LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 12/2012

Bible Quotation for today/
Saint Matthew 18/12-14: "What is your opinion? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the hills and go in search of the stray? And if he finds it, amen, I say to you, he rejoices more over it than over the ninety-nine that did not stray. In just the same way, it is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
U.S. Differences with Bahrain Playing Out in Public/By: Simon Henderson/Washington Institute/December 11/12
Turbulent times in Egypt/By Hussein Shabokshi/Asharq Alawsat/December 11/12
The General Guide, el-Shater and the foreign conspiracy/By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat/December 11/12

Tripoli clashes fueled by sectarianism: Hezbollah
December 11, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Sectarian sentiments fueled the week-long clashes in the northern city of Tripoli, Hezbollah's Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem said Tuesday. “What helped in igniting Tripoli clashes is sectarian provocation and strife which doesn’t take humanitarian and moral standards into consideration,” said Qassem, according to the National News Agency. According to the Hezbollah official, the Tal Kalakh incident, in which a number of northern fighters were killed during an ambush by the Syrian regime, is a clear indication of the negative repercussions of plunging Lebanon into the Syrian crisis. “We have repeatedly warned against plunging Lebanon in Syria’s clashes and the negative consequences of such involvement for Lebanon,” said the official. Clashes in the northern city between the Sunni neighborhood of Bab al-Tebbanah and the Alawite neighborhood of Jabal Mohsen lasted several days last week, leaving at least 17 dead in Tripoli and over 100 wounded.The fighting came to an end Monday as the Army implemented a security plan.
According to Qassem, it is time rival Lebanese parties are aware of the importance of dialogue and realize Lebanon is a country of diversity that includes all sects.
“Dialogue is the one solution to reach unity [among rival parties]. It’s about time that everyone realizes Lebanon is for all sects and no group can eliminate the other in the country,” said the official.
Addressing the country’s political crisis, Qassem slammed the March 14-led opposition boycott that has been going on for nearly two months and said it will not succeed in bringing down Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s Cabinet.
“Boycott cannot bring down a Cabinet that secures political stability,” said Qassem.
The official added that the best solution to Lebanon’s crisis is to maintain the current Cabinet and work on formulating a modern and fair law for the coming 2013 parliamentary elections.
Following the Oct.19 assassination of a top security official, March 14 declared a boycott of the Cabinet, holding it responsible for providing political cover for the assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, which the coalition accuses Syria of being behind. To increase pressure over Mikati, the opposition has said it will not resume National Dialogue until he steps down.
The repercussions of the assassination also spilled over into discussions of a new electoral law, as the March 14 lawmakers said they stopped attending meetings of the parliamentary sub-committee discussing the relevant bills “for security reasons.”However, the opposition lawmakers said Monday they decided to resume talks with their March 8 rivals on a new electoral law in the absence of Cabinet representatives.

TRUDY RUBIN: U.S. still refusing to arm rebels in Syria
Originally published: December 11, 2012
Updated: December 11, 2012 11:36 AM
By TRUDY RUBIN/The Philadelphia Inquirer
Now that the U.S. elections are over, the Obama administration is applying a full-court press for a political solution in Syria. Finally.
But U.S. officials still refuse to openly engage with, or give military aid to, Syrian rebel commanders, who will exercise major influence after the fall of Bashar al-Assad. Instead, the Obama team has been outsourcing the role of aiding military rebels to Saudi Arabia and the tiny Gulf emirate of Qatar, with the Saudis now taking the lead.
At a meeting last week in Antalya, Turkey, more than 300 commanders from the rebel Free Syrian Army agreed under pressure from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to form a unified command structure, in return for promises they would get more advanced weapons.
Yet secular Syrian rebel officers told me during my recent trip to Turkey and Syria that Washington's past reliance on the Gulf states has meant that most military aid has gone to Islamists.
Previous U.S. decisions to outsource the job of arming Muslim rebels to Gulf states also backfired. Qatar reportedly turned weapons over to Islamic militants during last year's conflict in Libya, and the Saudis gave weapons to the worst militants in the Afghan war against the Soviets. In both cases, our outsourcing of responsibility harmed our own security interests.
So why are we making the same mistake in Syria? One reason is President Obama's extreme reluctance to get involved in another Mideast war, even if the U.S. role were confined to helping Syrians do the fighting. Instead, U.S. officials have insisted that the Syrian conflict can only be resolved politically. Apart from humanitarian aid, the United States has provided only nonlethal assistance to unarmed rebels. It has stuck to that position even as the real battle for Syria is being fought on the ground. After two years of failed efforts to unify the Syrian political opposition, U.S. and European officials, along with Qatar, have now godfathered a new Syrian transitional leadership body. The United States is set to recognize the Syrian Opposition Council, or SOC, this week.
This is good news. If the SOC holds together, it can provide a channel through which to funnel desperately needed humanitarian aid to liberated areas of Syria. Such aid could in turn strengthen the hand of civilian leadership councils that have emerged in areas freed from Assad's rule.
U.S. officials also hope this new council will exert civilian control over the rebel military forces and ultimately help negotiate the exit of Assad. But the military struggle is fast outpacing efforts to broker a political solution. As rebel fighters gain ground, they may have little time for the Cairo-based SOC or the wishes of U.S. officials who have given neither weapons nor money. They are more likely to listen to Gulf countries that provide both - and whose interests differ from ours. Consider what has happened over the last two years. For months, opposition activists have urged the United States to vet and help secular opposition commanders, including high-level army defectors.
Instead, this task was outsourced, mainly to Qatar, which never managed to create a centralized military leadership structure. Money and weapons - some from Gulf states, some from wealthy religious Muslims - flowed directly to local commanders, many of them militant Islamists.
Militia leaders and individual fighters grew militant-style beards to get weapons. Mohammed Ghanem of the Syrian American Council recounted asking a fighter at a checkpoint near Aleppo why he was working with Jabhat al-Nusra, a jihadi group connected with al-Qaida. The man angrily retorted, "They are the ones with the guns." U.S. officials repeatedly refused to supply the ground-to-air weapons the rebels desperately needed to repel massive government bombing attacks on civilians, even when groups such as the SSG proposed detailed control systems. The administration feared such weapons might fall into the wrong hands. Now rebel commanders have overrun Syrian army bases and seized ground-to-air weapons on their own, leaving the United States with no say whatsoever on their use.
"People think the United States is not serious," says Louay Sakka, a spokesman for the Syrian Support Group, which lobbies for the more moderate wing of the Free Syrian Army. "Nonlethal aid will not remove Assad from political power. A political solution will not work without a military part." Now the Saudis are taking the lead in setting up a central Free Syrian Army command system intended to coordinate the flow of arms and funds to rebel fighters. The system will supposedly exclude groups with al-Qaeda ties, such as Jabhat al-Nusra.
Perhaps the Saudis (and Qataris) will favor professional rebel officers, regardless of whether they have beards. Perhaps not. Past history gives reason for concern. Meantime, the United States, which reportedly had a small CIA presence at the meeting in Turkey, remains in the background.
"If you don't want others to have influence, you have to fill the void," says Amr al-Azm, a Syrian activist and history professor at Shawnee State University in Ohio. "You can own the thing or let someone else own it."
When it comes to shaping the military outcome in Syria, which will affect our interests throughout the Mideast, do we really want the Saudis to own it? Can we really afford to lead from behind?
*Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.<

Cameron's urge 'to do something' in Syria resisted by defence staff
Nick Hopkins /The Guardian/guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 December 2012
To say there is a rift is probably putting it too strongly. But is Downing Street on the same page as the military when they talk about Syria? No, it isn't. The fact that General Sir David Richards, chief of defence staff, has been drawing up contingency plans to provide Syrian rebels with maritime and possible air support should not be seen as an appetite within the Ministry of Defence to get involved. The military might well do; it might have to. But it doesn't want to, at all, and for months military sources in Whitehall have been expressing deep unease about the situation to anyone who will listen. Their concern is that David Cameron isn't one of them. Buoyed by the success of the very limited campaign in Libya, and horrified by the plight of refugees he met on the Syrian-Jordan border last month, the prime minister has got a slight case of what some in Whitehall call "foreign fever". Cameron wants "to do something", they say, though he is not exactly sure what that something should be. Last month, fresh from his visit to the Middle East, the prime minister chaired a National Security Council meeting in which Richards set out some of the problems and possibilities posed by the Syrian civil war. Richards made it clear that a full-scale intervention, of the kind that took place in Iraq or Afghanistan, was deeply unappealing and would require a massive build-up of naval forces in the region to neutralise President Bashar al-Assad's anti-aircraft missile batteries. There are differences of opinion among experts about just how strong they are, but the MoD's analysis is that they are fearsome – with officials pointing to the Turkish fighter downed earlier this year on the periphery of Syria's airspace.
The received military wisdom is that a prerequisite of any large-scale military involvement would have to be the establishment of a no-fly zone. This would require a long aerial campaign launched from aircraft carriers – and Britain will not have one available until 2018. Other options are all speculative, such as safe corridors to refugee camps in Turkey, or in the north of Syria, and logistical help for the rebels.
Interestingly, Richards's presentation apparently did not include any reference to Nato, or to how it could co-ordinate a military response.
Though nobody will talk about this in public, it seems the meeting did not completely douse Cameron's desire for the UK to take a lead, which is why Richards has been beavering away on a range of other contingency plans.
This is understood to have included chairing a meeting with senior military figures from France, the US, Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf states of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which, with Saudi Arabia, has been in the vanguard of those supporting the Syrian rebels.
In his public utterances Richards has remained open minded, as he must, saying it is "not impossible" that UK forces could be involved in some very limited way. Ultimately, any decision to act over Syria will be a political one, not his, and he does not want to back himself into a corner. But nothing has changed the military's reluctance to get involved in the Syrian crisis. Officers insist there must be clear and united political will over what to do before troops are committed – and they want a robust and well thought-out exit strategy. Neither exists at the moment. The only scenario that would prompt the military into immediate action is the use of chemical weapons by Assad, or the prospect that some of them might end up in the wrong hands if his regime can longer protect them. At that point the UK would undoubtedly contribute to special forces operations to secure those weapons, following a US lead. Until then Richards will have to continue his slightly awkward tap dance in front of the prime minister. Offering some ideas, without committing to any of them, and cautioning that involving even a small number of British troops to a fourth campaign in a decade, at a time of restructuring and redundancy of the armed forces, in a region where the UK is not regarded as an honest broker, might be more trouble than it is worth.

Al Qaeda in Syria
December 10, 2012 /The New York Times
The fear is that the group could hijack the revolution and emerge as the dominant force in Syria after Mr. Assad is ousted from power. Obama administration officials have been increasingly frank about this threat, along with the possibility that sectarian conflicts among the country’s Sunni, Alawite, Christian and other groups may well rage on after Assad. There are no easy answers, and no one believes that Washington, or any external power, can dictate the outcome. But President Obama still needs to provide a clearer picture of how he plans to use American influence in dealing with the jihadi threat and the endgame in Syria. Mr. Obama has blacklisted the Nusra Front as a terrorist organization, which would make it illegal for Americans to have financial dealings with it. It makes sense to isolate the group and try to dry up its resources, but the designation by itself isn’t sufficient. American officials have to make a case directly to the countries or actors that are believed to be most responsible, either directly or as a conduit, for the weapons and other assistance to the Nusra Front: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. However much they may want to see Mr. Assad fall, they play a deadly game in empowering any affiliate of Al Qaeda, which though weakened, is dedicated to global jihad and the violent overthrow of Sunni monarchies. The problem is that many Syrian rebel groups work closely with the Nusra Front precisely because its skilled fighters have been so effective at storming fortified Syrian positions and leading other battalions to capture military bases and oil fields. Some say the terrorist designation could backfire by pitting the United States against the rebel forces. Others have argued that one way to marginalize the jihadi groups is for the United States to arm the moderate and secular rebel groups or even establish a no-fly zone that would forcibly ground the Syrian Air Force. But the situation in Syria is extremely complicated, and President Obama’s caution in resisting military intervention is the right approach. As we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, even after committing tens of thousands of troops, America’s ability to affect the course and outcome of armed conflict is decidedly limited.
Against the backdrop of war, the United Nations, the United States and some European officials are still promoting a negotiated deal to limit the bloodshed. Even if the warring sides were willing to abandon the fight, any deal would require Russian support, but talks between American and Russian officials over the weekend gave no sign that Moscow is prepared to abandon Mr. Assad.

Panetta: Syria chemical weapons intelligence has "leveled off
Will the U.S. enter Syria conflict?
U.S. officials told CBS News correspondent David Martin just last week that monitoring of roughly two dozen bases where President Bashar Assad is believed to have chemical weapons stored indicated the regime had begun preparing the materials, including sarin gas, for use. Satellites had seen trucks moving among the bunkers where the weapons and agents are believed to be stored. U.S. officials told Martin the evidence was strong, but circumstantial -- not definitive. Rebel fighters have now inched so close to Assad's stronghold, the capital city of Damascus, that top U.S. officials had expressed fears the cornered dictator could try and use his chemical weapons as a last resort to try and avoid being toppled by the 21-month uprising. Syrian government officials have refused to confirm that they even posses chemical or biological weapons -- saying only that if they did have them, they would not use them against the Syrian people, or anyone else. Panetta himself never said publicly that Assad was preparing chemical weapons. He, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, instead issued repeated, terse warnings to Assad not to take the step. "There is no question that we remain very concerned, very concerned, that as the opposition advances, in particular on Damascus, that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons," Panetta said last week. Asked Tuesday whether the drop in alleged evidence pointing to chemical weapons preparations might indicate that Assad had heeded the warning, Panetta said: "I'd like to believe he's got the message, we've made it pretty clear and others have as well. But you know it's also clear that the opposition continues to make gains in Syria and our concern is that if they feel like the regime is threatened with collapse that they might resort to these kinds of weapons."A senior member of Assad's regime who defected recently tells CBS News, however, that the dire warnings of a possible sarin gas attack by Assad's military seem overblown. The defector, who maintains contact with Syrian military commanders, says those commanders deny any recent movements of chemical weapons components.
The commanders also have told the defector that logistically, they cannot see how the regime would try and use the deadly weapons effectively against the rebels -- which the regime regularly refers to as "terrorists" -- they are such a small and mobile enemy.© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

U.S. blacklists al-Nusra Front fighters in Syria
By Saad Abedine and Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
updated 12:56 PM EST, Tue December 11, 2012
(CNN) -- The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions Tuesday on leaders of the jihadist al-Nusra Front in Syria, hours after the State Department moved to blacklist the rebel group as a foreign terror organization linked to al Qaeda in Iraq. The Treasury also sanctioned two armed militia groups that operate under the control of the Syrian government, Jaysh al-Sha'bi and Shabiha, it said.
Syrian opposition groups have voiced their opposition to the U.S. move against the rebel fighters, suggesting that they are being targeted because they oppose a new anti-government coalition.
In recent months, the radical Islamist al-Nusra Front has emerged as one of the most effective groups in the Syrian resistance, drawing on foreign fighters with combat experience in Iraq and elsewhere.
Terry Waite asks former captors for help But Washington accuses the group of using the Syrian conflict to advance its own ideology and ends.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed Tuesday that the al-Nusra Front had been added to the list of aliases for al Qaeda in Iraq, already designated a foreign terrorist organization.
She said the group had claimed nearly 600 attacks in several cities in the past year, including suicide bombings, and was responsible for the deaths of "numerous innocent Syrians."
Al-Nusra "has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes," she said. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. citizen to give "material support or resources," including money, training or weapons, to al-Nusra fighters.
The Treasury's financial sanctions also target two senior al-Nusra leaders, named as Maysar Ali Musa Abdallah al-Juburi and Anas Hasan Khattab. The measure means that any assets they may hold in the United States are blocked and that U.S. citizens are barred from doing business with them. The Treasury sanctions against pro-government groups target two Shabiha commanders, named as Ayman Jaber and Mohammad Jaber, along with the two militia groups. Its statement said the Shabiha have "operated as a direct action arm of the government of Syria and its security services," working alongside its intelligence services, and have been "complicit in the commission of human rights abuses in Syria, including those related to repression." "Since the beginning of the unrest, the Shabiha have fired into crowds of peaceful Syrian demonstrators, shot and killed Syrian demonstrators, arbitrarily detained Syrian civilians, and shot Syrian soldiers who refused to fire on peaceful demonstrators," it said.The Jaysh al-Sha'bi militia has "conducted unilateral and joint operations with Syrian military and security elements against the Syrian opposition" that have led to the deaths of opposition members, the statement said.

It accuses Iran of training, funding and arming the Jaysh al-Sha'bi militia.
Washington's move comes a day ahead of a Friends of Syria meeting scheduled for Wednesday in Morocco.
The goal of the designation is to isolate extremist groups in Syria while giving a boost to the new political opposition group unveiled last month in Doha, Qatar, U.S. officials said last week.
Al-Nusra and several other groups last month announced their opposition to the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, a new anti-government coalition. U.S. officials estimate al-Nusra members represent about 9% of rebel forces in Syria. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based opposition group, said fighters from the al-Nusra Front were among rebel forces who it says have seized control of a government military base in the Sheikh Sleiman area of western Reef Aleppo.
But their designation as a foreign terrorist group isn't being made on the grounds of past or possible future actions, according to the Observatory's Rami Abdelrahman.
"The United States decided to single out the Nusra Front because of their recent rejection to the political opposition front and (because) they have a different approach to post-Assad's Syria," he told CNN.
Syrian Minister of Information Omran al-Zoubi told Lebanese al-Manar TV on Monday that Damascus understood why Washington wanted to blacklist the al-Nusra Front.
"When the U.S. places Jabhat al-Nusra on the international terrorist organizations list, that is because it realizes the nature of these groups which are fighting the Syrian armed forces," he said.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has characterized the nearly 21 months of violence that have ravaged his country as a fight against terrorism.
But the Syrian National Council, a largely expatriate opposition group, on Sunday voiced its "full rejection of any accusation of extremism and terrorism to any of the forces that are fighting the Syrian regime."
Any accusations made against factions within the Free Syrian Army, which brings together disparate groups, were intended to cause division within its ranks and between its forces and the Syrian people, it said.
"Terrorism is a characteristic that can only be attributed to the Syrian regime," it said.
The commander of the Falcons of the Levant Brigade, a rebel group, criticized the U.S. move in a statement, saying the international community "should have designated Bashar al-Assad, his army and his criminal thugs on that list first and last for what they are committing against our people."
The group said it would "refuse to be dragged into these Western accusations against any group" and would continue to back al-Nusra and any other faction fighting government forces.
U.S. officials have previously said the jihadist al-Nusra Front has not affiliated itself publicly with al Qaeda in an apparent effort to appear more mainstream. The group has claimed responsibility for complex attacks in Damascus and Aleppo, frequently involving suicide bombers. At least 26 people were killed Tuesday across the country, according to the opposition Local Coordination Committees of Syria.
Clashes continued Tuesday between Syrian troops and rebels as the latter besieged a major infantry academy to the north of Aleppo. Commanders with the Free Syrian Army said its fighters clashed with troops in the barracks before pulling back Monday night. Rebel commanders say government troops have defended the academy fiercely. Capturing it would give rebels control of the route into Aleppo from the north, as well as any munitions and arms stored at the compound.
CNN is unable to confirm casualty reports as the government has severely restricted access by international journalists. The meeting in Morocco this week follows a renewed international push for a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria, amid concerns about the potential use of chemical weapons. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters Tuesday, however, that intelligence about new attempts by Syrian government forces to move chemical weapons "has really kind of leveled off." U.S. officials said last week that they had seen intelligence suggesting that Syrian military units might be preparing chemical weapons for use, prompting strong warnings from international figures. "We haven't seen anything new indicating any aggressive steps to move forward in that way," Panetta said. "But we continue to monitor it very closely, and we continue to make clear to them that they should not under any means make use of these chemical weapons against their own population. That would produce serious consequences." Panetta said he would like to believe that al-Assad has gotten the message: "We've made it pretty clear and others have as well." But, he added, "You know it's also clear that the opposition continues to make gains in Syria, and our concern is that if they feel like the regime is threatened with collapse that they might resort to these kinds of weapons." U.S. President Barack Obama has said that any use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line," eliciting a swift U.S. reaction.
Syrian state-run media said Monday that the United States has falsely accused Syria of considering the use of chemical weapons. Meanwhile, the United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR, said Tuesday that it had either registered or was in the process of registering more than half a million Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and North Africa. The numbers are climbing by more than 3,000 per day, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.CNN's Arwa Damon, Nick Paton Walsh and Jamie Crawford contributed to this report.

Iran says Western sanctions harm safety for ships
By Jonathan Saul | Reuters ...LONDON (Reuters) - Western sanctions imposed over the past months against Iran's shipping industry will seriously affect international maritime and environmental safety, a senior Iranian official said. Companies are cutting ties with Iran's vital shipping sector, which transports most of its crude oil, for fear of losing lucrative U.S. business. Among them have been foreign ship classification societies that had certified safety and environmental standards for Iranian vessels - a requirement for insurance and access to ports. "During the past months due to direct and indirect measures taken by some governments, unfair and undue restrictions have been imposed against Iran's commercial shipping industry," said Ali Akbar Marzban, Iran's deputy permanent representative at U.N. shipping agency the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
"We strongly believe that these measures undoubtedly would have an adverse impact on regional and international maritime safety, security and pollution prevention and would hamper relevant international co-operation," he said in a comments made at the IMO in London. China and other countries in Asia, including South Korea continue to buy Iran's oil, but the loss of certifiers has raised concerns over the quality of insurance cover and future maintenance of Iranian ships. Iran is under growing pressure over its nuclear program, which the West suspects of having a military purpose despite Tehran's denials.
Last month the China Classification Society became the last of the world's top 13 companies in the field to confirm it had stopped providing verification services for Iran's fleet.
The world's top 13 certifiers are all members of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) and some of them had provided Iran with cover.
Marzban said a letter sent by one IACS member indicated that it was impossible for the company to continue providing safety services to Iran "in an attempt to avoid consequences resulted from restrictions imposed by some governments on them", adding that other IACS members had also halted their work. "As a result, providing maritime safety and technical services even to foreign flag vessels within Iranian territorial waters has been stopped," he told a session of the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee on November 30. "The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran expresses deep concern over such unfair restrictions and discriminatory actions," he said in comments that were first reported by Iranian media last week and confirmed on Tuesday to Reuters by Iran's IMO delegation in London. The IMO on Tuesday said the statement made by Iran would be included in the final report of the Maritime Safety Committee's 91st session, declining further comment. The IACS classes more than 90 percent of the world's merchant fleet. There are more than 50 classification societies.
British classifier Lloyd's Register, among the world's biggest, said in April it had withdrawn from Iran, citing sanctions pressure. Its chief executive told Reuters last week Western pressure has increased risks including the danger of an Iranian vessel spilling oil on another country's coast. Marzban said the measures went against the objectives of international maritime conventions.
"We strongly believe that, these actions would seriously affect the maritime safety, security and the marine environment of the whole maritime community - something that needs our attention and outmost care of IMO member states," Marzban said.
(Editing by Anthony Barker)

Canada Expands Sanctions Against Iran
http://www.international.gc.ca/wet30-1/aff/news-communiques/2012/12/11a.aspx?lang=eng
December 11, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:
“Despite intensive efforts by the international community to engage Iran on its nuclear program, the Iranian regime refuses to comply with its international obligations, cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, or enter into meaningful negotiations.
“Canada is taking further action against the Iranian regime by expanding sanctions.
“Our government has amended the Special Economic Measures (Iran) Regulations to list an additional 98 entities associated with the Iranian regime as designated persons, ratcheting up pressure on entities supporting Iran’s nuclear program, including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij paramilitary organization.
“Canada’s measures also target economic sectors that indirectly support or provide funds for Iran’s nuclear program: oil and gas, mining, metals, and shipping. The amended regulations further isolate Iran from the global financial system.
“These amendments align Canadian sanctions with measures adopted by our allies and partners. Canada’s clear stand against the Iranian threat further strengthens international pressure on the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime must address, with urgent and concrete action, the international community’s grave concerns over its nuclear activities.”
For more information, please visit Canadian Economic Sanctions: Iran.
- 30 -
A backgrounder follows.
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
Follow us on Twitter: @DFAIT_MAECI
Backgrounder - Additional Sanctions on Iran
Effective immediately, the additional individuals and entities announced today will be subject to an assets freeze and a prohibition on economic dealings. With these new measures, the total number of designated persons rises to 50 individuals and 433 entities.
Context
In July 2010, Canada implemented sanctions against Iran under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA). These sanctions prohibited all of the following:
dealing with designated individuals and entities, such as dealing in any property, or making any goods or financial or related services available to a designated individual or entity;
exporting or otherwise providing to Iran arms and related materials not already banned, items that could contribute to Iran’s proliferation activities, and items used in refining oil and gas;
providing technical data related to these goods;
making any new investment in the Iranian oil and gas sector, or providing or acquiring financial services for this purpose;
providing or acquiring financial services to allow an Iranian financial institution (or a branch, subsidiary or office) to be established in Canada or vice versa;
establishing correspondent banking relationships with Iranian financial institutions or purchasing any debt from the Government of Iran; and
providing services for the operation or maintenance of a vessel owned or controlled by, or operating on behalf of, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.
The Special Economic Measures (Iran) Permit Authorization Order (SOR/2010-166), made pursuant to subsection 4(4) of SEMA, authorizes the Minister of Foreign Affairs to issue a permit to any person in Canada or any Canadian outside Canada to carry out a specified activity or transaction, or any class of activity or transaction, that is restricted or prohibited pursuant to the Special Economic Measures (Iran) Regulations.
On October 18, 2011, Canada imposed sanctions on a further five Iranian individuals, four of whom are members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
On November 22, 2011, in response to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) assessment of Iran’s nuclear program, Canada imposed additional sanctions under SEMA.
These amendments served to:
prohibit financial transactions with Iran, subject to certain exceptions;
expand the list of prohibited goods to include all goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industry in Iran;
amend the list of prohibited goods to include additional items that could be used in Iran’s nuclear program;
add new individuals and entities to the list of designated persons found in Schedule 1 of the Iran Regulations, prohibiting dealings with these persons and entities; and
remove certain entities that have been recommended for removal by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that no longer present a proliferation concern for Canada.
The prohibitions on financial transactions and goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industry in Iran do not apply to contracts entered into prior to November 22, 2011.
An exemption was also introduced to allow non-commercial remittances of $40,000 or less, to allow for transactions such as transfers of funds between relatives.
On January 31, 2012, Canada expanded its sanctions against Iran, to add five new entities and three individuals to the list of designated persons. They joined a long list of supporters and associates of the Iranian regime whose assets have been frozen. These sanctions cover the known leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and block virtually all financial transactions with Iran, including those with the Central Bank.
Existing UN sanctions
Since 2006, the United Nations Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions against Iran in response to its nuclear program. Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council adopted resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1929 (2010) imposing sanctions against Iran in response to the proliferation risks presented by Iran’s nuclear program and in light of Iran’s continuing failure to meet the requirements of the IAEA and to comply with the provisions of earlier Security Council resolutions. These resolutions require Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA and to suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.
The Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on Iran implement the decisions of the Security Council in Canadian domestic law. Implementation of the travel bans imposed by resolutions 1803 (2008) and 1929 (2010) is ensured in Canada under existing provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Other measures
On September 7, 2012—in light of the Iranian regime’s increase of military aid to the Assad regime in Syria, Iran’s refusal to comply with UN resolutions pertaining to the country’s nuclear program, its deplorable human rights record and anti-Semitic rhetoric—Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird issued a statement announcing the closure of the Canadian embassy in Iran and the expulsion of Iranian diplomats from Canada. All Canadian diplomatic staff left Iran, and Iranian diplomats in Ottawa were instructed to leave within five days.
For the past eight years, Canada has been the lead co-sponsor of the annual resolution at the UN General Assembly on the situation of human rights in Iran. The 2011 resolution highlighted long-standing violations of human rights by the Iranian authorities, such as the persistent discrimination against and violation of the fundamental human rights of women and girls, stoning and amputation, widespread discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, and media censorship and harassment of human rights defenders, including women’s rights activists. Canada has pledged to continue to stand with the people of Iran against the oppression of the Iranian authorities.
The 2010 resolution was co-sponsored by 42 other UN member states and was supported by 89, with only 32 member states voting against. This represented the largest margin ever in favour of the annual resolution, signalling the international community’s deepening concern with the human rights situation in Iran.
For more information, please see Canada-Iran Relations.
Media Center

Baird Marks Human Rights Day
December 10, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird issued the following statement on the occasion of Human Rights Day:
“On this day, we recommit ourselves to working toward the promotion of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world.
“The promotion and protection of human rights is a cornerstone of our principled foreign policy. Canadians can be proud of the values we hold and promote around the world.
“We have proudly encouraged the role of women and girls in emerging democracies and we stand with those, such as Malala Yousafzai, who have fought for fundamental freedoms and human rights.
“Sadly, in North Korea, an estimated 200,000 political prisoners remain in concentration camps where the regime forcibly prevents its own people from finding a better life.
“In Iran, egregious human rights violations are a daily occurrence. Iran’s persecution of religious minorities, including Bahá’ís and Christians, is deeply troubling. Canada will continue to take a leadership role at the United Nations in condemning the human rights situation in Iran.
“On this day, we are reminded of those who promote greater freedoms for all, such as Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong.
“It is our common duty to defend the vulnerable, to challenge the aggressor, and to protect and promote human rights and human dignity abroad.
“Under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, Canada will continue to be a principled voice in the world.”
- 30 -
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
Follow us on Twitter: @DFAIT_MAECI

Obama to start sending US F-16 fighter jets to Egypt – on Israel’s election-day
DEBKAfile Special Report December 11, 2012, The Obama administration took a careful look at the political calendar before announcing that the first four F-16 fighter planes - of the 20 approved in a $1 billion US foreign aid package to Egypt - would be delivered Jan. 22.
The announcement came Tuesday, Dec. 11, as Cairo and other Egyptian towns were set for massive rival demonstrations for and against President Mohamed Morsi’s decision to hold a referendum on a pro-Islamist constitution Saturday. It therefore came in for rising criticism in Washington of the wisdom of sending the jets to an unstable Egypt in the grip of a strong political confrontation.
A broad range of opposition groups – pro-democratic, liberal, secular, women and Christian – are demanding that President Morsi cancel the referendum. The Muslim Brotherhood is mobilizing its supporters to counter this protest. As the first anti-Morsi groups began gathering in Tahrir Square Tuesday, nine were hurt by masked gunmen.
The opposition has clipped President Morsi’s wings once by making him annul the near-dictatorial powers he gave himself. Forcing him to forego the referendum would further undermine his authority.
So the president fought back by authorizing the military to secure state buildings and arrest civilians in the incendiary days leading up to Saturday’s referendum. debkafile’s military sources report that Monday, six Egyptian Air Force F-16 fighters flew symbolically over Cairo.
However, the 2nd and 9th Divisions stationed around Cairo stayed in their barracks and the only uniformed personnel visible on the street were the Republican Guard troops on permanent duty in the capital’s center.
By approving another 20 F-16 jets for Muslim-ruled Egypt on the day of the competing demonstrations, President Obama showed the Egyptian people that he stands foursquare behind President Morsi and that more US military aid is on the way.
The first four jets will arrive in Egypt the day after Barack Obama’s Jan. 21 swearing-in for a second term as US president at the Capitol – and not by chance. That date also coincides with Israel’s Jan. 22 general election.
Obama is therefore using those warplanes as a signpost for the Muslim-Arab Middle East – and the Israeli voter – to show them that he is sticking unswervingly to his policy of support for the region’s Muslim Brotherhood – and especially the Egyptian president - even if Morsi did slip up by a grab for sweeping powers that alienated most of the opposition.
The US promise of new fighter planes was also a recommendation to the Egyptian army to pick the right side and opt for President Morsi if they wanted US military assistance to keep coming. Washington was also ready to consider providing them with more high-tech items in addition to those already supplied.
At all events, President Obama has made his choice, opting for Egypt’s Islamists against the pro-democracy and liberal opposition – a choice that he might have found embarrassing when he campaigned for his second term.
Israel had a dark premonition of what was coming. Obama began laying the background for his strong alignment with Islamist Egypt last month with the dramatic announcement of a ceasefire in Cairo on Nov. 20, that was delivered jointly by Morsi and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
By this announcement – and by maneuvering Israel into abstaining from a ground operation in the Gaza Strip to complete its air operation against Palestinian terrorist targets – Obama pulled the Egyptian president out of his hat as a fully-fledged international figure ready to jump to the top of his newly-minted Sunni Muslim Middle East coalition. In addition to Egypt, its chosen members were to be Turkey, Qatar and the Palestinian Hamas. Israel was to be a secret partner and contributor of high-grade intelligence.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was ready to fit into the role cast Israel by the US president. He therefore chose to hold back from a ground incursion in the Gaza Strip and then agreed to the radical Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal visiting Gaza last week.His reward came at the same time as Washington’s announcement of the 20 F-16 fighters for Egypt: The US has appropriated $650 million worth of ordnance to refill the Israeli arsenals depleted by the massive Pillar of Defense air offensive in Gaza.Under this deal, the US will supply the Israeli Air Force with 6,900 satellite-guided “smart bombs;" 10,000 mixed bombs - including 3,450 one-tonners and 1,725 bombs weighing 250 kilograms - as well as two kinds of buster-bunkers - 1,725, GBU-39 bombs and 3,450 BLU-109s.

Turbulent times in Egypt
By Hussein Shabokshi/Asharq Alawsat
The pitfall that the Egyptian authorities find themselves in could have been avoided. There was no need to subject the Egyptian society’s security to this kind of polarization and of course there was no need for the accidents, injuries and deaths on all sides.Egypt is riding a sizeable revolutionary wave. The country is caught up in the throes between currents disputing power; advocates of politicized religion on the one side and those supporting the civil state on the other. The regime governing the country assumed the presidency after a heated election where the final result was marginal, no doubt reflecting the extent of the existing division and polarization on the Egyptian political street, which in turn reflects the concerns, fears and complaints of the Egyptian people themselves.
The state, government and president should have heeded this situation before issuing the alarming, forceful, some might even say provocative, decrees. This move was seen as an act of bullying, an act of seizing and monopolizing power, and the people sensed the country was moving once again towards a dictatorship. After all, the Egyptians had just overthrown a regime that had monopolized power to the extent that it forced the people to rise up against it and remove the president from his position. This is not to mention the fundamental sensitivities harbored by the general populace towards the Muslim Brotherhood movement, and the age old political project that they are working towards.
Egypt is a country of heightened sensitivities these days. It is a Muslim country with the most prestigious religious authority in the Islamic world, namely al-Azhar, and yet a tense religious discourse is being fuelled. Youths are demonstrating in support of the president shouting: “our martyrs are in paradise whilst yours die in the fire”. One man even entered a mosque near the presidential palace, snatched the microphone and questioned the faith of the opposition, as if we were witnessing a battle between infidels and Muslims!
Mursi’s constitutional declaration contained many violations, both legally and technically. We are talking about an issue that has led to congestion and alarming concern in the hearts of Egyptians who were already sensitive. There was an official silence for a lengthy period as the street continued to be tense and the situation became inflamed. The ceiling of demands rose in an unprecedented manner, the wounded and dead fell, and the bloodshed increased. Then the president addressed his people with a vague, meaningless speech adding further tension to the street until the dialogue he had called for finally came and he was forced to revoke his constitutional declaration. However, Mursi maintained the referendum on the constitution, which was drafted in record time, whilst knowing that many Egyptians are calling for that to be abolished as well on the grounds that the proposed constitutional articles have not received adequate time and deliberation before being put to a referendum.
The issue now in Egypt is one of legitimacy, and legitimacy has many aspects. Did the president, with his decrees, violate what he is meant to protect and conserve? Thus can the legitimacy of the president now be challenged?
Egypt prides itself as a state of institutions and laws (despite reservations about the effectiveness of these institutions and laws) and this remains the main reference point. Thus any attempt to repeal this legacy is effectively a move towards the idea of autocracy and dictatorship. The people have a (fully justified) hypersensitivity because of previous negative experiences that have left a devastating impact on the Egyptian mindset, making the reaction of many these days towards the president’s decrees understandable. President Mursi still has an opportunity, albeit a slim one, to rebuild bridges of trust with the people. The Arab world is watching the next steps with concern because the Egyptian disease may infect others. All we can do is ask God to protect us.

Mishal likely to remain Hamas leader
By Kafah Zaboun/Ramallah, Asharq Al-Awsat - It could only be a matter of time before Khalid Mishal retracts his decision to step down as leader of the Hamas political bureau, according to Palestinian sources affiliated with Mishal. According to the sources, Mishal’s retraction is being called for both inside Hamas and from Arab and regional states.
Countries such as Egypt, Turkey and Qatar are pressuring for Mishal to remain as head of Hamas, and it seems that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt also favor this option.
The sources added that “the pressures being mounted for Mishal [to remain in power] are relentless”, however they denied that the matter has been resolved, explaining that “Hamas’ internal elections have stalled since the start of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, and they remain postponed”. The sources confirmed that the elections have been unable to determine the future names of the Hamas political bureau and the presidency, because they have stalled many times for reasons “outside the group’s control”.Mishal arrived in Gaza last Friday in a visit Hamas described as historic. Mishal received a hero’s welcome and dominated the scene without a challenge even from his closest political bureau rivals, in an important indication of his position within Hamas. Mishal’s position has strengthened significantly after the latest war in Gaza, where he played a key role in the truce talks and was the focal point of meetings with officials from everywhere. The sources explained that “the recent war and the great change that has occurred in Hamas could ultimately prompt Mishal to retract his decision”.

Al Toraifi New Editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat
11/12/2012/Asharq Al-Awsat
London, Asharq Al-Awsat - His Royal Highness Prince Faisal bin Salman Al Saud, the chairman of Saudi Research & Marketing Group, announced the appointment of Mr Adel Al-Toraifi as editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper with effect from the 1st of January 2013. This appointment is made with the approval of the board of directors of the group and on the recommendation of the board of trustees.At a meeting held in London in the presence of Dr Azzam Al-Dakhil the CEO of the group, the outgoing editor-in-chief Mr Tariq Alhomayed and the editorial and production staff of the newspaper, the chairman reviewed the history of Asharq Al-Awsat and its success in maintaining a solid writing and editorial style. He thanked Mr Tariq Alhomayed and the previous editors-in-chief for their contributions which had all combined to shape the personality of Asharq Al-Awsat.
The chairman spoke about the role of Asharq Al-Awsat and its commitment to professionalism, credibility and moderation; his pride in Asharq Al-Awsat being the newspaper for all Arabs, and stressed the importance of incorporating the existing expertise and experience within the team together with an infusion of new talent as a foundation for the future.
Mr Adel Al-Toraifi recently completed a degree in International Relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science submitting a thesis titled The Rise and Demise of Saudi-Iranian Rapprochement (1997 – 2009). Mr Al-Toraifi also received a Master’s degree with distinction in Social Science, majoring in international conflict, in 2008 from University of Kingston, London.
Mr Al-Toraifi received the British Chevening Fellowship in 2006 from the British Embassy in Riyadh and was awarded the International Conflict Prize – 2008, a postgraduate prize awarded by the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences at Kingston University for outstanding performance in work on International Conflict. Mr Al-Toraifi became involved in journalism more than a decade ago as an opinion writer and commentator for many Arabic and foreign newspapers. He was a weekly writer for Political Opinion in Al-Riyadh newspaper, moving on to write weekly for the opinion pages of Asharq Al-Awsat. In 2010 he was appointed as editor-in-chief of Al-Majalla taking on the responsibility for rebranding the magazine after print publication was temporarily stopped. Mr Al-Toraifi launched the digital version of the magazine in Arabic, English and Persian. Following this success a monthly print edition in Arabic was re-introduced in early 2012. In July 2012 Mr Al-Toraifi was appointed deputy editor-in-chief for Asharq Al-Awsat.
The appointment of Mr Adel Al-Toraifi as editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat succeeds his colleague Mr Tariq Alhomayed who assumed the role of editor-in-chief in 2004. At the announcement meeting in London, Dr Al-Toraifi expressed his gratitude to the chairman, the board of directors and the board of trustees for appointing him to the post and thanked them for the trust they granted him. Mr Al-Toraifi stressed his intention to maintain its neutral editorial path and prestigious cultural content and. Finally Mr Al-Toraifi thanked his colleagues in the newspaper for their exceptional efforts in maintaining the status of Asharq Al-Awsat and its leadership in the Arab newspaper world.

The General Guide, el-Shater and the foreign conspiracy
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat
The message that can be taken away from the press conference held by Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Mohammed Badie and the group’s strongman Khairat el-Shater was an aggressive one aimed both internally and abroad. It also further strengthened the rumor that has been circulating in recent days that these two are the ones who really run the [Freedom and Justice] party and the government, and that Mohammed Mursi is merely a façade!However, when President Mursi retracted his unconstitutional declaration, this gave reassurances that he is still in the driving seat, and that the hostile discourse of Badie and el-Shater has had no impact upon the crisis, but was a poor tactic in a moment of failure to confront the street.
Mursi retracting his presidential declaration was the most important thing he has done since assuming office. Being a wise politician, and a pragmatist rather than a dogmatist, he realized that preserving the country is more important than saving face and that his disputes with the opposition can be resolved, and this is part of his presidential duties. His decision narrowed the chasm of dispute, strengthened his position in the street and put the ball in the opposition’s court. More importantly than all of this it saved the new Egyptian regime from a decline than could have led to clashes, perhaps the intervention of the army and a return to the drawing board.
As for what the General Guide Mohammed Badie claimed, and what was repeated by el-Shater, about an internal and foreign conspiracy being behind the opposition in Egypt, the least we can say about this is that it is nonsense and a blatant attempt to escape from the crisis rather than resolve it. The opposition did not suddenly wake up one morning and declare its rebellion, so how can we say it is a conspiracy? The opposition did not contest the legitimate results of the presidential elections, where Mursi won by one percent, so how can we say it its being incited by external bodies?
The President decided all of a sudden to seize the judiciary, dismiss the public prosecutor, adopt a constitution suitable for the Brotherhood only, and render his decisions immune from challenge, contrary to the rules of the system he swore upon in the first place. Is it strange after these appalling steps for revolutionaries, opposition groups and all manner of Egyptian people to come out onto the streets and declare their protests? Of course this is to be expected. However, the General Guide and el-Shater did not take this into account when they claimed “we ate them for breakfast before they could eat us for lunch” after dismissing leaders of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and then again after the public prosecutor was sacked, until the excuse lost all credibility.
Mursi became president legitimately and as such he is expected to commit to the system that brought him to power rather than hijack it. With the recent demonstrations that have rocked Egypt, this proves that the Brotherhood are nothing but a category of the people, not the people as a whole. The Egyptian people openly expressed their rejection of Mursi’s decrees, especially as the president had previously borrowed a saying from the great Caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab: “If I deviate from the right path, correct me so that we are not led astray.”
How is an alleged internal and foreign conspiracy to blame for the demonstrations staged by the Egyptian people in protest against Mursi’s decrees, especially as they came in the wake of provocative actions like the Brotherhood’s constitutional referendum?
We all know what the Guide and el-Shater mean by conspiring foreign entities; they mean those in the Gulf and elsewhere. Yet in truth they are accusing countries that have played a fundamental role in the stability of Egypt ever since the fall of the Mubarak regime, not the other way around. Muslim Brotherhood leaders are aware that many members of the group have been working in the Gulf for decades, participating in a financial and cultural exchange, and have never been harassed in any way.
There are certainly concerns about the Brotherhood’s rise to power by virtue of its close ties with Iran, the main enemy of the Gulf States. But like all other regimes in the region it is necessary to coexist, for this is the choice of the Egyptian people and we must respect that. Furthermore, the indicators of President Mursi’s political compass so far have been reassuring. Finally, it is not in the nature of the Gulf States to get involved in the internal conflicts and problems of other states purely on the basis of doubt and suspicion.
The General Guide and the rest of the Brotherhood hawks must understand that their main problem, if not their only problem, is to solve the growing grievances of the Egyptians and their expectations. This will only be possible by reconciling with local forces and by not placing the blame on others.

U.S. Differences with Bahrain Playing Out in Public
Simon Henderson/Washington Insitute
December 10, 2012
Despite Bahrain's latest negative rhetoric, Washington must step up its efforts to mend the bilateral relationship.
Washington's relations with Bahrain are under strain after royal comments at a regional strategy conference in the island's capital. The incident, described by the Associated Press as a "diplomatic flap" and a "public slap against Washington," reopens the debate about the progress of reforms as street violence continues between Shiite protestors and security forces deployed by the Sunni al-Khalifa royal family.
Over fifty people, including security personnel, have died in protests pressing for more political representation and other rights over the past two years. In February 2011, most Shiite members of parliament resigned, and subsequent by-elections reinforced the Sunni majority in the assembly despite the island's majority Shiite population. Protests continue on an almost daily basis -- an embarrassment to Washington given that the island hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, a key component in efforts to deter Iran.
U.S. diplomats at the conference, the annual Manama Dialogue, were surprised when Bahrain's heir apparent -- Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, previously seen as the royal family's leading reformer -- failed to mention the United States by name when listing allies that have provided critical support during the disturbances. He also spoke of countries that "selectively" criticize Bahrain's leadership, without citing specific examples. While calling for dialogue, he also stated that Shiite religious leaders, whom he referred to as "ayatollahs," should denounce violence more forcefully.
Salman's tough words were echoed by Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud, the son of the Saudi monarch and the kingdom's deputy foreign minister. Apparently justifying last year's Saudi military intervention in Bahrain, he warned that the Gulf states "cannot tolerate instability."
Meanwhile, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, who led the U.S. delegation, emphasized "the urgent challenges of Iran's reckless behavior." On reform, he stated, "There is no one-size-fits-all approach to such transitions or reform processes; much will depend on local circumstances and the quality of local leadership." However, he also noted that "Long-term stability, and enduring security, depend on the full participation of all citizens in political and economic life; the belief of all citizens that their peacefully expressed views are heard and respected; [and] the conviction of all citizens that they share a stake in their country's future." In the email text of the speech distributed by the State Department, the three mentions of the word "all" were each in bold type.
The exchange suggests that the gap in perceptions between Washington and Manama is as wide as ever. The United States sees political reform as compatible with maintaining the historical security relationship, while the royal family views Shiite leaders with suspicion, believing they are too sympathetic to Iran and determined to change the political status quo.
In addition, the conference organizers had hoped that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would be a keynote speaker. Although CENTCOM commander Gen. James Mattis and Fifth Fleet commander Vice Admiral John Miller were listed as speakers, the defining statement on U.S. policy and the region was delivered by Burns, who was accompanied by Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy and Human Rights Michael Posner. In remarks yesterday, Posner stated: "To create a climate where dialogue and reconciliation is possible, the [Bahrain] government needs to prosecute those officials responsible for the human rights violations that occurred in early 2011. It also should drop charges against all persons accused of offenses involving non-violent political expression and freedom of assembly."
Going forward, two dangers threaten U.S.-Bahraini relations. The first is that Iran will attempt to further weaken the relationship; the second is that Washington has made seemingly little effort to repair it. In December 2011, for example, only a single, junior U.S. official attended the Bahrain National Day celebration in Washington. Despite the tension, U.S. representation at this year's event -- scheduled for Wednesday, December 12 -- should be larger and more senior.
*Simon Henderson is the Baker fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute.