28 Oct 08, 11:08

The Nasrallah-Hariri meeting opens up many - but not all - of the right doors
By The Daily Star
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Editorial
Of all the "first steps" that Lebanon has witnessed since the brush with civil war in May, Sunday night's long-awaited reconciliation meeting between Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and the Future Movement's leader, MP Saad Hariri, stands out as the biggest. Much of the bad blood that led to May's deadly conflagration was between their two parties, and while Sunni-Shiite coexistence alone is not enough to ensure Lebanon's stability and prosperity, its absence would be a guarantee of more trouble ahead. It is useful to recall, in this vein, that for both Lebanon as a whole and the (Shiite-led) resistance in particular, the periods of greatest progress since the end of the war were characterized by consistent - if sometimes difficult - cooperation between Nasrallah and Hariri's father, the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Crucially, Sunday night's meeting produced a joint statement reaffirming the two leaders' support for both the Taif Accord that ended Lebanon's 1975-1990 Civil War and the Doha Accord that kept May's clashes from developing into something uncontrollable. The climate has therefore been made more amenable to President Michel Sleiman's efforts to foster national dialogue - but less susceptible to the schemes of those bent on injecting new issues that threaten to complicate the process at a delicate juncture. It also figures to help contain tensions during the run-up to next year's parliamentary elections. Last but by no means least, it sets a powerful example, however belated, for other components of the March 8 and March 14 camps: If Future and Hizbullah, the sources of whose mutual acrimony are all very fresh, can reconcile, it strengthens the impetus for similar thaws among other parties, especially those whose disputes go back to a time when most living Lebanese had not even been born.
Best of all, a new period of domestic harmony might allow the Lebanese to stop worrying about the next political crisis long enough to defend against - and possibly profit from - the global financial one. Lebanon missed out on a huge opportunity in recent years to attract its fair share of the oil windfall realized by its Gulf Arab allies. With investor confidence badly undermined by the recent panic in international markets, some of those funds are now coming here thanks to the strong reputation enjoyed by the Banque du Liban and this country's surprisingly stable banking sector. The only deterrent for a massive expansion of that capital influx remains Lebanon's reputation for political histrionics. If, as promised, Nasrallah and Hariri stay in contact in order to help the reconciliation process acquire real momentum, a veritable flood of money would more than compensate for the past few years of lost time. It just might initiate a virtuous circle of better economic growth and healthier politics, both of which this country badly needs. Thank you, gentlemen, but don't get sidetracked

Is Lebanon about to get caught between America and Syria?
By Marc J. Sirois /Daily Star staff
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Brace yourselves. Everyone has been waiting for the "October Surprise" that might help Republican John McCain overcome the lead of his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, in the race for the White House. Now it looks like the outgoing president, George W. Bush, has a strategy that could have a direct - and highly destabilizing - impact here in Lebanon. For months, many observers had been assuming that if the Bushies were going to do something to rally the American public around the flag (and therefore around the incumbent party), the venue would be Iran. The Iranians have a nuclear program that the Americans and their Israeli allies don't like, and although Washington's own intelligence community has concluded that any Iranian effort to develop atomic weapons ended five years ago, threats of military action have not gone away.
Taking on the Islamic Republic, though, was always going to be a dicey bit of business. Iran, after all, is not Iraq: It has not been strangled by more than a decade of sanctions, and its military, while not capable of projecting conventional power very far from its own borders, is no play thing. The leadership and "political reliability" of the regular armed forces have been significantly enhanced in recent years, undoing much of the damage wrought by the counter-productive purges that followed the 1979 revolution against the US-backed shah and which aided the subsequent invasion by Saddam Hussein (also then a client of the United States).
The backbone of any Iranian defense, though, would be the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, to which more and better resources have long been directed. The Guards' equipment does not match America's in terms of technology, but it packs a solid punch, its morale is excellent, and its special forces units are world-class in terms of both training and experience.
In short, anything but a campaign of air strikes figured to involve the US military in yet another Middle Eastern morass, and this at a time when its forces were already dangerously overstretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is not to mention the many ways in which Iran could retaliate in other theaters for any American offensive. For example, absent encouragement from Tehran, the Mehdi Army militia of hard-line Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose unilateral cease-fire has played a large role in reducing violence in Iraq, might just decide to resume its former activities. In addition, both Hizbullah and Hamas have received considerable support from Iran over the years and would find it difficult to resist if some of those favors were to be called in.
Then came another kind of "surprise." The global financial crisis that broke out earlier this month did not just damage McCain's campaign by exposing his fundamental (and openly acknowledged) ignorance on economic matters ahead of an era in which such abilities are likely to be at a premium. It also forced the US government to take on trillions of dollars in new liabilities in a bid to restore confidence in the markets. Given the gargantuan deficits and debt already amassed by Bush's profligate spending on wars against Muslims, tax breaks for the rich, and subsidies for large corporations, a costly war with Iran is simply no longer a viable option.
For all of these reasons, Syria must look like a more attractive target, especially if Washington can maintain a level of hostilities that is sufficient to pique the average American's "patriotism" but not so intense that it incurs significant costs. There is no guarantee, however, that the Syrians would cooperate with such an approach, even though any form of response in kind on their part would only invite the Americans to escalate disproportionately, especially with their overwhelming advantage in air power.
The ball seems to have gotten rolling in a Syrian village near the Iraqi border shortly before dusk on Sunday. According to Damascus, US troops arrived in helicopters and assaulted a building under construction at a farmstead, killing eight civilians - half of them children.
The Bush administration's official reaction has been painfully slow in coming, but according to an Associated Press report, a US military officer has confirmed that an attack was carried out by special forces. "We are taking matters into our own hands," AP quoted the officer as saying on condition of anonymity because of what the reporter described as the "political sensitivity" - no mention of patent illegality - "of cross-border raids." Pointedly, the comments came in Washington, not from an officer on the ground in Iraq, where the US military professed to be in the dark about the attack in Syria.
Some US officials have long accused both Syria and Iran of aiding armed groups inside Iraq and/or of not doing enough to stop "foreign fighters" from crossing the country's borders in order to join the insurgency. They have offered little to no evidence to support their claims, and at least some military officers serving in Iraq (as opposed to the political generals occasionally dispatched by the White House to toss accusations around) have stated that the vast majority of insurgents seem to come from US-allied countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Nonetheless, it seems clear that in the case of Syria at least, the border has not been much of an obstacle to those wishing to battle US occupation forces in Iraq. Syrian officials have acknowledged the problem and insist they are doing their best, but they stress the paltry resources available for the challenge. To demonstrate the difficulties involved, they also note America's failure to seal its own borders against illegal immigration from Mexico - or Iraq's against Kurdish rebels entering Turkish territory to carry out attacks there.
In any event, as Bush administration officials cannot exhale without mentioning, the level of violence in Iraq has plummeted, and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and other officials have very recently attested to improved cooperation from Damascus. So why now? The timing has got to be instilling a sense of deja vu among senior members of the Syrian regime. They recall with consternation that even after US diplomats publicly acknowledged the value of Syrian intelligence assistance in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush and other senior figures kept up their menacing rhetoric about Damascus.
This looks to be different. Even if Damascus were still a target in Bush's so-called "war on terror," the timing is so vulnerable to accusations of an attempt to influence the election that only a dire threat could possibly justify taking the risk. Even if it turns out that what the Americans hit was indeed tied to the insurgency, therefore, hitting it now makes no sense - unless the real objective is to capture the hearts and minds of undecided voters in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Unlike Iran's, Syria's options for responding to military action are few. It cannot risk a full-scale confrontation, since even a wounded and distracted America could probably knock off its leadership within weeks - if not days. Its economy is too fragile to sustain even a low-intensity conflict that drags on for any length of time, and while Damascus has also helped Hizbullah and Hamas, its leverage as a facilitator is nothing like Tehran's as a procurer.
Given its weak position and limited reach, Damascus' best bet is to follow the approach it has taken with regard to Israel's bombing last year of Deir al-Zor: Express outrage, lodge complaints and assert the right to respond appropriately - but under no circumstances do anything that might be used as a pretext for escalation by the other side. Even if this is just the first salvo in a cynical attempt by the Bush administration to increase the market value of McCain's supposed expertise in matters military, self-preservation demands that the Syrians keep their heads down and hope that Obama wins the White House and then makes good on his promise as a conciliatory figure.
However, if the regime decides instead not to take the American action lying down, the riposte is liable to be played out in Lebanon. America has commercial, diplomatic and political interests here, Damascus still has plenty of levers left over from its long period of "tutelage," and Beirut's security apparatuses are already spread too thin by too many challenges, especially in the North.
As has traditionally been the case, then, if outside powers don't start drawing in their horns, it's the Lebanese who will get gored.
**Marc J. Sirois is managing editor of THE DAILY STAR. His email address is marc.sirois@dailystar.com.lb.

To understand 'second world' countries like Lebanon, 'it's the trend, not the details'
Parag khanna expounds on 'the new Arabism' - and why a strongman might not be a bad thing
By Anna Sussman /Special to The Daily Star
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Interview
BEIRUT: In writing his influential book "The Second World," Parag Khanna visited more countries in the past five years than most of us will visit in our whole lives. The 31-year-old policy wunderkind, who is also director of the Global Governance Initiative and a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, spoke at the Carnegie Middle East Center's conference on "Emerging Powers and the Middle East," held October 24-25 at the Gefinor Rotana Hotel in Beirut. He sat down with The Daily Star between panels.
Q: How can you claim the whole world - or 55 countries -- as your area of expertise?
A: I don't claim it as an area of expertise. The book isn't about any one country, it's about a typology, it's about a set of countries that all exhibit similar dynamics. So the goal isn't to be a specialist. If you want to read a book about Saudi Arabia, you can read a book about Saudi Arabia, but if you want to read a book about what Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan and Malaysia have in common, then this is the book for you. And it's the only book that really does that.
Q: How do you keep on top of all of these things?
A: I don't. It's really hard to keep up on everything. When you do the book, you have to go to each place and spend time there and pick up on the patterns that are taking place, and you have to see the evidence firsthand, as it's happening. But you have to realize you can't keep up on every detail. But the main thing is not the details, it's the trends. For example, the first time I went to Ukraine, I saw they had just had an election, the Orange Revolution had just happened. By the time I was finished drafting my book, they had had two more elections that had gone in two different directions. So I condensed everything I saw in Ukraine, and I said that this is just a spin cycle, of recycling pro-Western and pro-Russian leaders, and this is the way it's going to go on and on. And that's all i needed to say - I saw that pattern happening in like 10 other countries.
Now that the book is done, I no longer keep up with most places. I mostly just keep up with China, with India, with Central Asia, the Middle East, and I pay much less attention to South America and Africa.
Q: This conference addresses emerging powers and the Middle East. Is there any chance of the region itself becoming a power center beside the petro-states?
A: Yes, that's been one of the interesting themes in this discussion, as to whether or not the Arab world can coalesce, or even just the petro-states, can coalesce and make the Arab world not just a region but also a unified power or actor. I think that actually is happening in a diffuse and uncoordinated kind of way. I think the Gulf countries are helping to fuel the Arab world's economic development, and they are helping to fuel its external influence in global finance and energy markets, so I think in a way, even if it's not unified, the Arab oil countries are becoming an important actor again in a way that hasn't been felt since the last oil shocks.
The next step would be something of a renewed Arabist diplomacy where there is a certain amount of integration and coordination of positions with respect to Europe, China and America. And I think that's a long way off. But I think we're a lot closer to that than ever before and I think that's a positive thing for the Arab countries.
Q: The Arab League, in your opinion ...
A: It's not about the Arab League - the Arab League was the Arabism of the past. What I'm talking about is what I call the new Arabism which is based on finance and trade, immigration and culture and media.
What about the countries like Syria and Egypt? Egypt has a huge population, and while it states growth of something like 5 percent a year, it doesn't seem to be trickling down to the majority of its citizens. Are these other countries going to be left behind? There doesn't seem to be any interest, besides allowing some of their citizens to migrate to the Gulf states, in building any kind of cooperation.
Yes, I think Egypt is really in trouble. But I also think the fascinating thing is how quickly things can change. No one thought the petro-states would even be where they are today; now they're considered global financial players and this has happened in a span of 10 years. That will obviously not happen in Egypt - that can only happen in countries with small populations - but you can see Morocco moving forward in a lot of ways, you can see a lot of potential in Libya, which has a small population and a lot of resources, and the same with Algeria potentially, which is going to be one of the gas superpowers of the 21st century. So there are possibilities. Jordan has a very small population and if they can remain politically stable, they can develop, in terms of human development, a lot faster than are even right now.
I think that Syria and Egypt are the two countries that are the biggest areas to focus on because they're very populous countries with very bad governments, with very few broad-reaching prospects for reform and job creation. So I think they're hugely problematic, and that's where the real focus should be. And if you can turn those countries around, then you can actually have some kind of positive trajectory for the region.
Remember - lots of countries can fall by the wayside; Yemen and Iraq can fall by the wayside. They might be mired in conflict for years and years to come, but that doesn't mean it's really dragging down Saudi Arabia and the UAE or Libya and so forth. So just because there's bad things happening, it doesn't really shackle the rest of the region because again, it's one region geographically, but everyone can move at different speeds and in different directions.
Q: Right, except when you have terrorist attacks happening across borders.
A: Right, terrorism can come in many forms. Jordan has suffered very frequent terrorism over the last five to six years, but it's still on the same track it was five years ago. It's investing a lot in education, in modernization, job creation, economic growth. It's better than falling behind; in Egypt there is no investment to speak of, let alone something that could have a positive impact on 70 million people. In Jordan, you have Western companies like Sysco and Microsoft that have huge operations there. It's such a small population that it could become, say, the call center of the Middle East. Even if became just that, it would be a lot better off than it is today. So again, even in a short amount of time their education levels are going up and you can't say that's a bad thing.
Q: Let's talk about Lebanon, where instability and the spread of terrorism have really hampered the growth of what had historically been an economic and financial center of the region.
Yes, Lebanon is like an archetype of the "second world," countries where you have good things and bad things, and you don't know which is going to prevail: good or bad, positive or negative, potential or liabilities. And that's what every single country I write about has in common: You don't know five years from now whether they will have made it, or whether they've blown it.
Q: So what's the use of you, Parag, if all you can say is "I don't know what's going to happen?"
A: If you pay me enough, I'll give you an opinion [laughing.] I'll do some more homework.
So Lebanon is another one where all kinds of bizarre things are happening. You see new construction going on around the city, in the universities. You see at least the conflict hasn't broken out the way people have been predicting in the last three years, you have this bizarre phenomenon of the South of the country being more stable than the North all of a sudden, and you have a lot of outside diplomatic engagement which is attempting to be more constructive, rather than manipulative. You also have, obviously, an economy that isn't moving, political gridlock, a population and factions that are arming in a variety of ways, you still have Syrian manipulation of the Parliament and the politics, so you have these negative trends as well. I honestly don't know how it changes day to day, who's up and who's down, and so forth.
But the key thing to remember is that what you don't have is the emergence of a strong, single, national leader who changes the dynamic. And as significant as [Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan] Nasrallah is, and as respected as he is around the region, he has not the made the decision to become a federal, national politician with the ambition to change the turbulence that exists in the country.
Q: But he can't ...
A: But he's the only one anyone could possibly name if you needed someone to drop in from heaven and do the job. And that's the problem that every single Arab country faces: the lack of some single, unifying, Nasser-like figure. Now he doesn't have to be like Nasser, but someone of that stature.
Q: That recommendation goes against everything I've ever heard about wanting to move the region toward a more participatory, decentralized democracy and away from strongman, patriarchal politics.
A: I agree with you - you're exactly right. Strongmen are the worst, and they're also the best. Look what's happening in Iraq today. Why is it that three-quarters of the analyses about Iraq - and Afghanistan, both - are saying "I guess we're going to need a strongman to stabilize the situation." Even the lefty, tree-hugging European diplomats in Afghanistan are saying, "We need to replace Karzai with a strongman." Every time people throw their hands in the air because democracy gets messy and experimental, they say, "I guess we need a strongman." And it's a very, very disappointing thing to hear. But having a national leader who's unifying and has people coalesce around him, and creates compromises among factions - real compromises - that doesn't make you necessarily some kind of tyrannical strongman. That makes you an enlightened kind of leader.
Q: Let's talk about US engagement, since you do advise Barack Obama on certain aspects of his foreign policy, couldn't you say that a lot of this fragmentation was actually due to appalling choices they've made that have sown sectarian strife? Here in Lebanon they are trying to arm and train the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), they won't really recognize Hizbullah as legitimate political actors. I've read that you've recommended the US engage with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, because it is a viable power center. What are the other power centers here in Lebanon, if you're not going to engage with Hizbullah?
A: Because Hizbullah is a somewhat different entity from the Muslim Brotherhood, I can totally understand and appreciate the reservations the US has on entering into direct dialogue with it the way it has already had with the Muslim Brotherhood in different countries. With respect to Hizbullah, I guess the emphasis then should be indirect, it should be on strengthening the Parliament, having checks and balances, and accountability over Hizbullah's activities, trying to create legislative codes that prohibit the kind of militarization of politics that Hizbullah represents to a lot of people who are afraid of it. And then you can take that route.
Just as in Egypt it isn't just about talking to the Muslim Brotherhood, it's about having consistent parliamentary procedures that prevent any one faction from getting too much power. And I don't think the US has done that in Parliament because it's really outdone, or outspent, by Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so forth. Actually the French have a stronger role in that. So it isn't just the US alone.
Particularly in Lebanon, the US is just one player, and it is not the most influential player, and it is not the one that's going to shift the entire dynamic. So I don't know that anything that one could advise the US on vis-a-vis Hizbullah is really going to change things. This is a country where, and in most countries I would argue, you can blame the US for a lot of things, but you also have to give at least 50 percent of the blame to local actors. Lebanese factionalism goes back to before the Ottoman Empire, so fine, the US may take different sides at different times, and it may like [Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid] Jumblatt, and it may strengthen the LAF to fight in the Nahr al-Bared situation last year, but that's not decisive, obviously, in stabilizing the country. Hizbullah is far more decisive than the LAF, basically, and I don't think anyone denies that.
Q: It seems in your book you pin a lot of hopes on the EU. As a US citizen myself, I also have a lot more optimism about the EU's intentions and capabilities than I do about the US' under Bush. But what makes you think the EU would be willing to undertake some of these huge development projects that you propose.
A: Well, the EU has to put its money where its mouth is. I do think they're willing to do a certain amount of things, particularly when it comes to investing in infrastructure, which is something that it does so well around the world, and has done in Eastern Europe, in North Africa, and a little bit here. It's also put its peacekeepers here, it's spoken up a lot more than ever before about Middle East peace issues, so the EU has every reason to oblige itself to put its money where its mouth is. I think they can engage in certain ways that US has not done yet.
What the EU has done for infrastructure in the Caucasus is a very good model: rails and roads, trade promotion and export promotions, [small and medium enterprise] development, these kinds of economic and soft power kind of things, that are not controversial, that are cost-effective, that everyone in the region wants and that will promote integration. No one is stopping them from doing it, like when, for example, the US stops the EU from taking certain positions on the Palestinian issue. No one is stopping the EU from doing these things. It could do them yesterday, and it hasn't.
Q: But it seems like a bit of a stretch - the Caucasus and Eastern Europe are right on their borders.
A: It's not a stretch because Turkey wants to do it too. What I call the "neo-Ottomanism" of Turkey is very much inclined toward trying to increase influence. If you look at Turkey's relations with Iran, with Syria, with Iraq or [Iraqi] Kurdistan at least, they're all very strong. So Turkey is actually taking a leadership role here.
When the EU and Turkey work together, a lot of amazing things happen, like the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline and other sorts of things, so I think EU-Turkish cooperation could do a lot toward melting some of the barriers to progress in this region.

Canadian man sends Livni a diamond ring
Foreign minister's office receives gold ring, note, along with sender's picture; associates say it could be a marriage proposal
Itamar Eichner Published: 10.28.08, 11:59 / Israel News
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni received a rather unusual gift this week - a diamond ring sent to her by a Canadian man.
The package, sent to Livni's office by FedEx, included an 18 carat gold ring crowned with a diamond, a photo of the sender, Quebec resident Laurent Belanger, and a handwritten note on his personalized stationary saying, "I am aware of what I'm doing." Initially Livni's security guards approached the package with caution, for fear that it may have contained an explosive device. Upon opening the package, the guards were surprised to discover a ring placed on a cushion in a tin box. The authenticity of the diamond itself has not been verified, and the note enclosed provided no explanation as to what the gift meant, but Livni's associates believe it could have been some sort of marriage proposal. After seeing the gift, Livni, who is married with two children, told her staff to thank the man for the gift, but to send it back to him.