LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
October 01/06
Biblical Reading For today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 9,43-45.
And all were astonished by the majesty of God. While they were all amazed at his every deed, he said to his disciples, Pay attention to what I am telling you. The Son of Man is to be handed over to men. But they did not understand this saying; its meaning was hidden from them so that they should not understand it, and they were afraid to ask him about this saying.
New Opinions
Brammertz's Surprise for the International Community .By: Raghida Dergham 01.10.06
The Function of Reverting to the Inside - Walid Choucair-Dar Al-Hayat 01.10.06Either a Miniaturized Iran or a Miniaturized Iraq!-Hazem Saghieh 01.10.06
Lebanon: Quo Vadis with this History? By: Joseph Hitti. September 30/06
Latest New from Miscellaneous sources for October 01/06
Francophone countries ask complete cease of hostilities in Lebanon-People's Daily Online
Saniora Throws a 'National Unity' Iftar at the Grand Serail-Naharnet, Lebanon
UN: IDF to exit Lebanon by Sunday-Ynetnews
Rep. Royce: Hezbollah Active in Blood Diamonds-Diamonds.net
Canadian soldier killed in Afghan blast-AP
Hezbollah "an Octopus" with Tentacles Around WorldOfficials Say-Washington File
Panel speculates on future of Hezbollah-NYU Washington Square News
Hezbollah's New Mission-The Weekly StandardUSA
Experts Deem Hezbollah A Threat To US Interests-All Headline News - USA
LEBANON: UN Hariri Investigation makes some progress-Reuters
US Says Hezbollah Still Strong After War With Israel-Voice of America
Arar still wants apology from PM-Toronto Star - Ontario, Canada
Harper's defence of Israel sparks political flap-National Post, Canada
Syria threat over Golan puts Israel on war alert-Telegraph.co.uk
Yemen mediates between Syria, US-Yemen Times
Mideast chaos, grief resound in the air-Boston Globe
UN: Israel blocked investigators-Ynetnews
US boosts Israel aid by half a billion-Ynetnews
Canadian soldier dies in Afghan blast
By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer
KABUL, Afghanistan - A Canadian soldier was killed Friday in an explosion in southern Afghanistan, while an insurgent attack on a police checkpoint left three dead, officials said. A Colombian aid worker and two Afghan nationals were also released, nearly three weeks after they were kidnapped by gunmen west of Kabul, a police official said. The soldier, who was not immediately identified, was killed in southern Kandahar province when he stepped on a roadside bomb while conducting a patrol, said Lt. Carole Brown, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Forces in Ottawa. No other soldiers or civilians were wounded. The explosion comes near the end of Canada's deadliest month in Afghanistan, with 10 soldiers killed. In all, 37 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died in the country since 2002.
Meanwhile, two suspected Taliban militants and a policeman were killed in the clash at the police checkpoint in southern Zabul province, said Jailan Khan, the province's deputy police chief. Three police were also wounded in the attack. Police said they recovered the bodies of the militants along with their weapons, Khan said. Southern Afghanistan has seen a spike in militant violence, the worst outbreak since a U.S.-led invasion in late 2001 ousted Taliban regime from power. Militants have increasingly resorted to the use of roadside and suicide bombings against foreign and Afghan government forces.
NATO has about 8,000 forces — mostly British and Canadian — in southern Afghanistan, where they took over military control from the U.S.-led coalition in August. NATO commanders have said they need another 2,500 troops plus greater air support to crush the Taliban threat more quickly.
The Czech Republic's defense ministry said Friday it plans to contribute up to 190 troops to the force next year. The move still must be approved by the government and parliament.
The Czech Republic has some 100 troops in Afghanistan and the number is expected to rise to 150 by the end of the year when the Czechs take command of Kabul's airport. Last week, NATO's top commander, U.S. Gen. James L. Jones, said Romania had agreed to send a battalion in October and Britain and Canada would add to their forces.The Colombian aid worker and two Afghans were kidnapped in western Afghanistan on Sept. 10. They were released to French Embassy officials in western Wardak province on Friday after a ransom of $120,000 was paid, said Mohammed Assan, the provincial police chief.
Assan said he did not know who paid the money and said that police were not involved in the deal. The three, who work for a French relief group, were reported to be in good health. A French Foreign Ministry official said France never pays ransoms to free hostages. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Associated Press Writer Rob Gillies contributed to this report from Toronto.
Harper's defence of Israel sparks political flap
Allan Woods, CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, September 30, 2006
BUCHAREST - Prime Minister Stephen Harper sparked a diplomatic flap Friday on one of his first outings among world leaders after he stood in the way of attempts at the Francophonie summit to craft a pointed political statement on this summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah.
Harper found himself fighting against what French President Jacques Chirac called "a great majority'' of the 53 member states at the conference when he took a stand against a statement of sympathy for the civilians in Lebanon because it made no mention of the Israeli civilians displaced, injured or killed in the month-long war. Canada's rookie prime minister vetoed a last-minute Egyptian-sponsored amendment to a statement which said that the Francophonie ``deplored'' the effects of the war, which killed 1,500 people. The amendment did not recognize Israeli suffering.
"The amendment wants to recognize and deplore the war and recognize the victims of Lebanon. We are able to deplore the war, we are able to recognize the victims, but on both sides,'' Harper said at a news conference near the end of the two-day summit.
"The Francophonie cannot recognize victims according to their nationality. Recognize the victims of Lebanon and the victims of Israel.''
He added that his goal in opposing the Egyptian amendment was to shape the diplomatic language so as to "avoid a similar attack on Israel in the future, a similar response and a similar result.''Harper was supported in his stance by Switzerland and France.
Nevertheless, Canada's position set off a firestorm in Bucharest's opulent parliament where the conference was held and it took the intervention of the French president and Quebec Premier Jean Charest, working as go-betweens, to resolve it.
Government officials said Harper was only trying to bring the Francophonie statement in line with a United Nations resolution that called for the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. But it also served to strengthen Ottawa's already staunch pro-Israel position and bring the Harper government sharper into line with the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.
Just days after a Montreal family visiting in Lebanon was wiped out by an Israeli missile this summer, Harper was widely criticized for calling Israel's attacks on Lebanon "measured."The prime minister did not stay around to defend his actions to the Arab, French and Canadian press at the summit who took great interest in the dispute.
After what was supposed to be the closing news conference, all leaders headed back into the closed-door meeting for about 30 minutes and eventually agreed on a compromise statement saying that the Francophonie ``deplores the tragedy in Lebanon and the dramatic consequences for all civilian populations'' while calling for a total cessation of hostilities in southern Lebanon.
Abdou Diouf, secretary general of the Francophonie, played down the dispute as a ``semantic difference'' and said ``all's well that ends well.''
He added that ``all the world thinks the same thing. In the crisis, Lebanon suffered and Israel suffered, but it (Israel) suffered less.''
Lebanon's culture minister, Tarek Mitri, said plans for the Francophonie to begin taking political positions on international conflicts is new territory for an organization that is normally more concerned with cultural and language matters. ``We share a number of values and there is an atmosphere in the (Francophonie). An atmosphere where we can agree, and if we disagree we can manage our disagreements in a soft manner,'' Mitri said. ``I'm not here to make judgments about anybody but I would have been happier not to see this here.'' Lebanon was already isolated before the Bucharest summit began. President Emile Lahoud, who is considered pro-Syrian and friendly to Hezbollah, was not officially invited to the meeting by Romanian President Traian Basescu, the host of the meeting. Prime Minister Faoud Siniora initially boycotted the event, sending Mitri as a ``personal representative.'' High-level negotiations on Thursday resulted in Mitri agreeing to sit as Lebanon's official representative at the meetings.
awoods@cns.canwest.com
Francophone Summit calls for return to calm in Lebanon
Declaration stresses effects of war on all civilian populations
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Mihaela Rodina
Agence France Presse
BUCHAREST: Heads of state or government from more than 30 French-speaking nations wrapped up Friday a two-day summit with a compromise on a declaration calling for a return to calm in war-torn Lebanon. Canada and Switzerland had refused an amendment proposed by Egypt that would have mentioned only Lebanese victims of Israeli attacks and not referred to Israeli victims of Hizbullah rocket attacks.
The final declaration spoke of "the dramatic consequences for all civilian populations [involved]" and called for "a complete end to hostilities and a return to calm in Lebanon." French President "Jacques Chirac resolved the problem" by suggesting the text be submitted to a vote, which made Canada accept a more general wording, Hugo Sada, spokesman for the International Francophone Organization (OIF) told AFP.
The final wording is close to UN Resolution 1701, which allowed for the reinforcement of UN peacekeepers in South Lebanon and for Israeli troops to withdraw, which they have not yet completely done.
The OIF summit had opened Thursday amid a dispute over whether the Lebanese president should have been invited.
Chirac and Romanian President Traian Basescu had on Wednesday defended the decision not to invite Emile Lahoud.
Chirac said the decision was made in the light of a UN report on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri - a personal friend of his. The UN report implicated senior officials from neighboring Syria in the killing. The pro-Syrian Lahoud is boycotted by Western nations, who do not consider him a legitimate president. His mandate was controversially extended after changes to the Lebanese Constitution pushed through Parliament by pro-Syrian MPs in September 2004. Basescu said the decision not to invite Lahoud to the Bucharest summit had been a "personal choice" and had been the right one, given the "suspicions" raised by the UN report on the death of Hariri.
But Lahoud on Thursday told French radio France-Inter that Chirac was "interfering in domestic Lebanese affairs."
"The president of Romania does what Chirac tells him to do," Lahoud complained. "President Chirac told him a few months ago not to invite me. Now he [Basescu] is looking for excuses but this is not the truth." Lebanon was represented at the summit by Culture Minister Tarek Mitri, who said he did not think the row would affect Beirut's relations with Paris, its former colonial master.
"Of course, there is the view held by President Lahoud [and] there are comments that have been made about President Lahoud. But I don't think all this will affect relations between our two countries," Mitri told a news conference in Bucharest.
"Whatever our differences ... these ties strong and our government wants it that way."
In a sideswipe at Hizbullah, Chirac said Thursday the Lebanese government should be allowed to exercise its authority "over the entire country," but added the situation in Lebanon seemed to have stabilized and he was "not at all pessimistic."
UN: IDF to exit Lebanon by Sunday
Commander of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon tells Lebanese Premier Fouad Siniora during talks in Beirut that Israel will complete withdrawal from southern Lebanon by Sunday; UN spokesperson refuses to deny or confirm report
AFP Published: 09.30.06, 09:48
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was informed on Saturday by the commander of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon, General Alain Pellegrini, that Israel will complete its withdrawal from southern Lebanon by Sunday. "General Pellegrini has engaged with the Lebanese Prime Minister to inform him that the Israeli army has committed to complete its withdrawal from southern Lebanon on Sunday," a Lebanese government spokesperson told AFP. A spokesperson for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) refused to confirm or deny the report.
On Thursday an IDF force, including tanks, a bulldozer and a number of vehicles was blocked by French UNIFIL troops at the outskirts of
the south Lebanese village of Marwahin, near the border with Israel. According to reports, the IDF force asked to advance deeper into Lebanese territory, but was stopped about 500 meters from the road leading to the village by four UNIFIL tanks manned by French soldiers as two Israeli Merkava tanks operated nearby on Lebanese soil, setting up checkpoints.AFP reported that Israeli soldiers confiscated the identity cards of photographers at the scene, claiming they may give pictures of the Israeli military to Hizbullah members. IDF sources said they are looking into the incident. More than 90 percent of the territory previously controlled by the IDF in south Lebanon has been transferred to UNIFIL, but a few hundred soldiers still remain in the area.
Experts Deem Hezbollah A Threat To U.S. Interests
September 29, 2006 6:16 a.m. EST
Ryan R. Jones - All Headline News Middle East Correspondent
Jerusalem (AHN) - Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's claims of having neutralized Hezbollah as a fighting force notwithstanding, leading U.S. counter-terrorism experts explained Thursday that the Lebanese group remains a viable threat to both Israel and the West. In testimony to the congressional International Relations Committee, FBI official John Kavanagh said Hezbollah remains one of the world's most capable terrorist organizations, boasting a "well-trained guerrilla force that is proficient in military tactics and weaponry," as reported by the AP. As the summer's 34-day conflict between Hezbollah and Israel drew to a close last month, Olmert and his government claimed to have destroyed most of the terror group's war-making ability. But at a victory rally in Beirut last week, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah boasted that the organization still possesses up to 20,000 surface-to-surface missiles. Nor does the group threaten Israel alone. Kavanagh warned congressional leaders that Hezbollah is perfectly capable of striking American interests both in the Middle East and abroad. State Department counter-terrorism expert Frank Urbancic concurred, telling Voice of America that Hezbollah could be best thought of as "an octopus, with its head in southern Lebanon and tentacles moving around the world." Urbancic also noted Hezbollah's increased "financial, training and logistical support to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorist groups." He said the group is able to operate on so many fronts due to its close cooperation with Iran and Syria, from whom Hezbollah receives the bulk of its funding and weapons. Both officials agreed that Hezbollah is not planning any attacks on U.S. soil at this time, although Kavanagh noted that "within the United States, Hezbollah associates and sympathizers have engaged in a wide range of criminal activities to include money laundering, credit card fraud, immigration fraud, food stamp fraud, bank fraud and narcotics trafficking."
Hezbollah's New Mission
The "resistance" takes aim at the Lebanese government.
by David Schenker
09/29/2006 1:46:00 PM
HEZBOLLAH LEADER Hassan Nas rallah made headlines last week when he claimed during a rally that Hezbollah still possessed 20,000 rockets and missiles after this past summer's war with Israel. The rally and the announcement were audacious: Some 350,000 supporters gathered in South Beirut to see Nasrallah appear publicly for the first time in nearly two months, mocking Israel and demonstrating Hezbollah's steadfastness. Overshadowed amid all this were some pronouncements in Nasrallah's speech that have important implications for U.S. interests and for the future of Lebanon.
In a striking departure from Hezbollah's standard articulation of its raison d'etre as "resistance"--i.e., defending Lebanon from Israel, liberating Sheba farms, and freeing Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails--Nasrallah added a new domestic orientation to the group's agenda. He linked Hezbollah's disarmament to the formation of a "strong, capable, just, and clean" Lebanese state.
Not coincidentally, according to Nasrallah, the first step in building this new Lebanese state is the establishment of a "serious national unity government"--Hezbollah shorthand for adding more pro-Syrian and anti-Western forces to the government. Were this to occur, it would almost certainly signal the demise of the moderate government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and provide the Syrians with a new lease on life in Lebanon.
Given the endemic government corruption in Lebanon, this call for clean government provides yet another pretext for Hezbollah indefinitely to retain its weapons. For Hezbollah, of course, the topic of disarmament has always been a moving target. Initially, in the 1980s, disarmament was contingent on Israeli withdrawal from
Lebanon. After the U.N. certified Israel's withdrawal in 2000, the focus became Israeli withdrawal from Sheba farms; later it was the liberation of seven Shiite villages in Northern Israel.
What is surprising is not the addition of yet another rationale for the militia to retain its arsenal but Hezbollah's unexpected turn inward. In his speech, Nasrallah explicitly threatened the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)--the reinvigorated international peacekeeping force currently on the ground in the South--if it attempted to get involved in Lebanese domestic affairs. "Your clear mission," he said, is to "support the Lebanese army. . . . [It] is not to spy on Hezbollah or disarm the Resistance." To avoid being dragged into a "collision" with his militia, Nasrallah warned, UNIFIL must not look into Hezbollah's weapons. "They should not interfere in Lebanon's internal affairs or be involved in such things."
Nasrallah also devoted a portion of his speech to sectarian issues in Lebanon. Though most analysts believe the Israel-Hezbollah war aggravated existing Sunni-Shia tensions, Nasrallah denied there was any such friction, maintaining that "the dispute here is not sectarian, but political." He went one step further, making the astonishing boast that Hezbollah had "protected Lebanon from civil war."
Capping off his foray into local politics, Nasrallah commented that the Siniora government was not up to the task of reconstruction, and he issued a direct challenge to the Lebanese government. If the state fails to protect Lebanon, he said, Hezbollah will again assume the responsibility. "We have thus far been patient . . . be assured that we will not be patient for long."
While the speech was obviously well received by Nasrallah's constituents, others in Lebanon were less than pleased. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt was the most outspoken critic; he described the speech as "a coup." Outside of Lebanon, though, the details of this revolutionary speech went unnoticed, overshadowed by the stunning photos and the rocket announcement.
Nasrallah's speech was important not only for the details but also as an indicator of Hezbollah's postwar strategy. With the deployments of the Lebanese Armed Forces and the reconstituted UNIFIL in the South, Hezbollah's freedom of military action is greatly constrained. Nasrallah's focus on domestic Lebanese politics is tacit recognition of the new reality on the ground. Absent the ability to attack Israel directly, for the time being at least, the "resistance" is in search of a new mission. Nasrallah seems to be working to establish a new political reality to accommodate this requirement.
For the United States and the Siniora government, this development is troubling, and it will be increasingly difficult to contain. In the short term, the best counter to Hezbollah's gambit will be for the Siniora government to succeed in its efforts to reconstruct Lebanon quickly, efficiently, and without conspicuous corruption. In the long term, however, the only real remedy will be to reform the Lebanese political system so that alternative Shiite parties can emerge to challenge--and ultimately dilute--Hezbollah's political power. Until then, Prime Minister Siniora, with U.S. help, will have to settle for competing with Hezbollah--and its Iranian patron--in hometown politics.
***David Schenker is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. From 2002 to 2006, he was the Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestinian affairs adviser in the office of the Secretary of Defense.
Panel speculates on future of Hezbollah
Syane Roy -Contributing Writer
September 29, 2006
Two experts discussed the future of Hezbollah — the Lebanese organization that achieved worldwide recognition this summer for its 43-day war with Israel — and the group’s ties to Iran in a panel discussion held yesterday at the School of Law.
Over 200 students gathered in Vanderbilt Hall for the panel moderated by CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen. One panelist was Hala Jaber, a correspondent for the British paper The Sunday Times who has written a book on Hezbollah. She was joined by Michael Sheehan, a former deputy commissioner for counterterrorism at the New York Police Department and a former counterterrorism coordinator for the U.S. State Department.
The Middle-Eastern conflict began in mid-July when Hezbollah paramilitary forces crossed into Israel and captured and killed Israeli soldiers. Israel retaliated with air raids and a ground assault, followed by Hezbollah rocket fire into northern Israeli towns.
The conflict ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire on Aug. 14.
With the issue of terrorism dominating the region, talk turned to Hezbollah and its ties to terrorism. Both panelists were quick to note that Hezbollah functioned primarily as a political party and a social welfare provider for the people of Lebanon, and that it should not be lumped together with terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.
“I would consider them a terrorist organization because part of the organization engages in terror,” Sheehan said. “However, I would not say it was their defining characteristic. Hezbollah has a restrained terror. They [only] support Palestinian terrorists in Israel.”
Jaber added that Hezbollah is not universally recognized as engaging in terror. “For many in the West, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. For many in Lebanon it is a form of resistance,” she said. “When you have occupation, you will have resistance.” Iran was a topic of disagreement between the panelists. The theocratic regime in Tehran has had a powerful influence on Hezbollah’s ideology and has historically had close ties with the Lebanese organization. Sheehan said Iran has been a prominent financial backer of Hezbollah, adding that the country has been supporting the group with about $100 million a year.“Hezbollah is not an alien force, but their money is alien,” Sheehan said. “Its principal military and financial backer wants Israel to go away. They have more support when the situation with Israel is deteriorating.”
However, Jaber downplayed Iranian involvement in Hezbollah, stressing the homegrown nature of the movement as a response to Israeli aggression.
“It is an oversimplification to say that Hezbollah is a tool of Iran,” she said.
The talk then turned to the future of peace between Lebanon and Israel. They discussed whether Hezbollah would continue to posture after a war many see as a victory for the Islamist organization, or if it would utilize its sizeable network to become a part of the political mainstream.
“Hezbollah’s future is in politics,” Jaber said. “They realize that the Lebanese people cannot take another session of violence and they will be more into social welfare and dialogue. “Their record of corruption is low,” she said. “From a humanitarian point of view, they are doing a lot.”
Though he agreed that Hezbollah is an honest group, Sheehan hinted that the prospects were dim for a lasting peace.
“They learned from this that their militancy works,” he said. “The Iranians will continue to provide them with missiles. It will upset the balance of security there for quite a while.” CAS sophomore Craig Hosang said he felt the discussion was a worthwhile experience and he was pleased that NYU was able to host the event.“It was great to raise awareness and start the debate,” he said.
Hezbollah "an Octopus" with Tentacles Around World, Officials Say
Lebanese terrorist group gets Syrian, Iranian supplies, support, says official
USINF News From Washington
28 September 2006
Washington –- The Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah, supported and supplied by Iran and Syria, can be thought of as octopus-like, a State Department official says.Frank Urbancic Jr., principal deputy coordinator of the State Department’s Counterterrorism Office, said that even though Hezbollah portrays itself as a Lebanese nationalist movement it best could be imagined “as almost an octopus with the head in southern Lebanon and tentacles moving around the world.” With the exception of Iran and Syria, its state sponsors, the tentacles “are for supply and support.” He testified September 28 at a joint hearing of the terrorism and Middle East subcommittees of the House of Representatives International Relations Committee.
“Hezbollah has assets around the world, and it can mobilize them on a moment's notice,” Urbancic added.
The official said Hezbollah raises most of its funds in the Middle East. Since 2000, it also has provided “financial, training and logistical support to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorist groups.”Urbancic said Hezbollah also has supporters and sympathizers throughout the Arab and Muslim communities in Latin America. These individual primarily do fundraising for the group. Latin American Hezbollah supporters and sympathizers “are also involved in a number of illegal activities,” he continued.For this reason, Urbancic said, the United States is “very, very concerned” about a potential connection between Hezbollah and the FARC (a narcoterrorism group composed of Colombian guerillas) in South America, which could provide necessary funding for operations in the United States and the Middle East.
“It's something that we are very much worried about in the tri-border area” of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, he said.
Hezbollah also receives “a significant amount of financing from the Shiite diaspora of West Africa and Central Africa,” Urbancic told the members of Congress. These pro-Hezbollah Shiites are active in West Africa's commercial sector, in the diamond trade and beyond.
“Contributions there often are in the form of religious donations and paid in cash, they're difficult to track, and collected by Hezbollah couriers transiting the region,” said Urbancic.Subcommittee members, including Representative Edward Royce, the terrorism subcommittee chairman, described Hezbollah activities further. Royce said the terrorist group is thought to be responsible for the suicide attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the attack on TWA Flight 847 in 1985 and the attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996.
The Middle East subcommittee’s chairwoman, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, said that six months before Hezbollah attacked the Marines barracks in Beirut in 1983, it also attacked the U.S. Embassy there, killing 63 and wounding more than 100. In 1992, she said, a Hezbollah suicide bomber attacked the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, killing 29 and wounding more than 200, as well as destroying a nearby church and a school building. In July 1994, the Jewish Community Center of Buenos Aires was attacked, with 85 killed and more than 300 wounded.
“We must never forget who is behind Hezbollah and on whose behalf its twisted actions are taken,” Ros-Lehtinen said. The recent Lebanon-Israel fighting “proved exactly how intensely involved Iran is in supporting Hezbollah with weapons and ideology.”
“One can only imagine the untold horrors that Hezbollah may someday perpetrate should its patron state [Iran] achieve its coveted goal of nuclear weaponry,” she concluded.For more information about U.S policy, see Response to Terrorism.
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Rep. Royce: Hezbollah Active in Blood Diamonds
From: "Conflict Diamonds" >
By Jeff Miller Posted: 9/29/2006
Congressman Ed Royce, a Republican representing Orange County, California, addressed a hearing on Hezbollah's global reach, held in Washington D.C. on September 28, 2006. During a panel hearing on international terrorism Royce chaired, he opened the hearing by saying, "The Hezbollah threat is grave indeed." Royce charged that Hezbollah's network operates in western Africa, "where Hezbollah has been active trading blood diamonds."
"Hezbollah isn't just a menace to Israel, Lebanon, and the region," Royce said, but added that evidence from the United States State Department concluded Hezbollah has "established cells in Europe, Africa, South America, North America, and Asia."
A key witness Royce brought forward to the hearing described Hezbollah's network existing in more than 40 countries with a significant presence in Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. [Guerrillas spotted in Paraguay smuggling diamonds on September 26.]
Royce chairs the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. "I was in Haifa (Israel) this summer as it rained rockets on much of northern Israel. These were terrorist attacks: Rockets fired indiscriminately, intended to kill and intimidate civilians," he said. During the hearing, other testimony concluded that Iran and Syria had not ceased arming Hezbollah, despite United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701.
Additionally, Royce said there were more than 200 cases in 2005 alone where the FBI suspected Hezbollah activity within the borders of the United States -- mainly this activity was linked to fundraising or criminal activity to raise cash. "Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, a Lebanese-Mexican operating out of Tijuana, smuggled at least 200 individuals, including Hezbollah sympathizers, into the United States," Royce said. "Even after the 9/11 Commission report on terrorist travel highlighted this link between human smugglers and terrorists, border security efforts remain woefully neglected."
The Function of Reverting to the Inside
Walid Choucair Al-Hayat - 29/09/06//
Since Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert does not anticipate an eruption of a new confrontation with Hezbollah in the South, and Hezbollah has made a pledge to the UN - and during the drawing up of agreements following the adoption of Resolution 1701 - to halt military operations against Israeli forces and to refrain from firing rockets at northern Israel; then the situation on the ground in the South of Lebanon is not the source of the international community's concerns over the fragile situation in Lebanon
These concerns vary from fears of a regional confrontation, to fears of internal confrontations in Lebanon, the rhetoric of which is escalating to unprecedented levels, as a result of the ever-increasing political sectarian and ideological mobilization.
The international community with its different affiliations is concerned with the internal situation in Lebanon to the same extent it is concerned with the regionally-complex situation, which encompasses Palestine, Syria and Iraq, and extends further to Iran and its relation with its surroundings, because in the upcoming phase regional confrontations will depend on the internal situation in Lebanon.
We are currently witnessing, more than ever, an international reversion to the internal situation in Lebanon. But the most important reversion comes from Lebanon's 'most regional' party, namely: Hezbollah, which, in contrast to its traditions, and more than ever, has been attaching greater priority to domestic considerations in its political practices and stances.
In contrast to its past attitude, the Party's leadership, with its massive resources and extensive capabilities, has been devoting attention to the many details of the Lebanese domestic front, and to the composition of Lebanese sects, parties and regions
The Party is moving along the Sunni front, supporting a Sunni offshoot emerging from under the sweeping leadership of MP Saad Hariri. It is also interfering in the Druze conflict, actively emerging in the Christian arena through the Party's ally, General Michel Aoun; forging allies here and there on the Palestinian front in refugee camps in Lebanon, and is culminating all the above with the demand for a change of government and with a campaign targeting its head, Fouad Siniora, regardless of his far-reaching popularity internally (among all sects) and externally.
It has been customary for the Party to revert to the internal situation when it has the regional and Israeli fronts secured. It is in this case, or when scheming towards some undertaking, even on the long run, that it seeks to put a lid on its domestic differences with Lebanon, and to secure the largest base of support possible for the Resistance.
However, the Party's reversion is different on this occasion, should it be looked at as an expected step, following its pledge to the UN to stop or 'freeze' its operations against Israel, and to stop the firing of rockets. However, it should also be taken into consideration that the Party's Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has declared that the Party's arsenal of rockets after the war's end on August 17 has reached more than 20,000 rockets, meaning that it now has the wherewithal for a broader and more pain-inflicting confrontation with Israel.
Hezbollah's reversion in this instance is new, because it comes in light of Resolution 1701, which limits Israel's ability to take military action against Lebanon, while entailing measures to put an end to the regional function of Hezbollah's arms, if these measures succeed in returning the Shebaa Farms to Lebanese sovereignty.
If the Party agreed to Resolution 1701 because it, more than all the people of Lebanon, wanted to end Israel's devastating war; Hezbollah, and allies Iran and Syria, oppose the provision of the Resolution pertaining to the nullification of the regional function of its arsenal through the creation of a demilitarized buffer zone South of the Litany River. And impeding on this provision is the purpose of Hezbollah's reversion.
Settlement entailed in Resolution 1701 is in the interest of international and Arab powers mindful of the effect of any move on the intricate Lebanese mosaic. Therefore, the implementation of this settlement, and the Lebanese government, which is the end sum of this mosaic of which Hezbollah is a part, were the common denominators in the Resolution.
In its 19 clauses, Resolution 1701 spoke of 'support' for the Lebanese government 17 times, and used unequivocal phrasing in five other clauses like: "without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon", and "in collaboration with UNIFIL", and "augmented (deployment of Lebanese) troops in southern Lebanon", meaning that the decisions and orientation of the Lebanese dictate the upholding of Resolution 1701, and curtailing the regional function of arms.
In this context, international support for the Lebanese government becomes an issue of great importance, while Hezbollah's attacks could be seen as the expected preliminary step toward attempts to change the balance of power within the Lebanese government, and support for Iran in its efforts to "reshuffle" the Lebanese government as published in 'Al-Hayat' yesterday, citing high ranking sources involved in the decision-making process in Tehran, regardless of the effect of that change on the Lebanese mosaic.
Either a Miniaturized Iran or a Miniaturized Iraq!
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat - 29/09/06//
If we collect everything that has been said by Hezbollah and its allies from the cessation of hostilities, to the words spoken by Damascus and then, a few days ago, Tehran, we may be able to formulate the option facing the Lebanese this way: Either a change will occur in the government, which represents the majority, to be replaced by a national unity government; or ruin will prevail, whether by the hands of al-Qaeda or others. In other words, either Lebanon becomes a miniaturized Iran ruled by Hezbollah with the 'understander' Michel Aoun in its pocket as a forerunner to making the country a permanent and open battleground for regional struggles; or Lebanon will be destroyed, and become inevitably, a miniaturized Iraq.
In the first case, as many observers have indicated, Hezbollah will hand over its arms to itself as it has already become the 'clean, just, capable and powerful' authority in the land. In the second case, Hezbollah retains its weapons and if any attempt is made to disarm it, chaos will spread and prevail, regardless of the nature or identity of the attempt to disarm it, and regardless of who the disarmer is.
This, in reality, is a choice between death by missiles and death by landmines, with all they have in common being Iranian money-bags delivered to those nominated to die and the families they leave behind them! Such a situation will obviously have to be imposed through illegitimate channels, while those promising us either of the deathly choices are not a marginal or weak group.
Those two facts give more justification for the potential victims who are supposed to die against their will, in order to refuse this fate. Life, at the end of the day, is more important than countries. And wisdom, against such a gloomy background, demands that we expect the worse: for instance, the potential victims - who are forced to seek death - heading toward a search for salvation for their sects.
We may also expect an escalating inclination toward the abandoning of the formula of the 'uniting' nation, intended to lead to collective death. As for blackmail of the 'you talk like America' kind, it will be loose the ability to blackmail. Maybe this reality is the source of the depression today that is perceptible in the Lebanese's talk about their Lebanon. Hezbollah and its allies have not only carried the debate beyond politics, but even beyond life itself. In a situation like this, building a consensus become an illusion unparalleled except by the illusion of adhering to the nation, or building the State.
N: Israel blocked investigators
UN says Israel refused to give UN investigators access to IDF officials suspected of being responsible for bombing of UN base in Lebanon
Associated Press Published: 09.30.06, 08:37
Israel refused to give a UN-appointed investigation access to the officials who may have been responsible for the bombing of an observation post that killed four unarmed peacekeepers at the height of the conflict with Hizbullah , the United Nations said Friday.
Israel said the bombing of the UN peacekeeping post along the Israeli-Lebanese border was a mistake that occurred at the "operational
level." The UN panel investigating the killings was not allowed to interview commanders at that level to determine what happened, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement.
The statement was delivered shortly after the Board of Inquiry investigating the attack submitted a confidential report with its findings to the UN and to the four nations whose observers were killed - Austria, Canada, China and Finland. The report was not sent to Israel.
Dujarric's statement said it concluded that there was nothing else the United Nations could have done "that would have changed the outcome."
The four observers were killed by an Israeli precision-guided bomb that destroyed the bunker where they took shelter after their observation post near the town of Khiam came under heavy fire. UN officials in New York and Lebanon had repeatedly warned Israel that the observation post, built 30 years before, was under attack. Because of Israel's refusal, the inquiry was "unable to determine why the attacks on the UN position were not halted despite repeated demarches to the Israeli authorities from UN personnel, both in the field and at headquarters," Dujarric said. Israel has blamed inaccurate maps for its mistake, and said the airplane that dropped the bomb thought it was targeting Hizbullah. Hizbullah was active in the area, with a post about 150 yards away. Asked to comment on Dujarric's statement, the spokeswoman for Israel's UN mission, Anat Friedman, said: "Israel has expressed its regret for the unfortunate event and has investigated the tragic incident." Friedman refused to comment on the UN claim that the investigators had not been allowed to interview some officials.A UN official said Israel never sufficiently explained why it kept bombing the base.
"We do not have a satisfactory answer as to why those attempts failed," said the official, who spoke anonymously because the report was confidential. "The Israelis are fully aware of our position on this incident."The official said there was nothing in the Board of Inquiry's findings to contradict UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's earlier claim that the attack was "apparently deliberate.
Brammertz's Surprise for the International Community
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 29/09/06//
New York - During the bilateral meetings of the presidents and the foreign ministers of Member States in the UN General Assembly, the Iranian issue was comparable to a huge 'gorilla' in the room that everyone pretends not to see because no one knows what to do about it. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a campaign to promote his relations with American intellectual institutions. He sent a letter via the rostrum of the General Assembly to the entire world practically indicating that he will neither escalate the situation nor surrender.
With the usual Iranian wisdom, Nejad said that he will, rather, keep an equilibrium between not confronting and not surrendering, in order for Iran to gain some points. The targets of Ahmadinejad's campaigns have expressed their admiration for his intelligence and wisdom and avoided cornering him. Meanwhile, Nejad has been deliberately emphasizing vital issues in his relationship with Hezbollah and his view of Lebanon's role in the map of Iran's regional and international influence. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Afghani President Hamid Karzai publicly argued about who is to be entitled, through his policies, to supply Taliban in order for it to regain its strength. Then they both headed to their ally in the White House for dinner with President George W. Bush, either to reach an agreement or to complain. On the contrary, the Iranian President mocked them because his relationship with his allies differs in nature and weight. Iran's agenda depends on its weight in the oil alliance, which includes China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Tehran employs its international active allies in what is beyond the nuclear file. It wants them to provide permanent protection for its regional allies against any claims, particularly in the context of the investigation into the assassinations in Lebanon and the establishment of an international court for accountability before justice.
With regard to Hezbollah, those who met Ahmadinejad understood that he views the war in Lebanon as one in favor of Iran and Lebanon, because it weighed down the legend of Israeli superiority. In his opinion, this is an equation that must be preserved by all means. Lebanon now is a major source of the idea over the possibility of defeating Israel by wearing down its legend; thus, Lebanon must be supported.
During his press conference, Ahmadinejad was very clear in refusing to abide by Resolution 1701, particularly paragraph 15 which requires States to respect the ban on the export of weapons to any entity, organization or individual in Lebanon with the exception of the legitimate Lebanese government. He was asked about this three times and deliberately, yet indirectly, evaded the questions and described Iranian support for the parties in Lebanon as exclusively "moral". What was really remarkable was his talk about "our role in the international arena" as a means of achieving goals and that "we are talking on an international level and we would like to solve the problems on an international level".
What is happening at the international level does not only involve the issue of Hezbollah's arms. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has announced his intention to retain his arms and stressed that he possesses about 20,000 missiles in defiance of the Security Council resolutions restricting weapons to the army and sole authority to the State. Nowadays, the international talk is not confined to the necessary actions to prevent the recurrence of war. This week, in particular, is the week to talk about the investigation and the Court. Iran makes a notable presence in these talks, through some of its most key allies.
Russia is leading the files of Iran, Lebanon and Syria in the UN Security Council, while China is leading the Sudan file, taking into consideration that the two countries are political partners and oil allies at this stage of their history.
In the sensitive and important negotiations taking place behind the scenes, Russia expresses its refusal to any mention of the term
'crimes against humanity' in the draft law of the international court, which will prosecute those found involved in the assassination of the late Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and his colleagues.
This expression was publicly announced by French President Jacques Chirac when asked by the writer of this article whether another kind of trial is to be expected in case the Lebanese government was toppled, bearing in mind that the court, currently perceived and prepared by the Legal Service of the UN, certainly requires the unanimous approval of the Lebanese government and Parliament. President Chirac said that the assassination of Hariri and his fellow companions, the other assassinations and assassination attempts, now amounting to 14 cases, altogether constitute "crimes against humanity".
This classification opens the door to a court different from the one being currently established, in case the efforts of toppling the government or assassinating Prime Minister Fouad Siniora are successful, as many fear. The court prosecuting 'crimes against humanity' is not subject to the unanimous approval of the government and the Parliament. It may be a Plan B, in case the Lebanese government is 'assassinated' in order to 'assassinate' the court.
Russia refuses the term 'crimes against humanity', thus, it represents China in the Security Council and speaks on behalf of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah outside the Council. This tripartite axis does not want any form of international court and is using all means to prevent it. According to informed sources, Russian diplomacy is active in the attempt to thwart any mention of 'crimes against humanity' in any document related to assassinations in Lebanon.
The other extremely important issue to Russia and China is the question of the authority of the international court. Russia is leading the efforts of establishing a court with limited and specified authority, so that its tasks are exclusively confined to the assassination of PM Rafik Hariri and will not include the other 14 cases of assassinations and assassination attempts.
Russia's justification here is that there is no need for a judicial process open to the various assassinations that will be difficult to close. Russia believes that there is a court in Lebanon capable of conducting the trials connected to the 14 other cases, and therefore the tasks of the international court must be limited to the assassination of PM Hariri.
This Russian stance is of paramount importance because of its political significances and what may be considered, at this juncture, as an attempt to contain the investigations of "the independent international commission to investigate the terrorist act", which killed PM Rafik Hariri and his companions. It is chaired by the Belgian Serge Brammertz.
In his latest report submitted earlier this week and put forth on Friday before the Security Council, Brammertz said the investigation had reached "new leads" that prompted the commission to declare "strategic objectives" for the coming period that include about 50 linkage-related and "links, notably in
identifying potential conjoining motives." He spoke about "horizontal and vertical linkages between all the 14 cases" and about "tangible progress both in individual cases and in their potential linkage to each other." He said that "The Commission's work in relation to the 14 other cases helps place the attacks into the prevailing context at the time, and is beginning to produce links, notably in identifying potential conjoining motives. Establishing the depth, breadth and nature of those links to an evidential standard is an investigation priority over the next months ." The Commission has devoted considerable resources to the analysis and investigation of the communications traffic aspects of the case. "This topic has yielded important results, and enables the Commission to establish links that otherwise would not be evident."
Brammertz's emphasis in his report on inter-connectivity and linkages puts Russia and the parties it represents under new spotlights. The attempts to restrict the role of the court to the assassination of PM Hariri will seem to be an indirect intervention in the investigation by "isolating" the inter-connectivity and disabling it before the court. This is also the case when it comes to the proposition concerned with 'crimes against humanity', as this expression basically stems from the inter-connectivity between the various assassinations. Therefore, some diplomats believe that only a political deal may allow these attitudes to lead to results. Concern about these issues is not a minor diplomatic maneuver, but it is a major issue because it involves regimes, and perhaps officials at the highest levels in more than one State.
The question Serge Brammertz refuses to answer regardless of who poses it: what are the highest ranks of those involved, according to his investigations? There are too many assumptions in this respect. The bargaining rhetoric is well-known inside the UN. Accordingly, questions revolve around bargaining and there are talks suggesting that it is not in the political interest of any of the key players to drag senior officials to trial. But others talk about the growing and irrevocable evidence, particularly in the file of one senior Lebanese, and that a senior Syrian might have to give up some of his officials, in order to avoid trial.
The negotiations about the international court mostly involve the question whether Serge Brammertz currently has enough tangible evidence to initiate prosecution in court.
Those who have known and met Brammertz say he is fully convinced that he will be able to prepare a case for the prosecution with indisputable evidence. But he does not feel ready right now. He might be ready to designate the perpetrators of the crimes by the end of the year or maybe even later. Serge Brammertz does not exactly know the answer to this question, or, he is pretending not to know it, because he is still in the midst of gathering more evidence so that the prosecution will have utmost confidence for the trial to be conducted.
The debate among members of the Security Council on the relationship between the investigation and the court deals with the following equation: Should the court be established and wait until the end of the investigation and the readiness of the prosecution? Or should they deliberate about establishing such a costly court and suffice with preparing the prosecution, and then wait until the establishment of the court?
The majority at the Security Council believes that it is necessary to unanimously approve and ratify the Court so that it will be ready as soon as the investigations are completed in order to refer the tasks to the court. There is one scenario suggesting that the establishment of the court now is a necessary political decision in order to disrupt the efforts to abort it before its establishment and that being ready does not mean that the court can start processing.
Many in the UN also talk about Serge Brammertz's decision to establish a tribunal of an international character by the end of the year, since he will be leaving office on that date, as he already stated. If he completes the investigations and is able to submit a report in December in which he names those involved in the crimes, the question is: Will Brammertz perform the prosecution, which requires him to leave his post at the International Criminal Tribunal for a prolonged period? If the investigation is not yet completed by the end of the year, what the international community is concerned with is the significance of Serge Brammertz's decision if he leaves office by the end of the year without closing the investigation, or if he extends it until June, the expiry date of the current jurisdiction of the Commission.
Brammertz stated in his report that the war between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon this summer hindered the investigation as a result of logistic difficulties in reaching witnesses. According to Brammertz, however, "progress has been made in all main areas of the investigation." During the war, significant criminal evidence and other evidence for the investigations were taken to Cyprus - where the Court may be established - for their maintenance and protection. The breaking out of another war might not necessarily adversely affect the investigation and delay its completion. The coming stage is one for interrogations and interviews that Brammertz wishes to become a series. He wants many of these interviews to be held in Lebanon, while he wishes to hold others in Syria, which he describes as "generally satisfactory."
What would happen if Brammertz had to surprise the international community with something other than his usual style? Brammertz, first and foremost, has the answer to that question. But the 'gorilla' in the room, which everyone pretends not to see, also has the answer. It is the younger sister of the huge 'gorilla' with important allies in more than one place.
Israel's New Northern Friend
By Isaac Post
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2006
While the antics of Canada's left-wing, anti-Israel ideologues have been soundly dealt with on these pages, less attention has been given to the pro-Israel stance of its new Conservative government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Earlier this month, it was reported that Harper had fired a high-level ambassador with a lengthy history of anti-Israel activism. Yvon Charbonneau's last day on the job as Canada's permanent representative to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was September 22nd.
Charbonneau has a long history of anti-Israel activism dating back to his days as the head of a radical Quebec teachers' union during the 1970s and 1980s. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has recalled how shocked he was to hear Charbonneau denounce Montreal Jewish leaders "in a decidedly racist manner" at a 1976 Quebec economic summit.
In 1983, Charbonneau urged union members to place signs in public schools attacking the Israeli government for killing Palestinians. Around the same time, he helped organize a mass demonstration against Ariel Sharon when he visited Montreal. In 1997, Charbonneau was elected to Parliament as a Liberal, representing a district in eastern Montreal. In a 2002 speech in Parliament, he said that "Sharon and his associates are turning Israel into a rogue state, a state that has no respect for friends or foes, a state that relies solely on the use of brutal force for its survival." The next day, a Hamas suicide bomber killed eight people and wounded 14 others on a bus in Haifa. Despite all this, in 2004 then-Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed Charbonneau Ambassador to UNESCO. The Montreal Gazette editorialized against the nomination at the time, citing his anti-Israeli views.
While at UNESCO, Charbonneau's chief accomplishment was to help enact—against American and Israeli opposition—the Convention on Cultural Diversity. This treaty—which Paul Martin signed—seeks to distinguish the "economic" aspect of cultural goods from their "cultural" aspect.
Under the treaty, a DVD is not just a product but has a separate, intrinsic value as a "vehicle of (cultural) identity." Supporters of this absurd document hope that this distinction will be recognized under international law and become an excuse to erect trade barriers to cultural goods. In fact, the treaty gives countries the right to take "all appropriate measures to protect and preserve cultural expressions." Harper should reject the treaty and its advocacy of 'cultural protectionism' as a follow-up to his sacking of Charbonneau.
Harper's pro-Israel stance is also affecting Canadian foreign policy more broadly. For example, in July, Canada voted against a U.N. resolution that condemned Israeli aggression against Palestinians, citing its anti-Israeli bias.
This is a sharp about-face from Canada's attitude under the Liberal leadership of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. And even after numerous critical stories in the media and polls showing declining support for his party, Harper courageously stood by his comments in which he called the Israeli response to the kidnapping of its soldiers by Hezbollah, "measured" and reiterated his support for Israel's "right to defend itself."
It feels good to be able to say that Israel has a friend in Canada.
Isaac Post is a Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank located in Washington, D.C.