LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
FEBRUARY 20/2006

Below news from miscellaneous sources for 20.2.06
Syria still casts long shadow in Lebanon-Reuters 20.2.06
The general and the Ayatollah-Al Ahram 20.2.06
Lebanon stands at a crossroads-arabamericannews 20.2.06
Lebanon's Year in the Media-Arab Media-20.2.06
Below News from the Daily Star for 20.2.06
In 'crisis' year, 10 journalists from South honored
President should be 'accepted by all parties'
Judges visit UN to discuss Hariri trial
Consensus on Dakkash settles Baabda-Aley race
Qassem insists Jumblatt is part of 'conspiracy'
Sfeir warns leaders against use of 'intimidating rhetoric'
March 14 group plan invalidation of Lahoud's legitimacy
A tribute to the national snack of Lebanon
Cabinet agrees $6.6 million for Achrafieh riot damage
U.S. hypocrisy hangs over Rice's Middle East trip
Fatah general signals impatience with contentious militia in South
Investment in Solidere surges after Hariri's assassination
In the Middle East, the third way is a myth

ANALYSIS-Syria still casts long shadow in Lebanon
LONDON, Feb 19 (Reuters) - A year after Rafik al-Hariri's killing, Syria still holds cards in Lebanon, where its troops may be gone but its allies remain strong and its foes fear that regional upheavals have emboldened it against world pressure.
Anti-Syrian politicians used last week's anniversary of the former Lebanese premier's death to revive a campaign to oust Syrian-backed President Emile Lahoud, with a one-month deadline.
Lacking the two thirds parliamentary majority to unseat an obdurate Lahoud, they may find it hard going, despite the impetus gained from the vast crowds that commemorated Hariri.
"Lahoud is determined to stay and they don't have the majority to remove him constitutionally," Washington-based scholar Murhaf Jouejati said, arguing that Lebanon's perennial sectarian divisions could again lead to political gridlock.
"At street level there is refreshing unity, but at the top there are the same divisions, the same nasty rhetoric," he said.
Hariri's son Saad, along with Druze chief Walid Jumblatt and Christian leader Samir Geagea say Lahoud must go as the symbol of Syria's once all-powerful influence in Lebanon.
It was the extension of his term in 2004 that turned Hariri against Damascus and prompted a U.N. Security Council resolution that demanded a free and fair presidential election, as well as the removal of foreign troops and the disarming of militias.
Chibli Mallat, an international human rights lawyer who has launched his own perhaps quixotic campaign for the presidency, argues that Lahoud sought the help of a foreign power, Syria, to remain in office and the presidency is thus legally vacant.
"There's a clear risk of descent into an inferno," he said in London last week, advocating non-violent, constitutional means to replace Lahoud, rather than a march on his palace.
CIVIL WAR FEARS
A violent Muslim protest against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a Christian quarter of Beirut this month reminded many Lebanese of the spark that touched off civil war in 1975.
Following a series of bombings and killings of anti-Syrian figures, it also underlined how the Beirut government has yet to get a handle on security since Syrian troops left in April.
The anti-Syrian alliance says this shows the urgency of deposing Lahoud, who has many political and security powers.
But powerful Shi'ite Muslim groups allied to Syria such as Hizbollah and Amal, as well as Maronite Christian leader Michel Aoun, have shown no appetite for removing the president.
Syria, resentful at what it sees as Lebanese ingratitude for its past role, can use such divisions as it tries to weather a U.S.- and French-led drive to force it to alter its behaviour.
The focus of this is the U.N. inquiry into Hariri's killing, now extended until June under a new Belgian prosecutor who has avoided publicity, unlike his German predecessor Detlev Mehlis whose interim reports implicated Syrian officials in the murder.
Western diplomats in Beirut said the inquiry could drag on beyond mid-June, at least partly for lack of Syrian cooperation.
"The Syrians seem to be more relaxed these days due to what they believe is Arab backing and a decrease in international pressure," said one Western diplomat.
"They feel they can ride the storm as Washington grapples with Iraq, Iran and the Hamas victory in Palestinian elections."
Analysts and diplomats said regional powers Saudi Arabia and Egypt appear firmly opposed to any regime change in Damascus that could further destabilise the volatile Arab world.
"The Saudis are worried about the Muslim Brothers," said Rime Allaf, an analyst at London's Chatham House, referring to a group seen as President Bashar al-Assad's most formidable foe.
She said Riyadh had been deeply upset by the assassination of Hariri, a Saudi citizen with close ties to the royal family, but did not want more regional upheaval after the chaos in Iraq.
"They want a docile Assad regime. I think the Americans are listening to the Saudis," Allaf said.
Syria has sent mixed signals, offering conciliation to its critics at home and abroad, then blasting the West and declaring solidarity with Iran, Palestinian radicals and Hizbollah.
Jouejati said the Syrians knew there was no hope of dialogue with Washington, but could still appear needlessly provocative.
"They alienate potential friends, when Syria needs all the friends it can get," he said, citing the failure to prevent the burning of the Danish embassy in Damascus in a cartoons protest.
The Iran nuclear row, Hamas's triumph and the Iraq conflict may be taking some heat off Syria, but the respite may not last.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called last week for the U.N. inquiry into Hariri's death to be "re-energised" and for the Security Council to hear if Syria was cooperating.
French President Jacques Chirac said the world remained determined to find and punish the guilty and "give Lebanon all the means for independence, security, democracy and freedom".

Lebanon's Year in the Media
19/02/2006
Diana Mukkaled is a prominent and well respected TV journalist in the Arab world, thanks to her phenomenal show "Bil Ayn Al Mojarada" (By The Naked Eye), a series of documentaries around controversial areas and topics which airs on Lebanon's leading local and satellite channel "Future Television". Diana also is a veteran war correspondent, covering both The War in Iraq and in Afghanistan, as well as the Isreali "Grapes of Wrath" massacre in southern Lebanon. Daring to do superb investigative work in Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen and Iraq (prior to the collapse of the Saddam's regime) and dedicating entire episodes of "Bil Ayn Al Mojarada" to issues such as "Honour Crimes" in Jordan, Diana has gained world wide recognition and was named one of the most influential women in a special feature that ran in Time Magazine in 2004. Diana writes a weekly coloumn for Asharq Al Awsat Media's Supplement, where she discusses current affairs in Arab and world media.
Previous Articles
Few days before the first anniversary of the assassination of the Late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese media, Arab and international satellite channels and Arab journals had already began presenting programs affiliated and dedicating numerous articles to the event. This concern in covering Hariri's anniversary is a reflection of the eminence of the incident in Lebanon during the past year and this actually contradicts with the actual presence of Lebanon within the political milieu, as Lebanon had always been a recipient of events rather than a producer of events.
Since 14 February 2005, Lebanon has continuously featured in Arab and western media. The progress of events had been forceful and had provided media with a huge amount of related political events covered frequently in Arab media.
The assassination of Hariri was a huge crime the events that followed were reflections of the major event itself.
Before such events in Lebanon, Western media had always considered Lebanon a party in the Arab-Israeli conflict and Hezbollah had been the focal point of media coverage. As for Beirut, it had always been a strong example of the brutality of civil war. Such an outlook of Lebanon had represented quite a natural persistence of western concerns over of issues affiliated with Israel, the extremism of some Muslim factions and wars of Afghanistan and Iraq.
After the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Lebanon now had its place in Lebanese media, especially following the images of Lebanese demonstrations that had occupied our screens and succeeded in gaining the biggest audience rating in the west. Lebanese media had covered this event like no other including the Lebanese civil war. Images of the Lebanese public filling the streets and calling for freedom and independence which were presented live over numerous international channels, seemed less violent then images transmitted from the occupied Palestinian territories and Iraq. The contradiction between a new generation of girls in Lebanon and other conventional images of traditional protestors had captivated numerous camera lenses. Western media celebrated Lebanon's struggle for independence and dealt with Lebanon as a victim that has deeply resisted all forms of external dominance and coercion. Furthermore, images of bombings and assassinations had endorsed the description of Lebanon as a targeted country.
Without ignoring the role of politicizing events, we can depict other images of the region that were clarified by the Lebanese images. Such images were of a set of events that had never been familiar to the region. The Ukrainian event was close in timing, and so we witnessed a similarity between the Lebanese events and that of the Orange revolution in Ukraine. Despite the many political relapses that took place, the severity of some scenes are well engraved them in our minds.
Nevertheless, days before Lebanon had revived the major crime of Hariri's assassination, screens had filled western media with live scenes of a demonstration in Ashrafiah that had primarily sought to protest the blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Mohamed (PBUH). Strangely enough however, the demonstration that aimed to defend a noble cause transformed into riots that had damaging cars, houses, and churches and shouting slogans that could have erupted into civil turmoil in the country.
The events of the Ashrafiah demonstration had almost aborted the Lebanese event that had been gaining support in western media over the past year. If we give in to our pessimism, we might even say that scenes of Ashrafiah demonstration showed the true face of Lebanon that we are children of this region but contradict what culture teaches us.

Lebanon stands at a crossroads
One year after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the country stands at a crossroads, teetering between civil war and real political maturity as a strong, independent, non-sectarian nation.
Ironically, the Bush Administration, which claims to be building democracies in the Middle East, is pushing the civil war scenario.
The assassination of Hariri provided those in Lebanon not satisfied with the status quo achieved under the Taif Accord with the opportunity to try and impose their own agendas. They were helped in their effort by U.S. insistence on blaming Syria for the assassination and forcing it to withdraw from the country. That set the stage for a political coup d'etat, which is being led by Lebanese Forces commander Samir Geagea and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, both of whom are taking advantage of Saad Hariri's political inexperience and vulnerability to maximize their numbers.
On the other side stand current President Emile Lahoud, Maronite leader Michel Aoun and Hizbollah leader Seyyid Hassan Nasrallah.
The chasm between them was reinforced this week when half a million Lebanese gathered in Freedom Square in downtown Beirut to commemorate the anniversary and pro-Syrian forces stayed away..But it wasn't the crowd that bespoke the the danger, it was the astounding calls from Jumblatt and Geagea calling, almost literally, for civil war.
Nasrallah responded two days later in a speech marking the anniversary of the slaying of the former secretary general of Hizbollah. He called for reasoned dialogue and refuted charges that a Hizbollah-Syria-Iran alliance was arrayed as the opposing group. Last week, Nasrallah and Aoun struck an alliance and presented a blueprint on how to restore normal relations with Syria, protect Lebanon from Israel's threats -- including the issue of Hezbollah's weapons -- and its anti-Israel resistance, as well as rebuilding the Lebanese state.
The document, which includes the main issues of conflict among the Lebanese, could lay the groundwork for dialogue if accepted by the opponents.
However, Bush Administration interference in Lebanon's affairs is attempting to preclude that. And that interference threatens to open a Pandora's Box on the Mediterranean. Bush and friends want to see a government hostile to Syria installed in Lebanon - a government that would do its bidding regardless of the consequences on Lebanon itself. And Bush is desperate to show some semblance of victory in the region. Islamists have been elected all around, Iraq is a mess, Iran on the rise.
Perhaps most ominously, al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has reportedly sent 600 trained, armed terrorists into Lebanon, also wanting to take advantage of the chaos.
Now that the credibility of Detlev Mehlis and his "reports" blaming Syria for the assassination of Hariri have been questioned, perhaps Serge Brammertz can bring a dose of reality to the investigation. Maybe that will stop the Bush Administration from trying to impose its will on Lebanon and using this beleaguered nation to sow further discord in the region.
Nasrallah and Aoun have shown they have the political wisdom and will to negotiate this crisis into political growth and development for Lebanon. They should be supported.
The American Lebanese community needs to be involved. Rather than just watch from the sidelines on their 50 inch television screens, they need to actively engage in dialogue and participate in finding a solution and U.S. support for it. They are, after all, sitting in the midst of the superpower with its fingerprints all over the country's crisis.

The general and the Ayatollah
Al Ahram 19.2.06: Following a historic accord struck between Hizbullah and Lebanon's Christians,
Michel Aoun speaks to Omayma Abdel-Latif about the new moment in Lebanese politics
Following a historic accord struck between Hizbullah and Lebanon's Christians, Michel Aoun speaks to Omayma Abdel-Latif about the new moment in Lebanese politics
The scene was unprecedented in the history of post-war Lebanon. Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hizbullah, traditionally Syria's long-time ally, shaking hands with Michel Aoun, Syria's arch enemy for almost 15 years and who championed a war from his position in exile in France against the Syrian presence in Lebanon.
Mar Mekhayel Church in Haret Hureek, originally the birthplace of Aoun and the Shia heartland in Beirut played host to the signing of what came to be known as "a declaration of understanding", a document comprised of 10 points which tackled the most ticklish issues in today's Lebanese politics, from Hizbullah's arms to the relationship with Syria, passing through the efforts to bring back the Lebanese state and put an end to political corruption.
Many analysts described the event as "a political coup", from a historical point of view. An "earthquake", suggested others, which shattered the political traditions in Lebanese politics of organising along sectarian lines.
It also came at a time when sectarian tension is at an all time high. It was the latest in a string of events unleashed by Aoun's homecoming from exile last May. The general's return has been received with mixed reactions from varied political forces.
Despite attempts by opposition forces then to isolate Aoun and marginalise his contribution in the political process, Aoun remained a key player in the reshaping of the political landscape following the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. His landslide victory in the parliamentary elections -- he leads a bloc of 21 seats -- anointed him and his movement the Free Patriotic Movement ( Tayyar ) as representing the Christian street par excellence.
Although Aoun boasts that 20 per cent of his constituency are Muslims, yet many believe that the significance of his return lies in the fact that he has been crowned as the leader of Lebanon's Christians.
A year after Rafik Al-Hariri's assassination, and as Lebanon stands at a historic juncture, Aoun is one of the few Lebanese politicians who read events well, as proven by his deal with Nasrallah; that both have a constituency that cannot be ignored by the 14 March team which rule Lebanon today. At his office in Al-Rabiya, Aoun spoke to Al-Ahram Weekly about the current political situation and implications of the deal with Hizbullah on the future of the political process in Lebanon.
How do you assess the situation a year after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri?
No doubt Al-Hariri's assassination has been a catalyst accelerating efforts towards the implementation of Resolution 1559 in respect to the Syrian withdrawal. It also led to my homecoming after years in exile and the release of Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese militia. Holding the parliamentary elections was yet another important development but it exposed the acute political crisis the country was facing when the political elite failed to establish a new elections law. This meant that the election results did not reflect correctly the present political scene. This distortion was also present in the composition of the new government and parliament. In the meantime, we have witnessed a surge in the role played by the media in inciting hatred and sectarian tension in a way that goes against a basic code of ethics.
Do you think the high levels of sectarian tension can lead to civil war in Lebanon?
There are wise men in Lebanon today who remain in control of the situation. I don't think there is a will to initiate sectarian strife. I believe that those who control the situation on the ground don't want to have war, and those who have the will to start a war don't have the power to do so. They keep the levels of tension high through fiery discourses but they cannot change the situation on the ground because those able to start a war don't want it.
Do you mean Hizbullah and your Free Patriotic Movement (FPM)?
I cannot comment on this.
You said that the current composition of parliament does not reflect the true weight of political forces on the ground; so you agree with Nasrallah's description of the majority which is in power as a "false majority"?
We can explain this through the number of votes each of the three political forces that comprise the bulk of the assembly gained during elections. There are now three axes within the assembly: Al-Mustaqbal and its allies which has 72 seats -- it has gained the third of the votes; the second is the Hizbullah-Amal axis, and it also gained a third of the votes with 34 seats; and the third is the FPM and its allies, and it also got the last third of the votes with 21 seats. In terms of numbers, Hizbullah and FPM both represent one third of the assembly, but in reality they became the majority thanks to the number of seats.
Seven months after the opposition came to power how do you read their performance, particularly regarding the security situation?
Their political discourse shows that they run the affairs of the country in an amateurish way. They were made politicians under the gaze of the Syrians. Today they have proved a disastrous failure in handling security in Lebanon, particularly in such a volatile situation as that following the Syrian withdrawal. They lack the technical abilities and the leadership to run a proper security establishment.
Do you believe that the situation will escalate under this government?
Yes, things are only getting worse.
In your view, why is there fear among some Lebanese politicians of Arab mediation between Syria and Lebanon?
Those who fear mediation efforts think that there is something that they will lose if Arab mediation takes place. But the irony is that the majority that is in power is the one that is rejecting any efforts for mediation sponsored by Arab parties. This is why, when the situation in Lebanon came to a standstill, I took the initiative and called for national dialogue among different political groups and put all the issues on the table. When no one responded to our call, we opted for a bilateral dialogue with Hizbullah, and we reached an understanding on nearly all the controversial issues.
What needs to be done for this declaration to see light on the ground?
Both Hizbullah and the FPM cannot achieve all the points mentioned on their own. There is an important role for the state. We only put forward a draft paper in which we offered our views regarding key controversial issues, and the ways in which they can be approached and resolved. Government partnership is vital. We only established the framework. What is important is the significance of the deal where two major powers in the country have opted for dialogue and reached an agreement over the most sensitive of issues.
Do you expect other political forces, like the Future bloc ( Tayyar Al-Mustaqbal), will join forces with FPM and Hizbullah?
The problem with the Future bloc is that there are two types of discourses; the political discourse that is flexible and the media discourse that incites hatred and is the more powerful on the ground.
You say that the government is essential. Do you think that the issue of Hizbullah's decommissioning is one such issue where you will need the partnership of the ruling powers?
We have offered our understanding of how the issue of Hizbullah arms should be tackled. We have put conditions on the context in which Hizbullah arms should be used in defence of the Lebanese land and until the Shebaa Farms are liberated.
But signals coming lately from the government are perplexing. Some, like Jumblatt, call for disarmament and accuse Hizbullah of being a Syrian or an Iranian agent, while others have a different line.
Let them dare ask Hizbullah to decommission. I don't think this is a proper way to deal with Hizbullah. We are one people; they are citizens of this land as much as we are. They have made sacrifices to liberate the south and their resistance was legitimate and holistic. These are the same people we are dealing with today and who said they want to keep their arms forever. Our mission is not to destroy Hizbullah but to allow it to enter the political process to achieve the goals for which it took up arms. I believe that Hizbullah's leadership has flexibility and there is a will to transform.
Walid Jumblatt insists that Shebaa Farms are not Lebanese territory and that they are being used as a pretext by Hizbullah to keep its arms. What will be the fate of the joint FPM-Hizbullah declaration in light of such comments?
Jumblatt's map is of no use. There are maps that show the farms in Lebanon and there are others that show them belonging to Syria. There are ownership documents which were issued from the Lebanese authorities and land ownership is the only arbiter to decide where sovereignty lies.
A recent statement by the 14 March team -- an allusion to the Hariri-Jumblatt-Geagea axis -- clearly stated that the national consensus over Hizbullah's arms has eroded. What is your comment?
Yes, the national consensus might be like before, but resistance arms are tied with the liberation of Shebaa Farms, the release of all Lebanese prisoners and the issue of Palestinian arms outside the camps. These issues are all related. We cannot ask a Lebanese group to put down its arms while Palestinian groups remain armed. In other words, it is only natural that you set some priorities before getting down to Hizbullah's arms.
Who deals with the larger issue of defending Lebanon's national security against ongoing Israeli violations?
This should be the strategy of the state; and when there is first a clear strategy as to how the state will protect national interests against such violations we would reach the final stage where Hizbullah decommissions or integrates within the national defence mechanism of the state.
To what extent was there a consensus inside the FPM over the deal with Hizbullah? Some say that prospects of such a deal angered a number of your constituency?
It took us six months of intense discussions to reach that level of understanding with Hizbullah. Every word is carefully chosen. In the end, when the FPM and Hizbullah reach an agreement it is not about who made concessions more than whom. It is Lebanon that truly wins. We might indeed have lost some of our undecided or neutral sympathisers, but we have definitely gained more -- particularly amongst Lebanese Muslims. We know that FPM popularity skyrocketed in Akar, for example, where there is a dominant Sunni constituency. We wanted to be forces of stability in the country.
US officials expressed concern over your deal with Hizbullah. The US ambassador visited you. Did you discuss the issue with him?
We explained a few points. We also explained that this deal is not against any party but rather an effort to start a dialogue amongst ourselves.
Do you consider it to be a new Taif agreement?
I cannot say it is a new Taif because there is no contradiction between our agreement and Taif. On the contrary, it sought to resolve some of the issues that were left unresolved in Taif.