LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 25/2011
Bible Quotation for today/The Parable of the
Unforgiving Servant
Matthew 18/21-34: "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, Lord, if my brother keeps
on sinning against me, how many times do I have to forgive him? Seven times? No,
not seven times, answered Jesus, but seventy times seven, because the Kingdom of
heaven is like this. Once there was a king who decided to check on his servants'
accounts. He had just begun to do so when one of them was brought in who owed
him millions of dollars. The servant did not have enough to pay his debt, so the
king ordered him to be sold as a slave, with his wife and his children and all
that he had, in order to pay the debt. The servant fell on his knees before the
king. Be patient with me, he begged, and I will pay you everything! The king
felt sorry for him, so he forgave him the debt and let him go. Then the man went
out and met one of his fellow servants who owed him a few dollars. He grabbed
him and started choking him. Pay back what you owe me! he said. His fellow
servant fell down and begged him, Be patient with me, and I will pay you back!
But he refused; instead, he had him thrown into jail until he should pay the
debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were very upset and
went to the king and told him everything. So he called the servant in. You
worthless slave! he said. I forgave you the whole amount you owed me, just
because you asked me to. You should have had mercy on your fellow servant, just
as I had mercy on you. The king was very angry, and he sent the servant to jail
to be punished until he should pay back the whole amount. And Jesus concluded,
That is how my Father in heaven will treat every one of you unless you forgive
your brother from your heart.
Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from
miscellaneous sources
Ask the
experienced/By
Tariq Alhomayed/November 24/11
Amid Lebanese chaos, a chance for reform/By Michael Young/November 24/11
Al-Assad used
foreign intervention first/By Tariq Alhomayed/November
24/11
The Brotherhood
and Salafis ejected from Tahrir Square/By Ali Ibrahim/November
24/11
The crisis threatens major states first/By
Bilal Hassan/ November 24/11
Russia draws red line around
Syria/By: Tony Badran/November 24/11
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November
24/11
U.S. Blogger: Siddiqin Blast Caused by Booby-trapped Trojan Horse Drone
Lebanese Army: Siddiqin Blast Caused by Mine or Cluster Bomb
Report: Hizbullah Installs Telecom Network in Zahle after Tarshish Failure
Fletcher Meets Baragwanath: We’re Encouraged by Lebanese Officials’ Vows to Meet
International Obligations
Yemen president of 33 years to quit amid uprising
Netanyahu: Arab world moving backward, not forward'
Netanyahu calls for stronger sanctions on Iran than those imposed by U.S.
Netanyahu: Israel, Egypt share vested interest in maintaining peace treaty
Iran says arrests 12 CIA agents amid reports of compromised U.S. ring
Obama
aide: End of Assad regime will serve severe blow to Iran
Two Egyptian soldiers killed on Israel-Egypt border
Egypt Military Apologizes for Protest Deaths
Canadian Statement on Yemen
Funding flurry as STL
chief visits
World leaders congratulate Lebanon on Independence Day
Lebanese Army attributes south Lebanon blast to land mine
Beirut to host international military and security conference
Daouk denies U.S. envoy
was summoned over alleged spies
Talk show hosts defend
debate, call for restraint
Rights group slams removal of marital rape clause
from law
World Bank urges
financial sector to create jobs
Future bloc calls on Assad to end crackdown
Geagea calls for rule of law
ISF Arrests Thief of Church Donation Box as Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Vandals
Confess
Mansour Says Arab Sanctions on Syria are Rejected
Hariri Meets Sarkozy, Discusses STL and Regional Developments
Miqati Urges Dialogue, Stresses Respect for Financial Obligations
Two French Citizens Kidnapped in Mali
Arab League set to slap sanctions on Syria
Lebanese Army attributes south Lebanon blast to land
mine
November 24, 2011/By Patrick Galey, Mohammad Zaatari /The Daily Star
Siddiqin in the aftermath of the shadowy explosion.
BEIRUT/SIDDIQIN, Lebanon: The Lebanese Army Wednesday attributed a mysterious
explosion in southern woodland to a mine or cluster bomb, after speculation the
blast had occurred at a Hezbollah arms storage facility.A statement by the army
said that an explosion close to the southern village of Siddiqin late Tuesday
had been investigated and was the result of a combusting land mine or cluster
bomb left over from Israel’s 2006 assault. “At 9:45 p.m. Tuesday an explosion
was heard in a forested area on the outskirts of Siddiqin,” the statement said.
“After the explosion a unit from the Lebanese Army visited the area and
undertook a search operation all night long until Wednesday noon. “However, the
army did not find any remnants and the explosion did not cause any visible
damage. Probably, what happened was a result of a mine or cluster bomb possibly
dropped by Israel [in 2006] exploding.”A security source told The Daily Star
earlier Wednesday the explosion had occurred at an arms depot, when people were
working inside. An eyewitness said a car had hurriedly left the blast site,
possibly carrying injured individuals. The exact cause of the blast has proven
difficult to independently verify, following the deployment by Hezbollah members
in the village, who restricted some movement of local media.
The party, which enjoys widespread support throughout the area, denied any
involvement in Tuesday’s explosion. “Whatever was mentioned within the media
regarding an explosion on the outskirts of Siddiqin, and that it is related to
an arms depot of Hezbollah is not true at all,” a statement from Hezbollah’s
press office said. Calm returned Wednesday to the village, situated near the
southern coastal city of Tyre, even as gossip on the blast was rife. Most
residents testified that they hadn’t heard an explosion but a local man, Hajj
Ali Fakih, said he had heard a “huge” blast come from a patch of woodland known
locally as Al-Jabal al-Kabir, or Big Mountain. Hezbollah operatives carrying
high-tech communications equipment spread throughout the village and accosted
The Daily Star, asking why its reporter was making inquiries related to the
blast. The army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon sent patrols to
Siddiqin, although the peacekeeping organization said that it had received no
official word on the explosion. “Following today’s media reports, we were in
close contact with the Lebanese Army and until now we have not information to
confirm that there was an explosion,” UNIFIL deputy spokesperson Andrea Tenenti
told The Daily Star. “We have 350 patrols a day and this is part of our area of
operations so we do have troops there on the ground. We have no investigation at
the moment.”
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, quoting an American blogger who had contacted
an Israeli official with “considerable military experience,” reported that the
blast at Siddiqin had been caused by an Israeli sabotage on a Hezbollah arms
facility. The blast was the latest in a series of suspect explosions to have
occurred in south Lebanon during recent years. In September 2010, a suspected
arms depot blew up in the town of Shehabiyyeh. Hezbollah denied there had been
weapons at the blast site, but Israel released a video taken by a surveillance
drone purporting to show men removing rockets from the area in the wake of the
explosion. In 2009, twin blasts in Khirbet Silim and Tayr Filsay injured several
people. Hezbollah claimed the former had been caused by Israeli shells that had
been stored in the town in coordination with the Lebanese Army. Israel routinely
alleges Hezbollah is guilty of maintaining a significant arsenal south of the
Litani River, in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution
1701.
U.S. Blogger: Siddiqin Blast
Caused by Booby-trapped Trojan Horse Drone
Naharnet /American Jewish blogger Richard Silverstein has claimed that Israel
was behind the explosion that rattled the Hizbullah stronghold of Siddiqin in
southern Lebanon on Wednesday. Media reports have said that the explosion went
off in a Hizbullah arms depot but the Lebanese army attributed the blast to a
mine or cluster bomb. “IDF Military Intelligence (Aman) has out foxed Hizbullah
by deliberately crash-landing a booby-trapped Trojan Horse drone in southern
Lebanon,” Silverstein wrote, attributing the information to an Israeli official
with considerable military experience. “For over a year, Hizbullah has been
attempting to discover how to jam the ground signals commanding the drone so as
to disable them in flight,” the writer said. “When it discovered the downed
craft, its operatives must’ve crowed that they’d finally discovered the key to
success,” Silverstein wrote. “This bit of hubris is how Aman drew Hizbullah into
its net. Its soldiers dutifully collected the imagined intelligence trophy and
brought it to a large weapons depot it controlled in the area. Once inside the
arms cache, Aman detonated the drone causing a massive explosion,” he added.
Israel’s Channel 10 News reported that Silverstein has described himself as the
Israeli Julian Assange, after the Australian founder of WikiLeaks.
Mansour Says Arab Sanctions on Syria are Rejected
Naharnet /Lebanon will not endorse any potential Arab League sanctions against
Syria, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour said, as the organization prepared to meet
on Thursday to discuss measures against Damascus. "Lebanon will not endorse any
sanctions by the Arab League against Syria," Mansour, who is loyal to Hizbullah,
told Voice of Lebanon radio (100.5) before heading to Cairo for the meeting.
"We will decide whether to vote against or abstain depending on the talks in
Cairo," he said in response to a question.
Lebanon voted against suspending Damascus from the 22-member Arab League earlier
this month, siding with Yemen and Syria, as pressure mounts on the regime of
Bashar Assad to end its bloody crackdown on dissent. Tensions between rival
Lebanese political camps are rising over the Syria crisis. The country's
pro-Western opposition, led by former premier Saad Hariri, has thrown its weight
behind anti-Assad protesters in Syria. Hizbullah, which is backed by Damascus
and Tehran and which dominates the Lebanese government, has meanwhile said it
will continue to stand by Assad against an "international conspiracy" aimed at
ousting him from power. Washington for its part has urged Lebanese authorities
to protect their financial sector against potential Syrian efforts to sidestep
sanctions, sparking fears Beirut could be affected by possible future measures
against the Assad regime.
*Source Agence France Presse
Hariri Meets Sarkozy, Discusses STL and Regional Developments
Naharnet/Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri held talks on Thursday with French
President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace in Paris. The two officials
discussed the latest developments, especially those related to the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon and regional affairs. Hariri had recently said on Sunday
via Twitter that “Justice will prevail, (the) tribunal has begun its work and
soon we will see the criminals behind bars.” Addressing the developments in
Syria, he tweeted on November 16 that only Israel, Iran, and Hizbullah along
with the current Lebanese government are defending the Syrian regime,
reiterating his call on Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power.
Report: Hizbullah Installs Telecom Network in Zahle after Tarshish Failure
Naharnet /Hizbullah expanded its telecommunications network in several towns in
the district of Zahle after its project failed in the Metn town of Tarshish,
highly informed sources told al-Mustaqbal newspaper. The sources said Thursday
that the installment was made in the towns of Riyaq, Hawsh Hala and Hay al-Sellom
several days ago. The new move came after Hizbullah’s attempt to expand its
“illegitimate telecom system failed in Tarshish,” they told the daily. Last
month, Hizbullah’s efforts to install the private telecoms network in the town
were thwarted by residents and representatives from the municipality. The
dispute came to an end mid-November when the telecommunications ministry assured
Tarshish residents that no private networks will be installed along with the
ministry’s network.
Russia draws red line around Syria
By: Tony Badran, November 24, 2011 /Now Lebanon
A curious news item has been circulating over the last week claiming that
Russian warships have been sent to Syrian territorial waters. The Kremlin has so
far refrained from either confirming or denying the story, leaving the door open
for speculation. While the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad eagerly
wishes to project the perception that it is under a Russian military umbrella,
Moscow’s calculation is perhaps best understood in the broader context of its
dispute with the US and NATO over what it views as an encroachment on its
traditional zones of influence, well beyond Syria.
The report of the Russian flotilla supposedly entering Syrian waters was
intended to give the impression that Russia was flexing its military muscle on
Syria’s behalf. As one Syrian official boasted on Tuesday, “Russia is our
political shield.”
The story first appeared last Friday in an obscure Lebanese rag belonging to the
Syrian Social Nationalist Party. The report delivered the regime’s intended
message, spinning the alleged Russian move as a stern message from Moscow that
Syria was “a red line,” and that Russia would not “remain a spectator” should
that line be crossed.
Interestingly, however, the Russian media were tellingly unable to substantiate
the claim, instead relaying the statement by Navy Press Secretary Igor Dygalo
that the Defense Ministry “do[es] not comment on these reports.”
There is little reason to suspect that the story originated from anywhere other
than the Syrian regime. A Syrian news site eventually reported that “unnamed
Syrian sources” had told the German Press Agency that Moscow “leaked the story
of dispatching six warships to the Syrian coast as a form of tangible
solidarity,” in response to the Arab League’s recent call to send observers to
Syria, which the latter found unacceptable. At one level, therefore, the story
was intended as a rebuff to the notion that the league’s resolution was the
launching pad for an international intervention in Syria.
Delivering this response to the Arab League was the main purpose behind Syrian
Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem’s press conference on Sunday. When asked about
the report, Mouallem did not confirm it, and referred only to the naval
maintenance facility in the port of Tartous and the relevant 1980 treaty between
Syria and the former Soviet Union governing its use.
The reference to the Tartous facility was not accidental, and was meant to
exploit a primary Russian interest in Syria at a time when tensions between
Russia and the US and NATO continue to heat up.
Moscow’s sensitivity when it comes to access to warm waters is well known. It is
matched only by its chronic defensiveness against perceived encirclement by NATO
and Western impingement on the spheres of influence of the former USSR.
All these insecurities came to the fore in the midst of the Syrian crisis in
June, when the US sent a Navy cruiser equipped with a ballistic missile defense
system to take part in naval exercises with Ukraine in the Black Sea—home of
Russia’s only warm-water naval base.
Then, Turkey gradually began moving away from its previous non-aligned position
and more in line with US interests vis-à-vis Syria and Iran, agreeing to host
NATO’s early-warning radar system over Russian objections. Now that Ankara has
effectively adopted Washington’s objective of regime change in Syria, Russia’s
concerns have intensified.
Turkey already controls the Bosphorus Strait—Russia’s passageway to the
Mediterranean. If there was to be regime change in Syria, Russia calculates that
Turkey’s sway there is likely to be significant, potentially making its access
to the Tartous facility subject to the influence of a NATO member state.
Naturally, the Syrian regime’s interest lies in amplifying these fears.
Of course, Moscow will not go to war for Assad, and NATO is not shying away from
intervention in Syria out of fear of Russian warships. However, for the Kremlin,
Syria is another arena where it can voice its displeasure with the perception
that the US and NATO can simply ignore Russia. In a sense, the process is
comparable to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s threats yesterday to deploy
“advanced offensive weapon systems” on the borders with Europe if missile
defense talks with Washington result in failure.
In similar fashion, Moscow is looking to negotiate over Syria’s future and wants
to ensure that its interests are acknowledged and secured. Russia’s attempts to
position itself as a sponsor of a dialogue between Assad and his opponents, and
its meetings with the Syrian opposition groups, could be read as part of this
negotiation effort.
However, aside from its veto power at the Security Council, Russia’s hand is
relatively weak. Even if the warships report were real, it’s unclear how much of
an impact it would have on the dynamics on the ground. With a population
determined to rid itself of the Assad family, such a move risks being
meaningless, if not potentially counterproductive. Perhaps that is why Moscow
declined to confirm the Syrians’ story.
For Assad, however, desperate times call for desperate measures. Assad is eager
to exaggerate his significance to Russia and to try and leverage its disputes
with NATO in his war against the Syrian uprising. The information operation
involving the Russian warships is part of this war, which Assad is losing.
*Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
He tweets @AcrossTheBay.
Yemen president of 33 years to
quit amid uprising
24/11/2011/SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Yemen's autocratic leader agreed Wednesday
to step down after months of demonstrations against his 33-year rule, pleasing
the U.S. and its Gulf allies who feared that collapsing security in the
impoverished nation was allowing an active al-Qaeda franchise to step up
operations.
President Ali Abdullah Saleh is the fourth leader to lose power in the wave of
Arab Spring uprisings this year, following longtime dictators in Tunisia, Egypt
and Libya.
But the deal ushering Saleh from power grants him immunity from prosecution and
doesn't explicitly ban him from the country's political life — raising doubts
that it will address Yemen's many problems.
The deal opens the way to what will likely be a messy power struggle. Among
those possibly vying for power are Saleh's son and nephew, who command the
country's best-equipped military units; powerful tribal leaders; and the
commander of a renegade battalion.
Saleh had stubbornly clung to power despite nearly 10 months of huge street
protests in which hundreds of people were killed by his security forces. At one
point, Saleh's palace mosque was bombed and he was treated in Saudi Arabia for
severe burns. When he finally signed the agreement to step down, he did so in
the Saudi capital of Riyadh after most of his allies had abandoned him and
joined the opposition.
Seated beside Saudi King Abdullah and dressed smartly in a dark business suit
with a matching striped tie and handkerchief, Saleh smiled as he signed the
U.S.-backed deal hammered out by his powerful Gulf Arab neighbors to transfer
power within 30 days to his vice president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. He then
clapped his hands a few times.
"The signature is not what is important," Saleh said after signing the
agreement. "What is important is good intentions and dedication to serious,
loyal work at true participation to rebuild what has been destroyed by the
crisis during the last 10 months."
Saleh had agreed to sign the deal three times before, only to back away at the
last minute.
The power transfer will be followed by presidential elections within 90 days. A
national unity government will them oversee a two-year transitional period.
The deal falls far short of the demands of the tens of thousands of protesters
who have doggedly called for democratic reforms in public squares across Yemen
since January, sometimes facing lethal crackdowns by Saleh's forces.
Protesters camped out in the capital of Sanaa immediately rejected the deal,
chanting, "No immunity for the killer!" They vowed to continue their protests.
President Barack Obama welcomed the decision, saying the U.S. would stand by the
Yemeni people "as they embark on this historic transition."
King Abdullah also praised Saleh, telling Yemenis the plan would "open a new
page in your history" and lead to greater freedom and prosperity.
Saleh, believed to be in his late 60s, addressed members of the Saudi royal
family and international diplomats at the signing ceremony, portraying himself
as a victim who sought to preserve security and democracy but was forced out by
power-hungry forces serving a "foreign agenda."
After the bombing in June, Saleh spent more than three months in Saudi Arabia
for treatment, returning to Yemen unannounced and resuming his rule.
As Saleh funneled more resources to cracking down on protesters, security
collapsed across the country. Armed tribesmen regularly battle security forces
in areas north and south of the capital, and al-Qaeda-linked militants took over
entire towns in southern Yemen.
Saleh often used the fear of terrorism to shore up support for his rule, even
striking deals with militants and using their fighters to suppress his enemies
while raking in millions of dollars from the United States to combat the branch
of al-Qaeda that he let take root in his country.
The U.S. saw little choice but to partner with him, and Washington stepped up
aid to Saleh to fight Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That group, believed to
be the terrorist group's most active branch, has been linked to plots inside the
U.S.
The would-be bomber who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas 2009
was in Yemen earlier that year. The Pakistani-American man who pleaded guilty to
the May 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt was inspired by Internet postings
by Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric who sought refuge in Yemen and was
killed in a U.S. drone strike on Sept. 30. U.S. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged
with killing 13 people in the Nov. 5, 2009, rampage at Fort Hood, also exchanged
e-mails with al-Awlaki.
Even before the uprising began, Yemen was the poorest country in the Middle
East, fractured and unstable with a government that had weak authority at best
outside the capital.
For months, the U.S. and other world powers pressured Saleh to agree to the
power transfer proposal by the Gulf Cooperation Council. He agreed, but then
backed down before signing the deal.
The deal alone is unlikely to end the uprising or address Yemen's deeply rooted
problems.
"He did sign, but I don't think this is the end of the crisis in Yemen," said
Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen of Princeton University.
The deal doesn't address powerful members of Saleh's immediate family, including
his son who heads the elite Republican Guard. His relatives could continue to
act as proxies for Saleh inside the government.
Nor does the deal include Yemen's most powerful opposition figures and their
armed followers, including an army general who defected to the opposition and
the country's most powerful tribal leader.
A real democratic transition could create a government to challenge al-Qaeda in
restive southern Yemen, Johnsen said, "but at this point we are still along ways
from that."
It is unclear when Saleh will return to Yemen.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Saleh told him in a phone call that he
would travel to New York for medical treatment after signing the agreement. He
didn't say when Saleh planned to arrive in New York, nor what treatment he would
seek.
Saleh signed the deal just over a month after videos showed a bloody Moammar
Gadhafi being heckled by armed rebels in Libya shortly before his death.
In some ways, the deal gave Saleh a way out. He can return to Yemen, so he won't
be exiled like ousted Tunisian strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. And it
protects him from prosecution, so he won't be put on trial like Egypt's Hosni
Mubarak.
Saleh implied he could play a role in Yemen's future. "I'll be among the most
cooperative with the next coalition government," he said.
He said it would take decades to rebuild Yemen and struck out at those who
strove to topple him, calling the protests a "coup" and the bombing of his
palace mosque "a conspiracy" and "a scandal." As he spoke, dark scars on his
hands from his burns were visible.
Protest leaders have rejected the Gulf proposal from the beginning, saying it
ignores their principal demands of wide-ranging democratic reforms and putting
Saleh on trial. They say the opposition political parties that signed the deal
are compromised by their long association with Saleh's government.
Sanaa protest organizer Walid al-Ammari said the deal does not serve the
interests of Yemen."
"We will continue to protest in the streets and public squares until we achieve
all the goals that we set to achieve," he said.
Amid Lebanese chaos, a chance for reform
November 24, 2011/0 By Michael Young
The Daily Star
There are several accounts of Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah’s life, most made available
by the Hezbollah leader himself over the years to various publications. Taken
together, they serve as a terse official biography. In one of these, we learn
that even as a boy, Nasrallah was religious and devoted to Imam Musa Sadr. When
other boys went to the beach, Nasrallah rode to the old downtown area of Beirut,
from his home in Karantina, to buy religious books.
How instructive it is to picture the young Hasan joining the teeming crowds
around Martyrs Square, a movable surrender to the senses and to raucous
pluralism, under the blistering Mediterranean sun grilling his carefree comrades
not so very far away, to pick up his Koranic texts. But it would be a mistake
merely to view this as a tale of youthful earnestness, or humorlessness. Rather,
it tells us much, if the story is true – and more so if it isn’t – about
Nasrallah’s detachment from the essential features making Lebanon what it is.
With this as a backdrop, we can ask whether Lebanon today is at the threshold of
an opportunity to redefine its social contract and engage in political reform.
Do events in Syria, and the probability that President Bashar Assad’s regime
will fall, create an opening for more balanced negotiations between Lebanese
religious communities, particularly Sunnis and Shiites, on reapportioning
political power?
Much, of course, will depend on how Assad goes. If Syria dissolves into civil
war, then the impact on Lebanon could be dire. Polarization would increase, with
the distinct possibility of violence. However, the nightmare scenario is also
relatively doubtful today, given the consensus in the Arab world and Turkey to
contain the Syrian situation, precisely to avoid harming neighboring countries.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, an ideal outcome. Assad departs in such a way that
Syrians can navigate a fairly smooth transition. Whatever this transition, in
Lebanon the dynamics are likely to be the following: Hezbollah, which remains
militarily powerful, will have nonetheless lost a major ally, and more
importantly the strategic depth the party enjoyed in the event of a war against
Israel. Faced with the reality that it can no longer combat Israel against the
will of a majority of its countrymen, Hezbollah’s fears will increase along with
those of the Shiite community. Perhaps this will make Shiites more amenable to
accepting Hezbollah’s disarmament in exchange for greater Shiite political
representation in a restructured political system.
As Hezbollah’s expectations drop, the end of the Assad regime will push Sunni
expectations up to stratospheric heights. A successor leadership in Syria is
bound to be sympathetic to Lebanon’s Sunnis and hostile to Hezbollah. The
sectarian repercussions of this newfound confidence will certainly mean, among
other things, that Lebanese Sunnis will no longer accept intimidation by
Hezbollah. A rational Hezbollah, grasping these new circumstances, will have no
choice but to adapt accordingly by searching for a compromise, otherwise it may
have to prepare its followers for civil war.
That’s one theory, at least. Yet so much in this outline is also an ingredient
for conflict, that it may seem illusory to describe what is happening as a
window of opportunity. Hezbollah and Shiite anxiety, coupled with the
community’s military superiority, is hardly liable to prompt Hezbollah to roll
over and sue for peace. Sunni self-assurance might easily transform itself into
ruinous hubris, allowing extremists to take the lead in “the battle against the
Shiites.” Impulses on both sides will have to be carefully tempered, even if a
Shiite sense of loss and a Sunni sense of gain, if properly exploited, is
exactly what is required to get a dialogue on reform started.
But is Nasrallah someone inherently open to such a jump? The Hezbollah leader
has often affirmed his antagonism toward the Lebanese sectarian system, even as
he has presided over the most sectarian of parties. In truth, Nasrallah has
manipulated Shiite resentment of a political and social order that was not good
to Shiites in the past, in order to reinforce Hezbollah’s influence and
discredit any talk of political reform. The party knows that such reform, if
reached consensually, would lead to its demise as a military force.
Yet Nasrallah is not alone. Unless a moderate leadership can reassert its
authority over the Sunni community, and soon, there remains a possibility that
Sunnis may succumb to those least willing to come to terms with the Shiites. In
this context the absence of Saad Hariri and the uncertainty surrounding the
Future Movement has left the field open for less pragmatic figures, even as
Hariri himself seems in no mood these days to concede much to Hezbollah. This
situation in the Sunni community may mean that the initiative slips to those
who, like Nasrallah, would have bought only religious books had they waded into
the miscellany of Martyrs Square; or it may bolster secular populists; or both.
Left unmentioned here are the Christians, particularly the Maronites, who would
have to relinquish the most in an overhaul of the political system – above all
the 50-50 ratio of Christians to Muslims in parliament. Ultimately, Christians
too will have to avert the pitfall of excessive fear by embracing reform under
the rubric of Taif, or else they may one day see political change imposed on
them by their Muslim partners. However, given the despondency today among
Christians and their more influential political and religious leaders, such
prescience does not seem to be in the cards.
The imbalance in Lebanon’s political system, the presence of an armed,
semi-autonomous party and community prevailing over all others, has discouraged
discussion of reform. The reality is that Sunnis won’t bargain over their future
with a Hezbollah holding the guns. That won’t hold if Bashar Assad is ousted.
What Lebanon would then need is leaders who can control the wild ambitions or
apprehensions ensuing from so enviable a moment. *Michael Young is opinion
editor of THE DAILY STAR and author of “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An
Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle.” He tweets @BeirutCalling.
The Brotherhood and Salafis ejected from Tahrir Square
23/11/2011/By Ali Ibrahim
Most of the traditional Egyptian political forces lost out in the bloody battle
to recover Tahrir Square, which has become the source of legitimacy in Egypt
ever since the 25th January. However, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis may
in fact be the biggest losers, after their million man march which they called
for last Friday, in a foolish display of power that seems to have provoked the
very forces that carried the flame of the January 25th revolution.
The political incompetence evident in the Egyptian transitional period
encompasses all traditional political powers, including the Muslim Brotherhood
and the Salafis who appear to be exploiting the erosion of confidence between
the masses and the military council, the organization presently governing the
interim period. The same goes for the ruling authority which has handled the
situation with utter idiocy, having used force to break up several hundred
protesters following the end of the Brotherhood and Salafi million (or
half-a-million) man march last Friday. This led to the tragic situation with
dozens of casualties falling, plus numerous attacks in Tahrir Square and the
surrounding streets, not to mention the intensified demands for an immediate
power transfer.
Amidst this highly uncertain scene, and when viewed from afar, Tahrir Square and
the protests in the rest of the Egyptian governorates seem to involve
spontaneous and unorganized powers mostly consisting of young people from among
those who launched the January 25th Revolution. These youths feel frustrated
with the political powers, the parties, presidential candidates, the performance
of the government and the military council, and the vague details of the
upcoming power transfer and its timeframe. These youths are also frustrated by
the revolution being hijacked through rival currents vying for power; currents
sensing that their right moment has come, especially the Muslim Brotherhood.
Amidst this bloody scene, we come to a YouTube video clip displaying what has
been described as the expulsion of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis from
Tahrir Square. This act reflects the mass weariness and frustration towards
their slogans and maneuvers with regards to the shape of the new regime and the
secular state which, according to Egyptian press reports, they want to change.
Here we can also notice foreign press reports, especially those highlighting the
return of the true spirit to Tahrir Square. Copts have been seen standing up to
protect Muslims while performing their prayers, after months of unjustifiable
sectarian violence which flared up for unknown reasons and according to multiple
different accounts, none of which were wholly convincing.
What cause the situation to explode in such a bloody manner, with grave
consequences? Unless political wisdom is applied and leaderships with strategic
and political visions are placed at the forefront, matters could get worse. I am
talking about leaderships with the courage to direct country toward a national
consensus, instead of the current state of political entrenchment.
What sparked off current crisis? Could it be [Deputy Prime Minister] Ali al-Selmi’s
document [outlining constitutional “guidelines”], which has been the subject of
several maneuvers over the past few weeks, resulting in the Brotherhood and
Salafi million-man march, even though both currents had earlier approved of it?
Or has the present crisis been ignited by the state of frustration resulting
from the confusion dominating the political arena?
In my opinion, the present crisis has been caused by the state of frustration
and extreme political entrenchment of all parties, due to their inability to
reach an agreement on a framework of general principles. Al-Selmi’s document, or
the constitutional governing principles, was proposed to all the revolutionary
powers from the start, when everyone was in a state of weakness and uncertainty.
However, as some parties began to feel gradually empowered, such as the Muslim
Brotherhood which has temporarily allied with the Salafis, they began to believe
such governing principles would not be in their best interests, if they won a
majority in the next parliament. Meanwhile, the liberal parties, which were the
first to call for the drafting of such a document, objected to the clauses
requested by the military establishment, which aimed to secure its position in
the new state. A compromise formula could have been reached had negotiations
been held, instead of the current absence of confidence.
The scene we are currently witnessing reflects the fact that no one has
understood the reality of what the crisis-stricken Egyptian masses want. This is
because the real driving force behind the revolution has not been able to
crystallize itself into a political entity with representatives and a voice. The
Muslim Brotherhood's slogans are not convincing to the Egyptian street, and
outdated methods of running the country have become futile. In other words,
there is a need to turn over a new leaf and start again. Even the results of the
upcoming parliamentary elections might not accurately reflect what the street
really wants, and so clashes may erupt again.
What is the solution then? The idea suggested by some political entities, to
form a national salvation government in order to administer the transitional
period, could be the way out of the current impasse. However, this would require
a strong personality with exclusive competence, who could work within a fixed
timeframe for the transfer of power. A figure like Mohammed ElBaradei – if this
were agreed upon nationally – would be suitable for this role. The same applies
to any other strong personality with the power to make decisions, provided they
are not affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Al-Assad used foreign intervention first
23/11/2011/By Tariq Alhomayed
Arab ministers are supposed to meet next Thursday in order to discuss the
situation in Syria, and the al-Assad regime’s refusal to adopt the Arab League’s
resolutions. This meeting comes amidst the false propaganda spread by the al-Assad
regime itself, about foreign intervention in Syria and the threat of a civil
war.
Therefore the Arab officials, all of them without exception, must be aware of
the facts, rather than the al-Assad regime’s propaganda. The facts say that
while the Syrian rebels have been peacefully maintaining their revolution for
nearly eight months, the al-Assad regime is the one that has used weapons
against them, with all its brutality. Of course the al-Assad killing machine has
not stopped to this day, so how can the rebels be blamed after this for now
starting to defend themselves, when faced with a regime that wants to rule with
an iron fist?
The other thing that the Arab ministers must remember, as facts and not
propaganda, is that while the Syrian revolutionaries have said, throughout the
duration of the revolution, that they object to foreign intervention on their
territory, the al-Assad regime has in fact used foreign assistance to succeed
against its citizens. The al-Assad regime has used Iran in several areas,
including receiving special equipment for espionage and the knowledge of its
experts, apart from weapons and more of course. Likewise, the al-Assad regime is
also using the capacities of Hezbollah, whether inside Syria or even in Lebanon,
in the pursuit of Syrian opposition members, and hindering the activities of
young Syrian refugees in Lebanon. The al-Assad regime is also using the support
of the Iraqi government, and the Sadrist fighters who are flocking to Syria.
There is evidence to confirm this, including what I have heard from several Arab
apparatuses, which have supplied their foreign ministers with such information.
This is not all of course, there are also Russian ships anchored off Syria, and
they are certainly not there to transport Russian tourists. In fact the Russian
story here is greater goes beyond all this; for Moscow itself has begun to
resemble the al-Assad regime’s foreign ministry, where it has begun to lecture
the Syrians on what they should and should not do. Aside from all of the above
foreign support for the al-Assad regime, there is the blatant support of the
Lebanese government, and there is also media support coming from each of Iran,
Iraq, Hezbollah and others in Lebanon. After all of the above, how can the al-Assad
regime promote its propaganda and deceive anyone, when the al-Assad regime
itself has inaugurated foreign intervention inside Syria in order to succeed
against the unarmed Syrians, which in itself is an act of treason?
Therefore, the Arab League is now required to bring the Syrian file to the UN
Security Council, and demand it to immediately intervene to protect the
civilians who are being killed every day at the hands of the al-Assad regime.
Anything less means that the Arabs have failed the unarmed Syrians. It means
that they have not earnestly and decisively tried to stop the al-Assad killing
machine, even though the regime did not cease its daily killings of Syrians
throughout the period of its negotiations with the Arab League. The League must
stand up to protect the innocent. If Tehran is only interested in al-Assad, then
is it not appropriate that the Arabs should be interested in all Syrians?
Ask the experienced
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
Whatever the current situation with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh; the man
must be considered extremely shrewd and a master at dancing with snakes. This is
not a compliment, but it stems from comparing the facts, and the reality that
sometimes things are defined by their opposites. A mere comparison, for example,
between Ali Abdullah Saleh and Bashar al-Assad, shows a big difference in the
game of politics and the art of maneuvering. The snake dancer, i.e. Saleh, has
excelled in tormenting his opponents and procrastinating with his negotiators,
whether Saudis, the Gulf, or the West. He also excelled in preventing a Yemeni
mass consensus against him, for he played all his cards, legitimately or
otherwise, but without allowing Yemen to slip into a genuine civil war. However,
Yemen is still a candidate for this fate, even today and tomorrow. Saleh’s
cunning, as I have already said, is not a compliment, but rather it is a reading
of the facts, such as how he has been able to survive ruling Yemen for several
decades, something that no one has done before in a country of great complexity,
multiple crises, and potentially volatile hotspots. Above all this, Saleh is
also a man who has recently come back from the dead. Following this, it appeared
that he had genuinely understood the reality in Yemen, and that he was able to
curb his personal feelings. In fact, he is a politician without feelings, a man
fluent in living under pressure. Al-Saleh attended Riyadh by himself; he did not
send his deputy as he has done in the past, for he wanted to show that he was a
man who makes sacrifices for his country. This is a political game, but there is
also another significant matter here. The Saudi negotiators knew Yemen well, and
they knew Saleh’s key territories and likely maneuvers. This is not to mention
that the Saudi negotiating team was also calm and patient, a feature of the
people of the desert, and therefore yesterday we saw the completion of the Gulf
initiative agreement with Yemen. The question here of course is: Is this the end
of the crisis in Yemen? The answer is no, but at least the fuse leading to the
biggest explosion has been disarmed, regardless of where the next fire comes
from. The Yemenis are facing a very long road, and the most important thing is
for Ali Abdullah Saleh to leave the scene as soon as possible, because he is
capable of making this a very rocky road.
As noted above, Saleh is very shrewd, from his arrival to power, his survival at
the helm, and ultimately his departure. This characterization is not impressive,
but for those who doubt Saleh’s shrewdness, they should compare the end of his
reign to the end of three of his Arab predecessors, who left power earlier this
year. Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali fled his country, or was forced to flee, Hosni
Mubarak ended up on a bed in a prison hospital whilst his two sons were
incarcerated, while in Libya we saw the horrific end to Muammar Gaddafi, not to
mention what happened to his family and children! Finally, compare Saleh’s
initiative to the terms offered to al-Assad, and compare the tricks used by both
leaders. Ali Abdullah Saleh signed the initiative and will leave the Gulf for
New York, in order to receive treatment, without any international reservations.
His plane will leave for America safely without any obstacles. Meanwhile, the
moment the Gulf initiative was signed, France yesterday called for the need to
provide safe humanitarian corridors in Syria, in order to protect the Syrians
from Doctor al-Assad!
Therefore, as the proverb says: “Ask the experienced rather than the learned”.
Canadian Statement on Yemen
(No. 352 – November 23, 2011 – 5:50 p.m. ET) Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
today issued the following statement:
“Canada welcomes the agreement signed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen.
“His agreement to step down from power in 30 days prepares the way for Yemen’s
transition to a more open society—one that respects freedom, democracy, human
rights and the rule of law.
“We commend all involved, particularly the Gulf Cooperation Council, in
negotiating this agreement.
“We are looking to the President and the interim leadership to respect this
agreement, which calls for free, fair and transparent elections to be held in
the next 90 days.
“Canada stands with the people of Yemen in their quest for a brighter future.”
- 30 -
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
Follow us on Twitter: @DFAIT_MAECI
The crisis threatens major states first
24/11/2011
By Bilal Hassan/Asharq Alawsat
The US and Western newspapers have recently been filled with articles and
information about a grave economic crisis initially threatening the US, then
Europe and the entire world, including our Arab states. Amidst the talk about
this crisis, everyone is recalling the economic depression that shook the world
in 1929, and are suggesting that a similar disaster is looming.
Whilst some speak of the crisis in particular, others talk about the
state of the capitalist economy as a whole, which they say has become fragile
and crippled. Such opinions are held by senior economists like Pier Carlo Padoan,
Deputy Secretary-General and Chief Economist of the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development, who says that "the current economic crisis is
severe, dangerous and extremely serious, and its centre of gravity has moved
from the US to Europe."
Padoan’s assessment focuses on the entire European economic system, and
he says that "We are dealing with a European system that has proved fragile in
the face of crises", calling for a re-evaluation of the whole system.
Amidst this, talk about the so-called Euro debt crisis is also prominent.
Alan Krueger, a senior economic consultant to the US President, has stated that
the banking and debt crisis in Europe is still the main threat to the recovery
of the US economy, particularly as 20 percent of total US exports go to Europe.
Therefore, Krueger urges Europe to take immediate measures to enforce the debt
crisis rescue plan, as the current situation is threatening the US economy with
a severe recession, which in turn would reflect badly on Barack Obama's chances
of winning a second presidential term.
As financial difficulties spread from America to Europe, Greece began to
suffer a major reduction in its economy, which in turn signalled a renewed
financial crisis. This has since extended to Italy and Spain; two countries
suffering the consequences of considerable debts with huge interest rates.
Commenting on this, inside sources said that the European Banking
Authority believes European banks require US$ 144 billion to restore confidence
in their financial system.
Analysts unanimously agree that the main reason for the economic crisis
suffered by the US, which in turn affects the rest of the world, lies in the
exorbitant cost borne by America because of its occupation of both Iraq and
Afghanistan. The US has spent US$ 700 billion as a result of the occupation of
Iraq alone.
To cut its huge spending, the US rushed to increase oil prices, and the
price of one barrel soon rose to over US$ 150. This reflected directly upon
another economic sector, the real-estate market in 2009, where low-income
households could not afford to pay off their mortgage instalments. Then banks
and large companies embarked on large-scale redundancies, and a series of
recessions occurred in different sectors of the economy.
The crisis extended from the US to Europe, where it engulfed Britain, and
then Eastern Europe, most prominently Russia which was quick to support its
economy with a US$ 300 billion injection.
It is impossible to talk about the global economic crisis without
touching upon the Arab situation and Arab wealth, and without placing part of
the blame here for what is happening to the international economy. In 2008, an
American report was issued on Arab investment funds, such as future generations’
funds and sovereign wealth funds. The report was prepared by Richard Haass,
former Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State,
who focused on the sources of Gulf States' sovereign wealth and expressed his
deep concern that their influence will increase to grant them greater control
over the US financial sector. Another report prepared by Daniel W. Drezner,
published in 2008 under the title "White Whale or Red Herring? Assessing
Sovereign Wealth Funds", also emphasized that an era of domination on the part
of Arab sovereign funds is coming, as a result of the growing financial
influence of such funds (owned by their governments). Drezner’s analysis
highlights the danger [to the West] of these funds becoming more powerful in one
way or another, and highlights the need to frustrate their ability to influence
global markets.
Henry Kissinger was proactive in such an endeavour when he published an
article in the International Herald Tribune newspaper on the 19th September
2009, where he warned against the accumulation of billions of dollars of oil
revenue in Gulf sovereign wealth funds, calling upon the West to act to curb
OPEC's abilities, in order to prevent its economic influence transforming into
political influence. Here Kissinger was explicitly calling for a US political
strategy to confront Arab oil finance.
As can be seen from the above, Western policies always seek to gain
control of Arab strategic wealth. However, the West is not content with this
alone, for at a later stage it will also seek to dominate the profits
accumulated by Arab states. In fact, Arab states should invest these profits in
developing their own economies, something which politicians like Kissinger are
never comfortable to see. Indeed, Kissinger’s ideas now represent a school of
thought that is prominent in the decision-making circles of more than one
European capital.
As a result of all this, and in view of the major Western concerns
towards the Arab states’ sovereign funds, the Arab world must pay more attention
to the finance it has, and search for ideal means to exploit this domestically,
in a manner that helps towards development and an increased economic standing.
An example of this can be found in the railway expansion project currently
underway in Saudi Arabia.
This, however, necessitates ambitious plans to be drawn up, in order to
develop Arab economic infrastructures. This is especially pertinent when
development plans require cooperation between more than one Arab country, such
as the construction of transport networks between Arab states, whether by land,
railway or sea.
Here there is no harm to recall that in 1980, and in view of the rise of
peace theories along the lines of the Camp David Agreement, several American and
European studies were conducted, focussing on the promotion of transport
networks in the Arab region. Yet what was remarkable about these studies was the
fact that the West was looking to create a complex transport network beginning
from each Arab state and then extending, not towards neighbouring Arab capital
cities, but towards the state of Israel, hence positioning Israel as the centre
of all Arab transport networks. Although this plan did not succeed, it shows
that Western projects are not concerned about the development of our region, but
rather they are basically keen on strengthening Israel's position, by linking it
with Arab capital cities.
The issue of transport between Arab states is worthy of special attention
as it is an issue of strategic importance. If considered within a specific
framework that serves everyone’s interests, inter-Arab transport networks could
strengthen the development of the region in the face of opponents and greedy
onlookers. To do so, inter-Arab relations must be the fundamental basis of
thinking and planning, instead of the Arab-Israeli idea that preoccupies the
West, which aims to only serve its own interests.