LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS
BULLETIN
March 29/08
Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to
Saint John 21,1-14. After this, Jesus revealed himself again to his disciples at
the Sea of Tiberias. He revealed himself in this way. Together were Simon Peter,
Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, Zebedee's sons, and two
others of his disciples. Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They
said to him, "We also will come with you." So they went out and got into the
boat, but that night they caught nothing. When it was already dawn, Jesus was
standing on the shore; but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
Jesus said to them, "Children, have you caught anything to eat?" They answered
him, "No." So he said to them, "Cast the net over the right side of the boat and
you will find something." So they cast it, and were not able to pull it in
because of the number of fish. So the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter,
"It is the Lord." When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he tucked in his
garment, for he was lightly clad, and jumped into the sea. The other disciples
came in the boat, for they were not far from shore, only about a hundred yards,
dragging the net with the fish. When they climbed out on shore, they saw a
charcoal fire with fish on it and bread. Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the
fish you just caught." So Simon Peter went over and dragged the net ashore full
of one hundred fifty-three large fish. Even though there were so many, the net
was not torn. Jesus said to them, "Come, have breakfast." And none of the
disciples dared to ask him, "Who are you?" because they realized it was the
Lord. Jesus came over and took the bread and gave it to them, and in like manner
the fish. This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after
being raised from the dead.
Free
Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
No leader to send- By: Lucy
Fielder - Al-Ahram
Weekly. 28/03/08
Summit stakes-Al-By:
Gamil Mattar-Ahram Weekly.28/03/08
The invisible guests of Syria-
By: Ayman
El-Amir-Al-Ahram
Weekly, 28/03/08
Same as it ever was.
By: Dina
Ezzat -Al-Ahram Weekly,28/03/08
Hezbollah between the Summit and Custody. By:
Hassan Haider-Dar
Al-Hayat,28/03/08
Open letter from Lawson Kass Hanna
to Bishop Boulos Matar 27/03/08
Lebanon's 'leaders' could learn a thing or two
from the UAE's.The Daily Star. 28/03/08
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for March 28/08
Dimona within range of Hezbollah missiles-PRESS
TV
Lebanon Publishes New Evidence of Ties Between Syria and Fath Al-Islam-Rright
Side News
Syria: Israel does not genuinely want peace-Jerusalem
Post
March 14 coalition calls for Arab countries to
put more pressure on Syria at summit-Daily
Star
Maliki defiant as Shiite revolt spreads-AFP
Moallem says Saudis should lean on Lebanese allies
to accept compromise-AFP
Moallem says Saudis should lean on Lebanese allies
to accept compromise-AFP
Media office of Sayyed calls for arrest of Taha-Daily
Star
Hizbullah denies Israeli claims of drug
trafficking-Daily
Star
UN Security Council welcomes report of progress on Lebanon tribunal-Xinhua
- China
Stabilize Ain al-Hilweh to help Lebanon - Hamas envoy-Daily
Star
Religious tensions trickle into Lebanon's schools-Daily
Star
Lebanon's 'leaders' could learn a thing or two from the UAE's-Daily
Star
No comfort for Lebanon at Arab summit-BBC
News
Syria calls on Saudi Arabia to help on Lebanon-Reuters
Fadlallah urges blameless solution-Daily
Star
Stabilize Ain al-Hilweh to help Lebanon - Hamas
envoy-Daily
Star
Civil society groups hold conference to unify
efforts on behalf of children-Daily
Star
UNIFIL beefs up patrols after Israeli incursion-Daily
Star
How to free up freedom of expression-Daily
Star
Religious tensions trickle into Lebanon's schools
Moody's notches up outlook for Lebanese banks-Daily
Star
Importing human rights to the Hariri court's
process-By Muhamad Mugraby
Aoun, Maronite archbishop find common ground-Daily
Star
US sets aside $5 million for civil groups in
Lebanon-Daily
Star
Lebanese warrant issued for Syrian accused of
threatening local journalist-Daily
Star
Muallem: Syria is First Sufferer of Lebanon Crisis-Naharnet
Muallem: Lebanon Lost
Golden Chances by Boycotting The Summit-Naharnet
Hizbullah's New Iranian
Rockets can Hit Anywhere in Israel, Officials-Naharnet
Sarkozy to Syria: Lebanon is a Free Country-Naharnet
Defense officials: Hizbullah has rockets that can reach Dimona-Jerusalem
Post
Regional heavyweights snub Syria's first Arab summit-Africasia
Jewish groups placed on security alert-Jewish
Telegraphic Agency
Officials: Hezbollah Smuggles Drugs Into Israel-Evening
Bulletin
Eulogy MPs grilled, bailed … put on travel ban-Arab
Times
Lebanon Seeks Husam's
Arrest-Naharnet
Damascus Summit Sheds
Spotlight on Arab Split-Naharnet
Syrian Dailies Hail
Summit a Success Away from U.S. Influence-Naharnet
Sarkozy to Syria: Lebanon is a Free
Country-Naharnet
Aoun Launches Vehement Attack against U.S.
Policy, Saniora Government-Naharnet
Washington Relieved Over Snub of Arab
Summit-Naharnet
Moussa Regrets Lebanon's Boycott of Arab
Summit-Naharnet
UNIFIL, Lebanese Army Carry Out War Games-Naharnet
Saniora to Address the Arab Summit and the
World-Naharnet
Hezbollah between the Summit
and "Custody"
Hassan Haidar
Al Hayat - 27/03/08//
Hezbollah exchanges "favors" with Syria and Iran. As both regimes arm and
finance it, Hezbollah executes their strategy and harmonizes its positions with
their current tactics. When one of its senior commanders, with strong ties to
Tehran, is assassinated in the heart of Damascus, Hezbollah raises its voice
with threats of an open war, and later suddenly switches to appeasement and
reassurance when Damascus wishes to keep the Lebanese issue quiet as the date of
the Arab Summit, which it is hosting, draws near.
When Damascus considers Lebanon's crisis and presidential vacuum just another
bullet-point on the summit's agenda - while it is in practice the dominant
issue, which prompted the two most prominent Arab countries to lower their level
of representation and prodded Lebanon, a founding member of the Arab League, to
boycott the summit in an unprecedented move - its Lebanese ally shifts to a
language of "reconciliation" on the internal front and rushes to announce its
passionate desire for political settlement, firmly certifying what Syria likes
to hear, namely that Israel will soon cease to exist. The evidence supporting
this claim consists of statistics and studies which were used by Hezbollah's
Secretary-General in his latest speech, two days ago.
But what is the purpose of certifying the "capability to overthrow the Zionist
regime"? A clear indication comes from the recent attempts by Syrian, Algerian
and Yemeni delegations, during the summit's preliminary meetings, to ratify a
motion to withdraw the Arab Peace Initiative, which was sanctioned during the
Beirut Summit of 2002, considering that it could not remain "on offer"
indefinitely.
Will the initiative be subjected to further attacks during the summit itself? In
clearer words, will the coup be completed? That coup which began with Hariri's
assassination and the disruption of Lebanon's equilibrium, followed by the July
2006 war and subsequent occupation of Downtown Beirut, and persisted as Hamas
took control of the Gaza Strip and Iran repeats the same theory of the coming
end of Israel every time it seeks to confront Arab political discourse in its
own home.
The Lebanese have discovered, in Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's latest speech, that
they have unknowingly given him "custody" of the mission of "working to
overthrow the Zionist regime." Indeed, he stated in his speech that the majority
of them had responded positively to a question to that effect, according to a
study by an unknown research institution, whose "conclusive" results clearly
show that the Lebanese of all sects have "unanimously" agreed on the validity of
such an option and the necessity of pursuing it.
And when Nasrallah considered that this was not a Lebanese mission, what he
meant was that he wouldn't do it by himself, but rather in the context of a
wider alliance, extending from Tehran to Damascus and Beirut, reaching into
Gaza.
Hezbollah has therefore replaced the consent of the actual majority, which came
out on February 14th and demanded it to cease its regional outbidding and adhere
to Lebanese sovereignty, with that of a paper majority, and accepted "custody"
on its behalf without even allowing for a margin of error.
Nasrallah did not fail to support the inclination revealed by his other ally,
Nabih Berri, who intends to invite all Lebanese parties to another round of the
National Roundtable Dialogue.
What a coincidence that his invitation would come at such a time, when the
Lebanese, and the rest of the world, fear the outbreak of a new war, one that
would be caused by the promises to avenge the assassination of Imad Mughniyyeh.
The panic that such a prospect has caused among the Lebanese inhabitants of the
South and the Beqaa has spread rumors of an anticipatory wave of migration. As
if it was to remind the Lebanese that when the July war erupted, that very
Roundtable Dialogue was in session, and that the next probable war may similarly
require internal appeasement and a cover of dialogue
The invisible guests of Syria
By: Ayman El-Amir
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly
March 27/08
Crippled ahead of convening, the Arab summit in Damascus will be haunted by the
confrontation between Iran and the US, writes Ayman El-Amir*
A few days before the Arab summit convenes in Damascus on 29 March, Arab
countries are still squabbling over whether to participate or not, and at what
level of representation. Some including Lebanon, are sitting it out. At issue is
whether participation at the level of kings, presidents or heads of state would
suggest or could be interpreted as dignifying the hardline policies of the
summit's host, Syria, by the axis of "moderates" baptised as such by the US and
Western powers. Habitual divisions have marked previous Arab summits and were
usually papered over by a convenient consensus on generalities. What is
significant at this year's summit is the invisible appearance of two officially
uninvited guests: the United States and Iran. Their phantom presence will surely
overshadow proceedings.
The presence of these two powers and their influence in the region is strongly
felt, and their role in shaping Arab events is undeniable. Both are non-Arabs,
both having vital interests in the region, and both are polarising in opposite
directions. Arab countries are caught in this tug-of-war and their policies
deeply reflect this diametrically opposed conflict of interests.
On the one hand, the US invaded Iraq and reduced it to rubble on the claim of
creating democracy. Some of Iraq's Gulf Arab neighbours, particularly Kuwait,
were not unhappy to see their archenemy, Saddam Hussein, toppled regardless of
the horrifying consequences. From another perspective, Gulf Arab states are
comfortable with the massive American military presence on their territories as
a sure fire protection against potential enemies that may eye their golden egg
-- the oil wealth. Given that the threat of Saddam is no longer a factor, the US
had to invent another one to justify its military presence for the protection of
US oil interests in countries it does not trust. Shia Iran, with its budding
nuclear programme, became a convenient scarecrow. Since the US, like Israel,
knows no way of protecting its interests other than by way of military
domination or bending insecure allies to its willpower, the rise of Iran and
Syrian resistance against US- Israeli policies are intolerable. They had to be
defined as the axis of evil as opposed to the "axis of the meek" that, in their
most audacious articulations, regard US domination as that of a benign dictator.
Syria and Iran are considered as lethal enemies because they support resistance
to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and a sliver of Lebanon.
What the US wants from the summit is to maintain the status quo borne out of the
Annapolis conference last November, to forestall any rapprochement with Iran, to
make bland statements about the Darfur problem and Iraq, without reference to
the US occupation, to freeze the stillborn Arab peace initiative, to confront
Iran, not Israel, as the genuine threat to stability in the region, to cut Hamas
down in favour of the "legitimacy" of Mahmoud Abbas, and to isolate Syria as a
pretext to advancing a phony peace process.
On the other hand, Iran's growing influence over Gulf and Middle Eastern issues
is a direct challenge to US and Israeli hegemony. Its support of the Palestinian
people's struggle against the brutal Israeli occupation is unequivocal and its
resistance to US-Israeli domination of the region is adamant. Iran, the fourth
largest world oil producer, has a vital stake in the stability and security of
the region, of which it is an integral part. Its interests are threatened by the
US's destabilising invasion of Iraq, military presence in Gulf Arab states, and
its blind support of Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians in the occupied
territories. Iran and the Gulf Arab states have economic, political and cultural
shared interests and common values more than they have with either the US or
Israel. The US and Israel have worked hard to drum up fake Iranian threats to
Gulf states and to fan the flames of Shia-Sunni conflict. This conflict was
virtually unheard of until it was ignited in Iraq by the division plan of Paul
Bremer, the first administrator of the US invasion.
Despite his slapdash political statements against Israel and the US, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the conciliatory gesture recently of paying
an official, public visit to Iraq which, under the rule of Saddam Hussein and
with US abetting, had fought his country for a decade resulting in nearly one
million victims on both sides. His public visit was ludicrously imitated by US
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain who, during a recent visit to
Baghdad, dared to step out of the Green Zone, walk a heavily guarded, virtually
evacuated Baghdad street and pose for a photo-op with a terrified Iraqi
shop-keeper. In another friendly gesture, the Iranian president was invited to
address the Arab Gulf Cooperation Council in December 2007 and was courteously
welcomed in Doha. However, President Ahmadinejad is not likely be invited to the
Arab summit lest such an invitation should rub the US the wrong way and give
reason for "moderates" to boycott it. The US and Israel would be concerned at
the prospect of any Arab-Iranian rapprochement that is not stage-managed by the
US.
Preparations for the Arab summit have confronted a good number of hurdles,
ranging from suggestions for postponement to floated ideas about changing
Damascus as the venue. These and anticipated lower-than-expected levels of
representation by some Arab countries could only be interpreted as a reflection
of US pressure on some "moderate" allies to signal displeasure at Syria's
reluctance to encourage settlement of the issue of the Lebanese presidency.
Syria, no doubt, has vested interest in Lebanon, just like many other regional
and foreign powers. That explains how key figures of Lebanon's parliamentary
majority have been flocking back and forth to Washington, Paris and London
seeking support against other competitive nationalist forces. This has been a
time- honoured Lebanese political tradition. Since its independence, Lebanon has
been a free playground for all sorts of interests, both Arab and non-Arab,
including Israel. Its leaders had no hesitancy to invite foreign military
intervention to prop them up against their opponents, as President Camille
Chamoun did in 1958 when he pleaded with US President Dwight D Eisenhower to
send the Sixth Fleet to rescue his regime. The 15-year-long Lebanese civil war
provided a free-for-all battlefield and the Lebanese people paid a hefty price.
However, Lebanon remains the exclusive concern of the Lebanese people and until
they develop a strong enough consensus on that, to the exclusion of all external
powers, the US and Israel will continue to shadowbox Syria and Iran on Lebanese
territory and the people of Lebanon will continue to suffer.
In the heyday of shuttle diplomacy following the October 1973 war against the
Israeli occupation of Sinai and the Golan Heights, former US Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger used to say, "There is no war without Egypt, and no peace
without Syria." There is still a half-truth in that. Egypt opted out of the
armed conflict 29 years ago and regained Sinai as part of a peace package. Now
that Egypt has been militarily neutralised, Israel, backed by the US, is
exercising full military options in the region against Lebanon and the
Palestinian population in the occupied territories without having to worry about
Egyptian or any other regional military intervention. Israel wanted peace with
Egypt to get it out of the conflict and exercise military hegemony over the
region. This remained the case for almost 25 years; that is, until the rise of
Iran as a military power that could challenge the Israeli-dominated balance of
power. While Israel has used every Nazi tactic under the sun to crush and
liquidate the Palestinian population, all the Arabs have done has been to utter
infrequent bleats to the US which they know full well is on the side of whatever
Israel wants to do -- from building a racist wall of separation to constructing
new settlements on Palestinian land. And they will keep hoping that the next
administration will be more just to the Palestinians than all the previous
administrations, starting with that of Harry S Truman in the mid-1940s.
The four-month-old Lebanese presidential vacuum will top the agenda of the
summit because of the interests of the external powers involved. The internal
Palestinian dispute and the confrontation with Israel will be marked, again, by
some rhetorical statements and appeals to the US and the European Union,
code-named "the international community". Few, if any, will remember last year's
summit decision to set up and activate an "Arab Quartet" that would put the
Palestinian problem and Israeli occupation on top of the agendas of
international meetings. Conventional Arab wisdom that the issue will have to
await the outcome of the US presidential elections will prevail. Then it will
have to wait on yet another Israeli election. Israel has politely turned down
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's invitation for a follow-up conference
in Moscow to the US- sponsored Annapolis conference last year. The two main
Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, who spent one week in negotiation in
Sanaa to mend their rift, finally signed off on an agreement that the government
of President Mahmoud Abbas soon repudiated, claiming that the leader of the
Fatah delegation, Azzam Al-Ahmed, had no authority to sign it. It would seem
that to President Abbas the confrontation with Hamas is more important than
stemming the flow of Palestinian blood.
To top it all, US Vice-President Dick Cheney, the arch- architect of the war on
Iraq, left the region after conferring with some key Arab allies to whom he made
US priorities abundantly clear. His admonitions will not be lost on participants
in the summit.
* The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC. He also served
as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
The Arab League's Hesham Youssef tells Dina Ezzat that the
Damascus Arab summit will not differ greatly from summits of the past
By: Dina Ezzat
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly
March 27/08
The seat of the Lebanese permanent delegate was empty last Monday at the start
of the preparatory meetings for the Arab League summit in Damascus
In the Syrian capital Damascus, Arab foreign ministers are meeting today to
prepare for the annual convocation of the Arab summit on Saturday and Sunday. In
theory, the ministerial meeting should revise the agenda of the summit and draft
resolutions to be adopted by top-level attendees. This year, however, things are
looking different.
The anticipated -- and in fact leaked -- news of the absence of several Arab
leaders, including President Hosni Mubarak and Saudi King Abdullah, is likely to
make today's ministerial meeting more tense than the average pre-summit session.
With around 12 of the 22 member states of the Arab League expected to be
represented at the foreign minister level, the summit itself -- notwithstanding
formalities and tradition -- is likely to be much less ambitious than otherwise
expected under the stewardship of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, who is all
but standing isolated from other influential Arab leaders.
The non-participation of Arab leaders is the culmination of a growing sense of
frustration with Syria's leadership across Arab capitals in the last three
years, mostly over its role in Lebanon -- qualified by many as preventing
Lebanese political consensus -- in addition to its declared support for Islamic
resistance groups in Palestine and Iraq, not to mention its all but declared
alliance with Iran, the clear adversary of the main ally of the so-called
"moderate" Arab countries and the United States.
However, for Hesham Youssef, chief of cabinet of Arab League Secretary-General
Amr Moussa, the issue of the participation of Arab leaders "is certainly
crucial, but should not be blown out of all reasonable proportion". In interview
with Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo before flying to the Syrian capital, Youssef
added: "Obviously, it would have been ideal if most Arab leaders would have made
it to the Arab summit. The situation in and around the Arab world calls for a
serious and candid discussion among Arab leaders."
Youssef accepts that Arab leaders decide their priorities in line with their
regional and international foreign policy agendas. "The important thing is that
all Arab leaders were keen that their countries be present at the summit. This
is an important message that the leaders wish to maintain a certain level of
Arab cohesion," he said. Egypt is to be represented by Minister of State for the
People's Assembly Affairs Moufid Shehab.
Like other Arab diplomats, including the Syrians, Youssef makes reference to
previous Arab summits -- particularly the 2002 Beirut summit -- that convened
with a limited presence of Arab leaders, but yet managed, "due to the full
engagement of all Arab countries", to produce "key decisions", like the
comprehensive adoption of the Arab Peace Initiative.
"I am not at all saying that the participation of Arab leaders is a minor issue.
I am just saying that it should not be perceived as the only criteria for the
Arab summit to deliver," he added.
Youssef declined to confirm or deny rumours suggesting that only nine Arab
leaders would be present in Damascus Saturday morning. "Nothing is a done deal
yet. The situation is still subject to consideration," he said.
Meanwhile, the major obstacle to high-level Arab participation in the Damascus
summit -- namely the four-month overdue election of a Lebanese president --
remains present. The election session of the Lebanese parliament that was due
for Tuesday was postponed, Youssef noted. The chances are slim, he added, for
the Damascus summit to achieve a breakthrough in this complicated issue that has
so far proven resistant to all mediation, including the determined diplomatic
efforts of Secretary-General Moussa.
Beyond Lebanon, "there are huge issues for the Arab countries to discuss and
many strategies, plans and decisions that the member states of the Arab League
need to work on," according to Youssef. He admits that he is concerned about the
slow -- even "at times terrifyingly slow" -- pace of progress in the Arab world
with regard to addressing political, developmental, social and regional
problems.
The fate of the Arab Peace Initiative, that the latest Arab foreign ministers
meeting all but threatened to take off the table if Israel does not come around
to serious negotiations with the Palestinians, and the continued humanitarian,
political and security disaster in Iraq are "but two of the pressing problems".
The summit, Youssef reminds, is an opportunity to address these issues in their
wider context; one that includes other Middle Eastern players, like Turkey and
Iran, and the strategic interests of other international players, especially the
US where a new administration will be in the White House before the next Arab
summit convenes in March 2009.
"This is precisely what the Arab summit is supposed to do: decide on major
issues and address clear and specific messages to the international community
about the collective Arab position and how it believes the conflicts of the
region should be addressed," Youssef said.
Is it not exaggerated to talk of "a collective Arab position"? Is there not a
division among Arab countries into two camps on practically every critical
issue? And is it not striking that at the official Arab League summit it is Arab
leaders who supposedly embrace "moderation" that will be absent, leaving
proceedings to the US-declared "extremist" camp?
"Don't take it to the extreme," Youssef objects. "Yes, there are different views
among Arab countries, about the issues of relations with the US and with Iran,
but again all Arab countries would want positive relations with both," he
stated. He added that some Arab capitals -- despite certain concerns over Iran's
political and security plans for the region -- have taken it upon themselves to
offer mediation between Washington and Tehran.
On more concrete conflicts, "there is a collective Arab position that talks is
the way forward to retrieve the Arab territories occupied by Israel, but there
is no collective position yet as to how far pressure should be exerted on Israel
and how," he said. The Arab League diplomat added that there are also collective
Arab positions on the need for the Sudanese government to promptly reach an
agreement with Darfur's rebels (there is even a strong will to support such an
agreement), on addressing the state of chaos in Somalia, and on supporting
reconciliation in Iraq and preserving Iraq's territorial unity.
"You could argue that this is a rather inactive position, or that it is not
being enthusiastically embraced by all, but it is there," Youssef said.
And when it comes to Lebanon, the issue, according to Youssef, is not only the
election of a president but also how to build confidence between the government
and the opposition and to secure a formula for power sharing. "All Arab
capitals, including Damascus, are supportive of the choice of Lebanese Army
chief Michel Suleiman for president. The issue is the rest of the deal, in
relation to the formation of government, including the share of the majority and
opposition in cabinet seats and reform of the legislative elections law," he
said.
For Youssef, the Damascus summit has much to deliver. "There has to be at least
a containment of current Arab differences. This level of tension is not
acceptable when the Arab world is faced with so many political, security and
indeed developmental challenges," he said. Also, the Damascus summit should mark
the beginning of the return of Syria to the Arab fold. Speculation over the
isolation of Syria, particularly tension between Syria and both Egypt and Saudi
Arabia, has to be promptly addressed, he added.
Within this context, Youssef refuses to see the non-participation of Arab
leaders in the Damascus summit as a vote of no confidence in Syria. "Not at
all," he says firmly. "If Arab countries wanted to send this message they would
not be present in Damascus at all," he added.
On the other hand, "It is also important that Syria acknowledges the concerns of
certain Arab countries over the continuation of divisions in Lebanon, and their
impact on regional stability. It is equally important for other Arab countries
to accept that the influence of Syria, ultimately, has a ceiling and that
Damascus is not the only player in Lebanon," Youssef said.
Overall, Youssef refuses to be pessimistic about the Damascus summit. "It might
not be the most dramatic Arab summit," but important decisions will still be
made. Youssef is expecting resolutions that advance the cause of Arab economic
cooperation ahead of a much-needed Arab Development Summit in Kuwait towards the
end of this year, as well as calls for closer relations with various partners in
the international community.
On the political side, Youssef expects the summit to be "similar to previous
Arab summits that have been convened for the past seven years," where
resolutions are passed expressing support for the Palestinians, and lately
calling for reconciliation among Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Somalis and the
Lebanese. "The assessment of what Arab summit resolutions really bring is
admittedly controversial," Youssef admits.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Summit stakes
By: Gamil Mattar*
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly]
March 28/08
Coming to the fore in Damascus, the dilemma Arab leaders face is between making
sacrifices and being sacrificed, writes Gamil Mattar*
Times have changed for Arab summits. Balances of power have shifted, some
political ideologies have waned and others have waxed, and new government
policies and positions are at work. Even the US, which had once cautioned
against Arab summits and campaigned to get them postponed or even cancelled, now
practically looks forward to them and eagerly offers ideas and advice.
In the past, the Arab League was a podium upon which Arab leaders would vie in
the vehemence of their declarations of opposition to colonialism and the Zionist
occupation and alliance with foreign powers, be they Eastern or Western. Not
infrequently, some Arab officials would apologise in advance to foreign
diplomatic representatives for what they were about to proclaim from the Arab
League podium. But at least the League's minutes and the history of collective
Arab work testify to the fact that no Arab leader has ever used that forum to
declare a stance that would offend the sensitivities of the majority of the Arab
people.
One remarkable feature of recent years is the way American politicians would
regularly and repeatedly seek out "influential" officials in Arab capitals in
advance of an Arab summit. From all indications, their purpose was to persuade
these officials to avoid adopting certain resolutions or, if that could not be
helped, to lighten their tone and make such resolutions "balanced". Then, if
persuasion didn't work, pressure would be applied.
So a certain polarisation crept into the official Arab political scene, a
polarisation arising from conceptual fiddling. I've heard it said in Arab
capitals that to the Americans, these days, the Arabs fall into two categories.
The first consists of religious extremists who have declared jihad against the
West, freedom fighters engaged in legitimate resistance against military
occupation or foreign domination, and protesters against Israeli aggressions
against the Palestinians, Zionist expansionism and increasing Jewish
intervention in regional and international affairs. In this category, too, fall
those who advocate stronger Arab relations with the so-called BRIC countries
(Brazil, Russia, India and China).
The other category, in the prevailing opinion in Washington, consists of those
who unabashedly toe the American policy line and implement the dictates of
America's economic ideology and privatise whatever they can on and below the
ground, leaving nothing for their countries and their peoples for the years of
drought.
This categorisation has done no small injustice to many Arab politicians and
intellectuals who were awarded the label "moderate" and lumped together in a
pact called the "moderate alliance". In the opinion of those American think
tanks that are steeped in neo-conservative ideology, hatred for the Arabs, and
unswerving loyalty to Israel, Arab moderates are those who don't make a fuss at
the dissolution of Arab countries so long as those countries are not their own.
This is the thinking behind opinions and statements urging these Arabs to
support with their silence the Ethiopian occupation of Somalia, the "civilised"
world's occupation of Darfur, and the current process of dismantling Comoros
(which is a member of the Arab League, for those who had not known this fact).
These Arabs are also being asked to stand by and watch as Sudan is torn apart
between southerners and northerners and between east and west, and to keep their
opinions to themselves on all the scheming and manoeuvring that is currently in
progress to build a high dam stretching from the "New Horn of Africa" to
Africa's Atlantic shore. In addition, these "moderates" are further being told
to stop being so dovish about Iran and to sign up to the multifaceted and
gradually escalating confrontation against Tehran. In this regard, some
Americans are whispering a word of advice in the ears of Arab officials:
"positive" change in Arab policies towards Iran will be looked upon by Israel as
the "last" concrete proof it needs of Arab "good intentions".
Naturally, those American politicians want "moderate" Arab rhetoric to be
reflected in the resolutions and statements coming out of the Arab summit. So,
they are telling the "moderates", no outcries about the economic stranglehold
and starvation of an Arab people in Gaza; no demands for a halt to the massacres
by NATO forces in Afghan villages or to the bombardment of Somali villages; and
no declarations that the Arabs (of both sorts) are becoming less and less able
to tolerate Israel's insults and transgressions and Western support of these,
and ever more inclined to threaten rejecting a two-state project on the remains
and ruins of Palestine. There must be nothing of this sort in the Arab summit
statement, or if public opinion has to be appeased, at least keep the tone down.
In a recent conference I attended on the future of the international order, I
happened to be sitting next to a woman whose politics I can say for certain are
moderate, sensible and realistic. Throughout the conference she seemed obsessed
with a single subject, which she called "moderation that has run out of
patience, and moderates who've lost the incentive to be moderate". In defence of
this position, she asked whether the Latin American summit that was held in
Santo Domingo recently was "terrorist" and "extremist" because it took up the
call of Latin American moderates and appealed to the US to stop meddling in the
domestic affairs of the countries of that continent. They didn't proclaim war
against the US or any other country; they didn't call for a boycott or a
severing of relations with the US; and they didn't forge an anti-US alliance.
All they did was to make it known that their response to US policies was to
accelerate their plans for economic integration and cooperation.
The woman went on to say that Latin American moderates suspect parties outside
of their continent to deploy the divide- and-conquer method to bring to heel
"hard-line" governments, which is to say those that have chosen an alternative
path towards economic growth. Isn't China moderate, in fact the epitome of
moderation, she asked. Yet the West, led by the US, pounced on it and attempted
to encroach on its territorial integrity to punish it for having persevered on
the path to growth and development. Then she said, "I'm afraid that the Arab
region has been targeted for the next phase of Balkanisation, and it has already
begun in Somalia, Sudan and in Iraq, and will threaten other Arab countries
before moving to Pakistan and Iran."
I hope Arab leaders reject the notion of a "moderate alliance" as Washington
envisions it, not only because it sets Arab governments against each other,
which was the objective of British and French colonialist strategy not all that
long ago, but also because the idea is being aired at a time of deepening
social, political and religious crises that will not be alleviated by fanning
yet another axis of polarisation, this one between hard-liners, most of whom are
quite moderate in many respects, and moderates, most of whom are quite fanatic
in many respects.
Despite the inroads that have already been made in implanting this concept in
the Arab political body, I still can not picture an Arab summit statement that
does not call for "the need to make a clear distinction between terrorism and a
people's right to resist foreign occupation, whether out of opposition to the
occupation or in self defence," and that does not support "the right of the
Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian and other Arab peoples to resist Israel's
occupation, continuous threat of aggression and campaigns to incite the
countries of the world against the Arab and Muslim people." (The latter is,
also, a form of aggression and has, in fact, succeeded in putting all Arabs
without exception permanently on the defensive). Nor can I imagine a statement
issuing from the summit that does not include a point or some reference to "the
right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes".
At the same time, it is not difficult to picture the scale of US pressure for
the inclusion in the summit statement of a point that distances the Arab
position from Iran, ostensibly in deference to the international community and
the UN Security Council, but really because this is what the US and Israel want.
I have no doubt that Washington's insistence on such a point will encourage some
Arab heads of state to cancel their plans to attend the summit, pleading
preoccupation with other concerns. Perhaps, too, the conference will come up
with two conflicting statements in this regard: one in which some Arab leaders
express their concerns about Iran, thereby appeasing international and regional
powers and keeping harm at arm's length, for the time being at least, and a
second statement cautioning against the danger of the disintegration of the
Islamic nation and calling for a halt to the chain of abuses of the rights of
the Arab nation.
The forthcoming days will test the capacities of Arab diplomacy, especially that
of Syria in its capacity as host country. Political analysts have no doubt about
the aim of Syrian diplomacy at this critical phase. It is to sustain the
efficacy of the Syrian role in the Arab order, and it will be a difficult, if
not impossible aim, to achieve if Damascus disregards the current state of the
Arab world or handles it with an attitude of moral superiority. It will also be
a hard objective to accomplish if the only consensus that comes out of the
summit in Syria is that the fact that the summit was held constitutes an
"accomplishment" for the Arab nation in view of enormous international and
regional complexities. Or, similarly, it may occur to some Syrians and
"moderates" to promote the notion that the very fact that the summit got off the
ground finally dispels that shadow of suspicion that had hung over Damascus as
the shoal upon which the principle of regularly scheduled summits always ran
aground.
In other words, Syrian diplomacy, with the help of some others, will simply try
to arrange things so that they can ultimately emerge from the summit intact and
with some reasonable results in hand, in the hope of forestalling the emergence
of a dangerous vacuum in Lebanon or elsewhere, like the vacuum that occurred in
Iraq, with all its horrifying consequences.
It is no secret that the subject of many confidential admissions and closed-door
discussions has to do with the dangerous dilemma in which many parties find
themselves -- the dilemma of having to choose between making sacrifices and
being sacrificed. No Arab leader wants either, but they are under constant and
mounting threats, and commentators and politicians are wrong to underestimate
how dangerous this dilemma is. But it is also wrong, and more dangerous, to
pretend that political realism compels Arab countries to offer concessions on
fundamental rights and principles in order to avoid fragmentation or
dissolution. This kind of sacrifice is a bottomless pit and the fastest route to
disintegration. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan and a few phases of
the Palestinian revolution offer eloquent proof.
* The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic
Research.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
No leader to send
By: Lucy Fielder
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. March 28/08
With no head of state to send to Damascus and no solution to their political
crisis, the Lebanese are wondering what will follow the Arab summit,
Lucy Fielder reports from Beirut
Forlorn hopes that Lebanon may yet send a president to the Arab summit were
dashed this week after Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri postponed a session to
elect a president for a 17th time, just four days before the summit was due to
start.
Lebanon has been without a president since November, with the Western-backed
government and opposition led by Hizbullah battling it out over power-sharing.
Although the two sides have long since agreed on a consensus candidate, army
commander Michel Suleiman, they are so implacably opposed on the issue of
government formation, the general orientation of Lebanon's policies and its
regional role, that there were few hopes of a breakthrough before the summit.
Iranian and Syrian-backed Hizbullah's weapons are another bone of contention and
a key reason for the high level of international interest in Lebanon.
The summit itself, due to be held in Damascus this weekend, looked likely to be
more than usually ineffectual at the time of writing, with Saudi Arabia having
announced, as expected, that King Abdullah would not attend in person. Saudi
Arabia, along with Egypt, accuses Syria of blocking the election of a president
in Lebanon. The low ebb of Syrian-Saudi relations was illustrated by the
latter's decision to send its ambassador to the Arab League, Ahmed Qattan,
instead of Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal. Egypt is also reportedly
planning a low-level attendance.
At the time of writing, Lebanese ministers were about to meet to decide whether
to send a representative to the summit. Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora, who has
close relations with the Saudis and poor ones with Syria, is not expected to
attend. If Lebanon sends a delegation, it is likely also to be low level --
perhaps its permanent representative to the Arab League. Like Riyadh, Washington
and his government colleagues, Al-Siniora blames Syria for the killing of former
prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri three years ago, which plunged Lebanon into
crisis and created a nominally "pro" and "anti-Syrian" rift that still splits
the Lebanese population.
With the summit becoming little more than an opportunity to express
dissatisfaction with Syria and deepen its isolation, little of use was expected
to come out of the summit concerning the Lebanese situation. But the failure to
elect a president beforehand increases the chances of a drawn-out political
crisis. According to Osama Safa, head of the Lebanese Centre for Policy Studies,
it could perhaps last beyond the 2009 deadline for parliamentary elections.
Syria's critics in Lebanon say Damascus refrained from stirring trouble in
Lebanon to pave the way for a smooth Arab summit. Now that this is not within
reach, they suggest that it may incite street battles or encourage the
opposition to take drastic action if the crisis drags on as expected.
An uneasy calm settled on Beirut's streets over the past three weeks following
sporadic troubles in the first two months of the year, including the shooting of
at least seven Shia protesters in the southern suburbs in January for which
three army officers and eight other soldiers were arrested, and a number of
clashes in mixed-sect areas of central Beirut such as Ras Al-Nabeh, Basta and
Mazraa. It is as yet unclear who stirred the clashes, which mainly played out
between supporters of the Sunni Future Movement of Saad Al-Hariri and Berri's
Amal movement and Hizbullah.
"I would expect reminders here and there and exchanges of messages once the
summit is out of the way," Safa said, "such as assassinations, roaming bouts of
violence, that kind of thing." Safa added that although predictions of a
regional war have waned for now, the outlook for Lebanon depends on developments
in the region and the coming change in the US administration. "Until then,
Lebanon will either be on hold or witness a controlled and measured escalation
as we have seen in the past few weeks. For now it appears to be more of the
status quo," he said.
Marking the 40-day commemoration of the assassination of Hizbullah military
leader Imad Mughniyah, Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah struck a defiant tone
with Israel, which the group accuses of the killing, but a conciliatory note on
domestic politics. Nasrallah said Hizbullah would seek a solution to the
political crisis regardless of the outcome of the Arab summit. Christian leader
Michel Aoun, who is allied with Hizbullah, has also said the opposition is
planning to introduce a new initiative.
In a televised interview, Berri said he would call Lebanese leaders to a
dialogue, which would be the third in the past two years, if the summit as
expected yielded no solution. But leaders on both sides are widely seen as being
devoid of new ideas to resolve the deadlock, and neither is likely to back down
unless a regional development -- such as a thaw in Syrian-Saudi relations or a
change in the US-Iran standoff -- pushes them to do so. Previous dialogue
sessions eased tensions and reached agreement on more straightforward issues
such as the status of Palestinian weapons outside Lebanon's 12 refugee camps.
Bridging the chasm between the two main conflicting sides is likely to remain an
elusive task for the foreseeable future, however.
A Daily Star editorial this week proposed that a structure be put in place to
stop another dialogue round from foundering, but the usually pro-government
paper said the opposition's "good turn" deserved one in return. "Before [the
dialogue] can happen, it is incumbent on 14 March to reciprocate by answering
the gestures made by Nasrallah and Berri in kind. This would serve as a
confidence-building measure, but also to get past the tiresome reliance of both
sides on empty slogans," it read.
"Only when each side has fully defined its goals and visions will they be able
to make a realistic attempt at reconciliation," the editorial added.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Sarkozy to Syria: Lebanon is a Free Country
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said Syria should realize the importance of
Lebanon's freedom.
"Syria should understand the need for Lebanon to be a free country," Sarkozy
said in a rare address to both Houses of Parliament during his state visit to
Britain which kicked off on Wednesday. "Lebanon should be a free country and
everybody should realize that and Syria must also understand that," Sarkozy
stressed.
Sarkozy on Thursday kicks off the second day of his visit to Britain with a
meeting in Downing Street, followed by an Anglo-French summit.
The first day of his visit was highlighted by an offer to bolster France's
military presence in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are fighting a bloody
insurgency, along with a rare address to both Houses of Parliament and a state
banquet at Windsor Castle. Following the Thursday morning meeting with Prime
Minister Gordon Brown, the two leaders are expected to call for greater
transparency in the financial markets and reform of major international
institutions, the latter of which is a long-standing interest of the British
leader. Beirut, 27 Mar 08, 10:06
Defense officials: Hizbullah has rockets that can reach Dimona
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Senior defense officials say Hizbullah has dramatically increased its rocket
range and now threatens most of Israel.
The officials said the Lebanese group has acquired new Iranian rockets with a
range of around 300 kilometers. That means they can hit anywhere in Israel's
heavily populated center and reach as far as Dimona, where Israel's nuclear
reactor is located.
Hizbullah fired nearly 4,000 rockets into Israel during the Second Lebanon War.
Those rockets had a maximum range of some 70 kilometers.
The UN peacekeeping force dispatched to Lebanon after that war was meant to
prevent Hizbullah from rearming. But the officials say Hizbullah now has many
more rockets in its arsenal than the 14,000 it had before the conflict.
In early March, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reported Israeli claims that
Hizbullah's arsenal includes 10,000 long-range rockets and 20,000 short-range
rockets in southern Lebanon.
Syrian Tycoon Bristles
At U.S. Sanctions Against Him
Makhlouf, Tied
To Assad Regime,
Promises a Fight
By MARIAM FAM in Damascus, Syria, AND JAY SOLOMON in Washington
March 27, 2008; Page A10
As the U.S. places economic sanctions on Syrian President Bashar Assad and his
inner circle, one of Syria's richest men is expanding his foreign partnerships
and promising to fight Washington's attempts to rein him in.
In February, the U.S. Treasury Department banned U.S. firms and individuals from
doing business with companies controlled by Syrian tycoon Rami Makhlouf. The
sanctions would also freeze any of Mr. Makhlouf's American assets. The
designation was part of an effort by the Bush administration to economically and
diplomatically isolate Damascus. The U.S. says Syria is seeking to destabilize
the Lebanese government while supporting militant groups operating in Lebanon,
Iraq and the Palestinian territories.
• Business as Usual: Despite U.S. economic sanctions, one of Syria's richest men
is expanding foreign partnerships.
• U.S. Strategy: Washington seeks to punish adversarial regimes by targeting
their most-prominent businesses.
• Firm Stand: Rami Makhlouf said sanctions had little effect on his business,
won't pressure Syria, and can be circumvented.The U.S. is sanctioning Mr.
Makhlouf because it says he is involved in corrupt activities. That is a twist:
Most Treasury sanctions in recent years have been of companies or individuals
allegedly supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation. The Bush administration
has already sanctioned a number of Syrian government officials and companies for
aiding militant groups operating inside Lebanon and Iraq.
In a rare interview, Mr. Makhlouf said the sanctions had little effect on his
business and won't change Syria's behavior. He added that there were ways to
circumvent the sanctions.
He also said he had been unfairly targeted and would fight back. "I will sue
everyone that issued this decision," he said in his offices in Damascus. "I will
demand my rights and ask to be compensated for any past or future damages."
A U.S. official said the Treasury Department has been sued in recent years in
relation to its blacklisting of firms alleged to be financing terrorism. The
official said the department has won all these cases.
The Treasury Department's sanctioning of Mr. Makhlouf fits into an emerging
strategy being employed by Washington as it attempts to punish hostile regimes:
targeting their most-prominent business executives and companies.
Over the past two years, the Treasury Department virtually froze North Korea out
of the international financial system by blacklisting the Macanese bank through
which it conducted most of its overseas transactions. In recent months, the
Treasury Department has sought to isolate Myanmar's military government by
sanctioning a Burmese businessman widely viewed as the junta's most important
fund-raiser.
Mr. Makhlouf's "corrupt behavior, which includes intimidation and obtaining
improper business relationships, has both disadvantaged Syrians and entrenched
the regime," said Adam Szubin, director of the Treasury's Office of Foreign
Assets Control, in an interview. "He's very close to the Assad regime,
personally and economically."
Mr. Makhlouf, 38 years old, is a cousin of Mr. Assad. His business interests
include tourism, real estate, banks and telecommunications. While he is a
prominent figure in Syria, he keeps a low profile; many Syrians don't know what
he looks like.
In recent years, he has increasingly hooked up with investment partners from
other Arab countries and Europe, including some key American allies. That could
complicate Washington's efforts to isolate him. The sanctions are only
applicable to American citizens, but Washington hopes they will discourage
non-American firms from doing business with him as well.
Last year, Mr. Makhlouf and dozens of other prominent Syrian investors
established Cham Holding, considered Syria's largest private company. Mr.
Makhlouf is the company's vice chairman. He holds about a 12% interest through
an investment fund called Al Mashreq, his office said.
Since then, Cham has agreed with Syria's state airline and a Kuwaiti company to
set up a new airline. Mr. Makhlouf has also been in talks to sell a stake in
Syrian cellphone operator Syriatel Mobile Telecom SA to a Turkish company. Mr.
Makhlouf is Syriatel's chairman and majority shareholder.
This month, shortly after the sanctions were imposed, Dubai-based real-estate
company Emaar Properties PJSC announced it had agreed to set up a $100 million
venture with Cham to develop projects in Syria. Emaar representatives didn't
return phone calls and an email request for comment.
In the interview, Mr. Makhlouf said he has no investments or money in the U.S.,
and that the U.S. move hasn't had much financial impact on his business at home.
Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial
intelligence, said he couldn't comment on whether assets related to Mr. Makhlouf
were frozen in the U.S. He added that more important than any frozen assets has
been "the information we're providing to governments, businesses and financial
institutions around the world" relating to Mr. Makhlouf.
Mr. Levey said he couldn't comment on what specific actions the Treasury might
take against Cham Holding or other companies associated with Mr. Makhlouf. He
said his office, however, "is looking into all of them," including their
ownership structures.
He said the Treasury Department charges against Mr. Makhlouf, particularly
regarding corruption, "might make people exercise discretion in determining
whether to do business with him."
Mr. Makhlouf said the blacklisting has won him the support of many Syrians, and
that there are ways to get around the sanctions.
"Today, I publicly associate myself with companies that I publicly say I own.
Tomorrow, maybe I will come up with companies that no one knows I own," he said.
"If other companies want to work around this, if they want to work in the
country, they can. Syria is a promising market." He also said that the move
could rattle potential investors. "After all, this is America," he said. "Most
big companies have interests in America."
It remains unclear just how much pressure Washington's actions will place on Mr.
Makhlouf and companies doing business with him. An early test case may be
Gulfsands Petroleum PLC, a publicly traded, United Kingdom-incorporated energy
company. Mr. Makhlouf is a minority shareholder, through Al Mashreq.
Gulfsands' chief executive and largest shareholder, John Dorrier, is an American
citizen, and the company has offices in Houston. In October, Gulfsands formed a
strategic partnership to develop oil fields in Syria and Iraq with Cham Holding.
A Gulfsands executive said the Treasury Department's blacklisting of Mr.
Makhlouf will have no impact on the company pursuing its partnership with Cham.
Gulfsands said it would comply with any rulings made by the Treasury.
Mr. Levey said he couldn't comment on Gulfsands, and couldn't discuss companies
believed to be tied financially to Mr. Makhlouf.
Mr. Makhlouf said Washington's approach to trying to change Syria's behavior
won't work. "This is not how to solve the issue," he said. "Syria is a main
player in the region....Pressure on it doesn't produce results."
Senior U.S. officials said they tried to engage Damascus directly by inviting a
Syrian delegation last November to the Washington-sponsored Middle East peace
conference in Annapolis, Md. Since that time, American diplomats said Syria has
displayed no willingness to cooperate with the U.S. and its allies to stabilize
the political situation in either Lebanon or the Palestinian territories. The
recent sanctioning of Mr. Makhlouf and other Syrian officials is a result of
Washington's frustration with President Assad's government, these U.S. officials
say.
**Write to Mariam Fam at mariam.fam@wsj.com and Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com