LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 01/2012
Bible Quotation for today/Jesus the Cause of Division
Luke 12/49-53: "I came to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already
kindled! I have a baptism to receive, and how distressed I am until it is over!
Do you suppose that I came to bring peace to the world? No, not peace, but
division. From now on a family of five will be divided, three against two and
two against three. Fathers will be against their sons, and sons against their
fathers; mothers will be against their daughters, and daughters against their
mothers; mothers-in-law will be against their daughters-in-law, and
daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law.
Latest analysis,
editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Get used to it: Intervention in Syria is coming/Hussein
Ibish/January 31/12
More than one option/By:
Alex Fishman/Ynetnews/January 31/12
Why is al-Assad suddenly eager for the Arab observers?/By
Tariq Alhomayed/January 31/12
Taking stock of 2011’s revolutions and developments/By
Abdullah Al-Otaibi/January 31/12
Syria the victim of Russia/By
Hamad Al-Majid/January 31/12
How can Syria be saved/By
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/January 31/12
Standards of success and failure/By: Hazem Saghiyeh/January 31/12
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for
January 31/12
Assad masses loyal troops in Damascus after he was warned
of a military coup
Ghalioun ties Russia talks to Assad
exit
Syrian troops push further into
Damascus suburbs
West to confront Russia over Syria
UN Security Council likely to condemn Syria crackdown
Russia says Syria authorities agree to talks, but
opposition refuses
'Israel sees narrowing window for Iran strike'
IAF commander: Israel's aerial superiority is in danger
Gulf Arabs have plans
against Hormuz closure: official
Panetta: Iran is one year away from producing nuclear
weapon
U.S. lawmakers to vote on new Iran sanctions targeting energy sector
French senators block Armenia genocide law
U.N. leader presses Mideast rivals
back to talks
Hamas leader embarks on visit to Iran, Gulf states
U.S. citizens take refuge in embassy following Egypt
crackdown on NGOs
Lebanon opposes internationalization of Syria crisis: report
London ready to provide Lebanon with
substantial support
Activists: MPs need lessons on sexual harassment
Sleiman urges politicians to refrain from bickering
Mansour
defends dissociation policy on Syria
History curriculum
revision sparks controversy
Syrian students flock to
Lebanese schools
French senators block Armenia genocide law
More than one option
Alex Fishman/Ynetnews
Op-ed: Iran strike does not have to target nuke sites, could hit sensitive
facilities, infrastructure
More than one option
IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz recently characterized 2012 as the “year of
decision” on the Iranian nuclear issue. Defense Minister Ehud Barak talks about
an “operational window of opportunity” for striking Iran’s nuclear sites that is
gradually closing down. Some say this window is five-months long, while more
cautious observers talk about 18 months. One way or another, the countdown has
already begun – in the course of 2012, all parties will complete their
preparations (for attack or for sustaining a strike.) For the time being, we are
in the midst of a wave of threatening rhetoric that will keep mounting.
The plethora of statements on the Iranian issue in the past week does not offer
anything new or attests to agreement between the United States and Israel
regarding the intensity and pace of steps needed vis-à-vis Iran. However, the
frequency of the statements constitutes a warning: The military option is on the
table, today more than ever before. Should Iran’s military nuclear development
continue, the gun is already loaded. Publicly at least, the US chose to move
closer to the Israeli position, which argues that the diplomatic-economic weapon
isn’t enough; one must also wave the military stick. And indeed, the Americans
are accompanying their statements against Iran with military moves such as troop
deployment in the Gulf and public discussions of preparations and capabilities.
Secret dialogue? Yet the talk about a military strike being capable or incapable
of stopping Iran’s nuclear program includes an element of deception. After all,
curbing Iran’s nuke project does not necessarily have to include the bombing of
dozens of Iranian nuclear facilities. A military strike is just one aspect of
the attempt to convince the Iranian regime that developing nuclear weapons does
not pay off. A convincing military attack does not have to target fortified nuke
sites; such assault could also be convincing if it hits sensitive government
sites or important infrastructure targets, which are not necessarily related to
the nuclear project. The second element is of course the significant economic
sanctions. This year, the Free World will be embarking on the deciding round
against the nuclearizing Iran. Should the Iranians fail to curb themselves, the
entire region will start the countdown. It is possible that at the end of the
process the decision will be not to strike Iran, and then we shall find
ourselves facing the direct path to an Iranian bomb. There is also the
possibility that as result of the effective pressure, some kind of secret
dialogue track with Iran will be launched in order to give Tehran the option to
withdraw. It is very possible that reports about Iran’s invitation for
inspectors to return to its nuclear sites signals the beginning of such secret
dialogue.
Assad masses loyal troops in Damascus after he was warned of a military coup
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report January 30, 2012/According to exclusive reports
reaching debkafile, President Bashar Assad Sunday, Jan. 30, pulled in the Syrian
Republican Guard and the 4th armored divisions commanded by his brother Maher
Assad from the northern rebel centers and over to Damascus. He ordered them into
battle positions in the capital for the first time in the ten month uprising
after receiving an intelligence tipoff that western powers had won over one of
the armored division commanders posted in the capital and persuaded him to stage
a coup d'etat to topple him.
The renegade general, whose identity is unknown, was reported to be planning to
take advantage of the absence of the most trusted regime troops in trouble spots
across the country to lead 300 tanks into the capital and seize power.
The conspirators were planning to make their move on the night of Monday Jan. 30
or early Tuesday Jan. 31, just before the UN Security Council was to convene in
New York and air plans for him to step down. The putsch would have presented its
members with the accomplished fact of Assad's overthrow by the military.
The information passed to Assad, apparently from an external source, did not
name the division commander who accepted this role from Western hands. If it
turns out to be true, the scheme would strongly recall the US-led
NATO-Qatari-Jordanian operation for the Libyan rebels to seize power in Libya by
taking Tripoli by storm in the third week of August 2011.
Forewarned, the Syrian ruler is making every effort to ward off the threatened
coup.
debkafile's military sources report that, aside from the Republican Guard and
4th division which Assad recalled to the capital, present there too are the 1st,
3rd and 9th armored divisions.
The fight rebel forces put up at the gates of Damascus Monday night was
perceived by the Assad regime as part of the coup conspiracy. Western and
military sources described the combat as a search, arrest and kill operation to
wipe out the last vestiges of resistance around the capital, rather than
battles.
Monday night, the White House issued a statement saying the UN Security Council
must not let the Syrian President Assad continue the violence.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to address the Council
meeting Tuesday. She has urged the forum to act before the violence in Syria
spills over and destabilizes its neighbors.
Moscow has made it very clear in recent weeks that it will on no account let the
Assad regime go the way of Qaddafi. Russia is adamant about vetoing the Security
Council motion the US and European powers are gathering Tuesday in New Yorkto
table in support of the Arab League transition plan for a national unity
government to rise in Damascus within two months and implement Assad's handover
of power to vice president Farouk a-Shara. A Russian bid to bring the opponents
to the negotiating table failed after the main Syrian opposition party demanded
that Assad step down first.
At least 27 people were killed Monday in the central city of Homs – which was
heavily shelled again - the northern province of Idlib and southern province of
Daraa, where the revolt against Assad began in mid-March. Another 41 deaths were
reported Sunday.The Syrian regime stepped up the violence in the days before the
Security Council session to quell resistance and demonstrate its grip on the
country.
debkafile reported earlier Monday, Jan. 30:
Ten months after the Syrian people launched an uprising against its ruler,
Bashar Assad, if not yet safe in the saddle, has recovered the bulk of his
army's support and his grip on most parts of the country
Protesters have mostly been pushed into tight corners in the flashpoint towns
and villages, especially in the north, hemmed in by troops and security forces
loyal to the president.
Monday, Jan. 30, Syrian forces were close to purging the suburbs and villages
around Damascus of rebel fighters. The operation began Sunday with 2,000 troops
backed by tanks and armored personnel carriers. Six soldiers were killed when
their vehicle blew up on a roadside bomb near Sahnaya, east of the capital.
The rebel Free Syrian Army and opposition groups continue to report heavy
fighting in the Damascus area, and especially the international airport where
they claim to have prevented Assad's wife and children from fleeing the country.
However, military watchers do not confirm either the fighting or the Assad
family's attempted flight.
While both sides spin propaganda, the extreme hyperbole of opposition claims
attests to their hard straits and the Syrian president's success in weathering
their efforts and the huge sacrifices in blood paid by the people (estimated at
8,000 dead and tens of thousands injured) to oust him.
Having got rid of the Arab League monitoring mission, which gave up in despair
of halting the savage bloodbath, Assad will shrug off the Arab-Western backed
motion put before the UN Security Council Tuesday, Jan. 30, calling on him to
step down and hand power to his vice president Farouk a-Shara. He will treat it
as yet another failed effort by the combined Arab-Western effort to topple his
regime.
The conflict is not over. More ups and downs may still be to come and there are
signs of sectarian war evolving. But for now, Assad's survival is of crucial
relevance in seven Middle East arenas:
1. The Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah bloc is strengthened, joined most recently by
Iraq;
2. Iran chalks up a first-class strategic achievement for counteracting the US
and the Saudi-led Gulf Arab emirates' presentation of the Islamic regime as
seriously weighed down under by the crushing burden of crushing international
sanctions imposed to halt its drive for a nuclear bomb.
3. Hizballah has won a chance to recover from the steep slide of its fortunes in
Lebanon. The Pro-Iranian Lebanese Shiite group stands to regain the
self-assurance which ebbed during Assad's hard times against massive dissidence,
re-consolidate its bonds with Tehran, Damascus and Baghdad and rebuild its
political clout in Beirut.
4. It is hard to calculate the enormous extent of the damage Saudi Arabia and
Turkey have suffered from their colossal failure in Syria. The Palestinians too
have not emerged unscathed.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and their security agencies, which invested huge sums in the
Syrian rebellion's removal of the Assad regime, were trounced by Syria's
security and intelligence services and the resources Iran provided to keep
Bashar Assad afloat. The Arab League, which for the first time tried its hand at
intervening in an Arab uprising by sending observers into Syrian trouble spots
to cut down the violence, watched impotently as those observers ran for their
lives. Assad for his part first accepted than ignored the League's peace plan.
Turkey, too, after indicating its military would step across the border to
support the Syrian resistance and giving the FSA bases of operation, backed off
for the sake of staying on good terms with Iran.
5. Russia and China have gained credibility in the Middle East and points
against the United States by standing up for Assad and pledging their veto votes
against any strong UN Security Council motions against him. Moscow's arms sales
and naval support for the Assad regime and China's new military and economic
accords with Persian Gulf emirates have had the effect of pushing the United
States from center stage of the Arab Revolt, held in the Egyptian and Libyan
revolutions, to the sidelines of Middle East action. 6. The Syrian ruler has
confounded predictions by Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak that he can't
last more than a few weeks. His survival and the cohesion of his armed forces
have contributed to the tightening of the Iranian military noose around Israel.
The Syrian army was in sustained operation for almost a year without breaking
and suffered only marginal defections. It is still in working shape with
valuable experience under its belt in rapid deployment between battlefronts.
Syria, Iran and Hizballah have streamlined the cooperation among their armies
and their intelligence arms.
7. The Palestinian rivals, Fatah and Hamas, have again put the brakes on the
on-again, off-again reconciliation after it was galvanized by Hamas' decision to
create some distance between Iran and the embattled Syrian regime. Seeing Assad
still in place, Hamas' Gaza prime minister Ismail Haniyeh will visit Tehran this
week and Meshaal may delay his departure from the Syrian capital.
'Israel sees narrowing window for Iran strike'
Associated Press
International sanctions on Iran are constraining Israel from taking military
action against Islamic Republic's nuclear sites, which must be mounted by
summer, officials say
Israeli officials are quietly conceding that new international sanctions
targeting Iran's suspect nuclear program, while welcome, are further
constraining Israel's ability to take military action – just as a window of
opportunity is closing because Tehran is moving more of its installations
underground. The officials said that Israel must act by the summer if it wants
to effectively attack Iran's program.A key question in the debate is how much
damage Israel, or anyone else, can inflict, and whether it would be worth the
risk of a possible counterstrike. Israel has been a leading voice in the
international calls to curb Iran's nuclear program. Like the West, it believes
the Iranians are moving toward nuclear weapons capability – a charge Tehran
denies. Israel contends a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its survival. It
also fears an Iranian bomb would touch off a nuclear arms race in a region still
largely hostile to Israel.
Israeli leaders say they prefer a diplomatic solution. But – skeptical of
international resolve – Israel refuses to rule out the use of force, saying
frequently that "all options are on the table."
Is time running out?
After calling for tougher sanctions against Iran at the World Economic Forum in
Davos, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday: "We must not waste time on this
matter; the Iranians continue to advance (toward nuclear weapons), identifying
every crack and squeezing through. Time is urgently running out."Key Israeli
defense officials believe that the time to strike, if such a decision is made,
would have to be by the middle of this year. Complicating the task is the
assessment that Iran is stepping up efforts to move its work on enriching
uranium deep underground. Several officials at the heart of the decision-making
structure, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were discussing some
of Israel's deepest secrets, said they feel compelled to give the sanctions
time. In this way, somewhat paradoxically, the new economic sanctions the US and
Europe are imposing – while meeting a repeated Israeli request – have emerged as
an obstacle to military action. An Israeli strike would risk shattering the
US-led diplomatic front that has imposed four additional rounds of sanctions on
Iran and jolt the shaky world economy by causing oil prices to spike. Still, the
officials said that if Israel feels no alternative but to take military action,
it will do so. The US has sold Israel dozens of 100 GBU-28 laser-guided
"bunker-buster" bombs. The 2.5-ton bombs are capable of penetrating more than 20
feet of solid concrete. It's not clear how much damage the bunker-busters could
actually do. Iran's main enrichment site at Natanz is believed to be about 25
feet (6 meters) underground and protected by two concrete walls. US Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta told The Wall Street Journal last week that even more
sophisticated US bunker-busters aren't powerful enough to penetrate all of
Iran's defenses.
'Strike won't really delay Iran'
Many believe that in the event of a strike, Iran would likely unleash its large
arsenal of missiles capable of striking Israel.
Iran's local proxies, Hezbollah to Israel's north and Hamas to the south,
possess tens of thousands of short-range rockets and missiles. American soldiers
in the Persian Gulf might come under fire. Islamist backers of Iran could target
civilians all over the world. The prospect of a new conflagration in the Mideast
is one reason cited by some influential Israeli figures, like recently retired
spy chief Meir Dagan, when arguing against an Israeli military attack. Perhaps
the biggest factor in the Israeli thinking is how much damage an airstrike could
even cause. "What will tip the scales in favor or against an attack is whether
we will really be able to do inflict serious damage," said Yiftah Shapir, an
expert in nuclear arms proliferation at Tel Aviv University. "That will be more
important than whether we are ready to absorb (the casualties) of an attack."
Israeli officials believe the Iranian nuclear program is so far advanced that
any attack would delay it by two to three years at best, but not destroy it.
"It's a very advanced program with many facilities, some very large and some
very fortified. To destroy them you need a series of massive assaults for two to
three weeks, a month, something like that," Shapir said. A one-time surgical
strike, the most likely attack by Israel, "can't do more than politically
declare that we aren't willing to tolerate" a nuclear Iran, Shapir said.
That has raised speculation that Israel's veiled threats are no more than
attempts to get Iran to back down.
West to confront Russia over Syria
January 31, 2012/Daily Star
DAMASCUS: Western governments prepare to send their top diplomats to lobby for a
U.N. resolution condemning the Syrian regime’s deadly crackdown, as Russia said
Monday that it opposes the proposed text. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton said the U.N. Security Council “must act” to end President Bashar
Assad’s “violent and brutal attacks” against demonstrators after adopting not a
single resolution since the protests erupted in March last year. Clinton said
she would travel to the United Nations Tuesday to “send a clear message of
support to the Syrian people – we stand with you.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the United States was “intensely
discussing ... the real deterioration on the ground,” with Russia.“We’re
discussing with the Russians and other partners how best to use all the levers
at the command of the international community and the United Nations to press
the Syrian government to stop its appalling and, ultimately, ineffective and
harmful repression,” Carney told reporters.
The Syrian opposition flatly rebuffed a Russian call for talks with Assad’s
regime as violence across Syria killed 53 people, 35 of them civilians,
activists said. Sunday, 80 people were reportedly killed, equally divided
between military and civilian deaths, in the most intense clashes since the
10-month-old uprising began, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. The
latest spike in violence, on top of what the United Nations said at the start of
January already added up to 5,400 killings, pushed the Arab League to suspend a
much criticized observer mission to Syria Saturday. French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppe too is to head to New York Tuesday to press the Security Council
into taking action over the Assad regime’s “crimes against humanity,” his
ministry said.
Foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said a ministerial meeting at the U.N.
Tuesday would allow the Security Council to listen to the Arab League’s report
on the situation in Syria.
The Foreign Office in London said that Foreign Secretary William Hague would
also go to the Security Council. Juppe admitted that “conditions aren’t yet
right to get a resolution passed, because Russia is still reluctant.”Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said the latest draft tabled by Morocco
Friday was little different to one Moscow and Beijing vetoed last October.
“The current Western draft has not gone too far from the October version, and,
certainly, cannot be supported by us,” Gatilov told Interfax news agency in an
interview.
“The draft has statements in it calling on the member states to stop arms
deliveries to Syria,” he said.
Moscow, which has close ties with Syria and remains one of its key arms
suppliers, said earlier that Damascus had agreed to its offer to host talks with
opposition representatives.But the head of the Syrian National Council said that
the opposition rejects all talks with the Damascus regime until Assad steps
down. “The resignation of Assad is the condition for any negotiation on the
transition to a democratic government in Syria,” Burhan Ghalioun told AFP.The
position was echoed by the second largest opposition grouping, the Syrian
National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change.
“Any negotiation or meeting is inconceivable in the shadow of the growing
violence and killings, and the persistent arrests,” its leader Hassan Abdel Azim
told AFP.
Regime forces, who were reported to have executed a founder of the rebel army,
appeared determined to wrest back control of Damascus suburbs, which have
intermittently fallen into the hands of the rebels.Near the capital, troops
penetrated Rankus, 40 kilometers north of the capital, after having shelled the
town, which the army had encircled for the past six days, the Observatory said.
Activists at the scene said rebel troops pulled out of Rankus as the army moved
in, while in the eastern suburbs of Irbin and Hammuriyeh, snipers were “shooting
at everything that moves.”
The SNC warned of the potential for a massacre in Rankus after hundreds of young
men were rounded up by security forces.
“They have imposed a siege on Rankus, preventing food and medical aid from
entering” the town of 25,000 inhabitants, it said in a statement in Nicosia.
Elsewhere in country, the Observatory said at least 20 civilians were killed
when security forces stormed the flashpoint central city of Homs, including a
doctor and a young girl. Five civilians were killed in a Damascus suburbs and
three in Idlib province in the northwest. An ambush by deserters killed six
loyalist troops in Deraa province, south of the capital. A total of 10 rebel
soldiers were also killed, the Britain-based watchdog added.
Why is al-Assad suddenly eager for the Arab observers?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
Anyone following al-Assad’s official news agency will be amazed at the volume of
news condemning the Arab League decision to suspend the Arab observer mission in
Syria; although the al-Assad regime previously delayed its approval of such a
move, eventually signing the Arab protocol late, having originally claimed the
proposal to be a violation of Syria’s sovereignty. So why is the al-Assad regime
now clinging to the Arab observer mission?
Immediately after the Arab League announced its suspension of the observer
mission in Syria, the al-Assad regime rushed to issue a statement from an
official source, saying that Damascus “is both disappointed and surprised by the
decision of the Secretary General of the Arab League, Nabil el-Araby, to end the
Arab observer mission after Syria had agreed to extend its work for another
month”. The source added that the Arab League’s decision was “a prelude to the
Security Council meeting next Tuesday, at the request of Qatar and the Arab
League Secretary General to negatively influence and pressurize the negotiations
that will take place there, in an attempt to call for outside interference in
Syria’s internal affairs”. Then the source said that Damascus “remains committed
to the success of the Arab observer mission, and ensures its protection”.
Two things are clear from the above statement; firstly the al-Assad regime wants
the observers to remain as false witnesses and provide cover during the latest
escalation of its security campaign, which is what Walid Moallem talked about in
his last press conference, calling it a “popular demand”, as if the Syrians
themselves are calling on the al-Assad regime to oppress and murder them. Thus,
in all naivety, we find that the al-Assad regime today siding with the Arab
observer mission, rather than the Syrian opposition! The al-Assad regime also
believes that the presence of Arab observers serves as another cover to
strengthen the Russian stance in its defense, so as to say that the Syrian
regime is still committed to the decisions of the Arab League!
The second thing that is evident from the official source’s statement is that
the regime is genuinely concerned about the upcoming battle in the Security
Council, and whether the Security Council will adopt the Arab initiative. Nabil
el-Araby returned to this issue recently, confirming that the initiative is
similar to the Yemen solution, where a German news agency quoted him as saying:
“the Arab initiative talks about the Syrian regime going peacefully, it is an
integrated initiative similar to that used to resolve the situation in Yemen”.
Therefore the al-Assad regime is sensing the coming danger, and specifically
what the Security Council will do. Therefore, the regime hopes to impose a
security solution quickly on the ground, under the cover of the Arab observer
delegation. This method is nothing new to the al-Assad regime; it has used this
approach over the last ten years, whether in Lebanon or Iraq, or earlier in
Syria itself. The al-Assad regime is well practiced in the art of making
promises and then avoiding them, as evidenced by its acceptance of each
initiative, whatever the circumstances, and then emptying the agreements of
their contents, rendering them as useless formalities. So I say good luck to
everyone, and bad luck to the al-Assad regime. All tricks have been exhausted,
and now is the time for those responsible to be held to account.
Taking stock of 2011’s revolutions and developments
By Abdullah Al-Otaibi
Asharq Alawsat
The year 2011 ravaged the Arab world like a monster straight out of a Hollywood
movie; regimes were ousted, political axes were shaken, and political analysts
and observes were utterly divided. Distractions and chaos prevailed, while only
a few were conscious of what was really going on.
There was much talk; opinions were written and sayings were circulated at the
beginning of the year, all expressing deep concern and mindful cautiousness
about what was happening at a turbulent moment in history. However, such talk
and opinions were met with strong criticism, suspicion and accusations of
treason under the slogans of glory, dignity, freedom and honor, or at the very
least, they were met with mockery and indifference.
Any political opinion that was opposed to the revolutions and skeptical of their
slogans, or opinions that consisted of calm and rational attempts to perceive
the revolutions away from their clamor, were all regarded as morally dubious.
Hence, anyone who dared to criticize the revolutions was deemed a traitor, and
anyone who warned that political Islam would reap the harvest was accused of
using the same "scarecrow" as the former regimes. Similarly, anyone who
expressed genuine fears of economic decline in the uprising countries was seen
as a pessimist, and anyone who put forth democracy as a comprehensive concept,
highlighting that elections were merely a small part of this process, was cast
as a doubter.
Today’s events, analysis and facts clearly indicate that many of the fears that
haunted people during such a strange and hazy scene were justified, and have
come to fruition over the general course of events.
A quick glance over a full year reveals that the initial revolutionary slogans
continue to be adopted until today, but they are now a source of dispute, and
there are now sharp differences and divisions between those who first adopted
them. Many of those who were once skeptical regarding the revolutions' critics
have moved to a position where they now criticize the revolutions and the rebels
themselves, for now they can see what they could not at the beginning. Those who
accused others of using political Islam as a "scarecrow" now see it as the
reality of political life. They see it on the ground and in the squares; they
witnessed it during Shariaa Friday, and prior to it, the Qaradawi Friday
demonstrations [in Cairo]. In the new parliament in Egypt, it was remarkable
that the “revolutionary youth” achieved barely any representation, although
during some irrational and emotional moments of the revolution, some believed
that this group would be the saviors who could solve all the complexities of the
backward Arabs.
Today talk focusses on the economies of the revolutionary states, which are now
experiencing critical stages and are suffering greatly to restore what they have
lost, seeking alternative economic resources. Yet, unfortunately, all solutions
seem unattainable and the results cannot be guaranteed.
One of the major questions to be raised about what happened in 2011 is: Can
these protests be regarded as revolutions in the modern sense of the word? The
fairest answer is that they cannot be at this moment, and that there is still a
long way to go. Another question is whether the revolutionary masses actually
represented the general public, or were they a mere active minority? Do they
have the right to represent the people now or not?
It is clear today that our elements and indicators of underdevelopment are far
numerous than our elements of enlightenment and civilization, and that tribalism
and religious ideologies are much stronger than the principles of freedom,
civility, tolerance, justice and equality. It is clear that such modern concepts
can be hijacked extremely easily in our Arab cultures and societies; Islamic
parties carry the names of "Freedom and Justice" and "Development" as well as
other attributes that denote enlightenment, yet such names have been hijacked
and modified in a manner that reflects completely contradictory ideological
discourses.
In Tunisia, there is an ailing economy, widespread unemployment and
contradictory demands. Likewise Egypt is suffering from the same hardships –
plus the fact that the people and the army there are no longer unified, unlike
the slogans adopted last year would suggest. In Libya, signs of internal
fighting have begun to appear. In all situations, the Islamists are no longer a
scarecrow; they have become a reality in accordance with their electoral results
and their strength on the ground.
Much has been said in this context, but what has remained unsaid is that the
major protests or revolutions, intentionally or otherwise, have often failed to
present a true reading of the nature and history of the regimes that they rose
against. As a result, the desire for revenge and vengeance now overlaps with the
zeal of victory and dignity. In turn, this blinds the new elite and the masses,
failing to see the previous scene as it appeared in reality, rather than as they
want to remember it. By demonizing the former regime in political and media
discourse, and publicly in general, the new political elite have a convenient
reason for their failure to rebuild the country.
In modern Arabic history, military coups have been portrayed as revolutions, and
historically the military has tended to distort the image of the regimes that it
rose against. Decades later however, numerous historians and elites, who
distanced themselves from the clamor of the coups and the revolutions, succeeded
in portraying the scene accurately, with all its pros and cons, after the
military had rose against the ruling regimes and deliberately distorted them.
Furthermore, throughout history, many genuine developments and major reforms
have in fact been the product of successful attempts to promote and strengthen
the ruling regime. For example, the US fought against colonialism and never
staged a revolution against its ruling regime. Britain, the old and wise man of
Europe, never participated in the sweep of Europe's modern revolutions because
it had already carried out reforms and developments, in what was known as the
Victorian development.
Similarly we can consider the examples of India and South Africa. If we
contemplate India's historical experience with Gandhi, this was not a revolution
in the modern sense of the word. The people there were determined to continue
with resistance and reform until the departure of the British occupation, but
they then went on to promote the political system. Perhaps, South Africa's
experience under its great symbol Nelson Mandela is a clearer illustration.
Mandela led prolonged reform and gradual improvements that took place over
several decades. However, as soon as he assumed power, he succeeded in laying
the foundations of the state so as to shield it from possible collapse, and
embarked upon a comprehensive reform plan across the country.
In Britain and the US, along the lines of India and South Africa, reforms and
development – without the need for a revolution – have led to the establishment
of the state's political foundations, together with continual and comprehensive
development. This in turn has shielded these countries from all the hardships of
a revolution. These countries achieved all the hopes and dreams of a revolution
but in a better and less costly manner, and with a more effective and
sustainable impact. In other words, these experiences can be compared to the
communist revolutions that were widespread in the second half of the 20th
century, most of which have led to calamities, atrocities and abject failure
across the world, not in the Arab region alone. In the present-day Arab world,
we saw what happened to the Arab states that witnessed uprisings, and we also
saw the countries that undertook real development, as is the case with Morocco,
Jordan, Bahrain and the rest of Gulf states, although to varying degrees.
Numerous intellectuals adopted skeptical stances towards the revolutions -
whether before, during or after they were staged - and so did senior politicians
as well. They offered distinguished views about the revolutions' shortcomings,
highlighting their dislike for revolutionary prejudices; the influence of
extremists of every shape and color, and their utter disdain for the mass
demagogy. In fact, I do not know why so many other Arab intellectuals believe
that what happened and is happening in the Arab world will be in some way
different and exceptional to what has happened in the rest of the world.
Syria the victim of Russia
By Hamad Al-Majid/Asharq Alawsat
It is very unfortunate for the Syrian people that Russia has foolishly chosen to
vent its frustrations out on them. Russia has been prompted to express its total
support for the bloodthirsty regime in Damascus by the expanding influence of
the US and its Western allies, at the expense of the rapidly diminishing Russian
influence. The Russians seem indifferent to the massacres Bashar al-Assad’s
regime commits against its own people, with a daily death toll rising as high as
100; a shameful figure for the regime and whoever supports it. Russia also seems
indifferent to the fact that it is now only one of three states that still carry
the shameful burden of supporting the Syrian regime; alongside Iran and Iraq,
both of which are doing so for sectarian reasons. Russia has bewailed its recent
misfortunes, and the West's domination of its old areas of influence, and thus
it has resorted to a futile policy of siding with the Syrian regime. Describing
the situation as political suicide [for Russia], a British newspaper remarked
that the Syrian regime is eroding and collapsing, with its forces and
intelligence services starting to loot banks, and it is likely that the regime
will fall within two months.
We do not know how Russia sacrificed all its economic and political interests in
all Arab states that called for a supportive stance with the oppressed Syrian
people! In other words, however hard we try to find political, economic or
strategic motives for Russia’s stance, we will not find a reason other than
Russia's desire to avenge itself on the West that has caused its influence to
shrink in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in other autocratic
Arab states such as Libya, the then South Yemen and Somalia. Even the most
rudimentary political observer could not conceive that avenging oneself at the
expense of an oppressed nation, and acting to the advantage of a regime that is
predestined to collapse, would be of any avail to Russia.
It is notable that the current Russian stance is similar to that of the
dictatorial regimes it once supported; all the presidents who were ousted one
after another repeated the famous phrase "we are different”. Similarly, the
Russian stance has always gambled on the losing team, and when it collapsed, the
Russians would repeat the same stance once again as if they wanted to say "this
regime is different”. They did so with Saddam Hussein before he fell, and
likewise with Muammar Gaddafi before he was overthrown, and now they are doing
so with Bashar al-Assad, who will also fall God willing. Warnings continue to
deafen the Kremlin leaders, emphasizing that the Syrian regime's collapse is
inevitable and that it is just a question of time, but all warnings seem to have
fallen on deaf ears.
Russia has failed to learn a lesson from the recent change in the Chinese stance
towards the Syrian regime, a stance deemed more realistic [than Russia's],
despite its shortcomings. China, like Russia, is incensed by the domination of
the US and its allies over certain areas of influence, and so it vetoed the
recent Security Council resolution to condemn the Bashar al-Assad regime.
However, China then began to retract its position in view of the crimes
committed by the regime, and as a result of the clear signs of its collapse,
including the defections from the Syrian army - with defectors then joining the
Free Syrian Army that has begun to control a number of Syrian districts, and
likewise the strict stance adopted by the Arab states - led by Saudi Arabia -
whereby the Arab observer mission was recalled from Syria.
Such major developments in the Syrian crisis indicate the inevitable fall of the
Bashar al-Assad regime, which has now become only a question of time, whilst
Russia's foreign policy has been adversely affected by its stubborn stance in
support of a bloodthirsty and savage regime. Nevertheless, there has been little
change in the Russian attitude, which makes us think that perhaps the Russian
leaders are drinking vodka when making their political decisions.
How can Syria be saved?
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat
I recently wrote about how the Arab League plan would be deployed to rescue the
Syrian regime, whilst at the same time the Arab League is publicly boasting that
it is slowly suffocating the al-Assad regime.
The Arab League is well aware that it is dealing with one of the shrewdest,
fiercest and most ruthless regimes in the world. This is a regime that swallowed
Lebanon whole – under the banner of the Arab – with regards to the so-called
Arab Deterrent Force [deployed in Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War] and
which allowed Damascus to control Lebanon for the next three decades, and which
local, Arab, and international forces were subsequently hard pressed to push
out. This is a regime that has done something in Palestine that even the
Israelis were unable to achieve; namely dividing the Palestinian ranks,
marginalizing the Palestinian Authority, and conspiring against the Mecca
Accords, thereby killing the only existing reconciliation agreement. This is a
regime that has granted the Iranians access to the Arab world, allowing them to
obtain whatever they failed to get through their funds and militias. This is a
regime that bloodied the Americans in Iraq, costing the lives of 3,000 US troops
and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians, thanks to their support for “Al Qaeda”
and the jihadists who received training and entered Iraq via Syria. This is also
the regime, which at the same time as this, was negotiating with the Americans
to surrender a number of Saddam Hussein’s aides who had sought refuge is Syria.
This is a regime that welcomed the Arab League observers and then suppressed and
cracked down on all those who dared to reveal their lies. One Arab League
observer even claimed that the al-Assad regime had attempted to extort them. So
how can the Arab League still believe that it is slowly suffocating the al-Assad
regime?
One must ask, firstly, is there a practical solution [to the Syrian crisis]? If
so, can this be implemented? Sending Arab troops to Syria is suicidal, and no
Arab country would be willing to send its troops there. Whilst international
intervention will not be easy to achieve, as was the case in Libya, simply
because there are regional and international powers that are against this,
including Israel, Iran, Russia, and others. As for the doing nothing and
continuing mediation efforts; this will simply grant the al-Assad regime more
time to escalate its suppression of 20 million Syrian citizens.
There is only one solution, namely publicly supporting the Syrian people’s right
to express themselves and decide their own destiny. What would be the problem if
the Arab League announces that the violence and killings being carried out by
the Syrian forces and pro-regime Shabiha militia leaves it no choice but to
suspend Syria’s Arab League membership, particularly as this was something put
forward in the early days of the crisis? This decision was taken and then
unfortunately postponed when the Syrian death toll was at just 1,200. However
the Arab League withdrew from this position when the death toll was closer to
6,000, the majority of whom are unarmed civilians.
We are well aware that with some moral support from the Arab League and the
countries sympathetic to the plight of the Syrian people, the Syrian
revolutionaries would be able to overthrow the regime. This would not require
the Arab League to take an initiative supporting peace or war, but rather a
position clearly announcing the isolation of the al-Assad regime and granting
support to the Syrian people. This would force the groups supporting the al-Assad
regime – whether Alawites, Christians, or Sunnis – to abandon it. However the
Arab League’s actions, unfortunately, have confused everybody and even raised
suspicion over its intentions. This could be seen in the Arab League decision to
extend the Arab observer mission’s deadline in Syria, the behaviour and
statements of some of the Arab League observers, as well as the language of the
Arab League itself, failing to differentiate between the killers and their
victims [in Syria], according to the head of the Arab League observer mission
[General Mohammed al-Dabi].
A strong political stand from the Arab League abandoning the al-Assad regime
would represent a green light for others to join in its isolation. At this time,
everybody would recognize and engage with the Syrian opposition as the
legitimate representative of the country. However today, the Arab League is
simply covering up for the atrocious crimes being committed by the Syrian
regime. The Arab League – as many Syrian opposition figures have called for –
must release its choke-hold of the Syrian people; that is the solution. This is
a solution that does not require a plan or initiative, the deployment of troops,
or referral to the UN Security Council. This is a solution that will cost the
least amount of pain and bloodshed to the Syrian people, particularly less than
the Arab League trying to protect the al-Assad regime!
French senators block Armenia genocide law
January 31, 2012 /News Agencies/Daily Star
PARIS: A group of French senators said Tuesday they had asked the constitutional
council to examine a new law that punishes denial of the Armenian genocide,
effectively suspending the legislation.
Turkey reacted furiously last week when the Senate approved the law which
threatens with jail anyone in France who denies that the 1915 massacre of
Armenians by Ottoman Turk forces amounted to genocide.President Nicolas
Sarkozy's office last Tuesday brushed off angry threats of retaliation by Turkey
and vowed to enforce the law within a fortnight. But the left-wing group of
senators said Tuesday they had gathered 76 signatures from senators opposed to
the law, more than the minimum 60 required to ask the council to examine the
law's constitutionality. The council is obliged to deliver its judgement within
a month, but this can be reduced to eight days if the government deems the
matter urgent. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has denounced the law
as "tantamount to discrimination and racism".On Tuesday he hailed the French
senators' move, speaking on television. Erdogan has warned that his
Islamist-rooted government would punish Paris with unspecified retaliatory
measures if Sarkozy, whose right-wing UMP party initiated the bill, signed it
into law. France has already officially recognized the killings as a genocide,
but the new law would go further by punishing anyone who denies this with up to
a year in jail and a fine of 45,000 euros ($57,000).Armenians say up to 1.5
million of their forebears were killed in 1915 and 1916 by the forces of
Turkey's former Ottoman Empire.
Turkey disputes the figure, arguing that 500,000 died, and denies this was
genocide, ascribing the toll to fighting and starvation during World War I and
accusing the Armenians of siding with Russian invaders.
Armenia hailed the passage of the bill through the French Senate, with President
Serzh Sarkisian writing in a letter to Sarkozy: "France has reaffirmed its
greatness and power, its devotion to universal human values."
Sleiman urges politicians to refrain from bickering
January 31, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman urged Lebanese
politicians to refrain from engaging in the usual political bickering and
instead propose ideas for reform in the country.
“I ask politicians to announce their steps for reform, not just attack others,”
Sleiman said on his Twitter feed. “Policy is about presenting constructive
ideas, not just accusations and mistrust.” In recent weeks, politicians from the
rival camps have escalated their verbal attacks, with head of the Free Patriotic
Movement MP Michel Aoun questioning whether certain of the March 14 coalition
politicians deserved to be called martyrs. The MP’s comments sparked fury among
the ranks of the Future Movement-led coalition and others, including Progressive
Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt, who said the death of the martyrs had
paved the way for Aoun’s return from exile in Paris in 2005.
Standards of success and failure
Hazem Saghiyeh, January 30, 2012
Is there a standard for measuring the success or failure of regimes emanating
from Arab revolutions, which are predominantly Islamic in nature one way or
another?
The answer is most probably yes, as the difference between manifestations of
success and failure will not be too difficult to make out. If the new regimes
focus on building political life, restoring the economy and providing job
opportunities for the unemployed, these would be signs of success. In contrast,
if voices call for al-Quds, the caliphate, perhaps even al-Andalus, in addition
to issues pertaining to women, their clothing and their freedoms, and the right
to freedom of writing, drawing and expression, this means that those regimes
have ended in failure.
The primordial importance of politics and the economy means settling the
national issue (thus abrogating this difference, which exists only in the Arab
world, between “national” and “nationalist”). It also means the prevalence of a
sense of pragmatism over ideological inclinations and inherited prejudices.
Islamists must adapt themselves to the pressure exerted by the diktats of
reality and gradually relinquish their prior dogmatic biases in order to address
their peoples’ pressing needs.
Electoral stability and the actual respect of the peaceful transition of power
will certainly be an implicit condition to this adaptation. Electoral parties
that are concerned with the voters’ interests should relinquish their
ideological burdens, which have a disastrous impact on these interests, and
respond to their voters’ true demands.
As for al-Quds, al-Andalus, women, reading and writing, etc., these are merely
signs that the new regimes are not working properly and that the Islamist forces
that have newly come to power wish to evade their avowed commitment to democracy
in favor of a mixture of “fateful cases” and trivial matters. We would,
therefore, be witnessing a remake of the era of Nasserism, which extended into
the Baath rule, during which time “fateful cases” were a means to evade en masse
the tasks of building states and laying the foundations of decent political and
economic lives in them.
This broad division does not exclude the existence of a third possibility, which
– if it were to happen – would be the absolute worst-case scenario. In that
case, local and international circumstances – such as the economic crisis –
would undermine chances of building political and economic life in the countries
that witnessed uprisings. Under this disastrous scenario, which might be
exacerbated in the Levant due to Israel’s scurrility and intransigence, we
cannot but expect a populist and demagogical return to al-Quds, the caliphate,
al-Andalus, women’s rights and creative freedoms. Should it ever be the case,
this return would be consolidated by the resurgence of old ideological
instincts, thus blocking the transition to a new and promising future.
This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic
site on Monday January 30, 2012
Get used to it: Intervention in Syria is coming
Hussein Ibish/Now Lebanon
January 31, 2012
The Obama administration wants the Assad regime gone, but it does not want to
see the unfolding of conflict and possible international intervention. (AFP
photo)
The United States faces a terrible conundrum regarding Syria. The Obama
administration wants the regime of Bashar al-Assad gone, but it does not want to
see the unfolding of the very processes—conflict and possible international
intervention—that seem to be emerging as the only viable means to achieve that.
This means that the United States has condemned itself to thus far playing an
almost entirely reactive role, even in the context of the limited means at its
disposal to influence events in Syria. However, standing on the sidelines and
warning all players not to do what they are already doing is not going to work.
Washington is very reasonably anxious about the prospect of a widespread civil
conflict—with or without a direct international dimension—because it worries
about both the process and the outcome.
A civil war in Syria would likely have a strongly sectarian character and the
potential to spill over into neighboring states such as Lebanon and Iraq, posing
a significant threat to regional stability. It could also prove a protracted,
bloody mess.
At least as troubling from Washington's perspective is that the outcome is very
uncertain. What the aftermath would look like is even more unclear than it was
in Libya, where the stakes were considerably lower. The possibilities of
stalemate, regional conflict, de facto partition, communal cleansing, waves of
refugees, empowerment of extremists and other grim scenarios all inform a strong
American desire not to see the emergence of civil war in Syria.
This conundrum is shared not only by other Western powers but some Arab states
and many in the Syrian opposition, including a large group in the Syrian
National Council’s leadership, as well.
But none of these actors are in control of events on the ground, which seem to
be moving inexorably toward intensified armed conflict and away from a political
battle. The regime has presented the Syrians in general, as well as the
international community, with a binary choice: Take us as is, or face an
open-ended conflict with uncertain outcomes.
Opposition forces on the ground that seem to answer directly to no one, such as
the Free Syrian Army, have in effect waved aside repeated warnings from Western
and Arab leaders, and senior SNC figures, that militarizing the conflict plays
into the hands of the regime. That's certainly true on paper, where the Syrian
army would seem to dwarf the size and capabilities of the fledgling insurgent
groups, but the political story tells a different tale as the regime's hold on
power and legitimacy has never looked more precarious and, indeed, doomed.
Even though it is the regime that is deliberately pushing Syria toward civil
war, and the opposition might have been wiser to avoid armed conflict, these
events have developed their own momentum, and reversing it will be difficult if
not impossible.
The problem for the United States is that all of its more obvious intermediate
solutions seem bound to fail. The present Arab League initiative at the UN,
based largely on the Yemen model of coerced transition, seems unlikely to gain
Security Council approval. And, if it did, there's no reason to believe it would
be a functional model for regime change in Syria. Even if strengthened economic
and other sanctions mandated by the Security Council could be achieved over
Russian objections, historical precedent strongly suggests they would also have
a very limited impact.
The preferred scenario, of course, is to persuade Russia by various
means—possibly including reassurances about the long-term future of its precious
warm-water Mediterranean port on the Syrian coast in Tartus—to relent on its
uncompromising support for the Assad regime.
However, in the long run, Russian opposition to intensified sanctions, blockades
and other coercive measures, potentially including military intervention, could
be bypassed through a General Assembly 377 resolution. Such “uniting for peace”
measures were precisely designed to get around repeated vetoes by a permanent
member of the Security Council. Similarly, Security Council super majorities and
strongly-worded Arab League statements can give substantial measures—even if
subject to a lone veto—political and moral authority.
Although it is very hard to speculate on the exact trajectory, all signs in
Syria point toward the escalation of the insurgency into a civil war and the
need, like it or not, for more aggressive and even direct forms of international
intervention. Certainly the conditions for such a move are not yet ripe, both
diplomatically and on the ground.
However, all the variables in play suggest that the armed conflict will only
intensify and that direct outside intervention of some kind, for humanitarian,
strategic and political reasons, is eventually coming. The West, and the United
States in particular, would be well advised to start getting used to this idea
and begin preparing for it now.
Hussein Ibish writes frequently about Middle Eastern affairs for numerous
publications in the United States and the Arab world. He blogs at
www.Ibishblog.com.