LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 19/2012

Bible Quotation for today/The Salvation of the Gentiles
Romans 11/13-24: " I am speaking now to you Gentiles: As long as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I will take pride in my work. Perhaps I can make the people of my own race jealous, and so be able to save some of them. For when they were rejected, all other people were changed from God's enemies into his friends. What will it be, then, when they are accepted? It will be life for the dead!  If the first piece of bread is given to God, then the whole loaf is his also; and if the roots of a tree are offered to God, the branches are his also. Some of the branches of the cultivated olive tree have been broken off, and a branch of a wild olive tree has been joined to it. You Gentiles are like that wild olive tree, and now you share the strong spiritual life of the Jews. So then, you must not despise those who were broken off like branches. How can you be proud? You are just a branch; you don't support the roots—the roots support you.  But you will say, Yes, but the branches were broken off to make room for me. That is true. They were broken off because they did not believe, while you remain in place because you do believe. But do not be proud of it; instead, be afraid. God did not spare the Jews, who are like natural branches; do you think he will spare you? Here we see how kind and how severe God is. He is severe toward those who have fallen, but kind to you—if you continue in his kindness. But if you do not, you too will be broken off. And if the Jews abandon their unbelief, they will be put back in the place where they were; for God is able to do that. You Gentiles are like the branch of a wild olive tree that is broken off and then, contrary to nature, is joined to a cultivated olive tree. The Jews are like this cultivated tree; and it will be much easier for God to join these broken-off branches to their own tree again.
 

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Ahmadinejad is in Abu Musa, while we/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/April 18/12
Don't Throw Iran's Democrats under the Bus/By Patrick Clawson/Washington Institute/April 18/12
What Kissinger can tell us about the Iran talks/April 16, 2012/By David Ignatius/April 18/12
America and the Iranian Lobby/By Abdul-Malik Ahmad Al Al-Sheikh/April 18/12/April 18/12
Politics in Café Havana/By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Alawsat/April 18/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 18/12
All April 17 news from Now Lebanon/Click Here
Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah reveals contacts with Syria opposition in Assange interview
Iran: Israeli-linked spies intended to kill expert
GCC slams “provocative” Ahmadinejad island visit
After Netanyahu's criticism, U.S. official says Israeli PM was briefed on Iran talks
Iran says arrests 'major terrorist group' linked to Israel
Israel should have given Obama a 'freebie' on Iran talks
Netanyahu: Iran received gift from world powers with further nuclear talks
India confiscates Israeli defense firm’s $70m guarantee, clouding relations
Ehud Barak condemns IDF officer who beat pro-Palestinian protester
Report: Mossad cuts back on Iran operations
Ban urges Syria to give observers total access
US: Syria violence 'unacceptable'
No progress in implementing Annan plan on Syria, Qatari PM says
EU ready to offer support to UN Syria observers
Syria dragging feet on ceasefire monitors accord, diplomats say
France plans to invite foreign ministers to Syrian talks
Syria sanctions group denounces arms sales to regime  
Assad Continues Violent Attacks on the Opposition
UN mission in Syria threatened as 67 killed in recent clashes
Activists: Syrian troops widen shelling attacks
Jordan nabs Syria-bound jihadists: Salafist leader
Libya: NTC Members seek to oust El-Keib Government
Egypt panel rejects Suleiman's appeal of ban from presidential race
Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai calls for establishing “Christian Spring”
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea implicitly blames March 8 for assassination attempt
Waad wraps up rebuild of ex-Hezbollah security perimeter
Mockery, mayhem, monotony grip Lebanon's Parliament
March 14 fires barrage at Lebanese Cabinet
The Suicide of the Ethiopian Servant, Alem highlights Lebanon's sponsorship system’s flaws
Lebanese group repeatedly hacks government websites
President Michael Sleiman hopes revolts will yield democracy
Two men shot dead in Baalbek, shops close as act of protest
Suleiman from Australia: Diversity Cannot Survive without Dialogue
Phalange: Miqati-Safadi Dispute Sign of Future Conflicts within Government
U.S. Army General Visits Lebanon, Stresses Support for Army as Sole Legitimate Force in Lebanon
Hamadeh slams “scared, indifferent” ministers
Sleiman: Lebanon to remain ‘loyal’ to policy of moderation
M.P, Josepgh Maalouf: Government’s border policy is irresponsible
Plumbly says Syrian crisis impact on Lebanon “most acute” in North
Iranian envoy: Mikati’s statement on Ahmadinejad visit ‘displeased’ embassy

GCC slams “provocative” Ahmadinejad island visit
April 17, 2012 /The six Gulf monarchies on Tuesday condemned as "provocative" a visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an island claimed by both Abu Dhabi and Tehran.
The members of the Gulf Cooperation Council "strongly condemn the Iranian president's visit to Abu Musa which is a provocative act and a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the United Arab Emirates over its three islands," they said in a joint statement.The visit, last week, "contradicts good neighborly policies," they added.They also demanded Iran "end its occupation of these islands and respond to calls by the UAE to find a peaceful and just solution through negotiations or by resorting to the international court." They also pledged their "full support to the UAE in all actions it takes to regain its rights and sovereignty over its islands."-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Hamadeh slams “scared, indifferent” ministers
April 17, 2012 /March 14 MP Marwan Hamadeh said on Tuesday during the parliament’s plenary session that Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s cabinet included “scared and indifferent” people and was formed amid the presence of non-state arms. “One party is in control. Either directly through its own minister or indirectly through a minister allied with it,” Hamadeh said in an implicit reference to Hezbollah.
The MP also addressed the assassination attempt against Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, saying the incident “warns of miserable days [to come].” “According to [the Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition], Samir Geagea was not targeted, [Syrian Baath Party co-founder] Shibli al-Ayssami was not abducted [last year from Lebanon] and [Al-Jadeed cameraman] Ali Shaaban was not martyred.”“For them, Syrian President [Bashar al-Assad] is always right, the Syrian people is always wrong and the United Nations is always biased.” Hamadeh also addressed the Lebanese citizens, saying: “Do not believe that Assad’s regime has a shred of hope of staying [in power].”Regarding the upcoming 2013 parliamentary elections, he warned the Lebanese of carrying out elections “under the [presence] of [non-state] arms” no matter what the electoral law was. “If some [people] are thinking that the current cabinet will supervise the elections, then I [am telling you], from now that they will not be held.”
-NOW Lebanon

Ex-Convict Kills 2 Men, Injures Another in Baalbek Vengeance Attack
Naharnet /Two members of the same family were killed and another man was injured in the eastern city of Baalbek at dawn Tuesday when a former convict opened fire on them over an old dispute.
Voice of Lebanon radio station (93.3) said that Mohammed Shuqair, who was released from prison 48 hours ago, shot at Internal Security Forces Sergeant Mohammed Aqid Solh and Mohammed Baqbouq Solh from his Nissan Sunny, killing them instantly.
Shuqair then drove his vehicle and opened fire on Hussein Riyad al-Faitrouni, severely injuring him in his legs, VDL said.
Upon hearing the news of the shootings, angry gunmen headed to Shuqair’s four-storey house and set it on fire, the radio station added.
But the National News Agency said that unknown assailants fired a B7 rocket at the house of the perpetrator that lies in Baalbek’s al-Sharawina neighborhood.
Later, several members of the victims’ families set fire to a building in al-Tufaili neighborhood that houses four apartments belonging to the brothers of al-Shuqair, without causing any casualties, NNA said.

Nasrallah reveals contacts with Syria opposition in Assange interview
April 17, 2012 03:50 PM The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, in a rare interview Tuesday, told WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange his group has been in contact with the Syrian opposition, which he said turned down offers to hold dialogue with President Bashar Assad.
“This is the first time I say this – We contacted […] the opposition to encourage them and to facilitate the process of dialogue with the [Syrian] regime. But they rejected dialogue,” Nasrallah, whose whereabouts are unknown, told Assange over a live TV feed.
“Right from the beginning we have had a regime that is willing to enact reforms and is prepared for dialogue. On the other side you have an opposition which is not prepared for dialogue and is not prepared to accept reforms. All it wants is to bring down the regime. This is a problem,” he added.
Nasrallah was the first of several planned guests in the debut of Assange’s “The World Tomorrow” on Russia Today.
The Australian founder of the whistle-blowing website that has leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents and communiqués remains under strict bail conditions at an undisclosed location in the U.K.
During the interview, which lasted 30 minutes, Nasrallah reiterated Damascus’ view that armed groups had killed “very many civilians.”
The U.N. estimates forces loyal to Assad have killed more than 9,000 people in the uprising which began in March 2011. Syrian authorities say foreign-backed “armed gangs” have killed over 2,600 soldiers and members of the police force.
The Hezbollah secretary-general also said the opposition was receiving arms and financing from foreign countries, including Arab states, and said a recent video posting by the head of Al-Qaeda, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, also indicated that the militant group was operating in Syria.
Asked why the resistance group had backed a number of uprisings in the Arab world but not Syria, Nasrallah said despite Hezbollah’s policy of non-interference in Arab affairs the extent of developments in several countries meant that “no party can just not take a position on them.”
“In Syria, everybody knows that the regime of President Bashar Assad has supported the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine and it has not backed down in the face of Israeli and American pressure so it is a regime which served the Palestinian cause very well,” Nasrallah added.
The Hezbollah chief reiterated his group’s position that dialogue and reforms were need to resolve the 13-month long crisis in Syria, warning that the alternative to this could push Lebanon’s neighbor toward a civil war, “which is exactly what American and Israel want.”
On whether Hezbollah, if asked, would play a role in mediating between the Syrian government and the opposition, Nasrallah said: “When we say we support a political solution then most certainly we will be willing to exert any effort or contribution to achieve that sort of political solution.”
“Any group that wants dialogue with the regime and wants us as go-betweens then we will be more than happy to mediate, but we are asking others to make efforts to create a political solution,” he added.
Asked if Hezbollah would disarm once it achieved what it regarded as a victory in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Nasrallah described Israel as an illegal state that had usurped lands of others and had committed “massacres against the Palestinians who were expelled [from their lands.]”
“The progress of time does not negate justice. If it was your house and I occupied it by force, then it doesn’t become mine in 50 or 100 years just because I am stronger than you and I have been able to occupy your house,” he told Assange.
“That doesn’t legalize my ownership of your house. At least this is our ideological and legal point of view,” he added.
Nasrallah said only a one-state solution could resolve the conflict.
“We believe Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people but if we wanted to combine ideology and law as well as political realities … we should say that the only solution is that we don’t want to kill anyone, we don’t want to treat anyone unjustly, we want justice to be restored and the only solution is the establishment of one state on the land of Palestine in which the Muslims, Jews and Christians can live in peace in a democratic state. Any other solution would simply not be viable,” he said.
Nasrallah also denied that his group fired into Israeli civilian areas, citing an indirect agreement between Hezbollah and the Jewish state not to fire on each other’s civilian populations.
“After 10 of years of resistance we started reacting only, purely, strictly to stop Israeli shelling on our civilians so that in 1993 there was an indirect understanding between the resistance and Israel, and that understanding was reaffirmed in 1996, and that understanding makes clear that both sides avoid shelling civilians,” he said.
“We always used to say that if you don’t shell our villages and our towns then we don’t have anything to do with your villages and towns,” he added.

Waad wraps up rebuild of ex-Hezbollah security perimeter
April 18, 2012/By Atallah al-Salim/The Daily Star
HARET HREIK, Lebanon: The Hezbollah-led Waad project for rebuilding the Beirut southern suburbs announced Tuesday that reconstruction of a street in Haret Hreik, the former location of Hezbollah’s “security perimeter,” had been completed.
The “security perimeter” famously used to house Hezbollah’s top commanders among other residents before Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon. The newly designed street now contains 28 buildings, including 600 residences and 150 shops.
“We finalized the construction of all buildings in this street and its entire infrastructure,” said Hasan Jishi, director general of the Waad project.
The majority of the street’s former residents have moved into their new buildings, Jishi added, but some residents have yet to return since they now own residences in other areas.
Former Cabinets since the July 2006 war had not followed through on promised government compensation for the destroyed apartment units, according to Jishi. He added that the current Cabinet finally approved a treasury advance decree, but the money has yet to be spent through the Central Fund for the Displaced and the Higher Relief Committee.
An official ceremony will be held to open the street in the coming weeks under the patronage of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah.
“This street witnessed the most destructive bombardment during the 2006 war and hopefully all other streets in this area will soon be in as good a shape as this one,” said the mayor of Haret Hreik, Ziad Waked, at the same news conference.
Both speakers thanked the municipality of Haret Hreik and various state institutions, particularly the Council for Development and Reconstruction.
A few shops have already returned to the newly restored and exceedingly clean street, including a cellular phone shop, another for accessories and a fast food restaurant.
The name “Waad” (Arabic for promise) refers to an address given by Nasrallah on Aug. 14, 2006, hours after a cease-fire with Israel came into effect, vowing to rebuild areas devastated during the war.
Waad’s urban planning scheme allowed for the rebuilding of demolished structures according to their prewar dimensions, but residents had a say in the process over the layout of their individual homes and in selecting materials for the interiors.

March 14 fires barrage at Lebanese Cabinet
April 18, 2012/By Hasan Lakkis, Wassim Mroueh The Daily Star
BEIRUT: March 14 MPs launched a fierce attack on the Cabinet of Prime Minister Najib Mikati at Parliament Tuesday, slamming its approach to the turmoil in Syria and its performance in addressing socio-economic demands and security concerns in the country.
For his part, Mikati defended his Cabinet during the assembly, the first of a three-day session to discuss government policy, arguing that it has preserved stability while admitting certain shortcomings in carrying out administrative appointments.
Twenty lawmakers spoke during the session and another 53 have submitted to Speaker Nabih Berri their names to speak.
In a speech he delivered at the beginning of the session, Mikati defended Lebanon’s policy of dissociating itself from all Arab League decisions on Syria.
“This policy is not an evasion of responsibility, it is fulfilling responsibility and protecting Lebanon,” he said. The prime minister added that Lebanon could not affect the course of events in its neighbor but was itself affected by events there. He stressed that stability was his government’s priority.
“There were certain priorities when forming the government and its main one was that of stability as pertains to three factors, stability in the south ... financing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon ... and events in the region, particularly in Syria,” Mikati said, addressing MPs.
But he admitted there were shortcomings in the Cabinet’s handling of finalizing administrative appointments.
“As you know, the Cabinet is not one-sided, as some had claimed when it was formed. There is some bickering in the Cabinet,” Mikati said.
Since its formation last year, the Cabinet had done little to fill public sector posts, more than half of which remain vacant.
Mikati also highlighted his Cabinet’s achievements in the fields of electricity, telecommunications and delineating maritime borders.
Deputy-Speaker Farid Makari, the first member of the opposition to address the assembly, launched a scorching attack on Mikati, accusing him of encouraging “terrorism.”
“Yes, you, Mr. Prime Minister, you personally encouraged terrorists to take action again,” Makari said, citing the government’s failure to search for the men accused in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The government’s laxity on security matters, Makari went on to say, “was a very bad example and assured criminals and those behind them that they can assassinate their opponents without being held accountable.”“How can the prime minister accept that the Lebanese foreign minister becomes the Syrian regime’s defense attorney ... dragging Lebanon into taking position that contradicts those of the majority of Arab and world states?” asked Makari
Makari slammed the Cabinet for “disassociating itself” from the defense of Lebanon’s borders against Syrian incursions. Several Lebanese have been killed by gunfire coming across the border from Syria, including cameraman Ali Shaaban, who was killed last week in the northern border area of Wadi Khaled.
Addressing Mikati, Makari said: “Resign prime minister before you lose all your political capital. Resign before you lose your credibility in a Cabinet which honors [no one],” he said.
Meanwhile, Batroun MP Antoine Zahra criticized what he described as the government’s refusal to refer to the Judicial Council the recent attempted assassination of LF leader Samir Geagea, despite the destabilizing potential of the attack.
Zahra lamented his March 14 coalition’s inability to topple the Cabinet.
“This Parliament cannot hold this Cabinet accountable because its survival stems from the forces of the status quo ... our role is limited to speaking in the hopes of awakening their conscience,” he said.
A fight broke out during the session between Chouf MP Marwan Hamade and lawmakers from Michel Aoun’s Change and Reform parliamentary bloc.
Hamade was angered by Baalbek-Hermel MP Emile Rahme, who accused the March 14 coalition of allowing the construction of an illegal telecommunications station in the Barouk Mountains. The station, which was reportedly linked to Israel, was dismantled in 2009.
Hamade said FPM and Hezbollah officials owned the station, prompting MPs from both groups to respond. Rahme stepped in, facing off against Aley MP Akram Shehayeb before Berri intervened and restored order.
Beirut MP Ghazi Youssef, from the Future Movement, lashed out at Energy Minister Gebran Bassil and Telecommunications Minister Nicolas Sehnaoui.
Youssef said that despite spending around $350 million by Aoun’s ministers to improve cellular networks, “we are still complaining about the bad service.”
“Minister Sehnaoui himself is complaining about this matter and he is planning to spend an additional $150 million ... to improve cellular networks,” he said.
What is important to the telecommunications ministers, continued Youssef, is “awarding contracts [to companies tasked with improving the network] away from standards, rules, oversight and accountability.”
Youssef also accused Bassil of not seeking loans from Arab funds to finance a $1.2 billion plan to boost the electricity sector as stipulated by law.
“Minister Bassil refuses these funds to avoid oversight, transparency and environmental standards,” he argued.
In his speech later in the session, Baalbek-Hermel MP Nawwar Saheli, from Hezbollah, defended the Cabinet’s disassociation policy.
“We are with dissociating ourselves so that the Syrian crisis will not spill over into Lebanon and so that we do not interfere in Syrian internal affairs,” he said.
Saheli accused the March 14 coalition of meddling in Syrian affairs. “Who is inciting fighting and stands by the side of people who encourage civil war? ... Have they forgotten their demand for diplomatic ties with Syria and the implementation of the Taif agreement?” he asked. While stressing that the Cabinet was combating the corruption of previous Cabinets, Saheli criticized the delays in appointing a new head for the Higher Judicial Council and a general prosecutor.
Baalbek-Hermel MP Assem Qanso, from the Baath Party, wondered aloud why some MPs attack Syria when Lebanon had invited the Syrian army to the country.
“Following the civil war, the Syrian army disarmed Lebanese militias and provided their arms to the Lebanese Army,” said Qanso. “This means that we should maintain good ties with Syria based on mutual respect.”

Mockery, mayhem, monotony grip Lebanon's Parliament
April 18, 2012/By Wassim Mroueh/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Exchanges of sarcasm, a dose of boredom and a quarrel sparked by accusations of espionage were some of the highlights of Tuesday’s Parliament session, the first of a three-day debate on the government’s policy.
Baalbek-Hermel MP Emile Rahme accused the March 14 coalition of allowing what he called an “espionage” station to be established in the Barouk Mountains, drawing the ire of Chouf MP Marwan Hamade.“The owners of the Barouk station are Aounists,” Hamade interrupted. “Hezbollah is a part owner [in the station]” he added, addressing Speaker Nabih Berri.
Rahme continued and finished his speech, at which point Metn MP Ibrahim Kanaan, from Michel Aoun’s Change and Reform bloc, protested Hamade’s accusations. “We will not be accused in this way every time. There is [our] dignity [that should be respected],” Kanaan said, addressing Berri. “Respect dignity!” said Hamade, addressing Kanaan, who snapped back: “You should respect dignity.”
Rahme entered the fray, prompting Aley MP Akram Shehayeb to ask him to calm down. “You are asking me to calm down? I will not calm down,” Rahme fired back. He approached Shehayeb and the two exchanged angry remarks as commotion spread in the hall before Berri and some MPs intervened to restore order.
Shortly afterward, Baalbek-Hermel MP Nawwar Saheli stressed that his party, Hezbollah, had nothing to do with the illegal telecommunications station in the Barouk Mountains which was dismantled in 2009. The facility was reportedly linked to Israel.
Following the fracas, Hamade and Shehayeb were seen having coffee in a nearby cafe.
Also during the session, Deputy-Speaker Farid Makari described the Cabinet of Prime Minister Najib Mikati as “a Cabinet of a forged-majority, fake structure and fraudulent promises,” prompting March 8 MP Fadi Aawar to address Berri, tongue-in-cheek: “Speaker, can you please tell him to repeat what he said so that we can hear him properly?”
Makari responded by telling Aawar he would give him a copy of his speech.
A large number of March 14 MPs whistled as Baalbek-Hermel MP Ghazi Zeaiter asked Berri to strike from the record several minutes of a speech given by Makari during which he accused the Syrian regime of killing its people.
Zeaiter argued that Makari’s accusations were against “a brotherly regime without evidence.”
When Hamade expressed his support for the Syrian people, seeking to assure them that parties in Lebanon that stand by President Bashar Assad would eventually support the uprising of the Arab Spring, Hasbaya MP Qassem Hashem, from the Baath Party, interrupted by saying: “We aren’t here in the Syrian National Council, but in the Lebanese Parliament.”
As time passed, the lawmakers lost their sharp tongues and began to show signs of boredom. Metn MP Nabil Nicholas left his seat and walked over to Rahme, where the two sat chatting and laughing. MP Hekmat Dib also paid Rahme a visit.
As always during lengthy Parliament sessions, Health Minister Ali Hassan Khalil, who is also an MP, moved to more familiar surroundings, taking one of the seats assigned to the MPs to chat with Baabda MP Bilal Farhat. Also joining the lawmakers was Minister and Tyre MP Mohammad Fneish. Beirut MP Imad Hout was seen tapping away on his iPad, as Serge Torsarkissian, his colleague in the bloc of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, interrupted several MPs with his sarcastic remarks. “I give you a warning for three days, interrupting your colleagues ... is not allowed,” Berri told Torsarkissian.
The session was briefly attended by a delegation of the German parliament’s Human Rights committee accompanied by Germany’s Ambassador to Lebanon Birgitta Siefker-Eberle.
The lawmakers clapped to welcome the guests.Despite a series of accusations of corruption made against him by opposition lawmakers, Energy Minister Gebran Bassil appeared in a good mood on his way out of Parliament after the morning session. With a tanned face, Bassil described to reporters his weekend ski trip to Faraya.

Assad Continues Violent Attacks on the Opposition
By Jeffrey White/Washington Institute/Policy Alert, April 17, 2012
Data from one of the key Syrian opposition groups, the Local Coordination Committees (LCC), shows a persistent pattern of violent, armed regime actions against the people despite the ceasefire that supposedly went into force last week (view the Syria Incident Database). The regime has effectively continued its struggle against the armed and unarmed opposition, even using heavy weapons at times, though less frequently than before. Around twenty people are dying each day since the beginning of the ceasefire. From Friday through mid-Sunday, the LCC reported some sixty-eight violent regime actions across the country. All major centers of opposition were targeted: Aleppo, Deraa, Homs, the Damascus countryside, Idlib, Deir al-Zour, and Hama. Regime tactics included shelling of cities with heavy weapons (artillery, tanks, and BMP armored vehicles), shooting at demonstrators and other individuals, raids with armored vehicles on opposition towns and neighborhoods, breaking up demonstrations with gunfire, physical assaults on demonstrators, and arrests. The widespread use of violent tactics will be a challenge for the UN monitoring mission, even if it reaches its projected strength of 250. The regime's actions also suggest that it has no intention of negotiating anything but the opposition's surrender. **Jeffrey White, a former senior intelligence officer, is a defense fellow at The Washington Institute, specializing in the military and security affairs of the Levant and Iran.

Don't Throw Iran's Democrats under the Bus
By Patrick Clawson/Washington Institute
ForeignPolicy.com, April 13, 2012
In pursuing a nuclear deal with Tehran, Obama is betting against the future.
You wouldn't know it from following the news, but the nuclear impasse is not the only issue dividing Iran and the United States. In his latest message to the Iranian people on the occasion of their festival Nowruz in March, U.S. President Barack Obama emphasized another: human rights. After describing at length how "the Iranian people are denied the basic freedom to access the information that they want," he announced measures to penetrate "the electronic curtain that is cutting the Iranian people off from the world."
It's difficult, by contrast, to find any mention of Iran's human rights record in the many background briefings and on-the-record comments by officials of the P5+1 - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States -- ahead of Saturday's negotiations with Iran in Istanbul. Proposals for how to resolve the nuclear standoff pour forth from pundits, but few if any include suggestions for what to do about Iran's jailing of journalists, execution of hundreds of people per year, persecution of religious minorities, or other human rights problems.
Indeed, Iranian dissidents chafe at the attention the West gives to the nuclear impasse, and Iranian reformers have long feared that their interests will come second to a nuclear deal. As noted dissident Akbar Ganji warned in his September 2006 "Letter to America" in the Washington Post, "We believe the government in Tehran is seeking a secret deal with the United States. It is willing to make any concession, provided that the United States promises to remain silent about the regime's repressive measures at home."
One reason Iranian democrats worry that we would throw them under a bus for a nuclear deal is because that is exactly what we would do. The cold truth is that the West, including the United States, would gladly negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran's hardliners at the expense of Iranian human rights and democracy. If all it took to reach a nuclear deal were to remain silent about Tehran's repression, the prospects for a deal would be excellent. But in fact what holds up the deal is that Iran is not prepared to give up much of its nuclear program and the West is not convinced that the Islamic Republic would live up to any commitment it makes. What's more, the West -- especially the United States -- is not willing to offer much in trade so long as the fundamental geostrategic conflict with Iran remains.
Not only is a nuclear deal unlikely, but Iran's past record strongly suggests that it would not stick to a deal for long. Iran accepted an enrichment freeze in 2003 (only to immediately cheat, claiming that it was just continuing research on enrichment) and agreed to a renewed freeze in late 2003. Only later did Iranian officials acknowledge that the freeze had come at a convenient moment for Iran, which was having problems getting its centrifuges to work. Once those technical problems were solved and international pressure faded as America's seeming victory in Iraq turned to dust, Iran broke the freeze in February 2006 and installed about 2,500 centrifuges in the next year and a half, bringing its total to about 3,000. By August 2009, Iran had installed roughly 9,000 centrifuges. It is not clear, in other words, whether the temporary two-and-a-half-year freeze actually made much difference in the pace of Iran's nuclear progress.
A good argument can therefore be made that counting on sustained implementation of a deal is at least as risky a gamble as supporting democrats. Why gamble for the sake of a modest and temporary agreement that does not resolve the many other U.S. complaints about the Islamic Republic -- such as its state sponsorship of terrorism -- when the alternative is to gamble on a democratic movement? Instead of focusing on a nuclear deal, why not continue to use sanctions and covert action to slow down Iran's nuclear program while stepping up political pressure regarding Iran's human rights violations and providing more support for Iranian democrats, primarily through covert programs? Some may argue that political change in Iran will take time. Actually, revolutions happen quickly and blow up out of nowhere, as we have seen across the Middle East. Nobody predicted the 2009 protests that brought millions out to Tehran's streets. So let's be honest: We have no idea when change could come to Iran.
In the unlikely event of a deal, the Iranian regime is highly likely to trumpet such an agreement as proof that the West does not care about the Iranian opposition and that the regime's hold is rock solid. That claim could resonate in Iran and disillusion democrats about the West -- not good in general but particularly not good if the democrats ever come to power. Sixty years ago, the United States, for geostrategic reasons, supported an autocratic Iranian government (that of the shah) against a popular movement (led by Mohammad Mossadegh). The result was not good for the U.S. image around the world and was disastrous for Iran. Before shoring up another autocratic Iranian government for geostrategic gain, we should pause to weigh the risks and benefits, especially if we are not completely sure the Iranian regime will stick to the deal.
For the United States to stay silent on human rights out of fear of how such statements might affect negotiations is to confuse ends and means. Negotiations are one way to advance U.S. interests, not an interest in themselves. A more democratic Iran that is more respectful of human rights would serve the interests of both Americans and Iranians. Such a reality would put the two countries on a path toward resolving not only the nuclear crisis but also state support for terrorism and interference in the internal affairs of Arab countries such as Lebanon and Iraq. A democratic Iran would become a normal state rather than a revolutionary cause.
I would be the first to say that I do not see much evidence that Iranian democrats will come to power any time soon. But I know someone who thinks this is a realistic prospect, and his name is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He frequently warns about the danger of a velvet revolution -- a quick overthrow of the Islamic Republic by a popular movement of youth, women, and intellectuals stirred up by Western media like the BBC. Presumably Khamenei knows something about Iranian politics and Iranian public opinion.
It is not the place of outsiders to determine what kind of government Iran should have, but we are not indifferent to the outcome of the power struggles in Tehran. Even while strenuously objecting to what it saw as a "regime change" policy by the Bush administration, the New York Times wrote in an editorial on April 11, 2006, "The best hope for avoiding a nuclear-armed Iran lies in encouraging political evolution there over the next decade." That was true six years ago, and it is true today.
**Patrick Clawson is director of research at the Washington Institute and the author or editor of eighteen books and monographs on Iran.

Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai calls for establishing “Christian Spring”
April 17, 2012/Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai commented Tuesday on the role of Christians amid the Arab uprisings and called for establishing a “Christian Spring.”
“Christians are called to consolidate their cooperative relationship with the Arab world… in order to build a future based on coexistence [with the Muslims]… amid the Arab revolutions and uprisings,” Rai said during a ceremony at USEK University. “We long for a democratic Arab Spring… and we are all called upon to consolidate a ‘Christian Spring’.”
Rai added that the “Christian Spring” would be “the spring of truth, justice, love and freedom” and that it would reject “war and violence.”
In an interview with Reuters earlier in March, the Patriarch said that “the closest thing” to democracy in the Arab world was Syria and that he was against “turning the Arab Spring into winter.”
His remarks prompted fierce criticism from politicians affiliated with the March 14 coalition. Lebanon’s political scene is split between supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, led by Hezbollah, and the pro-Western March 14 camp.-NOW Lebanon

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea implicitly blames March 8 for assassination attempt
April 18, 2012 01:21 AM The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea implicitly accused the rival March 8 camp Tuesday of trying to assassinate him.
He also described Lebanon’s sectarian ruling system as “a dictatorial system,” predicting its collapse similar to last year’s downfall of autocratic regimes in some Arab countries as a result of popular upheavals. “Those who carried out the assassination attempt are cowards because had they been able to confront us politically, they would have done so. Let them confront us politically as we do.
We are not shy nor do we fear anyone. But they have neither logic nor a policy. Their policy is one of killing and crimes,” he said in a clear reference to the Hezbollah-led March 8 parties.Speaking at his residence in Maarab, the LF leader added that he and other March 14 leaders had the means to protect themselves against assassination attempts. Geagea said on April 4 that he had escaped an assassination attempt when a sniper’s shots were fired at his residence in Maarab in Kesrouan. He said the incident had required expertise, claiming that the shots had been fired a long distance from the target site. Geagea renewed the LF’s call for the Telecommunications Ministry to provide security services with telecoms data, saying the data was “very important” to avert any assassination attempt or any bad security incident. Meanwhile, Telecommunications Minister Nicolas Sehnaoui reiterated Tuesday his refusal to provide security services with “all data” for security reasons and for the purpose of protecting people’s privacy. “Providing all data will expose the country’s security and infringe on freedoms. That’s why the Cabinet has decided to organize this matter through a judicial committee to decide on it,” Sehnaoui told the Voice of Lebanon radio station. He added that the committee, comprising three of Lebanon’s top judges, had turned down the request.

Iran: Israeli-linked spies intended to kill expert
Associated Press/ 04.17.12, 19:53 /Ynetnews
Busted spy cell used Israeli diplomatic missions in West to prepare plans, Iranian agency alleges Iran's official news agency released additional details about the 15 Iranian and foreign nationals who have been arrested for allegedly spying for Israel, attempted assassination and sabotage.The Tuesday IRNA report said the group planned to assassinate an Iranian expert as well sabotage the country's infrastructure. It said the group used Israeli diplomatic missions in Western counties to prepare plans.The expert's field was not identified. In the past, Tehran has accused Israel of being responsible for the killings of its nuclear scientists. The latest report did not elaborate on nationality of the foreign detainees. It claimed Iranian intelligence also uncovered a spy base of Mossad in a neighboring country.
Last week, IRNA said that Iran had identified a "major" Israeli-affiliated terrorist group and had arrested some of its members. According to the report, several "mercenaries" were arrested in different parts of the country and that large quantities of weaponry and telecommunications equipment were seized. The semi-official Fars news agency said the suspects were arrested "while preparing to carry out terrorist acts", adding that a considerable number of bombs, machine guns, military and communication equipments were seized.Iran periodically announces the capture or execution of alleged US or Israeli spies, and often no further information is released.

India confiscates Israeli defense firm’s $70m guarantee, clouding relations
DEBKAfile Special Report April 17, 2012lThe Israeli government spared no effort to save the day. However, even after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s security adviser Yaacov Amidror visited New Delhi to intercede with top security and government officials, India decided, for the first time in its history, to penalize a foreign defense vendor, Israel’s Military Industries (IMI), for alleged breach of contract.
To the dismay of officials in Jerusalem, the IMI was singled out for the penalty with loud publicity from among five defense vendors – three foreign and two Indian - recommended for blacklisting in March for alleged involvement in a graft case. Its $70 million guarantee was accordingly confiscated. In Jerusalem, it is strongly suspected that India is deliberately cooling its defense relations with Israel to fit in with its new alignment with Tehran and Moscow. All three refuse to join US and European sanctions against Iran.
The IMI signed a contract with the Indian OFB-Ordinance Factory Board to build ordnance factories at Nalanda in Bihar for manufacturing bi-modular charges for the Indian Army’s 155mm howitzers. The $260 million contract contained an “integrity pact” covering a commitment to abstain from “malpractice.”
Delhi says the IMI forfeited its guarantee because it was allegedly involved in the offer of a bribe to former OFB director general Sudipto Ghosh in 2010.
IMI sources pointed out that an Indian court had ruled the encashment of the guarantee improper. The firm operated within the law and intends to appeal the decision and the handling of the case before the competent authorities. The decision, they say, was based on disputed facts and ignored the documents and information refuting the charges which were presented to the Indian Defense Ministry.
debkafile’s military sources add that Israel’s defense leaders made every effort, including an appeal by Yaacov Amidror to Indian defense minister A.K. Antony, to get its military industries removed from the blacklist banning its operations in India for 10 years, and reinstated. It was all in vain. New Delhi’s decision to confiscate the $70 million guarantee was taken and published Tuesday without letting Jerusalem know it was coming. The next day, Antony visited the OFB ordnance factory and approved a special operating budget for getting production at Nalanda up and running without outside help.
On March 12, the Indian Chief of Staff Gen. V.K. Singh sent a letter to the prime minister in Delhi complaining that the army’s tank fleet is short of guns and ammunition for fighting off a potential enemy (Pakistani) tank assault; 97 percent of its air defense systems are inoperative; and its special forces have neither the right arms for their operations nor ammo. The situation in the Indian infantry, engineering and signals corps is no better. The letter, say our military sources was fired off as a shot in the feud among India’s top generals, security chiefs and politicians. In the free-for-all, they all accuse each other of corruption and graft related to military procurement. Gen. Singh said he too was offered a $2.8 billion bribe in 2010.
All Israel’s efforts to keep its defense transactions with New Delhi clear of its domestic infighting were fruitless.

America and the Iranian Lobby
By Abdul-Malik Ahmad Al Al-Sheikh
Asharq Alawsat
After reading the book "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower", it became evident to me that the Iranian lobby is performing a major role within the US to influence the decision-making process regarding American-Iranian relations. Such an influence is ultimately working to the advantage of the regime in Tehran by marketing the Mullah regime in the West in general, and in the US in particular, at the expense of Arab parties harmed by its expansionist ambitions and Iranian interventions in their internal affairs, such as Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, or Iranian occupations of their soil, such as the case with the UAE and Iraq.
One of the most prominent points in the book is the portrayal of Iran as being more rational than the Arabs in its dealings with the West, especially the US, and the need to judge Iran only by its actions, and not by the statements of its officials towards America. According to the author, Iran is a Shiite state with an imperialist history and an ancient culture represented by the Persian Empire, which puts it in a better position [than the Arabs] to become a partner for the US, owing to the shared civilization traits between the two states, something that the regional Sunni states are lacking. In fact, this is a clear and blatant promotion of political sectarianism on the writer’s part, not at the level of individuals or organizations, but at the level of international relations as well.
In a striking contradiction, the author presents Iran as a devil feared by the US, owing to its military potential and its ability to mobilize suicide bombers against the West. Yet he then goes on to say that the US, by isolating Iran, is forcing it to fall into the arms of Russia and China, a situation that would jeopardize US strategies in the Gulf region and the entire Middle East.
The author talks about a round of negotiations conducted in Baghdad in March 2007 between the US and Iran - only the second round to take place between the two states since the Iranian revolution - where the Iranians put forth their demands to the Americans as follows:
First: the US must acknowledge the Iranian role in Iraq.
Second: the US must provide guarantees that it will not harm Iran’s internal front, nor will it back the Arab Sunnis.
The writer indicates that neither of these two demands seemed odd to the Americans; Iran had contributed greatly to the US occupation of Iraq, and hence its role was clearly recognized. Yet, according to the writer, the question that must be raised is: What is meant by the US acknowledging the Iranian role in Iraq? Does this mean that Iran would replace the US allied forces in Iraq after they withdraw? Or does this mean that the US would hand over Iraq to Iran?
The author answers that the Iranians simply wanted to present themselves as a responsible power in the region and one that could be relied upon, particularly following their effective contribution to the occupation of Iraq. As such, the author concludes that their demands were reasonable and realistic.
The writer then raises a significant question: can we (the Americans) trust them (the Iranians)?
He answers: It is impossible to know what is going on in the Iranian mindset. Yet, if the US is aware of the difference between what the Iranians say and what they do, then there is no concrete evidence to suggest that they would provoke Word War III. What the Americans ought to do is request a truce with the Iranians and enter into negotiations with them to resolve outstanding issues - one after another - until the tension is relieved, and then the Americans may get more from them.
The author inquires again: What do the Iranians want from the West, especially the US? What does the West have to offer them? He then goes on to say that in order to correctly answer this question, we must be aware of the Iranian leadership and how it thinks. The author says that this was what former President Hashemi Rafsanjani revealed in a meeting which [the author] attended in Tehran, where Rafsanjani declared that Iran was ready to fight any war in defense of the Wali al-Faqih regime, and that any country, organization or individual that sought to attack such a regime would be a legitimate target for Iran. What Rafsanjani meant here was quite clear: assassinations, terrorism and war.
Rafsanjani was clear when he indicated in the interview that the Mullah regime in Iran and its leadership shoulders the awesome responsibility of restoring the great Persian glory, and this emphasizes the imperialist theories of the ruling regime in Tehran. The writer goes on to say that we must not rely extensively on the moderates in the ruling regime in Tehran, such as Rafsanjani, Khatami and others, for they will not relinquish their imperialist ambitions in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. The Iranian leadership, whether with regards to the radicals or moderates, is united in its goals. The difference lies only in the means of fulfilling these goals. However, if we ignore the Iranian officials' statements and focus on their actions, we would find that Iran and its agents, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, are ready to enter into negotiations with America. The author’s message, which he sought to convey throughout his book, can hence be summarized as follows: It is in the political and strategic interest of the US to cooperate with Iran, so that it can become the future policeman of the region.
This was a brief summary of the most important points that the author highlighted in his book, all of which serve the ruling regime in Tehran and its expansionist and imperialist policies. This is just a sample of what the Iranian lobby is doing in some research centers at American universities and think tanks, in terms of influencing US policies towards Iran via theorizing its future positive role in the region, in order to protect Western interests and maintain the Gulf's oil flow to the West.
In the next few months, will we see further influence from the Iranian lobby in K Street, Washington, whereby the US presents Syria, Lebanon and Yemen (to join Iraq) on a silver platter to the Mullah regime in Tehran, in return for Iran relinquishing its nuclear ambitions and then becoming the Gulf's new policeman? Or will this lobby continue to lack the ability to directly influence the American administration?
* The author of the book is Robert Baer, a former CIA agent who has worked in many Middle East and Asian states such as Iran and India. I have read many of his books, but I often notice that in the majority of his work about the Middle East, he seems biased against the Arabs, and especially the Gulf States.

Politics in Café Havana
By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Alawsat
Two events caught the interest of the American and international media with the US President Barack Obama’s visit to Colombia, to attend the Summit of the Americas that consisted of around 30 leaders of Latin American countries. The first event is marginal, despite the media’s preoccupation with it, namely the alleged transgressions of a Secret Service protection team that Washington was forced to replace and then investigate. The second event is the most important; namely the pictures of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with her aides at Café Havana in the Colombian capital, where she spent the night dancing. Ironically, Clinton chose Café Havana, named after the Cuban capital, and danced to the sounds of Cuban music, while the topic of Cuba itself raised controversy between the US President and the Latin American leaders at the summit, which ended without a concluding statement. The Latin American leaders were united in their desire to invite Cuba to the next Summit of the Americas, while Washington, which boycotts Cuba to the extent of its famous ban on Cuban cigars, insisted that the Caribbean country - that almost sparked a major confrontation in the Cold War era between America and the former Soviet Union during the famous Bay of Pigs crisis - has not yet met the conditions of democratic openness that other Latin American countries, who may also have difficult relationships with the United States, have done.
The Latin American leaders, who have taken a united stand with their geographical sister Cuba, were unconvinced. Some attributed President Obama’s unwillingness to make concessions on the Cuba file – although Fidel Castro, the historic leader and Washington’s enemy is no longer in power, and likewise the Soviet Union no longer exists - to the fact that 2012 is an election year, and the Obama presidential campaign fears losing the votes of Cuban Americans, who refuse to restore relations under the current circumstances.
In general, politics is not a game of coincidence; Hillary Clinton and her team’s choice to spend the night in Café Havana and dance to Cuban music may have been a message, either to Cuba itself that there is a change coming, but not now, or a message to the Cuban American voters that there will be no change in the US position at least for now. This is something that only the future will show.
Aside from this, the Summit of the Americas had many lessons in how to manage interests and changes in international relations. The United States is searching for new markets to get out of the recession that has struck the northern hemisphere, including the economic giant of Europe, and it finds in Latin America a rising power with a rapidly expanding middle class. Statistics indicate that around 60 million of the continent’s population, which exceeds 500 million, emerged from the cycle of poverty between 2002 and 2008, while the GDP of these states has reached around US$ 5 trillion, with Brazil holding the largest share of US$ 2 trillion.
Thus the discussions that took place reflected this change in the balance of interests, with the sense that the Latin American countries have climbed the ladder of international economic forces. In the summit, when Obama said that economic prosperity in Latin America will mean greater opportunities for US companies such as Apple and Boeing, he was interrupted by the Brazilian President [Dilma Rousseff] who referred to Embraer, the Brazilian giant of the air industry, stating that this company also wants to open its markets and sell to others.
These countries, feeling confident with the advancement of their economies, improving levels of income and an expanding middle class, are now dictating interests and international relations. It is important that you have something to offer or to sell. If we imagine such a summit being held in the Arab region, could we find something to offer and compete for the global exchange of trade, other than raw materials?

Inaction over Syria reveals anti-Arab racism in the West
By Salman Masalha/Haaretz
Rather than the fly-in serving as a 'Welcome to Palestine,' as the organizers called the protest campaign, it was aimed at expressing solidarity with Israel and stressing the extent to which Israel belongs to the activists' cultural family.
srael responded to the weekend fly-in by the so-called "pro-Palestinian" activists with hysteria bordering on stupidity, at best - because, even if it sounds strange, these activists are in no way pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab. Rather than the fly-in serving as a "Welcome to Palestine," as the organizers called the protest campaign, it was aimed at expressing solidarity with Israel and stressing the extent to which Israel belongs to the activists' cultural family.
It is possible that some of these activists are good, naive people who wish to mend the world. It is also possible that some of them came with the intention of blackening Israel's already blackened face. And even when the world is busy with more urgent matters, it is proper to remember the sad plight of the Palestinians and not to let the prolonged Israeli occupation be forgotten. This is indeed an important matter.
However, it is clear that the civilized and politically correct world of these activists is infested with racism - not against the Jews but against Arab and Muslim culture, because the protest shows that the organizers' premise completely contravenes any identification with Arab suffering.
There is a grain of truth in the cynical letter the Israeli government prepared for any of the activists who, despite all of Israel's attempts to keep them out, managed to land here anyway. In that letter, the government says the protesters could have focused on the actions of Syria, Iran or Hamas, but chose Israel instead. Indeed, were these activists to have waved the banner of human rights in general and Arab human rights in particular, they would certainly have found somewhere to express their "moral" commitment in other places in this region. There is no dearth of such objectives in recent times.
For a year or more now, Syrian President Bashar Assad has been massacring Syrian Arab citizens who are demanding freedom. The rest of the world, which for some reason is considered cultured, has been observing this atrocity with its arms folded and has done nothing to stop the killings and destruction in Syrian cities. This is the civilized world to which these activists belong, and they appear to be acting according to the moral codes of this world of theirs.
Those who divide the world, and the human beings who populate it, into two categories - some to whom universal moral rules apply and some to whom they don't - cannot be called moral. Universal morals must be applied to everyone. The morality of anyone who excludes any group of people who are not required to act according to moral codes is in itself dubious.
Is it a kind of multicultural racism that prevents these and other activists from displaying solidarity with the Syrian Arab citizens who are being slaughtered? Do Syria and other countries like it in the Arab world belong, in the eyes of these activists and others like them, to a different cultural world, one where universal moral codes do not apply?
Human rights activists of this kind, who cannot find the time to hold demonstrations of solidarity with Arab citizens who are being massacred on a daily basis in Arab countries, in effect reveal anti-Arab racism through their inaction. For them, the Arab and Muslim world belongs to a different cultural world that behaves according to different moral codes, which are not part of "our" lofty Western moral codes.
To the way of thinking of these activists, Israel is something else. Israel is part of their family. That is why they come to demonstrate here, rather than in Syria or other Arab countries. This fly-in, and similar demonstrations, should be renamed "Welcome to Israel."

Jordan nabs Syria-bound jihadists: Salafist leader
April 17, 2012/AMMAN: A top Jordanian Salafist leader said on Tuesday eight Sunni jihadists have been arrested as they tried to cross the border into neighboring Syria to fight President Bashar Assad's forces. "The Jordanian authorities have recently arrested eight jihadists as they attempted to go to Syria for jihad. They are currently in the Zarqa prison waiting for prosecutors to charge them," Abed Shehadeh, known as Abu Mohammad Tahawi, told AFP. "They decided to go to Syria on their own. We did not give them any orders. But all Muslims in the world, not only in Jordan, should go for jihad in Syria and defend their brothers there," said Tahawi, whose group espouses an austere form of Sunni Islam. Tahawi did not say when the men were arrested, and government officials were not available for comment. Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood has urged support for the Syrian rebels, calling it an "Islamic duty."Syrian insurgents and analysts have said foreign Sunni jihadists are fighting alongside against Assad's forces but their numbers are hard to assess and almost certainly small. Damascus has repeatedly claimed that Al-Qaeda was involved in the uprising, in which more than 11,000 people have been killed since March last year, according to monitoring groups.

The Sucide of the Ethiopian Servant, Alemhighlights sponsorship system’s flaws in Lebanon
April 18, 2012/By Annie Slemrod /The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Alem Dechasa-Desisa left Ethiopia the day after Christmas last year. She headed for Lebanon, where she planned to make enough money to support her two children.
Within three months, she was dead, the victim of an apparent suicide. Even before her death, Alem had become something of a cause célèbre in some parts of Lebanese society and her case drew international attention.
Abused outside her own consulate in a videotaped incident, Alem was forced by a man later identified as Ali Mahfouz into a car as she lay screaming on the ground outside a place that was supposed to keep her safe. At 33, Alem was one of 200,000 migrant domestic workers in Lebanon. That her case has garnered notice makes it an anomaly, but what happened to her is not.
Nearly every step of her journey from Burayu, her home outside Addis Ababa, to her eventual death in a psychiatric hospital in the Lebanese mountains is indicative of a failure in the haphazard Lebanese system that deals with the women who come to work in the homes and care for the children of many in this country.
Alem’s husband, Lamesa, told The Daily Star that he and his wife borrowed more than 4,500 Ethiopian Birr, around $260, to facilitate her travel. That’s about three months salary of the country’s average national income, and most of it went to a local broker.
He also said she was expected to pay the first two months of her salary to agents in Ethiopia.
Three years ago, Ethiopia imposed a ban on its citizens going to Lebanon to work as domestics. So Alem went through Yemen. Ethiopia’s consul general in Lebanon, Asaminew Debelie Bonssa, has estimated that there are between 60,000 and 80,000 Ethiopians in Lebanon, only 43,000 legally, having come before the ban.
That makes women like her especially vulnerable to human trafficking. Ghada Jabbour, head of KAFA’s Trafficking and Exploitation Unit, said that Alem was “seemingly a victim of trafficking. Not only had she incurred debts to come to Lebanon, but also she was smuggled outside Ethiopia because of the current ban. In addition, the sponsorship system in Lebanon tied her to a specific employer and did not grant her the freedom to decide her future.”
Trafficking is a tough crime to prove, and despite an anti-trafficking law passed in Lebanon last summer, not much has been done in the way of implementation. And women continue to come, trafficked or otherwise. In large part, this is due to financial imbalances. Even paltry salaries – several workers told The Daily Star of wages around $200 a month for fulltime work – can amount to a great deal in struggling home countries.
Lebanese authorities still grant visas to people from countries with deployment bans, and so Alem arrived, technically “undocumented” but very much part of the Lebanese “kafala” (sponsorship) system where work and residency is tied to a specific employer, even before she made it to the airport.
Because she was in the country illegally, Bonssa said she and others like her are hard to keep track of. Activists say even documented women are often afraid or unable to contact their embassies if they need help.
According to Hicham Borji, president of the union of workers’ recruitment agencies, there are around 450 licensed agencies in Lebanon. An optimistic estimate, he says, is that 100 of these agencies – that act as go-betweens between workers and employers – actually conform to the terms of their licenses. These include a stable location, a land line and a so-called “safe room” for domestic workers who may need to stay at the agency.
Alem’s agency – which was supposed to care for her when she was not with an employer, sent her to two homes. Both sent her back. Chadi Mahfouz, the agency’s director, delegated his brother Ali Mahfouz to deal with Alem after she returned from the second house.
Chadi Mahfouz told The Daily Star that his brother, now charged with contributing to and causing Alem’s death, is not an employee of the agency he directs. This means the agency was acting illegally – but it has not lost its license, in fact it has since become a member of the union.
After what he said were two suicide attempts – both after her removal from the second house – Ali Mahfouz brought Alem to the consulate, where he told staff she was mentally ill. Bonssa, who has since expressed regret at trusting Mahfouz, told him to take her to a hospital. It was outside the consulate, a place that ought to have been a refuge, that the beating took place.
At the hospital where she was later brought, according to a forensic report leaked to The Daily Star, Alem was treated as “a patient suffering from severe depression.” She was on five medications, and according to the doctor who was sent by the General Prosecutor, she had no visible bruises or abrasions. “But she said she has pain in her scalp and made us understand that she had been grabbed by her hair,” the report continued.
Indeed, in the video Mahfouz is seen dragging Alem by her hair.
The police arrived at the consulate the day of the incident, in late February. The government-ordered physician was not sent to see Alem until March 10 – two days after the video went viral and two weeks after she was abused – and she died on March 14. According to a leaked indictment, charges were pressed against Ali Mahfouz March 20, around a month after she was beaten.
“If [the abuse of Alem Dechasa-Desisa] was not broadcast [by a local television station], there would be no attention from the Justice and Labor ministries,” said Ghada Jabbour, head of KAFA’s Trafficking and Exploitation Unit. Migrant worker suicides are frequent in Lebanon, she added, and “usually there is not a complete and serious investigation about the death of the worker and the case is closed quickly.”
Why Alem killed herself remains an unknown. Although some members of her family reported that she and her common law husband were having marital problems, he denied this. Lamesa said he spoke to her some five times during her short time in Lebanon, and she reported no troubles. “We lived together for 13 years and she had no mental problems,” he said.
Nadim Houry of Human Rights Watch shares Jabbour’s concerns. He said that Mahfouz’s prosecution, which is not unheard of but extremely rare, “will be an important precedent to follow. But every week there are employers who lock in domestic workers, every other week there is a suicide, are we going to see prosecution for forced confinement and other abuses?”
Both Jabbour and Houry argue that ultimately the sponsorship system itself needs to be changed, with Houry calling it “the root cause of many of these violations.” But there are other issues that should be addressed, Houry added, including orientations for employers and employees. And, he said, “they need to start researching the role of agencies ... frankly that industry is deeply problematic.”
Borji of the agencies’ union agrees his sector does need to change. Admitting Mahfouz’ agency into the union, he argued, will help it improve.
But while he “hates” the sponsorship system, Borji does not see a viable alternative. In theory, he believes it ensures transportation to Lebanon and medical care are covered by sponsors. Instead, he said there should be real punishment for abusive employers and those who withhold salaries.
Lebanon failed Alem – as it does so many other workers. And now, in a final indignity, her body still lies in the very hospital where she took her own life a month ago. Her husband said he cannot work, as her family has come from another village to wait and mourn. Chadi Mahfouz has said he’s ready to facilitate her repatriation – but there appear to be some bureaucratic hitches. Now Lamesa has one modest request: “I just want her body back.”

What Kissinger can tell us about the Iran talks
April 16, 2012/By David Ignatius The Daily Star
Nobody can predict where the process of negotiation with Iran, which began Friday, is headed. But here’s what I’d like to see: a broad dialogue that brings the rising power of Iran into a new security system in the Middle East in exchange for Iran’s commitment not to build nuclear weapons. If you’re looking for a lucid explanation of how such a framework could be built, I recommend an unlikely source: It is Henry Kissinger’s doctoral dissertation, “A World Restored,” published in 1957. The book analyzed how the statesmen of early 19th-century Europe created a new security architecture that brought post-revolutionary France – the destabilizing, upstart power of its day – into an accommodation with Britain and the other status-quo powers through the 1815 Congress of Vienna.
I heard Kissinger discuss these issues recently when he visited Harvard University for a conversation that filled the university’s largest auditorium. A graduate student, Jessica Blankshain, asked the former secretary of state about his thesis, written 55 years ago, and quoted his admonition that a statesman’s job is to harmonize the just with the possible. Later, at a dinner given by Harvard president Drew Faust, Kissinger talked about how the 1815 reconstruction of Europe might be a model for drawing Iran into a new and more stable Middle East.
I’ll explain more about the European parallel for today’s diplomacy, but first a description of the Harvard event: It was a long-overdue reunion between Kissinger and the university where he won his undergraduate and doctoral degrees, and then taught as a professor until joining the Nixon administration in 1969 as national security adviser. That was the Vietnam era, and Harvard was a cauldron of passionate protest.
When Kissinger left government in 1977, the Harvard community was still angry and made only a grudging offer to bring him back, which he declined. This opened a breach that was finally healed with the convocation in Sanders Theatre and Faust’s celebratory dinner. I was invited because I have been teaching a course this semester at Harvard’s Kennedy School.
The event was moving because it offered Kissinger, at 88, a platform for reflection about the costs of war and the challenges of diplomacy. “If the statesmen of 1914 had known what the world would look like in 1919, would they ever have gone to war?” he asked the students. Of course not, but as Kissinger observed a few moments later: “In office, you have to act as if you’re sure what you’re doing. You don’t get rewarded for your doubts.”
Back to Iran, and the process of reconciling revolutionary nations with status-quo powers. What Kissinger explored in his dissertation was the creation of a new “concert of Europe” in 1815, after the Napoleonic wars, through the diplomacy of Austria’s Count Metternich and Britain’s Lord Castlereagh: They were “statesmen of the equilibrium, seeking security in a balance of forces. Their goal was stability, not perfection.”
The upheaval of today’s Middle East is surely comparable to the disorder in Europe that followed the French revolution and, under Napoleon’s banner, spread military turmoil across the continent. The Middle East still hasn’t absorbed the Iranian revolution of 1979, let alone the Arab Spring that is shaking the Sunni world. It’s a region begging for a new concert of nations that accommodates conservative monarchies and new republics. Kissinger’s description of revolutionary Europe might have been written about the Iran of the ayatollahs: “It is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion.” Such ascendant powers can be checked only by a new system that at once accepts their rise and limits the most harmful effects. Restoring the old order is impossible, now as it was in 1815. But we can imagine a different order that establishes new lines of legitimacy and collaboration. The diplomacy that enables such transformations is “the art of restraining the exercise of power,” wrote Kissinger of his protagonists, Metternich and Castlereagh. About modern Iran, Kissinger has observed, the key requirement is that it behave like a nation rather than a cause, operating in a rules-based system of nations. Once this happens, Iran can be a force for regional stability, not disorder.
The conversation with Iran in Istanbul is a fragile beginning. But we should expand our minds, with Kissinger, to imagine what a serious exercise of diplomacy might achieve.
David Ignatius is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

Libya: NTC Members seek to oust El-Keib Government
By Khaled Mahmoud
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- A number of members of the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) have revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that they are seeking to depose the provisional government, installing an alternative government in its place before the legislative elections scheduled to be held before end of June.
In a telephone interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, NTC member Abdul-Razzaq al-Aradi stressed that genuine moves are being made to depose the El-Keib government, which, he said, has failed to carry out any tangible achievements. Al-Aradi is regarded as one of those closest to NTC Chairman Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, who assumed power in Libya after the overthrow and death of Muammar Gaddafi last October. Al-Aradi often posts a great deal of news and behind-the-scenes reports about the NTC on his Facebook and Twitter pages, prompting some Libyan activists to raise questions about the role he is playing, particularly as the NTC and the provisional government – formed in November – already have designated official spokespeople.
However, NTC sources speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat denied that Abdul-Jalil would endorse any move to depose the incumbent government. Against this background, government sources close to El-Keib have dismissed such reports as mere attempts to discredit and embarrass the government. They pointed out that this is not the first time certain parties have used allusions and leaks about the government, in a manner detrimental to political life in the country. They said it is unreasonable to dismiss a government whose leader won the majority of NTC members’ votes when he was appointed as the first prime minister in the post Gaddafi era.
The pro-NTC “Libya Al-Ahrar TV” channel had earlier revealed that 54 NTC members signed a memorandum calling for El-Keib to resign from his post. The channel cited anonymous sources as saying that a final decision on the memorandum will be made today, Tuesday 17th April. The sources claimed that Abdul-Jalil seeks to entrust Dr Ali Tarhouni, a former finance minister, with the post of prime minister. These developments emerged while El-Keib was on a state visit to the UAE as head of a government delegation consisting of his deputy, the ministers of foreign affairs, electricity, labor, finance, communications and economy, as well as Major General Yousef al-Manqoush, chief of staff of the Libyan army.
In a statement to a local television channel three days ago, El-Keib said that his government's current goal is to advance the interests of the Libyan people, consolidate the security and stability of the country, and to move on from the revolution phase to a phase of state building. He described his government's term in office as a short transitional phase, noting that "it is a phase for laying foundations and managing crises. We have inherited from the former regime an administrative apparatus that lacks training and qualifications." He added that "Libya has huge potential represented in its youth who emerged after the revolution. The world was astonished by the revolution and the potential of the Libyan people and their capacity to re-activate production, particularly oil production." He said that "oil production is now back to its pre-revolution levels, reaching 1.5 million barrels per day."
In response to the criticism leveled at his government, including its slow efforts to handle the law disorder in certain Libyan cities, El-Keib said that the issue of security is the responsibility of everyone, not only the government. He added: "Nevertheless, the government has acted quickly to establish security and stability throughout Libya, particularly the swift moves we made in Al-Kufrah and Sabha with great results. We moved even faster in the areas of Zuwara, Raqadlin, and Al-Jumail."
In a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, Libyan sources denied a report about the possibility of a secret meeting being held between Gaddafi family members, who have settled in Algeria, and NTC Chairman Abdul-Jalil. A statement released by the Algerian presidential office said that Abdul-Jalil's visit aims to enhance cooperation and consultation between Libya and Algeria, and develop ties in various fields. The statement also noted that Abdul-Jalil and his Algerian counterpart, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, will discuss the recent developments in the region.
Dr Saad al-Shalmani, an official spokesman for the Libyan Foreign Ministry, revealed that Abdul-Jalil's talks with Algerian President Bouteflika will focus on several issues relating to bilateral cooperation, including security cooperation and border security, as both neighboring countries are linked by historical ties and common interests. According to the Libyan News Agency, al-Shalmani said that the visit provides an opportunity for consultation and coordination over several issues, including combating illegal immigration and smuggling.
It must be noted that relations were strained between Algeria and Libya after the outbreak of the Libyan revolution against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. Algeria was late to recognize the NTC – finally acknowledging it in September. Algeria was also opposed to NATO’s intervention in the Libyan crisis, and the NTC then accused Algeria of supporting Gaddafi sending mercenaries to fight alongside his forces. Furthermore, Algeria has provided a safe haven for Muammar Gaddafi's daughter, Aisha, who has called for "a revolution against the new regime" in Tripoli. Two of Gaddafi’s sons, Muhammad and Hannibal, his wife Safiyah, and a number of his family members, mainly children, have also taken refuge in Algeria.

Ahmadinejad is in Abu Musa, while we…..
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
For more than seven years we have warned of the danger of Iranian infiltration in the region, and Tehran penetrating our states, repeating that Iran is not a “friendly” state, but rather an occupier of Arab lands. Many became jaded with these warnings, even believing they were an exaggeration, but today, after the Iranian President’s visit to the occupied Emirati island of Abu Musa, such people have started to panic and have finally become aware of the danger of Iran!
However, is fear alone enough, particularly at the political level? The answer is no. Iran is active in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Bahrain, and today it is supporting the tyrant of Damascus Bashar al-Assad, whose troops have so far killed more than 10,000 Syrians. In addition to all this, here is President Ahmadinejad daring to visit the occupied Emirati island of Abu Musa, as the first Iranian president to do so since Iran occupied the islands. The timing of this visit has clear and blatant implications, as it comes before the start of negotiations with the international community in Turkey, surrounding the Iranian nuclear file. The timing also coincides with UN-Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan’s visit to Iran. This means that Ahmadinejad is effectively saying that Iran will negotiate using our region as play cards, rather than what Tehran can offer the international community with regards to the nuclear issue, i.e. Iran’s trump cards will be its interference in our region! Iran does all that, and Ahmadinejad dares to visit the occupied Emirati island of Abu Musa, but what about us, the Arabs? Where are we in relation to all that is going on?
The true and honest answer, which of course is our duty to point out, is that we, as Arabs, are content with meeting room discussions and issuing statements, printing newspaper pages and airing news broadcasts, whilst on the ground there is no effective mobility. All we are doing is a series of half steps. The Gulf initiative succeeded in Yemen, but the subsequent Iranian mobilization on the ground there was very fast and did not encounter any opposition. We sent the Peninsula Shield forces to Bahrain, but the Iranian hand continues to interfere there, and it is suffice here to consider the frenetic campaign against the Bahrain Grand Prix. Nuri al-Maliki cranes his neck into our affairs, and violates the sanctity of Syrian blood, and the only punishment we give in return is to receive Tariq al-Hashemi! President Ahmadinejad visits Abu Musa and we confine ourselves to statements of condemnation. Meanwhile Tehran openly supports al-Assad with men and arms, whilst we are confused as to who is leading the efforts in Syria, and who will provide the first step. We have not seen a genuine Gulf effort towards China and Russia, while Walid Moallem has flown to Moscow and Beijing.
Today we should call for a new Gulf-Arab effort to save the Syrian people and restrict the Iranian hand there. We must use all our trump cards, of which there are many, to launch a Gulf-Arab diplomatic effort, with the participation of Turkey of course; an effort similar to the phase prior to the liberation of Kuwait. There are two main objectives: The first diplomatic, the other to support the Syrian rebels and the Free Syrian Army. Al-Assad continues to bomb cities and kill Syrians, and he is exploiting Annan’s ceasefire to arrest the greatest amount possible of peaceful Syrian activists. Meanwhile, we await the outcomes of Annan’s efforts, which are doomed to the same fate as his efforts in Rwanda!
Thus, the question is: If we don’t mobilize when Ahmadinejad visits the occupied Emirati island of Abu Musa, then when will we mobilize?