LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJuly
05/2011
Bible Quotation for today
The Good News According to
Luke 18/15-17: "They were also bringing their babies to him, that he might touch
them. But when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. Jesus summoned
them, saying, “Allow the little children to come to me, and don’t hinder them,
for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Most certainly, I tell
you, whoever doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a little child, he will in
no way enter into it.”
Latest
analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases
from
miscellaneous
sources
Nasrallah fears sectarian unrest!/By
Tariq Alhomayed/July
04/11
Syria and Turkey/Hazem
Saghiyeh/July 4/11
Utter humiliation/Now
Lebanon/July
4/11
14th March Statement
after Sunday's comprehensive meeting/July 04/11
How to start a revolution?/By
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid/July 04/11
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for July 04/11
UN tribunal's indictments show
Lebanon's Hezbollah terrorists for the murdering thugs they are/New York Daily
News
Report: New STL Arrest Warrants
Against More than 14 Suspects Soon/Naharnet
Riyadh and Cairo Link Justice in
Hariri Case to Lebanon’s Stability/Naharnet
March 14 Slams Miqati: Do You Need
to Adopt Rhetoric of Those Who Backed You for Premiership?/Naharnet
Miqati Says ‘Sabotaging the Nation
is a Crime,’ March 14 Suffering from ‘Disorder’/Naharnet
Kataeb: Nasrallah’s STL comments
are ‘a case of disobedience/Now Lebanon’
STL indictment is a tool “to spread
chaos,” Berri warns/Now Lebanon
Aoun: Opposition’s Plan to Incite
Countries against Lebanon is Criminal/Naharnet
Fox News Twitter Account Hacked,
Claims Obama Dead/Naharnet
Ahmadinejad Hits Out at West over
Sudan Partition/Naharnet
Syrian Forces Kill Two near
Capital, Aim to Retake Hama/Naharnet
Syrian Refugees in Turkey Drop
Below 10,000/Naharnet
Ben Ali Gets 15 Years in Jail over
Drugs and Weapons Charges/Naharnet
Thai ex-PM Says Does Not Want to
Return to Power/Naharnet
US bailout for Palestinian economy
– only if Abbas drops UN plan/DEBKAfile
The Opportunity of the
Opposition in Syria/Elias
Harfoush/Al Hayat
Can Iran Achieve Victory
Over Turkey?//By:
George Semaan/Al Hayat
Exiting Hariri’s Blood/By:
Ghassan Charbel/Al Hayat
UN
tribunal's indictments show Lebanon's Hezbollah terrorists for the murdering
thugs they are
Editorials /New York Daily News/Monday, July 4th 2011,
There was never a scintilla of doubt that Hezbollah terrorists were behind the
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and now it's
official.
A United Nations tribunal issued indictments after a long investigation into the
2005 attack that killed Hariri and 23 others. The panel asked Lebanon's
government to arrest ranking Hezbollah operative Mustafa Badreddine and three
accomplices. Badreddine is also a leading suspect in the 1983 bombing of a
Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans.
Hezbollah fought the probe tooth and nail, even assassinating Lebanese Capt.
Wissam Eid, whose relentless search for the truth cracked the case.
A stunning Canadian Broadcasting Corp. report last year detailed how Eid, a
computer engineer by training, created software to study telephone records from
the time of the bombing.
He amassed evidence that proved the operation was run out of Hezbollah's
headquarters, and that selfless devotion to duty cost him his life.
Infuriatingly, the justice so long delayed for Hariri and for Eid will almost
certainly be thwarted again.
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has promised to "cut off the hand" of
anyone who tries to arrest its members.
That is no idle threat. Hezbollah's militia could easily outgun the national
armed forces, even if it didn't dominate Lebanon's ruling coalition.
While Hezbollah's thugs will likely be able to forestall justice in the Hariri
case, the indictments have at least set the historical record straight on how
the terrorist gangsters solidified their hold on Lebanon through murder.
New Opinion: Utter humiliation
July 4, 2011 /Now Lebanon
An image grab taken from Hezbollah-run Manar TV shows Hassan Nasrallah
delivering a televised speech at an undisclosed location on July 2, 2011. (AFP
photo/Manar TV)
Hezbollah has certainly come out fighting in the wake of the naming of four of
its alleged members in connection with the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri. The party’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, gave a speech on
Saturday that left the world in no doubt that his party has nothing but utter
contempt not only for a court created to bring to justice those responsible for
dozens of political killings, but for international law in general.
Hezbollah had a massive choice to make. Cooperating with the Special Tribunal
for Lebanon would have enhanced its “state” credentials (it is, after all, the
major player in the recently-formed government), but much of its
cleverly-cultivated aura of nobility and martial purity would undoubtedly have
fallen away as the process kicked in. Rejecting the tribunal, on the other hand,
would merely reinforce the already-widespread idea that the party has no
intention of ever walking hand-in-hand with the Lebanese state on any issues
that conflict with its fiendish agenda. Given the content of Saturday night’s
speech, it would appear that Nasrallah has chosen the latter. It was another
skillful demonstration of how anything that dares target his party can be
tarred, not only with the brush of conspiracy, but also blistered onto the
60-plus-year-old narrative that is the Arab-Israeli conflict. This was not about
justice but “part of a war we are fighting since the establishment of the
Zionist entity,” he said.
Nasrallah’s words will have acted as a welcome sedative to those Lebanese who
wish to see all the world’s ills through the prism of Israeli aggression. But
those who have witnessed the unilateral behavior that has seen Hezbollah drag
Lebanon from war to stagnation to civil bloodshed—all in the name of the
Resistance—will not have been fooled by his spin doctoring.
But where does this leave Prime Minister Najib Mikati? On Thursday, he addressed
the nation in as much of a statesman-like manner as he could muster, trying, as
he no doubt was, both to satisfy his allies in the government and convince us
that Lebanon had not totally shut the door on an international community in
which it claims to have a place. That was before his major ally in the
government stepped up to the microphone and demolished his authority and the
office from whence it comes, and used it as a rag to mop up what is left of
Lebanese dignity.
The opposition March 14 bloc has quite rightly demanded that Mikati commit to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1757 or step down. The alliance,
which for many years came to represent a Lebanon standing before a new
democratic dawn, appeared to have lost its way in recent months after the
January toppling of Saad Hariri’s government. In March of this year, Hariri
declared, “There is no liberty for the youth because the politics and economy of
the country have been subjugated to the tutelage of weapons.” His words were
meant to ignite a new era of opposition from March 14, but since then the bloc
has failed to walk the talk. Now must be the time to restore its credentials by
putting as much pressure on those members of the new government who still
believe in the idea of justice and the legitimacy of the state.
In the meantime, freethinking Lebanese are left to draw no other conclusion than
that Mikati is prime minister in name only and that his authority clearly does
not extend to the boundaries of a remit that is sanctified by the constitution.
He was so utterly undermined on Saturday night, so totally humiliated, that he
has no other alternative, for the sake of Lebanon’s international standing, but
to step down. But will he?
Fouad
Siniora reads the 14th March Statement
July 3, 2011
Future bloc leader MP Fouad Siniora delivered a speech on July 3 after March
14’s general meeting. His statement tackled the launching of the national
opposition which aims to bring down Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s cabinet unless
the latter voices his adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1757, which
established the Special tribunal for Lebanon (STL).
Future bloc leader MP Fouad Siniora:
“Time came for justice and truth for the Lebanese people, which are the
warranties of your stability and independence.
We are asking for truth and justice in the case of the 2005 assassination of
former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and all the other martyrs for the sake of
Lebanon’s peace and stability.
Justice is the warranty of the Lebanese people and it is a challenge for
criminals.
Political assassinations in Lebanon would not have reached this stage of
violence if not for the use of non-state arms.
It is no longer acceptable for non-state arms to stay in control over the state.
In its ministerial statement the cabinet rejects the call for justice.
As national opposition members, we ask Prime Minister Najib Mikati to voice his
adherence to the UNSC Resolution 1757 or leave office.
This cabinet is one that defies the Lebanese people.
This cabinet is a cabinet which defies the Lebanese people who supported justice
and freedom. The same people who consider the STL the appropriate body to hold
accountable the people responsible for this assassination chain which targeted
Lebanon and its national figures.
We call on the Lebanese people to be true to the principles of the Cedar
Revolution and to its goals.
March 14 parties call for confronting the coup which started in May 2008 in
Beirut, a coup which is backed by non-state arms.
Also, starting Tuesday, unless the PM voices his commitment to the UNSC
Resolution 1757, we call for starting the process to bring down this cabinet.
Likewise, we demand the launching of a political campaign - on an Arab and
international level – designed to free the republic from the non-state arms
prison.
We request that Arab governments and the international community do not
cooperate with this cabinet if it does not adhere to UNSC Resolution 1757.
March 14 parties will take every peaceful step necessary to preserve justice and
the memory of the Cedar Revolution.
March 14 parties will keep holding meetings to follow up on all developments and
take the appropriate decisions.
We supported the STL and we will keep supporting it so as to preserve justice
and the Lebanese people’s dignity.
‘No’ to Hezbollah’s cabinet, ‘yes’ to freedom and justice, ‘yes’ to coexistence
and democracy.”
Kataeb: Nasrallah’s STL comments are ‘a case of
disobedience’
The Kataeb Party issued a statement on Monday describing Hezbollah Secretary
General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s Saturday press conference against the
UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) as “a case of disobedience.”
“Nasrallah’s comments constitute a case of political and security disobedience
against the Lebanese state,” the statement said, referring to the Hezbollah
chief’s rejection of the arrest of four members of his group indicted by the STL
for former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s 2005 assassination. “Nasrallah’s
remarks show that he insists on confronting the STL… and the most dangerous
thing is that he is controlling the Lebanese government’s decisions regarding
the matter,” the Kataeb added. The party also rejected the ministerial
statement’s clause, which reportedly says that the cabinet will commit to the
STL “in principle.” “This [clause] is rejected,” the statement said, adding that
“achieving justice is a [necessary] condition for stability and state-building.”
Last Thursday, the STL handed Attorney General Said Mirza arrest warrants for
four members of the Iranian-and Syrian-backed Hezbollah in connection to Rafik
Hariri’s murder. he whereabouts of the four remain unknown. Nasrallah on
Saturday ruled out the arrest of the four members indicted by the tribunal. He
also rejected "each and every void accusation" made by the Netherlands-based
court, which he said was heading for a trial in absentia.-NOW Lebanon
STL indictment is a tool “to spread chaos,” Berri warns
July 4, 2011 /Speaker Nabih Berri on Monday said that the Special Tribunal for
Lebanon’s (STL) indictment for the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri is a tool “to spread chaos, not justice.” “The investigation [into
Rafik Hariri’s murder] was based on the stories of witnesses who gave unreliable
testimonies,” he added in a speech given in a ceremony marking the one-year
anniversary of the passing of Shia cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.
Berri added that his Amal Movement would stand behind the new cabinet and its
way of dealing with the tribunal’s indictment, adding that previous governments
“made illegal and politicized decisions” regarding the STL. The speaker
also called on parties to not pressure the cabinet before it starts its work, a
reference to March 14’s statement calling on PM Najib Mikati to either commit to
the UN-backed STL or step down. Berri also warned that there are attempts to
make Lebanon “a platform to target Syria.” Before bringing down Saad Hariri’s
cabinet in January, March 8 had been pressing him to disavow the tribunal. The
coalition had also insisted that the cabinet resolve the “false witnesses”
controversy over false testimonies to the international investigation into the
Rafik Hariri murder. The new cabinet’s ministerial statement voices the
government’s support for the STL to continue a path toward justice away from
politicization and in a way that does not harm Lebanon’s stability. Last
Thursday, the STL handed Attorney General Said Mirza arrest warrants for four
members of the Iranian-and Syrian-backed Hezbollah in connection to the 2005
assassination of Rafik Hariri.
The whereabouts of the four remain unknown.-NOW Lebanon
Report: New STL Arrest Warrants Against More than 14
Suspects Soon
Naharnet /The Special Tribunal for Lebanon is expected to issue in the coming
months more arrest warrants in the case of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s
assassination, informed sources told al-Liwaa daily published Monday.The
warrants could be issued before or shortly after the 30-day period granted to
Lebanon to serve out the STL warrants that were handed to Lebanese authorities
last week. If the suspects are not arrested within that period, the tribunal can
then publicly call on the four Hizbullah members to surrender. The sources said
that 14 to 17 new suspects could be named. They are part of the network that
planned and collaborated with the four people who allegedly executed ex-Premier
Rafik Hariri’s assassination. The four suspects are Mustafa Badreddine, Salim
Ayyash, Hassan Aneissy, known as Hassan Issa, and Assad Sabra. The sources also
told al-Liwaa that STL agencies are now studying information unveiled by
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Saturday. During his speech,
Hizbullah’s al-Manar television aired footage which Nasrallah said showed former
U.N. investigator Gerhard Lehmann receiving cash in exchange for documents in
the Hariri case. Al-Manar also aired a document which Nasrallah said proved
investigators had transferred IT equipment across Naqoura into Israel when it
moved its staff to the Netherlands in 2009.
Riyadh and Cairo Link Justice in Hariri Case to Lebanon’s
Stability
Naharnet /The Saudi and Egyptian foreign ministers have agreed that justice
should be served in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s Feb. 2005 assassination to achieve
stability in Lebanon, informed sources said. Al-Liwaa daily quoted the sources
as saying that Egyptian FM Mohammed al-Orabi and his Saudi counterpart Prince
Saud al-Faisal stressed during talks they held on Sunday that the questioning of
the suspects is the only way to deter the offenders and end the series of
assassinations that shook Lebanon in the past years. The end of the killing
spree would also guarantee the security of Lebanon and preserve its stability
and national unity, they said. Al-Orabi and al-Faisal stressed that the
international tribunal would question people and not organizations or political
or religious groups, in reference to Hizbullah. The four suspects named in the
arrest warrants handed by the tribunal to the Lebanese general prosecutor last
week are members of Hizbullah.
Miqati Says ‘Sabotaging the Nation is a Crime,’ March 14
Suffering from ‘Disorder’
Naharnet/Prime Minister Najib Miqati snapped back at the March 14 alliance on
Monday accusing its members of carrying out a crime against the nation and
attacking the cabinet for being unable to confront the truth that they lost
power. “Sabotaging the nation is a crime,” Miqati said in a statement. “It is
the national responsibility of everyone to preserve civil peace and stability
and not to sabotage or make fictitious heroic acts that stir tension.”He said
the March 14 forces that met at the Bristol hotel in Beirut on Sunday were
suffering from “disorder and bouts of extreme anger,” and were verbally
attacking the cabinet for “failing to confront the truth that they lost power
through democratic means.”
According to Miqati, the Bristol conferees “used the crime against former
Premier Rafik Hariri to pour their anger and their hatred on the cabinet for
known reasons.”
He said the March 14 forces had expected that Miqati’s government would not be
formed and the country would remain in a vacuum over the “failure” of the
caretaking cabinet of Premier Saad Hariri to carry out its duties.The prime
minister reiterated that clause 14 of the policy statement stresses the right to
achieve justice in ex-PM Rafik Hariri’s Feb. 2005 assassination unlike what the
March 14 statement said.The Bristol conferees said that Miqati’s government
disavowed in its ministerial statement the demand for justice to which the
Lebanese state has committed itself in previous policy statements.March 14
further misled the public by accusing the government of evoking the hostility of
the citizens and relatives of martyrs and pushing the Lebanese state outside
international legitimacy, Miqati said. Everyone knows about the “settlement”
that the coalition tried to reach at a certain stage at the expense of martyrs,
the premier said.“There is enough proof and documents on how the suggestions, at
times printed and other times handwritten, were making the rounds inside Lebanon
and outside to lure direct and indirect offers” for a settlement, he added.
Miqati also criticized the March 14 conferees for saying that the new cabinet
has carried out a coup against the Lebanese. “As if those who met at the Bristol
have the sole authority to represent the Lebanese or are the sole agents of the
blood of martyrs.”
March 14 Slams Miqati: Do You Need to Adopt Rhetoric of Those Who Backed You for
Premiership?
Naharnet/ The March 14 General Secretariat slammed on Monday Prime Minister
Najib Miqati’s response to Sunday’s Bristol meeting, saying that it was
surprised by the “premier’s ability to mislead the public.”It said in a
statement: “Miqati tried through his press office to lead the public to believe
that his government is keen on achieving justice and uncovering the truth
through the Special Tribunal for Lebanon based on article 14 of its policy
statement.” “That article stipulates that the cabinet will follow up on the
STL’s actions away from politicization and revenge,” it continued. “It seems
that Miqati has nothing to do with the policy statement that represents his
cabinet, and he may not have read it because it contradicts what he mentioned
today in his statement,” it noted.“Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s
latest speech is more in line with the policy statement than the premier,
prompting us to wonder who is the government’s real prime minister?” the March
14 General Secretariat asked.Addressing Miqati, it asked: “Do those who demand
justice for martyrs exploit their blood?”
“We would like to remind Miqati that he has exploited the votes of those who
voted for him during the parliamentary elections and turned against them,” the
statement said.
“Does he have to employ the rhetoric of those who voted for him to the
premiership by labeling the opposition as saboteurs?” it asked.
Earlier on Monday, Miqati snapped back at the March 14 alliance accusing its
members of carrying out a crime against the nation and attacking the cabinet for
being unable to confront the truth that they lost power.“Sabotaging the nation
is a crime,” Miqati said in a statement. “It is the national responsibility of
everyone to preserve civil peace and stability and not to sabotage or make
fictitious heroic acts that stir tension.”According to Miqati, the March 14
forces that met at the Bristol hotel in Beirut on Sunday “used the crime against
former Premier Rafik Hariri to pour their anger and their hatred on the cabinet
for known reasons.”He said the March 14 forces had expected that Miqati’s
government would not be formed and the country would remain in a vacuum over the
“failure” of the caretaking cabinet of Premier Saad Hariri to carry out its
duties. The prime minister reiterated that clause 14 of the policy statement
stresses the right to achieve justice in ex-PM Rafik Hariri’s Feb. 2005
assassination unlike what the March 14 statement said. The Bristol conferees
said that Miqati’s government disavowed in its ministerial statement the demand
for justice to which the Lebanese state has committed itself in previous policy
statements.
Aoun: Opposition’s Plan to Incite Countries against Lebanon is Criminal
Naharnet /ree Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun described on Monday the
opposition’s plan to incite countries against Lebanon as “criminal,” saying that
it will fail.
He said after an extraordinary meeting for the Reform and Change bloc: “They
have changed their motto to ‘all against the nation.’”“This is a crime and it
appears that the side that monopolized power and ruined the country for 20 years
is appalled to find itself no longer in power,” he noted. “The country cannot be
threatened,” he declared. Addressing the opposition, the MP said: “Shut up and
nothing you can do will shake the country.” “We warn them against targeting us
through their words or actions,” Aoun added. “They know who assassinated former
Premier Rafik Hariri. The security personnel who were in office then have not
been changed and they have not uncovered any leads, so will they arrest
themselves?” he asked. “The Special Tribunal for Lebanon will determine its
position from the government based on whether it is implementing its orders or
not,” he continued. “It’s unacceptable that they judge us before we even dealt
with the tribunal,” he stated. Aoun pointed out that the STL has not yet made
its position towards the cabinet. “The STL is a temporary issue,” said the FPM
leader.
The March 14 forces demanded on Sunday that an Arab and international political
campaign be launched to “save the republic from the arms.” They also called on
Arab governments and the international community to boycott the Lebanese cabinet
it failed to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 1757 on the
STL.
Ben Ali Gets 15 Years in Jail over Drugs and Weapons
Charges
Naharnet /A Tunis court on Monday sentenced ousted Tunisian president Zine el
Abidine Ben Ali in his absence to 15 years in jail for possession of arms, drugs
and archaeological artifacts.
In his second trial, Ben Ali, who fled to Saudi Arabia following a popular
uprising in January, was also sentenced to a fine of 78,500 dollars.
The trial before a Tunis court had been scheduled to take place last week but
was postponed due to a judges' strike.
The former strongman and his wife Leila Trabelsi had already been sentenced in
their absence last month to 35 years in prison for misappropriating public funds
after large sums of cash and jewellery were discovered in a police search of
their palace. In Monday's trial, Ben Ali alone was accused of harboring drugs
and weapons at his palace in the Carthage neighborhood north of Tunis. He also
faces a drug trafficking charge. The presiding judge noted Ben Ali's absence for
the record. "The accused is not present and is a fugitive," Judge Touhmi Hafi
said.
Ben Ali's attorneys pressed for another postponement to allow them more time to
prepare their defense. After their request was turned down, the lawyers stormed
out, with Hosni Beji blasting what he called "the disregard for the rights of
the defense". Their exit triggered loud boos from the public. "I am bitter. We
did a good job. Our request for a delay is not a lawyer's whim. This trial is
tainted by irregularities," Beji fumed. Source Agence France Presse
.
Fox News Twitter Account Hacked, Claims Obama Dead
Naharnet /Hackers broke into an official Twitter account operated by Fox News
early Monday and posted a series of tweets that claimed President Barack Obama
had been assassinated.
The Twitter feed for Fox News' political news -- @FoxNewspolitics -- sent out a
series of "malicious and false tweets," starting around 2:00 am, Fox News
confirmed in a statement. The posts had not been taken down hours later. "@BarackObama
has just passed. The President is dead. A sad 4th of July, indeed. President
Barack Obama is dead," read the first of the Obama-related tweets.Just before
false posts began, the hackers apparently announced their control to the
account, with the post: "Just regained full access to our Twitter and email.
Happy 4th."The updates, which were "re-tweeted" by thousands on the
micro-blogging site and prompted headlines around the world, said Obama had been
"shot twice at a Ross' restaurant in Iowa" during a campaign spot. The U.S.
leader is in fact in Washington, not Iowa, and was planning to celebrate the
July 4 holiday with his family and military families later Monday.
"President @BarackObama assassinated, 2 gunshot wounds have proved too much.
It's a sad 4th for #america. #obamadead RIP," continued the tweets.
Fox News said the hacking was being investigated, and that it "regrets any
distress the false tweets may have created." Source Agence France Presse
Syria and Turkey
Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon/July 4, 2011
Ever since the Battle of Marj Dabiq in 1516, the area that came to be known as
Turkey has been exerting its influence on what came to be known as Syria. The
sole exception was with the Hashemite Revolt of 1916, which brought Bilad
Ash-Sham (Greater Syria) out of the realms of the crumbling Ottoman Empire and
speeded up its fall. However, the rule was soon applied again as Turkey annexed
Alexandretta in 1938, mobilized its troops along the border with Syria in the
late 1950s and threatened late President Hafez Al-Assad in the late 1990s,
forcing him to hand over Abdullah Öcalan.
Rebellious Syria is now exerting its influence once again, as it refuted Turkish
Foreign Minister Davutoglu’s theories about regional relations and the “zero
problems” policy and turned the tables on Turkey’s leaders.
Syria said that “zero problems” in this region is all but a bunch of dreams and
that growing trade ties are all but passing. Yet it also said that the cordial
relations between Ankara and Tehran are against the natural course of things, as
the history of relations between Turley and Iran has rather been defined by the
conflict over Iraq.
It would not be an exaggeration to assert that the Syrian lessons Turkey is
learning will bolster its relation with its “mother” NATO and change the shape
of the political struggle with Israel. Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s
populist rhetoric would thus be toned down and the masquerade of maritime fleets
would be replaced by reasonable and organized pressure, which will hopefully act
in the interest of the Palestinian people within the framework of a broad
alliance sponsored by Washington.
Moreover, we might be able to say that Erdogan’s Turkey, which is terrified of
the Syrian fault line to its south, may search its political Islam heritage for
former decisive stages. These include, for instance, former Turkish PM Adnan
Menderes who was in the 1950s one of the pillars of the Baghdad Pact in the
confrontation with the Soviets and Nasserism, not to mention Turgut Özal,
Turkey’s premier in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Menderes, who was sentenced
to death by the military in 1960, was regarded as the symbol of reconciliation
between political Islam and Western strategies in the region, whereas Özal was
epitomized the reconciliation between political Islam and economic liberalism,
and the rise of the globalization age in the media.
This, of course, is not an endorsement of the policies initiated by Menderes and
Özal and does not mean that they do not have the same populism by which Erdogan
is known. This is merely to say that this heritage contains elements that are
closer to the current situation than to Erdogan’s Turkey over the past few
years. Needless to say the Syrian revolt has been most influential in drawing
the outline of the current situation.
*This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic
site on Monday July 4
US bailout for Palestinian economy – only if Abbas drops UN plan
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 4, 2011
The Palestinian Authority is broke. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who has been
credited with performing an economic miracle, appealed to "donors and our Arab
brothers" Sunday, June 3, for urgent assistance after being forced to halve
civil servants' July wages. Donors have stumped up only $330 of the total of
$970 pledged for 2011. "If the crisis continues," said Fayyad, more austerity
measures will be necessary - meaning more wage cuts and dismissals in August.
The Palestinian economy is suffering in the backlash from European recessions –
donors have dropped out or cut back on aid - and the political unrest in
hitherto supportive Arab countries, Egypt, Syria, Libya and Tunisia which has
virtually immobilized their economies. The only three countries able to rescue
the Palestinian Authority from bankruptcy, Saudi Arabia, the United States and
Turkey, are invested elsewhere, unwilling to come forward – or both.
The Saudis are channeling vast amounts of cash to Pakistan and Jordan in support
of the league of conservative Sunni Muslim regimes they are fashioning as a
bulwark against Iranian expansion and its nuclear threat and as a counter-trend
to the Obama administration's sponsorship of the "Arab Spring."
Sunday, July, 3, Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz guaranteed to the Hashemite
monarch visiting him in Jeddah: "We will stand with all our potential by Jordan
to enable it to face all challenges out of the belief that what affects one
country reflects on the other."
The Saudis have therefore hauled Jordan back from the brink of bankruptcy and
given the neighboring kingdom a financial cushion – estimated by debkafile's
sources at $1 billion for July – with one major string attached: a commitment to
line up behind Saudi policies instead of obeying Washington.
To obtain even the smallest crumbs of Saudi largesse, the Ramallah-based
Palestinian government would be expected to follow Jordan's lead and break away
from America's Middle East orientation. This PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas is deeply
reluctant to do.
Turkey, which under the rule of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has prospered –
its economy registering 11 percent growth in the last quarter – walks in step
with US President Barack Obama in the Middle East and will not advance a cent to
the Palestinians without White House approval.
On this front, Abbas is also facing a squeeze.
Our sources report that a secret White House emissary visited Jerusalem and
Ramallah last week to inform both governments that Obama will not take no for an
answer to his invitation to send delegates to Washington to prepare the opening
ceremony for revived Israel-Palestinian negotiations. Abbas was told that direct
talks with Israel was his only option; he must therefore abandon his plan to
have the UN vote to approve an independent Palestinian state within 1967
boundaries at the September General Assembly.
Nothing was said about ongoing US financial assistance.
But Abbas knows perfectly well that if he sticks to his UN initiative, the US
Congress will freeze the aid that sustains Palestinian projects on the West
Bank, keeps the PA administration solvent and provides jobs. The financial
situation in Ramallah will go from bad to worse. He therefore understands that
salvation for the Palestinian cause at this stage is financial rather than
political and must be sought in Riyadh, Washington or Ankara – not the United
Nations
Nasrallah fears sectarian unrest!
04/07/2011
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
Last week, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah delivered a long speech of no real
value. He admitted that within his party there are spies for Israel and that he
is in support of the repression of the Assad regime and supports the Shia of
Bahrain. He also expressed that he considers the International Rafik Hariri
Tribunal worthless.
On Saturday, one week after his previous speech, Hassan Nasrallah came out once
again with another long speech in which he made numerous accusations against
everyone in defence of his party after the International Criminal Court called
on the government of Najib Mikati to hand over four members of Hezbollah.
Despite that Nasrallah himself said last week that the International Tribunal is
worthless and that he would not talk about it, Hezbollah's initial reaction to
the Tribunal's indictment was that the accused come from low levels among the
party's cadres and that they are of no value. This, of course, is not true, as
Nasrallah himself, in his last speech, came out in defence of the accused and
warned that the goal of the International Tribunal is to create sectarian unrest
between the Shia and Sunnis and this is where the story begins!
If Hassan Nasrallah really does fear sectarian unrest then somebody should
answer several pressing questions here; firstly, with regards to Lebanon, why
did Hezbollah take up arms against the Sunnis in Beirut in 2007? Why is Hassan
Nasrallah supporting the Shia in Bahrain against the ruling Sunni regime in
spite the call for declaring an Islamic Republic of Bahrain like the Islamic
Republic of Iran? Why is Hassan Nasrallah defending the regime of Bashar al
Assad, a member of the minority in Syria, despite the large number of Syrians
killed not to mention those arrested, displaced and of course missing?
That's not all. If Hassan Nasrallah truly fears sectarian unrest then why isn't
he among the most cooperative with the International Tribunal in Lebanon today
to prove that his party and his men are innocent of the murder of a Lebanese,
not just Sunni, symbol, namely Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister?
Why isn't Nasrallah as cooperative in the same manner as he defends the Najib
Mikati government and the Hezbollah members who are wanted by the International
Tribunal as they are accused of being implicated in the assassination of the
late Rafik Hariri?
Of course the story doesn't end here. Why does Hassan Nasrallah consider the
investigation into the assassination of the late Rafik Hariri an invitation for
sectarian unrest between the Sunnis and the Shia whilst at the same time he does
not consider the wish to discover what happened to Musa Sadr an invitation for
sectarian unrest between the Sunnis and Shia? If the answer regarding Musa Sadr
is that the case relates to Libya and not Lebanon then we reject this because if
Hezbollah really did carry out the assassination of Rafik Hariri then this does
not only affect Lebanon but everyone who supports Iranian Hezbollah in Lebanon
and on all levels including the media.
Therefore, what Hassan Nasrallah and those who support him do not want to
comprehend is that Nasrallah and his party are one of the main causes of
sectarian unrest in our region and this is the truth no matter how it is dressed
up.
How to start a revolution?
04/07/2011
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid
Asharq Al-Awsat
This is my favorite subject, not because I am inclined towards revolutions, but
because the new revolutions have had a real impact on the media, transcending
the border between the old media - newspapers and television reports – and the
new media represented by Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
I touched upon the revolutions themselves in one of my previous articles,
arguing that they were late responses against long rejected conditions, and in
the end justice would prevail. It is not logical for Gaddafi's regime to
continue with its repressive unilateral rule and odd policies, rather it is
natural that he will fall. Similarly, this applies to the Syrian regime that
continued to promise reform for years, but instead gave a free reign to its
security apparatus to wreak havoc in the country and abuse the people. In the
case of Egypt, where the President continually rigged the elections in order to
pave the way to bequeath rule to his son, it was logical that the people would
revolt against him. But how would they do so? History is full of tyrants and
unilateral coups, but very few successful popular uprisings.
Here Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking websites accelerated the
result, bringing together millions of youths who were eager to challenge the
existing status quo.
Any tyrant in control of the major media outlets in his country would scorn
Twitter, because a message there consists of a maximum of 140 characters,
compared to the pages of propaganda of in the newspapers and hours of rhetoric
on television everyday.
Before new media, in order deliver complaints, hopes, and messages to thousands
of people, you would have needed an independent media outlet which requires
enormous financial investment, something only governments and the rich could
afford. Even if funding was ensured, you would still need a license, which is
impossible to obtain without government approval. If a tolerant government
existed, and an independent television channel was allowed, then people must sit
at home or in a cafeteria at a specific time to watch a program, and their only
interaction is to drink a cup of tea. If you opted to convey your message
through the printed press, then you would have to pay and the news is always a
day late. Again, it is a one-way interaction.
As for Facebook or Twitter, there is no need for a license, and you are not
obliged to sit at home or pay, as long as your computer or mobile can access the
internet. The majority of young people these days have access to the internet,
and for this reason the average revolutionary is now in his twenties, rather
than his forties. On Twitter there are nearly 200 million people who write, send
correspondence, and read for free. Here everyone is an unpaid employee who can
send and receive information in a huge marketplace where everyone can shop
easily and for no cost. Twitter was born six years ago while Facebook is two
years older, with a far greater population of 600 million people. Those people
can write what they think and express themselves the way the want - using
footage and videos. Here we see leaders, supporters, and battles where
everything happens without a single drop of blood being shed. As for the
situation on the ground, Facebook users stand behind the enormous losses, and
the blood being spilled. The website prompted over 100,000 Egyptians to gather
in Tahrir Square at a specific time, and it was not long before a full scale
revolution broke out with the participation of different media outlets. Yet
until now, Egypt is still in a state limbo, where different factions are engaged
in arguments over social networking websites.
Indeed, Facebook can do more than inspire revolutions. For example, it provided
a wheelchair for a disabled child, who was previously sitting in agony watching
his friends playing with their bicycles. His mother posted his story on Facebook
and users managed to collect a donation of US$ 2,500, from people with no
relation to the mother or the son.
Exiting
Hariri’s Blood
Mon, 04 July 2011/By: Ghassan Charbel/Al Hayat
Lebanon should not remain captive of Rafik Hariri’s blood. Indeed, if it stays
hanging on the rope of this terrible crime, this would perhaps achieve the will
of his assassins. The country’s fate is more important than the fate of any
individual. I say this, and I consider Hariri to be an exceptional figure in the
history of independent Lebanon. This man could have represented the backbone of
a Lebanese settlement that would restore the republic’s spirit, just like Kamal
Jumblatt, Rene Moawad, and others – while taking into account the difference
among the men and the stages. Hariri was a great player who sometimes missed the
target and at others hit it. He represented the country’s strategic reserve not
only because of his Arab and international relations, but also because he became
part of the major poles club without a single drop of blood on his hands – and
this is a rare occurrence in Lebanon.
Lebanon should not remain captive of Rafik Hariri’s blood. The issue is not only
about his blood, but also about those whose blood was shed during the river of
assassinations that flowed after 14 February 2005. Indeed, Lebanon must not
remain captive of their blood. The fate of peoples is to abandon painful shrines
and build the future; to use the sacrifices of martyrs and entrench the republic
of the living. It is impossible to exit the republic of all the shrines and all
the martyrs with a factional mind and to yield to the others unless they die,
whether they belong to this or that camp.
A few days ago, I visited with my colleague Mohammad Choucair Prime Minister
Najib Mikati to ask about the indictment, and we understood from his constantly
reserved speech that it was imminent. I felt like asking our host, who is also
an old friend, “Why did you throw yourself in the fire?” But I didn’t say this,
as I felt there is no use for dejected and belated words.
When the indictment was issued and the identity of the four accused became
known, I felt that the indictment was too huge for the country’s tolerance
threshold, just like the crime that was behind its issuance. I also felt that
the indictment extends the fiery years that Lebanon went through since the
terrible assassination. It also aggravates the process of sliding towards an
appalling clash between Hezbollah’s martyrs on the one hand, and the Cedar
Revolution’s martyrs on the other. Moreover, PM Mikati’s government is not the
best option to contain the dangers that emerge at a deeply worrisome moment both
domestically and regionally. Also, forcefully removing Lebanon from the STL does
not imply its exit from Hariri’s blood, and has perhaps led to the opposite.
My feeling about the danger of the indictment’s content led me to imagine
various scenarios. I said that the Lebanese will not lose the opportunity to
curb the momentum towards the abyss. I believed that all the political forces
will act according to national responsibility, leaping over all previous
calculations and what came with them.
Lebanon was supposed to welcome the indictment with a government of poles,
headed by Saad Hariri. The reasons are simple: the initial delegation by the
voters before the forceful recruitment process. Also, he is the son of the man
whose blood it is requested to exit, and he has legitimacy in making demands and
compromises. He is the most widely represented in his sect, with the
acknowledgment of his opponents. Further, he had expressed a readiness to exit
the blood of martyrs – provided this exit is made to the benefit of the state,
based on reconciliation, pardon, and the revival of institutions. This is not to
mention that his presence is a guarantee to thwart the sectarian conflict and
avoid international isolation.
Had he been at the head of a government of pardon and reconciliation, Saad
Hariri would’ve had to drink the poison of some compromises and put them at the
service of the compromise to the state. His presence was beneficial to his
opponents more than to his allies. He would’ve exempted Hezbollah from saying
later that his refusal to surrender the four accused men led to economic
deterioration and isolation both at the Arab and international levels. Hariri’s
presence was better for the resistance and its image in the Arab and Islamic
world, even if it paid the price of its existence in the form of a compromise to
the benefit of the state.
Hariri’s presence would’ve exempted PM Mikati from hearing later that the blood
of the most important Sunni figure in this part of the world was lost during his
government’s mandate. It would’ve exempted Walid Jumblatt from hearing that he
contributed in making the country pay for the establishment of the STL then
contributed in making it pay for its moving away from the STL. Also, it would’ve
exempted General Michel Aoun from hearing in his milieu that he lost the blood
of Gibran Tueni, Pierre Gemayel, and Antoine Ghanem, “for a handful of
ministries”, and I like General Aoun and do not want him to be the object of
such an accusation.
Saad Hariri’s presence at the head of a government of poles that would welcome
the indictment and assimilate it in an atmosphere of pardon and reconciliation
would have been in the state’s interest, and in the interest of Syria amidst the
difficult circumstances it is going through.
I am not sure that Hariri’s presence at the head of such a government would have
been in his interest. However, it is fine for Hariri to lose a little or a lot
of his credit in order to save the country and prevent strife. I have a feeling
that he would’ve accepted the risk of leading Lebanon from a time of shrines to
a time of the state.
The decision to remove Hariri was not levelheaded. It gave him the opportunity
to move away from the poison cup, and his image of a threatened man who is
unjustly treated will increase his popularity. Those who encouraged Mikati to
sit in Hariri’s seat did not arm him with the necessary weapons. Staying in the
Grand Serail in such circumstances resembles being on a fault line.
Can Iran Achieve Victory Over Turkey?
Mon, 04 July 2011/By: George Semaan
It would be difficult for Iran to convince itself or the others that the results
of the Arab action rendered it a great victor. Iranian influence is retreating,
as neither the youth on the squares conveyed their fondness of the Iranian
model, nor the Islamic movements involved in this action showed a tendency to
draw their inspiration from it. They chose the Turkish model in advance, because
it is more enticing on the political level, but also at the level of freedoms,
international relations and the economy.Therefore, it would have been better for
Iran during this stage to postpone its disputes and the conflicts between the
wings, unify its powers and maintain what it achieved during the last couple of
decades. Indeed, thanks to the support of Guide Ali Khamenei, the Conservatives
had managed to “defeat” the “Green” front that was headed by Mir-Hossein Mousavi
and Mehdi Karroubi following the presidential elections which resulted in the
renewal of Ahmadinejad’s term. However, this “victory” over the reformists soon
witnessed the detonation of a more dangerous conflict between two wings in the
Conservatives front, i.e. between the Guide and the president of the republic.
This conflict – that is both ideological and political – was anticipated and was
the natural outcome of the struggle over power. In any case, it has depleted the
republic’s strength and limited its ability to act, achieve some of its
ambitions and benefit from the change action prevailing over a number of Arab
countries.
This does not necessarily mean that the conflict will affect the republic’s
foreign policy, but it will definitely limit its ability to move freely. We
might even say that once again, Tehran is appearing to have two policies or two
faces, while the side controlling the situation from above is the Guide whose
decisions cannot be overruled by any policy.
Under the two terms of Hashemi Rafsanjani and those of Mohammad Khatami, the
Islamic Republic made steps toward exiting the stage of the revolution toward
that of the state, and was not far from performing its role in the context of
the international community. However, with the arrival of Ahmadinejad, these
steps retreated due to what Iran reaped from the war policy adopted by the
United States following the New York and Washington “invasions.” While the
American military was and still is in difficulty in Afghanistan and Iraq, Tehran
got rid of two archenemies and was able to gain what it never dreamt it could.
Indeed, it saw the removal of the regime of the Taliban which was originally
formed to stop the division affecting the Jihad movements after the Soviets’
exit from Afghanistan, but also to keep the Islamic Republic preoccupied with
its backyard in the hope of distancing it from the Gulf and the neighboring
states. It also saw the collapse of the Baath regime in Iraq and the execution
of Saddam Hussein, who pushed Imam Al-Khomeini to “drink the poison” and accept
the ceasefire and the obligations featured in the international resolution over
the first Gulf war – which allowed it to gain control over Baghdad.
In short, during the last decade, Teheran achieved what it never could have
conceived. However, what was more important was for Iran to maintain its natural
role in the region. It thus became a difficult figure throughout the area and
its crises, from Palestine to Iraq and Lebanon. This reached a point where
Ahmadinejad presented his country as a superpower, calling on the United States
to a dialogue among equals over the affairs of the region and the world!
Nonetheless, Turkey’s emergence as a key player based on the wish of the Arab
neighbors that were fearful about the Iranian expansion, has forced the two
countries to compete over the prime position in the region. But instead of
fighting, they had to find some sort of balance between this competition and
bilateral economic, commercial and oil cooperation.
This is why Turkey felt that the Syrian action and its confrontation by use of
military and security force could lead to an anarchy that will not spare it, and
will consequently undermine this balance with the Iranian opponent that did not
conceal its support of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and its choice to strike the
opposition. Ankara believes that Al-Assad is qualified to lead reforms instead
of taking risks with a security solution that will undoubtedly lead the country
toward doom. During the next few days, Iran will definitely face difficult
questions and even more difficult answers which will be carried by Turkish
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu during his visit to Damascus, Riyadh, Amman and
Tehran to secure an Arab rallying behind and an Iranian understanding of the
transformation toward which Turkey is trying to push the Syrian regime.
But the logical question - in light of Davutoglu’s expected tour - is the
following: Can Iran risk losing its relations with Turkey, as well as additional
cards for the sustainment of which it worked hard throughout two decades?
Iran lost in Bahrain. It carried out a venture and massively damaged the popular
action and the demands that were raised in Manama. It failed to realize that the
“coup” in this country did not concern its people solely but rather constituted
an attempt to undermine the accurate balance of powers in the Gulf region, and
primarily threaten the Saudi interests. This could not have been tolerated by
Riyadh at whichever price. And eventually Hamas chose to accompany the rise of
the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, considering that Cairo is closer to it than
Tehran, whether in terms of geography, ideology, denomination and concerns, or
in terms of the aspirations.
Also, the progress achieved by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is yet another
factor that should prompt the Islamic Republic to reconsider the monopolization
policy it adopted at the level of the Palestine and Lebanon files. The tribunal
will remain – for a long time – a thick stick in the hands of the international
community, regardless of Hezbollah’s position toward it. Its decisions and
measures will continue to besiege the party, i.e. “the spearhead of the
resistance and rejectionism forces” as it was described by President Ahmadinejad
the day he visited Lebanon. Lately, along with its allies in Damascus and
Beirut, Tehran achieved a victory by leading the Future Movement out of the
command of the Lebanese government, and undermined the existing balance with
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Arab countries in Lebanon. However, Ankara’s
ability to prevent Syria from sliding toward the feared unknown, might – in case
that goal is achieved - force the Islamic Republic to reconsider its Lebanese
calculations.
The renewal of violence in Iraq and the return of some Sunni voices opposed to
the Iranian influence in Baghdad to demand the imposition of a federal system
which will eventually affect the centralized authority in the capital - where
the Islamic Republic enjoys what no other power does- might not be a
coincidence. Is Iran aware of the seriousness of these mines?
If Iran does not wish to lose its relations with Turkey, but more importantly
does not wish to suffer additional losses, it has no other choice but to support
the Turkish action to appease the situation in Syria. This is due to the fact
that chaos in this country will not allow it to fill the vacuum as it did in
other places where the expansion turned out to be unguaranteed and temporary.
And while the Islamic Republic has been the greatest beneficiary from the
American policy adopted by President George Bush Jr. during the last few years,
what it could lose nowadays might affect its natural role that cannot be
challenged, since it is a reality and a fait accompli due to geography and
history. In the meantime, the aspirations will remain the object of conflicts of
interests between the regional powers and the major states. At this level, the
circumstances that helped Iran achieve wide ambitions in the region during the
last decade have changed, along with the policies and the balances of power
caused by the transformations in the Arab world.
At this point, one must ask: Will Iran agree to maintain its legitimate role and
position in the region, and relinquish its aspirations that have caused and are
still causing trouble for it and its allies? Will it risk additional losses as
it is preparing to confront the world in a year or two, once it secures the
promised nuclear weapon? But more simply: Can Iran achieve victory over Ankara
in any conflict over and inside of Syria?
The Opportunity of the Opposition in Syria
Mon, 04 July 2011/By: Elias Harfoush/Al Hayat
Syrian authorities have dealt with the meeting held by a number of opposition
figures at the Semiramis Hotel in Damascus a week ago as a historical event, and
one tantamount to the regime turning against itself. State television cameras
were there, and the government news agency (SANA – Syrian Arab News Agency)
published the text of the closing statement as if it were one of the official
documents of a Baath Party conference, despite the fact that it includes calls
that do not agree with the regime’s practices, such as “putting an end to the
security option”, “ensuring the right to peaceful protest”, “inviting Arab and
international media to cover what is happening in complete freedom”, etc… As for
members of the security forces, there were present of course, but away from the
entrance of the hotel where the meeting was held, a sign not unindicative of the
fact that this opposition meeting was being held under the eyes and ears of the
regime, not outside of its control.
Indicative also is the fact that the Semiramis meeting was held after
conferences and actions by the opposition abroad, between Turkey and Brussels,
the capital of the European Union, not to mention Moscow and Washington. It is
as if the Syrian regime seeks to take away even the opposition card from those
who oppose it and place it under its wing, i.e. turn it into a bargaining chip
on the domestic scene – this after having announced that it was launching a
campaign of reform “led by President Bashar Al-Assad”, in an attempt to renew
its political legitimacy by all means necessary, even if such means include
opening up to opposition figures on the domestic scene, despite the fact that
most of these figures have tried such “openness” in the past and suffered
imprisonment and torture at the hands of that same regime.
It is clear from such a policy – one that seeks to blend the stick of the
security solution, with which it is confronting the ongoing protests, with the
carrot of decreasing political pressure on the opposition – that there are two
messages the regime wants to send: one to the domestic scene, which is that the
regime does not mind taking the initiative of reform itself, but under its own
ceiling and its own conditions; and the other to the international scene, which
is that it has the ability to shed its skin and renew itself on its own, and
does not need or approve of any foreign interference or tutelage, wherever it
may originate from. And perhaps this is what Minister Walid Al-Muallem meant
when he responded to Turkey’s calls for reform by saying that his country would
teach everyone the fundamentals of democracy!
Yet the question that this stick-and-carrot policy puts forward concerns the
extent which the Syrian regime can reach in favorably responding to opposition
members, and the extent to which the latter can adapt to the regime remaining as
it is, even after the promised plastic surgery, if it even takes place.
That is because there is a vast difference between the declared goals of the
Syrian opposition and the goals of the regime. Indeed, despite government
attempts to suggest the existence of disagreements between the domestic
opposition and the opposition abroad, with the regime being willing to meet with
the demands of the domestic scene but rejecting the activity of the opposition
abroad, this kind of geographical classification the Syrian media is putting so
much effort into does not change much about the reality of the demands.
Opposition members, wherever they may be, agree on the demand to move towards “a
pluralistic, democratic civil state”. And the regime does not mind, as its
President said, allowing for reforms that would include dialogue with the
opposition and a new law for political parties, even reaching up to a new
constitution. Yet it is hard for anyone to expect that this will include
changing the nature of the regime, and moving from a one-party system to a
pluralistic one, in the sense that the opposition means it – in other words for
matters to end with the President leaving his seat to another President, who
would come to power as a result of the pluralistic, democratic process which the
opposition seeks to establish in Syria.
In addition to this, the regime continuing to walk the path of the security
solution alone, and to keep the process of reform within the confines of mere
promises, will lead in the end to burning away the cards of the domestic
opposition, whatever the background of its members, and clearing away the
artificial differences between them and those for whom circumstances have
imposed that they exercise their opposition from abroad.