GotQuestions.org/Question: "What does it mean that humanity is made in the image of God?"
Answer: On the last day of creation, God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Thus, He finished His work with a “personal touch.” God formed man from the dust and gave him life by sharing His own breath (Genesis 2:7). Accordingly, man is unique among all God’s creations, having both a material body and an immaterial soul/spirit. Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God. Adam did not resemble God in the sense of God’s having flesh and blood. Scripture says that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and therefore exists without a body. However, Adam’s body did mirror the life of God insofar as it was created in perfect health and was not subject to death. The image of God refers to the immaterial part of man. It sets man apart from the animal world, fits him for the dominion God intended him to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables him to commune with his Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially. Mentally, man was created as a rational, volitional agent. In other words, man can reason and man can choose. This is a reflection of God’s intellect and freedom. Anytime someone invents a machine, writes a book, paints a landscape, enjoys a symphony, calculates a sum, or names a pet, he or she is proclaiming the fact that we are made in God’s image. Morally, man was created in righteousness and perfect innocence, a reflection of God’s holiness. God saw all He had made (mankind included) and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Our conscience or “moral compass” is a vestige of that original state. Whenever someone writes a law, recoils from evil, praises good behavior, or feels guilty, he is confirming the fact that we are made in God’s own image.
Socially, man was created for fellowship. This reflects God's triune nature and His love. In Eden, man’s primary relationship was with God (Genesis 3:8 implies fellowship with God), and God made the first woman because “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Every time someone marries, makes a friend, hugs a child, or attends church, he is demonstrating the fact that we are made in the likeness of God.
Part of being made in God’s image is that Adam had the capacity to make free choices. Although he was given a righteous nature, Adam made an evil choice to rebel against his Creator. In so doing, Adam marred the image of God within himself, and he passed that damaged likeness on to all his descendants (Romans 5:12). Today, we still bear the image of God (James 3:9), but we also bear the scars of sin. Mentally, morally, socially, and physically, we show the effects of sin. The good news is that when God redeems an individual, He begins to restore the original image of God, creating a “new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24). That redemption is only available by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior from the sin that separates us from God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through Christ, we are made new creations in the likeness of God (2 Corinthians 5:17).
 

Canada Highlights Role of ArAbic Gulf Cooperation Council
Egypt Recalls Tunisia Envoy over Marzouki's Morsi Comments

Miqati Says Army Has Powers to Contain Disorder in Baalbek as City Figures Stress on Preventing Strife
Naharnet/Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Miqati assured on Saturday that all necessary measures to contain the recent clashes in the Bekaa city of Baalbek were adopted, stressing also that the army has the powers to prevent disorder.  “We will prevent any presence of armed men in the city and we will be strict in prosecuting those involved in the incident,” Miqati said in a released statement after taking part in an emergency security meeting held at the Baabda Palace. He continued: “We will also prevent attempts to transform these clashes into sectarian strife and the extension of the fighting in other regions in the country.”Miqati stressed that the Lebanese Armed Forces possess “full powers” to control the situation and apply the necessary measures and procedures to draw an end to disorder, restore calm in Baalbek and to be strict with all outlaws.He urged the residents and the leaders of Baalbek to “be responsible and to immunize the city against the dangers some parties are trying to create.” Miqati's statement came after an emergency security meeting took place at Baabda Palace to tackle the latest clashes in Baalbek. The meeting was chaired by President Michel Suleiman and in addition to Miqati, it was attended by caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji and several military and security officials.“Instructions were given to adopt strict security measures to control the situation in the Bekaa city, to prevent disturbing public order and to preserve civil peace in these delicate times,” the state-run National News Agency said after the talks.“The conferees also called for arresting the outlaws and referring them to the military court,” the NNA added. Meanwhile, prominent figures in Baalbek held an emergency meeting also on Saturday to discuss the deadly clashes in the area. Chaired by Mufti of Baalbek and al-Hermel Sheikh Bakr al-Rifai, the meeting called on the residents of Baalbek to allow the state's forces to preserve security in the city, assuring also that the clash “would not be erupt into strife.”“We call on Baalbek's families to adopt a peaceful approach and to allow security forces to preserve security in the city,” a statement released after the meeting said.
It added: “We also urge the Internal Security Forces and the army to preserve security and protect citizens, their possessions and their businesses.”The conferees stressed that Baalbek “is free of any Al-Nusra Front memebrs.”“What media outlets are sharing is not true and those promoting such rumors must be held accountable. This is an individual incident and what happened harms the city, its history, and its future.”
The statement remarked: “Baalbek will remain a city of religious coexistence and we will all collaborate to contain what happened and to prevent its eruption into a blind strife.”
In a related matter, former Prime Minister Saad Hariri telephoned Suleiman to discuss the clashes, stressing on the need to contain the fighting.Five people were killed in Baalbek and several shops were set ablaze on Saturday in clashes between supporters of Hizbullah and armed men of the Shiyyah clan.The unrest broke out when youths from the Shiyyah clan opened fire at Hizbullah members in the market, reported NNA. The party members fired back, resulting in the ensuing clashes.The army has since deployed in the area.
The bloodshed is the worst sectarian violence to hit Baalbek and it was the second clash in the city since Wednesday involving Hizbullah and Sunni gunmen.
 

Army Deploys in Baalbek after Clashes between Hizbullah, Armed Men Kill 5
Naharnet/Five people were killed on Saturday after clashes broke out between Hizbullah members and al-Shiyyah clan in the Bekaa city of Baalbek.
“An exchange of fire occurred between armed men in al-Qalaa market in Baalbek, using light arms,” the army command said in a communique.
The statement added that three people were killed and other were injured in the clashes.
“An army unit swiftly deployed in the area and raided suspicious locations,” the army added.
Later on Saturday, the army issued another statement confirming that the troops continued their deployment in the Bekaa city, and have adopted intensified security measures to restore security and stability in Baalbek.
The communique revealed that a soldier was gravely injured while at his home in the city.
“Several fugitives were arrested in the raids staged by the troops,” the statement pointed out, warning that all gunmen and armed presence will be “strictly prosecuted.”
“The Army Command urges the residents of the city and its prominent figures to exercise self-restraint and cooperate with the measures adopted by the military institution to avoid an escalation.”
The state-run National News Agency reported that Ali Sami al-Masri, who was riding a motorcycle in the market, was killed in the clashes.
Two of the wounded people were identified as Ahmed Toufiq Hassan (hand wound), Mohammed al-Shiyyah (chest wound), Yasser Saeed, Abdul Nasser Jary (head wound), and Ali Mahmoud Wehbe.
Several shops were set ablaze in the area.
LBCI television said that Hizbullah member Imad Ballouq was killed in the clash, while the National News Agency identified the other victims as Hisham Wehbe and Ali Mustapha al-Rifai, who is a vegetable vendor.
Later, the news agency reported that Mohammed Ali Soleh was killed by sniper gunfire in the renewal of clashes, bringing the death toll to five.
The unrest broke out when youths from the Shiyyah clan opened fire at Hizbullah members in the market, reported NNA.
The party members fired back, resulting in the ensuing clashes.
NNA said Saturday's attack was in retaliation to a shooting between the two sides in the Baalbek market on Wednesday.
The bloodshed is the worst sectarian violence to hit Baalbek, and it was the second clash in the city since Wednesday involving Hizbullah and Sunni gunmen.
It was not immediately clear what triggered the clashes on Wednesday and Saturday, but both happened at a checkpoint manned by Hizbullah.
Hizbullah members took to the streets of Baalbek after the clashes, an Agence France Presse correspondent said, adding that five Sunni-owned shops were torched by unknown arsonists.
A security official said the three-hour firefight also spread close to the ancient Roman archaeological site.
Hizboullah has set up checkpoints in the Baalbek region after deadly bombings tore through its main southern Beirut stronghold in July and August.
Fifty people were wounded in the first attack and 27 killed in the second.
 

40 Lebanese may have died in boat accident
September 28, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: A local official from Akkar said Saturday that as many as 40 Lebanese may have died in a boat accident off the coast of Indonesia, while Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati tasked the Lebanese Embassy in Jakarta with returning victims to Lebanon. At least 21 Lebanese, including a number of children, drowned Friday on their way to Australia from Indonesia in a boat carrying around 80 people from different nationalities. Hamza Abboud, a spokesman from the home villages of many of the victims, said there may be about 40 Lebanese dead in the incident, 25 survivors and still others missing.
Abboud said that all numbers are still estimations and no official records of the casualties and survivors are official. Many people are still missing but rescue workers had to delay their search due to high seas, AFP reported. The PM asked the embassy to take the needed measures for bringing the survivors back and returning the bodies of those who passed away, a statement from Mikati’s office said. There are 18 Lebanese survivors of the boat accident, the PM’s statement said. Haitham Joumaa, the director-general of the Ministry of Emigrant Affairs, told a local radio station that 21 Lebanese were so far killed in the incident while others remain missing. He also said there were 18 survivors so far. He said that returning the bodies will require at least a week due to the legal procedures taken by the Indonesian authorities. The Lebanese migrants were mostly from three villages in Akkar, north Lebanon. A delegation from the Akkar town of Qabeet met later during the day with Mikati in his Tripoli residence. Abboud said that a delegation of the Akkar town will head to Indonesia in the next couple of days to identify the dead. “The Indonesian authorities might not be able to identify the bodies of the Lebanese especially that some do not have their legal identification papers and we need to go there for help,” Abboud said. Thousands of people make the perilous journey to Australia annually, risking death for a chance of a new life in Australia. Australia has recently changed its policy toward asylum-seekers who arrive by boat, they are now being treated similar to those who arrive by plane and can be turned away. Caretaker Justice Minister Shakib Qortbawi tasked Lebanon prosecutors Friday with launching an investigation into the incident. The incident continued to draw reactions from officials. Akkar MP Nidal Tohme also issued a statement blaming the state for the decision of the migrants to leave Lebanon and he offered his condolences to the victims’ relatives. “The neglect of the state to Akkar residents and their deprivation and leaving them alone to face poverty and unemployment is what led the sad citizens to venture to the unknown,” he said.
He also said that the residents of the northern district and lawmakers should launch a cry to end neglect in Akkar and Lebanon. Former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said that the “tragic drowning of the Lebanese citizens in Indonesia should be a wakeup call for officials,” according to a statement from his office. “We have to wake up and face the fact that there is a major problem suffered by the Lebanese people and it is that they cannot build their future in their own country,” he said. Siniora contacted Mikati over the incident and called for speeding up the procedure of returning the bodies to the country.
For his part, Speaker Nabih Berri followed up on the incident in contact with President Michel Sleiman. A statement from Sleiman’s office said consultations between the president, the speaker and the caretaker PM led to agreeing on asking relevant authorities to secure what is needed for the return of the bodies and travel home for the survivors. They also agreed on asking relevant judicial and security agencies to prosecute sides deceiving citizens and securing their trips abroad to such dangerous conditions. In a statement, Berri also called on authorities in Indonesia and Australia to launch an investigation to determine who is responsible for the incident.

Lebanese Officials Follow Up on Sinking of Asylum-Seekers Boat Off Indonesia
Naharnet /..Lebanese officials followed up on Saturday the sinking of an asylum boat off the coast of Indonesia's main island Java, which killed at least 21 people, including 14 Lebanese.
Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Miqati said after holding talks with a delegations from the relatives of the victims that the Lebanese charge d'affaires at the Lebanese embassy in Jakarta was tasked with issuing passports for all the survivors and return them to Lebanon. “All the necessary measures were taken to return the survivors and their deceased relatives from Indonesia,” Miqati told the delegation. The boat capsized and sank in waters off West Java's Sukabumi district after being hit by high waves Friday. Survivors said about 100 people were aboard the vessel. The delegation told reporters after meeting with Miqati that 14 bodies that belong to Lebanese nationals were pulled from the water. The number of the Lebanese nationals, who were killed in the accident, reached on Saturday 40, while 25 others where rescued. “Miqati pledged that the Lebanese state will not neglect the incident,” the delegation said. For his part, Speaker Nabih Berri expressed remorse over the “disaster.”He offered his condolences to the families of the victims, hoping that Lebanon would offer it's people with a better life.The speaker followed up the accident with the competent authorities. Survivors said they were trying to get to Australia's Christmas Island, closer to Java than mainland Australia, and are the latest to cross the treacherous stretch of water that has claimed hundreds of asylum-seekers' lives in recent years.  Some 120 asylum-seekers from Lebanon, Jordan and Yemen were believed to be on the boat. Twenty-eight people were rescued and taken to the Sukabumi immigration office for identification, Brig. Gen. Tatang Zainudin, the National Search and Rescue Agency's operation chief, said. Among those rescued were three Lebanese nationals who were found early Saturday after being stranded on an island about 20 kilometers (12 miles) from where the boat sank, Zainudin said. He said 21 bodies were pulled from the water Friday afternoon, including seven children. The general prosecution lawyer, Charbel Abou Samra, opened an investigation on Saturday into the incident to reveal those who lured the Lebanese to pay a large sum of money to illegally immigrate to Australia. Media reports said Friday that the victims had tasked a person, known as Abu Saleh, to ensure their safe passage to Australia in exchange for about $10,000 per person.

Suleiman Denies Syria Smuggled Chemical Arms to Hizbullah
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman stated that Hizbullah does not accept the use of chemical weapons, reported the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on Saturday. He therefore told the daily: “Syria's chemical weapons have not been smuggled to Lebanon and there is no evidence of their presence in the country.” Asked if he discussed this matter with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week, he responded: “Iran will not allow itself to resort to weapons of mass destruction.” He revealed that his discussions with his Iranian counterpart stressed the need to respect the Baabda Declaration and adopt Lebanon's policy of disassociation from regional developments. “Rouhani voiced his support that Lebanese steer away from regional developments and that it be kept away from their repercussions,” continued Suleiman. He revealed however that he did not explicitly discuss Hizbullah's involvement in Syria, but only emphasized that Lebanon's stability be preserved. Asked by the daily if they addressed the tense ties between him and Hizbullah, Suleiman responded: “Our ties are not strained as I held talks recently with the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Mohammed Raad during which he expressed Hizbullah's understanding of my views.”“They are aware of my opinion on Hizbullah's involvement in Syria, which stem from my position as president and duty to preserve Lebanon,” he explained. “The strength of my relationships with others are directly proportional to how committed they are to the Lebanese state,” he said. “It is in the interest of all sides to implement the Baabda Declaration and I think it will be implemented sooner or later,” he continued.
In a speech marking Army Day in August, the president lashed out at the military interventions in Syria, without naming any sides, saying the blood of Lebanese should not be sacrificed to serve the interests of other countries.
He called for a review of the national defense strategy in light of Hizbullah’s involvement in Syria, while stressing the state should enjoy a monopoly over the use of military force to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Syrian government troops are backed by Hizbullah members in their fight against rebels seeking to topple President Bashar Assad. Also on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly, Suleiman met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, revealing that he sensed an easing in tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which he hoped will reflect positively on the region, and most importantly, Lebanon.
Commenting on his upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, Suleiman said: “I will discuss with kingdom officials the developments in the region and their impact on Lebanon.”
“Saudi Arabia has been Lebanon's main supporter throughout its history of political and economic crises,” he explained while denying that the talks will address the formation of a new government in Lebanon.
He is scheduled to hold talks in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah and former Premier Saad Hariri. Asked about the alleged severing of ties between him and Assad, Suleiman explained: “The ties have not been cut, but we deal with Syria on the basis of the Taef Accord.” Moreover, he added: “A misunderstanding took place after the arrest of former Minister Michel Samaha which led to a halt of telephone calls between me and Assad.”
“My ties with the Syrian president are built on other foundations that are linked to the interests of Lebanon and Syria and their people,” he continued. In addition, Suleiman cited Assad's failure to offer his condolences to him over the assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau chief Wissam al-Hasan as another factor that led to the current state of the ties between the two presidents. Samaha, who is considered close to the Syrian regime, was arrested in August 2012 for planning attacks in Lebanon along with Syrian security chief General Ali Mamlouk and a colonel known only by his first name as Adnan.
In October 2012, Hasan was killed in a car bomb attack in the Beirut district of Ashrafiyeh. The powerful explosion rocked a street adjacent to Sassine Square in Ashrafiyeh, leaving seven other people dead and 78 others wounded, in the first such attack in the Lebanese capital since 2008.Hasan was close to former Prime Minister Saad Hariri and hostile to the regime in Syria.
The ISF played a central role in Samaha's arrest.

Fire Erupts at Apartment in Dahieh, Kills Infant
Naharnet/An infant, 1, died on Saturday in a huge fire that erupted at an apartment in Beirut's southern suburbs, the state-run National News agency reported. According to the news agency, the blaze destroyed the whole apartment that is on the third floor in Hay el-Sellom neighborhood in Dahieh. the infant, Wajiha Hassan Rida, was killed in the fire while her family survived. Experts opened an investigation into the incident.

Geagea Demands A Technocrat Cabinet, Says Any Government Formed by Suleiman, Salam Is Legitimate
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea stressed on Friday that any cabinet formed by the president and the premier-designate is “legitimate and not a de facto government,” calling for the formation of a technocrat council of ministers. "Many are using the expression de facto to describe a cabinet formed by President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam,” Geagea said at a press conference he held in Maarab. He added: “But such a cabinet would be legitimate, legal and constitutional and we reject calling it a de facto cabinet. It is in the constitutional rights of Suleiman and Salam to form a cabinet.”Geagea remarked that political factions opposed to such a cabinet can protest its formation through refraining from giving it the vote of confidence at the parliament. "But any other form of protesting is rejected,” he stressed. The LF leader also slammed as "constitutional heresy" talks about representing parliamentary blocs at the cabinet. He explained: “The cabinet is not a council where political factions are represented but it is an executive power.” “We must agree on a cabinet that can at least solve basic issues in the country. But trying to discuss the problems we face at the parliament in the cabinet will not lead anywhere,” he added. Geagea called for forming a technocrat cabinet that does not include any representatives of either the March 8 or the March 14 coalitions, urging Suleiman and Salam to “use their constitutional powers and form the new government.” “We want a cabinet formed of known, trustworthy and qualified figures,” he remarked. Geagea also praised Salam's proposal on rotation of power inside the cabinet, saying that it would prevent the “monopoly of some factions over certain ministries.” On national dialogue, the Christian leader reiterated that previous talks “did not give any positive results.”“The requirements necessary for dialogue are not available at the moment.”

Iranians cheer, also protest over Rouhani's historic chat with Obama
By Marcus George | Reuters – By Marcus George
DUBAI (Reuters) - Hundreds of Iranians cheered President Hassan Rouhani on his return from New York on Saturday after his historic phone call with U.S. President Barack Obama but a smaller number of hardliners shouted "Death to America" and threw eggs and shoes at his official car leaving the airport, Iranian media reported. While an anticipated handshake between Rouhani and Obama at United Nations headquarters failed to materialize, they held a 15-minute call on Friday at the end of the moderate new Iranian president's trip for the U.N. General Assembly. Iranian media said hundreds of Rouhani supporters keen to see him make good on pledges of "constructive interaction" with the world to ease Iran's international isolation and get punitive sanctions lifted turned up to hail his U.N. visit. But about 100 conservative hardliners also appeared and, shouting the "Death to America" slogan common since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, pelted his official car with eggs and stones in protest at Rouhani's diplomatic opening towards Washington, according to witness reports posted on Twitter.
The semi-official Mehr news agency ran pictures of groups of protesters holding up a Death to America placard and banging the sides of Rouhani's limousine as it began to depart the airport. Mehr said one protester threw his shoes at the car, a gesture of deep insult in the Islamic faith. There has been little reaction so far from Iran's political leaders but one senior parliamentarian tentatively welcomed Rouhani's conversation with Obama as a sign of the Islamic Republic's "position of authority"."This (phone call) shows that Iran's place in the world is of critical importance. That the president of America insists on a telephone call is a sign of sincerity," Mehr quoted the head of parliament's committee for national security and foreign affairs, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, as saying on Saturday. The Iranian currency, the rial, climbed against the dollar on the open market by around two percent following the landmark phone call.
ROUHANI WON ELECTION ON MODERATE, REFORM VOTE
Rouhani won election in a landslide last June, buoyed by many voters keen for steps towards moderation and reform after eight years of intensifying repression at home and isolation abroad under hardline predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But new high-level contacts with U.S. officials at the United Nations were unlikely to have happened without the approval of Iran's clerical Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the polarized reactions on Rouhani's return hinted at the challenge he faces in getting hardliners especially in the powerful security elite behind his conciliatory approach.
U.S. officials said the phone call - which concentrated on how to resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear program - was requested by the Iranian side but in comments to journalists after his return, Rouhani indicated it was an U.S. initiative. The phone contact signaled a striking shift in tone between Iran and Washington, which cut diplomatic relations a year after the revolution ousted U.S.-allied Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and led to the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. Obama has said for years he is open to direct contact with Iran while also stressing that all options - including military strikes - were on the table to prevent Iran building atom bombs.
The United States and its allies have accused the Islamic Republic of seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability but Tehran says it is enriching uranium only for civilian energy.
Before leaving the airport Rouhani told journalists that contrary to reports in Western media, he had not refused a meeting with Obama earlier in the week but there was insufficient time to coordinate it.
"To have a meeting between the presidents of these two countries there are many necessary steps. If this meeting had been compressed into the program, it would have been premature," the official news agency IRNA quoted him as saying. (This story was refiled to add Khamenei's title in the tenth paragraph) (Reporting by Marcus George; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

United Nations Security Council unanimously votes to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons
By MAYA SHWAYDER, MICHAEL WILNER /J.Post09/28/2013/The UN Security Council unanimously passed a draft resolution on eliminating Syria's chemical weapons on Friday night with a vote of 15-0.
The text of the resolution, while binding, does not lay out consequences for Syria's non-compliance with the resolution, beyond the threat of another resolution that would then be passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which gives the Security Council the right to authorize the use of force. UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon told the Council following the vote that this was a "historic resolution" that was "the first hopeful news on Syria in a long time "For many months, I have said that the confirmed use of chemical weapons in Syria would require a firm, united response," Ban said. "Tonight, the international community has delivered."Now the Council is turning to the matter of drafting and passing a resolution on the humanitarian situation in Syria, which could happen as early as Monday according to some reports, and in planning a second Geneva Convention, which Ban told the Council on Friday evening following the vote is currently penciled-in for November.
EU foreign policy chief Catherine hailed the resolution as "setting a standard" for the global response to the threats of weapons of mass destruction. "This decision should pave the way to the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria, and set a standard for the international community in responding to threats posed by weapons of mass destruction," AFP quoted Ashton as saying in a statement late Friday. The text of the resolution signified "a major step towards a sustainable and unified international response to the crisis in Syria," Ashton said in a statement. She added that the EU would implement "forceful" support in the event of Syrian non-compliance.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told reporters the Security Council's vote was a "very positive development." "It is a good resolution," he said. "It makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a threat to international peace and security. It imposes binding obligations on the Syrian regime, and makes clear in the event of non-compliance the Council will take action." Hague also announced that the British government will be donating $3 million to the OPCW Syrian Trust Fund to assist with Syria's humanitarian situation. "I think it's very important now that the international agreement on chemical weapons is followed up by renewed agreements," Hague said.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, who did not speak to reporters following the vote, said in his statement Kerry stressed that in the event Syria does not comply with the Council's resolution, "the Council WILL impose measures under Chapter seven." "The Security Council tonight has shown that diplomacy can be so powerful, that it can peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war," he said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who also chose not to address the press, emphasized that the resolution does not automatically impose sanctions or other "coercive measures" on Syria, and that the Security Council must have "100 percent proof" of a chemical weapons violation before taking further measures. All present diplomats made statements on how this resolution was not an excuse for either side to continue using conventional weapons. "We must work together with the same determination, the same co-operation that has brought us here tonight, in order to end the conflict that continues to tear Syria apart even this very day," Kerry said. "A red light for one form of weapons does not mean a green light for others," Ban said. "This is not a license to kill with conventional weapons.
Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Jafa'ari told reporters that his government was ready to fully comply with the Security Council, but also told reporters that the resolution applied to every member state in the UN, including in the sections where it recalls a previous Security Council resolution which, Jafa'ari said, "calls on all states from providing all form of support to non-state actors." "The Syrian government acknowledges the positive endeavor that led to this exceptional language. It is regrettable, however, that some of delegations have already started to provide self-inflicted interpretations in order to derail it from its lofty purposes," he added
He also emphasized that the Syrian government voluntarily acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and said "This proves the Syrian government's willingness to cooperate with the OPCW."Jafa'ari added that his government was completely ready and willing to participate in a Geneva II convention, but would not say whether this would include talks to negotiate a mutually-agreed political transition.
Meanwhile in Washington, Obama juggled two major developments in the Middle East, between the Security Council resolution and an historic call with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, the first such call between the leaders of the US and Iran in over three decades. "This binding resolution will ensure that the Assad regime must keep its commitments, or face consequences," Obama said at a press conference at the White House.
"We’ll have to be vigilant about following through, but this could be a significant victory for the international community, and demonstrate how strong diplomacy can allow us to secure our country and pursue a better world," he said. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have for months pushed for more aggressive US involvement in Syria to aid the opposition, immediately released a statement pouring cold water on the resolution.
"This resolution is another triumph of hope over reality," the senators said in a prepared statement. "It contains no meaningful or immediate enforcement mechanisms, let alone a threat of the use of force for the Assad regime’s non-compliance. The whole question of enforcement has been deferred." But a senior administration official told reporters on Friday that the resolution was an achievement that went beyond what a military campaign could have accomplished. "This would, frankly, go beyond achieving the objective that we were contemplating with military action," the official said. Jpost.com Staff contributed to this report

UN Security Council demands elimination of Syria chemical arms
By: Asharq Al-Awsat/Asharq Alawsat/UN resolution does not threaten automatic punitive action against Assad regime for non-compliance
Members of the United Nations Security Council raise their hands as they vote unanimously to approve a resolution eradicating Syria’s chemical arsenal during a Security Council meeting during the 68th United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 27, 2013. (Reuters) United Nations, Reuters—The UN Security Council adopted a resolution on Friday that demands the eradication of Syria’s chemical weapons but does not threaten automatic punitive action against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s government if it does not comply. The unanimous vote by the 15-member Security Council capped weeks of intense diplomacy between Russia and the United States. It was based on a deal between the two countries reached in Geneva earlier this month following an August 21 sarin nerve gas attack on a Damascus suburb that killed hundreds.
The US-Russia deal averted punitive US military action against Assad’s government, which Washington blamed for the August attack. The Syrian government and its ally, Russia, blamed anti-government rebels for the attack.
One provision of the resolution, described by council diplomats as significant, formally endorses a plan for a political transition in Syria agreed on at an international conference in Geneva in June 2012. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said after the vote that the big powers hoped to hold a peace conference on Syria in mid-November in Geneva. He told the council the plan to eradicate Syria’s chemical weapons was “not a license to kill with conventional weapons.” “As we mark this important step, we must never forget that the catalog of horrors in Syria continues with bombs and tanks, grenades and guns,” he said. “A red light for one form of weapons does not mean a green light for others.” US Secretary of State John Kerry said the vote showed that “actions have consequences.”“Our original objective was to degrade and deter Syria’s chemical weapons capability. And the option of military force that President Obama has kept on the table could have achieved that. But tonight’s resolution accomplishes even more—through peaceful means, it will for the first time seek to eliminate entirely a nation’s chemical weapons capability,” he said. The resolution does not allow for automatic punitive action in the form of military strikes or sanctions if Syria does not comply. At Russia’s insistence, Friday’s resolution makes clear a second council decision would be needed for that.
But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the Security Council would be prepared to take punitive steps in the event of confirmed violations of the resolution by either side in the conflict. “The United Nations Security Council…will stand ready to take action under Chapter 7 of the (UN) charter, quite clearly,” he said. A major sticking point to the resolution had been Russia’s opposition to writing it under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which covers the council’s authority to enforce its decisions with measures such as sanctions or military force. Russia has made clear, however, it would not support the use of force against Assad’s government, a major importer of Russian weapons. Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari, said Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, Qatar and the United States must abide by the resolution and be held accountable if they continued assisting the rebels, who Assad’s government has accused of using poison gas against the government army. “You can’t bring terrorists from all over the world and send them into Syria in the name of jihad and then pretend that you are working for peace,” he said. Jaafari said the government was “fully committed to going to Geneva” for the planned peace talks, which the rebels have also suggested they would attend.
US President Barack Obama earlier called the draft UN resolution a “potentially huge victory for the international community” and described it as legally binding, verifiable and enforceable. A Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the resolution deflected attention from Obama’s wavering on the Syrian conflict. “For the US, this resolution turns the attention away from its powerlessness,” he said.
Assad agreed to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons following global outrage over a sarin gas attack in the Damascus suburbs last month—the world’s deadliest chemical attack in 25 years—and the US military threat.
Lavrov said earlier Russia was working “energetically” to help convene Syria peace talks.
“People continue to die and peaceful civilians suffer every day in Syria,” he told the UN General Assembly. “Virtually the only possibility today to put an end to this turmoil is to move from a deadlock to the process of political settlement of the Syrian crisis.”As a precursor to the UN vote, the 41-member Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons approved a decision in The Hague on Friday laying out procedures to rapidly verify and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. The decision will see inspectors sent to Syria starting on Tuesday.
Until recently, the council had been paralyzed on how to deal with the Syrian civil war. Russia, backed by China, had vetoed three resolutions since October 2011 that would have condemned Assad’s government and threatened it with sanctions. Western powers on the Security Council conceded they had backed away from many of their initial demands during negotiations. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov claimed a victory, saying Moscow had stood its ground on opposing any threats of military force against Syria. “No concessions have been made,” Ryabkov told Voice of Russia radio. “The main thing is that the automatic use of Chapter 7 has been ruled out.” The United States, Britain and France originally wanted provisions for automatic enforcement if Syria fails to comply. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told the council that “one resolution alone will not save Syria.”“This resolution must not only be voted and passed, it must also be implemented, and France will see to it,” he said.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power described the draft resolution as “very significant” because, when adopted, it would be the first time during the conflict that the council had imposed binding obligations on Assad. “Taking chemical weapons away from a regime that just used chemical weapons … is a very intense form of accountability,” Power said on Thursday. “I don’t think anybody can discount the role that the threat of limited military action played in expediting and catalyzing this conversation.” British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said he was pleased the draft resolution called for “accountability” for those responsible for the chemical attacks. He added that he would have liked a reference to the International Criminal Court in The Hague—something diplomats said Russia opposed. The United Nations says more than 100,000 people have been killed in the civil war, after the government tried to crush pro-democracy protests, and more than half of Syria’s 20 million people need help.

U.N. Resolution Orders Syria Chemical Arms Destroyed
Naharnet/The U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a landmark resolution Friday ordering the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons and condemning a murderous poison gas attack in Damascus. The major powers overcame a prolonged deadlock to approve the first council resolution on the conflict, which is now 30 months old with more than 100,000 dead. U.N. leader Ban Ki-moon, a critic of the council's paralysis, called the resolution "the first hopeful news on Syria in a long time." Ban also said he hopes to convene a peace conference in mid-November. Resolution 2118, the result of bruising negotiations between the United States and Russia, gives international binding force to a plan drawn up by the two to eliminate President Bashar Assad's chemical arms. There are no immediate sanctions over a chemical weapons attack confirmed by the U.N. But it allows for a new vote on possible measures if the Russia-US plan is breached. Divisions over the war remained clear, however, in comments by their foreign ministers after the vote. "Should the regime fail to act, there will be consequences," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned the 15-member council after the vote sealing a U.S.-Russian agreement. But Kerry hailed the resolution. "The Security Council has shown that when we put aside politics for the common good, we are still capable of doing big things," he said. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed that there were no automatic punitive measures and that the resolution applied equally to the Syrian opposition. He said the council would take "actions which are commensurate with the violations, which will have to proven 100 percent."
Russia, Assad's main ally, has rejected any suggestion of sanctions or military force against Assad. It has already used its veto power as a permanent Security Council member to block three Western-drafted resolutions on Syria. The resolution "condemns in the strongest terms any use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in particular the attack on August 21, 2013, in violation of international law."
The United States says the attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta left more than 1,400 dead. It blamed Assad's government for the sarin gas assault and threatened a military strike over the attack.
The government has denied responsibility. Should Syria not comply with the resolution, the Security Council members agreed to "impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."
The charter can authorize the use of sanctions or military force. But diplomats said Russia would fiercely oppose any force against its ally. All sides agreed that new action will require a new vote. Russia also rebuffed calls by European powers Britain and France for the Ghouta attack to be referred to the International Criminal Court. The resolution expressed "strong conviction" that those responsible for chemical weapons attacks in Syria "should be held accountable."It formally endorsed a decision taken hours earlier in The Hague by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to accept the Russia-U.S. disarmament plan.
The plan called for Syria's estimated 1,000 tons of chemical weapons to be put under international control by mid-2014. Experts say the timetable is very tight. International experts are expected to start work in Syria next week. Britain and China announced that they will offer finance to the disarmament operation. Ban said the resolution "will ensure that the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons program happens as soon as possible and with the utmost transparency and accountability." Ban also told the Security Council he wanted to hold a new Syria peace conference in November. "We are aiming for a conference in mid-November," Ban said, adding that foreign ministers from Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States had agreed to make sure the two sides in the conflict negotiate in "good faith." A first peace conference was held in June 2012 but there has been no follow up because of divisions in the Syrian opposition and the international community. Ban will start contacts with his Syria peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi next week on setting the firm date and who will attend the new meeting, diplomats said. The Security Council resolution gave backing to the 2012 conference declaration, which stated that there should be a transitional government in Syria with full executive powers. It also determined that the new peace conference would be to decide how to implement the accord. A car bomb north of Damascus that killed at least 30 people earlier in the day and 11 more deaths in a government air raid highlighted the continued slaughter in Syria's long-running civil war. "We must never forget that the catalog of horrors in Syria continues with bombs and tanks, grenades and guns," said Ban.
"A red light for one for one form of weapons does not mean a green light for others." SourceAgence France Presse.

The Arab World and the Challenge of Iran-US Rapprochement
By: Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Alawsat /These days, the happiness of my Iranian friends and acquaintances regarding the prospects of their new president, Hassan Rouhani, improving Tehran’s relations with Washington, can be clearly seen. In fact, they have every right to feel this way, particularly after eight lean years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency: a hardline and dogmatic figure who formulates his worldview according to his mood swings and narrow ideological/theological convictions. We, as Arabs— and regardless of the way we approach the dynamics of the Iranian-US relations that is currently in the process of change—should not misinterpret this rapprochement. Any nation would rather enjoy excellent political, economic, and cultural relations with the world’s only superpower, rather than being besieged and condemned, having their ideology and culture questioned. This is precisely the case with Iran and the Iranians in the era of Rouhani, the pragmatist, and the skillful foreign policy of courteous diplomat Mohammad Javad Zarif who studied in the US and thus perfectly understands how Washington and Tehran think, and more importantly what they want from each other. It is quite natural for the Iranian leadership to gamble on the US being lax towards Iran and its regional ambitions in the era of a passive US president who holds weak convictions, such as Barack Obama. It has been clear from the way the White House dealt with the Syrian ordeal and the consequences of the “Arab Spring” that the last thing Washington wants is any new development forcing it out of its domestic cocoon or distracting it away from overcoming its lengthy economic crisis. This is what concerns us now. However, there are issues which must be tackled frankly: First, for our own good and in order not to lose our way; second, for our Iranian brothers who want to coexist with their Arab neighbors; and third, for the international community which we cannot turn our back on as this would in no way serves our interests. As for our domestic situation, we have to admit that we are in crisis. We are suffering from an acute crisis whose causes are partly chronic and partly temporary. Then came the Arab Spring to shake us out of the so-called “comfort zone” that had prevented us from realizing just how serious this crisis was. After years of helplessness and denial in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, we have witnessed revolutions of change; i.e. which have not achieved everything they initially set out to achieve. Although these revolutions have managed to shake or bring down these former regimes due to their intellectual bankruptcy and political malpractice, they also produced generations that are angry and unable to fully grasp the meaning of political or state “institutions.”
As for our relationship with Iran, it is “problematic” to say the least, or shall we candidly just say antagonistic. If we go back in time to the early 1970s, the days of “exporting the revolution,” we find that the normal reaction was to repel Tehran’s “expansionist” approach. The first line of defense in that era was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq which fought a costly war with Iran— on human, economic, political, and religious levels—the heavy price of which we are still paying for today. With the Iran-Contra scandal, the anti-Israel slogans of the Islamic revolution practically disappeared from the scene. As a result, and after Ayatollah Khamenei drank, as he put it, the “cup of poison” when he described the signing of the UN-mediated truce between Iran and Iraq in 1988, the Iranian leadership embarked on adopting a more prudent and intelligent approach towards its Sunni neighbors who were on a state of alert across the Arab world, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The crowning moment of the Iranian leadership’s success came during the presidency of the “reformist” Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005) when “moderate” Iran made sure to place Iraq at the heart of Washington’s retribution for the 9/11 attacks. Iran gave its silent consent to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and later to the execution of Saddam Hussein. Tehran also managed to step up the tempo of its nuclear program while Washington was busy “draining the sources of terrorism” in Afghanistan and “de-Ba’athification” in Iraq. After Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—the hardline conservative—took over the presidency with the blessing of the Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei and the support of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (pasdaran). Ahmadinejad’s provocative political discourse earned Iran Washington’s enmity but strengthened its geopolitical position in the name of the so-called “resistance” project. This project included placing Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq under the Iranian umbrella, with the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) Quds Force, Brigadier General Qassim Suleimani, becoming one of the most important figures in the region.
Today, after eight years of political and intellectual diaspora as well as the “Green Revolution,” the Supreme Guide’s Iran returns with a new and moderate face as president, selling the West the marketable commodity of moderation having imposed a fait accompli on the region in cooperation with Moscow, amid Israel’s deafening silence. Finally, what about the international community? Today, Rouhani stands at the UN General Assembly addressing the international community that very much leans towards believing him and adopting his perspective in order to turn over a new leaf and start a new era of constructive collaboration. Today, it is the Arabs’ turn to swallow the poison administered by the Obama administration that has let Syrians—and before this, the Palestinians— down, and sent wrong signals to all of the regional players in the Middle East. Politicians in the Arab world and the international community are well aware that the Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei remains the real decision-maker in Tehran and that the velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of Jurists) project remains in full swing, being carried out under the slogan of “resistance” which many feel has lost its meaning. As for the change in the presidency, this is just a transitional period for the Iranian administration in order to take a breath and seize the opportunity.

Who is stronger, Khamenei or the IRGC?
By: Huda Al Husseini/Asharq Alawsat
The new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, wanted to bolster his public relations campaign by holding out the possibility of a peace treaty—only dreaming of such a treaty makes one comfortable. In the article he published in the Washington Post, Rouhani appeared as if he was advising the West not to lose the chance to deal with him, the president whom Iranians have elected and given a mandate. It escaped Rouhani that the Iranian people do not choose whom they elect: The committee set up by the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, chooses the candidates after it sifts through and eliminates any unfavorable to its position, letting the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militias select the person they want for the next president. As for the Iranians, they elected Rouhani only after the moderate candidates were prevented from standing for election.
Rouhani said that there is an opportunity for peace and the world must seize it. This has been said before by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had said that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and he does not intend to build a nuclear bomb. Before them, President Mohammad Khatami said the same. Khatami was more faithful, but he was put on a shelf during his two presidential terms, and was thus unable to undertake any reforms. Even Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani practiced his verbal magic on the West.
Rouhani is adept at negotiating, as well as knowing and exploiting the West’s weaknesses. The world did not conceal the fact that it is tired of wars and wants to secure the future, thus embarrassing elected presidents the world over. World public opinion may believe Rouhani’s statements and articles; however, if we follow what is being said inside Iran, we will notice a real difference.
About a week ago, the Revolutionary Guards defied Rouhani, warning Iran’s diplomats against dealing with the Americans. Even before the West had a chance to be clear about Rouhani’s intentions, the newspapers of the Revolutionary Guards were saying the IRGC would reject any peace treaty that might threaten its main objective—namely, the production of a nuclear bomb. The “Down with America, Down with Israel” slogan is one of the pillars of the Iranian regime. And if this slogan disappears from the scene through the openness with the West Rouhani mentioned, the regime will undoubtedly be shaken.
On the eve of his departure to New York to attend the new session of the UN General Assembly, Rouhani drew his own red lines regarding any settlement reached over Iran’s nuclear program. He stated that Iran has signed and continues to abide by all weapons of mass destruction non-proliferation treaties. Rouhani also told the West and the US that Iran has the right to enrich uranium—without specifying the percentage to which they can enrich it—and that this must be part of any nuclear agreement, stressing that his country will not produce nuclear weapons. Later on, Rouhani attended a military parade for the first time as president. The parade displayed some 30 ballistic missiles. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi announced, “Iran has become a regional superpower.” Basking in the light of the country’s military power, Rouhani announced that Tehran is ready to cooperate with the West if it recognizes the Iranians’ rights. It is well known that Rouhani is not the one who makes decisions in Iran. It is also known that Khamenei, who has the last word in the country, supported him by saying that he agrees with Rouhani’s “heroic flexibility” regarding his decision to start negotiations with the West. The concept of heroic flexibility here means changing tactics, not strategies, and this has been confirmed by the chairman of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani. However, the reality is that Rouhani wants to continue his campaign of positive change in the West because he wants to avoid the total collapse of the Iranian economy and the political instability that may result. Rouhani concentrated on the nuclear issue and made it clear that it is closely linked to the economic situation. He also expressed his view clearly on the nuclear issue, saying it was necessary to keep the centrifuges working, yet not at the expense of peoples’ living conditions. For this reason, Rouhani has expressed his determination to make progress in settling the nuclear dispute, calling to achieve this as soon as possible and adopt an approach different from the one his predecessor used for years.
Within this context, Rouhani and Obama exchanged letters and Iranian and Western diplomats met in the General Assembly. This is what the Revolutionary Guards warned against. One thing that has been noteworthy is the comment made by the Ali Akbar Salehi the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Salehi said, “Iran has a full-fledged desire to end the nuclear dispute.” It is not clear what Salehi means by the word “desire.” The main question remains unanswered.
Der Spiegel, the German magazine, quoted Rouhani as saying that Iran was ready to shut down one nuclear facility, said to be Fordo. According to the magazine, Rouhani will be committed to tangible steps—which he is willing to take at this stage, rather than at the end of the negotiations that might not end—in order to ease Iran’s economic ordeal. That Iran would allow international inspectors to remove all the centrifuges from the underground Frodo facility near the city of Qom seems unlikely, particularly since Rouhani said that the centrifuges must continue working. On the other hand, we should not overlook the sticking points regarding Iran’s nuclear program, not the least of which is the IR-40 Arak reactor. To make sure that Rouhani is serious and does not aim to produce nuclear weapons, there are three steps Iran should take. First, they should allow inspectors to visit the Parshin reactor. Second, they should approve the additional protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Third, they should answer the questions of the P5+1 that remain unanswered.
Rouhani believes he can obtain a mandate from Khamenei to push forward with a plan to reduce the pressure of the sanctions and to prevent the economic crisis from spiraling out of control.
In the end, all Iranian officials, including Rouhani and Salehi, have confirmed that Iran the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. There is a growing concern over Iran trying to drag out the process while sending messages that appear to be attractive but which have no substance in practice. In the middle of all of this, Iran’s nuclear capabilities continue to increase, as does the threat it poses to the region and the world. It is noteworthy that US President Barack Obama is the one who mostly believes Iran’s promises. He is keen to praise Iran for its role in finding a solution to the Syrian chemical weapons, as though the war in Syria is all about chemical weapons and neither Iran nor its fighters are to blame. Obama avoided mentioning any Arab country, as if the Arab world no longer existed. As for his relationship with the Revolutionary Guards, Rouhani sent a message to the national society of the commanders of the Revolutionary Guards by saying that they have to stay out of politics. There is no doubt that over the past years, the IRGC has played a highly significant role in shaping the regime’s policies at all levels, be they military, political, economic or social. Rouhani does not want the guards to turn against him; even more, he is aware of the sensitive power hierarchies within the Iranian regime. Therefore, even if he has the desire to act differently, there are no guarantees that he could. The guards have shown their true might to Rouhani, and he knows who is, in fact, ruling the country. This begs the question: What makes one stronger, being supported by the Ayatollah or by the Revolutionary Guards?

Egypt Constitution: Salafists, Al-Azhar at odds over Islamic Sharia provision
By: Waleed Abdul Rahman/Asharq Alawsat/Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat—A heated debate raged among the 50-member constitutional drafting committee over the wording of Article II, which states that Islam is the official state religion, Arabic the official state language, and which names Islamic Sharia Law as the principal source of legislation in Egypt. The Salafist Al-Nour Party is demanding that the article reads that “the rulings” of Islamic Sharia law serve as the source of legislation in Egypt, while Al-Azhar, Egypt’s top Sunni Islamic body, favors the term “principles of Islamic Sharia law.” Al-Nour Party committee representative, Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim Mansour, informed Asharq Al-Awsat that if the committee insists on omitting article 219 of the 2012 constitution—which strengthens the role played by Islamic Sharia law in legislation—then it must replace the word “principles” from Article 2 with the term “rulings,” or alternatively agree new language for article 219. Article 219 of the Islamist-backed 2012 constitution reads: “The principles of Islamic Sharia include its commonly accepted interpretations, its fundamental and jurisprudential rules, and its widely considered sources, as stated by the schools of Sunna and Gamaa.”The controversial article was severely criticized by Egypt’s liberal and secular forces, who have vowed to ensure its removal from the amended constitution. For his part, Bishop Antonius Aziz, representative of the Catholic Church said the “elimination of the word ‘principle’ poses a risk to society…and that the [three] main churches in Egypt are in favor of keeping Article 2 as it is.” He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the principles of Islamic Sharia law can be applied within the current framework, adding, “Everyone agreed to reject Article 219 because it does not express Islam and was added [to the constitution] in a suspicious way. It infringes on the rights of Muslims more than Christians.” For his part, an Al-Azhar official who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity said that Article 2 was unanimously approved by all the political forces, and that the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Dr. Ahmed El-Tayeb, had called on the committee to keep the text of Article 2 as is in the 2012 constitution. When asked whether Al-Azhar and the Salafists are at odds over the wording of Article 2, the source said: “Some parties have their views regarding the amendment of the article, but we insist on keeping it unchanged.”
Regarding the linguistic difference between the words “principles and “rulings,” the Azhar source maintained that “principles” mean the foundational rules of Islamic Sharia law, adding that this term is far more suitable than “rulings.”Al-Nour Party’s former representative Bassam El-Zarq withdrew from the constitution drafting committee on September 17 in protest against the committee’s stance on Article 2. Egypt’s interim president issued a decree appointing Mansour in place of Zarqa. In related news, the Azhar source also informed Asharq Al-Awsat that the first session of the legal committee tasked with discussing the legality of drafting a new constitution failed to reach an agreement. It was reported that Amr Moussa sought the help of a number of advisors from the Constitutional Court to help break the deadlock among the members of the committee. The committee has until Monday to reach a final decision on this issue.

On the sidelines
September 28, 2013/ The Daily Star /On many occasions, the annual General Assembly of the United Nations is a tedious affair, dedicated to a long series of speeches by heads of state. This year, the meetings in New York were a beehive of political and diplomatic activity, generating seeming breakthroughs on two contentious geopolitical fronts: Syria and Iran. Russian and U.S. officials have naturally taken center stage in the negotiations, with important parts played at times by other permanent Security Council members. The agreements that have been arrived still require fleshing out, and follow-up. There is the matter of Syria’s chemical weapons and their future, as well as the future of President Bashar Assad if a durable political transition is going to unfold in that war-torn country. There is the matter of Iran’s nuclear program, as well as the thornier issue of Iran’s role in the Middle East.
But as the signals continue to emerge that the U.S. and Russia have made considerable progress in arriving at agreements to manage these two issues, one wonders about the missing players in the drama: Arab states.
The big power agreements will certainly be forged to protect the interests of those countries, and the indications are this will come at the expense of Arabs. Whenever superpowers or near-superpowers manage to agree on how to deal with pressing geopolitical issues, it’s certainly hard for smaller countries to block their path. This doesn’t mean non-superpowers lack a role; it’s more about degrees of maneuver, and degrees of importance.
Officials in Arab countries often say many things are significant for their national interests, but have they truly defined their top priorities? Have they decided which issues can’t tolerate compromise, and have they decided what to do if their backs are against the wall? Officials in Arab countries often say they support one of the sides in the geopolitical struggle – but what will they do when both sides come together, and agree at their expense? Do they have a margin of maneuver that is relatively large, or relatively small? Officials in Arab countries spend considerable amounts of time pontificating and issuing dire predictions and ultimatums, while the world’s leading countries tackle issues of considerable importance: chemical weapons in Syria, and nuclear weapons in Iran. Are officials in Arab countries spending any time contemplating what these two moves will mean for them? Do they have a fall-back plan, or a detailed, concerted response to these developments in terms of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East? Are they ready for the possible consequences in terms of their politics, economies and societies if the tension over Syria, and over Iran, suddenly disappears? Are they preparing themselves for these two fronts to see significant progress, or sudden, alarming setbacks?Several days of headline-grabbing developments in New York merely reinforce the idea that Arab states are all about reacting, instead of acting

In New York, Hassan Rouhani ‘makes haste slowly’
September 27, 2013/By David Ignatius The Daily Star /The U.S.-Iranian diplomatic train is rolling quickly, with President Hassan Rouhani talking in an interview Wednesday about a three-month timetable for a nuclear deal. But Rouhani was also cautiously insistent about staying on the single track of the nuclear issue – perhaps fearing that if this becomes a runaway, it will derail. It was a careful Rouhani who sat down for a one-on-one interview in New York Wednesday morning, following a lengthy session with several dozen journalists and news executives. He appeared wary of using chits he may need in the negotiations or of complicating the diplomacy by raising issues of normalization, such as reopening embassies in Tehran and Washington. Rouhani spoke slowly and deliberately; though he’s fluent in English, he used a translator. As in other recent interviews, he wanted to show a new, moderate Iranian face – speaking at length with the larger group of journalists, for example, of the “crimes” the Nazis committed against the Jews.
This is a man who wants to “make haste slowly,” as the Latin aphorism puts it. Here are some highlights of the interview:
Rouhani stressed he was “fully empowered to finalize the nuclear talks” by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a claim confirmed by Western intelligence reports. Analysts say Khamenei was surprised and rebuffed by the wave of support for Rouhani’s moderate policies, and has given him a chance to cut a deal. The Iranian president wants to move very quickly to resolve the nuclear issue, through the “P5+1” negotiating group. Rouhani said his “choice” would be a three-month timetable, and that six months would still be “good,” but this should be a matter of “months, not years.” The speedy timeline may reflect the pressure of sanctions on the Iranian economy, or Rouhani’s fear of a political backlash from conservative rivals. Whatever the reason, the time is short. Rouhani said he was prepared to offer extensive “transparency” measures to reassure the West that Iran doesn’t intend to build a bomb. He likened these measures to what Iran allowed from 2003 to 2005, when he was Iran’s chief negotiator, including acceptance of intrusive “additional protocols” from the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as inspections to assess what the IAEA calls “possible military dimensions.” He didn’t discuss the level of uranium enrichment Iran would adopt as part of a deal. But an Iranian source said this week he might be willing to cap enrichment at 5 percent and limit Iran’s stockpile of enriched material; those moves would seek to address U.S. and Israeli worries about a future “breakout” capability.
Rouhani said Iran wants to join a new round of Geneva talks for a political transition in Syria, so long as there are no preconditions on Iranian participation. The U.S. has tentatively decided to offer Iran a seat at these talks, reasoning that a stable political transition will be impossible if the Iranians aren’t a co-guarantor. He said that in terms of a future government in Damascus, Iran would let Syrians decide at the ballot box; that’s the standard Iranian formula. He stressed his desire to first resolve the nuclear issue, where he has the most expertise and authority from Khamenei. After that, he said, the U.S. and Iran can discuss broader issues of normalization. “Once the nuclear file is settled, we can turn to other issues,” he said. “We need a beginning point.” One of the most intriguing exchanges came when I asked Rouhani about his campaign statements that he wanted to reduce the power of security agencies such as the Revolutionary Guard Corps. He reaffirmed this goal of broadening cultural and social life and “diluting the security dimensions of society.” As for the Guard Corps, he said “it shouldn’t get itself involved in any political groupings or activities,” echoing a similar statement a week ago by Khamenei. This is important because any real diplomatic breakthrough will be impossible unless Khamenei checks the Guard’s power.
I asked Rouhani what he would have said if he had met with President Barack Obama this week, as the U.S. had wanted. He offered a blandly upbeat statement that “we would have talked about opportunities and hopes.” But surely he avoided the meeting because he knows he has limited time and scope, and doesn’t want to make an early, over-enthusiastic mistake.
**David Ignatius is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

Canada Highlights Role of ArAbic Gulf Cooperation Council
September 27, 2013 - New York City - Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird hosts a luncheon for the Gulf Cooperation Council on the margins of the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly to discuss the council’s increasing role in promoting global peace and security as well as shared interests in trade and investment. “Canada recognizes—and values—the GCC’s increasingly important role in promoting global peace and security,” said Baird. “No better example was the GCC’s role in brokering a peaceful transfer of power in Yemen following the tumultuous period of the Arab Spring. “Canada believes there is global interest for the GCC to take an increased role in regional security matters as well as global economic ones.”During the luncheon, Baird proposed the establishment of a Canada