LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
JANUARY 19/2006

Below News from the Daily Star 19/1/06
Providing an alternative to the dialogue of the deaf
Al-Madina bought real estate at inflated prices and then refused to show it on the books
Two unexploded bombs found in North Lebanon
UNIFIL urges increase of security forces in South
Politicians call for extraordinary dialogue session
UNRWA, Palestinians near agreement on health services
Politicians voice reactions to anti-U.S. demonstrations
Palestinian factions denounce threats against Lebanese Army
March 8 forces step up campaign
Nasrallah open to dialogue on Hizbullah weapons
U.S. freezes Shawkat's assets as Hamade denies extracting false testimony
Syria and Iran, an axis of upheaval. By Michael Young 19.1.05
Below News from miscellaneous sources
Jumblat Sees Syrian, Iranian Hand in Anti-U.S. Demonstration-Naharnet 19.1.06
US Blocks Assef Shawkat's Assets in American Banks-Naharnet 19.1.06
Nasrallah Urges Arabs to Mediate Among Lebanese-Naharnet 19.1.06
Lebanon, Syria Crisis Tops Agenda of Cheney's Talks with Mubarak, Abdullah-Naharnet 19.1.06
U.S. Embassy Denies Feltman Wants Government to Dump Hizbullah-Naharnet 19.1.06
Lebanon has not Officially Received Any Plan Aimed at Mending Relations with Syria-Naharnet 19.1.06
Government Adopts Measures Against Bird Flu Virus-Naharnet 19.1.06
Arab Liberals Argue about America- By: Barry Rubin-Middle East Forum 19.1.06
Iran president to visit Syria in show of support-Reuters 19.1.06
Lebanon wants UN force in South for another year-19.1.06
Hizbollah calls for Arab intervention in Lebanon-Reuters 19.1.06
Syria Shows Another Sign of Seeking to Quell Internal Critics -New York Times 19.1.06
Syria frees five prominent opposition prisoners-Reuters 19.1.06
Syrian Kurds, a potential danger for Assad -asianews 19.1.06

Providing an alternative to the dialogue of the deaf
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Editorial- Daily Star
It matters little whether the ideas put to the Lebanese government for lowering the temperature of relations with Syria came from Riyadh, Cairo or Downtown Damascus. After apparently floating round in cyberspace for a couple of days. they were openly rejected Wednesday by Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on the understandable ground that they did not meet his country's demands for full sovereignty and were simply a set of rehashed Syrian proposals. Siniora made his priorities very clear: "We must insist on the question of security and the killing machine must stop." While that constitutes an equally understandable demand, the Lebanese government can scarcely have expected an explicit Syrian promise to stop assassinating leading Lebanese citizens.
Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal had said, without specifically claiming authorship, that he was waiting for a response from both Damascus and Beirut to a set of proposals designed to defuse tension. Shortly afterward, some anonymous "sources in the Cabinet" were quoted in the press as saying that the Cabinet had received nothing that required an official reply and that all they knew was from press reports. This semantic fan-dance serves to show how much the Lebanese have lost their much-vaunted ability as communicators and how little they appreciate the very real dangers inherent in the current rift between the two neighbors.
While the Lebanese have regressed, the Saudis have been steadily advancing over these past two to three years in their inclination to encourage open dialogue. In August 2003, when King Abdullah was still the Crown Prince, he pushed for the establishment of the King Abdel-Aziz Center for National Dialogue to promote the public exchange of ideas.
Since then it has sponsored public meetings involving women, students, business people, liberals and intellectuals, as well as conservatives. The Center has also organized road shows to hundreds of villages - importing temporary "town halls" by truck to provide meeting places - to sound out opinions from the remotest of places. In the process, the Saudi authorities discovered wide discrepancies in different parts of their own kingdom about locally acceptable norms for societal behavior.
The center's activities are, slowly but steadily, laying the groundwork for greater understanding and grassroots reforms that will eventually open up whole swathes of Saudi society. Televised meetings organized at Abha covered previously taboo subjects such as the situation of Shiites in the Kingdom and women's issues. Too little too slowly, says the center's critics but then, as Abraham Lincoln and Bob Dylan both recognized, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
At least the Saudi experiment is not producing a dialogue of the deaf. Maybe King Abdullah should send over one of his mobile meeting halls to inspire a gathering of the Lebanese political fraternity. They could listen to and consider each other's views rather than indulge in their usual pastime of haranguing one another.

Al-Madina bought real estate at inflated prices and then refused to show it on the books
By Nada Bakri
Special to The Daily Star-Thursday, January 19, 2006
BEIRUT: Where the $1.2 billion missing from the Al-Madina Bank went and who the invisible beneficiaries are - presumably high ranking Lebanese and Syrian officials - has yet to be uncovered even though it is approaching three years since the bank collapsed. The bank, which shut down in Lebanon's biggest banking scandals, is faces a further investigation after reports said it laundered money for the Russian mafia, Saddam-era Iraqi officials and Islamic associations.
The bank was also linked to the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri, as two UN investigative reports into his murder suggest its money financed the operation and may also have been used to pay off people involved in the mass murder.
Instead of seeking to investigate the reasons behind the collapse and to bring to justice the perpetrators, the Lebanese government has been more inclined to cover up the scandal by encouraging those involved and the plaintiffs to reach out-of-court settlements, according to Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (MEIB) report.
Al-Madina Bank and its subsidiary United Credit Bank are owned by two brothers Adnan and Ibrahim Abu Ayyash. Adnan, an engineer by profession, made his fortune in construction and engineering projects in Saudi Arabia where he lives. He bought the bank in 1984 and installed himself the chairman and made his brother Ibrahim vice chairman. After the scandal emerged, Ibrahim fled Lebanon and has not been found since.
Their associate, Rana Qoleilat managed the bank and carried out transactions on behalf of the two brothers. Hailing from a modest family, Qoleilat, in her late 30s, quickly rose from a file clerk to Ibrahim's chief aide.
In 1998 the Lebanese banking regulatory authorities discovered evidence of money laundering and illegal activities carried out by Qoleilat. According to one of her attorneys, Ali Safa, she is accused of embezzlement, forgery, fraud and writing bad checks. Qoleilat's luxurious life created suspicions about the source of her wealth and that of her two siblings, Taha and Bassel. Taha for instance owns the Sheraton Coral Beach hotel and a luxurious car rental agency, in addition to seven yachts, according to several media reports. According to MEIB many of the suspicious transactions at Al-Madina were purchases of real estate. The bank would purchase assets at an inflated price, on the condition that the sellers deposit their earnings in Al-Madina. The depositor would then receive a passbook duly signed and stamped but not recorded in the bank's books. The bank offered substantially inflated interest on such deposits, which the beneficiaries could regularly withdraw from the bank, said MEIB
The interest payments were made from special funds not shown on the bank's books. In other cases, real estate would be purchased with one or more post-dated checks (also not recorded in Al-Madina's books) drawn on the Central Bank, but not actually presented for collection because they were paid on maturity from the same special funds, in effect yielding a similarly inflated interest rate, added MEIB. "Many of these inflows and outflows were disguised by filing false documentation with the Banking Control Commission (BCC), an independent administrative body set up in 1967 to monitor private banks - meaning that, in effect, the bank was guilty of money laundering," added MEIB. The illegal transactions continued until early 2003 when Iraqi money pumped in the bank began to dry up in the run-up to the U.S. led war on Iraq, according to the MEIB.
This fact made Taha Qoleilat, one of the bank's biggest depositors, withdraw much of his money in January 2003. Rumors spread throughout Lebanon that Al-Madina was facing imminent bankruptcy, prompting other depositors to withdraw their funds and eventually sparking a liquidity crisis.
In February 2003, the Central Bank froze the financial assets of the Ayyash brothers, Qoleilat, her two siblings and seven of their associates for making unauthorized investments using depositors' assets and for money laundering.
Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh quickly reversed his actions, describing Adnan Abu Ayyash as a "reliable" banker after the latter provided documents demonstrating the bank's ability to protect its depositors' money.
Lebanese informed sources told MEIB that Salameh later confided privately he was told his life would be in danger if he didn't reverse the decision. Tomorrow: Qoleilat traced by rice pudding

Two unexploded bombs found in North Lebanon
By Nada Raad
Daily Star staff-Thursday, January 19, 2006
BEIRUT: Two unexploded bombs were found Wednesday in front of the house of former minister and head of Al-Balamand University Elie Salem in Koura, North Lebanon. A source close to the issue told The Daily Star that the bombs were discovered Wednesday morning by the gardener under a tree near the house's parking. The source said: "The explosives were not set for explosion. They were placed in a way where they could be seen, so it was more of a threat." Salem's son, Paul, refused to comment on the incident. His father earlier told the National News Agency that he "accuses no one" and that he was surprised about what took place. "I left political work since 1988, and I do not have enemies or extremist positions," he said.
The family said the incident will be handled by the security apparatus, which they said they trust. But commenting on this threat, former Deputy Premier Issam Fares, a friend of the family and a prominent politician in the North, said: "Is it possible that until today, and from [Telecommunications Minister] Marwan Hamade to [late MP] Gebran Tueni, the authorities could not find even one criminal in this ugly series of terrorism?"Fares, who lately has been quiet with regards to political developments, said: "The political forces and the authorities should stop their debates and their war of words ... or else the worst is coming."
After the unexploded bombs were discovered, security forces were called and removed them from the property.

UNIFIL urges increase of security forces in South
By Mohammed Zaatari -Daily Star staff
Thursday, January 19, 2006
SOUTH LEBANON: UNIFIL official spokesman in Lebanon, Milos Strugger praised the "excellent cooperation of the Lebanese government with the UNIFIL," anticipating the Security Council meeting scheduled to be held by the end of January to examine the extension of the UNIFIL mandate for another six months.
But he added that though "this cooperation has gained momentum over the past six months and the UN considers the Lebanese authority as a major partner in South Lebanon, the UN wants the Lebanese government to work more efficiently in the area."Speaking during a press conference at the UNIFIL headquarters in Naqoura, Strugger further highlighted the necessity of "increasing joint security forces in the south."The request for the UN mandate to be prolonged till January 31, 2007, came in a January 11 letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan from Lebanese UN envoy Ibrahim Assaf. The letter was circulated at the world body on Tuesday.Assaf's letter made no mention of Hizbullah but accused Israel of repeatedly violating Lebanese airspace and failing to respect its sovereignty. He said UNIFIL's continued presence in the South was needed to ensure Israel respects the border it shares with Lebanon. The Lebanese government currently has 500 Internal Security Forces members and another 500 Lebanese Army troops scattered across southern areas. Strugger described the situation along the UN-drawn Blue Line during the past three weeks as "calm with minor violations." He added that Annan's report which he will submit to the Security Council is still under preparation and will include all security breaches across the Blue Line over the past six months. The report will also include the UN mission and activities and, in light of the report, the Security Council will take a decision, he said.Commenting on the Shebaa Farms, Strugger told the reporters that the Blue Line drew the border between the UNIFIL and the UN Disengagement Observer Force. UNDOF was established in 1974 following the agreed disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces in the Golan Heights. UNDOF continues to supervise the implementation of the agreement and maintain a ceasefire. According to the UN official, the demarcation of the border in the farms aimed at confirming the Israeli forces withdrawal from the Lebanese territories. Strugger didn't comment on the possibility of a future accord between Lebanon and Syria. In 1978, the Security Council endorsed a resolution stipulating the formation of UN Interim Forces in Lebanon after the partial invasion of Israel to some areas in South Lebanon.Israeli forces invaded Lebanon in 1982.
Following the withdrawal of Israeli forces in 2000, the UN considerably reduced the number of its peacekeepers who were entrusted with preserving security along the Blue Line.

Politicians call for extraordinary dialogue session
Lahoud and berri to decide on issues addressed during special Parliament meeting
By Majdoline Hatoum -Daily Star staff
Thursday, January 19, 2006
BEIRUT: The country's top politicians agreed Wednesday on the need to hold an extraordinary parliamentary session soon to address the country's current political crisis. Talking after a meeting with President Emile Lahoud, Premier Fouad Siniora said that Lahoud will later meet with Speaker Nabih Berri to decide on the agenda of the session, which the country's political majority has been calling for over the past couple of days. "We will have a clear picture of the issues that would be addressed by Parliament's extraordinary session in the coming two days," Siniora said.
According to sources close to the speaker, Berri is set to meet with Lahoud within the next 48 hours. An extraordinary session had been called for by politicians from March 14 Forces as well as by Berri since several pending issues are awaiting discussion in Parliament, including passing the country's overdue national budget and initiating a national dialogue. The follow-up committee of March 14 Forces initiated a parliamentary petition Tuesday calling for the holding of an extraordinary parliamentary session to initiate a national dialogue between different political forces represented in Parliament, which most of the country's politicians had been calling for over the last month.
According to Article 33 of the Constitution, extraordinary sessions are held in response to a request by the president of the republic after consulting with the premier, or through the demand of a majority of MPs in Parliament. The same article also stipulates that the extraordinary session is held following the issuance of a decree by the president "specifying the dates of the opening and closing of the extraordinary session as well as the agenda." Even though the Cabinet session will take place Thursday as scheduled, Siniora said work is still under way to end the boycott by the country's Shiite ministers, and secure their return to the government.
"The only choice we have to hand is to reach an agreement with the [Shiite ministers]. There is no other alternative," he said.Replying to a question on a suggestion by Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun to form a new national unity Cabinet, a suggestion which has already been welcomed by Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, to diffuse the present Cabinet crisis, Siniora said: "The first move is to hold a dialogue among parliamentary parties. MPs would then decide on the next move and on whether to include parties from outside Parliament."
Pro-Syrian powers in Parliament, mainly represented by Hizbullah and Amal, have been calling for holding a national dialogue that is not restricted to Parliament, in order to include other Syria allies - such as former minister Suleiman Franjieh and former Premier Omar Karami - in such a dialogue.
Siniora also said Syria "can help resolve" the issue of armed Palestinian factions outside refugee camps. "Syria can play an essential role to solve this problem," he said, and added such a role would "help in defusing tensions with Syria. We are committed to establishing good and healthy relations with Syria ... the presence of armed Palestinians outside the camps, and the continued smuggling of arms to Lebanon and the illegal influx of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon would only increase tensions. This is certainly not a good way to improve relations with Syria."
Meanwhile, MP Mosbah Ahdab said the government is blocked because of "disagreement in points of view, which means that we really need to move the dialogue forward within Parliament."He added: "This is why we moved and called for opening an extraordinary session ... the political sector in the country needs to move forward and calls for dialogue should be implemented." However, Hizbullah MP Mohammad Raad said the Shiite ministers were still holding discussions over their return to Cabinet, which will hold another session Thursday in their absence."What is needed right now is that we reach a formula we all agree on, and accordingly we will return to Cabinet," he said. MP Akram Chehayeb, a member of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt's parliamentary bloc, said the March 14 Forces rejected foreign interference in Lebanon, "not foreign or American," but added: "However, we also don't want the Syrian-Iranian tutelage to return," adding that Jumblatt's bloc in Parliament was open to dialogue.

Politicians voice reactions to anti-U.S. demonstrations
By Karine Raad -Daily Star staff
Thursday, January 19, 2006
BEIRUT: The demonstration of students and activists of 18 anti-American organizations against U.S. interference in Lebanon's affairs near the U.S. Embassy on Tuesday triggered a wave of reactions mostly by opponents of Syrian influence in the country. The head of the Lebanese Forces' executive committee Samir Geagea said that "even though I completely support the right to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion through peaceful demonstration, I do not think it is acceptable to ignite chaos among the people through demonstration."
The Democratic Gathering parliamentary bloc member MP Abdullah Farhat said some wanted to stir up the people through Lebanese and Palestinian parties after an agreement with Arab countries failed to solve the Lebanese-Syrian crisis.
In a statement released Wednesday, Farhat asked "why is resistance against Israel not launched from all Arab fronts starting with armed Palestinian camps across the Arab world or the victorious majority in Iraq?"
"Why are the Palestinian arms always pointed at the Lebanese and why should Lebanon constitute an arena for permanent conflict and instability, and a bargaining chip?"
Farhat called on all parties to work together toward a free, sovereign and independent country enjoying the freedom of speech and belief away from tension, dependence and tyranny. The Future Movement parliamentary bloc member MP Antoine Andraos said he deeply regretted that the country has turned into an arena for slogans in support of a regime that assassinated former Premier Rafik Hariri and those who were most outspokenly critical of it.
The MP questioned whether the move serves the Lebanese national interest, promotes the economy and foreign investment and builds for a dialogue, or whether it serves the interests of Syria and Iran. Andraos said he was shocked by PFLP-GC official Anwar Raja's threats against those who supported the MP's views and called on the authorities to arrest him and try him for threatening civil peace.
In turn, MP Robert Ghanem described this week's demonstrations as "an attempt at escalation against the government and designed to shift differing viewpoints from constitutional institutions to the street."
Ghanem said he questioned the real motives behind the demonstration held "against tutelage but in support of Syria."
Ghanem called for solidarity against the dangers facing Lebanon and for placing the country's interests above regional and international alliances. Pro-Hariri MP Walid Eido called for dialogue within the framework of constitutional institutions and on the basis of the Taif Accord.
He expressed support for Speaker Nabih Berri's initiative which "represents the best path toward reconciliation away from the street."Meanwhile, public and private schools in western Baalbek staged a sit-in in the Shmustar Square.
The protests in support of the resistance took place under the watchful eye of the Internal Security Forces and the Lebanese Army . Holding Lebanese flags and banners denouncing the U.S., protesters chanted slogans against the disarmament of the resistance. Speaking on behalf of the Independent Youth Gathering in Shmustar, Ghassan Melhem voiced his opposition to attempts by the United States to stir strife in the country and expressed support for those who oppose the American plan to divide the people. The March 14 Youth Organizations said in a statement that they regretted "the policies of some officials who claim they care about the resistance at a time when they are destroying it every day through suspicious projects that are aimed at destroying stability, sovereignty and resistance."

Nasrallah open to dialogue on Hizbullah weapons
'Our views should be expressed in a civilized manner'
Thursday, January 19, 2006-Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said the Lebanese people are entitled to have fears and questions regarding the weapons of the resistance but "should discuss those fears with us rather than attack us." During an interview with the New TV local channel on Wednesday, Nasrallah stressed that Hizbullah was ready to hold talks over the resistance arms with all the Lebanese parties. The Hizbullah chief said that all the Lebanese factions were willing to hold dialogue despite all the disagreements regarding several issues. However, Nasrallah asked the Lebanese officials "to avoid delivering speeches that would create negative atmospheres."
"We have different opinions regarding several issues but expressing our views and opinions should be made in a civilized manner," he continued. As for the demonstration of the March 8 forces that was held at the U.S. Embassy in Awkar, Nasrallah said "the 14,000 people gathered in Awkar declared their rejection to U.S. tutelage over Lebanon."
"We did not burn tires or block roads," he said, referring to the demonstration held in Naameh in protest of the shooting that occurred last week in the area. "It was peaceful."
As for the statements made by MP Walid Jumblatt, in which he said it was a Syrian-Iranian demonstration with Lebanese flags, Nasrallah said: "All the demonstrators were Lebanese; you can ask the security forces that were there."
He continued: "Rejecting U.S. tutelage does not make of them Iranians and Syrians."Nasrallah added that the U.S. was closely interfering in the country's internal affairs, "even in the security appointments."
"Jumblatt told me that the appointment of Hussein Lakkis as director general of the Surete Generale was vetoed by France and the United States," the Hizbullah chief explained. "(MP) Saad Hariri and Jumblatt said that Hizbullah was not a militia; but I am sure that (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David) Welch admonished Hariri about his declaration," he added. According to Nasrallah, "the American tutelage hampers accord between the Lebanese."
Asked why he did not reject the 15-year Syrian tutelage over the country, he said: "I was not a partner in the tutelage; all who accuse Syria today were its partners."
"My position regarding Syria emanates from strategic considerations; Syria is a big supporter of the resistance," he said. "The presence of the Syrian troops maintained the country's security and stability and put an end to the Civil War," he added. As for the statements he made against Jumblatt, Nasrallah said: "We had decided not to respond to Jumblatt's statements, until Saturday when he insulted our honor by describing our weapons as the arms of betrayal, we could not but respond." Nasrallah has called on Saudi Arabia and Egypt to intervene to resolve a crisis brewing in Lebanon.
In an interview published on Wednesday in the pan-Arab Al-Hayat newspaper, Nasrallah appeared to back Saudi mediation to ease the tensions between Syria and Lebanon. "Intervention is a must and there can't be any Arab delay to do what is necessary," Nasrallah said. "The situation in Lebanon is bad and it has dangerous repercussions."
"We support any Arab initiative and denounce any effort to spoil any Arab initiative," Nasrallah said, warning that tensions among the Lebanese also gave reason for alarm. "I don't call on Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the Arab League to intervene between Lebanon and Syria only, but I also call them to intervene between the Lebanese," the leader of the Shiite Muslim guerrilla group said. "If the Lebanese are left to themselves, they would not be able to build their country with the current mentality."

March 8 forces step up campaign
By Philip Abi akl - Daily Star
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The forces of March 8 are seeking to rally their supporters in the local arena and speak out against the parliamentary majority, particularly after the Shiite ministers' decision to boycott Cabinet sessions. In a remarkable move, the forces of March 8 decided to return to the streets, but this time to reject U.S. tutelage in Lebanon, instead of announcing their loyalty to Syria. However, the slogans that were shouted during the demonstrations at the Grand Serail and at the U.S. Embassy in Awkar stressed the alliance with Iran, Syria and the resistance in Iraq. Some of the slogans also insulted the forces of March 14 and its martyrs and accused the United States of imposing hegemony over Lebanon.
Following recent developments on both internal and regional levels, the forces of March 8 have started to take advantage of the visit of any foreign official to Lebanon in order to launch stances against Western countries and to emphasize their support for Syria. With the visit of any Western official to the country, statements regarding the influence of foreign countries over the parliamentary majority start to flow. The pro-Syrian forces did not always take such positions; they used to welcome any foreign official coming to Lebanon, in particular U.S. officials, because they entered the country through Syria. Even U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch, whose visit on Saturday was met with strong protests, was warmly welcomed by the forces of March 8 when he visited Beirut three months ago.
The escalated steps taken by the forces of March 8 are mainly influenced by Syria, in an attempt to highlight the divisions between the Lebanese. The moves also aim show that the Lebanese are not able to rule themselves by themselves in the wake of the Syrian troops' withdrawal. The escalation of the situation is also an attempt to highlight the Taif Accord's failure to resolve the crisis and the need to create a new accord.
The March 8 rally coincided with the efforts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt to strengthen the deteriorating Syrian-Lebanese relations. Saudi Arabia and Egypt believe the deteriorating ties are a threat to the whole region. But Damascus is trying to take advantage of the Egyptian-Saudi "initiative" in order to settle its internal issues and regain its position in the region, in particular in Lebanon. Consequently, Syria agreed to cooperate with the international investigation commission probing the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and used the initiative to submit a proposal as an attempt to promote Syrian-Lebanese relations.
The proposal included seven points: to cease media campaigns in both countries; to prevent the Lebanese international media from promoting political positions against Syria; to create a joint security committee to resolve the Lebanese security crisis; to ensure Lebanese-Syrian cooperation in foreign politics; to agree on the demarcation of the borders starting from the North; to settle the issue of Shebaa Farms only after the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict; and to ensure diplomatic cooperation.
Some Lebanese forces rejected the proposal because they believed it would allow Syria to regain its influence in the country. In response, the pro-Syrian forces accused the parliamentary majority of trying to internationalize the situation in Lebanon and pave the way for U.S. tutelage.However, ministerial sources stressed their keenness on the Saudi-Egyptian attempt to help Lebanon resolve its ministerial crisis and mend ties with Syria. But the parliamentary majority rejects the return of Syrian tutelage or any other interference in the country's affairs. They also refuse to trade the truth for Lebanon's security and stability, and insist that Lebanon wants to stay away from international and regional conflicts.

Syria and Iran, an axis of upheaval
By Michael Young -Daily Star staff
Thursday, January 19, 2006
If you ask Druze leader Walid Jumblatt what he's worried about these days, he'll mention the growing rapprochement between Iran and Syria, which this month will reportedly spawn a bilateral strategic cooperation agreement. That, and the fact that Hizbullah will derive new vigor from the revivified amity between Tehran-Damascus (enabling it to better resist calls to disarm), partly explains why Jumblatt has been so publicly hostile to the party in recent days, after trying to mediate between it and the parliamentary majority a few months ago. But behind these parochial concerns, new regional alignments are taking shape and what happens with Iran and Syria lies at their very heart.
How will regional change affect Lebanon? The aborted effort by Saudi Arabia and Egypt to sponsor a Syrian-Lebanese deal last week showed how vulnerable both Cairo and Riyadh are in facing a Syrian regime fighting for its survival. The Saudis are apparently afraid that Syria might sick Al-Qaeda on them - and the disclosure last week that Syria had infiltrated radical Islamists into Lebanon (a scenario officials in Beirut take very seriously) did little to reassure them that President Bashar Assad would avoid provoking regional instability to save himself.
As for Egypt, all Assad has to do is mention the Muslim Brotherhood for President Hosni Mubarak to break into a cold sweat. If the Baath were to collapse in Damascus in favor of the Brotherhood, Assad may have warned, how would the Egyptian regime be able to contain its own Brotherhood, which did alarmingly well recently in parliamentary elections? Worse, if Assad were ousted, how would the project to promote Gamal Mubarak - another son slated to inherit power from his father - fare? Not well; in fact Bashar's failure would probably be a killer blow to Gamal's chances.
So, the Lebanese can expect little from the butter-legged Arab "powerhouses" who fear the unknown of Assad's departure far more than they do the persistent instability the Syrian president has visited on them and the region since he decided last year to extend the mandate of President Emile Lahoud. This has led the two countries into a flagrant contradiction, where they routinely call on Syria to cooperate with the United Nations investigation into Rafik Hariri's assassination, even as they know the truth would likely mean Assad's downfall. Their calculation seems to be that Syria must buy time for the investigation to lose its momentum through divisions in the international community.
However, that doesn't quite explain why the Saudis allowed former Syrian Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam to appear on Al-Arabiyya at the end of 2005, only to later spike his interviews with Saudi-owned newspapers. There seems to be dissonance in Riyadh, and that suave paragon of Arabic diplomatic immobility, Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal, may have reasserted control over the kingdom's Syrian policy, after it was momentarily taken over by Bandar bin Sultan, the former ambassador to the United States. In a Financial Times article published this week, Prince Saud was familiarly wary of change when mentioning his new proposal to reduce Lebanese-Syrian tensions: "We have enough problems as it is. It's about time we resolve the ones we have - Palestine, Iraq - instead of establishing more." On the basis of what the Saudis were willing to accept last week, however, it is Lebanon, not Syria, that can be expected to come out of the process the more displeased with its results.
More important, however, is how the five permanent members of the Security Council address the Iranian-Syrian-Hizbullah triad. Here, there are a number of possible permutations that may either strengthen the Syrian regime and Hizbullah, or weaken them and ensure that pessimists, like Jumblatt, are wrong. Much will depend on how the permanent five deal with Iran's nuclear capability. The reason is this: what they decide on Iran may lead to tradeoffs involving Syria.
For example, if the Russians specifically go along with the U.S. and the European Union-3 - Britain, France, and Germany - and vote on a resolution punishing Iran at the Security Council, Moscow may demand, in exchange, greater flexibility from the U.S. and France on Syria. That doesn't necessarily mean Russia would undermine the UN investigation, but it might seek to lift the accelerator on punitive UN action, or merely stronger Security Council resolutions addressing Syrian noncompliance in the Hariri case. Absent tougher measures, Assad would have more latitude to string the new investigator, Serge Brammertz, along, wasting time while awaiting more propitious international circumstances.
Conversely, if Russia and China hinder the Americans, British and French on Iran at the Security Council, they may have to compensate by approving, or merely abstaining, if the UN decides to tighten the screws on Syria. Iran is worth more to the Russians and Chinese than Syria is, but it is also viewed as a greater threat by the Bush administration. Despite this, the U.S. must prepare a fallback position where Russian and Chinese obstruction on Iran can be cashed in elsewhere, particularly on Syria. Now that former Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul Bremer has revealed in a recently-published memoir that Assad sought in 2003 to provoke a Shiite uprising against the American-led coalition, the Bush administration could make a strong domestic case that the Syrian regime has proven itself to be beyond the pale.
One might have to factor in another development. If Syria and Iran formalize a strategic relationship soon, the Bush administration will interpret this as a return to the Damascus-Tehran axis of the 1980s - no less "evil" than the one outlined by George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would be caught in the crossfire between the Americans on the one hand, and Syria and Iran on the other. This could considerably complicate Arab efforts to save Assad's skin, since the Saudis and Egyptians won't readily want to run afoul of the U.S.
The greater likelihood is that there will be no clear-cut outcomes. The Russians and Chinese will give Syria sustenance whatever happens, because autocracies tend to band together; the U.S. and France will push as hard as they can on the Hariri investigation, because that alone can decisively trap Syria. The Arab states will try to help Syria, but probably won't resolve the inconsistency of propping Assad up while also demanding he collaborate fully with the UN inquiry. Compromises will have to be made on all sides, but where these will lead is unclear. Iran's friendliness to Syria might help Assad; or it might seal his doom.
***Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

Syria Shows Another Sign of Seeking to Quell Internal Critics
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN-New York Times
Published: January 18, 2006
CAIRO, Jan. 18 -- Syria freed two prominent political prisoners today, offering another sign that President Bashar al-Assad is trying to mollify domestic critics as he faces increased pressure from a United Nation investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The two, Riad Seif and Maamoun al-Homsi, both former members of Parliament, were among five political prisoners freed without notice by the Syrian government, according to a human rights lawyer, Anwar al-Bunni. Mr. Seif and Mr. Homsi spent five years behind bars after they were stripped of their parliamentary immunity and arrested for calling for political change and an end to systemic corruption.
"Despite the importance of releasing these prisoners, there are hundreds others that should also be released," Mr. Bunni said. "So many others. The matter needs a clear and brave political decision to completely close the file of political imprisonment."
The sudden release is the latest in a series of moves by President Assad aimed at shoring up support at home and satisfying critics abroad. In October 2005, for example, Syria said it would address longstanding citizenship claims of thousands of its Kurdish residents, and then two days ago it announced that a law would be passed next month allowing political parties to challenge the Baath Party's monopoly on power.
"This is part of a grand picture of change to conduct political reforms which are needed and which have been demanded by Arabs, foreigners and Syrians for the past five years," said Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst and writer, who lives in Damascus.
The investigation into Mr. Hariri's death, which began to sputter late last year after a key witnesses against the government said he had been kidnapped and forced to lie, regained a sense of momentum in recent weeks. That renewed impetus was provided by former Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam, a longtime insider and ally of Mr. Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad. Mr. Khaddam said that Bashar al-Assad had threatened the former Lebanese prime minister months before his assassination in Beirut in February 2005.
Since Mr. Khaddam's remarks, made in Paris, where he now lives, investigators have asked to interview President Assad, who has refused, risking rebuke from the United Nations Security Council, which passed a resolution demanding Syria fully cooperate with the investigation.
Officially, several political analysts and writers said, the president agreed to release the political prisoners in advance of a conference of the Arab Union of Lawyers, which will be held in Damascus next week. Mr. Moubayed said that Mr. Assad had released the prisoners in response to a request by the leaders of the union.
"The president had promised to release them so we can say this is in consent to the demands of the Arab lawyers who are meeting in solidarity with Syria and the pressures and challenges it is facing," Fayez Sara, a Syrian political analyst and writer, said.
But others see a much broader domestic agenda at play. Mr. Moubayed said that Mr. Assad was supposed to address the lawyers' conference with a speech focusing on a broad array of domestic issues - from the economy to political freedoms.
"Part of it is to build domestic support," Mr. Moubayed said. "Part of it is to prove that it wasn't us who stopped domestic reforms, it was Vice President Khaddam. Part if it, contrary to what many people believe, is that the regime is much stronger than what people believe."
The arrest of Mr. Homsi and Mr. Seif in 2001 marked the end of a brief thaw, called by some the Damascus Spring, in which the government began to allow some degree of free speech. Pro-democracy leaders, like Mr. Seif, had begun to hold so-called "democracy forums" in each other's homes, where people packed into small living rooms and dining rooms to promote political freedoms. Mr. Homsi's arrest in August of that year signaled the end of the new tolerance when he was thrown in jail for staging a hunger strike to protest government corruption.
Mr. Seif, who was declared a "prisoner of conscience" by Amnesty International, was arrested two months later after he held a democracy forum in his home that attracted hundreds.
Despite his years in prison, Mr. Seif managed in October to add his name to the "Damascus declaration," a broad call for democratic change issued by a coalition of normally factious opposition groups.
At the same time that he has moved to quiet the political opposition, or at least calm it, President Assad has also looked to an old friend of Syria, Iran, to help buttress its position against the international community, political analysts said.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to visit Damascus on Thursday. The Iranian leader is also battling international pressure and growing isolation over his country's determination to move ahead with a nuclear program, which some countries, including England, France, Germany and the United States, have said is intended to produce weapons.
"What is taking place today is like an attempted Syrian-Iranian alliance to confront the international community, which will result in big harm for both countries, who should instead resort to political solutions for their problems," Mr. Sara, the Syrian writer, said.
***Mona el-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo for this article.

Syria frees five prominent opposition prisoners
Wed Jan 18, 2006
By Rasha Elass-DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Five prominent Syrian opposition figures, whose freedom had been demanded by the United States, were released from prison on Wednesday, a human rights activist said. Anwar al-Bunni said Riad Seif and Maamoun al-Homsi, both former deputies, as well as Walid al-Bunni, Habib Issa and Fawaz Tello, were freed after a court cut their jail terms by seven months. The five men were sentenced to five years in prison in 2002 for violating the constitution but activists said they were targeted because of their calls for reform.
They had been arrested in 2001, a year after President Bashar al-Assad came to power promising reform. Their movement was dubbed in the western press as the "Damascus Spring".
Seif told pan-Arab Al Jazeera television station that his release was a move in the right direction by the authorities and acknowledged it came after international pressure on Syria.
"We all know that the current local, regional and international circumstances necessitate a review of all the policies of the past and re-evaluating them and moving to a new stage," he said.
"Every Syrian citizen must feel that he has a country and that he is required to participate in the building of this country and that he has duties and responsibilities."
Assad introduced a measure of political freedom in Syria after succeeding his late father Hafez al-Assad, but the authorities have since cracked down on dissidents, saying they wanted to change the constitution and endanger the state.
"We were not wrong, we were working for the common good... I think it is clear now that we were right," Seif said.
U.S. President George W. Bush called on Syria last month to release at least nine political prisoners, including the five, after accusing it of denying opposition activists "the fundamental right to freedom of opinion and expression".
Syria is under mounting international pressure after a U.N. inquiry implicated Syrian officials in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri in Beirut in February. Continued ...
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Lebanon rejects plan to ease tensions with Syria
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
BEIRUT, Lebanon
Lebanon's prime minister on Wednesday appeared to reject an Arab mediation plan to ease tensions with Syria, saying it did not address Beirut's claims that Damascus was behind a series of assassinations and bombings that rocked the tiny country last year. Fuad Saniora said the reported Saudi plan "does not fulfill Lebanese aspirations" and that the "ideas" relayed by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal "do not solve the current problems."
The purported Saudi plan, which has never been made public but has been spoken of by Arab diplomats and reported in the Arab media, is said to be based on Syrian proposals that, among other things, call for joint security coordination between Beirut and Damascus, diplomatic recognition and demarcation of their shared border.

Syrian Kurds, a potential danger for Assad
by Bashdar Pusho Ismaeel -18 January, 2006 -SYRIA
Marginalized and the target of repression for more than 40 years, the 2.5 million Kurds living in Syria are a potential resource for the U.S. in its struggle against the Assad regime. Damascus (AsiaNews) – Marginalized for over 40 years, when not the actual target of violence and killings, by the Baathist regime of the Assad, father and son, to a great extent ignored by international public opinion, but now, in the wake of developments in northern Iraq, the 2.5 million Syrian Kurds could become an important wire for the U.S. to pull in its plans for the Middle East.
Syrian Kurds make up some 10% of the population, and many of them are considered stateless and have no access to ordinary state services; the areas in which they live have undergone a long process of impoverishment and have recently witnessed well-documented uprisings, ethnic violence and pro-U.S. demonstrations, which have garnered international media attention. Most notably, rioting broke out in Qamishli in March 2004 which left at least a dozen people dead, hundreds more arrested and mass looting, culminating in a tense atmosphere in the region, which has been further compounded by the murder of cleric Maashouq al-Haznawi, in Aleppo last June, which instigated further rioting and violence.
But still today, as a result of Law 93 of 1962, some 300,000 Kurds, classified as foreigners, still have no access to state health, education, and other services and are unable to travel. Ever fearful of cross border influence from Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, Syria sought to create an “Arab Belt”, but failed given the newfound political power of Iraqi Kurds.
Now, under international pressure from the U.N. resolution for an international inquiry into the death of Lebanon’s former prime minister, Rafic Hariri, and the newfound unity of Syrian opposition groups, the Kurds could prove to be more useful to the U.S. than a great military arsenal in its quest to oust the current regime.

Thousands of Lebanese chant "Death to America" in protest at U.S. Embassy
By: Associated Press
Published: January 18, 2006 Thousands of pro-Syrian Lebanese protested near the U.S. Embassy Tuesday against what they called American meddling in the country's affairs. Three days ago police violently broke up a similar demonstration that coincided with the visit of a key U.S. envoy to the Middle East. Tuesday's protest occurred during a visit to the Middle East by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who made stops in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Waving Lebanon's red, green and white flag, students and political activists from 18 pro-Syrian groups, including the militant Hezbollah organization, chanted in unison "Death to America!" and "Beirut is free! Free! America get out!" During the one-hour protest, demonstrators also chanted support for Syria and Iran - the United States' main opponents in the Middle East. About 150 riot police held the protesters behind a barricade of barbed wire about 500 meters (yards) from the heavily fortified embassy compound in Aukar, northern Beirut.
Police estimated the crowd at 17,000. A Hezbollah official put the number at 25,000.
Veiled Shiite Muslim students took part, carrying placards denouncing the United States. "We reject American tutelage over Lebanon and we support Hezbollah's weapons. We don't want America to interfere in Lebanon," said Zahraa Ali Muslimani, 16, one of the women students. A protest organizer told the crowd through a loudspeaker that U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman had become "a delivery man whose job is not to deliver McDonald's meals but conspiracies."
Pro-Syrians accuse the United States of trying to influence Lebanon since Syria was forced to withdraw its troops from the country last April after massive international and Lebanese pressure over the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The United States is one of several Western countries that backed a U.N. Security Council resolution in 2004 that demanded an end to Syrian interference in Lebanon and the disarming of all militias in the country - a reference to the pro-Syrian Hezbollah. Hezbollah, which the United States lists as a terrorist organization, has refused to disarm, saying it is defending Lebanon from Israeli attacks. Hezbollah led a guerrilla war against Israel's 18-year occupation in south Lebanon that ended in 2000.

State's Welch Calls for Unity, Security, Democracy in Lebanon
Condemns Syrian interference in Lebanon, obstruction of Hariri probe
17 January 2006-US Dept Of State
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch voiced his support for Lebanese efforts to establish a secure, democratic state and condemned what he called “the regrettable, intentional provocations to harm Lebanon's unity that have come from outside.”
Speaking to reporters in Beirut, Lebanon, after his January 14 meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, Welch said, “We are determined to support Lebanon in ending forever the practice of political assassination that has plagued this country for so long.”
In particular, Welch criticized Syria for its direct and indirect interference in Lebanese affairs. He also called on Damascus to stop obstructing the U.N. investigation into the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.
“We don’t understand why, if there is no guilt on their part, they would be hesitant in answering the [U.N.] commission,” he said.He said if Syria continues to obstruct the investigation, the United States will refer the matter back to the U.N. Security Council for further action. Welch also rejected the idea that the United States would accept any compromise allowing Syria to evade its obligations to cooperate fully with the investigators. “The United States has not, and will not, make any deal with Syria or anyone else in the international community at the expense of the freedom of Lebanon,” he said.
In recent days, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have proposed an initiative aimed at defusing the escalating political tension between Damascus and Beirut. However, key figures involved in those discussions have made it clear that the initiative is not aimed at protecting Syria from the U.N. probe.

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES
BEIRUT, LEBANON
Following is the transcript of Welch’s remarks:
(begin transcript)
January 14, 2006
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs C. David Welch
Press availability following meeting with Prime Minister Siniora
Beirut, Lebanon-January 14, 2006
Assistant Secretary Welch: I am very glad to be back in Beirut. I am joined here today by Ambassador Feltman and Mr. Elliott Abrams from the White House. We’ve all had the opportunity to meet today with several important figures here in Lebanon. Just now we completed a long and productive discussion with His Excellency Prime Minister Siniora. As I have come to expect from my several visits to Lebanon, my meetings with the Prime Minister, and our meeting today, are useful, important opportunities. We discussed the situation here in Lebanon, the relationships of importance to developments in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region, and of course the importance of the bilateral relationship between the United States and Lebanon. Mr. Abrams and I emphasized to the Prime Minister the strong commitment of the President of the United States to the people of Lebanon, and to this government, during what America recognizes as a period of great opportunity and historic transformation.
The United States remains confident that the discussions being held by the Lebanese people present the promise of a strong, united and democratic Lebanon, which offers security, hope and prosperity for all its people. The diverse population of this country is a rich source of talent and energy upon which to draw to create transparent and accountable government institutions, a strong economy and a hopeful future. We Americans admire you in Lebanon.
The Prime Minister described the steps his government is taking to advance its agenda for political, economic and institutional reform. We support this Lebanese-designed and Lebanese-led process. In our view, implementation of comprehensive reform will give the Lebanese greater confidence, promote interest from other countries interested in participating in the Lebanese economy, and demonstrate accountability and transparency of government to you, the Lebanese people.
I shared also with the Prime Minister, as well, our deep admiration for the courage and strength of the people of Lebanon in achieving your vision of a secure, democratic state, despite the regrettable intentional provocations to harm Lebanon's unity that have come from outside. I extended my deepest condolences on the tragic loss of Gibran Tueni, Member of Parliament and respected journalist and advocate of freedom. Despite his loss, the champions of Lebanon’s liberty still stand tall. And there are many others who join him in advocating freedom, independence and full sovereignty for this nation. We are determined to support Lebanon in ending forever the practice of political assassination that has plagued this country for so long.
As we have said repeatedly, and as Secretary of State Rice recently re-affirmed, Syria must cease obstructing the investigation into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and must cooperate fully and unconditionally with the United Nations Independent International Investigation Commission. This is required by UN Security Council resolutions. The United States calls upon Syria to respond positively to the requests of this investigation commission. If Syrian obstruction continues, we will not hesitate to refer this matter back to the Security Council for further action.
Let me be very, very clear in another statement. We stand firmly with the people of Lebanon in rejecting any deals or compromise that would undermine this investigation or relieve Syria of its obligations under Security Council resolutions. We remain firmly committed to seeking justice and pursuing this investigation to its ultimate conclusions, wherever that may lead. The United States has not, and will not, make any deal with Syria or anyone else in the international community at the expense of the freedom of Lebanon. We believe firmly that Syria must cease its interference, including through the use of local proxies, in the internal affairs of Lebanon.
The commitment of United States to Lebanon and the Lebanese people is firm, enduring and non-negotiable. My visit to Beirut today, once again, testifies to the importance the United States accords its relationship with Lebanon. Thank you all very much. I’ll take one or two questions.
Question: Do you interpret the motives behind the Egyptian-Saudi initiative as attempting to undermine the investigation into the Hariri assassination?
Assistant Secretary Welch: I don’t believe that that was the intention of either Egypt or Saudi Arabia or anyone else in the international community. I think the demands put forward in the resolutions from the Council are really very explicit and clear and there can be no regression from those requests. We are all concerned to see this investigation proceed. I believe that is the determination of the Egyptian and Saudi leadership. I understand that because we have had direct contacts with them to clarify their objectives. As I said in my statement, there can be no deal or compromise about this and there won’t be.
Question: The U.S. has been accused of interference in the politics of Lebanon. And I believe you have heard about the protesters that are near here today. What is your comment?
Assistant Secretary Welch: I think with all that Lebanon has endured, I doubt that anyone can seriously say that the United States is interfering in Lebanese politics. We’re friends of the country. If anything, our motive here is to protect Lebanon, not interfere inside Lebanon. I think our record and our relationship attest to that. Insofar as the voices of the people are concerned, we’re always pleased to hear what those voices are—even when they may object to our policies. We believe strongly in the freedom of expression, even if people disagree with us, as long as it is done peacefully. That’s a right we have in our country and I am glad to see that others share it. We would just like it to be done peacefully.
Question: Are you going to meet some other personalities, and who are they, and why didn’t you meet with President Lahoud?
Assistant Secretary Welch: We expect to meet some other people this evening. We shall not be meeting the president.
Question: Why?
Assistant Secretary Welch: We believe that the democratic process should be allowed to unfold here in Lebanon with no interference from the outside and in a way that respects the rule of the people.
Question: You’ve warned Syria to cooperate with the UN international investigation. Is there a time frame in which Syria needs to comply with the Security Council? How long will you be patient?
Assistant Secretary Welch: We’re quite patient but the pace of the investigation is not set by the United States or any member of the Security Council or member of the international community. The investigation proceeds according to Mr. Mehlis, and now his successor Mr. Brammertz, and their direction of it. As I said, we want to see where it leads and it should lead wherever it is going to lead without any impediment from anyone, Syria or otherwise. The Council received reports that were very disturbing about Syrian cooperation. We sense that Syria is still hesitating in meeting the requirements of the resolution. We believe that this constitutes obstruction. This investigation must proceed. We don’t understand why, if there is no guilt on their part, they would be hesitant in answering the Commission.
Question: Many groups are calling for regime change in Syria, including the Syrian opposition and even in Lebanon. What is the U.S. view of regime change in Syria?
Assistant Secretary Welch: It’s good to hear some other voices come out of Syria and from outside Syria about what is going on there. We believe that Syria should change its policies as we have said on many occasions. We have concerns about Syria’s destabilizing behavior, sponsorship of terrorism, interference in Lebanon, its manipulation of some of the Palestinian groups and these are concerns we share with others. We believe that Syrian behavior should change. This is a very difficult situation for Damascus. I believe they are increasingly isolated in the international community because of this behavior, and it’s up to them to change it.
I’ll take one more question.
Question: With respect to implementation of UNSCR 1559, the U.S. insists on implementation, while here in Lebanon some believe that this should be settled among the Lebanese. Do you have a comment?
Assistant Secretary Welch: The requirements of 1559 are very important and we believe they should be met. There is a process underway to do that. Some parts of the resolution have been addressed and others remain to be addressed. We respect that there should be a Lebanese dialogue about how to accomplish that, just as long as there is no compromise about the destination.
Thank you all very much.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Hizbollah calls for Arab intervention in Lebanon
Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:22 AM ET
PICTURES: Campaign Rally By Hamas Supporters in Gaza
BEIRUT (Reuters) - The head of Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla group has called on Saudi Arabia and Egypt to intervene to resolve a crisis brewing in Lebanon.
In an interview published on Wednesday in the pan-Arab al-Hayat newspaper, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah appeared to back Saudi mediation to ease tensions between Lebanon and Syria, and called for efforts to resolve rifts among Lebanese leaders.
"Intervention is a must and there can't be any Arab delay to do what is necessary," Nasrallah said. "The situation in Lebanon is bad and it has dangerous repercussions."
Lebanon has been gripped by a political crisis since pro-Syrian Shi'ite ministers boycotted the cabinet five weeks ago, paralyzing a government dominated by anti-Syrian officials of a Sunni-led parliamentary majority coalition.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal has said that Saudi Arabia has presented Lebanon and Syria with a plan to defuse tensions between the two countries.
He told a British newspaper this week that the kingdom had made proposals for an agreement, but was waiting for a response from Beirut and Damascus.
The crisis escalated in recent days with a war of words between pro-Syrian Hizbollah and fierce anti-Syrian Druze leader Walid Jumblatt that evoked memories of the 1975-1990 civil war.
The civil war ended after a 1989 agreement by Lebanese parliamentarians at a meeting in Taif in Saudi Arabia.
Anti-Syrian politicians in Beirut have sharply criticized reported Arab efforts to mediate, with some even calling for the toppling of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"We support any Arab initiative and denounce any effort to spoil any Arab initiative," Nasrallah said, warning that tensions among the Lebanese also gave reason for alarm.
"I don't call on Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the Arab League to intervene between Lebanon and Syria only, but I also call them to intervene between the Lebanese," the leader of the Shi'ite Muslim guerrilla group said.
"If the Lebanese are left to themselves, they would not be able to build their country with the current mentality." Continued © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Iran president to visit Syria in show of support
DAMASCUS, Jan 18 (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits Syria on Thursday in a signal to the world that the two allies, both facing threats of referral to the U.N. Security Council, will not be cowed.
The two-day visit, Ahmadinejad's first bilateral foreign trip since taking office in August, comes at a time of intense pressure for Syria and Iran, caught in separate standoffs with the international community, analysts say.
"This visit comes as part of a series of policy stances Ahmadinejad has made since taking office. Iran has already announced its support for Syria's president. This expresses clear Iranian backing for Syria in times of pressure," said Talal Atrisi, a Lebanese analyst and Iran expert.
"Iran also wants to tell the world that pressure from the United States and European Union on the nuclear file will not detract it from its interest in the Syria-Lebanon-Israel front."Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has already made a point of being the first head of a foreign state to visit Iran after Ahmadinejad, a religious conservative, took office.
Iran's new president seized that opportunity to vow closer cooperation in the face of U.S. pressure and is returning the visit at a time when Assad finds himself particularly isolated.#
The United States and the European Union's three biggest powers, Britain, France and Germany said this month that Iran's resumption of nuclear research meant it should be referred to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
Iran removed the U.N. seals on its uranium enrichment equipment but says it has no intention of building nuclear arms and seeks only a peaceful programme.
DIPLOMATIC PRESSURE
Syria also faces pressure from the Security Council, which passed a resolution in October demanding it cooperate fully with a U.N. inquiry into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri or risk unspecified further action.
Syria has denied any involvement in the murder but has said it will not allow investigators to question Assad in the case.
Lebanon has been gripped by a political crisis since Hariri's killing which has divided the country between pro-and anti-Syrian factions.
Neither Syria nor Iran face an imminent threat of military action or broad sanctions at the Security Council, but will come under more diplomatic pressure on every front, analysts say.
Long fixtures on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, Tehran and Damascus are the main backers of Lebanon's Hizbollah group, itself under pressure to disarm in line with a U.N. resolution that last year forced Syria to pull its troops out of its smaller neighbour after a 29-year military presence.
Hizbollah, the only Lebanese group to keep its arms after Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war, was instrumental in ending Israel's 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000.
Both Syria and Iran accuse the United States of seeking to force regional backing for policies that further the interests of their arch foe Israel at the expense of Muslims and Arabs. They defend Hizbollah as resistance against the Jewish state.
Allies in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Syria and Iran also face U.S. accusations that they are turning a blind eye to insurgents crossing into Iraq to derail the democratic process.
Both say they are doing their utmost to control their long and porous borders with Iraq.
"Iran wants to send a message that it is not too concerned about this international pressure, that its hands are not tied because it is the United States and EU states that are split on how to pursue the threats they have made to Iran," Atrisi said. (Additional reporting by Lin Nueihed in Beirut and Parisa Hafezi in Tehran)

Death and Damascus are fatal attractions
Worldstage-By Patrick Bishop in Beirut
(Filed: 18/01/2006)
The Lebanese famously love life but they also sure like death. Rounding a bend in the coast road the other day, we came upon the crumpled, smoking wreck of a car and a chubby man in a white pullover lying face down in the road. Two young men were crouching beside him. They had their hands raised. For a moment it seemed that they were administering some sort of first aid, but no. They were snapping what it was now clear was a corpse on their mobile phone cameras.
"This is Lebanon," said my young, sophisticated, female companion when I expressed mild surprise. "Everyone would have the same reaction. I was thinking of taking a picture myself."
The prime example of the nation's necrophile tendencies is to be found in Beirut's Martyrs' Square. There, in a large marquee, lies the biggest martyr of them all. The air inside is thick with the cloying smell from the lilies banked over Rafik Hariri's tomb. Koranic verses issue softly from loudspeakers and a sign nearby demands "THE TRUTH".
It is 339 days since former prime minister Hariri was murdered along with 22 others in a huge blast on the Beirut seafront. The passing days are marked on digital electronic billboards around town. The effect is of a reverse time-bomb. Instead of counting down to catastrophe, say pessimists, Lebanon is counting up.
The more time that elapses without Hariri's killers being properly identified and punished, the more volatile the country becomes. Almost everyone, including the UN investigators diligently and boldly probing the crime, believe they know who did it. The prime suspects, they say, are Syria and its creatures in the Lebanese security services. Damascus, though, is damned if it will admit it.
Assassinations are nothing new in Lebanon. This one is different. A cross-confessional political coalition backed by strong international allies is refusing to allow it to be brushed under the carpet as so many previous political killings have been.
If they can nail Hariri's killers, they believe, they can finally lift the heavy hand of Syria from Lebanon's shoulders. Under massive international pressure Syria finally withdrew its troops last year, ostensibly ending almost 30 years of control. But it maintains its influence through an army of agents and its Shi'ite allies in Hizbollah and Amal.
Politics is fracturing into pro- and anti-Syrian camps. Roughly speaking, the Christians, the Sunnis and the Druzes are united in wanting their bullying big brother next door to leave them alone. The Shias, even though they unofficially make up the majority, still feel their close relationship with Damascus is worth something.
Hizbollah and Amal ministers are currently boycotting cabinet meetings, seeking powers that will allow them to veto decisions that threaten their interests. The stand-off has been inflamed by incendiary rhetoric from the most vocal of the anti-Syrian camp, the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt.
To his enemies, Jumblatt is as slippery as the fresh-pressed oil that flows from the olive trees that cluster on the slopes of his fiefdom in the Chouf mountains south of Beirut. Even his nimble mind may no longer recall all the alliances he has made and unmade in the 30-odd years he has steered the Druze minority through Lebanon's killer shoals.
Until fairly recently he was a friend of Hizbollah, but now he questions their loyalty and accuses them of forming an axis that "begins on the shores of the Mediterranean and finishes in Persia" - a reference to Hizbollah's powerful patrons in Teheran. He has also called their determination to hang on to their arms "deceitful". This sally opened the way for a counterblast from Hizbollah's phrasemakers. "If deceit were personified its name would be Walid Jumblatt," they replied. Elsewhere, this wordplay would not mean much. Here, it creates deep nervousness. The prime minister, Fouad Siniora, has appealed to both sides to "save the country more hazards at this sensitive crossroads".
That "crossroads" is the question of Lebanon's future relationship with Syria. The issue may be settled peacefully through the internal dialogue that everyone is always calling for. Then again, given Lebanon's history, it may not.
Alongside the hot words are disturbing rumours. Everyone believes that all the political factions are quietly bringing in more light weaponry to augment arms that were tucked away discreetly after peace finally arrived in 1990.
Lebanon has loved its years of peace and is desperate to extend them. But the ghost of Rafik Hariri is abroad, demanding that Beirut and Damascus decide what they mean to each other.
Syria's attitude towards Lebanon goes beyond simple considerations of realpolitik. It feels a deep fraternal historical possessiveness towards the place. Like the French in Algeria, it sees its interest as benign. It can't understand why the protective arm is being shaken off and is hurt by the rejection.
This is a crisis that won't go away. America is determined to pursue the Hariri issue in order to keep the diplomatic thumbscrews on Syria, which it places firmly on the wrong side in the war against terror. Damascus seems equally set on withholding the complete co-operation with the UN inquiry that the US is demanding.
These are exciting times for Lebanese nationalists. But in Lebanon excitement and danger are seldom far apart.
Previous story: Doing nothing in Iran is not an option

Lebanon wants UN force in South for another year
18 Jan 2006 00:21:08 GMT
By Irwin Arieff- UNITED NATIONS, Jan 17 (Reuters) - Beirut wants U.N. peacekeepers to stay in southern Lebanon at least through January 2007, it said on Tuesday, promising in the meantime to keep trying to extend its own authority to the South. The request for the mandate of the U.N. force to be prolonged to Jan. 31, 2007, came in a Jan. 11 letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan from Lebanese U.N. envoy Ibrahim Assaf. The letter was circulated at the world body on Tuesday.
The mandate of the 2,000-strong U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, will expire July 31 unless it is renewed by the U.N. Security Council. The 15-nation council is to discuss the mission in a closed-door meeting on Wednesday. Annan and the Security Council have pressed Lebanon's government to extend its authority across the South since Israel pulled out of the region in May 2000, ending 22 years of occupation. After the Israeli withdrawal, the militant group Hizbollah dominated the area, profiting from a power vacuum there. Hizbollah guerrillas have since sporadically clashed with Israel forces.
Hizbollah last year entered into the Lebanese government, the first formed since a September 2004 Security Council resolution demanding that all armed groups on Lebanese soil be disarmed and dismantled.
Largely as a result of that U.N. resolution, neighboring Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon in April 2005.
But the new government has shied from trying to disarm Hizbollah, which has strong popular support.
Assaf's letter made no mention of Hizbollah but accused Israel of repeatedly violating Lebanese airspace and failing to respect its sovereignty. He said UNIFIL's continued presence in the South was needed to ensure Israel respects the border it shares with Lebanon. But the government also "reaffirms its firm intention to preserve the security of the southern region where the Lebanese security forces continue to reinforce their presence in order to prevent acts undermining security," his letter said.

U.S. wants ex-Hezbollah member grounded
Louie Rosella -Jan 17, 2006 -
THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS
U.S. security officials want a 38-year-old Meadowvale man who once belonged to a Middle East terrorist group placed on Canada's much-anticipated No Fly list once it's in place later this year. Theoretically, it could mean that shoe store owner Sami Kahil will be grounded permanently.
Brian Doyle, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), wouldn't confirm that the U.S. will go so far as to recommend to Transport Canada that Kahil be placed on Canada's No Fly list.
But, he did say his government would like to see Canadians such as Kahil, who are already on the U.S. No Fly list, placed on a similar Canadian list because there are 3,000 domestic flights leaving Canada each week to pass over U.S. territory.
"I'm sure we'll have an interest," he said yesterday. "We want to keep those who we feel are a threat...from flying into American airspace. Co-operation between both governments is going to be great, and we'll assist in whichever way we can."
But, added Doyle, "as far as what influence the DHS would have on Canada's air transport system, I really can't speak to that. If they ask our consultation, we're there to help."
The U.S. No Fly list was implemented to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.Transport Canada spokesperson Vanessa Vermette said Canadian authorities will determine who is on a Canadian No Fly list.
Vermette said Canada and the U.S. officials work closely when it comes to aviation security.
Kahil was supposed to be arriving for a week-long vacation with his wife and two young sons when he was instead jailed on Jan. 5 in Ixtapa, Mexico. Gun-toting Mexican authorities detained Kahil, who was born in Lebanon, shortly after his Air Transat flight landed, because his name appeared on the controversial U.S. No Fly list.
After Canada's Foreign Affairs department intervened, Kahil was flown back to Canada on a private flight two days later under the watch of two Royal Canadian Mounted police (RCMP) officers. Kahil and his family maintained it was a case of mistaken identity. All along, American officials such as Doyle, have insisted there was no mistake.
This week, it was revealed that Kahil originally came to this country using a false passport, was a member of the Middle East terrorist group Hezbollah more than 15 years ago, and was twice denied refugee status in Canada.
Since his return to Canada on Jan. 7, Kahil and his lawyers have been working to clear his name. Kahil said yesterday his background still doesn't explain why his name was on the U.S. No Fly list, saying it's well in the past and that he was forced into membership of the terrorist group.
"I'm established here. I have a wife, kids and a business," said Kahil, adding he experienced no trouble when he took previous flights to the U.S. and Mexico in recent months.
Doyle said the U.S. is working on a new "secure flight program," that will allow authorities to nab people on their No Fly list before their plane takes off, as opposed to when it reaches a destination. "It's important to develop a program to prevent (the inconvenience)...to the airline, the individual and other passengers," said Doyle. Theoretically, if Kahil is placed on the Canadian No Fly list, he will never be able to board a plane again. Doyle said the incident involving Kahil "was a great example of the greater information sharing on intelligence matters, post 9/11."

Jumblatt, Hezbollah spar
Web posted at: 1/17/2006 3:21:19
Source ::: Reuters BEIRUT: A row between pro-Syrian Hezbollah guerrillas and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt has plunged Lebanon deeper into a political crisis. In an unprecedented attack, Jumblatt accused Shi’ite Hezbollah of hiding behind its “weapons of treachery”. Hezbollah, close to Syria and Iran, responded with a biting attack against Jumblatt.
“Which are the weapons of treachery, the weapons of the resistance or those of Walid Jumblatt? The arms that liberated and protected Lebanon or those that destroyed, expelled, burned, killed and committed massacres?” it said referring to his role as a warlord during the war. “If treachery was embodied as a man in these bad times, it would be Walid Jumblatt”.

Ministers of Hezbollah, Amal won''t resign -- says MP
BEIRUT, Jan 17 (KUNA) -- Naeem Qassem, a Hezbollah MP, said Tuesday government ministers of Hezbollah and Amal movements would not resign from the cabinet.
Qassem told reporters the resignation was not under discussion and said Hezbollah and Amal movements were ready to continue the dialogue with all concerned parties to reach an understanding satisfying all sides.
The ministers of both movements "will not quit from their duties and will not leave Lebanon an easy bait for partition and division ..." Qassem, asked if the dialogue reached a dead-end, said all possibilities would remain open. "It might be the resignation of the government and the formation of a national unity government, or holding early elections." Five ministers from Hezbollah and Amal suspended their membership in the 24-member cabinet after the government requested the UN to expand mandate of an international investigation commission to probe all assassinations in Lebanon.

Lebanese President Calls on Citizens to Be United
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 09:40 PM
Beirut, SANA -President Emile Lahoud of Lebanon on Tuesday said that convulsive political stances and accusations’ exchange in Lebanon could deepen disputes among the Lebanese in a time they should be united and consolidated.
“We encourage calls that could bridge the gap among the Lebanese and fully support each dialogue that lead to a vast national reconciliation,” President Lahoud, meeting Lebanese political and religious figures added.
“If previous conditions prevented us from fulfilling this important national goal, the new accelerating developments make me once again call on all Lebanese to rise to the level of challenges,” Lebanese National news agency quoted Lahoud as saying.

Cheney has talks on Syria crisis in Saudi, Egypt
Tue Jan 17, 2006
By Caren Bohan
RIYADH (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday held talks with Saudi, Egyptian and Lebanese leaders in a bid to resolve a stand-off between Syria and the United Nations over the assassination of a former Lebanese premier.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two Arab heavyweights who are key U.S. allies in the region, are trying to defuse tension over the killing of ex-Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri, and Saudi officials have talked of a Saudi mediation effort.
Syria denies any involvement in the murder of Hariri and 22 others and has said it will not let U.N. investigators question Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over the killing, threatening a new showdown with the international community.
"The message has been made clear by everyone including Saudi Arabia and Egypt to the Syrians. And the United States has said it clearly over and over," said an Arab official involved with Cheney's meetings, explaining the message was Syria must cooperate fully with the United Nations.
Analysts say Egypt and Saudi Arabia are worried that the crisis between Syria and the U.N. could escalate and detract attention from other problems destabilizing the region.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told Britain's Financial Times in an interview published on Tuesday that the kingdom had made proposals for an agreement, but was waiting for a response from Beirut and Damascus.
He said the kingdom was not seeking a compromise on the United Nations probe into Hariri's killing.
Cheney declined to say if he had discussed the Saudi mediation effort with King Abdullah.
CHENEY MEETS HARIRI'S SON
Before leaving Riyadh for Kuwait, Cheney had a short meeting with Hariri's son Saad, a member of parliament and Hariri's political heir."It was very good meeting," a source close to Hariri said. "They talked about the situation in the region and the latest developments in the investigation."

Arab Liberals Argue about America
by Barry Rubin-Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/890
Fouad Ajami, the Lebanese-American analyst, notes the contradiction of "an Arab world that besieges American embassies for visas and at the same time celebrates America's calamities."[1] But this seeming paradox actually makes sense. The more attractive the United States is to Arabs, the more pro-U.S. feelings threaten Arab nationalists and Islamists. As a result, both Arab nationalists and Islamists have an even greater incentive to distort Washington's policies and the nature of U.S. society in their propaganda. For these opponents of liberalism, the United States becomes the great Satan whose devilishness justifies their behavior and explains their failures. The anti-American card is too useful and popular to be abandoned.
Arab liberals—those who seek democratic reform as well as both civil and human rights—have to handle and perhaps battle against such anti-Americanism. The complexity of their struggle has grown since President George W. Bush declared democratization to be the pillar of his foreign policy in the Middle East.[2] To those suspicious of the United States and its motives, Washington's involvement in democracy promotion has become just one more proof of America's evil, subversive nature. Arab liberals have had to craft strategies to navigate the minefield of Arab political opinion and rhetoric. Their approach to the United States illustrates not only the many obstacles to liberalism but also the intellectually diverse nature of its proponents.
Accepting America
Abd al-Hamid al-Ansari, former dean of Shari‘a (Islamic law) and law at Qatar University, represents one end of the spectrum of the Arab liberal approach to the United States. He insists, for example, that Washington's response to 9-11 was a relatively moderate one in the context of legitimate self-defense. Other countries faced with such an assault would have been more aggressive and destructive.[3] He further argues that one of the most harmful Arab and Muslim mistakes is to view Washington as hostile. Muslims practice their faith freely in the United States. What the U.S. government is hostile to is the "destructive" form of radical Islam, he argues, which Muslims should also oppose.[4] Reviewing the history of U.S.-Arab relations, Ansari finds that "the positive aspects vastly outweigh the negative ones."[5] Moreover, he asks, what would be the situation if Washington had listened to Europeans who opposed military action in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Iraq? The Muslims in those places would be worse off if the White House had said that the Arabs were incapable of achieving democracy. He concludes that the Arab peoples need external help to defeat their dictators.[6]
Ansari's views represent the exception rather than the rule. It is rare for any Arab liberal to advocate an explicit change in Arab views of the United States. Seldom does the Arab debate go beyond mirror-imaging arguments to the analysis so typical in the Western approach to the Middle East—a serious, detached attempt to understand the basis and nature of another party's behavior. The same point applies to the cost of Arab hostility to the United States. Ansari notes that radical Arab rhetoric and action have always backfired. Instead of "burning American flags," he argued, Arabs should "win over America." Reform was one effective way to do so because, "The American people do not respect anyone who doesn't respect his own people."[7]
The liberal Kuwaiti politician Ahmad Bishara notes that few speak about U.S. idealism, its noble sacrifice, and its nurturing of human freedom. Although many Arabs have used a U.S. education to develop their own countries, across the Arab world, the media constantly promotes anti-American propaganda. A better view of the United States would be in the Arabs' interest, he concludes, for only by defusing the U.S. bogeyman, could they successfully struggle against despotic regimes and extremist Islamist opposition.[8]
Saudi columnist Anas Zahid, writing in the pan-Arab paper Asharq al-Awsat, ridicules the Arab media and the intelligentsia's constant calls for war or economic boycott against the United States and the West. "How," he asked, "do we fight countries from which we buy weapons and beg for a loaf of bread?" The West supplies the Arab world's medicine, food, aircraft, computers, clothes, diapers, and chocolate. The problem, he concludes, is not an East-West, Muslim-Christian, or Arab-Zionist struggle: "The issue is that we are backward … and do not want to face ourselves. Without facing ourselves we will not move one step forward."[9]
The respected Kuwaiti political philosopher Muhammad al-Rumaihi was one of the few who challenged the myth that Arab history has been one of fighting U.S. imperialism. Pointing out that Bush had just met with six Arab leaders, representing more than half of the Arab population, he noted that while the United States was the Arabs' main partner, Arabs talked of "resisting" and even defeating it. The Sudanese government, for example, requested U.S. help in resolving its civil war one day, but a week later bemoaned the fact that the Arabs do not fight the U.S. military in Iraq.[10]
A rare example of creative thinking about the nature of America itself comes from Abd al-Moneim Said, director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. Although he cautions against faith in a U.S. government that he sees as seeking to dominate the world, he also tries to understand the roots of U.S. success.[11] Americans are strong, Said suggests, because they view history not as Arabs do—as a way to boast of heroism or victimhood—but rather as a guide to do better. Again, unlike the Arab world, Americans criticize and reassess history to avoid repeating mistakes. While the U.S. government's international behavior may justify rancor, fabrications and distortions do not help Arabs deal with the world's sole superpower. He concludes: "We have concocted an American history tailor-made to the spirit of anti-American hostility that has swept the Arab world."[12]
Another part of the mistaken Arab assessment about the United States is an underestimation of Washington's power and determination. As Ahmad al-Jarallah, the editor-in-chief of the Kuwaiti dailies Al-Siyassa and the Arab Times, put it, the mainstream idea that the Arabs will defeat or outwait America assumes the United States is a cowardly country that will flee from places where it suffers heavy casualties—as in Vietnam, Beirut in 1983, or Somalia in 1993. But the United States has shown in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq that it does not give up easily. America's enemies are the ones "who ultimately will be consigned to the dustbin of history."[13]
For this bold, liberal fringe, changing perceptions of the United States is a key to success. If America was not such a terrible enemy, then its ideas and criticisms could be given serious consideration.
Blaming America for Arab Dictatorship
Many Arab liberals engage in anti-American rhetoric. Whether these liberals voice anti-Americanism for tactical reasons, to try to disprove the labels assigned to them by Arab nationalists or Islamists, or because of their own latent Arab nationalism, the net impact remains the same: while the liberals strive for democracy and reform, they promote anti-Americanism and inaccurate interpretations of Washington's policies. This presents a serious pitfall for liberals: by trying to fit into the existing discourse, they may reinforce its basic assumptions. Yet, if they break with the dominant concepts, they risk pariah status.
It has been hard for even open-minded Arabs to revise past tendentious assumptions in order to reexamine history. The dominant Arab intellectual system attributes the cause of all Arab problems to external villains. There are exceptions to this rule, but there are relatively few who propose the elements needed for a more coherent version of the United States and its policies. These include a better understanding of U.S. society and political culture; a willingness by Arabs to take responsibility for their own problems and shortcomings; the necessity to puncture the myth of Arab resistance to the United States as a central element in ideology and behavior; a reevaluation of stereotypes about U.S. policies on the Arab-Israeli conflict; contextualization of the accusation that Washington backs Arab dictatorships; and comprehension that the U.S. government can have good intentions toward the Arab world.
A common complaint is that the U.S. government has supported autocratic regimes. This accusation creates a Catch-22 for many liberals. On the one hand, many Arabs criticize the U.S. government for pursuing normal diplomacy with existing Arab regimes, arguing that this conveys either acceptance of or responsibility for the repressive governments in the Arab world. On the other hand, these same Arab commentators label any U.S. diplomatic pressure for change as proof of U.S. hostility toward Arab independence. Jordanian journalist Salameh Nematt, for example, charges that U.S. policy was the real reason for the failure of reform in the Arab world. All Arab states are either dependent on the United States or too busy defending themselves from attack by it. The U.S. accusation that Arab countries lacked democracy was just an excuse "to intervene in the states' domestic affairs."[14]
The claim of U.S. responsibility for Arab dictatorships gives rise to an irony. Egyptian intellectuals denounce U.S. calls for democracy as interference at the same time as they claim their government's repressive policy is underwritten by U.S. aid.[15] Saleh ibn Humaid, president of the Saudi Shura Council, complains that Washington is hypocritical about advocating freedom, democracy, and human rights because it backs autocratic, oppressive regimes.[16] Yet Ibn Humaid is an appointed official of a Saudi regime that is a leading example of American backing for a non-democratic government.
A similar case followed the Saudi government's March 2004 arrest of thirteen liberal dissidents. The U.S. State Department criticized Riyadh's move as repression of reformists. There were no cheers in the Arab media for this U.S. initiative on behalf of free speech in the Arab world, however. Rather, the governments and media reacted with anger, mobilizing public sentiment against Washington's attempts to back reform.[17]
This liberal hypocrisy is retroactive, too. Critics of U.S. policy seldom cite regimes glorified in the Arab discourse that have benefited wrongly from U.S. support. Gamal Abdel Nasser's regime was both the apex of the pan-Arab movement and also a repressive dictatorship. Washington sought to engage Nasser upon his seizure of power in the 1952 Egyptian revolution. Four years later, following Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal, President Dwight D. Eisenhower refused to back the Anglo-French-Israeli effort to overthrow the Egyptian regime. Was Eisenhower wrong not to endorse the intervention? Nasser became a hero in the aftermath of the Anglo-French-Israeli withdrawal. His success, though, was largely a result of U.S. diplomatic pressure. Likewise, would those who criticize the U.S. government for working with Arab dictatorships in attempts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict prefer Washington to refrain from negotiating efforts because of the nature of the Arab regimes?
Conversely, anyone who criticizes Washington for cooperating with oppressive regimes should see its overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a good thing. But many of those who say U.S. policies favor reactionary regimes, nevertheless, opposed the war to remove Saddam from power. Such hypocrisy would extend to a number of other situations. Would these liberals have preferred Washington to cut off all aid to Egypt because of the nature of the Mubarak regime? Was it wrong in Arab eyes to help the Palestinian Authority because of Yasir Arafat's dictatorial behavior? Should President George H.W. Bush have refused to defend the Saudis and Kuwaitis from Iraqi invasion in 1990 because both countries were less than democratic? Conversely, would Arab liberals argue that Washington should not have lent assistance to Iraq against the Iranian challenge in the 1980s unless Baghdad first made substantial reforms? Such quandaries could be made about almost every country in the region. Should the U.S. government not have helped the Jordanian monarchy survive subversive efforts by radical states in the 1960s and 1970s? Too often, those criticizing Washington for not having pressured Arab dictatorships in the past are critical of its efforts to do so at present.
Such logical inconsistency is why Arab liberals do not explore in detail the implications of blaming the United States for Arab dictatorships. For liberals, this would be a counterproductive argument. First, it relieves Arabs themselves of responsibility for their difficulties, a crutch liberals seek to break. Second, it reinforces the ruling doctrine's hold over the minds of millions of Arabs who have been taught that their dictators are defending them against the United States.
Ideological Anti-Americanism
The context Arab liberals act within shapes their strategy and their response to the United States. Washington's actions seldom win it liberal support yet almost always generate knee-jerk criticism from mainstream Arab nationalists and Islamists. The assumption that Washington intends harm virtually guarantees that the Arab intellectuals' response to U.S. policy is based not on an examination of facts but on the anti-American card's usefulness to stir anger. Such reinforcement of anti-American rhetoric strengthens existing regimes as champions in the battle against the perceived U.S. threat and makes Arab liberals vulnerable to charges that they have betrayed Arabism. Because many Arab liberals' analyses of the Arab world's problems parallel those made by U.S. policymakers, these reformers are subject to charges that they are the tools of U.S. imperialism and, by extension, Zionism.
A good example of this ideologically-driven anti-Americanism was the reaction to U.S. ambassador to Egypt David Welch's op-ed in the Egyptian establishment daily Al-Ahram on the first anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. Welch's article was a masterpiece of cultural sensitivity, flattering Egyptians and thanking them for their kindness to the United States, but asking for one small favor in the politest way: that the (state-controlled) media stop claiming the United States or Israel was behind the attack.[18]
The response was an outpouring of anti-American hatred. A petition by dozens of Egyptian writers condemned the ambassador as treating them like "slaves" by demanding they agree with everything the United States says, "even if it is lies." Obviously, "America thinks that it has conquered the globe."[19] That Washington promotes democracy spurs additional opposition. America, the petition claimed, is trying to force Arabs to submit to its interests and control. But the heroic Arabs will never grovel. There is a humorous aspect to this, of course, with Arab intellectuals rejecting freedom in the name of freedom, flaunting the independence of those responsive to their dictators.[20]
At the same time as they reject U.S. policy and advice, Arab elites—including many liberal-leaning or co-opted voices—claim they are already engaged in reform and enjoying the benefits of democracy. The establishment often reacts as did Egyptian foreign minister Ahmad Maher, who said Egypt was already a model democratic state, and "We do not need anyone to teach us."[21] The daily Al-Jumhuriya suggested that Mubarak's rule should be a model for other countries.[22] Since democracy is the people's rule, any external pressure for change is by definition antidemocratic, a manifestation of the imperialist concept of a "white man's burden" to liberate other peoples "from ignorance and backwardness." This, the state-directed newspaper explained, is the true cause of the Arab world's problems.[23]
As for the Wafd, the political party that claims to represent liberalism in Egypt, Ahmad Alwan, a member of its supreme council, explained that it would never agree with a tyrant like Bush who used force to achieve his greedy ambitions.[24] Salameh Ahmad Salameh, an Al-Ahram columnist, warned that modernization was a U.S. trick to install its own puppets. Any real democracy would have to fight "American hegemony." An editorial in the Kuwaiti Al-Watan said the U.S. government hypocritically wanted to promote democracy in some countries while destroying it in those which opposed U.S. interests. For example, it argued, Washington wished to subvert Saudi Arabia because that country opposed a U.S. takeover of the Persian Gulf's oil resources.[25] Rajeh al-Khouri, a columnist for Asharq al-Awsat, wrote that U.S. proposals to support democracy in the Arab world were the ideas of "Zionist circles" that wanted to pretend Arabs hated America because they lacked democracy, needed to modernize, and suffered from poverty. The real reason for such antagonism, he said, was that U.S. policies were terrible.[26]
In one extreme, some commentators use parallel arguments to equate reform with treason against the Arabs and Islam. The Saudi writer Khalid as-Sulayman, for example, writes that the real U.S. goal was not for Arabs to become good at computers or physics but to destroy "the moral bonds of our social behavior." Arabs would then become just like Americans:
A society in which the marriage of minors is a crime, but sexual relations with minors is permitted! A society in which drinking alcohol is like drinking water, and inhaling marijuana is like inhaling air. … A society stripped of its identity, its values, and its virtues—an ugly society with no connection to its roots, which is only a pale mirror image of the West.[27]
Sulayman is not alone. The kind of democracy the Americans really want, claims the Jordanian writer Khalid Mahadin, is a puppet regime to rubber stamp whatever the U.S. government wants. Parliaments and media would serve U.S. interests to "glorify Washington's arrogance, applaud its wars on Arabism and Islam," and keep silent about U.S. involvement in the Zionist annihilation of the Palestinians and the American destruction of the Iraqi people. He continues: the U.S. government also seeks to destroy the Arab school system and "to abolish religious education, Islamic modesty … jihad, and charity."[28] A more polite but similar response came from Mustafa al-Feki, chairman of the Egyptian People's Assembly foreign affairs committee. He argued that the U.S. democratization campaign misunderstood Arab society and education and was imbued with the ridiculous idea that the region needed new values and ideas.[29]
In short, U.S. sponsorship of democracy has not won it favor in the Arab world. This does not mean, however, that it has weakened the pro-reform camp. The Bush administration's policy has sparked new debate over these issues. Conversely, mainstream forces would still have tarred Arab reformers with the same accusations even had Washington not placed priority upon democratization.
Do Arab Liberals Exploit Anti-Americanism?
Arab liberals understand the hostile milieu in which they must operate and adopt various strategies to counter it. Some complain about problems they perceive U.S. policy has created for them and seek to minimize any claim that they are puppets of U.S. imperialism. Jordanian columnist Fahd al-Fanik, for example, warned that the U.S. democratization effort "is likely to damage the popularity of these reforms and silence those advocating them out of fear that they will be seen as America's propagandists."[30] Other liberals seek to twist the conspiratorial atmosphere to their advantage. Some argue indigenous Arab reform to be the best way to avoid U.S. intervention. Daoud Shirian, a Saudi columnist for Al-Hayat, for example, suggests that if the Arab media became more independent of its governments, the U.S. government would have no excuse to interfere in the Arab world.[31] Michel Kilo, a Syrian journalist and reform activist, argues that only reform can rescue Syria from U.S. domination.[32]
The Egyptian Osama al-Ghazali Harb, editor-in-chief of Al-Siyassa al-Dawliya, has employed a parallel approach. In an article entitled, "With Our Own Hands, Not Those of America," he explains that Arabs do not want foreign interference but know that reform is needed "not because … foreigners demand it, but because of our real needs." Enemies of reform use foreigners' support for it as an excuse. Liberals, wrote Harb, must confront and defeat such lies.[33] He suggests that the new U.S. pro-democracy policy shows it is actually heeding Arab demands. Historically, Washington's support for traditionalists against reformers opposed the "long-term interests of the Middle East's people" and was intended to "further U.S. interests in fighting communism, protecting the oil supply, and defending Israel's security." At the time, he explained, U.S. policymakers defended the primacy of stability over democracy by arguing that they sought "deference to the traditions and local traits" of Arab societies.[34]
While such arguments may have an effect on a larger Arab audience, their veracity is debatable. The West did support traditional Arab regimes—the Moroccan, Jordanian, and Saudi monarchies, for example—but it also worked with traditional liberals as well—like the parliamentary regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. Indeed, many who are now liberals themselves argued at the time that any pressure for change undermined the traditions and local traits of their societies.
Those whom Harb described as "reformers" that Washington supposedly refused to back are in reality radical Arab nationalists and Islamists as undemocratic as the regimes they seek to replace. They did, in fact, overthrow the rulers in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Libya, among other countries. The masses and intellectuals cheered as they dismantled formal democratic systems and silenced liberals. Harb's arguments, though well-intentioned, do damage to the liberal cause. They reinforce the existing system that defers real debate by blaming the United States for everything wrong in the Arab world. Thus, he concludes by saying that while the U.S. government has followed "selfish, unprincipled, and shortsighted policies," it is good if it now speaks about modernizing Arab societies, developing democracy, and resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict because these are all things Arabs "have been seeking to achieve for a long time."[35]
Jordanian writer Jamal al-Tahat adopts a similar approach. He tries to turn the tables on Arab nationalists by arguing that since regimes often brag about "achievements resulting from cultivating relations with America," then reforms improving relations might likewise benefit Arabs. If the U.S. approach damaged the Arabs, it is only because they did not themselves already carry out reform.[36]
Nader Fergany, a Cairo University political science professor, staunch Arab nationalist, and lead writer of the Arab Human Development Report, sought another way to separate reform from U.S. policy. The report, viewed in the West as a liberal document, co-opts the Arab mainstream—reinforcing traditional antidemocratic ideas—by putting much of the blame for lagging development on U.S. policy and on Israel. Fergany asserts that the report shows Arabs are capable of criticizing their own societies, and, alluding to the coalition ouster of Saddam Hussein, do not need others to "impose reform on Arab countries from outside—even by force."[37] He calls upon the U.S. government to leave reform to the Arabs. He adopts the usual approach chiding the U.S. government for violation of human rights and for its support for repressive Arab regimes and Israel.[38]
Jordanian liberal journalist Rami Khouri also illustrates this paradox. While he advocates reform, he has parroted hard-liner rhetoric attributing U.S. democratization strategy to the machinations of anti-Arab forces: a coalition of Republican conservatives, pro-Israel hawks, Christian fundamentalists, global supremacists, and free marketers who have taken over the White House. He has equated Bush and bin Laden.[39]
Other liberals have also copied their adversaries' approach toward the United States. Just as Arab nationalists and Islamists used the United States as a scapegoat for their failures to succeed, these liberals also blame U.S. policy for their own movement's weakness and inability to transform the Arab world. They blame the United States for preservation of the Arab world's status quo.
Some prominent liberals are unabashedly and not just tactically anti-American. In 2002, Tujan Faisal became the first woman elected to the Jordanian parliament. She stood boldly for her principles. She served four months in prison after accusing the government of corruption. "To promote real democracy in the Arab world," she wrote, "the United States needs to begin encouraging its regional allies to tolerate internal opposition from all sides and give it a legitimate outlet in free and fair democratic elections."[40] But, she also praised Saddam Hussein. "Compared with him, the other leaders of the Arab world are small pygmies,"[41] she wrote. After Saddam's fall, Iraqi documents revealed she was on Saddam's payroll.[42]
Can America Encourage Democracy in the Arab World?
Can America encourage democracy in the Arab world? The Arab liberal assessment varies. Some enthusiastically say, yes; others suggest that the United States should restrict itself to policies more to the Arabs' liking. The former group hopes that U.S. pressure will change Arab regimes' behavior or overturn them altogether. The latter group either subscribes to anti-American nationalism or fears regimes will use U.S. involvement to discredit liberals.
Even those who hope for U.S. help may doubt it will be forthcoming. Egyptian analyst Ahmad Abdallah claims the regimes know that Washington needs their help to fight terrorism and thus do not take seriously the idea that Washington will pressure them on behalf of democratization.[43] Even if the U.S. government tries hard, Abdallah suggests, it is likely to fail. Would Washington promote democracy at the risk of putting radical Islamists into power? Through intimidation and manipulation, he believes current regimes would defeat the democrats.[44]
While publicly many Arab liberals condemn U.S. involvement in Iraq, in private, they say they would like the U.S. government to be a deus ex machina, a force solving their problems by somehow forcing Arab governments to change even if this requires strong pressure or—in some cases—military action. They suggest U.S. aid to Arab regimes be linked to their human rights record and progress toward democratization.
Some Arab liberals such as Kuwaiti Ahmad Bishara, given their belief that U.S. help was indispensable, applauded Bush's reelection in 2004. Those in the region who wanted Bush defeated, he explained, were Islamists and or apologists for dictatorial regimes such as Iran and Syria. But reformers, he continued, supported the U.S. war on terror, wanted Washington involved in democracy promotion, and saw violence in Iraq as the birth pangs of a new order rather than a sign of impending doom. Thanks to Bush's policies, women's rights had advanced in the Persian Gulf monarchies and Afghanistan, human rights groups spoke out openly, calls for educational reform were spreading, and there was an active debate in which people demanded more liberty.[45]
If progress was slow, Bishara insisted, it was because of the task's difficulty, made harder by the "timid and opportunistic stance" of European states like France and Germany. If they had the opportunity, liberals would have voted for Bush as a way of winning a better future for themselves and their families. And while not all Arab liberals thought this way, many of the most energetic and consistent ones did.[46]
Certainly, suspicion and hostility toward the United States undermines these efforts for democratic reform in the Arab world. But a remark made in an Al-Ahram article by Gamil Mattar, director of the Arab Center for Development and Future Research, is also telling. In response to the U.S. policy, he explained, Arab governments claimed to support change, even while stalling it in the hope that the challenge would disappear. He concludes: "If I were one of the architects of Washington's reform offensive, I would feel quite smug at the effect I produced."[47]
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (Gloria) Center, Interdisciplinary University, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. This article is adapted from his book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley, 2005).
[1] The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 16, 2001.
[2] "President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and the Middle East," remarks to the National Endowment for Democracy, United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C., Nov. 6, 2003.
[3] Ar-Raya (Doha), Jan. 6, 2002, trans. in Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Special Dispatch Series, no. 337, Jan. 29, 2002.
[4] Ar-Raya, Jan. 6, 2002, in MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, no. 338, Jan. 30, 2002.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Asharq al-Awsat (London), Feb. 4, 2004, in MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, no. 660, Feb. 10, 2004.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Arab Times (Kuwait City), Dec. 11, 2001.
[9] Asharq al-Awsat, Apr. 19, 2003.
[10] Al-Hayat (London), June 11, 2003.
[11] Al-Ahram Weekly (Cairo), Dec. 5-11, 2002.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Arab Times, Nov. 23, 2003.
[14] Al-Hayat, June 16, 2003.
[15] See, for example, The Washington Post, Jan. 6, 2004.
[16] Arab News (Jeddah), Oct. 29, 2002.
[17] Associated Press, Mar. 19, 2004.
[18] Al-Ahram (Cairo), Sept. 20, 2002, in MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, no. 423, Oct. 1, 2002.
[19] Al-Usbu' (Cairo), Sept. 23, 2002, in MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, no. 423, Oct. 1, 2002.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Al-Musawwar (Cairo), Jan. 10, 2003, in MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, no. 465, Feb. 5, 2003.
[22] Al-Jumhuriya (Cairo), Nov. 12, 2003, in MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, no. 615, Nov. 25, 2003.
[23] Al-Ahram, Nov. 10, 2003, in MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, no. 615, Nov. 25, 2003.
[24] Al-Wafd (Cairo), Nov. 11, 2003.
[25] Al-Watan (Kuwait), Dec. 17, 2002, in MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis Series, no. 117, Jan. 3, 2003.
[26] Asharq al-Awsat, Dec. 24, 2002, in MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis Series, no. 117, Jan. 3, 2003.
[27] ‘Ukaz (Riyadh), Dec. 17, 2002, in MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis Series, no. 117, Jan. 3, 2003.
[28] Ar-Ra'y (Amman), Dec. 23, 2002, in MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis Series, no. 117, Jan. 3, 2003.
[29] Mustafa el-Feki, "The Coming of Age," Al-Ahram Weekly, May 15-21, 2003.
[30] Ar-Ra'y, Dec. 17, 2002, in MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis Series, no. 115, Dec. 31, 2002.
[31] Al-Hayat, Nov. 6, 2002.
[32] An-Nahar (Beirut), Oct. 11, 2003, in MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, no. 599, Oct. 30, 2003.
[33] Al-Ahram, June 12, 2002.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Al-Ahram Weekly, June 27 - July 3, 2002.
[36] Ar-Ra'y, Dec. 17, 2002, in MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis Series, no. 116, Jan. 1, 2003.
[37] Al-Ahram Weekly, Dec. 26, 2001-Jan. 1, 2002.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2003.
[41] Time, Jan. 21, 2003.
[42] Associated Press, Jan. 27, 2004.
[43] Ahmed Abdalla, Egypt Before and After September 11, 2001: Problems of Political Transformation in a Complicated International Setting, Deutsches Orient-Institut im Verbund Deutsches Übersee-Institut, Focus no. 9, Mar. 2003.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Arab Times, Nov. 6, 2004.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Al-Ahram Weekly, Apr. 1-7, 2004.