LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 25/09

Bible Reading of the day
Mark 10/17-27/ As he was going out into the way, one ran to him, knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except one—God. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not give false testimony,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and mother.’”He said to him, “Teacher, I have observed all these things from my youth.” Jesus looking at him loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me, taking up the cross.” But his face fell at that saying, and he went away sorrowful, for he was one who had great possessions. Jesus looked around, and said to his disciples, “How difficult it is for those who have riches to enter into the Kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answered again, “Children, how hard is it for those who trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.” They were exceedingly astonished, saying to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus, looking at them, said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God, for all things are possible with God.”

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Hizbollah plays game of political patience.By: Mitchell Prothero/The National/September 24/09
Hizbullah: still strong, getting weaker/By Michael Young/September 24/09
Message to the U.N. -- Support Democracy Not Dictators/By: Walid Phares/September 24/09
Will climate change remain another source of shame for Lebanon?/By The Daily Star/September 24/09
Lebanon held in 'boxing ring/By: Brooke Anderson/THE WASHINGTON TIMES/September 24/09
Syria makes overture to U.S/By Richard Sale/THE WASHINGTON TIMES/September 24/09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 24/09
Assad's Surprise Visit to Saudi Arabia Breaks the Ice, Likely to have Positive Impact on Lebanon-Naharnet
New U.N. resolution aims for nuclear weapon-free world/AP
Hariri launches second bid to form Lebanon govt-AFP
Hariri, Raad Reach Common Ground-Naharnet
Iraq's PM says efforts to resolve Syria dispute 'nearly hopeless'-GulfNews
550 Druze cross border to visit Syria-Ynetnews
Jumblat for Bringing to Trial Fatah al-Islam Militants, Says Hariri Keen on National Interest-Naharnet
Hariri Kicks Off Consultations, Aoun Says his Bloc Will Hold New Round of Talks with Hariri-Naharnet
Inmate Who Fled Hospital Arrested-Naharnet
Shooting on Commercial Shops in Hermel-Naharnet
Majority, Opposition Hail Assad Visit to Saudi-Naharnet
1 Wounded in RPG Attack on Veggie Market in Tripoli-Naharnet
Aoun Fears Hariri Would Fail Again, Awaits New Criteria on Cabinet Lineup-Naharnet
On Suleiman NY Agenda: Lobbying for Lebanon's presence in U.N Security Council-Naharnet
Williams: I Relayed to Aoun U.N. Concerns Over Lack of Cabinet Deal-Naharnet
UNIFIL Observes Peace Day, Graziano Reiterates Commitment to Stability in the South-Naharnet
Obama to world: Don't expect America to fix it all-AP
Canada to walk out during Ahmadinejad's UN speech/AP
Small groups in Palestinian camps the real threat to national security-Daily Star
Aoun clings to Telecoms as cabinet talks re-start-Daily Star
France appoints new ambassador to Lebanon-Daily Star
World leaders must act to secure planet's future-Daily Star
Environmentalists urge action on climate change-Daily Star
Bank deposits important to finance Lebanon-Daily Star
UNIFIL marks International Day of Peace-Daily Star
EDL warns power theft threatening supply-Daily Star
Proposed law aims to curb domestic violence-By IRIN News.org
Thousands flock to City Wedding street festival in Sidon-Daily Star

Lebanon held in 'boxing ring'
Blames neighbors for inability to form government since June
By Brooke Anderson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
BEIRUT
Lebanese are once again blaming foreigners for the inability of their feuding power brokers to form a government.
Pundits apportion the blame - in various permutations - to Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the French and the United States.
"Lebanon has been in this situation since it was formed," said Imad Salamey, assistant political science professor at Lebanese American University in Beirut. "It is a country where co-existence and regional conflict has always existed at the same time without a final resolution."
Apart from having no government since June elections, Lebanon seems in fairly good shape. With billions of dollars of foreign investment flowing inward, much of it from oil-rich Gulf Arab states, the nation lately is experiencing a real estate boom.
Yet political crises are rarely far from the surface. Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri has tried since June to form a government after his coalition of Sunni Muslims, Druze and some Christians won 71 of 128 seats.
With a solid majority, it shouldn't need anyone else to form a government. However, in Lebanon, bullets are at least as powerful as votes.
The Shi'ite Hezbollah militia is heavily armed and backed by powerful allies of its own, including the Shi'ite Amal party and a Christian party led by former Gen. Michel Aoun.
"Lebanon continues to be the 'boxing ring' where regional and international interests meet and/or collide," said Aram Nerguizian, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"Furthermore, Lebanon's political actors - across the country's political spectrum - continue to link domestic political moves and alliances on the overall 'mood' of patron states and enemy states alike," Mr. Nerguizian said. "These factors all contribute to an environment where government formation is unlikely without a broader regional green light."
The 1989 Taif Agreement, which ended Lebanon's 15-year civil war, designated Hezbollah as the only Lebanese militia allowed to keep its weapons, ostensibly to protect the country from Israel.
Hezbollah defeated Israel in a monthlong war in the summer of 2006.
The militia flexed its muscles again last year by seizing huge swaths of Beirut.
Hezbollah withdrew from occupied areas of Beirut under a May 2008 agreement negotiated in Doha, Qatar. In exchange, it won veto power over important Cabinet decisions. The fighting served as a reminder of Lebanon's ever-present threat of civil war.
"Lebanon is in a holding pattern," said Ghassan Schbley, a project associate at the RAND Corp. "Lebanon's government formation is linked to the U.S.-Syrian and Saudi-Syrian rapprochement as well as to upcoming international decisions on Iranian issues."
Other intractable issues continue to prevent Lebanon from forming a government. Mr. Hariri's coalition wants Hezbollah to give up its weapons - a development that is unlikely anytime soon.
Mr. Hariri's coalition also wants to see a war-crimes tribunal for the assassins of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Saad Hariri's father. Syrian intelligence is believed responsible for the Feb. 14, 2005, blast in central Beirut that killed the elder Mr. Hariri and 22 others.
Another power broker allied with the opposition is Gen. Aoun, who is demanding key Cabinet positions for his party, especially the interior and telecommunications ministries that are important for intelligence-gathering. In addition, the opposition seeks to maintain good relations with Iran and Syria.
With a compromise beyond reach, Saad Hariri resigned on Sept. 10, only to be re-appointed prime-minister designate less than a week later.
"Political paralysis in Lebanon is never good for long-term stability," said Mona Yacoubian, special adviser for the Muslim World Initiative at the U.S. Institute for Peace in Washington. "The longer the stalemate continues, the greater the possibility that any number of factors could lead to violence and instability."
Ali Hamdan, senior adviser to parliament speaker Nabih Berri, leader of the secular Shi'ite party Amal, questioned the timing of the Hariri resignation and suggested that foreign elements are to blame.
"If we want to be clear and transparent, this is not the first time outside powers interfere in Lebanon," Mr. Hamdan said.
"Before the Doha agreement, the Americans and their allies in the region accused Syria of not allowing Lebanon to find a political solution and of keeping a card in its hand. What they accused Syria of doing, you can now accuse them of doing. They want to pressure Syria, and this is good timing for their agenda."
For Lebanon to form a Cabinet, he said, "We'll need other countries to reconcile. We're not an island."
"The problem now is that the external actors have been forced to realize that the local disputes are so difficult to sort out that it takes active intervention by outsiders to bring pressure to bear on their allies here," said Beirut-based political analyst Nicholas Noe.
"But none of the main states - not Syria, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Egypt, or Iran - are in much of a mood, or have a real need to bring that direct pressure. Thus the temporary stalemate," he said.
Some Lebanese are exasperated with the tendency to blame foreign countries for its chaotic politics. It once took nine months to form a government.
"When you hear people talking about the formation of the government, you'd think Lebanon was at the center of the world. Please, let's be real. It's degrading," said Elie Fawaz, political analyst at Quantum Communications, a political consultancy in Beirut.
"They say the Saudi track is going bad, so we can't have a government. That means we're not ready to solve our own problems. We'll always fall back on the Saudis or the Egyptians or have a summit in Doha." Instead, he suggested, "Let's keep it local."

Syria makes overture to U.S.
Sidelines military intelligence operations
By Richard Sale
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Syria is reorganizing its foreign intelligence operations and sidelining officials with unsavory pasts in an effort by President Bashar al-Assad to consolidate control and improve Syria's relations with the United States, Middle East specialists and former and current U.S. officials say.
Richard Norton, a Levant specialist at Boston University, former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro and two serving U.S. intelligence officials who asked not to be named because they are not authorized to talk to the press told The Washington Times that the task of overseeing Syria's foreign intelligence operations has been transferred from the heavy-handed military intelligence agency, known as the Mukhabarat, to Syria's General Intelligence Agency (GI), which formerly handled domestic matters and now oversees relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.
The GI is headed by Gen. Ali Mamluk, who is advised by Samir al Taqi, a former legislator, the sources said. Mr. al Taqi runs the Al-Sharq Center for International Relations in Damascus and is associated with the Center for Syrian Studies at St. Andrews University in Scotland.
The intelligence shakeup began in February and continues. Mr. Cannistraro said much of the pressure for the transfer "came from the Saudis," who have been furious with Syria since the 2005 assassination in Lebanon of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a Saudi ally. Syria is suspected of involvement in the killing but has denied responsibility.
Mr. Norton added that the change was made by Syria to avoid "queering its current dialogue with the United States."
In general, the functions of Syrian military intelligence appear to have narrowed to providing assistance to the U.N. special tribunal investigating the Hariri murder and seeking to shield the Assad regime from blame.
Gen. Assef Shawkat, Mr. Assad's brother-in-law and the former head of Syrian military intelligence, who is rumored to have been involved in the Hariri killing, has been assigned to assist Maj. Gen. Arnine Charabi, chief of the Palestine section, who is working with British law firms to develop a scenario of the crime aimed at exonerating Syria from responsibility, according to the two serving U.S. intelligence officials.
There have been reports that Mr. Shawkat's family, including Mr. Assad's sister, Bushra, has been exiled to a Persian Gulf country and much of the familys property has been seized. However, one of the U.S. officials said this was disinformation.
Joshua Landis, a Syria specialist at the University of Oklahoma, said, "Shawkat is not out of the intelligence business."
The shakeup appears to be an attempt by Mr. Assad to further consolidate his power internally.
We're talking about a changing of the guard, being done quite gradually in terms of political consistency," said one of the serving U.S. officials. "It's a transition of power - a slow process of putting people who are loyal to him, walking away from the old military elements of his father and relying on a civilian component instead."
Mr. Norton agreed.
"What Bashar is doing is sidelining the old Ba'athist guard in military intelligence and replacing them with civilians loyal to himself," Mr. Norton said.
Mr. Norton added that the changes are part of the president's efforts to consolidate Syria's key governing institutions under his direct control and that this was evidence that at least some of Mr. Assad's inner circle consists of "reformist, smart, street-wise young technocrats" who want better relations with the West.
President Obama, who has assigned a high priority to advancing an Arab-Israeli peace agreement, has sought to improve relations with Syria in order to move the process forward. Yet the U.S. has not yet named a new ambassador to Damascus despite earlier pledges to do so, and the administration still objects to Syrian support for Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group and political party that is also backed by Iran.
In Lebanon, the administration is disappointed that months have gone by without formation of a new government despite the election victory of a pro-Western alliance. Yet Mr. Norton said he had not detected any "Syrian string-pulling" in the Lebanese elections in which the pro-West coalition beat an alliance led by Hezbollah.
Mr. Norton also said Syria is loosening its grip on Hezbollah. "Hezbollah has obtained a degree of autonomy and is no longer a Syrian client," Mr. Norton said, adding: "Syria is no longer obtrusive in Lebanese politics and no longer is pulling the strings when it comes to Hezbollah."
Many remain skeptical of Syrian good will
David Schenker, a Levant expert at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said, "Syria runs hot and cold. When they are interested in improving relations or pleasing us, they toss us a bone or they look to protect their flank."
He said that the day after the Hariri murder, Syrian intelligence delivered a high-value target to U.S. operatives in the hope of deflecting popular outrage at Syria's alleged responsibility for the murder. "Its pretty typical," he said. According to Mr. Cannistraro, "Syria has tried to cooperate with the United States in intelligence matters, only to be either snubbed or ignored" on occasion. He said Syria in 2003 offered to station U.S. forces on its soil before the Iraq war, and the Syrians opened their intelligence books, which identify assets in Europe, including front companies, in an attempt to track down al Qaeda members.
Mr. Cannistraro added that Syria "has given us invaluable help in hunting down members of al Qaeda, and they were instrumental in ex-filtrating some major Iraqi fugitives back to Baghdad after the 2003 war."
Two former U.S. intelligence officials said Syria cooperated with the United States last year in an attack that killed Abu Ghadiyah, a former lieutenant of the infamous Abu Musab Zarqawi, the late al Qaeda leader in Iraq. He was killed along with eight civilians near Abu Kamal about five miles inside Syria, foiling a planned attack on Iraqi civilians, according to the former U.S. officials. They spoke on condition that they not be named because they were discussing sensitive information.
The CIA would not confirm the account.
"We do not, as a rule - despite the inaccuracies that sometimes appear - comment on reports of relationships with foreign intelligence organizations," said a CIA spokeswoman, Marie Harf.
U.S. officials say Syria still permits some Arab suicide bombers to transit into Iraq and controls much of Lebanon's economy by means of counterfeiting, money laundering and drug trafficking.
"Those things are endemic to the way Lebanon is run," said former CIA official Judith Yaphe. All sides of every political persuasion take part."
Behind the scenes, according to Mr. Norton and Mr. Landis, however, U.S.-Syria relations are improving slowly.
Representatives of U.S. Central Command recently visited Damascus, followed by another U.S. military delegation that discussed border security and increased intelligence-sharing. According to Mr. Landis, Syria and Washington are also talking about easing U.S. sanctions against Syria.
Mr. Landis cautioned, however, that while there are people in Mr. Assad's inner circle who want closer ties with the United States, "the Syrians don't think that Obama can change the Middle East. Intelligence-sharing is good, and dialogue is constructive, but we will keep trying to force them out of Lebanon and killing Hezbollah, and Damascus will hang on to Iran and its ties to Hamas and Hezbollah, and Israel will cling to the Golan."
In other words, all of this "could go nowhere," he said.

Small groups in Palestinian camps the real threat to national security
Experts say unknown organizations more dangerous than Fatah al-Islam
By Patrick Galey/-Daily Star staff
Thursday, September 24, 2009
BEIRUT: Commander of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Major General Claudio Graziano spoke on Wednesday of his commitment to establishing lasting peace in south Lebanon. With the conflict between Lebanon and Israel always simmering, Graziano’s team of UN peacekeepers is tasked with preventing tensions boiling over. The latest serious breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 – drafted to end the 2006 summer war – involved a fierce exchange of rocket fire from either side of the UN-demarcated Blue Line on September 11. The incident attracted international condemnation and highlighted prevailing antipathy between the two countries. But it was the nature of the attacks inside Lebanon – and the alleged identities of the perpetrators – that should worry Graziano most of all, analysts said. After the attacks, UNIFIL spokesman Milos Strugar took the unusual step of revealing, before its conclusion, that the joint UNIFIL-Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) investigation into the rocket attacks launched on Israel was focusing on “extremists” linked to Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Although the findings of the investigation are yet to be announced, the immediate suspicion falling on militants from the refugee camps illustrates the alarming rate of illegal activity in areas outside the control of Lebanese authorities.
Although Fatah Movement leader Sultan Abu Al-Aynayn said Wednesday that Al-Qaeda-related cells do not exist in South Lebanon’s camps, a number of smaller militant groups have recently surfaced. Former long-term UNIFIL senior adviser Timur Goksel told The Daily Star that small groups were making the job of keeping the camps secure an even more difficult job.
“The Lebanese authorities are not allowed to enter the camps, but they can make life very difficult for people within them,” he said. “They have some power and they use this to control the major groups. But the smaller groups don’t have anything at stake.”
He added that the Lebanese authorities’ inability to grapple with smaller factions could lead to a sharp deterioration in national security. “Lebanon knows how to turn the heat up on major groups, but you can’t do that with the small ones, and this scares people,” said Goksel. “We know what happened in Nahr al-Bared,” he added, in reference to the bloody battle fought between Fatah al-Islam militants and the Lebanese military in the summer of 2007. Although the army prevailed, crushing the militants after three months, the clashes killed at least 220 militants, 168 soldiers and 47 Palestinian civilians, as well as destroying or damaging an estimated 95 percent of the north Lebanon camp’s buildings. Hoda Turk, head of public information at the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), said that a repeat of the clashes at Nahr al-Bared would lead to a major humanitarian crisis. “We just hope that this will not happen again. We don’t know if we will have [the capability] to help,” she said, adding that more funding was needed to ensure that living conditions within all of Lebanon’s camps did not deteriorate further.
“We have, along with the Lebanese government, improvement initiatives, but if we don’t have the funding we can’t work on anything,” she added. “I would hope to see more work done aimed at improving the situation [within the camps] at all levels.” Retired General Elias Hanna told The Daily Star that a lack of governmental involvement in daily camp affairs had contributed to an increasingly fragile security situation. “The absence of a government inside the camps and the situation within them allows a number of groups freedom of action,” he said. “It’s fractured, and power is highly decentralized. One day you have one group, and another day there is a different one with a totally new ideology.”
The decision on Tuesday by Military Examining Magistrate Fadi Sawwan to arrest five Fatah al-Islam militants for organizing terrorist activities followed the conviction of five Palestinians for planning to carry out armed attacks against UN peacekeepers within Lebanon. Only one of the men was incarcerated, sentenced to three years of hard labor for aiding the establishment of armed gangs with the intent to kill civilians, obtain explosive materials and detonate roadside bombs targeting UNIFIL troops in the south The other four suspects were sentenced in absentia and remain at large.
Goksel suggested that smaller, as-yet-unknown groups posed more of a threat to Lebanese security than organizations such as Fatah al-Islam.
“It’s not about the major groups in the camps – these guys know the reality of Lebanon, and they know they can’t launch anything major again; those days are gone,” he said. “But there are miniscule groups, and militarily [they are] almost impossible to control. “Security-wise it’s the same thing. The carrot and stick approach doesn’t appeal to these [smaller] groups.”
Hanna added that the fragmentation of authority among Palestinian groups was compounded by a number of migrants establishing cells within Lebanese refugee camps.
“There are foreign refugees from all over the region, and they find a safe haven in these camps,” he said. “They can go outside easily, do something and come back without being monitored or facing the possibility of arrest.” US Middle East envoy George Mitchell, during his meeting last week with President Michel Sleiman, addressed the issue of the country’s estimated 420,000 refugees and appeared to agree that any future resolution should not negatively impact the Lebanese. Sleiman stressed “the refusal of the Palestinian naturalization by all Lebanese parties on the basis of the state constitution.” Hanna said the lack of political readiness to cooperate with group leaders within the camps was perpetuating insecurity.
“You don’t have a political consensus on what to do about these camps. You need a political decision and then transfer that into a military one,” he said.

Spate of security incidents rattles Lebanon
Daily Star/BEIRUT: Security violations caused stirs throughout Lebanon during the past two days, as various regions witnessed activities ranging from theft to gunfights and explosions.
In the Rawshe region of Beirut, a Lebanese citizen was attacked on Wednesday by five unidentified armed men who forced him to hand them his money. On the same day, an abandoned car was found completely burned in the Aramoun region of Beirut, and an investigation was launched to determine the vehicle’s owner.
Two boys in Tripoli playing a pretend game of war turned real when the children’s parents interfered and a real gunfight broke out. Sectarian differences between Alawite and Sunni clans evidently stood behind the incident, which caused no casualties or damage.
Another violation occurred in Tripoli on Wednesday when a hand grenade was tossed near Al-Nassiri Mosque in Syria Street. No casualties were reported.
Security forces Tuesday arrested 49 people accused of criminal activities throughout Lebanon, according to the state-run National News Agency (NNA).
However, security violations in the South were more on the regional level as Israeli planes repeatedly flew over Lebanese territories.
On Wednesday Israeli war planes flew at low altitudes over the southern towns of Nabatiyeh, Iqlim al-Tufah, Marjeyoun, Arkoub and Hasbaya and over the West Bekaa and the Rashaya districts. The NNA noted that some of the violations coincided with Israeli patrols along the borders of the Shebaa Farms and the village of Ghajar.
An Israeli plane also flew in a circular pattern over the South on Tuesday before flying over Naqoura in the direction of Beirut. – The Daily Star

 

Canada will boycott Ahmadinejad speech: Harper
Wed Sep 23, 2:23 PM
OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada's prime minister said Wednesday his government would boycott Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN General Assembly over his "disgraceful" remarks denying the Holocaust. "President Ahmadinejad has said things particularly about the state of Israel, the Jewish people, and the Holocaust that are absolutely repugnant," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said. "It is unfitting that somebody like that would be giving those kinds of remarks before the United Nations General Assembly," he said, describing Ahmadinejad's words as "disgraceful" and "totally unacceptable." Given those remarks, "there is no way I'm going to permit any official of the government of Canada to be present (during Ahmadinejad's speech) and give any legitimacy to remarks by a leader like that," he said. Ahmadinejad has often stirred international condemnation with remarks that arch-foe Israel is doomed to be "wiped off the map" and that the Holocaust was a "myth," a statement that he repeated on Friday. Harper also blasted Tehran for its crackdown on "all kinds of legitimate dissent," the detention of Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari, its nuclear program, and its recent election "fiasco."

Obama to world: Don't expect America to fix it all
 President Barack Obama addresses the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Wednesday,
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent –
UNITED NATIONS – President Barack Obama challenged world leaders Wednesday to shoulder more of the globe's critical burdens, promising a newly cooperative partner in America but sternly warning they can no longer castigate the U.S. as a go-it-alone bully while still demanding it cure all ills.
"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," said Obama in put-up-or-shut-up comments before a packed U.N. General Assembly hall. "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
In his first appearance before the group, Obama promised the U.S. would reach out in "a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect," but he also wagged a rhetorical finger at leaders who spend much of their time at international gatherings excoriating the U.S. He said "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism" that swept the globe under the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush, is not "an excuse for collective inaction."
"Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions," he said.
And yet, directly following Obama at the podium was Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who railed against the U.N. Security Council, which includes the U.S., calling it a "terror council" and accusing it of treating smaller nations as "second class, despised."
U.S. presidents — Bush included — have come to the United Nations year after year with a wish list of action items and preaching the gospel of working together. The U.S. is rich and powerful, but cannot solve problems without help, they say, whether Democrat or Republican.
So Obama's message was not new.
But it was delivered in an unmistakably new, more humble tone.
Following a president criticized for making my-way-or-the-highway "requests" of allies, Obama didn't demand so much as he chided and cajoled. It's now an inextricably interconnected world, he said, so that each country's problems become the others'.
"In the year 2009 — more than at any point in human history — the interests of nations and peoples are shared," Obama said.
Following a president pilloried for arrogance, Obama talked more modestly about the United States.
To be sure, he listed American contributions. But this was no chest-thumping bragging; instead it was a more lawyerly argument aimed at convincing the jury of Obama's world peers that the U.S. has heard the complaints and, under his leadership, is addressing them. That ranges from banning torture to winding down the Iraq war, working to rid the world of nuclear weapons, aggressively pursuing Mideast peace and bringing new energy to the battle against climate change.
And he delivered the message that America will not behave as if it is better.
"No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation," Obama said. "That is the future America wants — a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well."
At home, it remains to be seen whether Obama's critics on the right will see this sort of talk as giving away some of America's accepted status as the globe's lone superpower.
Many were already criticizing Obama along these lines after previous speeches meant to reach out a conciliatory hand — such as during his inauguration or in Cairo to the Muslim world. As John Bolton, a U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under Bush, said before Obama's trip: "Why should we not expect a visible demonstration of Obamamania at the U.N.? He is giving them pretty much what they ask for."
The president's reception in the traditionally staid U.N. hall was hardly Obamamania. But he received several rounds of applause, something rarely afforded to Bush. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, perhaps Obama's chief foe in the room who was delivering his own address later, listened intently but did not clap.
Even while offering new cooperation from Washington, Obama was blunt that others must step up or face dire consequences: "extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world, protracted conflicts that grind on and on, genocide, mass atrocities, more nations with nuclear weapons, melting ice caps and ravaged populations, persistent poverty and pandemic disease."
At the top of Obama's urgent challenges are the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, the first having already produced several atomic bombs, the second suspected of moving rapidly in that direction and both in defiance of repeated international demands. He said the two nations "must be held accountable" if they continue, without mentioning the tougher sanctions that are his preferred penalties.
"The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise," Obama said.
The president was particularly muscular on the need to tackle global warming, declaring that America's days of dragging its feet on the issue are over. "If we continue down our current course, every member of this assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders," he said.
And, seeking to build on his three-way meeting in New York on Tuesday with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Obama urged nations aligned with either side to abandon old divides — by speaking honestly to the Israelis about the Palestinians' legitimate claims to land and livelihood and to Palestinians and Arab nations about Israel's right to exist.
"All of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip service," Obama said.
He said that all leaders will be held accountable by their citizens. "They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history," he said.
And yet the problems he said require action are enormously complex and have bedeviled the world for decades. Also, when national interests collide with global priorities, leaders almost always choose the former, or pay a steep price politically. Obama himself said, "I will never apologize for" acting in America's interests.
Indeed, the president saw two tests of this firsthand on Wednesday, as his U.N. speech was bracketed by meetings with the leaders of Japan and Russia.
Talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev focused almost entirely on Iran, with Obama seeking support for tougher U.N. action if multilateral talks with Tehran next month yield unsatisfying progress. Russia, which has strong economic ties with Iran, has stood in the way of such stronger action in the past.
Emerging from the talks at Obama's hotel, Medvedev gave at least some ground, saying sanctions are usually unproductive but opening the door to more nonetheless. "In some cases, sanctions are inevitable," the Russian leader said.
The White House was thrilled at even this muted support, and said that Obama's decision last week to scrap a plan for a new U.S. missile defense shield in Eastern Europe that deeply angered the Kremlin, while not designed to increase cooperation from Russia, may well have made it more possible. "The notion that we needed to do what we did as a concession for Russia never came up," said Obama Russia adviser Mike McFaul. "But is it the case that it changes the climate — I think that's true, of course."
Japan, meanwhile, just elected a leader who campaigned on shifting its diplomatic stance to one less centered on Washington. In public remarks, Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama reaffirmed the importance of the traditional U.S.-Japan alliance.

Hizbullah: still strong, getting weaker
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, September 24, 2009
As the permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, prepare for a dialogue with Iran in October over its nuclear program, Hizbullah is closely watching what happens. The party will almost certainly be at the vanguard of Iranian retaliation for an attack against its nuclear facilities, but it must also be ambivalent, because the political and social environment in Lebanon today does not favor Hizbullah’s entering into a new border conflict.
At three levels – the tactical military level in southern Lebanon, that of the Shiite community at large, and Hizbullah’s relationship with the rest of Lebanese society – genuine difficulties are looming for the party, even if it is stronger than ever militarily and its popularity among Shiites is intact.
One needn’t be a military expert to grasp that the next war against Israel will be very different for Hizbullah than the last one. By most accounts the party’s arsenal has been upgraded. It may well have anti-aircraft missiles today, some are suggesting the SAM-24 (Igla-S), and the secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, has warned that if Beirut’s southern suburbs are bombed, Hizbullah will respond by firing missiles at Tel Aviv. Israel, in turn, is training units to enter Lebanon, displaying a greater willingness to engage in a ground war than in 2006. The Israelis are also likely to devastate Lebanese infrastructure, particularly the electricity network, so that what they did three years ago may seem tame in comparison.
What would this mean for Hizbullah’s ability to fire rockets at Israel? The party is setting up its main defensive line north of the Litani, near Jezzine. However, some observers point to the fact that Hizbullah relies considerably on short-range rockets for its deterrence capability, rockets it can fire from primitive launching pads south of the Litani. They argue that the party’s military infrastructure in the area has, of necessity, been thinned out since 2006 after the deployment of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL, so that even once-closed military zones such as Wadi Hujayr are now open to traffic. That’s why, these observers believe, Hizbullah will not have the same capability of firing rockets that it did three years ago, let alone to defend against Israeli incursions to prevent the launches.
As for the longer-range missiles, there remains some question of how extensively Hizbullah can rely on them. Given Nasrallah’s threats, these would effectively become strategic weapons, targeting Israeli cities and infrastructure, so their use would introduce frightening military realities that Hizbullah would have to withstand and defend domestically. For example, we can assume that if Tel Aviv is bombed, so too will be central Beirut, and it’s not at all clear that Hizbullah could sustain such an escalation politically and militarily for very long. On top of that, who would be launching these missiles, Lebanese or Iranians? If it’s the latter, Lebanon would be the front line in a regional battle, which neither the Shiite community nor other Lebanese would welcome.Which takes us to the second obstacle Hizbullah must face: that put up by its own community. The party still dominates the Shiites, but as a visit to southern Lebanon will show, Hizbullah must address a more subtle challenge to its priorities, that provided by normalcy. Nasrallah dodged a bullet in summer 2006 by containing Shiite discontent following a month when hundreds of thousands of his coreligionists were turned into internal refugees. The secretary general showed psychological flair by declaring that shipwreck a “divine victory,” a notion the Shiites embraced because it lent meaning to their suffering. But Nasrallah can only play that game once.
We are almost a decade into the Shiite return to the South after Israel’s military withdrawal, a decade in which its inhabitants have been leading a more or less normal life, or aspiring to do so. Yet the destruction from 2006 is everywhere visible – the market of Bint Jbeil, for example, is still being rebuilt. Hizbullah has placed posters of its martyrs in every village, but even that perennial reminder of the debt owed by the community to the party cannot forever displace a Shiite yearning for a life without fear.
There is an assumption that the way Hizbullah “packages” a war with Israel will determine how Shiites react to it. In other words if Israel is perceived as the clear culprit, the community will remain loyal to Hizbullah, whatever the consequences. Perhaps, but it will not be easy for the party to disguise retaliation in defense of Iran with another pretext. Nor will Hizbullah readily dispel a disquieting feeling among Shiites that the party, for all the advantages it brings to the community, every few years demands a prohibitive blood tax in exchange.

Then there is Hizbullah’s relation with Lebanon in general. The party has perfected a persona of indifference to Lebanese preferences disputing the imperatives of resistance, but it also knows that its countrymen will virulently oppose any new conflict, particularly one on behalf of the regime in Tehran, which could undermine Hizbullah’s status. That was one message from the March 14 victory in the June elections, in many respects a vote against Michel Aoun for his alliance with Hizbullah. But the party is also paying for May 2008, when it overran western Beirut and tried doing so in the mountains. That enterprise may have won Hizbullah a temporary victory against unarmed civilians, but what it really did was sweep away any national consensus in support of its armed struggle.
A postwar Lebanon would be nothing like the one that emerged in August 2006, which nonetheless defied Hizbullah for over 18 months. This new Lebanon, battered, impoverished, bitter, could well demand a final showdown with the project of a party that cannot possibly coexist with the project of a sovereign state. This begs the question: Might Israel precipitate a pre-emptive strike to take advantage of the Lebanese contradictions? It’s possible, and we’re not doing the slightest thing to prevent this.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

Iran's president rails against capitalism
Associated Press/UNITED NATIONS – Under increasing attack over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday that Tehran was ready to meet conciliation with conciliation. Ahmadinejad spoke to a half-empty chamber as he sought to cast himself as a beleaguered champion of the developing world, that he portrayed as under attack from rapacious capitalism.
At the same time, the Iranian leader issued stinging attacks on the United States and its allies without calling them by name. The delegations of the U.S., Canada and Israel were among those absent from the chamber. Ahmadinejad did not mention the uproar over Iran's nuclear program, calling instead for global nuclear disarmament.
Moments before he spoke, foreign ministers of six global powers told reporters on the sidelines of the General Assembly that they expect Iran to come clean about its nuclear program. Tougher sanctions against Iran are being considered if talks between the powers and Iran on the issue, set for Oct. 1, don't yield results.
At times, Ahmadinejad struck a softer tone, declaring that Tehran was "prepared to warmly shake all those hands which are honestly extended to us." He said Iran is committed to participate in building durable peace and security worldwide, while defending its legitimate and legal rights.
The Iranian leader also peppered his speech with religious references, invoking the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, as well as Islam.
Yet most of the speech focused on his usual themes — scathing verbal attacks on archenemy Israel and the West.
He assailed Israel for what he said was a "barbaric" attack on the Gaza Strip last winter, and condemned the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and attacks inside Pakistan. He also accused the West of hypocrisy, saying it preached democracy, but violated its fundamental principles.
Ahmadinejad portrayed Iran as a defender of poor countries, lashed out at unbridled capitalism which he said has reached the end of the road and will suffer the same fate as Marxism.
Turning to domestic affairs, Ahmadinejad insisted he won a "large majority" in what he described as "glorious and fully democratic" June elections. Pro-reform opposition politicians have alleged massive electoral fraud, and Ahmadinejad has been at the center of political turmoil since then.
Outside the U.N. complex, hundreds of supporters of Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi rallied against Ahmadinejad, wearing green, the movement's signature color. One of the demonstrators, Amir Arani, said that the election was stolen and that "our president is not Ahmadinejad."
In the plenum, many seats were empty during the speech, and some delegates got up midway through. The U.S., Israel and Canada were among those that boycotted the speech, in protest against his persistent denial of the Holocaust.
In another apparent anti-Semitic reference, Ahmadinejad complained that a "small minority" controls politics, economics and culture across much of the world.
Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said: "It is disappointing that Mr. Ahmadinejad has once again chosen to espouse hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric."Through the day, key speakers, including U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, had taken Iran to task for its nuclear ambitions.
The U.S. and its allies believe Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons, despite Tehran's assertion that it is only building a peaceful nuclear energy program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran has not been forthcoming about its nuclear program, and the U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions against Iran three times since 2006 for its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. Next month, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, along with Germany, are to hold talks with Iran. Obama wants to pursue tougher sanctions if those meetings yield nothing. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met Wednesday with her counterparts from Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany to prepare for the meeting in Geneva. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the group expects a "serious response" from Iran at that meeting.
Russia has stood in the way of stronger action against Tehran in the past, but Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday, after a meeting with Obama, that "in some cases sanctions are inevitable." In an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad has said he expects "free and open" discussions at that meeting, but that Iran will not negotiate uranium enrichment. When asked in an interview with CBS television Wednesday whether Iran had reversed position and was ready to put its nuclear program on the table, he said: "We have not actually changed our mind." Iran's position suggests that diplomatic efforts might soon hit an impasse.
On Thursday, a high-level meeting of the U.N. Security Council is expected to adopt a resolution calling for a more intense global campaign to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation. It does not name countries, but refers to previous resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.

Message to the U.N. -- Support Democracy Not Dictators
By: Walid Phares
- FOXNews.com
- September 23, 2009
This is a United Nations which has completely abandoned its original principles.
As President Obama was addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations, just before Libya's dictator Moammar Kadhafi called for the demise of the Security Council and followed later by Ahmedinijad's challenge of international law as we know it, my conclusion has become clear: Indeed the United Nations must reform, and significantly, and here is why:
Qaddafi, whom many Arab leaders called the Fata alk Majnun (the crazy man) ranted for one hour and a half in front of the General Assembly accusing the organization of being unfair and intervening against some aggressors and not all perpetrators of human rights abuse. The dictator is right in this particular diagnosis but not in the menu he offered.
The man whose regime invaded and occupied northern Chad for years, looting that poor country's resources, who sent terrorists into Tunisia and Egypt, who kidnapped and assassinated Lebanese Shia leaders, who ordered the blowing up of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie and has been funding violence from the Philippines to Surninam is not exactly the head of state who should be lecturing the world community in Manhattan, but answering a court investigation in the Hague.
Ahmedinijad, another lecturer on fundamental rights at the UN does not stand on higher moral grounds either. His Pasdaran are behind terror in Iraq, train and funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and were indicted by Argentina for bloody massacres across the globe. Ahmedinijad's own population is savagely oppressed and Iran's civil society has provided evidence of its oppression this summer.
In front of this surreal Picasso-esque roster of dictators turned "U.N.-preachers," the leaders of legitimate democracies, especially the president of the United States should have responded with clarity and boldness, not just in their style but in their substance. And they should have demanded even more serious reforms. This UN is not taking enough action against mass murderers and hasn't done so in most of its history. Indeed, the U.N. made distinctions between causes it could deal with and those it would choose to ignore. That injustice was evident even during the Cold War and the height of East-West confrontation.
Think about the genocide that took place in 1966-68 in Biafra, Nigeria. One million black Africans perished. There was no significant attempt by the U.N. to save those people. Then the black African people of southern Sudan were targeted by Khartoum’s regimes Up to a million people were murdered. Where was the U.N.? The organization did not even bother to show up.
In 1976, the Syrian Army invaded Lebanon. The United Nations did not react – neither in the Security Council nor in the General Assembly. Then in 1978, responding to a PLO attack, Israel moved in. Immediately the Security Council met and issued Res. 425. It formed the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), whose role seemed to be to count the shells. In 1982, again because of another series of attacks by the PLO inflaming the southern borders with Israel, Israel entered Lebanon and a battle with Syria occurred. It was only then that the U.N. issued Resolution 520, calling on all foreign forces to withdraw, without naming Syria (although Israel had been named in 1978). Syria also went unnamed in 1982 when the head of the Syrian regime, Hafiz al-Assad, ordered his army and air force to crush a rebellion in the city of Hama, killing 20,000 Muslim Sunnis. There was no Security Council resolution. And, again, nothing happened.
In 1987 Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in Iraq. Photographs reached the United Nations. There was no resolution. There was not even a meeting. There was no consideration of anything with regard to this crime against humanity. Bottom line: The U.N. system has ignored human rights abuses from Algeria to Afghanistan.
With the end of the Cold War – which was used to justify U.N. inaction for years – genocides and crises of all kinds continued to be ignored. In Southern Sudan again – in 1991, 2001, and 2004 – up to a million more black people, both Christian and Animists, were annihilated. Now in Darfur, Muslims (who are Sunnis) perish in an ethnic cleansing. Around 750,000 Africans are enslaved at a time when an African, Kofi Annan, was the U.N. Secretary-General.
In the post-Cold War era, Saddam Hussein executed up to 350,000 Shi’a. But there was no U.N. investigation of that massacre. There was no Security Council meeting. Nothing happened throughout the 1990s regarding that issue.
Throughout the 1990s, Lebanon was still occupied by the Syrian Army, which not only abused Lebanese at home but even transferred detainees to Syrian jails, reminding us of the train transfers of World War II. Yet nothing happened until 2005, and the adoption of resolution 1559. In the aftermath of 2001, when the eyes of the West opened, there have been increasing demands for the spread of democracy around the world.
The world changed in 2001. Al Qaeda gave evil a face. But Al Qaeda is just the tip of the iceberg. It presents us with the ideology of jihadism, an ideology that divides the world. Speeches by usama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zwahiri, and the other leaders of this jihadist movement, convey clearly that either you are in Dar El Islam (as portrayed by Al Qaeda – more akin to Dar El Taliban than Dar El Islam), or you are in Dar El Kuffar, the infidels. There is a new worldwide organization threatening to divide humanity and calling for the opposing side to be persecuted and oppressed. For these folks 9/11 was legitimate. It is an ideology that accepts the principle of genocide. It is permissible to kill children, women, the elderly and non-combatants. In Algeria during the 1990s, at least 145,000 Arab Muslim Sunnis were massacred by the Salafists, the allies of Al Qaeda.
But instead of the U.N. mobilizing to prevent this new jihad and neo-Nazi ideology from taking hold, the U.N. Secretary General said in Davos on January 23, 2006, that the United Nations is in between, is neutral, is equidistant from the war on terror and the terrorists. This is a United Nations which has completely abandoned its original principles.
In recent years, Syria, a state-sponsor of terrorism, was a member of the Security- Council, while Libya and Sudan were on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and Saudi Arabia and China are on the new Human Rights Council.
The people of the greater Middle East, who have been abused by aggressors on the one hand, and by U.N. inaction on the other, have finally begun to speak. They spoke up for democracy in Afghanistan, rushing to vote. In Iraq, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people voted. By voting they have responded to terrorism, to jihadism. It was not the United Nations that responded. It was the people of the region.
What happened when the Security Council – thanks to the United States and France – finally adopted Resolution 1559 requiring Syria to leave Lebanon? The U.N. sent its diplomats and envoys to talk not to the Lebanese people, but to negotiate their fate with the dictator in Damascus. Kofi Annan then went to Iran to discuss the fate of Lebanon – a slap in the face of the Lebanese people on the side of democracy.
What is needed as of the end of this first decade of the 21st century is a United Nations in the defense of democracies. In it we will have the oppressed people rising finally to freedom and security.
**Dr. Walid Phares is the author of the new book "Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad." He is a FOX News contributor and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Hizbollah plays game of political patience
Mitchell Prothero, Foreign Correspondent
September 24. 2009 /The National
When the Sunni-led “March 14” political alliance won Lebanon’s tightly-contested parliamentary elections in June, many politicians and pundits warned that a failure by the incoming prime minister, Saad Hariri, to quickly broker a compromise with the Hizbollah-led opposition could return Lebanon to the sectarian violence that almost sent the country back to civil war in 2008.
Although a government has yet to materialise after more than three months of often bitter debates, there has been no violence, as both Mr Hariri and the Hizbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, have avoided troublesome rhetoric even as their talks have repeatedly failed to broker an agreement.
As perhaps the single most powerful person in Lebanon, Mr Nasrallah has far more tools for pressuring the majority into concessions, ranging from a military power that far exceeds even the Lebanese army, to the ability to send hundreds of thousands of devoted supporters to the streets in protest within a few hours. But instead, Mr Nasrallah appears to be content to let the talks progress, while using conciliatory language towards his political enemies.
Even with Mr Hariri’s resignation two weeks ago after failing to deliver a government because of a dispute with Hizbollah’s only major Christian ally, Michel Aoun, over control of the critical telecommunications ministry, Mr Nasrallah dampened expectations that a return to the violence of 2006 to 2008 was imminent.
“It is not worth taking the country to a political, sectarian and security tension,” Mr Nasrallah told his followers last Friday.
“Let us stay calm in order to reach a solution … Reaching a deal over a cabinet, even if it takes some time, is better than dragging the country into chaos,” he told supporters.
This approach, in marked contrast to past speeches and positions in which he would warn his political opponents that a failure to agree could internally threaten the safety and security of the nation, appears to be an effort to remake the region’s perception of the militant group, which is more famous for its military prowess than its ability to compromise with its enemies.
“He has not been using threats or intimidation anymore,” said Timur Goksel, a former UN official with decades of experience dealing with Hizbollah.
“This appears to be an attempt to soften the image of Hizbollah domestically and regionally. But it is also the only real course available to them at this point.”
Mr Goksel said that Hizbollah can afford to be patient, in large part because they feel that a government favourable to their positions will eventually be formed, and as long as they are not faced with a threat to their security, they have no reason to be impatient.
“It might take a little time, but they will get what they want,” he said of the group. “But things are calming down. Their strength is beyond question.”
Elias Muhanna, a political affairs expert, thinks it became clear during the wrangling over Mr Hariri’s refusal to appoint Mr Aoun’s son-in-law as minister of telecommunications that Hizbollah cared little about the fight, but were happy to support their critical ally as long as Mr Aoun kept the conflict limited to patronage positions.
“My feeling is that Hizbollah would like a government to be formed yesterday,” Mr Muhanna said in an e-mail. “It’s better for them if Lebanon’s dysfunctions are off the front page. That said, I don’t think that they’re going to turn the screw on Aoun, for the same reason that they never try to pressure Berri. They’re happy to let their allies play politics as long as their red lines are very clear. Pressuring Aoun is just not worth [sacrificing] their own political capital.”
With Lebanon’s long history of sectarian warfare between just about every confessional group at one time or another, Mr Nasrallah appears concerned about turning the dispute into a Sunni-Shiite battle, a problem that Mr Aoun, as a Christian, does not face or care much about.
“Nasrallah is playing the good cop to Aoun’s bad cop, because he knows that as a Sunni-Shiite contest, this has sectarian potential,” said Paul Salem of the Carnegie Institute.
“I don’t think they [Hizbollah] care about Aoun’s son-in law but they certainly care about the telecommunications ministry. They are ratcheting down sectarian tensions, [and] they do not want their people tense or riled up. So his [Nasrallah’s] position seems to be to keep sectarianism calm and cool, while actually letting a sectarian thing play out.”
However, Mr Goksel disagrees, describing the contest as strictly political in light of each side’s expectations, which could even be described as cynicism.
“This is a political fight, not a sectarian one,” he said. “This being Lebanon, people will say ‘sectarian’ for just about anything. This country is not going to change. Neither side has any dreamy illusions of changing the confessional system, the voting laws or the economic mafia controls. They are just working their way around finding a way for both sides to peacefully coexist. They can do it, it’s just going to take a little while longer.”
mprothero@thenational.ae

New UN resolution aims at nuclear-free world
 Associated Press Writer –
UNITED NATIONS – With President Barack Obama presiding over a historic session, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-sponsored resolution Thursday committing all nations to work for a nuclear weapons-free world.
Russia, China and developing nations supported the measure, giving it global clout and strong political backing.
The resolution calls for stepped up efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament and "reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism." It calls for better security for nuclear weapons materials and underscores the Security Council's intention to take action if such material or nuclear weapons get into the hands of terrorists.
The resolution consolidated many elements previously endorsed individually in the Security Council or other international forums. But bringing them together in a single document, voted on by global leaders, should add political momentum to efforts to achieve these goals, particularly at important conferences next year on nuclear security and on strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty.
It was only the fifth time the Security Council met at summit level since the U.N. was founded in 1945 and 14 of the 15 chairs around the council's horseshoe-shaped table were filled by presidents and prime ministers. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's name was on the U.N.-circulated list as attending but he was a no-show. Libya's U.N. ambassador spoke for his country.
The U.S. holds the rotating council presidency this month and Obama was the first American president to preside over a Security Council summit, gaveling the meeting into session and announcing that "the draft resolution has been adopted unanimously."
"The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said immediately after the vote. "And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal."
Just one nuclear weapon set off in a major city — "be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris" — could kill hundreds of thousands of people and cause major destruction, Obama said.
The council endorsed a global effort to "lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years" and the president announced that the United States will host an April summit to advance compliance and assist all nations in achieving the goal.
The resolution does not mention any country by name but it reaffirms previous Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea for their nuclear activities. It does not call for any new sanctions.
The resolution "expresses particular concern at the current major challenges to the nonproliferation regime that the Security Council has acted upon."
"This is not about singling out an individual nation," Obama said. "International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced."
But Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy all identified North Korea, which has tested nuclear weapons, and Iran, suspected of harboring weapon plans, as obstacles to a safer world.
Sarkozy sharply criticized both countries for ignoring Security Council resolutions calling on them to cease such activities.
"We may all be threatened one day by a neighbor, by a neighbor endowing itself" with nuclear weapons, he said.
"What I believe is that if we have the courage to affirm and impose sanctions on those who violate resolutions of the Security Council we will be lending credibility to our commitment to a world with fewer nuclear weapons and ultimately with no nuclear weapons," Sarkozy said.
The British leader called on the council to consider "far tougher sanctions" against Iran.
Iran's U.N. Mission issued a statement calling allegations about its nuclear program "totally untrue and without any foundation," insisting it is pursuing nuclear power as an alternative source of energy "to supply its booming population and rapid development."
Iran called French claims "preposterous" and accused Britain of "deliberately and cynically" ignoring its legal commitments to take practical steps to eliminate nuclear weapons but did not mention the United States by name.
Diplomats from Iran are scheduled to hold talks on Oct. 1 with the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.
The Iranian statement reiterates the country's "readiness to engage in serious and constructive negotiations with interested parties, based on respect, justice, rights of nations and collective commitments, aimed at reaching a framework for cooperative relationships." But it said that to achieve success in future negotiations the six countries should abandon "futile and illegal demands of the past years" that include suspending Iran's enrichment program.
Obama said the resolution reflects the nuclear agenda he outlined in his April speech in Prague when he declared his commitment to "a world without nuclear weapons."
The president called in that speech for the slashing of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, adoption of the treaty banning all nuclear tests, an international fuel bank to better safeguard nuclear material, and negotiations on a new treaty that "verifiably" ends the production of fissile materials for atomic weapons.
He also strongly backed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, which requires signatory nations not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the five nuclear powers to move toward nuclear disarmament. States without nuclear weapons are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology for electricity generation.
All those measures are included in the draft resolution.
The resolution suggests that the Security Council consider taking firmer actions in the case of a country withdrawing from the NPT — as North Korea did — and stresses that countries that pull out are responsible for all violations before withdrawal.
Iran in its statement reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT, saying it takes its responsibilities under the treaty "seriously."
In its opening paragraph, the resolution reaffirms the council's commitment "to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons."
Obama warned Thursday against violations of the NPT saying, "We must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced."
But global differences remain.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that "our main shared goal is to untie the problem knots" among nations seeking nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.
"This is complicated since the level of mistrust among nations remains too high, but it must be done," he said.
Chinese President Hu Jintao focused on a late addition to Thursday's resolution: a call for all nuclear-weapon states to commit to "no first use" of those weapons, and to not using them against non-nuclear states. China has long proclaimed such a policy, which the U.S. has never embraced.
"All nuclear-weapon states should make an unequivocal commitment of unconditionally not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states," Hu said.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon saluted the national leaders for joining in the unprecedented Security Council summit on nuclear arms.
"This is a historic moment, a moment offering a fresh start toward a new future," he said.
Among the invited guests were U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei, former U.S. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry, media mogul Ted Turner, former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and Queen Noor of Jordan — all campaigners against nuclear weapons.
Nunn, a Georgia Democrat who heads the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based group designed to fight the global spread of nuclear materials, said the most important thing about the resolution "is the high-level visibility that will be taking place ... with world leaders gathering to remind both themselves and the world that we are at a nuclear tipping point."
As Obama left the Security Council chamber, he told the Associated Press: "It was an excellent day."
___
Associated Press Writers John Heilprin and Charles Hanley contributed to this report from the United Nations.