LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
APRIL 21/2006

Below news from the Daily Star for 21/04/06
Baalbek excavations unearth Roman-era treasures
U.S. blames Damascus, Tehran for Beirut's woes
Expect more UN pressure on Syria
1559: How much does Lebanon have left to do?
Mehlis dismisses critical book as 'ridiculous'
Chirac warns Syria to end 'unacceptable interference' in Lebanese affairs
War of words between FPM and Future heats up
Fatfat repeats call for Lahoud to step aside
President puts focus on corruption and bribery
All sides will agree to disagree about Lahoud
Jordan raises stakes in tiff with Hamas, says smuggled arms came from Syria
Into the labyrinth of Russia's intensifying Islamism
Strong or weak, the nation state remains alive and well
A neutral Lebanon will be a peaceful one
Below news from miscellaneous sources for 21/04/06
Bush On US - Lebanon Relations-Voice of America - USA
Syria: Israel to blame for dispute with Lebanon-Jerusalem Post
Lebanon president rejects call to disband Hizbollah-Reuters
Jordan says smuggled Hamas arms came from Syria-Reuters
Iran too should contribute to 1559, US contemplates next steps-KNA
Annan Presses Syria and Iran Over Hezbollah-Washington Post
UN Accuses Iran and Syria Of Interference in Lebanon-Voice of America
Syria invites donations to help Hamas leaders-Independent Online
Urban warfare in the Middle East-NYU
For first time, Annan links Iran to instability in Lebanon-Ha'aretz
UN calls for disbanding of Hizbullah-Jerusalem Post
A taste of the glory days of Lebanon-El Universal Online
Syria: We cannot delineate occupied Shebaa border-Middle East Online
Syria rejects UN Lebanon border call-Times of Oman
Hamas FM a-Zahar meets Syria's Assad-Jerusalem Post
Interview with Ali Larijani has been Iran's chief nuclear negotiator,Taking matters in hand-Al-Ahram Weekly - Cairo,Egypt

Iran too should contribute to 1559, US contemplates next steps-Annan
KNAUNITED NATIONS -- Asked if that's what Annan meant, a UN official told reporters "we are not going to try to interpret the language of this document, " confirming that this is the first time Annan involves Iran publicly in resolution 1559 which was meant mainly for Syria. A council diplomat, however, told reporters on condition of anonymity that this paragraph represents another way for the US and allies to get the council involved in Iran's suspicious nuclear activities, noting that Iran, after the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, has become more involved in south Lebanon. Annan said in his report that Lebanon has made further significant progress towards implementing in full all provisions of that resolution, especially with the agreements reached in the National Dialogue. However, he added, the other provisions, such as the disbanding and disarming of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, the extension of government forces control over all Lebanese territory and the political independence of the country, have not yet been fully implemented. "There has not been a presidential election process, as called for in the resolution," Annan gave as an example.

Jordan says smuggled Hamas arms came from Syria
20 Apr 2006
AMMAN, April 20 (Reuters) - Prime Minister Marouf Bakheet told a meeting of parliamentarians that weapons seized from a secret Hamas arms cache in Jordan had been smuggled from Syria, deputies said on Thursday.
Bakheet gave no details to Islamist deputies when he met them late on Wednesday on how the weapons, which authorities say were recently discovered, had reached Jordan from Syria, where the Palestinian militant group's exiled leadership is based.
Azzam Huneidi, the head of the 17-member Islamic Action Front bloc in the 110-seat assembly, said Bakheet declined to elaborate beyond saying the arms cache which contained rocket launchers and highly combustible explosives "came from Syria".Jordan's Islamist opposition and independent politicians are sceptical about Jordan's announcement on Tuesday that Hamas, which took power last month after winning Palestinian general elections in January, had sought to destabilise the kingdom. They say it was a pretext to severe ties with Hamas, whose leaders have had a rocky relationship over the years with the pro-U.S. ally. The movement's politburo chief Khaled Meshaal, a Jordanian citizen, was expelled in 1999 along with other leaders after a major crackdown on the group following accusations of illegal activities. Bakheet also told deputies but without giving details that the smuggling and storing of weapons by Hamas was one of several attempts that had been foiled by Jordanian intelligence in the past. The senior Jordanian official evaded questions by deputies on whether the authorities had detained any activists. "He only said the investigations were ongoing," Huneidi said. The militant group has a large following in refugee camps across Jordan, a country which hosts the largest number of Palestinian refugees outside the West Bank and Gaza. Jordanian officials privately support U.S.-led efforts to isolate the Hamas government diplomatically and financially unless it embraces Middle East peacemaking.

Syria: We can't delineate occupied Shebaa border
Syrian FM: How could Syria carry out the task? By sending people in by parachute to do it?
BEIRUT - Syria cannot draw its shared border with Lebanon because a key southern zone remains occupied by Israel, a government official said in response to a UN call to firm up its borders. "Syria cannot delineate the border of the Shebaa (Farms area) because it is occupied," Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said in an interview Wednesday aired by Al-Jazeera television, excerpts of which were printed by Lebanese media Thursday. How could Syria carry out the task, Muallem asked. "By sending people in by parachute to do it?" "Syria is prepared to demarcate its border with Lebanon from the north down to Shebaa, which is occupied and whose border we cannot draw," Muallem said. UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen on Tuesday urged the two neighbors to agree on demarcating the border in the area, a small mountainous territory at the convergence of the Lebanese-Syrian-Israeli borders. Israel captured the area from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war, and it is now claimed by Lebanon with Damascus's consent.
Israeli troops have retained control of the area since their withdrawal from south Lebanon in May 2000 after two decades of occupation. It remains the scene of clashes between Israeli forces and Hezbollah.
The United Nations regards the Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory.
On Wednesday, the fundamentalist Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah criticized Roed-Larsen's call because it "conforms to Israeli demands." Lebanese leaders engaged in political roundtable talks that began in March in a bid to dig the country out of political crisis have called on the premier to normalize relations with ex-powerbroker Syria. They also asked Prime Minister Fuad Siniora to obtain a demarcated border from Damascus in the Shebaa Farms area. Referring to Siniora's plan to visit Damascus for talks, Muallem said he would be welcome and expressed hope the visit would succeed.
However, "we want to be able to discuss important matters during his visit, and not begin with items that Syria and Lebanon cannot solve, such as Shebaa," he said. Roed-Larsen's comments came in a report Tuesday to the UN Security Council which is to be discussed by the body on April 26. The UN envoy is in charge of overseeing the application of UN Security Council resolution 1559 on the disarmament of militant groups in Lebanon.

Annan Presses Syria and Iran Over Hezbollah
By Colum Lynch-Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 20, 2006; Page A26
UNITED NATIONS, April 19 -- U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stepped up pressure on Syria and Iran to try to persuade the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah to put down its arms and transform itself into a peaceful political party.
Annan's message reflected mounting concern that Tehran and Damascus, Hezbollah's chief foreign sponsors, are continuing to back the Lebanese militia despite U.N. calls to end foreign interference in Lebanon's internal affairs. It follows a series of meetings in Damascus between Hezbollah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah and senior Syrian and Iranian officials.
"The carrying of arms outside the official armed forces is impossible to reconcile with the participation in power and in government in a democracy," Annan said in the 23-page report, which was written by his special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen. "I also urgently call on all parties who have the ability to influence Hezbollah and other militias" to support their disarmament.
A Hezbollah lawmaker, Ali Ammar, told a Lebanon television station the militia will not disband. He charged Terje Roed-Larsen with trying "to meet the demands of the Israeli agenda through the Lebanese gate," Reuters reported.
John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Annan's report "is an important step forward in demonstrating the importance of Iranian interference in Lebanese internal affairs. And I think by saying specifically that Syria and Iran have to be involved in ceasing their internal disruption in Lebanon is an important step forward."
In September 2004, the Security Council passed Resolution 1559, which called on foreign forces, primarily Syria, to withdraw from Lebanon, and demanded that militias, including Hezbollah and smaller armed Palestinian factions, disband and disarm. The resolution was adopted after Syria threatened Lebanese lawmakers to try to force them to alter the country's constitution to let Lebanon's pro-Syrian president, Emile Lahoud, to stay in power.
Syria last year yielded its 29-year-long political and military domination of Lebanon's political life after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others. The Valentine's Day bomb attack triggered massive protests in Lebanon against Syria, which is suspected of ordering the killings. Syria has denied involvement.
Annan said that arms have been smuggled from Syria into Lebanon over the past six months. He noted that Hezbollah in February received an illegal shipment from Syria of 12 trucks carrying ammunition, Katyusha rockets and other weapons.
Lebanon's armed forces approved the arms transfer on the grounds that Hezbollah is a legitimate resistance movement. But Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora assured the United Nations that he would prevent further shipments and that none "have occurred since." For the first time, Annan singled out Iran by name, noting that Hezbollah "maintains close ties, with frequent contacts and regular communication," with Tehran. Annan also pressed Syria to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon and to resolve border disputes that undercut efforts to stem the flow of arms into Lebanon. "A united Lebanon has offered an outstretched hand to Syria," he said. "I call on Syria to accept this offer and undertake measures, in particular, to establish embassies and delineate the border between Syria and Lebanon."

UN Accuses Iran and Syria Of Interference in Lebanon
By Peter Heinlein -United Nations
19 April 2006- The United Nations is calling on Syria to establish normal diplomatic relations with Lebanon, and urging both countries to demarcate their common border. The U.N. tells us a new report from Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticizes Iran and Syria for interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs. In a report to the Security Council, Secretary-General Annan calls on Syria's leaders to accept "the outstretched hand" of Lebanon to establish embassies and delineate their border.
The 23-page report, written by Mr. Annan's special envoy to the region, Terje Roed-Larsen, also breaks new ground in calling attention to Iran's role in the region. It notes the Tehran government's close ties to the terrorist group Hezbollah, which operates on Lebanese territory, and urges both Syria and Iran to cooperate with what is described as Lebanon's "far-sighted leadership", in overcoming the difficulties of the past.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton called the Secretary-General's report a significant step forward in demonstrating the importance of Iran's interference in Lebanese internal affairs. "I thought the last paragraph was quite interesting with the specific reference to all other relevant parties, including Syria and Iran, which I think is significant. I think it's a recognition by the secretary-general that Iran's financing of terrorist groups in Lebanon and Syria has a significant impact on what happens in those two countries. And I think that's an important step forward here at the U.N.," he said.
In a separate footnote, the Secretary-General's report charges that Syria had threatened several members of Lebanon's parliament two years ago, ordering them to approve an extension of President Emile Lahoud's term in office. It notes that Syria's government strongly denied the allegations.
The parliament did approve a change in Lebanon's constitution in September, 2004 allowing the pro-Syrian Lahoud to continue in office for another three year term. That move prompted the Security Council to adopt a Resolution demanding an end to Syria's interference in Lebanon's affairs. It also led to the Secretary-General's latest report.
Syrian forces entered in Lebanon in 1976 at the start of the country's 15-year civil war. Damascus withdrew its troops in 2005, under intense international pressure, following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister

Syria invites donations to help Hamas leaders
Damascus - The Syrian government has set up bank accounts to receive popular donations to help the Hamas-led Palestinian government survive a financial crunch, the state news agency SANA said on Wednesday.
"Two accounts have been opened by the Palestinian People Support Committee," SANA said, referring to a committee set up by the state.Syria, ruled by the secular Baath Party since 1963, has hosted exiled leaders of Hamas for years, resisting US pressure to expel them and close the Islamist group's offices. Hamas, whose suicide bombings figured prominently in the Palestinian uprising that began in 2000, has been under financial pressure from the West to recognise Israel and abandon armed struggle to liberate occupied Palestinian territory.
Israel cut off millions of dollars in monthly cash transfers while the United States and Europe cut aid to the government.
Hamas, whose image of financial probity helped it win January's Palestinian elections, inherited $1,3-billion of debt. It says the economy of the Palestinian territories will collapse within months unless government coffers are replenished.
Hamas has called for donations and secured some pledges for financial assistance from governments, including $100-million from Qatar and Iran. A recent Arab summit also pledged support.

Urban warfare in the Middle East
by Vidya Singh-Staff Writer
April 19, 2006 -The geography of cities plays a major role in social change and conflict, especially in the Iraq war, panelists said last night during a Department of Social and Cultural Analysis’ program.
At the program, titled “Middle East Cities and War: Putting Iraq in Context,” Oren Yifatchel of Israel’s Ben-Gurion University, among other speakers, spoke about different facets of urban culture and its relation to the war. “Cities are the Achille’s heel of the colonialist project,” Yifatchel said. Zeynep Celik of the New Jersey School of Architecture explained that the modernization of Baghdad in the early 20th century is similar to the Ottoman Empire’s reaction to British colonialism.
“My goal is not to construct bridges to the present day,” he said, “but to offer a skeletal structure of [the city] in the current war and the empire building of today.”Since America’s occupation of Iraq began to founder, groups there have been looking for ways to operate social programs and defend themselves, said Adam Shatz, literary editor of The Nation, a left-leaning political magazine. He added that groups in Iraq might find organizations like Hezbollah, a radical Lebonese Islamic group, attractive because of this.
“Hezbollah is the textbook case of the cliché that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter,” Shatz said. “But Hezbollah could become a part of the war in the Middle East, because it owes its existence to Iran. It could serve as a shield for Iran’s nuclear activities from the U.S. and Israel.”
Yifatchel spoke about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, describing it as “a creeping apartheid that is deepening all the time.”
He said the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Iraq war are instances where “colonial power is so convinced it’s right that it doesn’t know how to manage resistance.”Helga Tawil Souri of NYU’s Department of Culture and Communication discussed checkpoints in the Palestinian territory and in Iraq. “To be modern is to be mobile,” Souri said, “but checkpoints are un-modern. They isolate and fragment society, and people must deal with the spatial governance of their lives.”
Souri said the checkpoints illustrate how “human geography is filled with ideology and politics, [representing] social relations stretching beyond these spaces.”Checkpoints may be one of the few successful security strategies states have because city warfare is so difficult, Stephen Graham of the United Kingdom’s Durham University said.
“The ultimate nightmare of the U.S. military is [city warfare],” Graham said. “The U.S. needs to be at a distance from its violence, and certain Arab cities that are interrupters of this fantasy of fighting from afar are the killjoy of the automated battlefield.”Sovereignty becomes software in a powerful way, Graham said, referring to the American military’s experiments with the use of robotics and other technologies to further distance soldiers from war.
CAS freshman Alexander Arnold attended the event as an optional assignment for his Cities in a Global Context class.
“The discussion was great. It discussed the power dynamic well, and how in spaces that are contested, it can be turned on its head at any moment,” he said.

Frank dialogue between the Kataeb, LF and FPM before the deadline
April 20 2006 Monday Morning
Issam Abou-Jamra:
‘The interest of the Kataeb may be in an alliance with the FPM’
“All things considered”, comments General Issam Abou-Jamra, one of the pillars of the Free Patriotic Movement, “dialogue remains the best means of shortening distances and bringing together the leaders on all levels.
“The meeting of the opposing forces around the table of dialogue contributes to overcoming the political crisis. Any agreement reached by the dialoguers becomes constraining for all sides, whether it be on the international inquiry into the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri, Palestinian weapons inside and outside the camps or the question of Lebanese sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms, a matter in dispute between Walid Jumblatt and Hezballah, in addition to diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria and the delineation of the frontier between the two countries”.
Do the representatives of the Christian parties coordinate their action within the dialogue conference?
The Muslim positions, whether Sunnite or Shiite, appear to be the subject of coordination and a unification of stances, in general.
“The spokesmen of the Christian formations are divided: one is close to the Sunnites, the second to the Shiites, and the third is shared between the two.“But divergences have appeared between all parties when it has been a question of pronouncing on the person called to succeed President Emile Lahoud”. Will coordination between the Free Patriotic Movement and the Kataeb lead them to conclude an agreement like the document of joint action the FPM signed with Hezballah?
In principle, nothing prevents the two sides from concluding a similar document. But in matters of interest solely to the two parties, it is preferable that they deal with them in a way that will serve their reciprocal interests.
The head of the Kataeb Party has said that General Michel Aoun is the closest of all the presidential candidates to the Kataeb’s way of thinking. What is your view?
The Kataeb may find that it is their interest to conclude an alliance with the Free Patriotic Movement.
What are the chances that General Aoun will be elected? Speaking in all objectivity, I can say that General Aoun is the strongest personality. He has the kind of long experience that would enable him to be an effective head of state, indeed, the most appropriate person to hold the office for the next six years.
He may be elected by internal forces; unfortunately, certain people still feel the need to have recourse to the foreigner to make a decision as to who shall be the future president. The difference between one presidential candidate and another lies in his ability to choose himself, without any help from the outside, the solutions which suit Lebanon.
Since you deal directly with Dr. Samir Geagea, do you think the Lebanese Forces will support General Aoun’s candidacy for the Presidency? The Lebanese Forces want a strong president, and our consultations will, I believe, end by convincing them to take a positive position towards General Aoun. Karim Pakradouni: ‘The Kataeb, link between the dialoguers’
Karim Pakradouni, president of the Kataeb Party, notes that his party is distinguished from others in two respects: First, it has succeeded in practicing a moderate and rational policy to confront complex problems. Second: it is working to ensure the success of the national dialogue, seeking to bring together the viewpoints of the dialoguers. It has tried to be a link between the participants at the round table.
Where exactly is the Kataeb positioned?
It is situated within the “front of March 14” while at the same time remaining open to the “front of March 8”. In other words, it has gone beyond the barricades of the previous stage in order to establish bridges for the future stage.
Our priority objective is to rebuild the state on a solid basis and to resolve all matters in dispute.
Why did you say that General Michel Aoun is nearest to the Kataeb as a presidential candidate?
Here I was speaking in response to my reason, not my heart. In the view of the Kataeb Party, General Aoun represents the strong personality capable of building a state worthy of the name.
[Former] President Amin Gemayel’s views on this subject is based on the idea that the future head of the state must be consensual, and our party is not opposed to the candidacy of the head of the Free Patriotic Movement.
You launched the idea of a consensual president as long ago as 1988, and you have proposed it again. Why?
This idea emanates from the Lebanese formula of governance, and I will give you an example of constitutional proof. The parliamentary majority is not able by itself to elect a new president because for that it would need a majority of two-thirds of the members of the House. It is faced by a minority which can deny it the votes necessary. The Constitution therefore requires the Lebanese to opt for a consensual president who can bring together the majority and the minority. The situation today is exactly like that of 1988. So it’s not a circumstantial question.
How do you see the possibility of cooperation between the Kataeb and the Aounists?
We are working to ensure consultation between the two political formations in regard to all subjects in dispute in order to bring together their respective positions. The consultations between us include all issues, that of the president, the proposed new election law, and administrative decentralization. The committee we have tasked with dealing with this delicate mission has a role of coordination, not of decision.
Would this cooperation between the Kataeb and the Aounists have the aim of short-circuiting the Lebanese Forces?
In every stage we are maintaining contact with the Lebanese Forces as well as with the other Christian groups. I personally am promoting a coordination in depth between the Kataeb, the Lebanese Forces and the Free Patriotic Movement.
In the context of the Maronite Patriarchate? The Patriarchate is not a party. We take counsel from that high spiritual authority without trying to implicate it in political or inter-Christian conflicts. It’s our desire that the Patriarchate should remain a reference point for all the Lebanese. Why have you still not visited Dr. Samir Geagea, the leader of the Lebanese Forces?
He is in permanent touch with the supreme leader of our party, President Amin Gemayel, which is important and necessary.

Remembering April
19/04/2006- Asharq Al-Awsat
Former head of the Lebanese security forces, Assaad Al-Shaftari has supported the shift that has taken place since 2000. On the 31st anniversary of the Lebanese war, Al-Shaftari appeared on television screens in front of the Lebanese and Arab public once again admitting his accountability of the violations that had taken place during the Lebanese war, and apologized to those he had wronged during the crisis.
Ever since Al-Shaftari first apologized six years ago for his actions during the war and since the interviews in which he disclosed the details of his role during this period, it would seem that he has embarked on a path of repentance. However, the Lebanese media did not welcome this initiative, with some interpreting his confessions as either a condemnation of the 'Christian' side or an expression in favor of the 'Muslim' side. Nevertheless, the truth remains that neither side of the Lebanese war has dared to admit their roles or actions in the war as Al-Shaftari has done.
The world has experienced a number of civil wars, and numerous societies have suffered in their attempts to cure their people from this experience whether victims or criminals. These attempts were clear through the confessions and apologies of a number of perpetrators. This step had been considered part of the long journey that victims and criminals must embark on to heal the wounds of war that remain in the hearts of so many. Media has been used for this societal therapy as a number of leaders of civil wars, for example in South Africa, found that revealing the details of the battles may help them.
Morocco, which has been spared the atrocities of civil war, survived an entire era of violent and coercive practices by the hands of the Moroccan government against oppositionists. Recently, a number of figures of the Moroccan government and under the supervision of the Moroccan King, Mohamed VI, confessed and asked for forgiveness from their victims.
In our Arab region, civil wars in Lebanon, Sudan and Yemen had erupted whilst in Iraq the country is still suffering from internal strife. Discussion on war requires that those who initiated and took part in it have the courage to tell their stories. It further requires the media to welcome such endeavors with transparency and boldness without falling for political and religious traps. Al-Shaftari's genuine initiative in admitting his mistakes shows that he has been persistent throughout the past six years to tell the Lebanese people what they did not know. The fact that Al-Shaftari was subjected to threats and that many political and media figures sought to exploit his confessions to serve the interests of some parties should be taken into consideration. For the 31st year now, the Lebanese remember April 13 when the Lebanese war erupted, however, without knowing the complete truth about what had actually taken place.
On the television screens, Assaad Al Shaftari had once again expressed regret and told his story. Nevertheless, until now, the leaders of the Lebanese war and those who took part have not made any similar endeavor. As for the media, it has not made the most of such a sincere initiative.

Bush On U.S. - Lebanon Relations
20 April 2006- VOA:President George W. Bush says Lebanon “can serve as a great example (to other countries) of what is possible” in the Middle East". Following a meeting at the White House with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, Mr. Bush said that the United States "strongly supports a free and independent and sovereign Lebanon". He recalled the 2005 Cedar Revolution, in which hundreds of thousands of Lebanese protested against and forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops from their country:
"We took great joy in seeing the Cedar Revolution. We understand that the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the street to express their desire to be free required courage, and we support the desire of the people to have a government responsive to their needs and a government that is free, truly free."
President Bush recalled Lebanon’s “great tradition” of serving “as a model of entrepreneurship and prosperity”. He also called for a full investigation into the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, which helped spur the Cedar Revolution.
Prime Minister Siniora said the United States “has been of great support” to Lebanon, which has gone through "major changes" in the past year-and-a-half: 
" Lebanon has really been committing itself that we want the change to happen to -- in a democratic and a peaceful manner, but at the same time, to really stay course -- on course; that we are there to meet the expectations of the people to have a united, liberal, free country, and, at the same time, prosperous economy. . . .The United States has been of great support to Lebanon. I am really convinced that President Bush and the United States will stand beside Lebanon to have Lebanon stay as a free, democratic, united, and sovereign state." "Out of the tough times [Lebanon] has been through," said President Bush, "will rise a state that shows that it's possible for people of religious difference to live side-by-side in peace; to show that it's possible for people to put aside past histories to live together in. . . .peace and hope and opportunity." The preceding was an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government.

Lebanon president rejects call to disband Hizbollah
BEIRUT, April 20 (Reuters) - Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, an ally of Syria, dismissed on Thursday a U.N. suggestion that Hizbollah guerrillas merge into the army as a ploy to weaken Lebanon against its enemy Israel. A U.N. report obtained by Reuters this week, asks Hizbollah to disarm and Syria and Lebanon to demarcate an Israeli-occupied border area, noting that other Lebanese militias merged into the army after the 1975-1990 civil war. The report, prepared by U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, was the latest into progress on implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 of 2004, which demands foreign troops leave Lebanon and all militias in the country disband. "Such a proposal is not a new one and it only aims to end the role of the Lebanese resistance and Lebanon's capacity to challenge and face the Israeli occupation," he told reporters. "I wonder if what is taking place now aims to take Lebanon back to the conditions it lived through in 1982! Does the stability we live in today not please some actors who want to strike it to serve their interest?"In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon and entered the capital Beirut to drive Palestinian fighters out of the country, but later pulled back to a southern border strip. Lebanese fighters fought the Israelis, and Hizbollah, the only Lebanese militia to keep its weapons after the civil war, has so far refused to give up the arms that helped it end the 22-year occupied of southern Lebanon in 2000. Hizbollah has vowed to liberate the Shebaa Farms border strip, which the United Nations considers occupied Syrian land.
Damascus, which entered Lebanon in 1976 to quell the civil war, pulled its troops out a year ago after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. Many Lebanese blamed the murder on Syria, but Damascus has denied any role

Syria: Israel to blame for dispute with Lebanon
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Apr. 20, 2006 18:35-Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mualem said on Thursday that his country could not settle the border with Lebanon in the vicinity of the Sheba farms, since that territory was occupied by Israel.
In an al-Jazeera interview, he stated that the two countries could settle the border issues only in the area north of problematic area.
Earlier in the week, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora met with US President George W. Bush, asking him for help in resolving the border issues.

Taking matters in hand
AlAhram 20/4/06: Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator and head of the Supreme National Security Council, tells Amira Howeidy that Iran does not need nuclear weapons to promote its influence in the region and that punishing Iran for pursuing a nuclear programme will damage everyone
Ali Larijani has been Iran's chief nuclear negotiator for the last eight months, a period in which Tehran has faced mounting international pressure to disclose details of its nuclear activities. A confidant of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Larijani was one of several conservatives who ran in the Iranian presidential elections in June 2005.
Ali Larijani
Khamenei appointed him as head of state radio and TV in 1994, a post he occupied for 10 years. In 2004 Khamenei appointed him to the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) -- the country's top decision-making body on security-related issues -- for a three- year term.
Larijani studied computer science and completed a PhD on Western Philosophy.
The interview was conducted in his SNSC office in Tehran on Monday.
As you toured European capitals for negotiations concerning your nuclear dossier Iran was continuing with its uranium enrichment programme. Were you buying time?
I want to highlight the historical background to this because it explains a lot of what is happening today. The nuclear issue in Iran is 40 years old. It started under the Shah, when Iran and the US signed an agreement to modernise Iran's nuclear plant. The agreement included provisions for the supply of the necessary nuclear fuel, and also stipulated that the Americans would train Iranians in the required technology as well as help establish a nuclear institute in Iran. This was in 1977.
We had another agreement with France, under which they would help with nuclear technology research projects and we would provide France with 6,000 megawatts of nuclear-generated electricity. The French were keen to construct a nuclear plant south of Tehran. Iran also owned 10 per cent of a French company which enriched uranium and which would have provided the necessary fuel for the plant. There was, too, an agreement with a German company.
Then the 1979 Islamic Revolution happened. The dictatorship of the Shah was ousted and replaced by a democracy. So the US, France and Germany decided to punish Iran. They ended all agreements and refused to return the money already paid in return for nuclear fuel. All the commitments already made were suddenly over. We were left stranded.
So what should we have done? We had to take matters into our hands. We had to develop our own nuclear technology and this took around 15 to 16 years. Nobody helped us do it.
We are asked why Iran pursued a nuclear programme. We had no other option given this background. We were told that we shouldn't enrich our own fuel because it will be provided. Our response is: we had agreements [to provide fuel] and we didn't get one gramme.
The [International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA formed a committee to guarantee that countries with nuclear reactors would be provided with the necessary fuel. The committee met for seven years and the results were nothing.
There are no international guarantees today to provide fuel, not for Iran, not for anyone. If they are friends with a given country they will provide it with fuel. If they are not your friends then there is no fuel.
Twenty years from now our population will have reached 100 million and our gas and oil supplies will be exhausted. The only option we will then have for producing energy is nuclear.
Why does the US go to such lengths to stop us from developing a nuclear energy programme? It is because they want a nuclear OPEC in 20 years, they want all countries to be their slaves. If that happens they will only provide us with fuel if we abide by their policies.
How did you reach the current deadlock with the IAEA?
Cooperation with the IAEA is ongoing. Inspectors visit Iran's nuclear plants whenever they want. We had negotiations with the Europeans for two years during which we stopped all our nuclear activities. They asked us to freeze our activities voluntarily so that we could reach an agreement and after two years they offered us the equivalent of a box of chocolates. They said we could become an observing member of the WTO, and that they would provide us with spare parts for aircraft. In return, they demanded we dismantle our nuclear programme.
We realised the Europeans were playing a game. They wanted to prolong the negotiations so that we would forget about the issues. But we stated our terms. We said we would pursue our nuclear programme and negotiations simultaneously.
But the European negotiating methodology is as follows: if you do not do this, we will refer your file to the UN Security Council. After a while we said, you do as you please and so will we.
Did you receive help from the Russians, Koreans or Pakistanis, specifically Muqtadar Khan, in developing your nuclear technology?
No, we got nothing from Russia or Korea. Muqtadar Khan provided us with one sample device but that wasn't directly through him but through brokers.
There are reports suggesting Iran might be using the P-2 Centrifuge that can enrich uranium at a faster rate. Is this true?
In nuclear technology the important thing is to master the know-how. Once you have the technology it's not difficult to develop it -- P-1, P-2 and P-3 technology, it doesn't matter.
If Iran is determined to go ahead with its nuclear programme in the face of international opposition, what is the point of continuing negotiations with the IAEA?
There is no single solution to a political problem: it can be approached from many sides. A solution might materialise from negotiations. We are sorry that the Europeans left the negotiating table. Had they stayed we might have reached a solution.
How do you envision the future of this nuclear dispute?
There are several possibilities. One is that they employ the language of power and say we will issue resolutions against you and drag you into a boycott. Or there is the military confrontation the Americans threaten.
But it would be scandalous for the Security Council to boycott a country because it is seeking to produce nuclear energy. In a world full of crises, disasters and tragedies they must surely have more to worry about than Iranian nuclear research.
Would you consider withdrawing from the NPT like North Korea?
There is no need for us to do that. The NPT stipulates that if a country's national security is at risk it does not have to abide completely by the treaty.
We are, as well, in the primary stage of our research. We are in the back, rather than the driver's seat. And we are ready to negotiate. But they should not try to deprive us of nuclear energy. We are ready to work on building confidence. We are not interested in a nuclear bomb.
Why don't you want to have an atomic bomb?
We don't think it's legitimate in Islam. When the leader of the revolution says that possessing nuclear weapons is haram (forbidden) then we cannot have them. This also includes weapons of mass destruction. We witnessed the effect of WMDs when the Americans and Europeans provided Saddam with them and he used them, in places like Halabja. I was there when he attacked and I can't wipe the images from my mind. Everything and everyone -- children, men, women and animals were exterminated. We know what WMDs do. But this is something that Bush and Rice do not understand.
Our influence in Islamic countries does not depend on the possession of an atomic bomb. If we have influence in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine it is not because of nuclear weapons but because of what we represent morally. Take Pakistan for example. It has an atomic bomb, how does that make it influential? But again, Bush thinks only of bombs.
But you are surrounded by five nuclear states.
Look, the US has a vast nuclear arsenal but that hasn't stopped it sinking in the Iraq swamp and is totally incapable of doing anything about it. The atomic bomb is no longer important or effective.
But the bomb is a deterrent. Israel is a deterring power because of the bomb.
If that is the case why did it evacuate south Lebanon? The notion of deterrence was applicable during the cold war. We have entered a new era, with new characteristics.
Are you comfortable with the Chinese and Russian positions vis-à-vis Iran? Will they oppose sanctions?
In today's politics each party operates according to its size and weight. We weigh what we expect from any party against reality. We rely mainly on our domestic strengths. We shall also rely on diplomacy.
What are the effective weapons in this new era you speak of?
Contrary to what the Americans think the unipolar system is over. We are now in an era of awakening. They are beginning to take notice of this. Recently Rice admitted to committing a thousand tactical mistakes in Iraq.
There is an awakening... The Americans should see what democracy in the Middle East has done. Look at Egypt, Palestine and Iraq [where Islamists rose to power]. Why? Because there is an awakening and in the age of awakening there is no place for the nuclear bomb.
Iran has emerged as a powerful regional power. Is the Shia crescent becoming a reality as your political, and perhaps sectarian, influence re-shapes balances of power?
One of the reasons why we ousted the Shah was because he was a domineering, hegemonic dictator. We had three problems with him. His servitude to the Americans, his dictatorship and his anti-Islamism. We tasted the bitterness of dictatorship and hegemony and Islam opposes these things. Ayatollah Khomeini wanted Sunni-Shia unity and we feel it is vital that we focus on Islam as a principle.
I think the Americans want to exaggerate and fuel the Sunni-Shia issue, it is part of their Greater Middle East project. They seek to control oil, protect Israel and create rifts between Sunni and Shia. The Americans do not want regional countries to cooperate, they want individual entities. They want to have bilateral relations with Egypt, bilateral relations with Qatar and so on. They do not want these and other countries to relate. It is no wonder that they create border problems and Sunni- Shia problems. The notion of the Shia crescent is an American one but they put it in [Jordan's] King Abdullah's mouth. He would be incapable of coming up with the idea on his own.
But Iran has influence, as you said, in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. Only on Sunday it donated money to the Hamas government to help it overcome its current financial crisis...
Our influence has very little to do with weapons or money or even our Shiism. Hamas is a Sunni movement, is it not? But it is close to us. The Kurds in Iraq are Sunni and they are close to us. Our influence in Iraq is not because of our missiles. It is because our revolution inspires. We defend those who suffer from injustice, we are against dictatorship. All of Iraq's leaders were our guests during the Saddam regime. We sided with them because they suffered from injustice. Our influence in Palestine is the same. Why do we do this? Because this is our cause. We do not use force with anyone.
On the Iraq front, when the US was readying for a military confrontation with Saddam we opposed it. At the beginning of the war Rumsfeld went there and said we will install a tower for democracy but instead they made Abu Ghraib. We knew this would happen.
When they invaded Iraq they said they will have American officials run the country for three years. We opposed this and said Iraqis should run their country. We also objected to US plans to formulate a new Iraqi constitution. Our position was that the Iraqis are mature enough to do this after they hold elections. We also think the Iraqis should decide who gets to be their prime minister and who rules them, while the Americans want to decide who becomes prime minister. Now the Iraqis can see our behaviour and that of the Americans. Why should they choose the Americans?
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is said to be involved inside Iraq. How far is Iran implicated in Iraq?
We don't need to intervene in Iraq. And if we were indeed involved then rest assured the Americans would have publicised whatever evidence they have. Besides, why should we intervene? Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is our friend. [Kurdish leader] Masoud Barzani is our friend. [Iraq's Grand] Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Ibrahim Al-Jaafari and Moqtada Al-Sadr -- they are all our friends.
Will Iran consider signing an agreement not to attack its Gulf neighbours?
When have we ever attacked a neighbouring country in the last 150 years? When did we ever disturb them? We were the ones who were attacked by Saddam and they backed him.
A recent report published in The New Yorker magazine claimed there are US intelligence units operating inside Iran. Is this true?
Yes. These groups are everywhere around us. They are in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
How seriously do you take media speculation about US military confrontation with Iran?
It is easier said than done and the threats illustrate the impotence [of the Americans] rather than their strength. The problem is America's behaviour in the region. The French philosopher René Decartes said I think therefore I am. For the Americans it is I cause damage therefore I am. To prove that they exist they damage. However, I don't think they will make this dangerous mistake. Iran is a difficult target. Iraq was an easy target. Saddam was weak because of the war he launched on us followed by his invasion of Kuwait. He didn't enjoy any legitimacy nor was he acceptable to Shias or Sunnis. And all neighbouring countries were against him.
Iran's regime enjoys legitimacy and has good relations with its neighbours. If the US implicates itself in Iran it will lead to the destruction of American greatness.
They will be shooting themselves with the bullet of mercy. There is a saying, he who fires the first bullet dies before the others.
Do you expect military sanctions?
The media has been pointing at them. But if this happens they will be taking a step in the wrong direction. We have endured economic sanctions in the past.
How will Iran retaliate?
We do not seek to destabilise international peace. But if they seek to punish us there will be a new situation and the smoke from the fire will be far reaching.

Ex-hostage taker's chequered careerCity apartment manager proud of his exploits
By ELIZA BARLOW AND MAX MAUDIE, EDMONTON SUN
Eddy Haymour talks to a Sun reporter in his office at Canada West Courts, 7317 Yellowhead Trail, yesterday. (Walter Tychnowicz, Sun)
A man who once held 34 people hostage at the Canadian Embassy in Lebanon is managing a rundown apartment complex in northeast Edmonton. But don't expect 76-year-old Eddy Haymour to hide from the darker moments in his past. "I'm proud of it. I want everyone to know my story," the mustached senior said yesterday in an interview in his cluttered office at Canada West Courts, 7317 Yellowhead Trail.
Collecting rent and writing eviction notices at the 64-suite complex behind the Sands Motor Hotel is a far cry from how Haymour pictured his old age back when he was a wealthy beauty salon tycoon in Edmonton in the 1960s. Born in a Lebanon village in 1930, Haymour immigrated to Edmonton in 1955 in search of a better life. He knew just two words of English: "Me barber."
He persevered until he owned 13 beauty salons. He married, had four children and became a Canadian citizen. The beginning of the end came during in the late 1960s when he was travelling in the Okanagan. He spotted a little island in Okanagan Lake near Peachland, B.C.
He planned to turn the little island into a Middle Eastern-themed amusement park and have an idyllic retirement. But as he recounted in his book, From Nut House to Castle, the B.C. government was so determined to thwart the park that it blocked Haymour every step of the way and eventually had him declared insane. After 11 months in a psych ward, he was released on the condition he return to Lebanon immediately. Bereft and penniless, he went back to Lebanon, enlisted the help of four cousins, got machine guns and explosives and stormed the Canadian Embassy, holding 34 people hostage for 14 hours.
His demands were for amnesty and to have his day in court in Canada.
In 1986, he says he was awarded about $460,000 in compensation for his destroyed life. He used that money to build a castle across the lake from his original island. Three and a half years ago, he came back to Edmonton. Canada West Courts is the fourth building he's managed. He enjoys going into "bad" buildings and cleaning them up. He says he's not doing the job to make money, but to keep his mind off his prostate cancer, which was diagnosed seven years ago. Besides his book, Haymour's story was also the subject of a play, The Trials of Eddy Haymour, that ran in Kamloops and Kelowna in October 1994.
Haymour says the final step in his journey is to see his story told in a feature film and claims three film companies - Canadian, American and Middle Eastern - are ready to start production. He won't reveal the companies' names for fear of jeopardizing the deal.
"I think it would make a wonderful movie," said Queen's University drama professor John Lazarus, who penned The Trials of Eddy Haymour.
Meanwhile, at least one resident of Canada West Courts isn't happy that a man with a history of taking people hostage has the keys to her apartment. "It's scary to think, if he can do that - what else can he do? I can't handle it. I leave my doors locked. I bar my windows. I've changed my locks (so Haymour can't use his key)." Haymour admitted he's tough on tenants who don't pay their rent on time and live in squalor.
For now, the grandfather of four says he "can't ask for more happiness than what I have now."