LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
MARCH 13/2006

Below News from miscellaneous sources for 13.3.06
Lebanon dialogue must succeed-Monsters and Critics.com 
Syria says US order to halt business with two banks part of-Malaysia Star
Bush warns Iran, Syria against meddling in Iraq-China Post
Update 1: Bush Warns Iran, Syria on Iraq Meddling-Forbes
In No Uncertain Terms-U.S. News & World Report
Jihad armed wing denies receiving aides from Iran or Hezbollah-People's Daily Online
Siniora calls for national dialogue's resumption-Alarab online
Assad risks losing needed friend-Monsters and Critics.com
Syrian foreign minister visits Russia-Jerusalem Post - Israel
Lebanon political talks to resume but splits remain-Reuters AlertNet
Lebanese president appreciates centuries-old relations with ...-Caucaz.com
Below news from the Daily Star for 13/03/06
Lights, camera, action: National dialogue back on center stage
Sfeir: Electoral law must be fair to all confessions
Hizbullah expects national talks to result in status quo
Moallem visits Moscow ahead of UN probe report
Larsen says national dialogue will help implementation of 1559
Celebration-as-tribute honors Kassir
Industrialists slam policy of pricing petroleum derivatives on weekly basis
Story of Naameh highway shooting 'completely false'
Hoss claims he has two candidates to put forth for presidency
Mallat slams dialogue for not concentrating on presidency issue
Prominent Lebanese and Arabs dot Forbes list of world's richest
Fatah Movement signals support for dialogue at Ain al-Hilweh rally
Will Lebanese leaders move their country from paralysis to progress?

Will Lebanese leaders move their country from paralysis to progress?
Monday, March 13, 2006-Daily Star
Editorial
As the national dialogue resumes today, many citizens are still hoping that the country's leaders will reach consensus that will steer Lebanon out of its current deadlock, despite the fact that the first round of discussions made little progress in this regard. So far, three-and-a-half days of meetings produced few compromises on any of the key issues being discussed, and disputes among participants forced a suspension in the proceedings that outlasted the first session.
It is understandable that the initial progress in the national talks was slow. Not since the meeting that produced the Taif Accord has there been such a diverse gathering of Lebanese leaders, most of whom are learning for the first time to act independently since nearly 30 years of Syrian tutelage came to an end. Minor snags are to be expected in the first few sessions of a conference where participants, many of whom have been bitter rivals in war, become acquainted and agree to stop hurling insults at each other through the media. We can allow that the first few days would be devoted to hashing out old rivalries and putting aside differences-at least for the moment.
But what is difficult to comprehend is how the country could be so trapped in deadlock at a time when it ought to be ripe for change. Syria's withdrawal presented an historic opportunity to reshape the country into a vibrant democracy. Yet Lebanon's future, which very recently seemed so bright, now hangs on the question of whether feuding politicians can agree on a handful of prickly, yet very basic issues. The more complicated issues, such as implementing political reform, providing security and improving the economy, aren't even up for discussion. In the meeting of Lebanese leaders, the country, its problems, and its citizens are irrelevant. Citizens' major concerns are about their economic wellbeing and the country's stability. Yet the national dialogue will not even attempt to formulate bold measures to improve security, invigorate the economy, create jobs, and propel the country toward democracy, transparency, accountability and the rule of law. These issues remain absent from the agenda. The center of the national debate has not yet shifted away from the individual politicians to the nation, and what is best for the citizens of the country.
Discussions about the more complicated issues, although they have no home in Lebanon's national dialogue, are being held outside the political arena, among citizens such as Chibli Mallat, a lawyer and activist who has presented himself as a candidate for the presidency. Mallat has little chance of succeeding in winning the presidency, both because he lacks political experience and he has virtually no popular or political base. But by raising identifiable issues and proposing ways of addressing them, Mallat and others like him have succeeded in introducing a new political language and a modern style of leadership to the Lebanese political scene. And this is a style that is badly needed in Lebanon, a country whose fate now rests in the hands of a group of politicians who seek to carve out influence or privileges for themselves and their sectarian communities.
If only the leaders gathered at the national dialogue had this same style, and could focus on delivering tangible results to their citizens. Then they could perhaps begin to move the country from paralysis to progress, and the Lebanese could have a bright future.

Sfeir: Electoral law must be fair to all confessions
By Maroun Khoury -Daily Star correspondent -Monday, March 13, 2006
BKIRKI: Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir stressed the importance of solidarity in the national dialogue and said he hoped that the politicians "would not disappoint the Lebanese people's expectations."
In a sermon delivered during Sunday's mass in Bkirki, the prelate said the Lebanese "are counting on the committee in charge of drafting a fair electoral law that would enable them to elect those who they consider worthy of defending their rights."
Sfeir added that the work of the committee was hampered because of the wrong division of the electoral districts.
"Some politicians complained about the division of the district they belong to, saying that it grouped 50,000 voters of one confession and one hundred fifty thousand of another confession; in this case, the result would be known before the elections," Sfeir said. He continued: "In almost all the countries of the world, the districts are divided according to the number of MPs, in order to allow the voters to elect people they know."
According to the patriarch, "replacing the two members who withdrew from the committee with two other members, without asking them for the reason they resigned, does not resolve the problem." Following the mass, Sfeir met with Lebanese Forces MP George Adwan, who said that "the resignation of Michel Tabet and Ziad Baroud from the committee was the result of their rejection of the electoral law which does not ensure a good representation" of all sects. He added: "We cannot accept replacing them with other members and we ask every person to have the same courage" to reject the electoral law. "We have discussed this issue with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who said he will meet with the two members and listen to their opinion," Adwan said, ruling out the possibility of replacing them.
Adwan added: "The patriarch stressed the importance of the national dialogue, as the Lebanese people are counting on the dialogue to overcome the period of divisions and chaos and head toward a better future."As for the Baabda-Aley by-elections, Adwan said: "The Lebanese Forces played a major role in the consensus over Pierre Dakkash and we ask all the people to support him." Adwan also stressed that reconciliation has been achieved between LF Leader Samir Geagea and former Minister Suleiman Franjieh. "We have agreed on turning the page of the past and we are trying to find common political views," he said. Adwan said politicians "will meet on Monday around the dialogue roundtable and agree on all pending issues."

Hizbullah expects national talks to result in status quo
By Adnan El-Ghoul -Daily Star staff
Monday, March 13, 2006
News analysis
The national dialogue conference is destined to serve the resistance in all cases - failure, success or indefinite suspension - Hizbullah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem told a group of party supporters.
"The dialogue's failure or suspension will keep the status quo, which, at least cannot momentarily endanger the resistance, whereas its success cannot be accomplished without preserving the resistance's arms," Qassem said.
The present majority cannot make any major breakthrough in the current status quo, he added. "Only through the dialogue, can the majority get even minor concessions from Hizbullah without tilting the political forces' current balance."
On the ground, Hizbullah faces one arduous opponent out of many less significant opponents: Walid Jumblatt.
Hizbullah's main opponent, Jumblatt, is aware of the "one-way result" expressed by Qassem before finally agreeing to participate in the conference. Therefore, he chose to hasten his visit to Paris and Washington hoping to provide his majority camp with enough support to counter Hizbullah's dominant role in the dialogue. Jumblatt managed to postpone the dialogue sessions from last Tuesday to Monday, forcing all parties to wait for his return and listen to what he has to say.
This time, Jumblatt's position is enhanced by firmer U.S.-French insistence to implement all UN resolutions, particularly UN security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for "free presidential elections and disarming all militias," the two hottest issues on the conference's agenda. Moreover, Jumblatt managed to change the dialogue conference, which was intended to be governed by consensus, into a negotiating table, where issues can be traded and concessions can be made depending on each party's ability to exert, more or less, domestic and foreign pressure on its opponents.
Despite Jumblatt's last-minute efforts, Hizbullah believes that its position has not changed dramatically. In Hizbullah's view, the tools that its opponents can use to effect any major policy changes are limited to constitutional means and to the diplomatic maneuvers on the part of the Western and Arab states.
Neither Jumblatt's foes nor friends could defend his statement in which he asked for "American support and assistance." Many critics have interpreted his statements as a "demand for military intervention along the lines of the Afghan and the Iraqi examples."Jumblatt, however, explained that he asked for moral and political assistance, knowing well that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the European Union, who reject any military action, will put their full weight behind the conference, insisting on making it a success and working eventually toward disarming Hizbullah and the Palestinians through dialogue or peaceful negotiations.
The Arab League summit will be discussing Lebanon's situation extensively, and U.S officials have openly endorsed the dialogue as the only venue currently available. In that view, the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem will be meeting the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen during his official visit to Moscow.
Therefore, from this moment onward, the so-called Lebanon-made conference will not maintain its Lebanese exclusivity even in its form. The negotiations - not the dialogue - are expected to rise above normal standards, forcing Hizbullah to make more concessions than it had envisaged in the beginning. Moreover, the conference will witness a great deal of wheeling and dealing, through which many regional and international powers will be major players in deciding the outcome, even if they were not physically attending the conference.

Larsen says national dialogue will help implementation of 1559
By Majdoline Hatoum and Nada Bakri-Daily Star staff-Monday, March 13, 2006
BEIRUT: Lebanon's national dialogue will resume Monday amid unrelenting political divisions over the fate of pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, ownership of the occupied Shebaa Farms and Hizbullah's weapons. Day one of round two kicks off as UN secretary general's special envoy to the Middle East, Terje Roed-Larsen, started his tour of major cities to discuss the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 before reportedly visiting Damascus and Beirut.
Larsen, currently in Moscow, will be meeting Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem Tuesday in the Russian capital.
Speaking after a meeting with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris Saturday, Larsen welcomed the talks, saying this dialogue is currently "one of the few signs of conflict resolution through peaceful means in the Middle East."
Traveling on behalf of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to review the latest developments in Lebanon and their regional context with Chirac, Larsen stressed he believed the talks would contribute to the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559. "The UN remains committed to the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty and political independence ... I will continue to work relentlessly with all relevant parties toward this end," Larsen said.
Chirac also welcomed Lebanon's national dialogue, and reasserted "France's determination to work on fully implementing Resolution 1559," according to a spokesman at the Elysee Palace. Meanwhile, Premier Fouad Siniora said it is "essential to continue these talks until we reach solutions for all issues." "The importance of these talks is that they gather the Lebanese top leaders for the first time in the country's history without foreign interference or sponsorship to tackle issues of extreme sensitivity and delicacy," Siniora said.
"The participants are fully aware of the sensitivity of the situation and realize that national initiatives are needed," he added.
"If we had taken these initiatives earlier we would have secured a better future and spared the Lebanese a heavy moral and financial price," said Siniora. But the potential for compromise on the hot issues seems elusive. Lahoud has refused to resign despite immense pressure on him to step down and Hizbullah has refused to lay down its weapons although Resolution 1559 stipulates all "Lebanon and non-Lebanese militias should disarm."
Furthermore Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt's vocal insistence that Syria holds sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms flies in the face of firm opposition to the idea from the Hizbullah-Amal coalition. Speaker Nabih Berri and Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah held a meeting Saturday night, which reaffirmed this position, according to reports. Jumblatt who returned to Lebanon Saturday after a one- week visit to the U.S., had said during a televised interview with Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel that he would be back at the political roundtable Monday, to face his "political opponent."
He said once leaders reach a common position on the status of Shebaa, "as a natural result, Hizbullah should drop its arms after Shebaa is liberated."Jumblatt also said that the next president should either be chosen by Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir or at least approved by the prelate.
"Lahoud is the extension of the Syrian era in Lebanon, and he must leave," he said. "We have not agreed on his successor yet, but we [the March 14 Forces] have agreed that the name should be blessed by the prelate," Jumblatt said. He also said the U.S. will present Lebanon with "moral and political support and provide weapons and help to the Lebanese Army."
And as calls were still being made to arrange a meeting between Jumblatt and Parliament majority leader MP Saad Hariri, Hizbullah deputy secretary general Sheikh Naim Qassem indirectly criticized Jumblatt for shifting his position regarding Shebaa and accused him of intending to transform Lebanon into an American tool.
"Politicians who change their positions from Shebaa after having spent years in defending its Lebanese identity ... have made a political decision," said Qassem. Despite these deep divisions among Lebanon's political elite, all 14 leaders will be present when talks will resume, as Amal MP Ali Hassan Khalil, described by politicians as the "dynamo" behind the dialogue, said Sunday. "Until recently all political indications showed there is a chance to reach a common stance, at least regarding the agenda of talks," said Khalil.  Meanwhile, Lahoud reasserted his position on freeing Shebaa, adding two other towns within Israeli territory were also Lebanese.
A statement issued by sources close to the president said foreign countries supporting Israel wanted him out of the way because he supported the resistance. Lahoud said not only Shebaa but also the Israeli border towns of Metullah and Miskaf Am, are Lebanese.Hizbullah has never said it wants to liberate Metullah and Misgav Am.

Lights, camera, action: National dialogue back on center stage
Spectators at home and abroad watch and await the country's own brand of clash of civilizations
By Mayssam Zaaroura -Daily Star staff
Monday, March 13, 2006
Commentary
As Lebanon's troubled national dialogue gears up for its second round Monday, its surrounding spectators hold almost as much interest as the actors once again preparing to take the stage. The cast in this rendition of "A Dialogue Made in Lebanon" is varied. There are international directors standing behind the curtains - an almost fatherly look on their faces as they watch their "children" play out their roles. Those characters contain little room for improvisation and more than one interest rides on the lines they utter. Regional prompters are at the ready to jump in, script in hand in case one of the actors flounders.
The actors are bold, with some more experienced on the world stage than others. One or two seem desperate to hold onto the status quo, while another one-year-old group, headed by a veteran performer, is eager to embrace the new script that has been written for them by the Lebanese people. And beyond the footlights, the faceless, expectant local spectators await. A public ready to be amused, ready to be entertained, ready to put their livelihood on the line, but already building predictions and betting wagers on the twists, turns and finale of the plot. After the short interim, during which the actors have re-read their lines and re-confirmed their positions with the directors, the play is ready to resume - this time with a notch more tension as it approaches its climax. But the theater is old. This is a region that has seen many plays acted out and its boards are weary. Its roof is leaking and it has been sold to too many directors ever ready to make their show the season's most talked about pi�ce de rŽsistance - the one with the most controversial actors, the thickest plot line and the most unexpected twists.
But really, this is not a play. Nor is it a game where everyone goes home, unaffected by the final score.
This region is edging perilously close to the precipice. On a smaller scale, Lebanon has been veering ever closer to an out-and-out conflict that so far has desperately and precariously been reined in. One false step from any direction can turn this comedy into a tragedy. The performance is intriguing. The main teams see Syria and Iran on one side, with the U.S. and France on the other. The brotherly Arab countries are somewhere in the middle, trying to referee the game. Lebanon is the ball. And of course, the most controversial team of all - Israel, all in a league of its own, on all sides at once for the past 50 years - or rather on one side for a while, on another for a while longer, and a winner either way.
So let's take a look around.
Emerging patch-work phrases like "clash of civilizations" get bandied around on a daily basis in an attempt to explain a phenomenon - or rather a political and religious struggle for power between the teams - that has left this part of the world in shambles. After the riots and killings in retaliation for the publishing of the controversial Prophet Mohammad cartoons, the divide between West and the East seemed too palpable for words.
The stately French President Jacques Chirac, during his visit to Saudi Arabia, called it a "clash of ignorance" between West and East. The Gulf state of Qatar hosted a much-publicized and much-hyped conference gathering big players in the region and the world to discuss this clash of civilizations and educate those not in the know. As with any UN-sponsored conference, it came out with a vague "working plan," which omitted key issues previously noted on the agenda.
Even before that, Iran's first reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, made the Dialogue of Civilizations the focal topic of discussion on his recent visit to Beirut, where he talked in his flowing Arabic about Lebanon's shining example of coexistence.
The late Pope John Paul II said of the Lebanese on his departure from the country: "I urge them to continue in this direction, by giving an example of harmony between cultures and religions, in a society where all the people and different communities are considered equal. "May your nation, whose mountains are like a beacon on the sea coast, offer the countries of the region a witness of social cohesion and good understanding between all its cultural and religious constituents."
Yes, Lebanon. The model of co-existence so talked about all over the world. The shining beacon on the sea coast.
But scratch the surface and you see a microcosm of the same clash of civilizations, clash of ignorance and rejection of the other that has become the world's latest pet peeve. It is only now, decades later and decades too late, that those in the upper echelons of Lebanon's political class have come to the realization that they are not really a representation of a cohesive social structure. Lebanon and its national dialogue. The first ever dialogue that is "Lebanese-Lebanese," with "no foreign interference at all and is taking place on Lebanese soil for the first time in the country's history."
These words have topped the headlines in the country's newspapers and television screens. On the lips of its desperate public and its proud politicians. In the speeches of international and Arab ambassadors here after they emerge from hours of meetings with the main participants in the dialogue.
These words are reinforced time and again. Spoken repeatedly as though something to be proud of. Lebanon is not a young nation. These words - if true - are not something to be proud of. They are words which should be said with chagrin. With an acceptance from the country's politicians that this process, phase, concept, is so long overdue. They should realize, wake up, to their public's mocking words and disbelief that "we have been asking for this for a far longer time than it is comfortable for you to admit."But admit it they have - or so they say. March 14, 2005 - the name that the new coalition here bears so proudly - was formed in the streets of downtown Beirut. Not by the politicians. It was the people who said: "Finally, you listen. You no longer have a choice but to listen." For a while after that, they stopped listening again - maybe bar the one veteran leader, ahead of the others, who was loudly proclaiming "we have lost our chance, the one chance the people gave us to be a model of co-existence, an antidote to the clash of civilizations."
Surprisingly, they received a heaven-sent second chance on February 14, 2006, when the people, so desperately in need of a real political class, took to the streets again in a significant enough number to deliver a slap in the face to their sluggish politicians. Today, those leaders resemble the Qatari conference. The big boys are assembled, each one with his bank of information and instructions. Each one trying to educate the other on his point of view and bridge the divide to form a united nation. They are on the stage and ready to roll, baby. In the meantime ... looking a little further south another little problem festers. Sidon's waste dump sits, much like the play's audience, ready, expectant yet slowly but surely crumbling at the foundations to create a mass problem for the nation. Sidon is, today, according to its mayor - who has waited like all politicians until the last minute to speak out - in a state of emergency. The dump is no longer just the city's problem. It's the nation's problem. It's also Syria, Turkey and Greece's burgeoning problem as the waste slowly makes its way to their coasts.
Something else is now also in a state of emergency, exactly like Sidon's dump although a little more on the hush-hush - Lebanon's economy.
Early last week - as first round of the dialogue kicked off and as downtown closed off to business and profit - businessmen held their silence over the consequences this would have on an already downtrodden economy. Yet but one week later, that political decision was dropped like hot coal. As the reality of the dialogue's economic consequences kick in, and as the Arab brothers' timely funding trickles to a minimum with the tottering of the "inter-Lebanese talks" and with their own stock market-crash worries, our businessmen abandoned their politically induced silence and scurried from one politician to the next begging for financial reprieve. Hence, the country's moribund economy will now be added to the dialogue's agenda as per the finance minister's promises today. Well, at least one can say that it made it through to the last - or what should be the last - round.
No more dawdling, no more breaks to confer with leaderships and no more failures for Lebanon's political "elite."
The clash of civilizations, Lebanon's national dialogue, Sidon's dump. There doesn't seem to be much of a connection there. But look a little closer. The actors - although all 100 percent Lebanese - share nothing but a gaping divide which they need to patch up quickly and satisfy their people.
They are there to represent someone, lest they forget, and that someone needs to live and to eat. And Sidon's dump? Well Sidon's dump needs to be cleaned and Lebanon too has to pick up its waste - and its $40 billion debt-ridden feet - so its neighbors and its own citizens can take its demands for "freedom, independence, sovereignty" and its "Independence Intifada" a little more seriously.

Siniora calls for national dialogue's resumption
KUNA 12/3/06: Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora on Sunday called for a resumption of the national dialogue, which came to a halt on Tuesday after a row among participants over some issues under debate.
Speaking during a morning radio talk show, he expressed hope "for the dialogue to continue tomorrow despite the halt."
He stressed that the dialogue was important in the fact that it was the very first time in Lebanon's history that the Lebanese were discussing some delicate political issues without outside interference. Al-Siniora said there was "no substitute" for national dialogue. He added that the dialogue made significant headway during its first three days and "some contentious issues were by-passed on the promise to return to them later. "Everybody agrees that there was no room for "foot-dragging." He added he was confident that progress could be achieved on some pending issues.
He said participants in the dialogue would "make additional efforts in the next few days specifically in view of the fact that such an opportunity could not be lost." The dialogue is due to resume Monday. The contentious issues remaining include the discussion of UN Resolution 1559, which calls among other things for disarming Hezbollah and questioned the mandate renewal of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud.

Lebanon political talks to resume but splits remain
12 Mar 2006-By Lin Noueihed
BEIRUT, March 12 (Reuters) - Lebanese leaders will resume on Monday talks aimed at ending a deep political crisis, but sharp differences remain over the two key issues: disarming Hizbollah guerrillas and the fate of the pro-Syrian president.
The "national dialogue" conference, the first top-level political gathering since Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war, was adjourned abruptly on Tuesday after a row erupted over fiery comments made by an anti-Syrian leader on a visit to Washington.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who had called the talks, said they would resume on March 13 instead of continuing until Thursday, but the breathing space does not appear to have brought rival politicians much closer to consensus.
"The conference may come up with resolutions on some issues such as Palestinian arms and the status of the Shebaa Farms but there are difficulties reaching agreement over the two key issues," said a Lebanese political source close to the talks.
"The viewpoints are really very far apart and these issues are becoming more complicated."
The fate of President Emile Lahoud is among the thorniest issues; he is under pressure from anti-Syrian politicians to resign but has vowed to serve until the end of his term, extended in 2004 under what they say was Syrian pressure.
Even more contentious is a U.N. resolution demanding pro-Syrian Hizbollah disarm; some Lebanese believe the Shi'ite group should lay down its guns and stick to politics but others see it as legitimate armed resistance to Israel.
The talks appeared to be on the verge of collapse after anti-Syrian Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who had left to meet senior officials in the United States, called from there for Hizbollah to be disarmed.
The comments prompted Hizbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to walk out of the talks in protest. But Nasrallah, along with Jumblatt and other top leaders, Christian, Muslim and pro- and anti-Syrian, will return to talks on Monday.
BOILING POINT
Hizbollah's guerrilla attacks were instrumental in ending Israel's 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000.
Hizbollah says it has the right to keep its arms, partly to liberate the Shebaa Farms, a strip on the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria's Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, which it claims is Lebanese soil under Israeli occupation.
The United Nations maintains that the Shebaa Farms belongs to Syria and that the Israeli withdrawal is complete.
Lebanese leaders are expected to agree on Lebanon's claim to the Shebaa Farms, which would go some way to legitimating Hizbollah's arms, but they remain split on whether the tiny strip should be liberated by force or through diplomacy. The leaders are also expected to agree that Palestinian fighters not carry arms outside the country's 12 refugee camps, which are run by Palestinian factions. U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen said on Saturday he supported the talks, which he hoped would help implement Security Council resolution 1559, demanding that all militia in Lebanon disarm.
"Several of the multiple conflicts in the region are reaching a boiling point. The national dialogue between all parties in Lebanon ... is one of the few signs of conflict resolution through peaceful means in the Middle East," he said.
"The U.N. remains fully committed to the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty and political independence."
(Additional reporting by Laila Bassam)

Lebanese president appreciates centuries-old relations with Armenia
published on 12/03/2006
Yerevan, 12 March 2006 (PanArmenian - website) - Newly appointed Armenian Ambassador to Lebanon Vahan Ter-Ghevondyan yesterday presented credentials to President, general Emile Lahoud, reports the Press Service of the Armenian MFA. During the meeting the President appreciated the centuries-old Armenian-Lebanese relations and noted with satisfaction that the warm relations between Armenian and Lebanese peoples can underlie development of further cooperation and mutual trust at all levels. Having thanked Lebanese state structures for special attention to Armenia and its people, the Armenian diplomat assured that the Armenian Embassy will do everything possible to strengthen bilateral relations

Syrian foreign minister visits Russia
By ASSOCIATED PRESS-MOSCOW
Syria's foreign minister arrived in Moscow Sunday on a visit expected to focus on the United Nations probe into the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the situation in the Palestinian territories and other regional issues.
Walid Moallem said upon his arrival that Syria expects the UN panel investigating Hariri's killing to deliver an "objective" report, the Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies reported. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said in a statement posted on the ministry's Web site that Moscow would strongly back the UN probe into Hariri's killing.
The top UN envoy for Syria and Lebanon, Terje Roed-Larsen, will also be in Moscow for talks at the same time as the Syrian foreign minister, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

Assad risks losing needed friend
By Sana Abdallah Mar 12, 2006, 16:27 GMT
printer friendly email this article
AMMAN, Jordan (UPI) -- Syrian President Bashar Assad needs all the friends he can get at this time, yet he managed to risk alienating himself from his Jordanian neighbors who could have been useful to his country as it faces mounting international pressure to change. At issue is what has been widely seen in Jordan as a snide and insulting comment from Assad during a conference of Arab political parties in Damascus on March 4-7. Assad told the participants that the kingdom`s 'Jordan first' or any other Arab country`s 'first slogans effectively means the United States, Israel or any other non-Arab country comes second.' He reportedly said with a grin to an enthusiastic applause that this slogan is a 'separation from the Arab (identity) and pan-Arab nationalism.' While the Jordanian government did not officially respond to Assad`s comments, it allowed local newspapers to lash out at the Syrian president and the regime to express its true sentiments.
A Jordanian official privately said the government did not want to react to Assad`s statements to avoid adding more pressure on his country, 'although we were all insulted, at the highest level, when the president casts doubt, in a mocking way, on our Arab identity and commitment to Arab causes.'Newspaper commentators had a field day with blasting the Syrian leadership - as if waiting for the right opportunity to remind the Damascus regime of its own irresponsibility towards its people and Arab causes.The independent al-Ghad daily, the first to pick up on Assad`s remarks, sharply criticized the Syrian regime, saying in a commentary that the ruling Baath Party has done nothing to respect and protect its people`s political and economic rights or the country`s interests. Chief editor of the daily, Ayman Safadi, told United Press International the Syrian president 'fails to understand the fact that it is necessary for Jordan first, Lebanon first and Syria first for the Arabs to be first.'
The Jordanian opposition was also put in an awkward spot at home when some of its members taking part in the Damascus conference did not object to Assad`s remarks.
The opposition, led by the Islamic Action Front and includes leftist and pan-Arab nationalist groups, were denounced in the newspapers, which reminded the Islamists in particular that the Syrian regime had massacred more than 20,000 people in the Syrian cities of Homs and Hama in 1982 to quell an Islamic rebellion.
The newspapers reminded the Islamists that Jordan, which sheltered some of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders escaping Syria in the early 1980s, has been practically the only Arab country to allow Islamists to be openly active and participate in political life.
They said the Syrian regime was the last to speak about pan-Arab nationalism when its troops slaughtered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon during the 1975-1990 civil war and joined the U.S.-led coalition in fighting Iraq to push its invading forces out of Kuwait in the 1990-91 Gulf crisis. Jordan refused to join that coalition.
Seeing the public outcry at home, Jordanian politicians in the Damascus gathering appeared embarrassed for not having stood up for their country and privately said there 'was no opportunity' to respond to Assad`s words.
Safadi said although the secretariat of the political parties conference sent him a letter denying the president had insulted Jordan or any other Arab country, Assad`s remarks were carried by Syrian television and newspapers. He said the Syrian leader had implicitly accused Jordan and Lebanon of 'selling out' their Arab commitments to serve American and Israeli interests by seeking to make their respective countries come first Marking the first anniversary of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri`s assassination in a massive explosion, his son and legislator, Saad Hariri, raised the slogan of 'Lebanon first' in a bid to unite his country and focus on Lebanese interests wherever they lie. The young Hariri borrowed the slogan from Jordan, which adopted it a few years ago to strengthen the kingdom, saying only a strong Jordan could provide strong support for Arab causes. The Jordanian government refuted fears and claims by some opposition politicians that 'Jordan first' meant placing its interests with the United States and abandoning its Arab identity or commitment to Arab issues.
Although Jordan is a close ally of the United States, whose foreign policy is highly unpopular in the kingdom and the rest of the Arab world, and signed an even more unpopular peace treaty with Israel in 1994, it says it takes pride in serving Arab causes when it often uses its good offices with Washington to try to help Arab countries that need it. Syria has been no exception.
Jordan`s King Abdullah II was among the first Arab leaders to befriend Assad when he assumed the Syrian presidency after his father`s death in 2000, believing he could support Assad in introducing domestic and foreign policy reforms.
The monarch, palace officials say, used every opportunity in talks with American leaders to promote Bashar Assad as a new leader who wanted to change Syria`s policies.
King Abdullah, however, has found it difficult to help bring Syria into the 'modern world,' as one Jordanian analyst put it, 'since Assad is not helping himself or his country.'
Analysts say the Syrian president continues to dig a deeper grave for his country by seeking to assume the role of leader of pan-Arab nationalism after the 2003 U.S.-British invasion of Iraq toppled the Baath regime of Saddam Hussein, without taking regional and international conditions into consideration.
They say Assad is not even taking into consideration his own country`s disintegrating political and economic conditions, leaving Syria weak in any potential confrontation with any country, let alone the United States.
As Damascus was facing strong American pressure for allegedly allowing Arab fighters to infiltrate into Iraq to fight the U.S.-led forces there or carry out terrorist attacks, Damascus was virtually implicated in Hariri`s assassination in February 2005.
A U.N. commission, backed by Security Council resolutions, is now investigating some Syrian officials and former pro-Syrian Lebanese security officials of involvement in Hariri`s murder. After growing Lebanese and international demands, the Syrians eventually withdrew their military and intelligence forces from Lebanon in late April, but many Lebanese are still accusing Damascus of interfering in their political and security affairs. Jordanian analysts say although the Syrian regime is under mounting pressure to cooperate with the U.N. probe into Hariri`s assassination, to control its borders with Iraq and introduce democratic reforms, it continues to isolate itself further from the rest of the world. And by alienating Jordan with his latest remarks, Assad may have lost a badly-needed friend.
Copyright 2006 by United Press International

Lebanon dialogue must succeed
By Sana Abdallah Mar 11, 2006
AMMAN, Jordan (UPI) -- Lebanon`s national dialogue to resolve the country`s crisis has been marred with disputes that led to its temporary suspension, but all the factions agree its success is the only alternative to avoid slipping into another civil strife - the last thing the turbulent Middle East needs.
Described as the most important meeting of Lebanon`s political leaders since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war, the dialogue was launched in Beirut on March 2 to discuss and agree on thorny issues that have divided the country since the February 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a powerful explosion in the capital. The roundtable meeting brought together the different political players, namely the March 14 Forces, or the anti-Syrian alliance, and the supposed pro-Syrian March 8 Forces.
They acquired these titles last year in the aftermath of Hariri`s assassination when the pro-Syrians staged a massive demonstration in Beirut on March 8 and the anti-Syrians held an even larger one on March 14 to accuse the Syrian regime of having killed the former premier and to demand its withdrawal from Lebanon.
The two sides began their negotiations to stop hurling insults at each other through the media and to settle two main disputed issues: The fate of pro-Syrian Emile Lahoud, whose six-year term was extended for another three years under Syrian pressure in 2004, and the weapons of the Shiite Hezbollah organization.
Lahoud, who is not party to the dialogue, insists on remaining in his position despite widespread calls for his resignation that grew after the Syrian withdrawal in late April. Although the anti-Syrians hold a majority in the 128-seat Parliament, they don`t hold a two-thirds majority required to oust the president.
Analysts say the March 14 alliance was cornered into this dialogue to find an alternative to Lahoud and a way to eject him. They add that Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, and its allies were forced to come to the talks to avoid a confrontation with the United States and the international community since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for the disarmament of all Lebanon`s militias, in obvious reference to the Shiite organization and the Palestinian factions.
While little information was made available on the substance of discussions in the closed-door meetings, leaks to the Lebanese press and unconfirmed reports said that deals were being concocted to 'exchange Lahoud for Hezbollah`s weapons.'
Yet five days into the talks, sponsored by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, the dialogue was abruptly stopped after Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said from Washington that Hezbollah no longer needed its weapons and described Lahoud as a Syrian 'puppet' who must go. Speaking at Brookings Institute in the U.S. capital and in news conferences, Jumblatt, who leads the Progressive Socialist Party, even asked for American help to 'liberate our country' from Syrian influence.
Jumblatt`s comments were seen as an attempt to sabotage the dialogue that was intended to be 'purely Lebanese' without any outside interference; neither from the Syrians or the Americans.
The former Druze warlord said that Hezbollah, credited for its armed resistance that ended the 1982-2000 Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, no longer needed to be armed since the Shebaa Farms, a small area occupied by Israel, were not Lebanese, but considered as Syrian by the U.N.
Angered Hezbollah leader Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, generally well-respected in his country and the rest of the Arab world, left the talks on March 7 on the grounds that he did not want to negotiate with 'second-grade' politicians representing Jumblatt, in reference to Information Minister Ghazi Aridi, while his boss was in Washington.
But other Hezbollah officials were not as diplomatic as Nasrallah. They said they could not understand how a party in the dialogue would go to the United States 'knowing the U.S. political strategy in the region is managed by the Zionists.'They complained that Jumblatt attacked the resistance and denied the Lebanese identity of the Shebaa Farms from an American institute 'affiliated with the Zionist lobby.'
The officials said he described Hezbollah as a 'militia' although the militias 'are the warlords who perpetrated genocides and killed innocent people,' in reference to the killing sprees of the Lebanese factions during the bloody civil war, in which Hezbollah is credited for not having turned its weapons against other Lebanese.
Nevertheless, all the parties involved in the national dialogue will resume the talks on Monday when Jumblatt, whose March 14 allies could not explain his intentions, is expected to participate and clarify his statements hurled from Washington, where he met with top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The Druze leader, who`s been virtually confined to his home in the Chouf mountains under tight security for the past 14 months for fear of being assassinated by the Syrians, is expected to stick to his position that Hezbollah has done its job by ending the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and no longer needs to be armed, that Shebaa is not Lebanese and that Lahoud must be replaced by another president independent of the Syrians.
But analysts say if his tone is going to be inflexible and show no compromise on how to go about these demands, he will be blamed for sabotaging the dialogue and ensure its failure - a risk that Lebanon cannot afford at this stage as it has been practically in a political and economic standstill since Hariri`s assassination and on the verge of factional explosion.
Jumblatt, who represents a small Druze minority with just 17 members in his Democratic Front bloc in Parliament, also risks his own standing within the March 14 alliance.
Lebanese and Arab analysts warn he may end up completely isolated and outcast as someone who is not serious about ending his country`s crisis, who is trying to invite American intervention and even attempting to pull the country into another civil war.
But a civil war is precisely what everyone wants to avoid through this national dialogue and the Lebanese people have made it clear they will not forgive their leaders if they foiled these talks.
That`s why Lebanon`s key players say they will not leave the negotiating table no matter how long it takes to agree on solutions to the disputed issues. However, they will have to compromise their political egos to achieve success because they know the alternative will be disastrous for their country and the rest of the region.
Copyright 2006 by United Press International

Jihad armed wing denies receiving aides from Iran or Hezbollah
Xinhua 11.3.06: Saraya al-Quds, armed wing of the Islamic Jihad (Holy War), on Saturday denied receiving support or financial aides from Iran or Lebanon's Hezbollah movement to carry out operations inside Israel. Some Israeli media reported on Friday that Jihad is getting aides from Iran or Hezbollah to carry out attacks inside Israel.
Responding to the reports, the group's spokesman Abu Ahmed said in a press statement sent to reporters that it is a justification for Israel to crackdown the movement. Such statements are aimed at justifying the Zionist military campaign against the Islamic Jihad and its members in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Abu Ahmed asserted.
Arguing that the resistance is people's right to fight against the occupation, Abu Ahmed said that all decisions and operations adopted by Saraya are in the Palestinian people's highest interests. Meanwhile, he called on all the Palestinian factions by to be united to fight against the Zionist enemy and protect the Palestinian people. As to a long-term truce with Israel, Abu Ahmed said that "any kind of truces with the occupation would not serve our people but would serve the Zionist enemy. For this we will not accept it."