Obama forewarns Netanyahu that sanctions against Iran will soon be partially lifted

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report October 10, 2013/A deal made at their last meeting in the White House on Sept. 30
President Barack Obama has notified Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that his administration will soon start the partial and gradual easing of economic sanctions against Iran, debkafile reports exclusively from its Washington and Jerusalem sources. The reduction would apply to “non-significant” yet “substantial” sanctions, the message said.
Israel is the only American ally to receive prior warning of this decision - and the only one to be briefed in detail of the understandings Washington has reached with Tehran, including Iran’s concessions on its nuclear program. Neither European, nor Persian Gulf leaders led by Saudi Arabia have been let in on the scale of reciprocal concessions approved by Obama and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
These concessions will start coming to light when they are put on the table of the nuclear negotiations beginning in Geneva on Oct. 15 between Iran and the P5+1 group (five Security Council permanent members and Germany).
Meanwhile, high-ranking British, French and other European emissaries arrived in Jerusalem Thursday night. They said they were coming to discuss the latest developments on the Iranian question, but their real purpose was to discover the content of Obama’s message to the Israeli prime minister. A high-placed American source told debkafile early Thursday: “The American-Iranian cake is already in the oven and half done.
In its next issue, out this coming Friday, DEBKA Weekly divulges in detail the content of the understandings reached between Washington and Tehran, how they were handled and the live wires acting as liaison in the secret exchanges. Exclusive articles will also discuss the strategic, political and military ramifications of the deals struck between Washington and Tehran.

STL indicts fifth Hezbollah supporter in Hariri case

October 10, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: The Special Tribunal for Lebanon has indicted Hassan Habib Merhi, a supporter of Hezbollah, as the fifth suspect in the Feb. 14, 2005 attack that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others. An indictment and arrest warrant were issued to the Lebanese authorities in August, the court said in a statement. The court had given Lebanese authorities 30 days to arrest Merhi, but the Prosecutor General reported back in early September, saying the efforts have failed. As a result, the STL President ordered a public advertisement to aid with locating the accused.

Statement by Canadian Minister of State Yelich on Hamid Ghassemi-Shall’s Return to Canada
October 10, 2013 - The Honourable Lynne Yelich, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular), today issued the following statement:
“Canada joins Hamid Ghassemi-Shall’s loved ones in welcoming his safe return to Canada.
“Canada, with the help of our partners and allies, worked tirelessly on Mr. Ghassemi-Shall’s behalf, advocating his release and return to Canada.
“Although Canada is relieved by the positive outcome of Mr. Ghassemi-Shall’s case, we continue to be concerned by the untold numbers of political prisoners languishing in Iran’s notorious prison system.
“We urge Iran to comply immediately with all its international legal and human-rights obligations.”

Lebanon issues warrant for defected Syrian colonel

October 10, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: A Lebanese judge issued Thursday an arrest warrant for a defected Syrian officer after he confessed to planning to form a rebel brigade in the north of the country to fight President Bashar Assad’s forces. Military Investigative Judge Fadi Sawwan issued the warrant against Col. Mohammad Ahmad Amer following a thorough interrogation, a judicial source told The Daily Star.
While in custody, the defected officer confessed to working with rebels from the Free Syrian Army in Turkey to establish a military brigade in Tripoli, north Lebanon, to fight troops loyal to Assad in Syria, the source said.
Amer, according to the source, had defected from the Syrian Army and fled to Tripoli with his family. He was arrested last month for possession of weapons and explosives. A compact disk and a USB device confiscated from the colonel’s home in Tripoli contained information, maps and military strategies, the source added. Sawwan, the source said, referred the case to the military prosecutor to give his recommendation.

Video of ‘Hezbollah killing’ sparks outrage

October 10, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: A YouTube video purporting to show Hezbollah fighters shooting to death several wounded Syrians has sparked outrage on social media sites. A spokesman said Hezbollah was preparing to issue a response to the video, but it had yet to do so when The Daily Star went to press. The video, which is 1 minute and 40 seconds long, shows several men dressed in camouflage fatigues and sporting yellow ribbons on their shoulders. After they pull what appear to be several severely wounded men out of a van, they shoot them to death at point blank range. Some of the fighters use foul language as they execute the men, who are dressed in civilian clothing. Speaking with a Lebanese accent, their commander then scolds his fighters for their comments, reminding them that their actions are religiously sanctioned and that they are killing the men “for the sake of God.” The Daily Star was unable to independently confirm the authenticity of the video. Opposition sources were divided over whether the incident took place recently in rural Damascus, or immediately after the fall of the town of Qusair in Homs province in June. The video has received more than 128,000 views since it was posted Tuesday.

Priest serving child molestation sentence in Lebanon monastery
October 10, 2013/ By Jana El Hassan, Niamh Fleming-Farrell, Rayane Abou Jaoude The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A Lebanese priest convicted of child molestation by the Vatican is currently carrying out his sentence of solitary penitence in a monastery in Lebanon, sources close to him confirmed to The Daily Star Wednesday.
But the case of Mansour Labaki, who remains at liberty despite his conviction, raises questions about how the church under new leadership has resolved to combat child abuse perpetrated by members of the clergy.
An expert on the Vatican legal system said the priest was unlikely to come under investigation from Lebanese authorities, despite recent statements from Pope Francis vowing to take allegations of abuse more seriously than the church has in the past.
“Nobody wants to cross the Holy See,” said Marco Ventura, professor of Canon law and religion at the University of Leuven in Belgium.
For the most part, states tend to avoid involving themselves in Vatican legal matters, he said, adding it was unlikely either France, where the alleged abuse took place, or Lebanon would request files on the case from the Vatican, which is under no obligation to comply.
Labaki, a Maronite priest, author and composer, is known in both Lebanon and France for his charity work, particularly with orphans. He has founded two orphanages in Lebanon and one in France, and has won 15 international book prizes, among them an award from the French Academy and the International Prize for Human Rights.
Labaki had established Our Lady of Lebanon in France, a haven and religious sanctuary for Lebanese traveling to the European country on pilgrimage.
According to media reports in a French Christian Magazine La Croix and the Vatican Radio website, Labaki, 73, has been convicted of sexually abusing more than three children as well as soliciting sex and sentenced to a “life of prayer.” The magazine said the convicted priest would be also banned from exercising his ecclesiastical duties, participating in media and public appearances, and speaking to the victims.
The conviction was corroborated by Bassam Barrak and George Nakhle, who are both active members of the Friends of Labaki association which proclaims the priest’s innocence.
“[Labaki] is carrying out his sentence praying and reading in solitude” at “one of the monastaries in Lebanon,” said Barrak, who claims to be in touch with the priest regularly.
Labaki could not be reached for comment. When contacted by The Daily Star, a Vatican spokesperson said: “Sorry, but we have nothing to say about it.”
“The Vatican issued the verdict discreetly but it has still not been circulated,” said Rev. Abdo Abu Kasm, head of the Bkirki-affiliated Catholic Media Center. “We cannot yet specify the details of the charges.”
Abu Ksam claimed that Bkirki did not know who filed the complaint against Labaki.
Labaki’s defenders offered a more complete version of events, however.
Barrak claims the complaints were first filed in 2011 by the priest’s estranged niece and three French women. The report went directly from the French church authorities to the Vatican, bypassing civil criminal courts.
Labaki was tried at the Vatican in 2012, following a complaint filed against him in 2011. According to Barrak, Labaki was present at the trial but not allowed to speak. “He was not given the right to defend himself in court,” Barrak said. The alleged victims did not relay their experiences in court either, Barrak claimed.
Barrak added that Labaki tried to appeal the verdict, but the appeal was rejected in June. This information was also reported in the La Croix article.
In 1990, Nakhle was a 10-year-old child under the care of Labaki at the Foyer Sainte-Marie-Enfants du Liban orphanage in France where the alleged abuse took place. He told The Daily Star he knew two of the alleged victims personally and was adamant he had not witnessed any inappropriate behavior on Labaki’s part during the time he spent at the orphanage.
Like Barrak, he said the trial was unfair, as Labaki had not been allowed to speak or defend himself. Both claim the niece falsely accused her uncle out of anger after he left the property in France to a Lebanese order of nuns.
The lack of transparency surrounding the case was not surprising to Ventura, who said that, unlike matters of the Supreme Court or the Cassation Court where records are kept and there is some degree of transparency, such procedures in the Vatican are coded by secret.
Canon law is very different from civil law and it is extraterritorial, meaning it is executed without interference from any state, he said.
As for the pope’s reform to the Vatican legal system earlier this year, which saw the criminalization of sexual violence and child pornography, Ventura said that the measures only applied to the state of Vatican City, and not to all Catholics. “When this reform by Pope Francis was presented, it did not touch any aspect related to Canon Law, it only concerned the law of Vatican City,” he said, explaining that this was partially why Labaki did not receive a more severe punishment.Concerning Labaki’s penitence, Ventura said that within Canon law, such a sentence was “absolutely plausible, so it is no surprise,” adding that there is no systemic record of sex abuses in the Vatican.
But the lack of transparency in the Holy See’s legal dealings not only hampers efforts to put convicted sex offenders behind bars, but also hinders the task of those who wish to restore their innocence.
Barrak, along with Labaki’s family members and his spiritual movement Lo Tedhal (“Do not Fear” in Aramiac), says they are seeking to clear the priest’s name of false accusations. The group has created an online blog praising Labaki’s lifelong charity work and vowing to stand by his side.
“[Labaki] is telling us all to calm down,” Barrak said. “But we will not shut up about this.”
He said that the committee would hold a news conference soon. They are hoping Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai will involve himself in the issue. Bkirki’s media official said the Maronite Church had no comment on the matter, and would not comment in the near future.

Iranian dissidents say Tehran moving nuclear research site
Reuters – PARIS (Reuters) - An exiled Iranian opposition group said on Thursday it had information about what it said was a center for nuclear weaponisation research in Tehran that the government was moving to avoid detection ahead of negotiations with world powers. The dissident National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) exposed Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water facility at Arak in 2002. But analysts say it has a chequered track record and a clear political agenda. An accusation it made in July about a secret underground nuclear site under construction in Iran draw a cautious international response, with France merely saying it would look into it. The Islamic Republic says its nuclear energy program is entirely peaceful and rejects U.S. and Israeli accusations that it is seeking the capability to make nuclear weapons. The NCRI's latest allegation comes just a few days before Iran and six major powers are to meet in Geneva to try to end years of deadlock in a dispute over the Islamic state's nuclear program. The election of Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate, as new Iranian president has raised hopes of progress towards a negotiated settlement of the decade-old nuclear row. The Paris-based NCRI, citing information from sources inside Iran, said a nuclear weaponisation research and planning center it called SPND was being moved to a large, secure site in a defense ministry complex in Tehran about 1.5 km (1 mile) away from its former location. It said the center employed about 100 researchers, engineers and experts and handled small-scale experiments with radioactive material and was in charge of research into the weaponisation of nuclear weapons. "There is a link between this transfer and the date of Geneva (talks) because the regime needed to avoid the risk of visits by (U.N. nuclear) inspectors," Mehdi Abrichamtchi, who compiled the report for the NCRI, told a news conference. (Reporting by Nicholas Vinocur; Editing by Fredrik Dahl and Robin Pomeroy)

U.S. suggests destruction unit for Syria's chemical weapons
AMSTERDAM/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is suggesting the world's chemical weapons watchdog uses a U.S.-made mobile destruction unit in Syria to neutralize the country's toxic stockpile, officials told Reuters. It gave a briefing on the unit on Tuesday to officials at the Hague-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, who are deciding what technology to use for the ambitious chemical weapons destruction plan, two officials said. Faced with the threat of a U.S. military intervention, Syrian President Bashar al Assad agreed last month to a U.S.-Russian plan to destroy his sizeable chemical weapons program by the middle of 2014.
Initial talks between Washington and Moscow about where to destroy the stockpile included shipping it abroad, but it is illegal for most countries to import chemical weapons, making on-site destruction more likely.
Syria and the OPCW must make a decision on what technology will be used by November 15. It will largely depend on how Syria's suspected 1,000 tons of sarin, mustard and XV nerve agents are stored. The unit can destroy bulk chemicals, or precursors, but not munitions with a toxic payload. Separating these is more dangerous and time-consuming than incinerating or neutralizing precursor chemicals. "This is very big business, very political, and several governments are pushing for it," said chemical weapons expert Dieter Rothbacher, who used to train inspectors at the OPCW. "These units will be operating in Syria for a long period of time." Several countries have already been contacted to provide technicians for trials with the U.S.-made unit, which finished a trial stage in August after half a year of development, said a source who asked not to be named. It is known as the Field Deployable Hydrolysis System (FDHS). The officials did not provide financial details, but Rothbacher, who helped destroy late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's stockpile, estimated that the unit would "easily cost hundreds of million of dollars".
RAPID DEPLOYMENT
A U.S. defense official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that a senior U.S. defense official briefed the OPCW about the FDHS, developed at the U.S. Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC). It could be operational within 10 days of arriving on site, the center says on its website. "In terms of the situation on the ground in Syria, it is the best viable option," said a person briefed about the FDHS unit, who spoke on condition of anonymity. OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan had no official comment about the reported briefing, saying the deadline for the detailed plan for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons was November 15. The Pentagon could not immediately be reached for comment. More than two dozen inspectors are already on the ground in Syria and have to visit at least 20 production, storage and research sites, some of them in rebel-held territory. As many as 100 experts will be needed to carry out a labor-intensive verification process, collect and secure declared weapons and witness the entire destruction process.
The OPCW, established to enforce the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, is a tiny organization with around 500 staff and an annual budget of under $100 million. It will need significantly more to finish this task.
Many members of the OPCW, including Russia, China, France, Ireland, Britain and the United States, have offered to provide technicians, experts and several million dollars in funding.
Experts say meeting the June 2014 deadline for complete destruction is a difficult goal because the chemicals and weapons are spread over dozens of sites and foreign inspectors have never worked in an ongoing conflict.
Ceasefires will have to be negotiated with opposition forces to allow for safe access to sites in their territory in a conflict that has already claimed 100,000 lives.
The U.S. unit, built by the ECBC and the government's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), is operated by a crew of 15. It can destroy up to 25 metric tons of chemical agents per day when run around the clock, according to Edgewood. Several units could be co-located onsite, enabling the sharing of security and other assets, it said. (Editing by Philippa Fletcher)
 

The Dangers of Double-talk for Rouhani
By: Amir Taheri/ASharq Alawsat
Since 1979, when the mullahs seized power in Iran, several terms specific to their trade have entered the international political vocabulary.
One term is taqiyya which means hiding one’s true faith in order to deceive others in a hostile environment. Another term is kitman which means keeping an adversary guessing by playing one’s hand close to the chest. A third is do-pahlu which means an utterance that could have two opposite meanings at the same time. The closest equivalent in English is double-talk. In George Orwell’s novel 1984 the same concept is introduced as “doublespeak.”
For more than three decades, the mullahs and their associates have used that arsenal of deception against foreign powers and internal adversaries. What is new is that the mullahs and their associates are starting to use this against each other.
One example was furnished by President Hassan Rouhani’s visit to New York and the ripples it caused in Tehran. In New York, Rouhani, with his Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif playing the role of Sancho Panza, tried to seduce the Americans with smiles and sweet words. Rouhani called America “Great Nation” rather than “The Great Satan.” At one point he even tried to speak a little bit of English on American TV. Then there was the much-talked of telephone call with Barack Obama during which the two men exchanged a few short words.
For his part Zarif wooed the Americans by professing his love of all things American, most notably what they call ‘football,’ not to mention insisting on sitting next to US Secretary of State John Kerry during a photo-op session. Back in Tehran, Rouhani’s friends presented the whole rigmarole as an historic diplomatic coup. One even called it a “Divine Blessing”.
Shortly after Rouhani’s return, however, the euphoria in Tehran started to subside. The first shot was fired by “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei who used the do-pahlu or double-talk technique by declaring that while he endorsed Rouhani’s behavior in New York he thought that some of “the events” that took place there were “untoward”.By not saying which “events” had been “untoward”, Khamenei opened the door for others to suggest that every move that Rouhani had made might have been that.
The trouble is that these two “untoward events” were the sole interesting features of Rouhani’s otherwise bring visit. He made a routine speech at the UN General Assembly, had dinner with a few wealthy Americans of Iranian origin, and granted a series of TV interviews during which he talked much but said little. These were exactly the same things that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had done during seven annual visits to New York.
Nevertheless, the issue of Iran’s relations with the United States is too important to continue being used by rival factions in Tehran as a political football.
If Khamenei thinks that phoning Obama and sitting next to Kerry is “untoward” he should say so openly. If Rouhani thinks that such things are not “untoward” but necessary to break the ice with Washington, he, too, should say so openly. More importantly, the Iranian people should be given a full and honest report of what happened and who took what decisions.
Khamenei’s posture is disingenuous, to say the least. If things turn out well, he could claim that he had supported Rouhani’s desperate quest for an opening with Washington. If, on the other hand, Rouhani falls on the roadside before reaching even the first stage of normalization with the Americans, Khamenei could wear that “I-told-you-so” smile. One result of this do-pahlu debate is that almost every Tom, Dick, and Harry believes they have the authority to issue statements regarding foreign policy in general and relations with the US in particular.
Khameni’s numerous advisers offer contradictory assessments of Rouhani’s endeavor, some approving, others rejecting. Even military and police officers have joined in the cacophony, violating the long-established tradition under which those in uniform do not join the political debate in public. Across the nation, mullahs delivering Friday sermons offer different readings of the events in accordance with their factional attachments. The net result is that no one could be sure who makes foreign policy in the Islamic Republic and what might emerge from the soup that Rouhani claims he is cooking. While in New York, Rouhani tried to address the issue in some of his interviews. Most notably, he noted that the powers and duties of both the “Supreme Guide” and the President were defined in the Constitution, implying that neither could go beyond limits fixed for him. He also claimed that he had the “full authority” to deal with key issues such as the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program. More importantly, perhaps, he said that the “Supreme Guide” has “his own views on some issues”, implying that Khamenei did not have the final word on all matters. Zarif did a bit of desperate explaining of his own. He told Americans that Khamenei had accepted that the Holocaust did happen, and claimed that the website of the “Supreme Guide” had been “wrongly translated” when it stated the opposite. Using the do-pahlu technique, Rouhani has nevertheless, raised crucial issues. If he could be second-guessed, let alone vetoed, on every move, even symbolic ones such as a telephone call, no one is going to take him seriously as a negotiating partner. Such a perception would put Rouhani in a position of weakness from the start. If he is perceived as just a messenger boy, everyone would prefer to wait until it is possible to directly talk to those who sent him. Unless Rouhani has been fielded to deceive the outside world and buy time for Tehran, he should be allowed to speak and act with authority when the next round of talks with the P5+1 group opens next week.

The Lebanese Crisis and its Syrian Dimensions
By: Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Alawsat
Lebanon did not need a painful accident, such as the tragedy of the emigrants’ boat that capsized en route from Indonesia to Australia, to remind everybody that it is not just facing any old crisis—this is an existential one.
The tragedies afflicting Lebanon are many, and all are painful. However, they have been overshadowed by the Syrian ordeal and the difficulties arising from adapting to the Arab Spring uprisings that occurred in several Arab countries. This is quite normal. Indeed, following a summer season that was—by any and all measures—a failure, a frustrating political stalemate and a security situation that is impossible to ignore, it would not be surprising if the expected collapse had occurred some time ago.
That the crux of the crisis is political is indisputable. Lebanon is a country with limited sovereignty, living with a state within its state. We might try to argue that the Lebanese are the ones responsible, first and foremost, for agreeing to become puppets serving certain regional projects. But any genuine solution today that is isolated from the developments of the Middle East—particularly on the points where Israel and Iran have the same interests—is impossible. And after they address that issue, the Lebanese will have to negotiate the balance of power and the battle of wills between the retreating United States and Russia, with Moscow keen to take advantage of Washington’s withdrawal.
The Lebanese have deceived themselves for a long time, urging the Arab forces to help them settle their differences without having any genuine desire to hold an in-depth national dialogue. Most of the alliances the warring Lebanese forces weaved were tactical, based on the need to fleetingly bully their national partners in a country whose very borders—which were drawn up in 1920—are not the part of any national consensus.
Over time, there has been an accumulation of mistakes and errors, and those responsible remain convinced of their success. As a result, the Lebanese arena became even more confused. The Lebanese are torn between the desire of some to reform the political system in order to accommodate the political entity—i.e. the country within its current borders—while others express fears that an entity as fragile as Lebanon, with its delicate factional balance, could not withstand any reform whatsoever. Consequently, the things that united Lebanese societies and communities decreased despite the fact that secular parties appeared on the scene, attempting to end the entrenched state of sectarian polarization.
However, the secular parties, most of which had left-wing affiliations, found themselves involved in a conflict far larger than they could have imagined, particularly after they convinced themselves of the possibility of exploiting the presence of the armed Palestinian resistance in their own battle to bring down the so-called the regime of sectarian privileges, not to mention its state institutions, including the military and security apparatus. Thus, these secular parties that assembled under the name of the Lebanese National Movement (LNM) descended into a war that in the end only served sectarianism. Right-wing Christian parties at the time—during the 1970s—found themselves in a similar situation to that facing the Alawite-led power structure in Syria today: They believed they were fighting for the survival of their sect. For their part, the right-wing Christian parties did succeed in winning the support of the majority of the Christian population.
The most dramatic development came via the role played by the Syrian regime. At the time, the LNM was convinced that Hafez Al-Assad’s Syria—under the rule of the Arab Socialist Ba’athist Party, which raised the slogan of resistance and steadfastness, and which enjoyed strong influence on the Palestinian resistance—could not but be on its side. In fact, the LNM was of the view that the Assad regime constituted its strategic depth. Why would it have thought otherwise, given the commonalities between them, most prominently Pan-Arabism, secularism, socialism and, of course, commitment to liberating Palestine and advocate for the Palestinian resistance?
The LNM’s realization of the reality of the situation, and the true nature of its so-called “ally,” came all too late. It was revealed that Hafez Al-Assad’s Syria was charged with emasculating the resistance and running the clock down on the Arab role in Lebanon. Among the aims of the Syrian regime was to establish a sectarian–religious state, beginning with altering the political ideology of the Shi’ite sect itself, and the features of this are becoming increasingly clear with the passage of time. The tempo increased following the Iranian revolution and the Damascus regime’s support of Iran during the Iran–Iraq War. It is also worth noting that Hafez Al-Assad—whose forces were granted the green light from the US and Israel to enter Lebanon in the mid-1970s—justified his coup against his former Lebanese and Palestinian allies on the grounds that the extremists among them would drag Syria into an untimely confrontation with Israel.
In any case, the Lebanese Civil War of 1975–1990 ended with the wholesale defeat of all the Lebanese players who deluded themselves into believing that they could commission any regional or international force to settle their “minuscule” domestic scores for free. The war ended with Damascus being tasked with running the affairs of Lebanon. However, since 1990, following the Taif Agreement, Damascus has interpreted and implemented the terms of this treaty selectively against the backdrop of consolidating its strategic relations with Iran.
The 1982 Lebanon war was an important milestone as far as Lebanon’s domestic situation is concerned. The policies of US president Ronald Reagan and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin shook the regional balance of power that Hafez Al-Assad had established, confusing his calculations. But stability and tolerance soon returned as the Syrian regime exploited Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and participated in the war against Saddam Hussein. Thus Damascus was commissioned once more, with the Assad regime continuing to consolidate its relations with Iran under the watchful eyes of Tel Aviv and Washington.
At that time, the domestic political balance and the demographic situation in Lebanon were in the process of radical change. Minorities declined and their influence receded. The Shi’ite powers affiliated with the Tehran–Damascus axis monopolized the right to possess weapons, benefiting from this monopoly on all levels. As for the Sunni forces, in Rafik Al-Hariri they found a new and effective leader who enjoyed strong Arab, Islamic and international relations, and thus could temporarily compete with the Shi’ite ascendancy.
During his rule, Hafez Al-Assad’s ability to control the balance of his relations with the Lebanese players, in addition to his Arab-Iranian and US–Russian relations, kept the situation in Lebanon under control. In addition, the Lebanese economy managed—thanks to Hariri’s presence—to breathe freely and restore some of its vitality.
All this changed with the death of Hafez Al-Assad, which was followed by the assassination of Hariri in 2005 during the Bashar Al-Assad era and the arrival of the so-called “new guard,” not to mention Iran’s direct influence in Syria and Lebanon. These were factors that contributed to the collapse of the status quo and the removal of the safety net, first in Lebanon, and subsequently in Syria.
Lebanon today is an occupied country suffering from a lack of national consensus while Syria is under threat of division and fragmentation for the first time since 1920. This is not to mention that psychological division had already taken place given the ferocious hostility and the desire to eliminate others.

A world of humanitarian indifference
October 10, 2013/By Michael Young The Daily Star
Reading the bulletins of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, it seems that about the only thing the institution has not done until now among its parallel activities is organize a cooking contest between the wives of the alternative judges. Meanwhile the Lebanese still await a trial. The wheels of justice may be slow, but in the STL’s case they are positively glacial. One strains to see any movement at all.
And yet in the last decade there have been several instances where it seemed international justice was about to make significant headway, and that human rights would benefit as a consequence.
The STL was one example cited by the optimists, as was the International Criminal Court’s indictment in 2008 of the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. In May 2012, the former Liberian President Charles Taylor was sentenced by the ICC to a 50-year prison term for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international law during the conflict in Sierra Leone.
However today, with the war in Syria setting new benchmarks in terms of barbarity, the belief that international justice will punish the guilty seems fanciful. The other day the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, even praised the Syrian regime for moving to implement the agreement for the destruction of its chemical weapons. In other words Kerry applauded a man who used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of civilians because he was fulfilling an agreement that allowed him to escape retribution for engaging in mass murder.
Perhaps someone at the ICC is preparing an indictment of Assad and other regime figures, but there are no obvious signs of this. One problem is that Syria is not a signatory to the ICC convention. The Rome Statute establishing the court allows the Security Council, under Chapter VII, to refer cases to the ICC. But as Russia has veto power, the likelihood of this happening is extremely low.
The slowness of the legal reaction to the Syrian conflict is also tied in to politics. For as long as the major powers view a negotiated solution as the only way to end the killing, judges will have to tread carefully, so that an indictment does not undermine political outcomes. Assad will not voluntarily leave office only to land in a trial chamber.
Aside from legal and political realities, which are most essential to advancing international humanitarian norms, there is another factor that cannot be underestimated: attitudes in liberal Western societies in favor of such an objective. Why the liberal West? Because the principles held up by international humanitarian law, which governs armed conflict, have emerged from a Western historical and cultural tradition going back to the Enlightenment.
That’s not to say that non-Westerners are incapable of embracing such values nor that Westerners have not violated them. But when societies that uphold such values, and have given them life, become indifferent to their realization in the world, this represents a severe blow to international humanitarian law.
Assad’s recent use of chemical weapons was a case in point. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in early September, as President Barack Obama was considering airstrikes against Syria, 60 percent of respondents said they opposed such action. This forceful rejection came even though 75 percent of respondents said they thought Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons.
Instead, the focus among Americans was on domestic tribulations. As Jeanette Baskin, a social worker on Staten Island, told the New York Times: “What our government needs to do is work on keeping our country safe. We invest all this money in foreign countries and fixing their problems, and this country is falling apart. Makes no sense.”
Attitudes in Western Europe were little different, and helped undermine efforts by British Prime Minister David Cameron to deploy his forces alongside those of the United States.
In France, where President Francois Hollande didn’t face the same institutional barriers as did Obama and Cameron, public opinion was nevertheless stalwartly opposed to military involvement in Syria.
When three out of four Americans admit that a regime used one of the most lethal and vilified weapons on earth, killing hundreds of people, including numerous children, and still refuse to do anything about it, they essentially undercut any solidarity that would help reinforce and further humanitarian principles in the international system.
Americans complain that they are not the world’s policeman. But the glowbal order in the past 60 years or so has rested on a foundation of principles and institutions that the United States has been instrumental in creating and defending. By virtue of its vast power, America cannot be just another state. Moreover, the new self-centeredness ignores that when Americans are the victims, as they were on Sept. 11, 2001, they rightfully expect the rest of the world to sympathize with their predicament and take their side.
Syrians justifiably lament that they are treated as second-class citizens in a world that has rallied for foreign victims in countless other places. The tragedy is that as most Westerners look at Syria, their revulsion with the inhumanity of the conflict makes them react in a paradoxical way: They want to have nothing to do with the savagery there, because what is happening conforms so little to the standards of humanitarian behavior to which they aspire. But those standards don’t descend from heaven. They only become stronger and more widespread if states make this a priority. And that can only happen when societies back their governments in making it possible. We’re nowhere near that stage today, especially in the West, where all politics appear to have become domestic politics.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

US raked over the coals by Arab media over its approach to Syria's chemical weapons disposal

By ARIEL BEN SOLOMON LAST UPDATED: 10/10/2013/J.Post

Al Hayat' columnist says Obama has disappointed many in region.
The Arab media report that some Arab governments are irate about US Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement on Monday – that he was “very pleased” that experts had begun the process of dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons. Sunni Arab states, particularly from the Gulf, were already upset with US President Barack Obama’s decision not to enforce his own red line and attack Syria
Kerry lauds Assad for quickly complying with Syria chemical weapons resolution The Sunnis, furious over the deaths of more than 100,000 people in Syria, had been hoping for follow-through on US threats of air strikes against the Syrian government, which came after a deadly August 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus. Instead, the US agreed to a deal brokered by Russia.
“I think it is extremely significant that yesterday, Sunday, within a week of the resolution being passed, some chemical weapons were already being destroyed,” Kerry said at a joint news conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at an Asia-Pacific summit on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.
“I think it’s also a credit to the Assad regime for complying rapidly, as they are supposed to,” he added. “Now, we hope that will continue. I’m not going to vouch today for what happens months down the road, but it’s a good beginning, and we should welcome a good beginning.”
A team of international experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague and UN personnel began destroying Syria’s chemical gas arsenal on Sunday.
Urayb ar-Rintawi, a columnist for the Jordanian Ad-Doustour newspaper, wrote on Wednesday that states in the region responded angrily – both openly and quietly – to the news, and said it would not be unexpected if Assad became a US ally in the war on terrorism. This is especially true with the growing influence of groups like the al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra, he said, recalling that Saudi Arabia had recently canceled its speech at the UN General Assembly – a move thought to be largely due to the lack of action on the Syrian issue.
“Israel’s security, and not ‘democracy in Syria’ is the top priority of the American policy in the Middle East,” said Rintawi, pointing out that the lives of innocent Syrian civilians was not deemed important enough to intervene.
Elias Harfoush argued in the London-based Arab daily Al-Hayat that it “is no exaggeration in saying that Barack Obama has disappointed many in the Arab region.”
It was thought that Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient, would stand up for human rights, he said. Furthermore, he added, the lessons from this episode illustrate that Obama will act in a similar fashion regarding Iran and its nuclear program. “As a result of all this American hesitation in our region, some stubborn and oppressive regimes have succeeded in staying in power and maintaining the grip of their forces... over their people via fictitious deals with Washington,” Harfoush concluded.
Reuters contributed to this report.