LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJune
12/2010
Bible Of
the Day
Luke12/49-59" “I came
to throw fire on the earth. I wish it were already kindled. 12:50 But I have a
baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!
12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace in the earth? I tell you, no,
but rather division. 12:52 For from now on, there will be five in one house
divided, three against two, and two against three. 12:53 They will be divided,
father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and
daughter against her mother; mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” 12:54 He said to the multitudes
also, “When you see a cloud rising from the west, immediately you say, ‘A shower
is coming,’ and so it happens. 12:55 When a south wind blows, you say, ‘There
will be a scorching heat,’ and it happens. 12:56 You hypocrites! You know how to
interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky, but how is it that you don’t
interpret this time? 12:57 Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?
12:58 For when you are going with your adversary before the magistrate, try
diligently on the way to be released from him, lest perhaps he drag you to the
judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into
prison. 12:59 I tell you, you will by no means get out of there, until you have
paid the very last penny.”
Free Opinions, Releases,
letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Listen to the Vatican/Now
Lebanon/June 11/10
Turkey muddies the water/By:
Bassel Oudat/Al-Ahram Weekly/June
11/10
The Shifting Sands of the Middle East/By Ted
Belman/American Thinker/June
11/10
The myth of Iran's 'isolation'/Washington
Post/June
11/10
Has the Taif Accord
become an orphan?/By:
Khalil Zahr/Daily Star/June
11/10
The
nagging 'what ifs' on Iran/Daily Star/June 11/10
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June
11/10
Obama Meets Abbas, Says Mideast
'Progress' Possible This Year/Naharnet
Hariri to Accept Invitation to
Visit Tehran before Ramadan/Naharnet
Crisis or No Crisis after Lebanon
Abstained from Iran Sanctions Vote?/Naharnet
Lebanon, with Syria's Help, Puts
Hand on Israel Spy Network/Naharnet
Jumblat: Lebanon Mustn't Be Part of
Ongoing U.S.-Iran Conflict/Naharnet
Baroud from Paris: French Stance on
Lebanon Unchanged/Naharnet
Ammar Moussawi: U.S.
Administration's Problem is that it Always Has to Humor Israel/Naharnet
Ahmadinejad Blasts Obama, Calls
U.N. 'Tool of Dictatorship/Naharnet
No sign of war with
Hizbullah soon/Jerusalem
Post
Is a Third Lebanon War Imminent?/The
Faster Times
Analysis: Lebanon War lessons were totally
ignored/Jewish
Chronicle
Lebanon's Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas
condemn new sanctions against Iran/The Canadian Press
Hezbollah responds to US assessment/UPI.com
Hezbollah, Hamas Raise Money for Terrorist Activities From Drug Trade in
South/Before
It's News
Report: Erdogan invites Nasrallah to Turkey/Ynetnews
Arab lawmaker on flotilla sparks outrage in Israel/The
Associated Press
Tel Aviv faces a formidable Middle East coalition/GulfNews
Turkey agrees to Arab trade plan/BBC
News
Turkey
looks to create free trade zone with Arabs/Naharnet
Kahwaji
praises troops for maintaining stability/Daily
Star
Has the
Taif Accord become an orphan?/Daily
Star
LADE rates municipal elections as
'acceptable to good/Daily Star
Authorities Pull License from Sole
Herbal Medicine Manufacturer in Lebanon/Naharnet
Nahhas: Proactive Budget for First
Time in Lebanon's History/Naharnet
Franjieh: No Prosperous Future for
LF, No Compromises to Reach Baabda/Naharnet
Visa-Free Travel Deal among
Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Jordan/Naharnet
Listen to
the Vatican
June 10, 2010
Now Lebanon/
At the same time Pope Benedict XVI was shaking hands with the devoted in Cyprus
last weekend, the Vatican published a report claiming that the international
community is ignoring the plight of the Middle East’s estimated 17 million
Christians. In particular, it cited those who have been affected by the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ongoing unrest in Iraq and sectarian tensions
in Lebanon. As if that were not enough, the paper also highlighted what the
Vatican sees as an overall regional threat from Islamic extremists.
Elsewhere, the report mentions the impact that internal political considerations
in the predominantly-Muslim Arab world have had on “relegating Christians to the
precarious position of being considered non-citizens, despite the fact that they
were citizens of their countries long before the rise of Islam.”
This has certainly been the case in Iraq, where over 600,000 Christians, roughly
60 percent of the community, have fled the bloodshed that has blighted the
country since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. They have been abused,
raped, tortured and murdered in a systematic religious cleansing, ensuring that
Iraq, once the cradle of learning and civilization, has gouged one of its key
demographic components. Such a shift can only change the nature of the country
forever.
In Lebanon, since the 1975-90 civil war, the number of Christians has dropped,
mainly because of emigration and a relative decline in numbers compared to the
other sects. Today, they number roughly 40 percent of the population, with the
Maronites, the majority sect in the early 1930s, falling to under 1 million in
number, a shade under 25 percent of the accepted Lebanese population of 3.5
million.
To point this out is more than just a sectarian gripe. Lebanon’s very existence
is predicated on its sectarian “spread.” The confessional diversity may have
been used to explain away Lebanon’s inherent curse: its predilection for
violence and the fact that it has so often been the battleground for the
region’s stronger nations, not to mention the world’s superpowers, by pitting
sect against sect. But Lebanon is also a model of tolerance because no one sect
has – so far – been able to dominate any of the others. It is a country based on
genuine consensus, even if that consensus has at times slowed national
development, and its Christians are very much part and parcel of this dynamic.
The Christians who fled Lebanon during the civil war have been the most
reluctant to return. The naturally occurring shift in the sectarian demographic
in favor of Sunnis and Shia, the Syrian occupation – which tended to favor the
Muslim communities and which passed legislation that has prevented
second-generation Lebanese from automatically obtaining Lebanese citizenship –
and the rising influence of Hezbollah as an extra-state actor, not to mention
the security hair trigger on which Lebanon permanently exists, have all
conspired to some degree to keep Christian expats in their comfortable lives in
Europe, North America or Australia. It doesn’t help that many believe that
Lebanon is once again changing, that it is no longer for the Lebanese and that
it is being bought, square meter by square meter, by petrodollars.
It is unlikely that the level of brutality faced by Iraqi Christians will be
visited upon Lebanon. But theirs is a cautionary tale just as the Vatican’s
report is a timely reminder that without a significant Christian presence, one
that is already feeling threatened and marginalized, Lebanon will, like Iraq,
lose a special part of its identity.
The Middle East has been the melting pot for the three monotheist religions.
Before 1967 there were roughly 7,000 Lebanese Jews. Today, fewer than 100
remain. The role of Lebanese Christians in the national dialogue and the
sectarian mosaic is an essential and fundamental part of the nation of Lebanon.
We must ensure that we don’t take them for granted.
Ahmadinejad Blasts Obama, Calls U.N. 'Tool of Dictatorship'
/Naharnet/Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday Israel was "doomed"
and singled out U.S. President Barack Obama for scorn after the U.N. agreed a
fresh round of nuclear sanctions against his country. Speaking during a visit to
the World Expo in Shanghai, Ahmadinejad denounced the U.N. Security Council's
sanctions resolution adopted Wednesday with Chinese and Russian backing as
"worthless paper." The firebrand leader accused global nuclear powers of
"monopolizing" atomic technology and said the new sanctions would "have no
effect". Ahmadinejad chose a visit to his country's national pavilion during
"Iran Day" at the Shanghai Expo in preference to an appearance at a regional
security summit in Uzbekistan attended by the Chinese and Russian leaders.
Presidents Hu Jintao of China and Dmitry Medvedev of Russia were in Tashkent
Friday for the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The SCO was set
Friday to snub Iran's membership bid, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
indicated, leaving Tehran increasingly isolated over its refusal to renounce
uranium enrichment. Ahmadinejad's visit to the Expo comes at a delicate time in
Tehran's relations with its ally China, one of the five permanent veto-wielding
members of the Security Council. His government had earlier reacted furiously to
China's decision to fall into line with the United States and other powers that
accuse Iran of covertly trying to build nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad shied away from criticizing China, which has emerged as Iran's
closest trading partner. "The main problem is the U.S. administration, and we
have no problem with others," he told reporters, accusing the United States of
seeking to "swallow" the Middle East.
Swatting aside the U.S. leader's offers of dialogue and rapprochement if Iran
relents on its nuclear ambitions, Ahmadinejad said: "I think President Obama has
made a big mistake... he knows the resolution will have no effect. "Very soon he
will come to understand he has not made the right choice and he has blocked the
way to having friendly ties with the Iranian people."
Not for the first time, Ahmadinejad reserved his harshest rhetoric for Israel.
"It is clear the United States is not against nuclear bombs because they have a
Zionist regime with nuclear bombs in the region," he said. "They are trying to
save the Zionist regime, but the Zionist regime will not survive. It is doomed."
Ahmadinejad said the entire architecture of global power was built to keep out
smaller states. "We have always said the Security Council is a tool in the hands
of the United States. It is not democratic, it is a tool of dictatorship," he
said. "Five powers have the veto right and the nuclear bombs and the monopoly
and they want to monopolize nuclear energy for themselves," he added.(AFP)
Beirut, 11 Jun 10, 07:28
Lebanon, with Syria's Help, Puts Hand on Israel Spy Network
Naharnet/Lebanese intelligence services have put their hand on a spy network
linked to Israel, Ad-Diyar newspaper said Friday.It said more than one side,
particularly Syrian security services, have contributed to what it described as
a "hefty catch." Ad-Diyar, however, did not say when the network – that worked
on gathering information about the Resistance -- was arrested. Beirut, 11 Jun
10, 08:00
Crisis or No Crisis after Lebanon Abstained from Iran Sanctions Vote?
Naharnet/The issue that Lebanon abstained from voting on new sanctions against
Iran took up a good portion of the debate during Thursday's Cabinet meeting.
State Minister Jean Oghassabian told the daily As-Safir in this regard that
diverse opinions surfaced among Cabinet ministers during the session.
Oghassabian, however, said Cabinet was united over Iran, adding that all March 8
and March 14-backed ministers were against a U.N. Security Council resolution
calling for more sanctions on Iran. "By refraining from voting, we have taken
Lebanon's interest into account," he explained. "Therefore, I do not think that
what happened in Cabinet will have negative repercussions on the government,"
Oghassabian said. As-Safir said that while pro-Speaker Nabih Berri's Cabinet
ministers committed themselves to the ceiling set by AMAL movement, a Free
Patriotic Movement Cabinet minister said: "We hope Cabinet will overcome this
issue and there will be no repercussions." State Minister Adnan Hussein asserted
that there will be no political implications. Marada Cabinet Minister Youssef
Saadeh agreed. "The split was clear even before Cabinet convened. What is
important, however, it is that no one was with sanctions," Saadeh said. Minister
of Administrative Development Mohammed Fneish also rejected accusations that the
Opposition will likely seek to stir political tension as a reaction to what
happened in Cabinet. But al-Liwa newspaper quoted sources from the March 8
forces as saying that "the next phase is likely to witness political escalation
in more than one direction."
Beirut, 11 Jun 10, 13:03
Hariri to Accept Invitation to Visit Tehran before Ramadan
Naharnet/Prime Minister Saad Hariri will reportedly make a visit to Tehran
before the holy month of Ramadan begins Aug.11. As-Safir newspaper, citing Arab
diplomatic sources, said Friday that Hariri's expected visit to Iran would be
part of his tour of Arab, Western and Islamic countries. The sources said Hariri
has recently hinted that he will accept an invitation to visit Tehran before
Ramadan to sign a number of agreements with Iran. Beirut, 11 Jun 10, 10:22
Visa-Free Travel Deal among Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Jordan
Naharnet/Lebanon, Turkey, Syria and Jordan agreed Thursday to set up a free
trade zone, complete with a visa-free travel regime for their nationals, a joint
declaration issued in Istanbul said. The four countries will establish a
cooperation council "to develop a long-term strategic partnership" and "create a
zone of free movement of goods and persons among our countries," it said. The
deal was agreed by the foreign ministers of the four countries who met on the
sidelines of a Turkey-Arab cooperation forum in Istanbul. The free trade zone
will be based on "existing bilateral agreements and practices on free trade and
visa exemption" between the parties, the statement said, adding that Turkey and
Lebanon were required to complete a bilateral arrangement before the four-way
process could go ahead. "The quadripartite mechanism... will be open to the
participation of all the other brotherly and friendly countries in the region,"
it said. Turkey's Islamist-rooted government, in power since 2002, has
significantly improved ties with the Arab world, often neglected in the past
amid the country's traditionally pro-Western orientation. Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu dismissed suggestions that Turkey's growing ties with Eastern
neighbors represented a search for an alternative to the country's struggling
bid to join the European Union. "Turkey is determined to become a full member of
the European Union," he told reporters Thursday.(AFP) Beirut, 10 Jun 10, 19:06
Authorities Pull License from Sole Herbal Medicine Manufacturer in Lebanon
Naharnet/Lebanese authorities have taken away the license of the single herbal
medicine manufacturer, head of the parliamentary Public Heath Committee MP Atef
Majdalani announced.
The decision was taken in light of the ads that are being published without any
license from the Ministry of Health. Majdalani said he
has informed Health Minister Mohammed Jawad Khalife about the measure which
states that no herbal medicine or investment licenses would be issued. "How can
these men (manufacturers) appear on television without license from the Health
Ministry?" he wondered. Majdalani said he will ask for an explanation from
Interior Minister Ziad Baroud as to why "we keep seeing these ads even though
they have no licenses, and how can such ads be issued without approval of the
General Security which is under the jurisdiction of the Interior Ministry."
Beirut, 11 Jun 10, 09:19
Jumblat: Lebanon Mustn't Be Part of Ongoing U.S.-Iran Conflict
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat clarified Thursday
the reasons behind the voting of the PSP ministers in the cabinet, alongside the
March 14 ministers, in favor of Lebanon abstaining from voting on new Iran
sanctions at the U.N. Security Council. In a phone interview with Hizbullah's
mouthpiece al-Manar TV network, Jumblat said: "I've opposed Lebanon's membership
in the Security Council, since the beginning, because it doesn't suit its tiny
size and Lebanon doesn't have the ability to join the game of nations."
Jumblat equaled Iran to the United States, noting that "Lebanon must not be part
of the ongoing conflict" between the two foes. Beirut, 10 Jun 10, 21:55
Ammar Moussawi: U.S. Administration's Problem is that it Always Has to Humor
Israel
Naharnet/Hizbullah's foreign relations chief Ammar Moussawi criticized on
Thursday the U.S. administration saying that it always seeks to appease Israel
and take stands that would serve its interests.
Commenting on Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey
Feltman's recent statements about Hizbullah, the official told the Central News
Agency: "The country passed through very difficult times under his tenure,"
accusing him of being one of the main figures who turned the Lebanese against
each other.Addressing the new sanctions against Iran, he said: "The U.N.
Security Council has become a forum for instilling the U.S. policy, in that it
does not launch an international campaign against Israel's nuclear arsenal, but
views Iran's peaceful attempts as a major danger." He
asked: "Why is Israel protected from questioning while other sides are
pressured?" Beirut, 10 Jun 10, 17:47
Franjieh: No Prosperous Future for LF, No Compromises to Reach Baabda
Naharnet/Marada movement leader Suleiman Franjieh said the Lebanese Forces will
not enjoy a "prosperous future" adding that the party would suffer a setback if
the funding it is receiving was stopped. In an interview published in As Safir
daily on Friday, Franjieh warned that the LF's organizational structure could
under new international circumstances turn into a "security nucleus" capable of
igniting civil war. "400 fighters alone are protecting Maarab … aren't those the
nucleus of an armed militia?" the MP wondered. A war of words has lately erupted
between Franjieh and the LF following the killing of 2 Marada supporters at the
hand of a Lebanese Forces member. Although the incident was personal, the MP
accused LF leader Samir Geagea of being a war criminal. The Lebanese Forces, in
its turn, said the accusations are a clear order from the outside to pressure
the party. Asked if he had any presidential ambitions, Franjieh said he wouldn't
make any compromises to reach Baabda palace. "I don't mind staying in Bnashii."
The Marada leader also stressed that he was keen on good ties with Former Prime
Minister Omar Karami. Beirut, 11 Jun 10, 10:04
Turkey
muddies the water
Bassel Oudat
Al-Ahram Weekly
Syria's plan to divert the waters of the Tigris portends a long and bitter
quarrel with Iraq, reports Bassel Oudat from Damascus
Last year's severe drought in northeastern Syria dried up the Khabur River which
is the lifeline in that region, causing some 500,000 Syrians to migrate to other
areas inside Syria. In response, the government signed a deal with the Kuwaiti
Fund for Arab Economic Development to begin a project on the Tigris close to the
Syrian-Turkish-Iraqi border, diverting enough water to fertilise 200,000
hectares.
Baghdad was infuriated by the project and called Damascus to an "emergency
meeting" to clarify the details of the "surprise plan" which would divert river
water over long distances inside Syrian territories. Iraq's Water Resources
Ministry stated that any diverted water will affect Iraq's already meagre water
quota, which would negatively influence local agriculture and the economy. Iraqi
officials also predicted that the plan will jeopardise already worsening
relations between the two neighbouring states.
Syria has not responded to Iraq's invitation. Informed Syrian sources asserted
that the project was conceived decades ago, and not a new concept at all, as the
Iraqis are claiming. In fact, it is an indicator of warming relations between
Syria and Turkey, because Ankara gave Damascus the green light to go ahead and
begin the project.
The plan is indeed old, but was delayed because previous governments in Turkey
refused to sign any agreement to share water with Syria and Iraq. With
encouragement from abroad, Ankara was fooled into believing that it would be
stronger and have more leverage by controlling the water flow.
Syria and Iraq have fought over water resources in the past. In the 1980s, it
threatened to ignite a war. Eventually the quarrel came to include Turkey,
especially after Ankara began building large dams on the Euphrates and Tigris.
So far, no three-way agreement has been reached because Turkey refuses to share
the water with Syria and Iraq.
The heart of the problem lies in differences of interpretation of Syria and Iraq
on the one hand, and Turkey on the other. Turkey believes the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers, which originate in the Taurus Mountains in Turkey and pass
through Syria and Iraq, to be "marginally cross-border rivers" because they
barely pass inside the borders of Syria and Iraq. But Syria and Iraq consider
them major international water bodies which should be evenly divided among
everyone.
When the regimes in Damascus and Baghdad fell out in the 1970-80s, this
negatively affected their rights to the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris and a
number of smaller rivers, because they refused to sit together or with the
Turkish side. Ankara used Syrian- Iraqi tensions to exercise control over the
waters of the rivers and keep a much larger share than stipulated in
international water agreements for itself. It constructed massive dams on the
rivers, using their waters in agricultural and industrial projects along their
banks. It cut down the amount of water going to each country, and refused to
recognise that the two rivers were international waterways but rather local
Turkish rivers which happen to pass through Syria and Iraq on their way to the
Arab shore, south of Basra in Iraq.
In 1974, Turkey began the Southeastern Anatolian (GAP) project which consists of
21 dams, 17 of which on the Euphrates including Ataturk Dam and four others on
the River Tigris. It also included 19 power stations and 47 water reservoirs,
and a variety of other projects in the fields of agriculture, industry,
transportation, irrigation and communication. Ankara earmarked $32 billion for
the project and received a large part of the budget from international funding
in the form of loans and grants, especially from the US, Canada, Israel and
France.
In 1987, Syria and Iraq tried to gain some recognition over the waters of the
two rivers, but it was too late. Turkey refused to negotiate with them as one
party and dealt with each side separately, taking a disproportionate amount for
itself. Damascus and Baghdad could do nothing, especially in light of the fact
that Ankara continued its plans to construct dams and was able to cut off the
flow of the river altogether to both neighbours.
In 1989, Syria and Iraq agreed to divide the quota of the Euphrates River given
to them, whereby Syria's share amounted to 42 per cent and 52 per cent went to
Iraq. Later, in 2000, the two sides agreed that Syria should receive a share of
the Tigris water (which flows 50km inside its border), enough to irrigate almost
200,000 hectares of land.
In the end, sharing the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris became a capricious
matter, not relying on clear and precise agreements based on international law.
Turkey's whims dictate quotas with no base in international law. In 2007, a
three-way meeting failed to result in a comprehensive agreement on the issue
because Turkey refused to change the status quo and wanted to make it a de facto
arrangement.
Syria's project to divert Tigris water, which it started publicly planning at
the beginning of this year, has antagonised the Iraqis to an unexpected degree,
and Baghdad's reaction came as a surprise to Damascus. This is especially true
since there is a preliminary agreement regarding this issue with the previous
regime in Iraq, which Iraqis today consider invalid. The Syrians counter that
the agreement was concluded with a legitimate Iraqi government and not one
person per se, and it is illogical to annul agreements between countries every
time the regime changes.
Syrian political circles feel that Iraq's reasoning is another attempt by Iraq's
government to raise tensions between the two countries, and manipulate this
domestically now that Iraq is about to form a new government.
Relations between the two neighbours have not been at their best for almost one
year, after Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki accused Syria of hosting and
assisting Al-Baath Party elements who support the ousted regime in Baghdad. Iraq
claims these elements are behind a number of attacks in Baghdad which have
killed hundreds of Iraqis. These accusations also came as a surprise for the
Syrians who said they have tried their utmost in the past few years to prevent
fighters from going into Iraq by more vigilant control of the border. At the
same time, Syria is home to 1.5 million Iraqi refugees and says it has
cooperated with Iraqi authorities.
Syrian officials believe that Iraq's objections to the Tigris project are not a
result of Iraqi concerns over water but have other political goals to do with
domestic Iraqi politics, power struggles among Iraqi factions, and complications
in forming Iraq's new cabinet.
No doubt, the quarrel between Syria and Iraq over the past decades has allowed
Turkey to do as it pleases with the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris. Today,
closer ties between Damascus and Ankara -- which could almost be described as a
strategic alliance -- are still not enough to convince Turkey to admit that
these are international rivers, and it continues to control them unilaterally.
Observers believe that rising political friction between Syria and Iraq, their
distraction with secondary issues over more important ones, and their lax
positions towards Turkey on the water issue and other matters have not only
caused tension, but resulted in immense strategic losses for both parties.
They will have to look beyond this current spat and focus on the real problem --
resolving the quota issue with Turkey.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
The Shifting Sands of the Middle East
By Ted Belman/American Thinker
June 11, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061004110.html
Shimon Peres, President of Israel, has, for the last thirty years, called for a
New Middle East. In fact, he wrote a book by that title in 1993, the year of the
Oslo Accords. He believed that economic cooperation in the ME was the starting
point for cementing ties and reconciling peoples. The Oslo Accords, of which he
was the main architect and instigator, were intended to lead in that direction.
They failed miserably.
In those days, the main players on the Muslim side were Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Egypt, and Syria, all Sunni. And of course, we cannot leave out Arafat, also a
Sunni.
All this began to change with the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. in 2003. Talk
about unintended consequences. The defeat of Iraq created a power vacuum which
Shiite Iran was salivating to fill. Although Iraq under Hussein was in the Sunni
camp, its population was 60% Shiite. Luckily, the Iraqi Shiites prefer
independence from Iran, perhaps due in part to the fact they are Arab and not
Farsi -- at least for now, but that could change.
Iran had aspirations of grandeur and imperialist ambitions. She began to plot a
course which would lead to her dominance of the Muslim world and the Middle
East. No small task, since 80% of Muslims are Sunni, and Mecca and Medina, the
holiest sites in Islam, are located in Saudi Arabia.
This course had two prongs: the development of Iran's own nuclear bomb and the
confrontation with Israel, the Little Satan, and the U.S., the Big Satan on
behalf of all Muslims everywhere.
Iran also had a natural advantage: her location. Egypt, with its population of
55 million, is poor and on the periphery. Egypt also made peace with Israel,
thereby taking them out of the race for now. Iran borders Iraq, Turkey,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Caspian Sea. The U.S. needs Iran to be
cooperative in each of these theaters.
Iran's first success was to win over Syria, the most rejectionist Sunni state.
Their alliance is constantly growing and seems to have no bounds. This is so
notwithstanding that the U.S. has attempted to wean Syria away from Iran. Syria
is important because it borders Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel, with whom it has a
casus belli for the return of the Golan.
Syria also has imperial ambitions. She has visions of recovering all lands which
were part of the Ottoman province of Syria. Britain and France entered into the
Sykes-Picot Agreement during WWI, in which they agreed that Britain would
control Mesopotamia (Iraq) and southern Syria (Jordan and Israel), and France
would control the rest of Ottoman Syria (Syria, Lebanon, and the Hatay province
of Turkey). The League of Nations formalized this agreement in 1923 when it
created the British Mandate and the French Mandate.
In pursuance of these ambitions, in 1970, Syria invaded Jordan only to be
repulsed by Israel. Over the recent decades, Syria has extended its influence
over Lebanon. This was made easier with the growth of Hezb'allah, which was
predominantly Shiite. It was natural for Syria and Iran to come together on
this. Together they have armed Hezb'allah to the teeth in order to have a proxy
for the war against Israel. In truth, there is no casus belli between Hezb'allah
and Israel.
Iran took Hamas under its wing after Hamas took over Gaza from the Sunni-backed
Palestinian Authority in 2007. It was natural for this to happen, since they
both are dedicated to destroying Israel.
This is a development which has put Egypt in the crosshairs. Hamas is an
outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt in 1928. The
Brotherhood has been a thorn in Egypt's backside ever since. It believes that
Muslim society is no longer Islamic and must be transformed by an Islamic
vanguard through violent revolution. Thus, the Brotherhood and Iran are natural
allies.
There is great concern that when Mubarak dies, Egypt will be vulnerable to a
Brotherhood takeover. Hamas, with the backing of Iran, could greatly assist in
this.
Turkey was the last to join the Iranian axis. With the defeat of the Ottoman
Empire, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk established the modern state of Turkey. He ruled
as president until his death in 1938. During this time he sought to transform
Turkey into a modern and secular nation-state. The Turkish army maintained this
orientation until the election of Islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan as prime
minister in 2003. This victory was made possible by the changing demographics of
the country. The higher birth rates of the rural class in Turkey (and in
Hezb'allah in Lebanon) made possible the shift in power.
The U.S. championed the admission of Turkey to NATO and to the EU. Turkey
maintained a friendship with Israel to gain favor with the U.S. and with the EU.
She succeeded in being admitted to NATO, but not to the EU. The EU was not in
the mood to admit a Muslim state and set all kinds of preconditions. Erdogan
decided to chart his own course rather than follow the one dictated by the EU.
Turkey gave up on admission and turned increasingly Islamist and anti-Israel --
and, I might add, anti-American.
In "Turkey's MidEast Gambit," Sam Segev notes,
Since his Justice and Development party (AKP) came to power in 2002, Erdogan has
cautiously but consistently moved to reclaim Turkey's "grandeur" of the Ottoman
Empire era.
This necessitated a slow but cautious distancing from Israel and the U.S. In
2003, it refused an American request to allow American troops to enter Iraq
through Turkish territory. Then a Turkish diplomat was elected secretary general
of the 53-member Organization of Islamic Countries and relations with Israel
cooled.
"Erdogan ramped up his Islamic-oriented policy after his re-election in 2007. He
reconciled with Syria, welcomed Hamas leaders in Ankara, hosted Sudanese
President Omar Hassan el-Bashir, who is accused of war crimes, and began to
undermine Egyptian and Saudi roles in the Sunni moderate Arab world.
[...] Turkey is the only NATO member to host Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and its alignment with Brazil to extricate Iran from stronger
sanctions agreed upon by the five permanent members of the Security Council is a
direct challenge to American influence in the region.
Turkey's attempt to break the blockade on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip was a direct
affront not only to Israel, but also to Egypt and the Palestinian Authority.
And yet President Obama still believes "Turkey can have a positive voice in this
whole process."
To make matters worse, the opinion-makers in the U.S. and the EU have come out
in favor of lifting the blockade, which in effect is in support of Hamas, a
terrorist organization. And Obama is on their side.
The strengthening of Hamas effectively strengthens Iran, strangles the peace
process, and scares the bejeesus out of Egypt and Jordan.
As Obama stands astride the shifting sands what possible vision can he have?
You would think that as the U.S. is losing control of the Middle East and plans
to bring most of the boys home before the end of next year, she would need a
strong Israel all the more.
Ted Belman is the editor of israpundit.com. He made aliya a year ago and now
resides in Jerusalem.
The myth of Iran's 'isolation'
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 11, 2010
In announcing the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing
sanctions on Iran, President Obama stressed not once but twice Iran's increasing
"isolation" from the world. This claim is not surprising considering that after
16 months of an "extended hand" policy, in response to which Iran accelerated
its nuclear program -- more centrifuges, more enrichment sites, higher
enrichment levels -- Iranian "isolation" is about the only achievement to which
the administration can even plausibly lay claim.
"Isolation" may have failed to deflect Iran's nuclear ambitions, but it does
enjoy incessant repetition by the administration. For example, in his State of
the Union address, President Obama declared that "the Islamic Republic of Iran
is more isolated." Two months later, Vice President Biden asserted that "since
our administration has come to power, I would point out that Iran is more
isolated -- internally, externally -- has fewer friends in the world." At the
signing of the START treaty in April, Obama declared that "those nations that
refuse to meet their obligations [to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, i.e., Iran]
will be isolated."
Really? On Tuesday, one day before the president touted passage of a
surpassingly weak U.N. resolution and declared Iran yet more isolated, the
leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran gathered at a security summit in Istanbul "in
a display of regional power that appeared to be calculated to test the United
States," as the New York Times put it. I would add: And calculated to
demonstrate the hollowness of U.S. claims of Iranian isolation, to flaunt Iran's
growing ties with Russia and quasi-alliance with Turkey, a NATO member no less.
Apart from the fact that isolation is hardly an end in itself and is pointless
if, regardless, Iran rushes headlong to become a nuclear power, the very claim
of Iran's increasing isolation is increasingly implausible. Just last month,
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted an ostentatious love fest in Tehran
with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil. The three raised hands together and
announced a uranium transfer deal that was designed to torpedo U.S. attempts to
impose U.N. sanctions.
Six weeks ago, Iran was elected to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, a
grotesque choice that mocked Obama's attempt to isolate and de-legitimize Iran
in the very international institutions he treasures.
Increasing isolation? In the past year alone, Ahmadinejad has been welcomed in
Kabul, Istanbul, Copenhagen, Caracas, Brasilia, La Paz, Senegal, Gambia and
Uganda. Today, he is in China.
Three Iran sanctions resolutions passed in the Bush years. They were all passed
without a single "no" vote. But after 16 months of laboring to produce a mouse,
Obama garnered only 12 votes for his sorry sanctions, with Lebanon abstaining
and Turkey and Brazil voting against.
From the beginning, the Obama strategy toward Iran and other rogue states had
been to offer goodwill and concessions on the premise that this would lead to
one of two outcomes: (a) the other side changes policy, or (b) if not, the world
isolates the offending state and rallies around us -- now that we have
demonstrated last-mile good intentions.
Hence, nearly a year and a half of peace overtures, negotiation, concessions,
two New Year's messages to the Iranian people, a bit of groveling about U.S.
involvement in the 1953 coup and a disgraceful silence when the regime's very
stability was threatened by peaceful demonstrators.
Iran's response? Defiance, contempt and an acceleration of its nuclear program.
And the world's response? Did it rally behind us? The Russians and Chinese
bargained furiously and successfully to hollow out the sanctions resolution.
Turkey is openly choosing sides with the region's "strong horse" -- Iran and its
clients (Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas) -- as it watches the United States flailingly
try to placate Syria and appease Iran while it pressures Israel, neglects
Lebanon and draws down its power in the region.
To say nothing of Brazil. Et tu, Lula?
This comes after 16 months of assiduously courting these powers with one
conciliatory gesture after another: "resetting" relations with Russia, kowtowing
to China, lavishing a two-day visit on Turkey highlighted by a speech to the
Turkish parliament in Ankara, and elevating Brazil by supplanting the G-8 with
the G-20. All this has been read as American weakness, evidence that Obama can
be rolled.
The result is succinctly, if understatedly, captured in Wednesday's Post
headline "U.S. alliance against Iran is showing new signs of vulnerability."
You think?
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Has the Taif Accord become an orphan?
Friday, June 11, 2010
Khalil Zahr
Daily Star
It was to be expected that political and sectarian differences among the
Lebanese would float to the surface with the end of direct Syrian tutelage over
Lebanon. Particularly since the guardian authority was putting a roof over these
differences preventing them from escalating and threatening stability and peace.
Once Syrian troops were off Lebanese soil these divisions intensified, resulting
in the rise of the March 14 and March 8 movements. Consequently, protests and
demonstrations infected with sporadic acts of violence disrupted government
institutions and delayed constitutional processes. Among them the suspension of
Parliament and delays in presidential elections, the formation of the Cabinet,
issuance of national budgets, and making senior appointments in state agencies.
The most ominous development came on the heels of the formation of Saad Hariri’s
government. The real positions of the various political and sectarian groups on
the Taif Accord were revealed and turned out to be effectively rejectionist.
Almost every party had its own reservations, at a time when the Accord was
already an integral part of the Lebanese Constitution. These revelations were in
contrast to the former proclaimed support of the Accord, when most of these
parties used to privately blame the Syrian Guardian authority for the delays or
selectivity in its implementation. Peculiarly, those who refused to support the
Taif Agreement in the past were punished, while others who publically supported
it, but claimed to have serious reservations about it, flourished in the post-Taif
order under Syrian tutelage.
We observe that the Taif Accord has met the same fate as the former
Constitution, becoming the subject of discretion and selectivity in both
interpretation and application. Among the important reforms that have not been
implemented are the formation of the National Commission for Elaborating a Plan
to Abolish Political Sectarianism, the adoption of administrative
decentralization at the province and district levels, and the establishment of
the Senate. What has been implemented of the reforms has been incorrectly
applied, such as foregoing rotation among the various confessional groups in
filling senior (Grade 1) government positions as a transitional arrangement
until the abolishment of political sectarianism. In reality, the present
situation allows, unfairly, the monopolization of particular positions by
specific confessional groups. This will form the basis for continued sectarian
friction and discontent.
The declarations of support for the Taif Accord are belied by the controversy
caused by the recent call by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, to form the
National Commission for Elaborating a Plan to Abolish Political Sectarianism.
The suspicion that this move was part of political maneuvering rather than an
honest attempt at advancing the implementation of the Accord, should not
distract from the divergent positions of the various parties and their
significance on the eventual fate of the Taif constitution, and consequently, to
the principles upon which the armed phase of the civil war of 1975 came to an
end.
The proclamations made by some mainstream Islamic groups to the effect that
Muslim-Christian parity is a final outcome of the Accord is incorrect since this
parity was supposed to be temporary until political sectarianism is fully
abolished according to a definite program to be laid out after the election of
the first parity based parliament. This came in the context of reassuring the
Lebanese Christians and allaying their alleged fears from abolishing political
sectarianism, given their actual minority status in relation to the Muslims.
Irrespective of the nobility of the purpose, such positions are in direct
conflict with the Accord and clearly unconstitutional. Having been taken by
senior officials of the government, who claim support for the Taif Accord, such
an unconstitutional position make the matter all too curious and informs the
real challenges facing Lebanon.
The sponsors of the call for the formation of the National Commission and their
supporters went too far in appeasing those in opposition, to the extent that
forming the Commission has become the ultimate goal of the reform and not
abolishing political sectarianism which is the necessary condition for Lebanon’s
stability and economic and social progress. Such behavior by those alleged
supporters of the Accord reinforced the suspicions that these were merely
self-serving maneuvers in the classical Lebanese political landscape and not a
serious attempt at implementing very essential and long overdue reforms.
Those who are fearful of abolishing political sectarianism and even oppose the
formation of the National Commission go to extremes in their stance, defying
objectivity and realism. To some of them, the Lebanese sectarian system is
considered the ideal universal system for faith diverse societies. In their
enthusiasm for such a system, they did not hesitate to recommend it to the
western democracies of Europe as a solution to the challenges involving the
integration of their Islamic immigrant minorities. Such positions ignore the
ability of these advanced countries to solve their problems within their well
developed constitutions, and the very successful experiences of many democratic
countries such as Canada, Australia, and the United States of America in
integrating the various religious and ethnical communities in a culturally and
economically dynamic society. Also, absent from these positions is the
understanding that the nature of the political system is not an end in itself
but a means to realize social peace and stability - prerequisites for
sustainable economic development and social progress. In this respect, Lebanon’s
sectarian system has failed to provide social stability and security for a
considerable period of time since its inception. Consequently, the economy has
been unable to achieve sustainable growth in the standards of living and create
job opportunities for its youth. These are the primary objectives and
responsibilities of government and come well before the size of banking system
deposits or the stability of the exchange rate, which most Lebanese politicians
keep highlighting, conveniently ignoring the primary and more basic measures of
economic and social management.
Even if we accept the sectarian political system, parity between Muslims and
Christians is not a sustainable proposition because it ignores the very basis of
Sectarian representation which is fairness among the various sects, and
consequently it is likely to be continuously challenged. Furthermore, any
sectarian political formula will deny the system its claim to democracy and good
governance, since the latter ought to guarantee equality under the law for
individual citizens and not necessarily among groups, whatever their nature or
composition. On the other hand, conforming to proportional representation among
the sects composing the two main groups: Christians and Muslims, will prove too
difficult to sustain in light of the different demographic, social, and economic
dynamics affecting the respective size of the various sects.
Support for the abolishment of political sectarianism must not be understood as
a disregard for the sincere concerns of those who fear such development. Such
fears resulted in the Taif Accord, proposing the formation of a National
Commission instead of the immediate outright abolishment of political
sectarianism in order to address similar concerns with the objective of
establishing a non-sectarian democratic Lebanon.
In spite of the reservations that we may have about the Taif Accord, it remains
the only realistic foundation upon which the Lebanese could progress toward a
stable political environment and peaceful existence. The fact that the Accord is
already an integral part of the highest law of the land, the State Constitution,
makes its full implementation vital for future peace and stability. The essence
of stability is not in having an ideal law, but more importantly, in obeying
whatever law we have. Improving on the Taif Accord can only come after it is
fully implemented and its lessons are learned. The abolishment of political
sectarianism, with appropriate safeguards to protect Lebanon’s diversity, would
make it easier on the Lebanese to reach national consensus on very important
issues and challenges that are the source of deep divisions and recriminations.
Dr. Khalil Zahr is a writer in Development Affairs.
LADE
rates municipal elections as 'acceptable to good'
Group calls for creating committee on reform
By Carol Rizk
Daily Star staff
Friday, June 11, 2010
BEIRUT: The Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections (LADE) released on
Thursday its final evaluation of last month’s municipal elections, remarking
they had been “acceptable to good.” The organization evaluated both preparations
for the polls and the electoral process, and said legal standards, technical
measures and organization of the polls were “acceptable to good and in
accordance with international laws and standards.”
LADE said the elections, which were held over four Sundays in May, showed
improvements over previous years but that political and legal conditions should
be reviewed.
In the run-up to the polls, LADE said that the main difficulties had been in
ensuring the elections were held on time with the necessary reforms.
It explained that the suggested reforms, such as a 30 percent women’s quota and
preprinted ballots, were meant for immediate implementation and were thus no
longer valid. Therefore, “the road to municipal reform should begin based on new
foundations.” LADE asked the Lebanese government to create a committee of
experts, civil society representatives and constitutional institution
representatives to help formulate a new draft law for municipal reform.
Evaluating the electoral process, LADE based its assessment on the three
fundamental principles: freedom, fairness and transparency.
With regard to freedom, the association said it regretted the fact that some
candidates had been pressured into withdrawing from the elections. “These
actions were committed in all regions and by all political factions, despite
their importance,” it said, noting that the number of uncontested victories was
proof of such pressure: 28 percent of all seats, mostly in the Bekaa, where won
uncontested.
LADE blamed the Legislations and Consultation Committee at the Justice Ministry
for extending the deadline of withdrawing candidacies until directly before the
elections, and said the committee “interpreted paragraph 6 of Article 25 of the
municipal elections law differently to reigning democratic principles.”
The organization added that the municipal elections “like any other elections in
Lebanon” did not fully respect the rights of voters to a secret ballot, saying a
number of voters reported being pressured or blackmailed. “It’s no longer
acceptable that Lebanon is one of three countries in the world not using
official voting papers,” it said.
Evaluating the fairness of the elections, LADE criticized the current electoral
law, which is based on a majority system. It said proportional representation
was a better alternative and that the wave of consensus witnessed during the
municipal elections was a form of imposed proportionality: All parties were
represented but leading politicians took the decision themselves instead of
letting the people decide.
LADE also regretted the weak participation of women and of young people, saying
the low figures compromised the fairness of the elections. Only 4.5 percent of
all seats were won by women.
LADE called the elections transparent in general with the exception of electoral
expenditures and stances given by political parties. “Not having a fixed limit
for electoral expenditures was an essential gap in the electoral process,” it
said.
The organization also commented on security measures, noting that some incidents
showed that certain factions still had a grip on the security situation which
meant Lebanon’s security forces had limited scope. It added that political
influence was apparent in political speeches which showed that candidates only
played a secondary role in the elections.
The nagging 'what ifs' on Iran
Daily Star/Friday, June 11, 2010
Editorial
What if … the threat isn’t what it seems to be?
The threat, of course, is the bogeyman of Iran’s nuclear program, and to be
honest, the jury is still out on what this program actually entails.
The United Nations Security Council has had it say, endorsing yet another round
of sanctions on the Islamic Republic this week. The scope of the sanctions and
their effectiveness certainly deserve attention, but we must remember that the
international community doesn’t have a spotless record when it comes to
confronting international “trouble-makers.” Whether the matter involves the Suez
War of 1956, when Egypt was seen as a threat to regional stability, or George W
Bush’s more recent crusade against Iraq, with its supposedly WMD-armed mad
dictator threatening the world, just because a few leading countries make
accusations, it doesn’t mean the accusations hold any water.
In the case of Iran, the jury is still out on what the Islamic Republic wants to
achieve with its nuclear program. It’s a complicated story, with many contending
versions being put forward, and the Israelis capitalizing on the situation, to
feed the world’s fear of nuclear weapons in the hands of “extremists.”
What if … the evidence has been concocted, and Iran wants a peaceful nuclear
program?
Nonetheless, Iran has been overplaying its hand, and a false sense of pride
could lead to dire repercussions. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s pronouncements
receive the most intense scrutiny, but the analogies with Iraq aren’t very
exact. Ahmadinejad isn’t a Saddam-style “leader for life,” and there are other
officials who obviously influence events in the Islamic Republic.
Be that as it may, Iran has had opportunities to arrive at a settlement, and
Ahmadinejad and others have squandered them. Iran’s exalted sense of national
pride seems to have dominated its dealings with the international community. It
seemed to think the geopolitical situation was a huge bazaar, in which Iran
could hold its own, and hold everyone at bay, by continuing to haggle.
For now, there are rumblings from Russia, to the effect that a shipment of
surface-to-air missiles to the Islamic Republic might be canceled. In any case,
Russia’s vote on Wednesday showed the Iranians that there are limits to
haggling, and that relations with Washington are more important than relations
with Tehran.
Again, it could be all based on a false premise: that Iran is hell-bent on
acquiring nuclear weapons, which begs the question of how they could be
deployed, or actually used.
But this is beside the point: Iran has overplayed its hand, and the Israelis
must be happy with the result. The only questions now are how the Iranians might
react to the latest sanctions, and how the international community might respond
in turn. These questions are of course joined by the original, nagging question:
what if?
Saad Hariri
June 11, 2010
On June 10, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the following report:
Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri participated in the inauguration of the fifth
Arab-Turkish Forum in Istanbul… During the inauguration session, Prime Minister
Al-Hariri delivered the following speech: First of all, I would like to extend
my condolences to our friend Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and through
him to the Turkish Republic, its president, government and people, for the lives
of the innocent martyrs who fell at the hands of Israeli criminality as they
were trying to offer a peaceful civilian aid to our brothers in Palestine and
particularly in Gaza. I bow respectfully before their sacrifices and Turkey’s
sacrifices for Palestine, our central cause.
The participation of this exceptional Arab and Turkish elite from the private
and public sectors in the fifth forum, reflects the importance of the
development of relations between the Arab world and Turkey. We all know that our
region is currently going through a highly sensitive stage on all levels, the
biggest proof being the painful incident we witnessed last week. On the
political and security levels, our region has suffered from Israeli arrogance,
criminality and barbarism for so long, at a time when Arab and Islamic states
are seeking just and comprehensive peace in the region based on the Madrid
Conference and the initiative of the Beirut Arab summit for peace. We in
Lebanon, this small country, are well-aware of the importance of coordination
and understanding between the Arab brothers and Turkey and are exploiting all of
our political and diplomatic capabilities to enhance Arab strength and form a
unified power that would secure the right of Palestinians to return to an
independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. On the national level, our main
goal today is to protect Lebanon from Israeli adventures and arrogance and
enhance domestic stability.
The global financial crisis allowed the resurfacing of voices, whether in our
region or in other areas around the world, calling for a closed economy.
However, I disagree with all the advocates of isolation under the pretext of
protecting national economies, since this protection is firstly ensured by the
adoption of sound legislation, policies and monitoring systems. Isolation will
waste many work opportunities for our youth and I consequently call – from this
platform – for the activation of Arab-Turkish cooperation. I am certain that the
Arab countries, the young and creative human capabilities they have and the
various natural resources they enjoy can set the foundation for real partnership
and economic cooperation with Turkey. Many Arab states decided to proceed down
that path and I am sure that it will bear its economic fruits in the medium
term, enhance the positions of Arabs and Turkey in the face of the challenges in
the region and strengthen the status of Turkey and the Arabs in economic and
political international forums. For our part, we in Lebanon want
Lebanese-Turkish relations to move toward a strategic partnership in all areas…
I conducted a successful visit to Turkey last January and we signed numerous
cooperation agreements and memorandums, the most prominent of which being the
annulment of the visa requirements for the citizens of both countries. Today, we
are seeing the positive effects of this agreement, as the number of Turkish
visitors to Lebanon multiplied by four as of last April. We are also looking
forward to Prime Minister Erdogan’s visit to Lebanon in July, in order to
translate the cooperation ideas and the new draft agreements into palpable
steps… I would like to point out that the Lebanese government wants to see the
Lebanese, foreign and especially Turkish private sector participating in the
implementation of developmental projects in different areas, based on the
principle of partnership between the private and public sectors. This will
alleviate the burden on the budget and allow the private sector to invest in
Lebanon, create new job opportunities and provide services to the community.
Again, I would like to thank you for your invitation and hope that the
Turkish-Arab economic forum will contribute to the establishment of economic
Arab-Turkish cooperation and prosperity for the people of the region.