LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 02/09

Bible Reading of the day
Roman 6/1-11
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer?  Or don’t you know that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were buried therefore with him through baptism to death, that just like Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin.  For he who has died has been freed from sin.  But if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him;  knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no more has dominion over him! For the death that he died, he died to sin one time; but the life that he lives, he lives to God.  Thus consider yourselves also to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Now is our time/By Ban Ki-moon/October 01/09
Amnesty: Darfur refugees raped in Chad camps/The Daily Star/October 01/09
Special Tribunal faces foreign reluctance to protect witnesses/By Patrick Galey/October 01/09
Mr. Baroud, please stop the killing/By: Michael Young/Now Lebanon/October 01/09
Michel Aoun (twisted policies)/Now Lebanon/October 01/09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for October 01/09
Geagea: March 8 not acting seriously, hiding behind Aoun/Now Lebanon
Dozens of Lebanese Shiites expelled from UAE/(AFP)
Hariri wants national-unity cabinet but all options are open if no deal is reached/Now Lebanon
Fatfat says he is “very cautious” despite cabinet optimism/Now Lebanon
Iran to propose third-party uranium enrichment, Ahmadinejad says-(AFP)
Israel rethinks its willingness to go to war with Iran-Daily Star
US visit marks tentative growth for Syria ties-Daily Star
Iraqi PM Al-Alousi Denounces Saudi Arabia, Syria-MEMRI
Israeli minister says arrest bid in Britain 'absurd'-(AFP)
Baghdad: Further Discussions With Syria Useless-MEMRI
Lebanon's Hariri extends talks on forming new government-AFP
Shoot-out in eastern Lebanon kills two-Monsters and Critics.com
Turkey, Syria's new best friend-guardian.co.uk
French mayors fear burqa ban could not be enforced/Daily Star
Hariri presses rival parties for deal on cabinet-Daily Star
Top British official faces grilling at AUB on Iran, Gaza, UN policy-Daily Star
Palestinians plan protest over hold-up on reconstruction-Daily Star
Shatah: tax system modernizations 'imperative' for economical growth-Daily Star
S&P links upgrade of leading Lebanese banks' ratings to structural reforms-Daily Star
EdL pulls the plug on electricity thieves-Daily Star
Toxic dump fires cause environmental emergency-Daily Star
Doorstep-bomb explodes outside Marwahin home/Daily Star
Suspects killed in Bekaa army raid shoot-out-Daily Star
Negligence charges for ISF after prisoners escape-Daily Star
Beauty parlors for children grow increasingly popular/(AFP)
Southern restaurant owner looks to Litani River to power his enterprise-Daily Star
Farmer deafened by rocket blast succeeds against the odds-Daily Star
Reckless motoring continues to claim lives of young Lebanese-Daily Star

Dozens of Lebanese Shiites expelled from UAE
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Rita Daou
Agence France Presse
BEIRUT: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) have expelled dozens of long-term Lebanese Shiite residents from the country over their presumed affiliation with Hizbullah, a representative said on Wednesday. “The common factor among all those expelled in the past three months is that they are all Shiites and as such are part of a community that supports the resistance,” Hassan Alayan, who heads a committee representing them, told AFP.
He was referring to the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hizbullah, a major political party that also has a militia that is a key force in the country’s balance of power and fought a devastating war with Israel in 2006.
Alayan, 50, said he was recently ordered to leave Sharjah, one of the seven city-states that make up the mainly Sunni UAE, where he had been living for 22 years.
He said UAE officials gave no explanation for their action apart from saying the orders had been issued from high up.
“I didn’t even get a chance to pack my bags or bring anything back,” said the father of four who worked as a journalist.
In Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital, officials had no immediate comment on the matter.
A Foreign Ministry official in Beirut said the UAE ambassador had been summoned several times over the affair but had so far given no explanation.
Alayan said the expulsions began in the aftermath of the June 7 general elections in Lebanon that saw a Saudi- and Western-backed coalition beat a Hizbullah-led alliance.
Senior Hizbullah politician Mohammad Fneish told AFP the Lebanese government must quickly address the issue, which could be expected to financially hurt the families involved.
“These people broke no laws, and there is no excuse for what they have suffered,” Fneish said. “It is a violation of their rights and freedom.”
Senior Lebanese Shiite cleric Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah meanwhile called on Emirati President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan to deal with the matter.
“We call on you to save hundreds of Lebanese families who have contributed to the development of your country,” Fadlallah said in a statement. “We refuse to believe that the expulsions were motivated by politics, religion, security concerns or any outside pressure.”
Hussein Masood, a 39-year-old businessman who had lived in the emirates since the age of 4, said he still did not understand what prompted his expulsion in July.
“I was returning from vacation and was held at the airport and told that I could not enter the country for security reasons,” Masood said. “I wept at the time because my whole life is in the UAE.
“I have three companies there, $5 million worth of contracts and 85 mainly Sunni em­ployees who rely on me,” he added. “I can’t believe this is all happening because I am Shiite.”
An estimated 100,000 Leba­nese work in the UAE.

Special Tribunal faces foreign reluctance to protect witnesses
STL looks to interpol for alternatives as neighboring states stall
By Patrick Galey /Daily Star staff
Thursday, October 01, 2009
BEIRUT: Six months after its inception, the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is facing obstruction from abroad due to concerns over witness protection, according to the court’s latest report. “The STL Six Months On: A Bird’s Eye View,” was written by tribunal President Antonio Cassese and is designed to provide the public with a “succinct and unvarnished overview” of the court’s activities. It was made available to the media Tuesday.
The report highlighted a number of issues to be addressed in order for the STL to bring to justice the killers of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated on February 14, 2005.
“Assistance from states, in the form of witness relocation agreements and protection of witnesses, is of vital importance for the success of the tribunal,” the report said.
It added that attempts to reach deals with a number of other countries over witness protection “so far have not yet borne fruit.”
State cooperation, according to the report, remained the main challenge facing the STL.
Retired General Elias Hanna told The Daily Star that Arab countries in particularly were wary of the STL and would be reluctant to reach an agreement over witnesses.
“We have to go back to the core issue that an international tribunal is not traditional in the Arab world – we don’t have this culture,” he said. “From this perspective, why should Arab states ink a deal with the tribunal?”
He said that potential witnesses were reluctant to come forward, as Hariri’s killers remained at large and protection would be difficult to guarantee.
“Maybe a witness saw something but doesn’t have the whole picture. Maybe witnesses don’t like to get involved,” he said.
“We have to wait until this tribunal comes to something like accusing someone,” before witnesses may be willing to step forward, Hanna added.
Shafik Masri, professor of international law, said that in spite of some examples of international reluctance, the report demonstrated the STL was moving forward. “There was progress – not progress in the court but progress in preparing for the court,” he said. “[Cassese] did not specify which Middle Eastern states [were not cooperating.] But all those countries outside Lebanon are not essential. The essential thing was when the court got an undertaking from the Lebanese government to defer judiciary power.” The STL has been plagued by allegations of politicization even before it was officially established in March this year. Hanna said that such accusations would ultimately hamper the court’s progress, in spite of it constantly rejecting claims of partisanship. “In this region we have problems with accusation, and anyone who comes forward will be accused of [having political motivation],” he said.
He added that regional interplay could be behind certain Middle Eastern states’ reluctance to cooperate with the STL. “For example, Jordan won’t seal a deal with the tribunal if in the back of its mind it thinks that Syria might be implicated,” he said. Responsibility for Hariri’s assassination has been widely laid at Syria’s door.
In April, four former Lebanese generals, who headed the country’s major intelligence services when Syria held sway in Lebanon, were released by the STL after being held for four years. Damascus has repeatedly denied involvement in the killing. The difficulties surrounding contracts with other countries may be rendered moot, because the STL is seeking an “interim agreement” with Interpol. This could enable the court to bypass protocols with individual states under international law, according to Masri. “If states will not sign a contract with the court, then the [tribunal] can go another way,” he said. “If there is a refusal to indict [a suspect] then Interpol can be contacted. “These contracts are not essential for the court, but are of course preferable.”

Geagea: March 8 not acting seriously, hiding behind Aoun
October 1, 2009 /Now Lebanon
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea told reporters on Thursday that the March 8 coalition is not “acting seriously and hiding behind Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun” because it does not want a cabinet to be formed. Geagea also said that media outlets affiliated with the opposition are treating the issue as if the cabinet formation is only awaiting an understanding between Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri and Aoun. He added that the March 8 coalition is hiding its true intentions by creating a false atmosphere of optimism.
Geagea stressed that President Michel Sleiman and Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri should exercise their “constitutional right” and end the impasse.

Hariri wants national-unity cabinet but all options are open if no deal is reached
October 1, 2009
Now Lebanon/After concluding deliberations on the cabinet formation, Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri told reporters at the parliament building on Thursday that he wants a national-unity cabinet but that all options remain on the table if no deal is reached. He added that he remains optimistic after the negotiation process.
Hariri said it is customary in Lebanon for deliberations to be “mere formalities.” He said, however, that the current phase has forced politicians to hold quantitative consultations. “After all that has happened in Lebanon, it is normal to debate issues in depth, especially given that the previous phase produced cabinets only as part of a crisis-management strategy,” he said. He also said that the discussions were serious, responsible and reinforced trust between different political parties. “This will establish common ground to reinforce the Taif Accord and to allow for agreement on a modern electoral law, decentralization and ways to counter sectarianism,” he added.
Hariri noted that he hopes the dialogue will result in the formation of a cabinet that is capable of managing the affairs of state.
“National responsibility forces us to look for a way out of these crises,” Hariri said, adding that this is why he has called on all blocs to consider the political, socio-economic and security challenges facing Lebanon, including ongoing Israeli threats and the spread of terrorist cells.
Hariri added, “The most important purpose of these meetings is to build trust, which is apparently lost between all parties. It is our national duty to build it and support it, especially when talking about a national-unity cabinet.” There should be ongoing dialogue between all parties, he emphasized.
The PM-designate concluded by saying that whoever wants to be a partner in the cabinet should feel as if they are true partners and should make responsible decisions regarding the body. The loss of trust that developed between parties over the past four years was the principle problem and the media will play a major role in rebuilding this trust, he said.

Fatfat says he is “very cautious” despite cabinet optimism
October 1, 2009
Now Lebanon/Lebanon First bloc MP Ahmad Fatfat said in an interview with the Kuwaiti Al-Rai newspaper that will be published on Friday that he is “very cautious” despite the optimism surrounding the possibility of forming a cabinet within the coming two weeks, as this contradicts reports published in Syrian newspapers. Fatfat also said that Syria’s improved relations with Saudi Arabia and the Arab world in general will benefit Lebanon, although he stressed that Lebanon is not the only issue on the countries’ agendas. He also emphasized that Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri will not visit Syria before the cabinet is finalized, in reference to suggestions that he may visit Damascus during Saudi King Abdullah bin Abel Aziz’s visit.
Fatfat also said that the 15-10-5 formula is only one of the possible “exit” strategies to the current impasse, stressing that negotiations are over a full package.

Mr. Baroud, please stop the killing
By: Michael Young,
Now Lebanon/October 1, 2009
Almost two weeks ago, two young men were driving down from Faraya very early in the morning. For some reason, perhaps speed, perhaps the water on the road after a night of rain, or some combination of both, their vehicle swerved off the road near Feytroun and exploded, killing both.
The incident, one of the countless fatal car accidents that occur in Lebanon on average daily, again brought home the astonishing absence of a national traffic policy. One can of course blame reckless drivers, but a larger share of the blame goes to the state, in particular the police, which has systematically failed to implement its own traffic laws.
When the interior minister, Ziad Baroud, came into office, for a time the police began imposing penalties on drivers not wearing a seat belt or caught speaking on their mobile phones while driving. Like everything else in the land, though, the effort was haphazard, having little impact. More important, little was done to curtail speeding, a greater danger that could easily be brought under control if the police showed some will.
In the past year or more we’ve all noticed the bright new cars and four-wheel-drive vehicles given to the Internal Security Forces. The cars are from the United States, have thick wheels, and are very much designed to appear aggressive and run fast. They have the horsepower to engage in high-speed car chases, to ram other cars if need be, and presumably to make a Lebanese policeman feel as powerful as an American one.
Thank heavens the Lebanese have shown little incentive to go along with that image. But it’s also disconcerting to see the vehicles, otherwise, serving mainly one purpose: to allow policemen to cruise slowly through Lebanese streets, inert with boredom, while doing absolutely nothing to implement traffic laws. In fact, on most days it is the policemen themselves who seem to break those laws in one way or another.
It cannot be difficult to impose speeding regulations. The favorite technique of the police has been to set up speed guns on highways to catch drivers exceeding the speed limit, then to set up a road block further on to hand out fines. But you can only use that method ever so often. Roadblocks only strangulate traffic, increasing the burden on all drivers. That’s why the roadblock system is used sparingly in most countries.
What should be done is to deploy police cars on Lebanon’s main highways and thoroughfares, and demand that they do their job by signaling to speeding drivers that they need to stop. No one asks that the police chase all the crazier drivers, as the results will be cataclysmic; but if enough police cars are present on a highway, one car can signal to another ahead that so-and-so is coming his way. In other words, the effective way to limit speeding is for the police to be present, to coordinate the efforts of its cars on the road, to set up an efficient network of observation, to impose high fines for speeders, and to do so at most hours of the day and night.
Before long, the mere presence of the police will make people slow down. A system of cameras can also be set up to catch speeding cars that the police don’t see. This is all very basic policy, which begs the question: Why, on most days, are Lebanese drivers forced to take their lives into their own hands by driving on major highways? Why is it that, specifically on the matter of imposing speeding regulations, the police has been thoroughly incompetent, in fact dangerously nonexistent?
There is no convincing explanation. And yet Lebanon is well known to be accident prone. An article published on this website last September cited a 2004 study by Sweroad, the consultancy arm of the Swedish Road Administration, to the effect that Lebanon had “more than twice as many deaths per 100,000 vehicles than in Western European countries.”
The author, Matt Nash, also cited Internal Security Forces figures that 2,767 accidents occurred in 2006, killing 378 people; 4,421 in 2007, killing 497; and 2,483 accidents up to August 2008, killing 275 people. However, he found that these figures were substantially lower than those provided by the Lebanese Red Cross, “whose statistics show a total of 8,115 accidents in 2006, 9,546 in 2007 and 4,661 up to June 2008.”
According to a report published seven years ago by the Youth Association for Social Awareness (YASA), which addresses Lebanon’s traffic policies and their shortcomings, “Lebanon [is] almost the unique country in the region, where traffic laws are outdated and not well implemented. Unlike Lebanon, most [Middle East and North Africa] countries have amended and improved their traffic rules and laws during the last decade.”
No one seriously doubts Ziad Baroud’s competence. When several prisoners escaped from Roumieh Prison earlier this summer, he intervened to fire security officials for being asleep on the job. But the traffic situation, which he promised to address when he was appointed, is becoming a blight on his record. The cars are there, the police are there, and the road network in Lebanon is not especially vast to prevent effective policing. There is no reason to allow the barbarity on the roads to continue, nor the daily readiness of some to commit homicide or suicide.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.

Michel Aoun
Now Lebanon
September 30, 2009
On September 29, the Lebanese National News Agency (NNA) carried the following report:
The head of the Change and Reform bloc, Deputy General Michel Aoun, received in Rabieh Youth and Sports Minister Talal Arslan, Agriculture Minister Elias Skaff, the head of the Marada Movement Deputy Sleiman Franjieh and the secretary general of the Tashnaq Party, Hovig Mekhitarian, in the presence of Telecommunications Minister Gebran Bassil.
Following the meeting, General Aoun indicated that it addressed “the political and regional developments, as well as the domestic and external threats currently facing Lebanon, saying, “We adopted a very realistic assessment method to coordinate the positions. When we talk about threats, this means we are in the midst of a confrontation which is not necessarily military. It is a confrontation via political and qualitative positions issued before the Lebanese public opinion to explain what is happening in a way that would thwart the misleading and the attempts at deviation.
These meetings will be held regularly, which shows the continuation of the understanding and the handling of the old and urgent issues.”
Will you address the portfolios in Thursday’s meeting and is the Free Patriotic Movement holding on to the Telecommunications Ministry?
During the first meeting, the Prime Minister-designate asked some questions and we have some of our own to ask. I always hear you reiterating words which go against the legal texts and traditions. You say non-binding consultations with a negotiations character, that could either reach concord or dispute. However, no one is settling things on his own. The consultations are similar to negotiations, and if the establishment of a national-unity government is secured, this means there was an understanding between both sides. As for binding consultations, they are similar to elections.
How do you assess the position of President Michel Sleiman toward the government formation?
His position is a legal one that was inspired by Lebanese customs and the constitution. He has no problem with those who lost in the parliamentary elections, recognizing that we did not lose. We won the elections and grew larger.
Will the prime minister-designate hasten the government's formation?
We do not know how fast he will be or what commitments were imposed on him. For our part, we are cooperating in terms of the time and the negotiations to ensure the creation of a homogenous and strong government. This can only be seen through a respect for the customs, laws and constitution.
Do the consultations aim at discussing the appointment of the ministers?
We believe that the prime minister-designate is the “pilot” in the formation of the government and is the one to put forward the pattern of the talks and the questions he wishes to clarify.
Are you satisfied with the performance of the prime minister-designate and is the Free Patriotic Movement willing to relinquish the Telecommunications Ministry in exchange for the Finance Ministry?
The telecommunications issue is being repeated over and over again. I did not create that problem, and the one who created it should be the one paying the price for its resolution.
Could the coming “S-S” [Syria and Saudi Arabia] meeting have a positive impact on the government formation?
Regardless of the issues addressed during the meeting between President Assad and King Abdullah, it will not resolve the domestic problem. I believe that the external problems themselves were not created by them but by a more distant source. The real problem is naturalization and the non-recognition of the right of return. There is a fight against all those rejecting the annulment of the right of return by containing them, calling them terrorists at times and obstructors at others. Our stance is part of our national policy to prevent the imposition of naturalization on the Palestinians, which would cost them the right of return.
On the domestic level on the other hand, there is a strong clash in which you the journalists are not participating and are remaining idle, knowing that the issue concerns you. Had it targeted you, you would have carried it on the front pages every single day under the headline “Mafia action in managing the affairs of the state.” If you want a country in which you can live, you have to be on our side, and if you do not want that, do not talk about reform. Just sell yourselves on the elections market. Raise your voices, and say you are satisfied with the performance, but do not remain schizophrenic.
Personally, I will continue to fight for you and for the others, but I will not allow the performance to remain as it is and let each and every one assume his responsibility. The expression “corruption dossier” was highly costly to me, but the issue is on the table. The documents are there, the funds are being wasted and political life is being dragged in the mud. Deputies have become responsible for following up on papers in the state institutions or charitable associations.

Now is our time
By Ban Ki-moon
Thursday, October 01, 2009
First person by Ban Ki-moon
Every September, the world’s leaders gather at the United Nations to reaffirm our founding charter; our faith in fundamental principles of peace, justice, human rights and equal opportunity for all. We assess the state of the world, engage on the key issues of the day and lay out our vision for the way ahead. But this year is different. The 64th opening of the General Assembly asks us to rise to an exceptional moment. We are facing many crises: food, energy, recession and pandemic flu, hitting all at once. If ever there were a time to act in a spirit of renewed multilateralism, a time to put the “united” back into the United Nations, it is now.
And that is what we are doing. Action on three issues of historic consequence show the way.
First, leaders of the world are uniting on the greatest challenge we face as a human family; the threat of catastrophic climate change. Last week, 101 leaders from 163 countries met to chart the next steps toward December’s all-important UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. They recognized the need for an agreement all nations can embrace – in line with their capabilities, consistent with what science requires, and grounded in “green jobs” and “green growth;” the lifeline of a 21st century global economy.
We at the UN prepared carefully for this moment. For two and a half years, ever since I became secretary general, we have worked to put climate change at the top of the global agenda. Today, we have entered a new phase. Last week’s summit sharply defined the issue and focused attention in capitals the world over. To be sure, the issues are complex and difficult, especially those of financing adaptation and mitigation efforts in poorer countries. Yet leaders left New York committed to clear and firm instructions for their negotiators: Seal a deal in Copenhagen.
Japan issued a challenge, agreeing to cut emissions 25 percent by 2020 if other nations follow. President Hu Jintao spoke about all that China is already doing to reduce energy intensity and invest in green alternatives. He emphasized that China is prepared to do more under an international agreement, as did US President Barack Obama. The road ahead requires more hard pushing. Negotiators will gather for another round of UN talks on September 28 in Bangkok, and we are considering a smaller meeting of major-emitting and most-vulnerable nations in November. We need a breakthrough in this make-or-break year.
We saw another turning point, on another issue of existential importance: nuclear disarmament. Finally, the assumption that such weapons are needed to keep the peace is crumbling. At a special summit called by President Obama, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that opens a new chapter in the UN’s efforts to address nuclear proliferation and disarmament. It raises prospects for an expansion of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty next May and offers hope for bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty into force. It sets forth the initial contours of a legal framework for action against misuse of civilian nuclear technology for military purposes and reflects an emerging consensus – seen in meeting after meeting – that the time has come to increase pressure on nations failing to respect these principles.
Nations also united on a third front. Though some may speak of “turning the corner to recovery,” we see a new crisis emerging. According to our recent report, “Voices of the Vulnerable,” the near-poor are becoming the new poor. An estimated 100 million people could fall below the poverty line this year. Markets may be bouncing back, but incomes and jobs are not. That is why, earlier this year, the United Nations put forward a “global jobs pact” for balanced and sustainable growth. It is also why we are creating a new “global impact vulnerability alert system,” giving us real-time data and analysis on the socio-economic picture around the world. We need to know precisely who is being hurt by the financial crisis and where, so that we can best respond. That is also why, next year at this time, we will convene a special summit on the “millennium development goals.” We have only five years to meet the targets for health, education and human security that we set for 2015. At the various G20 summits over the past year, including the latest in Pittsburgh, the UN has stood firm to speak and act for all those being left behind. Rhetoric has always been abundant at the General Assembly, action sometimes less so. Yet listening to the world’s leaders speak last week, I was struck by their passion, commitment and collective determination to turn a page from a past of countries divided by narrow interests to nations united in the cause of a global common good.
From confronting climate change to creating a world without nuclear weapons to building a more equitable and sustainable global economy, I saw a sprit of renewed multilateralism with the United Nations at the fore. No nation alone can deal with any of these challenges. But as nations united, the United Nations can.
**Ban ki-moon is secretary general of the United Nations.

Interview with the Assistant US Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman
Asharq Al-Awsat
30/09/2009
By Manal Lutfi
New York, Asharq Al-Awsat- Assistant US Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman has stressed that there is a sense of urgency for dealing with the Iranian nuclear dossier and explained in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat in New York that Iran has an "opportunity" at the 1st October meeting to cooperate with the international community and allow the [International Atomic] Energy Agency [IAEA] inspectors to enter the secret Qom installation.
He said: "We are not going to wait forever...and prefer if Tehran seizes the opportunity now so as not to compel us to talk about other options." The US official added: "The important thing now is that the IAEA can be able to inspect fully the new facility and the aim from building it. The Iranians are claiming it is for peaceful purposes but one has to be surprised why Iran built it in a military site belonging to the Revolutionary Guards and in an underground tunnel. All these are questions which the IAEA experts must answer." He stressed that US intelligence is certain of its information about Iran and that there is no similarity between the intelligence about Iran and the one about Iraq. He also said that the United States wants the peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians to be resumed immediately and revealed that US and Syrian officials discussed on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly [UNGA] sessions a US role on the Syrian track and a way for starting the Syrian-Israeli negotiations.
The following is the full text of the interview:
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that the US, French, and British accusations of Iran's concealment of a secret underground installation "are baseless" and that Iran had informed the IAEA about it a long time before the date for which Iran was supposed to report the new facility to the agency. Are you still accusing Iran of deception?
[Feltman] This is another proof of Iranian deceit. Iran sent on Monday a message to the IAEA admitting building a second uranium enrichment facility. The message did not contain any details that could help the agency follow up the matter. This prompted President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and President Nicola Sarkozy to disclose the information we have because we want the IAEA to look closely and investigate it. No one disputes Iran's right to possess a peaceful nuclear program. This is its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT]. But Iran has responsibilities too that go hand in hand with this right. Iran reminded us once again this week of a history of deception and lies and attempts to conceal activities it is carrying out. We have at this moment a sense of the need to act quickly in the Iranian dossier. We have a meeting on 1st October in Geneva for the 5+1 countries with Iran. I hope that after the developments of this week Iran will have the motives to be transparent, present the required documents, and allow the IAEA inspectors to visit the new facility and carry out their investigations.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] When did you know about the new installation in Qom? Did you learn about it years or months ago?
[Feltman] I do not want to talk about intelligence information. But we have known about the facility in Qom for some time, watched it with concern, and collected more information as time passed. But the important thing now is that the IAEA can be able to inspect fully the new facility and the aim from building it. The Iranians are claiming it is for peaceful purposes but one has to be surprised why Iran built it in a military site belonging to the Revolutionary Guards and in an underground tunnel. All these are questions which the IAEA experts must answer. Therefore Iran must allow the inspectors to enter the installation, inspect it, and see all the documents about it.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] According to Iran's obligations under the NPT, should Iran inform the IAEA beforehand of all installations under or during construction?
[Feltman] I am not an expert on the NPT details and therefore cannot comment on the legal aspect of the issue. But I can say that Iran's behavior has made it lose the international community's trust. This is the essential problem. Iran needs to restore the international trust that its nuclear program is indeed for peaceful purposes and that it is complying with its international pledges. Frankly, at this stage I do not believe anyone in the international community trusts Iran's intentions. This is the problem. By cooperating with the IAEA, allowing the inspection of the site, and providing the inspectors with the necessary documents, Iran can rebuild the international community's trust in it.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Why were the leaders of China, Russia, and Germany absent when the revelation of the new installation was made?
[Feltman] According to my information, the intelligence about the new installation was American, British, and French. But Russia, China, and Germany backed the statements of the leaders of the United States, France, and Britain about Iran. The Chinese and Russian presidents supported our stands in press statements while Chancellor Merkel was not in Pittsburgh in the first place where the G20 summit was held. She had other commitments. But it must be remembered that the 5+1 countries, which are involved in the nuclear negotiations with Iran, have the same stand. Russia and China stand with us on the same ground about what is required from Iran on 1st October.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] This is the [first] time Iran builds a secret nuclear installation without informing the agency. Do you suspect Tehran of carrying out other secret nuclear activities?
[Feltman] I do not know what activities Iran has and I do not believe anyone knows what activities it has. This reflects the weak trust in it and the deception it is practicing which was exposed dramatically this week. There are five UN Security Council [UNSC] resolutions on Iran and many IAEA reports criticizing Iran for its trickery and deception.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] The United States, Britain, and France presented the intelligence information they have about the Qom installation to the IAEA so that it can take action. What are you expecting the agency to do specifically? What do you want from it?
[Feltman] We expect the IAEA to investigate the installation, learn the intentions from building it, and why it was built and to take from Iran the necessary documents so that Iran can demonstrate its transparency and compliance with international laws before the world.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] French President Nicola Sarkozy called on Iran to reveal all the information about the Qom installation by December. Is this a timetable? What will happen if Iran does not comply?
[Feltman] I believe it is in Iran's interest to cooperate with the IAEA about the new installation because Iran continues to say it does not intend to build a nuclear weapon. All right. Iran now has an opportunity to prove this by opening the Qom site to international inspections and informing the IAEA about the relevant documents. In other words, Iran should view the IAEA's request to enter the site for inspection as an "opportunity" for demonstrating to the world that it is cooperating with the agency and is not concealing any secret activities. I do not believe there is a precise timetable but there is an international sense of the inevitability of dealing with the Iranian dossier urgently. We have the 1st October meeting which is an opportunity for Iran to demonstrate its cooperation with the IAEA, its transparency, and its compliance with international laws, considering that Iran's experiences are not encouraging.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] So there is no specific timetable for Iran to open the Qom installation to international inspection?
[Feltman] We have a sense of urgency and that Iran should cooperate now. We will not wait forever. We prefer it if Iran seizes the opportunity now so as not to compel us to talk about other options.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] In 2007, US intelligence assessments indicated that Iran had stopped working on the military aspect of its nuclear program in 2003. Following this week's developments about Iran, are you still holding to this assessment or has the new information in your possession changed it?
[Feltman] I believe that US intelligence is still holding to its 2007 assessments about the military aspect of the Iranian nuclear program in 2003 even after the revelation about the new installation. But the more Iran allows the IAEA to inspect the more we will know. I will leave the matter at this point to US intelligence officials whose latest estimates are that the military aspect stopped in 2003.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] President Sarkozy accused [former] IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei of concealing information about the Iranian nuclear program. Do you share his view? And what is the information you suspect was concealed?
[Feltman] I am not an expert in IAEA affairs but we support it and its director general in terms of the work they are doing and its financial obligations and budget. We want it to have the tools so as to be able to do its work around the world and have a passageway to the nuclear installations in the world, including the Iranian ones.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] You provided the IAEA before few days with the new intelligence information about Iran. But some are apprehensive of a "mix-up of intelligence" and "its political use" fearing a scenario similar to what happened in Iraq. Are you sure of the validity of your information and the accuracy of the way it was analyzed?
[Feltman] I believe that our intelligence officials are certain of the information they have. We saw President Obama with President Sarkozy and Foreign Minister [as published] Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh speaking together about the new installation. I therefore say that the level of certainty in the intelligence information we have is high. But the important thing now is to have the IAEA carry out an inspection on the ground and obtain explanations from the Iranians about it. President Obama said: "This is the information we have but the IAEA must investigate the matter."
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Did you inform countries in the Middle East of the intelligence information you have about the Qom installations?
[Feltman] I cannot talk about the exchange of our intelligence information.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] The 1st October meeting is extremely important. What do you specifically want from the Iranians?
[Feltman] To fulfill their obligations under the NPT and UNSC resolutions.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Does this include freezing the enrichment of uranium?
[Feltman] There is an offer from the 5+1 countries, "freeze in exchange for freeze", that is, freezing the enrichment in exchange for freezing the sanctions. This could be a preparatory point for entering into negotiations. There are also several steps which Iran can take that are constructive and put us on the right track for rebuilding trust in Iran amid much international suspicion of it. But the choice is now Iran's. We in the 5+1 group took the option of going to the 1st October meeting totally committed to trying to solve the crisis through dialogue. For the first time, the United States will not be an observer at the meeting but will be a direct negotiator with the Iranians. These are the steps we have taken so as to demonstrate to Iran that we are totally committed to dialogue so as to resolve the issues that are causing us concern.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] We move to the Middle East peace process. The tripartite summit between US President Barack Obama, Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas, and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was received well in the West on the basis that it helped launch the peace process but was received with many doubts by the region's countries and people because of the failure of US efforts to persuade Israel to stop building the settlements. Has the United States changed its approach to peace and accepted Israel's continued building of settlements during the negotiations?
[Feltman] Let me recall that the US President spoke before the UNGA about the two-state solution and the issues we must discuss so as to reach a final solution, which are the borders, Jerusalem, security, and refugees ones. In his speech, he said that US policy on the settlements issue has not changed. We do not recognize or accept the legitimacy of the settlements. President Obama's aim from the tripartite summit with President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu was to convey the "sense or urgency" which we feel and that the time has come for returning to the negotiating table. The absence of direct negotiations had made it impossible for the two sides to move a step closer to the contentious issues. We will not solve the Jerusalem, refugees, security, borders, and water issues without negotiations. We want to see meaningful negotiations as quickly as possible. President Obama's message to President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu was: "The time has come. We have much to do and we should start immediately."
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What will happen now? Will Senator Mitchell meet the Palestinians and Israelis soon? To discuss what specifically?
[Feltman] Even here during the UNGA meetings we held many meetings apart from the tripartite summit and the Quartet's meeting. We met the Arab leaders and foreign ministers to discuss how do we start the negotiations and pave the way for them so that they succeed. We want success. We do not want negotiations for their own sake. We want negotiations for the sake of peace. We met the foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC] countries and then with the GCC foreign ministers plus the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Iraqi ones. The peace process was one of the issues discussed at these meetings. We are searching for ideas for resuming the negotiations. Senator Mitchell met Israeli and Palestinian officials here in New York. I met Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa who also met with Mitchell. All this was within the context of setting the general framework from which we can launch a meaningful peace process. We are hoping to resume the negotiations in Washington next week. We know that the ground needs to be paved but we also know that not resuming the talks will not lead to solving the question of the settlements or any other question and will not achieve the Palestinian people's aspirations for a state. We therefore want to start the negotiations as quickly as possible.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] So we will start preparing for a peace process while Israel builds more settlements without US calls or efforts to make Israel reduce or lessen its pattern within the framework of the confidence-building measures?
[Feltman] We made our viewpoint to the Israelis very clearly, which is and as President Obama said, that we do not accept the legitimacy of the Israeli settlements. We are expecting both sides to fulfill their obligations toward the other party. One of these clear obligations in the roadmap is for Israel to stop building settlements. We will continue to pressure Israel within this framework. But will stopping the negotiations serve the efforts to stop the settlements? We do not believe so. We believe that modern history proved that failure to reach settlements in the final solution issue did not help the Palestinians. For the Palestinians to achieve what they need, we need to return to the negotiations. The US President is committed to using his position to do so. Senator Mitchell is working seriously in this dossier. Secretary of State Clinton is engaged in the process too. Let us seize this opportunity now to deal with these issues and reach settlements in the final solution issues to build the Palestinian state.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in his speech before the UNGA in New York that the Palestinians must recognize the jewishness of the Israeli state before reaching any final settlements. Do you back this Israeli condition? Do you see it as an obstacle?
[Feltman] I do not think it is right to make the fate of the negotiations dependent on "appellations or brands." If we have two states side by side, a Palestinian state and an Israeli one, who will live in the Palestinian state and who will live in the Israeli one? The Palestinians will live in the Palestinian state and the Israelis in the Israeli one. Most of the Israelis are Jews; I do not say all of them. Israel is a democratic country with an energetic Arab minority. Most of the Jews around the world also consider Israel their state regardless of whether they live in it or not. So, regardless of any name the Israelis want to call their state, this does not change the fact that the majority of Israelis are Jews and that the world's Jews consider Israel a "national homeland for the Jews." Whether the Palestinians and Arabs accept or reject what Netanyahu is saying, the fact of the matter is that the majority of Israelis are Jews and consider Israel a homeland for them. I do not believe that this is a problem for which the Arabs or Palestinians should suspend the negotiations.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What you are saying is the same as what President Mahmud Abbas is saying but the reverse of it. He says: Since Jews are Israel's majority, why then the Israelis are insisting that the Palestinians should recognize the "jewishness" of the state as a condition for reaching a final peace?
[Feltman] I do not know. This is not an issue that should make the negotiations difficult. Let us move to the negotiations first. Let us negotiate at the earliest opportunity.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] President Obama reiterated in his UNGA speech the talk about a comprehensive peace process within the framework of a regional initiative? Is there a possibility of peace talks on the other peace tracks with an American presence?
[Feltman] We have spent most of the time talking about the Palestinian-Israeli track and I believe this is appropriate because we do not want another war like the Gaza one last winter. But this should not be at the expense of the other peace tracks, either the Syrian-Israeli track or the Lebanese-Israeli one. We want a comprehensive peace in the Middle East and we do not see any competition between the various peace tracks as some might believe. On the contrary, we believe that these tracks complement each other. Achieving a breakthrough in a certain track might give impetus to another. We do not want to give the impression that by talking too much about the Palestinian-Israeli track we are ignoring the Syrian-Israeli one because we want to see the Syrian and Lebanese tracks move forward. We discussed with the Syrian officials in New York the issue of negotiations with Israel.
But there are other aspects of the regional initiative and they concern the environment, water, health, and many other things that transcend just one country in the region. We want to see an exchange of expertise to confront the common challenges because the water, environment, and health problems do not stop at national borders. They cross them.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] The Syrians expressed several times their desire to enter into peace negotiations with Israel with a direct American presence. Do you wish that now?
[Feltman] We want to see a Syrian-Israeli peace track soon. But the two sides have different viewpoints about how to start the negotiations. Washington is talking to the two sides about how we can find an acceptable way and an entry for starting the Syrian-Israeli negotiations that is acceptable to both sides. We still have more work to do to achieve it within this framework.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Is there some reason for delaying sending the American ambassador to Damascus?
[Feltman] The process of selecting, choosing, and approving takes time. The US administration is new and there are appointments that have not been made yet. The matter depends on the bureaucracy move. But there is no political reason for the delay.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Has the Syrian-Iraqi crisis which erupted after the19 August bombings affected the US openness toward Syria? What is your stand on the Iraqi wish for an international investigation of the bombings?
[Feltman] We have expressed repeatedly our concerns about networks operating inside Iraq from neighboring countries. This is not pointing the fingers of accusation at a certain country but an acknowledgment of a reality. Let us cooperate collectively to prevent these bloody attacks in Iraq. As to the issue of the international investigation, it is better to leave it to the UN secretary general.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] But the United States had previously called Syria byname among the countries which it urged to dismantle the networks inside them?
[Feltman] Yes. We believe that there are networks operating from inside Syria and we have discussed this repeatedly with the Syrians. The latter agreed to cooperate with us in some case. But Syria is not the only problem. There are networks in other countries too.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Is Washington satisfied with the level of Syrian cooperation in the matter of Iraq's security?
[Feltman] I believe we are on the point of a fruitful start concerning this matter.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] When you referred to other countries that have networks in their territories, did you mean Iran?
[Feltman] Yes. I basically meant Iran.