Sleiman wants Lebanon neutral over Syria strike
Gemayel Urges World to Stop 'Assault' on Historic Syria Christian Village
Suleiman: Discovery of Terrorist Cells Only Glimpse of what Global Terror Has in Store for Lebanon
Salam Blames 'Political Appetite' for Cabinet Formation Delay
Ibrahim Warns of Security Threats, Assures No Civil War Or Israeli Aggression
Loyalty to Resistance Bloc Rejects Possible Syria Strike as 'Organized Terrorism'
U.N. to Cut Refugee Aid in Lebanon amid Funding Gaps
U.N. Wants Capable Government, Urges Politicians to Support Lebanese Army
Charbel: We Must Provide Preemptive Security in Lebanon
Report: Hezbollah preparing to defend Damascus, strike Israel if Syria situation worsens
Hezbollah says strike on Syria "organized terrorism"
Rai warns of pro-Israel 'foreign agenda' against region
Miscellaneous News
G20 fails to heal rift over Syria, US gives up on Russia approval
Obama tells G20 leaders he has high confidence of Syrian chemical weapons use
Report: US intercepts Iranian order to attack American interests in response to Syria strike
European countries plan 'last resort' Syrian peace initiative
Report: AIPAC to mount major lobbying blitz for Obama's Syria strike plan
US: Russia holding UN Security Council hostage to protect Syria's Assad
Canada's PM, Harper stakes firm position on Syria, debt repayment, but G20 consensus unlikely
Canada among nations looking to enhance protection for Syrian civilians
Rebel Mother Resisted until the End before Fleeing Syria to Lebanon
Obama, Putin Seek to Smooth Tensions with Smiles, Syria Talks Scheduled for Dinner
A look at Syria developments around the world amid threat of strike targeting Assad regime
US officials: Obama administration considers military training of Syrian rebels
Obama's plan on Syria hinges on undecided U.S. lawmakers
IAEA is looking into Russian warning on Syria nuclear site
Report: AIPAC to mount major lobbying blitz for Obama's Syria strike plan
EU sides with Russia's Putin, urges against US 'military solution' in Syria
EU court rules against sanctions on seven Iranian companies
Syrian defector General Ali Habib arrives in Istanbul
Iran: Rouhani congratulates Jews on Rosh Hashanah
Brazil Cancels Preparations for Rousseff U.S. Trip over Spying Reports
Egypt Interior Minister Survives Assassination Bid, Cabinet Says Will Strike 'Terrorism' with 'Iron Hand'
Egypt set for legal action against Brotherhood as protests promised
Kerry to discuss peace talks with Abbas in London next week
Report: Turkish official says normalization talks with Israel on track, can be concluded at any time
Iranian FM: Tehran never denied the Holocaust, the man who did is gone
US says Iran not addressing nuclear concerns under Rouhani

Hezbollah says strike on Syria "organized terrorism"

 September 05, 2013/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc said Thursday a possible U.S. strike on Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons would be "direct and organized terrorism” that would threaten the region, regardless of pretext.
“The bloc considers U.S. aggression on Syria or the threat to do so as direct and organized terrorism which represents a challenge to the region and its people, as well as a blatant threat to regional and international peace and security,” the bloc said in a statement following its weekly meeting. The statement said Hezbollah condemned and rejected the possible attack regardless of what prompted it. The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of using military force in Syria on Wednesday and a congressional debate is expected next week when U.S. lawmakers return from holiday. The U.S. accused Syrian President Bashar Assad, Hezbollah’s main ally, of using chemical weapons against its people on several occasions including an Aug. 21 attack, which Washington said killed over 1,400 people. Assad’s allies, Iran and Russia, have warned the U.S. against attacking Syria. Iran has said that aggression on Syria would engulf the entire region and threaten Israel. In its weekly statement, Hezbollah’s lawmakers also said the attack would reveal the American designs to dominate the region. “The U.S. administration reached a level of direct involvement in Syria which proves that the crisis in Syria is a conspiracy, part of a strategic project to control the region,” the bloc’s statement said. The statement also touched on the recent political deadlock in the country, blaming Hezbollah’s rivals in the March 14 coalition of seeking to create political paralysis.  "The challenges facing the country, its mounting problems as well as its regressive constitutional institutions places Lebanon on a dangerous path which will threaten its stability and fate,” the bloc said. “March 14 is fully responsible for the current reality because it insisted on disrupting parliamentary sessions and the formation of a government,” it added.The statement also said that such behavior proves that the coalition “rejects true participation.”

Rai warns of pro-Israel 'foreign agenda' against region
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2013/Sep-05/230120-rai-warns-of-pro-israel-foreign-agenda-against-region.ashx#axzz2e7CKjlpH
 September 05, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai warned Thursday of a pro-Israel “foreign agenda” aimed at dividing the region into confessional pockets.  “We should be cautious because there is a foreign agenda linked to Israel for its own safety and security,” Rai said during his meeting with a delegation from Akkar, north Lebanon. “If they needed to threaten the Arab world for the sake of Israel, they would not hesitate, so we should be cautious not to fall in the trap and everyone should be aware of their own responsibility because what is happening is unfortunate and dangerous,” Rai said.  He also noted that the only beneficiary from the current regional situation was Israel and the “foreign agenda” started long time ago. “They thought Lebanon would be the first to collapse into mini states,” he said. He also voiced hope that the Arabs “resolve their confessional disputes that were designed by the West and Israel,” which aim primarily at rejecting the principle of coexistence. Rai said that the so-called Arab Spring is now distorted as the region now faced the rise of radical movements. He also hoped rival Lebanese politicians would resolve their own disputes “because the people are fed up,” saying the country should live up to its role as an element of stability and peace in the region. “We hope that politicians recognize the dangerous situation in Lebanon and they should know that Lebanon should play its role in creating stability and peace in the region,” he said.

Report: AIPAC to mount major lobbying blitz for Obama's Syria strike plan
By JPOST.COM STAFF, REUTERS
http://www.jpost.com/International/Report-AIPAC-to-mount-major-lobbying-blitz-for-Obamas-Syria-strike-plan-325381
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is set to "mount a major blitz" in support of US President Barack Obama's resolution to take military action in Syria, the Washington-based Politico website quoted officials with the group as saying on Thursday. The powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington came out in support of the resolution in a statement issued earlier this week, but was expected to step-up its lobbying efforts, as the measure to attack Syria was thus far failing to muster a sufficient number of votes to pass in the House of Representatives, according to lawmakers. Politico quoted officials as saying some 250 Jewish leaders planned to make the case to lawmakers next week that failure to act in the face of Syrian President Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons would serve to embolden Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. AIPAC was expected to lobby "virtually every member of Congress," according to the report. AIPAC has close ties to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip John Cornyn, Republican leaders who have thus far withheld support for the Syria resolution, Politico reported.
Even after congressional hearings featuring Obama's secretaries of state and defense, a half dozen closed-door briefings and phone calls from Obama himself, it was too close to call on whether Congress will authorize military force. First-term Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who had been seen as a possible swing vote, dealt the president a setback when he announced on Thursday he would oppose the resolution to authorize military strikes.
"Given the case that has been presented to me, I believe that a military strike against Syria at this time is the wrong course of action," Manchin said.
Republican Representative Michael Grimm, who initially backed Obama's call last month for military strikes, withdrew his support on Thursday. "Unfortunately, the time to act was then and the moment to show our strength has passed," said Grimm, a Marine combat veteran. If Obama fails to win congressional support, he would face two undesirable options. One would be to go ahead with military strikes anyway, which could provoke an angry showdown with Congress over their respective powers. The other would be to do nothing, which White House officials privately acknowledge would damage the credibility of any future Obama ultimatum to other countries.
Twenty-four of the Senate's 100 members oppose or lean toward opposing authorizing military strikes, according to estimates by several news organizations, with an equal number favoring military action and roughly 50 undecided. Every vote will count in the Senate, where a super-majority of 60 will likely be needed because of possible procedural hurdles for a final vote on approving military action.
A count by the Washington Post listed 103 members of the House of Representatives as undecided, of whom 62 are Democrats. There are 433 members currently sitting in the House.
Party loyalty, which drives most issues in a Congress known for its partisan gridlock, was becoming increasingly irrelevant, particularly among Obama's fellow Democrats. Some Democratic liberals who usually line up behind Obama's policies have expressed reluctance to back an attack on Syria.
'I'M AN ADULT'
"I support the president," said Democratic Representative Bill Pascrell, who remained undecided.
"I want him to succeed. But he isn't asking me to be - nor will I be - a lap dog. So I will make my own decision. I'm an adult," Pascrell said. Republicans have opposed Obama on a host of issues in Congress - and those aligned with the conservative Tea Party movement appear likely to do so on this matter. But other Republicans who favor strong American engagement internationally are lining up behind the Syria military strike authorization.
Most House Republicans are expected to vote "no," even though their top two leaders, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, have endorsed the military strikes.
While Obama administration officials continued to express confidence about ultimately winning congressional support, it was clear on Thursday that their blitz of briefings was not having the desired impact, especially with many lawmakers reporting opposition to strikes among their constituents. Manchin said he listened to the concerns of thousands of people in his home state of West Virginia, attended hearings and briefings, and spoke with former and current military leaders. In a statement, he said that "in good conscience, I cannot support" the resolution authorizing force and that he will work to develop other options. "I believe that we must exhaust all diplomatic options and have a comprehensive plan for international involvement before we act," Manchin added.
Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski told reporters, "I have more questions than I have answers, and I hope to get them over the course of today and tomorrow."
She spoke as she entered the latest closed-door session on Thursday with Obama's national security team, only to emerge two hours later saying she still had "more questions."
"What we heard today made a compelling forensic case that, one, nerve gas was used, and number two, that it was used" by Assad's forces, Mikulski said. "The next step, then, has to be ... what is the way to both deter and degrade his ability to ever do it again? ... Does a military strike do that?"
FIRST HURDLE CLEARED
The Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House both must approve the measure. It cleared its first hurdle on Wednesday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution by a 10-7 vote - with Democrats and Republicans voting on both sides of the issue.
The full Senate is likely to begin voting next Wednesday, a Senate aide said. It will start with a vote on an anticipated legislative roadblock by Republicans, and then move on to a vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force, the aide added. The timing of a vote in the House remained unclear. Memories of the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in the minds of members of Congress, leaving many in both parties worried that a military strike could lead to a longer and larger US engagement in Syria. If Obama is going to win passage of the measure in the House, he must convince fellow Democrats like Representative Zoe Lofgren and Pascrell.
The two liberals have been reliable Obama allies on a crush of issues since Obama entered office, but now voice plenty of questions and concerns about his bid to attack Syria.
Lofgren joined a conference call for House Democrats on Monday given by Obama administration officials. Lofgren complained that the briefing did not provide nearly as much information as she had sought and disliked at least a portion of Secretary of State John Kerry's presentation. Kerry invoked memories of Nazi Germany when he told the House Democrats that the United States faces "a Munich moment" in deciding whether to wage military strikes against Syria. "I thought it was a very unfortunate comment. We need facts, not overheated emotional rhetoric," Lofgren said.

Suleiman: Discovery of Terrorist Cells Only Glimpse of what Global Terror Has in Store for Lebanon
Naharnet /President Michel Suleiman praised on Thursday the General Security members for their role in uncovering spy networks and terrorist cells. He said: “The discovery of these cells and the firing of rockets in Lebanon are a glimpse of what global terror has in store for the country.” He made his remarks during a ceremony marking the 68th anniversary of the establishment of the General Security. The president added: “The military institution is at the heart of our interests as officials.”“It should be properly equipped and bolstered with a national defense strategy that benefits from the resistance's expertise in confronting Israel,” continued Suleiman. “You must remain united in carrying out your duties and you must have faith in the army and state institutions in confronting any instability,” he said addressing General Security officials. Moreover, he warned of foreign dangers facing Lebanon, namely Israel's ongoing threat against the country's sovereignty. “Confronting dangers is a collective responsibility,” he declared. “Officials should maintain the proper operation of state institutions because they guarantee the functioning of the state,” he remarked. The interests of the state institutions should not be affected by political setbacks, he noted.

Ibrahim Warns of Security Threats, Assures No Civil War Or Israeli Aggression
Naharnet/General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim warned on Thursday that Lebanon is passing through a dangerous phase and is still a target for perpetrators who plan to shatter its peace but assured that the nation will not slide into another civil war or be subject to an Israeli aggression. “The security situation in Lebanon is open to all kinds of prospects, and we expect more assassinations,” Ibrahim told al-Joumhouria daily.
He added that any assassination attempt aims to destabilize the country and benefit the perpetrators who planned it for that purpose. He said: “Anyone can be a target for an assassination because it aims to destabilize the country. Its our duty to confront the danger threatening Lebanon.” He also assured that Lebanon will not plunge into civil war despite the attempts dragging it to one, and said “the state and its institutions are coherent and united despite the regional and local situation.” Lebanon witnessed a number of security breaches lately including missiles that hit the areas of Baabda and Beirut's southern suburbs (Dahieh), and the rockets launched against Israel which retaliated back by firing on Naameh, south of Beirut. Other massive car blasts in August hit Dahieh and two mosques in Tripoli, killing and wounding hundreds. The Maj. Gen. said he met with several political rivals who confirmed that none of them wants to go to civil war, he said: “Everyone is convinced that force in Lebanon does not impose anything.” He ruled out the possibility of an Israeli aggression against Lebanon. On the situation in the region, Ibrahim described it as “difficult” pointing to a ministerial meeting held at Baabda on Wednesday that discussed the repercussions of a military strike against Syria, “We have taken some precautions to confront the worst possibilities, mainly the influx of Syrian refuges.” He pointed to a workshop in collaboration with the Ministry of Social Affairs and the UNHCR to follow up on the refugees file. The number of Syrian refugees who have fled the violence in Syria since March 2011 has topped the two million mark, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

Gemayel Urges World to Stop 'Assault' on Historic Syria Christian Village
Naharnet/Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel on Thursday held a series of contacts with the U.N. and world powers in a bid to stop attacks by Qaida-linked rebels on the ancient Syrian Christian village of Maaloula, his office said. In this regard, Gemayel held phone talks with U.N. political affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman, U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Derek Plumbly and the ambassadors of the Vatican, France, Britain and the United States. Gemayel urged them to “ask their governments to take quick measures to stop the assault on Maaloula and pull the gunmen out of the town and places of worship immediately.”He called on the envoys to inform their countries' leaders – who gathered Thursday in Saint Petersburg for the G20 summit -- of the “enormity of the attack,” warning that “the onslaught might lead to pushing the events in Syria down an increasingly sectarian and seditious course, which would affect the firmness of the international community's stance on the Syrian crisis.” Gemayel's office noted that “all these international officials responded to president Gemayel's call,” revealing that “Arab and international stances over this attack are expected to be issued in light of the contacts that got underway between the European capitals, the Vatican and New York.”It also announced that it had been receiving all day “distress calls from the residents of the town of Maaloula, who called for a prompt action to rescue the historic town, its residents and its spiritual heritage.” Syrian government troops battled al-Qaida-linked rebels over Maaloula for the second day Thursday. Residents of the village said the militants entered the village late Wednesday. Rami Abdul Rahman, the director of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said the fighters included members of the of al-Qaida affiliated al-Nusra Front. Despite heavy army presence in the village, Abdul Rahman said the rebels patrolled its streets on foot and in vehicles, briefly surrounding a church and a mosque before leaving early Thursday. The rebels launched the assault on Maaloula -- which is on a UNESCO list of tentative world heritage sites -- on Wednesday after a Nusra fighter blew himself up at a regime checkpoint at the entrance to the mountain village. The village, about 60 kilometers northeast of Damascus, is home to 3,300 residents, some of whom still speak a version of Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus Christ that only small, scattered communities around the world still use today. It is full of troglodyte caves dating back to the first centuries of Christianity, and also houses the Mar Takla Greek Orthodox monastery.
Heavy clashes between President Bashar Assad's troops and al-Nusra Front fighters persisted in surrounding mountains Thursday, according to the Observatory, which collects information from a network of anti-regime activists. Speaking by phone from a convent in the village, a nun told The Associated Press that the rebels left a mountaintop hotel Thursday after capturing it a day earlier. The nun said the frightened residents expect the Islamist militants to return to the Safir hotel and resume shelling of the community below. "It's their home now," the nun said. She said some 100 people from the village took refuge in the convent. The 27 orphans who live there had been taken to nearby caves overnight "so they were not scared."The nun spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

Jumblat Discusses with Salam Cabinet Formation Efforts Amid Renewed Hizbullah Condition
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat discussed with Premier-designate Tammam Salam the latest cabinet formation efforts and an alleged Saudi go ahead to an all-embracing government despite a rejection by Hizbullah of a 24-member line-up in which the three major factions would get 8 ministers each. Al-Joumhouria newspaper said that Jumblat visited Salam on Tuesday night to brief him on the results of the discussions that caretaker Social Affairs Minister Wael Abou Faour held with Saudi officials in Riyadh. Abou Faour regularly visits the Saudi capital as a PSP envoy. Jumblat, who is a centrist, has promised to facilitate the formation of the cabinet. According to the daily, the PSP chief hailed the results of Abou Faour's discussions with Prince Abdul Aziz after Riyadh paved way for the formation of an all-embracing cabinet as called for by President Michel Suleiman. The March 14 alliance had initially rejected Hizbullah's participation in the government over its fighting in Syria. The Saudi green light gave some hope that the line-up would be ready soon. But Hizbullah deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem said Wednesday that “things were back to square one,” adding that the conditions of the March 14 coalition had not changed. Qassem reiterated Hizbullah's demand for a government in which all political parties are represented in accordance to their weight in parliament. An Nahar said that Hizbullah proposed a new formula of giving the March 8 and 14 alliances nine ministers each and the centrists – Suleiman, Salam and Jumblat – six ministers.“No government can succeed unless all the parties are justly represented in it,” said Qassem.

Obama, Putin Seek to Smooth Tensions with Smiles, Syria Talks Scheduled for Dinner
Naharnet /..Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday sought to smooth over weeks of tensions as they cordially shook hands at the G20 with diplomatic smiles for the cameras.
Obama's armored vehicle was among the last to arrive to be welcomed by Putin for the start of the G20 summit outside Saint Petersburg and, unusually, arrived with both the American and Russian flags on its bonnet.
Putin stood with his hands behind his back as Obama strode purposefully out of the car, arm extended in greeting, towards his Russian host. In a brief encounter they shook hands, swapped some words possibly about the glorious late summer weather and managed smiles for the hordes of media waiting for the slightest hint of tension. No bilateral meeting is scheduled between the pair but officials have left the door open to a less formal exchange during the course of the summit. Meanwhile, the Russian head of state added the Syria crisis to the agenda of the G20 summit in Saint Petersburg, suggesting leaders should discuss it over dinner.
"Some participants have asked me to give the time and possibility to discuss other... very acute topics of international politics, in particular the situation around Syria," Putin told the opening plenary session of the summit.
"I suggest we do this during dinner so that we... in the first part can discuss the (economic) problems we had gathered here for and are key for the G20," he added.
Obama traveled to the G20 despite cancelling a planned bilateral summit in Moscow that was scheduled this week after relations reached a new post-Cold War low. Rows over the conflict in Syria, Russia's awarding of asylum to U.S. intelligence leaker Edward Snowden and tough laws passed by the Russian parliament have all caused deep tensions. The two looked deeply ill at ease when they last met in Northern Ireland at the G8 summit in June, prompting Obama to later admit that his Russian counterpart sometimes looked like "the bored kid at the back of the classroom". This prompted many analysts to speculate that the pair have a dire personal rapport but Putin denied this in a television interview Wednesday, describing Obama as "business-like and interesting". A senior Chinese official said ahead of the G20 summit that a political solution is the only way to end the Syria crisis.
"War cannot solve the problem in Syria. The current situation shows that a political solution is the only way to solve the issue," spokesman for the Chinese delegation Qin Gang told reporters, urging "the concerned countries to be highly prudent and to be responsible". In a separate matter, the White House said Thursday that Obama has decided to cancel his California trip early next week to prepare a resolution on military action against Syria which is to be put to Congress. "The President's trip to California has been cancelled. He will remain in Washington to work on the Syrian resolution before Congress," the White House said.
Obama was initially scheduled to make a speech in Los Angeles at the powerful AFL-CIO labor union coalition and meet with fundraisers, according to the media. Earlier Thursday an aide of Obama indicated that the U.S. leader will be phoning congressmen from Russia to convince them to approve military action against the Syrian regime for having allegedly carried out an chemical weapons attack on August 21. Despite support from Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, many lawmakers are still wary of a military operation, and some of the minority democrats have failed to support him. Even the Senate, which is dominated by Obama's allies, still seems far from decided, though a committee on Wednesday gave the proposed strikes its approval.SourceAgence France Presse.

Report: Italy Sends Warships Toward Lebanon Coast
Naharnet /Two Italian warships are sailing closer toward offshore Lebanon to protect Italy's soldiers participating in the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the South, An Italian news report said. Italy currently has some 1,100 soldiers in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. The ANSA news agency reported that a frigate and a torpedo destroyer boat left Italy's southeastern coast on Wednesday and were headed to offshore Lebanon to beef up protection of the soldiers in case of stepped-up conflict in Syria. Calls to the defense ministry by the Associated Press to confirm the report were not immediately answered.Most EU nations, including Italy, stand opposed to the military options favored by Washington and Paris as reprisal for alleged chemical weapons attacks blamed on President Bashar Assad that left hundreds dead last month.

Loyalty to Resistance Bloc Rejects Possible Syria Strike as 'Organized Terrorism'
Naharnet/Hizbullah on Thursday condemned plans for U.S.-led military action against Damascus as an “aggression” and “organized terrorism,” warning that it would pose a “threat to regional and international peace and security.” In a statement issued after its periodic meeting in Haret Hreik, the party's Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc stressed that any strike is “rejected and condemned by all standards, regardless of its alibis or limits, and it will not be able to conceal its objectives, which are aimed at reviving the Israeli arm again and attempting to tighten the Western colonial grip on the region and its fortunes.” “The U.S. administration's resorting to the phase of direct involvement in the aggression against Syria confirms our belief that the crisis that hit this brotherly country more than two years ago was only one episode of the conspiratorial, strategic foreign scheme seeking to impose its hegemony on the region,” the bloc added. Turning to the domestic political scene, Loyalty to Resistance held the rival March 14 camp “fully responsible for the current situation, due to its insistence on impeding the parliamentary sessions and the cabinet formation process,” accusing the coalition of hindering Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam's efforts through “crippling preconditions.” The bloc added that March 14 camp was “rejecting real partnership and deliberately causing a power vacuum as it bets on changes it mistakenly thinks will give it the right chance to monopolize power.”Loyalty to Resistance accused the rival coalition of “counting on the hostile world powers and their proxies with the aim of subjugating the Lebanese to the policies of the axis of submission and normalization with the Israeli enemy, and making changes to the ruling authorities in Lebanon in a manner that suits and serves the policies of this axis on the one hand and the mentality of monopolization and unilateralism on the other hand.” The bloc blamed the deterioration in the security situation on March 14's “shunning of national dialogue; rejection of the permanently needed harmony among the army, people and resistance; unrealistic interpretation of some of the Baabda Declaration stipulations; insistence on the rhetoric of sectarianism and elimination; support for the chaos of seditious weapons; and heavy involvement in the anti-Syria axis.”It also accused the coalition of “deepening the rift among the Lebanese ... weakening the economy, inciting the social components against each another, dragging the country into a social contract crisis and creating a dangerous flaw at the level of abiding by the national choices and principles.”

A look at Syria developments around the world amid threat of strike targeting Assad regime
By The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – The United States is considering launching a punitive strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, blamed by the U.S. and the Syrian opposition for an Aug. 21 alleged chemical weapons attack in a rebel-held suburb of the Syrian capital of Damascus. The U.S. has said a sarin gas attack killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children, based on intelligence reports. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from a network of anti-government activists in Syria, said it has been compiling a list of the names of the dead and that its toll has reached 502.
President Barack Obama said he has decided that the United States should take military action against Syria but is seeking congressional authorization for the use of force in a vote expected after Congress returns to work Sept. 9. Here's a look at key Syria developments around the world Thursday amid heightened tensions over potential military action:
SYRIA:
Syrian government troops battled al-Qaida-linked rebels over a regime-held Christian village in western Syria for the second day, as world leaders gathered in Russia for an economic summit expected to be overshadowed by the prospect of U.S.-led strikes against the Damascus regime. Residents of Maaloula said the militants entered the village late Wednesday. Rami Abdul-Rahman, the director of the Britain-based Observatory for Human Rights, said the fighters included members of the of al-Qaida affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra group.
RUSSIA:
The threat of missiles over the Mediterranean weighed on world leaders meeting on the shores of the Baltic, eclipsing economic battles that usually dominate the Group of 20 leading world economies, which convened in St. Petersburg. Leaders at the forefront of the geopolitical standoff over Syria's civil war started their two-day meeting Thursday. President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the U.S. should wait for the report of U.N. inspectors who investigated a chemical attack in Syria before intervening militarily, adding that Washington's evidence of the Syrian regime's involvement isn't strong enough. He insisted the U.N. Security Council is the sole body that can authorize the use of force.
UNITED STATES:
Obama's advisers were pressing Congress in closed-door meetings for authorization of a military strike on Syria. The president arrived at the G-20 summit to surely face similar questions and skepticism from other world leaders. That includes the event's host, Russian President Vladimir Putin.
EUROPEAN UNION:
The European Union urged U.N. investigators to release information as soon as possible about a chemical weapons attack in Syria so the international community can decide how to respond. EU President Herman Van Rompuy told reporters in St. Petersburg that the Aug. 21 attack "was a blatant violation of international law and a crime against humanity." He said it is too early for a military response,
AUSTRIA:
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich, warned a U.S. strike on Syria's atomic facilities might result in a nuclear catastrophe urged the U.N.'s nuclear agency to present a risk analysis of such a scenario. Gill Tudor, spokeswoman for the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said the IAEA is ready to "consider the questions raised" by Lukashevich if it receives a formal request from Moscow. Russia's Interfax news agency said that Moscow plans to raise the issue at next week's 35-nation IAEA board meeting.
GERMANY:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she doubts world leaders can agree on what to do about Syria's civil war despite frenzied diplomatic efforts following a chemical weapons attack. Merkel told reporters at the G-20 summit that because of disagreement over who was responsible for the poison gas attack last month, "I do not believe yet that we will reach a joint position."
VATICAN:
Pope Francis urged world leaders to abandon the "futile pursuit" of a military solution in Syria and work instead for dialogue and negotiation to end the conflict. In a letter to Putin, hosting the G-20 summit, the pope lamented that "one-sided interests" had prevailed in Syria. He said those interests have prevented a peaceful solution and allowed the continued "senseless massacre" of innocents.
CHINA:
China warned of global economic risks linked to a potential U.S.-led military intervention in Syria's civil war. Chinese Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao says such "military action would definitely have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price."
FRANCE:
An international aid group that supports doctors in war zones said one of its Syrian surgeons was killed in the northern Syrian province of Aleppo. Doctors Without Borders said that the 28-year-old surgeon, Dr. Muhammad Abyad, died in an attack. Abyad, whose body was found Tuesday, had been working in an Aleppo hospital run by the group also known as Medecins Sans Frontieres.

US officials: Obama administration considers military training of Syrian rebels
By Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is considering a plan to use U.S. military trainers to help increase the capabilities of the Syrian rebels, in a move that would greatly expand the current CIA training being done quietly in Jordan, U.S. officials told The Associated Press on Thursday. Any training would take place outside Syria, and one possible location would be Jordan.
The officials said no decision had been made, but that discussions were going on at high levels of the government. It comes as the Obama administration prods Congress to authorize limited military strikes against the Syrian government in retaliation for a deadly Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack. The proposal to use the U.S. military to train the rebels — something the administration has resisted through more than two years of civil war — would answer the demands of some lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican, to do more to train and equip the Syrian opposition. The CIA has been training select groups of rebels in Jordan on the use of communications equipment and some weapons provided by Gulf states. The new discussions centre on whether the U.S. military should take over the mission so that hundreds or thousands can be trained, rather than just dozens. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the plan publicly. Any new training program conducted by the U.S. military would take time to put in place and likely would not begin until after any potential military action had been taken regarding the chemical weapons attack. The Pentagon already has at least 1,000 troops in Jordan, including trainers working with Jordanian forces. The U.S. left about a dozen fighter jets and a Patriot missile battery there after a recent training exercise. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told Congress that the U.S. military would be prepared to do more training for the Syria opposition if needed.

Obama's plan on Syria hinges on undecided U.S. lawmakers
By Thomas Ferraro and Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The fate of a congressional resolution to authorize President Barack Obama's planned military strikes on Syria hinged on Thursday on scores of undecided U.S. lawmakers, with party loyalty appearing increasingly irrelevant. Even after congressional hearings featuring Obama's secretaries of state and defense, a half dozen closed-door briefings and phone calls from Obama himself, it was too close to call on whether Congress will authorize military force. Obama asked Congress to back his plan for limited strikes in response to a chemical weapons attack on civilians that the United States blames on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.First-term Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who had been seen as a possible swing vote, dealt the president a setback when he announced on Thursday he would oppose the resolution to authorize military strikes.
"Given the case that has been presented to me, I believe that a military strike against Syria at this time is the wrong course of action," Manchin said. Republican Representative Michael Grimm, who initially backed Obama's call last month for military strikes, withdrew his support on Thursday. "Unfortunately, the time to act was then and the moment to show our strength has passed," said Grimm, a Marine combat veteran.
If Obama fails to win congressional support, he would face two undesirable options. One would be to go ahead with military strikes anyway, which could provoke an angry showdown with Congress over their respective powers. The other would be to do nothing, which White House officials privately acknowledge would damage the credibility of any future Obama ultimatum to other countries.
Twenty-four of the Senate's 100 members oppose or lean toward opposing authorizing military strikes, according to estimates by several news organizations, with an equal number favoring military action and roughly 50 undecided.
Every vote will count in the Senate, where a super-majority of 60 will likely be needed because of possible procedural hurdles for a final vote on approving military action.
A count by the Washington Post listed 103 members of the House of Representatives as undecided, of whom 62 are Democrats. There are 433 members currently sitting in the House.
Party loyalty, which drives most issues in a Congress known for its partisan gridlock, was becoming increasingly irrelevant, particularly among Obama's fellow Democrats. Some Democratic liberals who usually line up behind Obama's policies have expressed reluctance to back an attack on Syria.
'I'M AN ADULT'
"I support the president," said Democratic Representative Bill Pascrell, who remained undecided.
"I want him to succeed. But he isn't asking me to be - nor will I be - a lap dog. So I will make my own decision. I'm an adult," Pascrell said.
Republicans have opposed Obama on a host of issues in Congress - and those aligned with the conservative Tea Party movement appear likely to do so on this matter. But other Republicans who favor strong American engagement internationally are lining up behind the Syria military strike authorization.
Most House Republicans are expected to vote "no," even though their top two leaders, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, have endorsed the military strikes.
While Obama administration officials continued to express confidence about ultimately winning congressional support, it was clear on Thursday that their blitz of briefings was not having the desired impact, especially with many lawmakers reporting opposition to strikes among their constituents.
Manchin said he listened to the concerns of thousands of people in his home state of West Virginia, attended hearings and briefings, and spoke with former and current military leaders.
In a statement, he said that "in good conscience, I cannot support" the resolution authorizing force and that he will work to develop other options. "I believe that we must exhaust all diplomatic options and have a comprehensive plan for international involvement before we act," Manchin added.
Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski told reporters, "I have more questions than I have answers, and I hope to get them over the course of today and tomorrow."
She spoke as she entered the latest closed-door session on Thursday with Obama's national security team, only to emerge two hours later saying she still had "more questions."
"What we heard today made a compelling forensic case that, one, nerve gas was used, and number two, that it was used" by Assad's forces, Mikulski said. "The next step, then, has to be ... what is the way to both deter and degrade his ability to ever do it again? ... Does a military strike do that?"
FIRST HURDLE CLEARED
The Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House both must approve the measure. It cleared its first hurdle on Wednesday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution by a 10-7 vote - with Democrats and Republicans voting on both sides of the issue.
The full Senate is likely to begin voting next Wednesday, a Senate aide said. It will start with a vote on an anticipated legislative roadblock by Republicans, and then move on to a vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force, the aide added.
The timing of a vote in the House remained unclear.
Memories of the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in the minds of members of Congress, leaving many in both parties worried that a military strike could lead to a longer and larger U.S. engagement in Syria.
If Obama is going to win passage of the measure in the House, he must convince fellow Democrats like Representative Zoe Lofgren and Pascrell.
The two liberals have been reliable Obama allies on a crush of issues since Obama entered office, but now voice plenty of questions and concerns about his bid to attack Syria.
Lofgren joined a conference call for House Democrats on Monday given by Obama administration officials. Lofgren complained that the briefing did not provide nearly as much information as she had sought and disliked at least a portion of Secretary of State John Kerry's presentation. Kerry invoked memories of Nazi Germany when he told the House Democrats that the United States faces "a Munich moment" in deciding whether to wage military strikes against Syria. "I thought it was a very unfortunate comment. We need facts, not overheated emotional rhetoric," Lofgren said.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Susan Heavey and Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Fred Barbash and Will Dunham)

Assad's Threats Against France
Randa Takieddine/Al Hayat
President Bashar Assad's interview with Le Figaro once again confirms his denial of reality. He criticizes France and says that it has lost its independence and is a follower of US policy, while his regime cannot survive without its dependence on Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. Since the attack that killed top security officials in Damascus, led by Assef Shawkat, Assad's brother-in-law, Iran's Revolutionary Guard has managed the fighting in Syria because the regime is unable to do so. Hezbollah was forced to send its best young men, who are still adolescents, to get killed in Syria for a regime and against the will of their families. Assad talks about France's dependency on America while he could not survive without being dependent on Iran and Russia. His statements in the French newspaper and his threats against French interests are part of his history, and the history of his murderous regime. Just as Assad threatened the late Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri during their final meeting in Damascus, saying that he would bring down Lebanon on the heads of Hariri and Jacques Chirac, he is renewing his threats against French interests, if France takes part in the military strike on Syria.
For two years, the Syrian president has bombed his people with Scud missiles, provided to him by Russia. For two years, Russia and Iran have bombed the innocent Syrian people, and no one has stopped them. Now, Assad is making threats against French interests, as if France is a small country, which does not need threats to know that the regime will engage in criminal and terrorist acts against it.
The west is weak because of the weakness and hesitation of American President Barack Obama in the face of dictatorships and their terror. The confusion that came from Britain and its democracy forced the prime minister to step back from taking part in the expected strike. The White House was angry that David Cameron did not prepare his legislature well enough on the topic. Obama, who looks first to public opinion polls (which reflect a lack of regard for what happens in Syria because the American people are simple and do not even know where Syria is on a map), was not determined to carry out any military action, had it not been for the chemical weapons attack and his warning, one year earlier, that the use of such weapons constituted a red line. Certainly, the UK's refusal to take part helped delay Obama on the strike, and he asked for congressional approval. Certainly, French President Francois Hollande was at the forefront of those demanding that the Syrian regime be punished for using chemical weapons, but he cannot do it alone, without European support, and without the US to hit at a repressive regime, because France is a key member in the European Union and allies of the United States.
Hollande had hoped that the strike against the Syrian regime would have come as quickly as possible but it was delayed, if not postponed indefinitely, because of the US Congress. The G20 Summit in Saint Petersburg might change things if there is an agreement among Obama, Putin, Hollande, Cameron, Merkel, and the leadership of Saudi Arabia, which is a member of the group, on a transitional government in Syria and on convening a Geneva conference. However, this is currently unlikely, even if the Russians believe that the Americans are serious about launching a painful strike against the regime. But Putin is an oppressive president, like his Syrian counterpart. Change is unlikely unless Obama gives something tangible to Putin.

Iran: Rouhani congratulates Jews on Rosh Hashanah
Surprise message on Twitter underscores break with Ahmadinejad years, but denied by advisor
London, Asharq Al-Awsat—A message offering congratulations on Jewish New Year appeared on a Twitter account registered to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday.
The tweet from @HassanRouhani reads: “As the sun is about to set here in #Tehran I wish all Jews, especially Iranian Jews, a blessed Rosh Hashanah.”
The unprecedented greeting to the world’s Jews by an Iranian president surprised many individuals and observers more accustomed to the controversial statements of Iran’s former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
On Thursday, Mohammad Reza Sadeq, who is said to be an advisor to Rouhani, was quoted by Iran’s FARS news agency as denying that the tweet as an official congratulation issued by the Iranian president.
“Prior and during the recent election campaign, some of Mr Rouhani’s supporters opened various online accounts using his name and some of these accounts may still be active,” Sadeq was quoted as saying.
Sadeq added that “the president does not have a Twitter account and any statements should be taken from the president’s official website.”
The official website of the Iranian presidency has not issued any clarification at time of writing. The Twitter account in question calls itself the ‘Iranian President’s English Account,’ and shows one of Rouhani’s official photo portraits, as well as the official logo of his presidential website. Interestingly, the account is only ‘following’ three others: Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, and two of Rouhani’s backers, both influential former presidents, Hashemi Rafsanjani and Seyed Mohamamd Khatami. At the same time Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s, foreign minister, has opened his own Twitter account specifically to “interact in English.” His second tweet reads: “Happy Rosh Hashanah.”An American user of the micro-blogging site re-tweeted Zarif’s message, and replied, writing: “Thanks. The New Year would be even sweeter if you would end Iran’s Holocaust denial, sir.”
Zarif replied: “Iran never denied it. The man who was perceived to be denying it is now gone.” The coincidence of two seemingly genuine Twitter accounts belonging to Rouhani and his foreign minister offering their congratulations on Jewish New Year is likely to be seen as a conscious gesture to improve Iran’s image across western and global public opinion, after reaching a nadir in the Ahmadinejad years due to the ex-president’s controversial statements on the Holocaust.Despite the emigration of large numbers of Iranian Jews in recent decades, according to latest estimates there are still around 30,000 Jewish Iranians resident in the country, the largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel. In addition, the presence of a Jewish representative in the Iranian parliament is guaranteed in the country’s constitution.

Syria’s Peace and Libya’s Mandela
By: Bakr Oweida/Asharq Alawsat
In the past five years Western politicians have said “If I knew then what I know now, I would have acted differently,” in an attempt to justify or deflect blame for the outcome of policies which were shown later to have done harm, such as the debate that took place over the Iraq war in 2003. The expression occurred to me while watching the debate over the expected strike on Damascus. I found myself applying the expression to the situation in Libya following almost two years of the arrest and death of Muammar Gaddafi on October 20, 2011. I wonder if we will get to hear some Western politicians reiterating the same expression showing regret over a strike, which although they intended to be limited, turned into a war, expanding in an unexpected way. Is it possible for some Westerners—as they see the security situation in Benghazi—to express their regret over rushing to back the NATO campaign without which the Gaddafi regime would not have collapsed so quickly? The situation in Syria is still unknown. Before any strike takes place it is not easy to predict what will happen or the extent and nature of responses it generates. We do not know if the rulers in Damascus, as well as their allies in Lebanon and Iran, will prove to be able to turn the table on those who launched the strike, or whether they will only defend themselves and agree to an immediate ceasefire considering it as only one more round in the conflict. As for what is going to happen next, I will leave it for future generations to consider.
The mystery surrounding the outcome of a potential US strike should not make us forget the tragic situation of Syrians inside and outside the country. The UN announced this week that the Syrian refugee crisis is the worst in modern history. It has always been said that the price of change is high. This is true, but it should have been possible to prevent things from becoming this bad. Many parties share the responsibility for what is happening in Syria, with the massacres committed by Assad clan at the forefront, besides the atrocities committed by organizations that claim to belong to Islam. However, peoples who suffer injustice for years are fated to pay a high price when they rise from the rubble to retain their rights. Therefore, they should not be consumed by despair. Despite all tragedies, the known and unknown ones, peace will come and Syria will quickly recover once again, however long its suffering lasts. Regarding the Libyan affair, that the country is in a sad situation is obvious to see. The series of assassinations and kidnappings continue to fan the embers of tribal conflict. What makes things worse is the state of chaos caused by the proliferation of military weapons. In addition, enacting the law of political isolation in the country produced results similar to what happened in Iraq after disbanding the army and banning the Ba’ath Party, preventing capable figures from contributing to the reconstruction of the country. Does this justify the application of the above expression to the Libyan situation? Definitely not! However, the Libyans need to show the highest degrees of tolerance, transcending all desires for revenge even when it comes to figures who were close to the tyrant, as long as they were not involved in bloodshed. As for their families, it is just and humane for them to live safely in their country. This requires them to use the approach of Nelson Mandela who laid the foundations of South Africa after the collapse of the apartheid regime. I mentioned Mandela because he stands as a contemporary example. This is not to mention that we should not forget that Libya prior to Muammar Gaddafi had a rich heritage of tolerance. This should keep alive the hope that the national dialogue initiative which the Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan proposed on August 25 will lay the foundation for the future of Libya as well as its tolerant people. It is not strange to recall the above expression. In fact, had I known during the first five years of Gaddafi’s rule what I know now, I would have acted differently. Therefore, I do not hesitate to apologize to the good people of Libya for remaining silent about the Gaddafi dictatorship for a few years.

On Syria, let’s return to the core debate
By: Amir Taheri /Asharq Alawsat
The worst thing that could happen is for the Syrian crisis to be transformed into a US domestic politics issue. This is what happened in the case of Iraq which continues to arouse passions along the Potomac. The US spent a good deal of blood and wealth, as Americans keep reminding everyone, but ended up with nothing in terms of tangible gains. Iraq became a code word for many things, except Iraq itself. We now face the danger that Syria, too, may become a code word for other things that have little or nothing to do with the Syrian tragedy. Let’s start with Barack Obama. The US president is still fighting his presidential campaign of 2008. He is still trying to prove that he is no George W. Bush. A day after he announced he was going to bomb Syria he came out to say that he wouldn’t take such a move without going to the US Congress. As a constitutional lawyer, Obama knows that the US system of government is based on the separation of powers. This means that though the legislature branch—Congress—should be consulted, the executive—the president—has the power to use force in defence of national imperatives. That is what many American presidents have done at different times and under different circumstances. President Thomas Jefferson dispatched a task force to crush the pirates of North Africa that raided American ships in the Mediterranean. James Polk used force to expand the territory of the union against native tribes and Hispanic neighbors. Theodore Roosevelt had no qualms about using force without clearing it with Congress. In more recent times, Harry Truman ordered intervention in Korea on his own authority. John F Kennedy did the same by taking the US into Vietnam and triggering a nuclear stand-off with the Soviet Union over Cuba. Gerald Ford had his modest bout of sabre-rattling with the Mayaguez incident. Ronald Reagan used presidential powers to send the Marines into Lebanon and to invade Grenada. He also ordered bombing raids against Libya. Bill Clinton asked no authorization when he launched missiles against Sudan and Afghanistan and, later, ordered intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. The War Powers Act stipulates that the president does not have the authority to order a military attack in a situation that does not involve actual or imminent threats to the nation. The crucial point, however, is that it is the president who decides whether or not there is such a threat.
Last week, when Obama announced that he was taking action the initial assumption was that he had made the necessary judgment. When he dropped the bombshell about consulting Congress he admitted that he had not.
Obama may be a victim of his own passion for speech-making. Often, he has nothing to say but says this beautifully. Two years ago, he said that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad “must go.” No one forced Obama to make so emphatic a declaration. But it was clear that he enjoyed saying it.It sounded so good!
Obama did the same thing a year later when he declared that the use of chemical weapons by Assad was a “red line” that, if crossed, would have “consequences.” No one forced him to say this, but, again, he seemed to enjoy saying it. However, what is done is done. And whether one likes it or not, the US will be led by Obama for another 38 months. The president’s opponents should not use Syria as a means of settling scores. The temptation to defeat Obama in Congress over Syria may be too great for both the right-wing of the Republican Party who regard him as a crypto-Communist “foreigner” and the left-wing of the Democrat Party who believe he has sold out to “capitalist warmongers.”Outside America, some are using Syria as a means of settling scores with the United States. The other day in London I chatted with some of the 50 or so “anti-war demonstrators” taking the sun in Trafalgar Square. “Why are you here today?” I asked.
“To oppose American war plans,” came the standard answer. Among those protesting were two or three older figures carrying a banner in Persian that read: “Iranian Workers’ Communist Party”. When I asked whether they had also demonstrated against Russia when it invaded Georgia in August 2008, they answered that they were not aware of that event.
In other words, what mattered was to vent hatred against the US and not to help stop the massacres in Syria.
It is important to return the Syrian issue to its proper context. What is happening in Syria is a human tragedy that should concern all mankind. This is not an American problem, nor is it a means of proving Obama’s narcissism or incompetence. The most legalistic pedants would have little difficulty finding the laws needed for intervention. The ideal formula would be action by the United Nations, with the Security Council assuming leadership. However, that cannot happen because Vladimir Putin is more interested in thumbing his nose at the US than protecting Syrians.
However, action is possible outside the Security Council. Chemical weapons are banned under international treaties dating back to 1925—with even Russia and Iran as signatories. The use of such weapons is a war crime, defined under international law, and must not go unpunished. Then there is the “international community consensus” reached at the 2005 World Summit about the responsibility to protect people against massacre and genocide.
What we do about Syria should not be decided on the basis of whether it is good or bad for Obama. We should not urge intervention because if the US sits back it will witness the end of “American leadership.” Even if Obama does nothing, American power will remain a reality on the ground. US prestige recovered from other Obama-like presidents, most notably Jimmy Carter.
Intervention in Syria ought to be decided on its own merits. Any decision based on hidden agendas—domestic or foreign—will be ineffective at best and disastrous at worst.

Canada's PM, Harper stakes firm position on Syria, debt repayment, but G20 consensus unlikely
By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - Prime Minister Stephen Harper is taking a firm position on two controversial issues at this year's G20 summit, with little hope of achieving a wider consensus with his fellow leaders on either front. With two cabinet ministers in tow to hammer home his messages, Harper made it clear that a military strike is necessary against Syria; and that countries should be setting hard targets for reducing their debts, as Canada is now doing. On Syria, an issue on everyone's lips though not on the summit agenda, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Thursday there was little prospect of common ground with all G20 nations. That's despite the addition of a meeting of approximately nine foreign ministers this week.
"We've got to be very realistic. Nobody is coming here anticipating success. This is fundamentally an economic forum," said Baird, who met with counterparts from France and Australia.
"Obviously when you have this type of crisis, with the significant use of chemical weapons in recent weeks, there's no doubt that casts a shadow. ...
"What we hoped to have was a good dialogue on these issues. But certainly I and the prime minister were realistic that at this forum we weren't likely to come to a conclusion."
Russian President Vladimir Putin's press secretary said earlier in the day that his country still did not feel there was credible evidence that the regime of Bashar Assad had used chemical weapons against its own people. Putin views any military action without UN sanction a violation of international law.
Baird and Harper have had sharp words for Russia over several months, decrying its support for Assad and its blocking of stronger action at the United Nations.
Putin greeted Harper with a polite handshake outside of the sprawling Constantine Palace as the prime minister arrived for the start of the G20 meetings. But there was no lingering chit-chat, nor was there between Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama or French President Francois Hollande — all leaders who support a military strike against Syria.
On global economics — Harper's preferred topic — the prime minister has taken an equally hard line on the need for countries to rein in spending and set firm targets for reducing debt.
The Conservative government is promising a debt-to-GDP ratio of 25 per cent by 2021. A year ago, the Finance Department forecast a ratio of 23.8 per cent by 2020-21 in a report on the aging population.
Flaherty framed the debt-to-GDP ratio target as a question of balance, rather than austerity.
"We are spending money on job creation and on job training, very substantial long-term infrastructure projects, so that's one part of the balance," Flaherty said.
"The other part of the balance is making sure you're back to balanced budgets, and addressing the debt-to-GDP ratio in the medium term."
How countries can find that balance, as some struggle with staggering unemployment rates, is one of the dilemmas facing the G20.
But on this front too, Canada can't count on broad support. When finance ministers and central bankers met in July, they agreed to bolster growth before turning their attention to lowering deficits and debt burdens. Ironically, Putin is one of the few other voices in favour of stronger action on fiscal consolidation. "A common understanding of the necessity to find an optimal balance between fiscal consolidation and support of growth has emerged in hot discussions," Putin said Thursday. Back in Canada, the opposition was unimpressed with Harper's promise of debt reduction. Liberal deputy leader Ralph Goodale said the largest debt reduction came between 1993 and 2005, when his party slashed the debt in half from nearly 70 per cent of GDP. Goodale said Harper got rid of contingency reserves and increased spending to such an extent that Canada lost its cushion for weathering the recession in 2008. "It's fine to use his bully pulpit to go out and preach, but the sermon doesn't ring true from this particular preacher because he has not delivered on his own goals and commitments to Canadians," Goodale said in an interview. In St. Petersburg, world leaders weren't the only ones weighing in on how to nurture economic growth. Representatives from civil society and the private sector also provided input.
Farah Mohamed, president and CEO of the (G)irls 20 Summit and an official civil-society representative at the G20, said slashing social programs to keep deficits down will catch up with a country.
Her group would like to see governments provide more support for women entrepreneurs, and empower women and girls through their economic policies in diverse areas such as agriculture and mining.
"That's going to have to come from somewhere, and it's usually from the social profit side, the NGOs that are delivering services," said Mohamed. "If you cut and cut and cut, at some point society will suffer for that, whether it's in education, health care, social benefits — there are a whole bunch of factors that have to be managed when you're trying to reduce your deficit."
@YahooCanadaNews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Canada among nations looking to enhance protection for Syrian civilians
By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press –
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - Canada and a number of other countries at the G20 are pledging further help to protect Syrian civilians from violence, as few nations appeared willing to back a military strike against the regime of Bashar Assad. Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Friday in a statement that the government would contribute $45 million in further help for Syria. The money will go to organizations that provide food, clean water, sanitation, shelter and protection to civilians, as well as Syrians who have fled the country. Canada has contributed a total of $203.5 million since last January. The announcement came shortly after Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird met with British Prime Minister David Cameron, United Nations secretary general Ban ki-Moon, and ministers and officials from five other countries. A more formal meeting of G20 foreign ministers — a first in the economic summit's history — was scheduled for later Friday. Cameron said the British government would be contributing an additional $85 million towards medical training and assistance to specifically help civilians who had been harmed in a chemical attack. "I hope we can send a strong signal that we can act, and act specifically to relieve this appalling suffering caused by the war crime of chemical weapons use," Cameron said.
Cameron also said British scientists had confirmed the use of chemical weapons in the attack that hit a Damascus suburb two weeks ago. That echoes the conclusions drawn by France and the United States based on their own intelligence. But despite discussing Syria late into the night Thursday, there was far from a consensus or even a majority viewpoint on whether or not to punish Assad with a military strike.
So far, only Canada, France, Turkey and the United States are openly backing the use of force. Cameron has supported the idea, but the British Parliament voted down a resolution call for it. The European Council has also weighed in, saying nations needed to address the Syrian crisis through United Nations channels — echoing the stance of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
U.S. President Barack Obama faces an even greater challenge than convincing G20 countries to support his stance on Syria — he is also fighting to gain Congress' backing for a military strike.

Egypt set for legal action against Brotherhood as protests promised
By Tom Perry/CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt's army-backed government has decided to annul the Muslim Brotherhood's legal registration within days, a newspaper said on Friday, pressing a crackdown on deposed President Mohamed Mursi's movement. While short of a formal ban, the move underlined the government's determination to crush the Brotherhood. The authorities accuse the group that won five successive elections since 2011 of terrorism and inciting violence. But so far they have failed to snuff out nationwide demonstrations demanding the reinstatement of Mursi, ousted by the army on July 3 after mass protests, or stem a rise in militancy, which culminated on Friday in an attempt to assassinate the interior minister in Cairo. The Brotherhood, sworn to peaceful protest, condemned the attack but urged its supporters to fill the streets of Egypt's towns and cities again on Friday, for the third time in eight days, to reject what it calls an army coup against democracy. Authorities are pursuing the toughest crackdown in decades on the Brotherhood, Egypt's biggest political grouping.
Since July, they have killed more than 900 of Mursi's supporters and arrested most of the movement's leaders, including Mursi, on charges of murder or inciting violence against anti-Brotherhood protesters.
The symbolic move to cancel its legal status applies to the non-governmental organization registered by the Brotherhood in March as a defense against legal challenges.
The privately-owned Al-Shorouk newspaper said the decision would be taken within days, quoting Hany Mahana, spokesman for Social Solidarity Minister Ahmed el-Boraie.
The same official was quoted by the state-run Al-Akhbar newspaper as saying the decision had already been taken: "The minister's decision has in fact been issued but it will be announced at the start of next week in a press conference."Mahana could not be reached for comment, and a government official denied a decision had been taken.
BIGGEST AND OLDEST GROUP
The move to dissolve the NGO stems from accusations that the Brotherhood used its headquarters to fire and store weapons and explosives, Al-Akhbar reported, adding that the Brotherhood had failed to respond to the accusations. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 and formally dissolved by Egypt's then military rulers in 1954. It continued to be grudgingly tolerated as a mass movement, however, sending legislators to sit in parliament as independents. It says it has around a million members. There has so far been no attempt to ban the Freedom and Justice Party, the political wing that the Brotherhood set up in 2011, after the overthrow of the veteran general-turned-president Hosni Mubarak. Despite the arrest of most of the Brotherhood's leaders, its long-established grassroots network has still managed to bring thousands onto the streets, galvanized by the killing of hundreds of its supporters when security forces cleared protest camps in Cairo on August 14. One of the authors of that operation, Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim, survived an assassination attempt on Thursday. A massive car bomb, almost certainly the work of a suicide bomber, blew up his convoy as he set off for work, and his armored car was riddled with bullets.
Staged in broad daylight, it was by far the boldest attack since Mursi's overthrow, and its size and sophistication showed the risk that Egypt's crisis could spawn a wave of Islamist attacks like those it experienced in the 1980s and 1990s. Radical Islamists have already stepped up an insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula since Mursi was overthrown, and online calls from Islamists for an even more violent response have intensified since August 14.
Last Saturday, militants fired rocket-propelled grenades at a container ship as it passed through the Suez Canal in the eastern Sinai, a global trade route and one of Egypt's main remaining sources of foreign currency since the political turmoil of the last 2-1/2 years ravaged its tourist industry.(Writing by Kevin Liffey; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

What Is Secondary And What Is Essential
Abdullah Iskandar/Al Hayat/After American President Barack Obama referred the decision related to the military strike against the Syrian regime to Congress, the issue went from being an essential and fundamental matter to being a minor detail. The key issue is that a political regime, i.e. the Syrian one, used chemical weapons against its people who are rejecting it. As for the minor detail, it is related to the way the decision is made in the United States in regard to the military action. Sinking in this detail was previously seen in Britain, whose House of Commons rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's plan to participate in the strike, which constituted an unprecedented moral abdication vis-à-vis the essential issue. Indeed, the justifications put forward in favor or against the strike prevailed over the main reason for which the issue was raised in the first place, i.e. the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against the civilians. Now, we are witnessing a similar sinking in that detail in France, where controversy has erupted over the legitimacy of President Francois Hollande's decision, or the necessity for him to earn the consent of the two chambers of parliament, although the French constitution is clear in regard to the president's right to adopt this decision.
The question at this level is not about the way the decision is adopted in Western countries with different democratic systems. It is about the way the international community with all its components is dealing with a regime's use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against its people, regardless of the circumstances or justifications. Indeed, the use of chemical weapons, whether against fighters or civilians, remains a crime against humanity and genocide, no matter what the position is towards the Western military strike against the Syrian regime. This is how the massacre in the two Ghoutas of Damascus should be handled, with all that it features in terms of steps at the level of the United Nations and the other bilateral or unilateral international entities, against those who issued the order, participated and perpetrated the massacre, regardless of whichever punitive military strike against the regime as long as the strike does not aim to change it. As for those opposing the strike in our part of the world - saying it is a Western attack against Syria and foreign intervention in its affairs - they are carrying out moral and political abdication towards genocide. This is not due to the fact that the strike alone could act as a response to the crime, but because this position is transforming the entire issue, which is a political, moral and humanitarian crime, into a conflict of power with the West. Had the states around the world, especially those showing verbal enthusiasm in favor of a strike against the Syrian regime - i.e. the United States, Britain and France - enjoyed a deep awareness of the meaning of the issuance of an order to use WMDs, they would have started adopting immediate measures to reveal the totalitarian and racist character of this regime at the level of the United Nations General Assembly, i.e. where the Iranian support and the Russian-Chinese veto are of no help, to render this regime a hated outcast on the political and moral levels. This in no way aims to instigate the West to strike the Syrian regime, because if this strike does not annihilate it, it will strengthen it. In addition, no one wants to get involved in a new and costly war in Syria. What is rather required is not to forget the nature of the crime in the two Ghoutas of Damascus and the nature of the regime which ordered it, while seeking a long-term political response that would eliminate all forms of dictatorships that allow such crimes.

The Islamic Project
By: Mohammad Salah/Al Hayat
One of the main reasons for the failure of the experience of Islamist rule in Egypt and for the Muslim Brotherhood’s current crisis, after Doctor Mohamed Morsi was deposed and removed from the office of president, is this ambiguity in the political discourse and contradiction between theory and practice, and words and deeds. This has made the entire movement commit blatant mistakes it had not been aware of or sensitive to. Most astonishing, in fact, was the surprise it would express whenever such mistakes were pointed out or objected to. Leave aside the issue of the “Brotherhoodization” of the state, as opposed to Morsi’s talk of being the president of all Egyptians, or that of the Muslim Brotherhood’s alliance with radical Islamists in the Sinai, despite its repeated assertions of rejecting violence and opposing terrorism. And leave aside the fact that the Brotherhood besieged those who opposed it, excluded all other forces, and fought every state institution that confronted its rush to impose the influence of the group and its allies on Egypt’s social fabric, not to mention the national dialogue sessions that Morsi used to call for, in which he would engage in dialogue with his allies, considering them to represent the opposition. Indeed, it is enough to examine the issue of “the Islamic project”, which Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood, resort to talking about whenever they find someone opposing, criticizing or attacking their methods of governance, while they fail to mention it in other stances in which they assert their civil nature and their rejection of theocracy.
What is meant here of course is an Islamist project for governance, not Islam as a religion in which millions of people believe, people who are not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or any other Islamist movement. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that the specifics of such a project, whether for Islamist political parties that were founded after the January 25 Revolution or for the Muslim Brotherhood itself, have so far remained unclear and are usually discussed in very general terms, depending on situations in which Islamists think that using the expression “the Islamic project” will be sufficient to silence others, out of fear that they might be accused of apostasy.
The issue is then one of interaction, not of worship as prescribed by the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. And even in terms of interaction, many have noted that the Muslim Brotherhood’s methods of governance had not been consistent with Islamic conduct in the first place. Most surprising, or even shocking, is the fact that such a project did not appear throughout the year of the Brotherhood’s rule, despite being abundantly talked about and promoted. Moreover, Morsi, his political party, and the group he is affiliated to did not talk about such a project before or after the presidential elections, but only when they committed mistakes that harmed state and society. Once ousted from power, they began to accuse those who opposed them of being against “the Islamic project”, when it had in fact appeared throughout the year of Morsi’s rule that “the Islamic project” was merely “the Muslim Brotherhood’s project”. As a matter of fact, with the exception of Article 219 of the constitution drafted by the Constitutive Assembly that had been dominated by Islamists, aspects of the Islamization of society remained a matter of individual, and often haphazard, behavior on the part of some Salafists, especially in cities and villages far from the capital. This has in fact always consisted of behavior outside the bounds of the law, with instances such as killing a young man for merely sitting with his fiancée or applying the Islamic Sharia sentence for highway robbery on some thieves or outlaws in certain slums or remote villages. There were also sessions of threats and intimidation on Islamist satellite television channels, attacks by preachers from the Muslim Brotherhood or from among its supporters against members of the opposition under the cover of religion, objections to certain films and television series, and accusations of apostasy directed at actors and singers!
Officially, and throughout the period of the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, no specific Islamic project could be identified. Morsi, his government, his Shura Council and his Guidance Bureau did not appear to have taken measures or even paved the way towards banning bank interest rates, closing down nightclubs, making the hijab (headscarf) or niqab (face-veil) compulsory for women, or turning the system of government from a republican one to one ruled by the Supreme Guide and the formal bodies orbiting around him. “The Islamic project” remained an undefined goal, without specific clauses or articles of law or of a constitution. Thus the contradiction appeared between overt and covert, and between discourse, talk and speeches on the one hand, and behavior on the other. We are not here to discuss the implementation of decisions or policies that angered secularists and were approved by Islamists, such as Morsi’s letter to Shimon Peres for example. Nor do we believe that “the Islamic project” is the same as the renaissance project, which the Muslim Brotherhood talked about before the presidential electoral campaign, with Morsi mentioning that it was like a bird that does not lay eggs. Yet the search will remain ongoing for the clauses of such a project, and whether it goes beyond the issue of the goals of the international organization in the world, whether it means that the Muslim Brotherhood or the Islamists should rule, full stop, or whether it allows the Islamist ruler, his family and his tribe to commit any mistakes without anyone holding them to account.
It is true that Morsi’s predicament is that he ruled Egypt as if he were running the Muslim Brotherhood, and dealt with Egyptians as if they were his “brethren” in the group, who should listen to him and obey him without discussion or objections. Yet the rising frequency of accusations leveled at those who support his removal for being against the Islamic project indicates that the issue is more complicated than that for the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters. Indeed, the latter are insensitive to the vast rift that exists between them and the rest of the masses of the Egyptian people, between Morsi’s pledges before coming to power and the practices he engaged in, between talk of the peaceful nature of protests and scenes of killing, or between the fact that pictures of our late fellow journalist Al-Husseini Abu Deif were raised at the Muslim Brotherhood’s recent protests and the fact that Morsi and a number of his fellow Brotherhood members were referred to the Criminal Court on charges of killing Al-Husseini Abu Deif!