LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS
BULLETIN
May 20/12
Bible Quotation for today/The
Lord Warns the Prophet
Isaiah 10/15-19: "
But the Lord says, Can an ax claim to be greater than the one who uses it? Is a
saw more important than the one who saws with it? A club doesn't lift up a
person; a person lifts up a club. The Lord Almighty is going to send disease to
punish those who are now well-fed. In their bodies there will be a fire that
burns and burns. God, the light of Israel, will become a fire. Israel's holy God
will become a flame, which in a single day will burn up everything, even the
thorns and thistles. The rich forests and farmlands will be totally destroyed,
in the same way that a fatal sickness destroys someone. There will be so few
trees left that even a child will be able to count them.
Latest analysis, editorials, studies,
reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Prospects for Success in the Iran Nuclear Negotiations/By: Patrick Clawson and
Mehdi Khalaji/Washington Insitute/May 19/12
Syria’s war enters third gear/By:
Michael Young/Now Lebanon/May 19/12
Don’t they mean,
“in your service, Iran/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 19/12
Watching the new state
of South Sudan fall into chaos/by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi/Ha'aretz/May 19/12
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for
May 19/12
Question: "What
does the Bible teach about human trafficking?"
Emerging US-Iran interim nuclear
deal endangers Israel
Obama: G8 agrees movement needed in Syria
UN nuclear chief to visit Tehran for rare talks
Netanyahu: No evidence Iran intends to halt contentious nuclear
program
Poll: Opposition to Iran going nuclear growing
G8 leaders broadly
united on Iran and Syria: U.S. official
G8 leaders look to
head off euro zone crisis
Lift sanctions,
Iran tells West before nuke talks
Car bomb hits
Syria's Deir al-Zor, casualties reported
Syria: 9 dead; 100 injured in Deir el-Zour blast
Gulf states funding Syrian rebels'
Syrian
opposition: Israel is Assad's biggest ally
Canada Tightens Sanctions Against Assad Regime
Geagea: March 8 trying to portray
Tripoli as ‘hotbed for terrorists’
Geagea: Most ministers ‘responsible’ for Qatar, UAE travel
warning
Gulf states issue Lebanon travel warning
Aoun files lawsuit against Geagea
Report: Syrian Letter to U.N. an Attempt to Return to Lebanon
Miqati Hits Back, Says Syria Letter to Ban 'Inflames Disputes'
Mustaqbal Says Syria U.N. Letter Aims to 'Deviate Attention from Regime Crimes'
Hariri: Hezbollah's arms are its weakness, Assad to fall
Lebanon's FM, Mansour urges UAE, Qatar to rescind travel warnings
to Lebanon
Lebanese
Officials call for boosting security
measures in north Lebanon
Charbel: No Al-Qaeda in Lebanon, Ghosn claims unfounded
Aoun for proportional representation but will run under 1960
elections law if need be
Signs point to Mawlawi release next week,
Tripoli truce holds
Zahra: Syrian ‘agents’ seek to ‘tarnish’ Islamists’ image
Makari: Syria, Hezbollah must stop interfering in Tripoli
Mikati calls Syria’s UN letter “divisive”
Diplomats Say 'Salafist Revolution' in Tripoli Aim at Arming Syrian Opposition
Suleiman Refuses to Sign Under Pressure $5.9 Billion Bill
Canada/Toronto Islamic school sent packing over anti-Semitic lessons
Saudi Arabia
bans use of English, Gregorian calendar
Student killed, 7 hurt in blast near Italy school
Geagea: March 8 trying
to portray Tripoli as ‘hotbed for terrorists’
May 19, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Saturday the Lebanese state was
the only body authorized to protect citizens and accused the March 8 coalition
of seeking to portray the northern coastal city of Tripoli as a hotbed of
“terrorists.”
“The Lebanese state alone is authorized to protect citizens and we should not go
back to the logic of vigilantism as our salvation will not be except through a
state that is strong and capable and can take control of security and strike
with an iron fist,” Geagea told a delegation from Bekaa village of Arsal headed
by its mayor, Ali Houjeiri.
Arsal, with its 40,000 to 50,000 residents, has become a flashpoint since the
beginning of the uprising in Syria. In December, Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn
said members of Al-Qaeda were crossing into Lebanon, particularly into Arsal,
under the guise that they were Syrian opposition.
In the past few months, shells from the Syrian army have also hit Lebanese
border towns, and locals say that army troops sometimes cross the border to hunt
down rebels.
Last week, Houjeiri warned that “if the government is unable to protect the area
and its residents, this will push the town’s people to take care of their own
security.”
Geagea, according to an LF statement, also accused the March 8 alliance of
seeking to portray Tripoli, where recent unrest has led to the killing of 11 and
the wounding of score more, as a “hotbed of terrorism.”
“The other side is very pleased with what is happening in Tripoli in that it is
trying to portray the capital of the north as though it was a hotbed for
terrorists, Salafists, fundamentalists and Al-Qaeda and therefore painting the
Sunnis in Lebanon as though they are terrorists.”
He urged the army to take complete control of the northern coastal city.
“The Lebanese Army needs to take control of security in Tripoli in a decisive
and ultimate manner,” he said.
The LF leader also questioned “how these sorts of incidents can occur in the
city that the prime minister and five other ministers hail from.”
Geagea also urged that the issue of Islamists detained without charges or trials
be resolved.
“The state needs to prosecute detained Islamists and not to procrastinate on the
matter. Those who are guilty should be prosecuted and those who are innocent
should be released.”
Around 180 Islamists have been jailed for more than four years without charges
or trials. The detained Islamists were arrested on charges of fighting or aiding
fighters during the 2007 armed clashes between the Lebanese Army and the
Palestinian militant group Fatah al-Islam in the northern refugee camp of Nahr
al-Bared in Tripoli.
Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani Friday served judicial authorities
with a two-month deadline to act on the case of detained Islamists, threatening
to stage a large sit-in in central Beirut to highlight their plight.For their
part, the Arsal delegation praised Geagea for surviving a recent assassination
attempt on his life and informed him of the security situation in their village.
Houjeiri voiced complaints about the violations committed by the Syrian army in
his village.
The March 14 alliance has called on the Lebanese government to protect residents
of border towns from the Syrian army.
The delegation also informed Geagea of the situation of refugees in the area and
Houjeiri revealed that the municipality had set up an electronic archive of all
the Syrian families in the area with the aim of securing needed provisions.
Geagea: Most ministers
‘responsible’ for Qatar, UAE travel warning
May 19, 2012/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea commented on Saturday on Qatar
and the United Arab Emirates’ warnings against traveling to Lebanon.
“The LF leader held the majority of officials in the Lebanese cabinet
responsible for the [current] situation, particularly Defense Minister [Fayez
Ghosn] and some security officials who in the past few days carried out
uncalculated and hasty actions,” a statement issued by the LF’s press office
said.
Geagea also slammed statements “insisting that Al-Qaeda is present in Lebanon”
as well as statements making Lebanon look like “it became a shelter for
terrorists.”
“What the majority in the cabinet did was nothing but a preparation for the
letter submitted by the Syrian Foreign Ministry to United Nations Secretary
General [Ban Ki-moon] with the clear goal to confirm the [Syrian] regime’s
theory about the presence of Al-Qaeda in Lebanon and Syria,” he added.
“[I call] on the honorable [ones] in the cabinet who vainly tried hard to
correct what the majority was doing to resign because currently this is the only
available solution… to maintain the Lebanese people’s interests.”On Friday, the
Syrian Foreign Ministry sent a letter to Ban, through Syria’s UN representative
Bashar al-Jaafari, complaining that “some Lebanese regions along the border with
Syria harbor members of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.”Earlier on
Saturday, the UAE and Qatar urged their citizens to avoid travel to Lebanon,
where clashes linked to the conflict in neighboring Syria have left 10 people
dead.-NOW Lebanon
Aoun files lawsuit against Geagea
May 19, 2012 /Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun filed a lawsuit
against Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, according to a statement issued by
the FPM on Saturday.
“[Aoun] filed the lawsuit due to Geagea’s statement to Al-Markaziya news agency
on [May] 16, 2012 in which he held Aoun the ‘ethical and moral responsibility’
for political assassination attempts since 2005 until today,” the FPM’s
statement said.“Aoun has filed a lawsuit against Geagea, Al-Markaziya, the LF
website and Al-Mustaqbal newspaper for: misleading judicial investigations…,
inciting to kill the plaintiff, instigating sectarianism, as well as libel and
slander,” the statement added.-NOW Lebanon
Hariri: Hezbollah's arms are its
weakness, Assad to fall
May 19, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri
said Saturday Hezbollah’s weakness lies in its weapons and reiterated his belief
that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s reign would end. “I disagree completely:
their weakness are their weapons believe me, the only way forward is to build a
state no matter what,” Hariri posted on the micro-blogging site Twitter in
response to a question as to whether others should arm themselves given
Hezbollah’s growing arsenal. Hariri also blamed Assad on recent unrest in the
northern coastal city of Tripoli.“These fires are made in the name of the Syrian
regime,” Hariri answered one question, referring to the unrest in Lebanon’s
second largest city.
Responding Friday to call by Speaker Nabih Berri for dialogue to end the unrest
in Tripoli, Hariri said only a decision could bring about an end to the tension,
adding that this would entail a halt to the arming and financing of “mercenaries
who are linked to some political parties, and to stop making some state
apparatuses serve the interests of the Syrian regime in Lebanon.”Asked whether
the country could become weapons-free without national dialogue, Hariri
answered: “Of course this needs to be done through genuine dialogue without
preconditions, a dialogue that takes the interests of all Lebanese.”Hariri also
said Tripoli, as well as Beirut and other cities, had always sought to become a
weapons-free zone and “always were for the project of the state.”In his one-hour
question and answer session on Twitter, Hariri also dismissed fears of a civil
war in Lebanon and reiterated his belief that Assad’s reign would come to an
end.“No one can buy time for this regime, the regime will end itself,” Hariri
said when asked whether Russia’s call for more U.N. observers in Lebanon’s
neighbor was a bid to “buy more time for the regime.”Asked whether he would run
in Tripoli during next year’s parliamentary elections in order to compete with
his successor Prime Minister Najib Mikati, Hariri said: “Beirut is my city.”
Mansour urges UAE, Qatar to
rescind travel warnings to Lebanon
May 19, 2012 12/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The UAE and Qatar called on their citizens Saturday to avoid travel to
Lebanon and for those in the country to depart given the tense security
situation as Lebanese Foreign Affairs Minister Adnan Mansour urged the two to
reconsider their decision. Ambassador Isa Abdullah Masoud al-Kalbani, the
director of the department of the Nationals' Affairs at the UAE Foreign Affairs
Ministry, said the steps the Emirates had taken the decision given its “keenness
for the safety of its expats and citizens.”Kalbani called on those presently in
the country to depart and for those obliged to stay to call their embassy in
Beirut to notify it of their whereabouts and contact details. The UAE official
also said it was important that citizens register on the ministry’s online
Tawajudi program when leaving the Emirates.
Qatar took similar action. A Foreign Ministry official told the Qatar News
Agency it had called on all its citizens not to travel to Lebanon for the time
being due to the unstable security situation and its possible consequences. It
also urged Qatari nationals currently in Lebanon to leave. For Qatari
nationals needing to stay in Lebanon, the official said expats needed to inform
their embassy in Beirut and to provide their names, addresses and means of
contact. Meanwhile, Mansour, who left Beirut to Qatar to participate at a forum
in Doha, urged both the UAE and Qatar to rescind their decisions.
“We hope that our responsible brothers in Qatar and the UAE will reconsider
these two decisions because the situation in Lebanon does not require officials
in these sisterly countries to take decisions such as this because the Qatari
and Emirati brothers are as our other Arab brothers and they have a special
place in the hearts of Lebanese,” Mansour said, according to Lebanon’s National
News Agency.
“The bonds of brotherhood that link Lebanon with them are greater than any
transient incident and therefore they are welcome in Lebanon at any time because
at the end of the day they are in their second homes,” he added.
Lebanon's Mansour heads to Qatar
to take part in Doha forum
May 19, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Foreign Affairs Minister Adnan Mansour left
Beirut to Qatar Saturday to take part in the Doha Forum 2012. Mansour, who is
representing President Michel Sleiman at the event which commences Sunday, left
to the Qatari capital at noon. The Doha Forum will be held at the Doha Sheraton
Hotel from May 20 to May 22. According to its website, the forum will be
attended by more than 660 participants representing over 84 countries and
organizations.
Officials call for boosting
security measures in north Lebanon
May 19, 2012/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A gathering of state and security officials at the residence of Prime
Minister Najib Mikati in Tripoli Saturday called for boosting security measures
in the northern coastal city as a shaky truce held after days of clashes last
week led to the killing of 11 people and the wounding of scores more.
“Those participating agreed on the need to boost security measures in the areas
of Qibbeh and Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen and to address the gaps in order to
prevent security breaches through continuing work to remove the display of
weapons and eliminating all manners of tension in all areas ... for normal life
to return,” a statement following the meeting said.
The meeting at Mikati’s residence included Tripoli ministers Ahmad Karami,
Faisal Karami, Mohammad Safadi, Tripoli MP Mohammad Qabbara, Director of
Lebanon’s Army Intelligence in the north Brig. Gen Amer al-Hasan as well as the
head of the Tripoli’s gendarmerie, Brig. Gen. Bassam Ayoubi.
“Those participating stressed that the army and the Internal Security Forces
have clear instructions to control the security situation and to boost the
deployment in order to create a positive environment,” the statement added.
Clashes erupted last week between the rival neighborhoods of Bab al-Tabbaneh and
Jabal Mohsen in Tripoli which have left at least 11 people dead and over 100
wounded.
The Lebanese Army, which was deployed to the area Tuesday, brought an end to the
fighting and a shaky truce has been enforced since then. Meanwhile, in the
Tabbaneh area, Civil Defense teams put out a fire at an office behind the
Nasseri Mosque. An investigation into the incident is under way.
Saudi Arabia bans use of English,
Gregorian calendar
Ynet Published: 05.19.12, 13:43 / Israel News
Riyad bars use of English language in state bureaus, hotels; order use of
Islamic calendar, Arabic only
Saudi Arabia has banned the use of the Gregorian calendar in all official state
and business dealings, the Gulf News reported Saturday. Riyad's decree also bars
government and private agencies and businesses from using the English language
to answer calls or communicate. According to the report, all ministries and
agencies must no use Hijri dates – the Islamic calendar – and the Arabic
language, exclusively. The Saudi Interior Ministry said that the decision "means
to preserve the Islamic calendar and the Arabic language."
The Arabic daily Al Watan added that the ministry believes that "some government
entities and establishments were using Gregorian dates
Emerging US-Iran interim nuclear
deal endangers Israel
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 19, 2012/Yukiya Amano, head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, is entrusted with a decisive mission in Tehran Sunday, May
20: collecting Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s broad endorsement of the interim
eight-point deal he and US President Barack Obama have drafted through secret
dialogue. debkafile has obtained exclusive access to the eight points - with the
caveat that they may not be final. The details are still to be hammered out and
proved practicable. But the way the deal stands now, it will be unacceptable to
Israel because if affords Iran enough leeway to carry on developing a nuclear
bomb program with no real hindrance.
The White House is waiting tensely for Khamenei’s nod to activate the link
promised by Obama between their back-track talks and the formal negotiations the
Six Powers (P5+1) negotiations with Iran, which go forward in Baghdad on May 23.
This link would grant the bilateral US-Iranian deal UN-world power imprimatur
and vindicate the US president’s contested Iran policy.
From that moment, Israel would find it doubly hard to go through with its
military option against Iran’s nuclear sites without risk of international
isolation and opprobrium.
Until that moment, the Obama administration had found Israel’s threatening
stance useful for bending Iran to a diplomatic accommodation on its nuclear
plans, while at the same time holding Jerusalem back from actually going through
with its threat.
It was this double game that made the US-Iranian dialogue workable.
It was also used adroitly by Khamenei to achieve another of the Islamic
Republic’s key strategic goals, to destroy the abiding friendship between the US
and the Zionist state. The Iranian leader’s main argument to his colleagues in
support of his secret dealings with the US president was that sanctions were
well worth enduring if at the end of the road a deal with the US forced a breach
between Washington and Jerusalem and so substantially weakened the Jewish state.
debkafile has obtained exclusive access to the eight-point draft with the caveat
that it may not be final; the details remained to be hammered out and proved
practicable:
1. Because the US and Iran agree that a real and comprehensive accord for
halting Tehran’s nuclear program is unobtainable, they are accepting an interim
agreement with each party at liberty to interpret its substance and future
implementation in its own manner.
debkafile: This wording allows Obama to assure the American voter and Western
public that Tehran has capitulated on its nuclear ambitions while, at the same
time, Khamenei portrays America to Iranians and Muslims as having yielded on
recognizing Iran’s right to develop an independent nuclear program, enrich
uranium and continue its drive for a bomb.
2. Iran will suspend uranium enrichment up to the near-weapons grade of 20
percent but not dismantle or stop work at the Fordo underground nuclear plant as
Israel demands.
3. Iran will export its stock of 110 kilograms of 20-percent enriched uranium
which can be used for producing a weapon. This material will be reprocessed and
returned as fuel plates from which it is much more difficult though not
impossible to make a bomb.
4. No ceiling will be placed on the production of low-enriched uranium of 3.5-5
percent purity. debkafile: Washington tacitly grants this concession by leaving
it off the record.
5. Iran will sign the Non-Proliferation Accord’s additional protocol and so
permit the expansion of IAEA on-site inspections.
6. The secret Iranian nuclear sites of which Washington has no explicit
knowledge will also be omitted from the record and therefore outside the sphere
of international inspection.
debkafile: The guiding principle governing America’s approach to the eight-point
interim accord therefore is, “Don’t know; don’t want to see.”
7. The US and European Union will dilute sanctions against Iran stage by stage.
debkafile: Here too, dual tactics will be used: The formal embargo on Iran’s
central bank and its exclusion from the SWIFT international money transfer
system will not be formally annulled. However a blind eye will be applied to any
small banks in the West executing Iran’s international business, just as the
sanction-busting measures used by China, Russia, India and Turkey to their trade
with Iran, were tolerated.
8. The US and Europe will revoke the oil embargo due to go into effect on July
1, 2012.
debkafile: While the Obama administration has given its “agreement-in-principle
on the interim deal,” the Iranian leader has not yet endorsed it. Hence the
Amano mission to Tehran Sunday.
If he comes away with a nod from Tehran, Obama will have achieved two key
objectives: the world power talks with Iran can proceed through sessions spaced
several weeks apart until the November date of the US presidential election, and
Israel will be constrained from striking Iran before that date.
Last week, Israel reiterated its demand for Iran to stop uranium enrichment at
any grade and dismantle the Fordo nuclear facility as non-negotiable.
The interim agreement drafted by Obama and Khamenei will therefore be
unacceptable to Israel because it provides for neither and so affords Iran
enough leeway to carry on developing a nuclear bomb program with no real
hindrance.
U.S., Iran seek closer ties
alongside nuclear program
By Amir Oren/15:56 19.05.12/ Haaretz
Washington radiates optimism after IAEA progresses toward inspection of Parchin
base; Leon Panetta emphasizes that ‘a military option is not being weighed at
this point.’The Obama administration and the Iranian regime of Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei are entering a critical week of decisions over the issue of Iran’s
nuclear program. The sides are moving toward a “warming of relations alongside
enrichment”, whereby the relationship between Washington and Tehran will
improve, while Iran continues enriching uranium without pursuing a weapons
program, but does not give up on its existing program. The threat of American or
Israeli military action still exists, yet no one is holding the gun to Iran’s
head.
Several developments have taken in the last couple of days, causing the White
House to radiate optimism:
- Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Yukiya Amano
announced that he will visit Tehran in two days for talks with head of the
Iranian negotiating team Saeed Jalili. The visit, which comes on the heels of a
round of talks in Vienna, as well as another evening of talks, reflects a
narrowing of the gap between the IAEA’s demand to allow its inspectors to access
the Parchin base - where it is suspected that Iran is developing nuclear weapons
- and the Iranian claim that Parchin is a military base exempt of all
inspection. Iran’s readiness to accept the inspection of Parchin – after
suspicious traces have been erased – will serve as proof of Iran’s new policy of
“transparency” over its nuclear program.
- In response to U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro’s statement that “a U.S.
military option is ready,” the spokesperson of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
stated that “a military option is not being weighed at this point,” and that
“American and international focus” is on diplomatic and economic measures on
Iran “so that it does the right thing.”
- In the framework of the G8 summit, Obama met with the heads of France,
Germany, Russia, Britain, Japan, Italy and Canada at Camp David in order to
agree on a coordinated position on Iran. The coordination is necessary in the
run-up to a meeting between German representatives and the P5+1 members in the
UN Security Council with the Iranian envoy this week in Baghdad. Of the six
countries slated to participate in the Baghdad meeting, only China is absent
from the Camp David summit.
- The location of the G8 summit, in the small pavilions of Camp David, with an
unbuttoned atmosphere devoid of entourages (each leader was allowed to be
accompanied by no more than two advisers), was intended to promote personal
agreements on the highest level, with no cumbersome mechanisms that would
prevent reaching quick decisions.
- Obama hosted French President Francois Hollande on Friday for a first meeting
since the latter’s election victory over Nicolas Sarkozy, and due to the
American worry (based on Hollande’s declarations during his campaign) that the
new government in Paris will become more moderate in its stance on Iran. Obama’s
adviser, Tom Donilon, told reporters before the meeting that on the issue of
Iran, like the issue of the pullout from Afghanistan, the expectation is that
France should “be a good ally” that will supply “good support.”
- The NATO conference, which will take place on Sunday and Monday in Chicago, is
not going to directly discuss the Iranian issue, but throughout the conference
it will be announced that the system to intercept surface-to-surface missiles,
which is partially located in Turkey and is meant to thwart the threat of
Iranian missiles on Europe, has reached an interim stage of operational
development.
- Pentagon spokesperson George Little said at the end of the meeting between
Panetta and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday that Panetta and other
officials shared with Barak and his colleagues in the Israeli government their
worry over a possible Israel Defense Forces strike in Iran. In an attempt to
soften Ambassador Shapiro’s words on the option of an American attack on Iran,
Little stated that the Pentagon is, by nature, a “planning organization”, whose
day to day activities include formulating emergency plans.
In addition, American officials said over the weekend were reported by the New
York Times as saying that the six world powers are willing to offer Iran an
incentive package in return for a freeze in enrichment. Among the incentives is
an offer to relieve the limits set on Iran’s aviation and energy sectors, but
without canceling the heavy sanctions on its oil industry, which are set to be
implemented in July.
Poll: Opposition to Iran going
nuclear widespread throughout world
By The Associated Press | May.18, 2012/
Opposition to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is widespread around the world,
including in neighboring countries Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, and support for
tough economic sanctions is high, according to poll released Friday. Support for
military intervention to prevent Iran from going nuclear is more divided, the
Pew Global Attitudes survey of 21 nations found. Among the countries polled,
support was highest in the United States at 63 percent and lowest in Russia at
24 percent, while at least 50 percent of the people surveyed in Britain, France,
Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic favored military action.
Greece and Turkey are the only NATO members where a majority of people surveyed
either did not support military intervention, or had no opinion, though
majorities in both countries oppose allowing the Islamic republic to obtain
nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and aimed solely
at producing nuclear energy. The U.S. and Israel suspect Iran is pursuing
nuclear weapons, but differences have emerged in how to persuade Tehran to curb
its program.
The poll comes ahead of International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano's
visit to Tehran over the weekend to sign a deal meant to allow the UN agency to
resume a long-stalled search for evidence that Iran worked on developing nuclear
arms. An IAEA statement announcing the Sunday trip said only that Amano would
"discuss issues of mutual interest with high Iranian officials" during his
one-day visit. But diplomats said the visit was scheduled to allow both sides to
agree on an accord outlining the mechanics of IAEA access to sites, information
and officials for its investigation into whether Iran secretly conducted nuclear
weapons research and development. The diplomats demanded anonymity because their
information was confidential.
Amano's trip comes just four days ahead of a key meeting between six world
powers and Iran where the six hope to wrest concessions from Tehran meant to
ease concerns that it wants nuclear arms.
The Pew poll found that Iran's actions in recent years have damaged its standing
in the neighboring Sunni-majority countries of Egypt and Jordan, where
favorability ratings are low, support for military intervention reached 50
percent and approval of strengthening economic sanctions is high.
But in Turkey, a major trade partner of Iran, a majority opposes toughening
sanctions.
Pakistan had the highest support for Iran's nuclear ambitions, at 50 percent.
The poll found that the Shiite minority in Lebanon overwhelmingly supports
Iran's nuclear program - 73 percent - though a strong majority of the
religiously divided Lebanese population opposes it. Iran is a majority Shiite
country.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received highly negative ratings in
Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon, though nearly half of Pakistanis viewed him
favorably.
Four rounds of UN sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to halt its uranium
enrichment, a process that has civilian uses but is also key to bomb-making. But
recent U.S. and European measures, including an oil embargo and financial and
banking sanctions, have bludgeoned Iran's economy by curtailing its ability to
carry on economic transactions with the international community.
The U.S. has plans in place to attack Iran if necessary to prevent it from
developing nuclear weapons, Washington's envoy to Israel said Thursday.
Washington says diplomacy and economic sanctions must be given a chance to run
its course, and is taking the lead in the ongoing talks between the six global
powers and Iran.
The poll found that clear majorities of Americans of all political leanings -
Republicans, Democrats and independents - support military action in Iran.
The survey of 26,210 people was conducted between March 17 and April 20 and has
a margin of sampling error that ranged between plus or minus 3.2 and plus or
minus 5.2 percentage points, depending on the country.
Prospects for Success in the
Iran Nuclear Negotiations
Patrick Clawson and Mehdi Khalaji
May 18, 2012 /Washington Institute
While Tehran may be preparing the ground for an interim agreement on terms the
West would accept, any deal-in-principle would have to be finalized, put into
practice, and followed by fuller agreements.
Both Tehran and Washington are downplaying expectations for the May 23 Baghdad
negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, Russia, China,
Britain, France, and Germany). Indeed, the prospects for eventual success are
uncertain. If Iran is truly prepared to deal, and if the parties find
appreciable overlap between what they are willing to concede, they may be able
to forge an interim agreement, though the value and durability of such a deal
may not be clear.
TEHRAN MAY BE PREPARING IRANIANS FOR A DEAL
To enable serious compromise, Iran must take two actions: prepare public opinion
and include more-skilled diplomats in the negotiating team. Regarding the first
item, Iranian officials consistently deny the impact of sanctions on both the
nuclear program and economy. This fact suggests that if Tehran decides to make a
concession, it will not want the move to be publicly perceived as a capitulation
to economic pressure. Instead, the regime would need to present any nuclear
accord as a victory for Iran.
On May 9, an editorial in Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's newspaper, Keyhan , asserted
that, for the first time since 2003, the P5+1 had agreed to take action if Iran
takes action: "This means that the West has prepared itself for giving up to
Iran's demands...This is why the Istanbul talks were successful." The author
concludes that May 23 will be an ordinary day for Iran, but one of the last
chances for the P5+1 and Washington to reach an agreement with the Islamic
Republic. On Thursday, another Keyhan editorial about the talks stated, "If in
early days Iran took a ste p backward, today Iran has made dozens of steps
forward...Iran welcomes agreement and success in the negotiations, but it does
not believe that negotiation necessarily should lead to agreement at any price."
Many other newspaper and web articles have argued along similar lines,
trumpeting Iran's success in its principled stance of resistance to Western
pressure. The regime tightly controls media coverage of the nuclear issue and
sanctions, providing strict guidelines about what themes to use, so the
triumphalist tone of recent articles should be seen as an indication that Tehran
is preparing the public for a deal.
To be sure, there are negative signs as well. As indicated above, the media
coverage includes assertions that the West needs a deal more than Iran does --
for instance, the May 9 Keyhan editorial also stated, "The Obama administration
is in a situation that continuation of the talks is much more important to him
that anything else, even [closing of] the Fordow facilities or [shipping out] 20
percent enriched uranium...because Obama has no priority beyond succeeding in
the presidential election. Therefore he has to first prevent the Zionists from
getting mobilized against him...and second stabilize the world oil market." The
author continues, "If Americans need these talks to be continued, why should
Iran respond to their demands?...What is Iran's benefit in getting involved in
talks?" Similarly, in his May 17 speech at Iran University of Science and
Technology, chief nuclear negotiator Said Jalili criticized Western officials
for remarks made after the Istanbul talks, saying they should be "more careful
in their statements and not miscalculate because what is going to end is not the
time for negotiation but the pressure on Iranian people." He continued,
"Undoubtedly, more pressure on the Iranian nation would lead to more
resistance."
The second prerequisite for an agreement is that Iran field a negotiating team
that is skilled at making a deal rather than resorting to the previous team's
tactic of just saying no. On one hand, there are few if any signs that the
former team, which was pushed out in 2005, has been assimilated into the current
team. On the other hand, members of the former team have recently resurfaced
after years out of the limelight, almost certainly at Khamenei's order. Hossein
Mousavian and Hassan Rouhani have traveled to Europe to meet with officials
behind the scenes, and Rouhani broke his public silence and spoke with the
Tehran-based Mehr Nameh journal for its May issue. In that interview, he
revealed that President Bush sent a message to Iran in April 2004 through
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director Mohamed ElBaradei, offering
to personally lead negotiations to resolve all outstanding differences with
Iran. Yet according to Rouhani, "The regime [nezam, typically used to refer to
the Supreme Leader] basically decided that we would not have negotiations with
America." He also portrayed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as ignorant and naive
about the nuclear issue, and implied that Iran had missed opportunities to
resolve the nuclear crisis with Washington and its Western allies due to
Khamenei's uncompromising attitude and Ahmadinejad's lack of skill and wisdom.
Rouhani would never be allowed to make such remarks unless someone in authority
approved.
ZONE OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENT
Various intriguing signs suggest there may a "zone of possible agreement" -- in
which the least that one side will accept overlaps with the most the other side
will offer -- enabling an interim deal. Whether such an agreement would be good
for U.S. and Western interests is another question. The two sides have been
dancing around a "freeze for freeze" arrangement for years, and the terms for
such a deal have become clearer.
20 percent enrichment cap. Iran would agree to freeze uranium enrichment at 20
percent, a level that puts the regime closer to a breakout capability if it
decided to quickly develop nuclear weapons. Some Iranian officials state that
the government has all the 20 percent uranium it needs for the Tehran Research
Reactor, and that additional production would be for future reactors or sale
abroad. The P5+1 would ask Iran for three additional steps: (1) shipping the
existing stockpile of 20 percent uranium abroad for fabrication into fuel plates
for the research reactor, since such plates are very difficult to convert for
use in a bomb; (2) suspending 20 percent enrichment at the underground Fordow
facility, a measure aimed at reducing Israel's concern that it may have to
attack soon or lose the ability to curb the nuclear program altogether; and (3)
pledging to accept the IAEA Additional Protocol, which gives the agency enhanced
inspection rights to verify Iranian compliance. The latter step could also
require Iran to answer the IAEA's questions about past activities. At this
stage, the P5+1 seem less likely to push on the issue of 3.5 percent enriched
uranium -- either the stockpiles or ongoing enrichment -- although they will
probably point out that this issue must be dealt with at some point. Presumably,
Tehran will negotiate hard on each of these issues.
Sanctions relief. The P5+1 would agree to freeze some of the most onerous
sanctions on Iran. In particular, Tehran may demand relief from
headline-grabbing sanctions such as the incoming EU oil embargo (scheduled to
begin July 1), the U.S. and EU ban on transactions with the Central Bank, or
some of the UN's high-profile restrictions. Yet action on these items is
unlikely unless Iran does much more than seems probable so any such demands
could be a deal breaker. Just as the West has offered Iran face-saving terms, so
too must Tehran offer a compromise that does not make the West appear weak.
Perhaps the P5+1 could offer benefits other than sanctions relief, as some U.S.
officials have hinted, though it is difficult to see what other measures Iran
would find sufficient.
Another possibility is to convince Iran that it could extract significant
benefits from less high-profile tweaking of the sanctions. For instance, while
the main Iranian banks have been excluded from the Society for Worldwide
Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), the system used for nearly all
global financial transfers, smaller private banks can still access it. If the EU
permitted those banks to act as intermediaries for the larger state banks, then
the SWIFT sanctions would have much less impact, becoming an inconvenience
rather than a ban without forcing the EU to publicly climb down. Other examples
include the very tough EU restrictions on property and indemnity (P&I) insurance
and reinsurance, which are important for shipping. These restrictions have had
much more impact on Iran's oil sales than the July 1 embargo will have. The EU
could modify the P&I ban in ways that appreciably improve Iran's finances but
have little effect on public opinion. In particular, the EU could postpone its
May 3 ruling that ships cannot get P&I insurance or reinsurance in Europe if
even one drop of the fuel they are using comes from Iran -- a requirement that
could force most large refineries worldwide to stop buying Iranian oil.
BAGHDAD AND BEYOND
The most important measure of success for the Baghdad talks is whether they
conclude with plans for accelerated, detailed follow-up discussions. If the next
high-level meeting is another five weeks away, that would be a very bad sign, as
would any failure to set up technical working groups. Reaching a full agreement
will probably take dozens more meetings, and a leisurely pace would suggest that
Iran is using the talks to stall while its nuclear program progresses.
The first step toward compromise may be an agreement-in-principle on an interim
deal. But that alone will not guarantee success -- much bargaining will be
needed to turn it into a formal agreement. Given the Iranian regime's record of
spotty implementation and quick suspension of past agreements, the United States
(and, perhaps, Europe) will want clear evidence of commitment before permitting
Tehran to reap many rewards.
Moreover, any interim deal will ultimately fail unless it leads to further
accords. The history of the Middle East suggests that nothing is as permanent as
an interim deal. Indeed, the grave risk is that an interim agreement with Iran
will become the de facto final deal, with nothing more achieved despite
protracted negotiations. Once the P5+1 have accepted such an agreement, it will
be difficult to explain why its terms are insufficient. Iran could gain much
traction by arguing that so long as it observes the deal's terms, then there is
no nuclear crisis, and therefore no basis for additional sanctions, much less
military action. Yet any interim deal would cover only the most urgent issues,
leaving Iran free to pursue many other problematic nuclear activities. To
forestall this possibility, the P5+1 should ensure that any sanctions relief
offered under an interim deal is temporary: for example, the West could agree
that certain sanctions will be suspended for six months, then revert to their
original level unless further agreements are reached.
A related, equally grave risk is that once a diplomatic process is under way,
diplomats often have difficulty recognizing when it has failed. All too often,
the process trumps the results. Therefore, unless all parties feel the time
pressure, the Baghdad negotiations and subsequent talks will become a sideshow
to the main act: Iran's continued nuclear progress.
*Patrick Clawson is director of research at The Washington Institute. Mehdi
Khalaji is a senior fellow at the Institute.
G8 leaders broadly united
on Iran and Syria: U.S. official
19/05/2012/CAMP DAVID, (Reuters) - Group of Eight leaders agreed in their
initial discussions at Camp David on Friday that Iran needs to disclose more
about its nuclear ambitions and that it was time to focus on a political
transition in Syria, a U.S. official said. The leaders, including newly elected
French President Francois Hollande and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev,
also stressed North Korea needed to adhere to international norms on nuclear
issues and said it would face more isolation if it "continues down the path of
provocation," the official said.
The Friday evening dinner, hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama, was the first
opportunity for the G8 leaders to discuss global security concerns. They will
talk about the euro zone crisis and other economic issues, including oil market
pressures at the summit on Saturday. The U.S. official described "a sense of
optimism" about conditions in Myanmar, and said the leaders gathered at Camp
David, in the Maryland countryside, pledged to cooperate on providing aid to the
former Burma. The Camp David summit comes days before the next round of Iran
talks, to be held in Baghdad. The G8 leaders "affirmed the importance of having
a uniform effort in approaching those Baghdad talks next week," the U.S.
official said. "Each of the leaders noted the urgency for Iran to take concrete
steps to assure the international community of the peaceful purpose of its
(nuclear) program," the official said. On the crackdown by Damascus, the
official described broad agreement on "the need to move rapidly toward a plan
for political transition within Syria" and said that while Medvedev did not
outright support that call, he did not oppose it either. Medvedev is standing in
for Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Friday-Saturday G8 meeting, which
also draws together leaders from the United States, Canada, Britain, France,
Germany, Italy and Japan. At the end of the Friday night dinner, Obama had a
chocolate birthday cake delivered for Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda,
whose birthday is on Sunday. The G8 at Camp David will end on Saturday
afternoon, at which time Obama and several of the other leaders will head to
Chicago for a NATO summit.
Don’t they mean, “in your service, Iran”?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
Isn’t it strange for the Shiite Bahraini opposition to announce large-scale
demonstrations on Friday in Bahrain, calling this the "in your service my
homeland” protests, against union between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which is
something that has not happened yet, at the same time that Iranians were calling
for similar protests in Iran?
Only the most stupid of activists – or shall we say politicians – would pay any
attention to such a call, telling the Shiite Bahraini opposition that now is not
the right time, and that if you take to the streets to demonstrate this would
mean that you are followers of Iran. Whether protests do take place in Bahrain
or not, the most important thing is that the Shiite opposition groups there have
called for such protests, and this includes the al-Wefaq National Islamic
Society. Therefore this call for protests – coming one day after the Iranian
calls – automatically means that the Shiite opposition in Bahrain is sectarian
and subordinate to Iran. In this case, when we say this is “strange”, this is
not to imply or insinuate that the Shiite opposition in Bahrain is sectarian,
for this is clear and undeniable, rather what is surprising is: can the Shiite
opposition tell us what democratic model in Iran they would like implemented in
Bahrain? Would they like to see the transfer of power, even though the only
thing we see in Iran is the rule of the mullahs and the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard, not to mention election rigging? Do they, for example, believe that the
Iranian parliament has any influence or are they just eager to follow the
Wilayat al-Faqih [Guardianship of the Jurists] model? Do they want to see the
Bahraini media following the example of the Iranian media, where journalists are
killed and imprisoned, and newspapers shut down? Or does the Bahraini opposition
want to see economic openness and the concept of development, which is something
that is not present in Iran, the international pariah which is facing sanctions
from more than half the international community? Have the Bahraini Shiite
opposition not noticed that the domestic opposition to the Wali al-Faqih regime
in Iran equals – if not exceeds – half the population of the Gulf, and this is
not to mention Iran’s suppressed Sunni community, as well as other non-Shiites
in the country?
This is truly confusing; however it exposes the Shiite Bahraini opposition, and
disproves its counterfeit democratic slogans, whilst it also serves as a
response to all those who attempt to mislead western media outlets and
international organizations, in addition to exposing all those who sympathize
with them in the Gulf and the Arab world. This does not sanctify sectarianism in
our region, rather it is a call to reject sectarianism, and this is something
that cannot happen unless the Shiite intellectuals in the Gulf, particularly
Bahrain, take action and tell the truth, standing up to the extremists within
their own ranks, regardless of the price. This is precisely what the Sunnis in
the Gulf did, particularly in Saudi Arabia, when the extremists – regardless of
their political or religious orientation – sought to hijack public opinion and
utilize this as a weapon, transforming the world into a house of war. The
intellectuals – as well as governments – continue to stand up, on all levels,
against extremism, in order to reform those who can be reformed, particularly
with regards to public opinion; therefore the intellectuals have not left the
scene empty for the Sunni extremists to exploit, whether we are talking about
Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda or anybody else. Today, the Shiite intellectuals must
take a serious stance against Iran, Hassan Nasrallah and Bashar al-Assad. It is
shameful for the Shiite Bahraini opposition to be silent with regards to what is
happening in Syria today, therefore the Bahraini Shiite intellectuals must speak
up, particularly as they witness the Bahraini Shiite opposition taking part in
demonstrations that should not be called “in your serve, my homeland” protests,
but rather “in your service, Iran”!
Syrian opposition: Israel is
Assad's biggest ally
Roi Kais Published: 05.19.12/Ynetnews
Syrian National Council head Burhan Ghalioun tells Saudi paper that Syrian
opposition has no intention to normalize relations with Israel after fall of
regime. Leader of the Syrian opposition bloc Burhan Ghalioun said Saturday that
the Syrian regime signed an agreement with Israel, which he called "the main
enemy of the Syrian revolution. "In an interview with Saudi newspaper al Youm,
Ghalioun negated the possibility of normalizing relations with Israel, if and
when President Bashar Assad's regime falls. We are convinced that the Syrian
regime's strongest ally is Israel," he told the paper, adding that the
international community's lack of action in Syria stems from concerns for the
Jewish State's safety. Ghalioun reiterated the Syrian opposition's position by
which "the continued occupation of the Golan Heights severely undermines Syria's
national sovereignty, which it will only regain after the occupied territories
are returned. "Asked about a recent statement made by a member of the
opposition, by which Syria will establish relations with Israel after Assad's
fall, Ghalioun said: "Who is the fool who said such a thing?" As for Iran,
Ghalioun stated "it is fighting a real war against the Syrian people. "Some
Iranian officials made contact with us, but we made it clear to them that if
they want to ensure their interests in the future Syria, they must stop
supporting the Syrian regime, or at the very least issue a statement saying they
are not against recognizing the future of the Syrian people in a democratic
state like all other countries."
Syria’s war enters third gear
Michael Young, May 18, 2012 /Now Lebanon
A fire consumes a car in Rastan, where opposition forces ambushed a military
base, killing 23 soldiers, a sign that weapons are making their way into the
country and are being used. (AFP photo)
In a bombshell revelation, both literally and figuratively, the Washington Post
reported this week that weapons were reaching the Syrian opposition, and that
the process was being partly coordinated by the United States. This represents a
fundamentally new stage in the Syrian conflict, and in Washington’s approach to
it.
The article, citing Syrian opposition activists and American and foreign
officials, noted that the Syrian rebels “have begun receiving significantly more
and better weapons in recent weeks,” and that the effort was financed by Persian
Gulf nations. Among the early signs that the arms were making a difference was
that opposition forces had overrun a military base in Rastan, killing 23
soldiers.
As one opposition figure put it, “Large shipments have got through. Some areas
are loaded with weapons.”
Decades ago, British journalist Patrick Seale wrote a book titled “The Struggle
for Syria.” The topic was how post-independence Syria had found itself pulled
every which way by the regional rivalry between Egypt and Iraq—a prize sought by
both. The situation today has again made of Syria a valuable prize in a proxy
war, this time between Iran and the mostly Sunni Arab states as well as the
United States on the one hand; but also between the United States, backed by
several European powers, and Russia on the other.
These two interconnected wheels render the Syrian situation even more complex
and volatile than it already is. The American calculation is that the first will
ultimately overcome the second: In other words, once the Russians realize that
the regime of Bashar al-Assad cannot survive militarily, Moscow will reverse
course and seek some form of transition away from Assad’s rule.
That may be true, and it may not be. But the situation today is, plainly,
heading toward further escalation, as the plan of Kofi Annan, the United
Nations-Arab League envoy, lies in tatters. This week, a particularly
experienced Lebanese politician I happened to be visiting heard that a local
security official had predicted the Assad regime would soon prevail. The
politician laughed, replying, “If he thinks that, then he’s mistaken. We’re only
at the start of this.”
The United States has been all over the place on Syria, and it’s difficult to
explain what its intentions are. One State Department official described the
American role this way: “We are increasing our nonlethal assistance to the
Syrian opposition, and we continue to coordinate our efforts with friends and
allies in the region and beyond in order to have the biggest impact on what we
are collectively doing.”
That’s a particularly clever way of hinting that the Obama administration is
helping determine where the weapons and assistance are going, perhaps ensuring
they do not reach the wrong people. Another official said there were currently
no military or intelligence personnel on the ground in Syria. But that did not
mean there weren’t any in the past. In fact, some months ago there were
unconfirmed reports in Beirut that the CIA had sent agents to Syria to examine
ways of organizing the opposition, but that they had come away frustrated with
the disorganization among Assad’s foes.
Equally interesting, the United States is also contacting Syria’s Kurds to see
if they might open an eastern front, so to speak, against the Assads. While the
Kurds are divided, the reality is that the Syrian crisis, not to say civil war,
is reinforcing the centrifugal forces in the country. Even if Assad can hold on
for a while, it is virtually impossible to imagine him again re-imposing his
writ over a unified country. The Kurds will not return to the conditions that
prevailed just over a year ago, and even Alawites, Christians and Druze may no
longer feel secure in a united Syria after everything that has passed.
We are already beyond the stage where Bashar al-Assad can refloat his sinking
ship. The dynamics are all moving against him. At some stage Russia, who, with
Iran, is the regime’s principal bulwark, will have to determine whether it
prefers to pursue a proxy war against Washington, Europe and the Sunni Arab
states, or to take on the difficult but politically lucrative task of guiding
regime change in Damascus. The Russians claim they are not wedded to Assad’s
remaining in office. If so, crunch time is fast approaching.
Assad has pursued sham reforms in recent months, topped off by a nonsensical
parliamentary election a few days ago. At the best of times Syrian elections
were a travesty. And yet the Russians once regarded this kabuki dance as
necessary for neutralizing hostility to the Syrian regime. That’s not surprising
coming from Vladimir Putin. But most Syrians are not dupes. Alas, more war lies
ahead.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. He
tweets @BeirutCalling.
Canada Tightens Sanctions Against Assad Regime
May 18, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following
statement:
“The ongoing, appalling violence perpetrated by the Assad regime against the
people of Syria compels Canada to further isolate the regime and its backers.
“Canada is implementing additional measures, which include sanctions prohibiting
the export of certain goods to Syria; sanctions against Syria’s state-run radio
and television, the government-owned General Organization of Tobacco, and the
petroleum exporter Altoun Group; and sanctions against three individuals closely
associated with the regime.
“Our expanded sanctions target the regime, not the Syrian people.
“The international community must redouble its efforts to get adherence to Joint
Special Envoy Kofi Annan’s six-point plan or move on and explore other
diplomatic solutions to the crisis.
“Assad continues to blatantly disregard the international community while
innocent people perish.
“Canada stands with the Syrian people and supports their demands for freedom,
dignity, and a better, brighter future.”
For more information, please visit Regulations Amending the Special Economic
Measures (Syria) Regulations.
- 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 Syria
Effective immediately, Canada prohibits the export of certain goods to Syria.
Also, the additional three individuals and three entities announced today, and
named below will be subject to an asset freeze and a prohibition on economic
dealings. With these new measures, the total number of designations rises to
become 129 individuals and 44 entities.
Additional individuals
Salim Altoun, Chairman and CEO, Altoun Group
Youssef Klizli, assistant to Salim Altoun, Chairman and CEO, Altoun Group
Adib Mayaleh, Governor, Central Bank of Syria
General Organization of Radio and TV (GORT)/L’organisme général de la radio et
la télévision
Altoun Group
General Organization of Tobacco/Monopole syrien des tabacs
Additional entities
For more information on Canada’s sanctions against Syria, please see Syria.
Context
On May 24, 2011, Canada announced targeted sanctions against the Syrian regime
in response to the ongoing violent crackdown by Syrian military and security
forces against Syrians peacefully protesting for democracy and human rights.
These measures, which remain in place, were a blend of administrative measures
and actions taken under the authority of the Special Economic Measures Act and
were consistent with initiatives taken by like-minded partners, including the
United States and the European Union. They included:
Travel restrictions: Canada ensured that persons associated with the Syrian
government who are believed to be inadmissible to Canada are prevented from
travelling to Canada.
Asset freeze: Canada imposed an asset freeze against 25 people associated with
the current Syrian regime and seven entities involved in security and military
operations against the Syrian people. This included a prohibition on dealing in
the property of listed individuals and entities, including the provision of
financial services and making property available to individuals and entities.
A ban on specific exports and imports: Canada placed a ban under the Export and
Import Permits Act on the export from Canada to Syria of goods and technologies
that are subject to export controls. These items include arms, munitions, and
military, nuclear and strategic items that are intended for use by the Syrian
armed forces, police or other governmental agencies.
A suspension of all bilateral cooperation agreements and initiatives with Syria.
A news release announcing the May 24, 2011, sanctions can be found at PM
announces sanctions on Syria.
On August 13, 2011, Canada expanded sanctions by imposing the asset freeze and
travel restrictions on four additional individuals and two additional entities
associated with the Syrian regime.
For more information on the August 13 announcement, please visit Statement by
Minister Baird on Situation in Syria.
On October 4, 2011, Canada imposed the following additional measures:
An asset freeze and travel restrictions on 27 additional individuals and 12
additional entities associated with the Assad regime;
A prohibition on the importation, purchase or transportation of petroleum or
petroleum products from Syria;
A prohibition on new investment in the Syrian oil sector;
A prohibition on the provision or acquisition of financial services for the
purpose of facilitating the importation, purchase or transportation of Syrian
petroleum or petroleum products;
A prohibition on the provision or acquisition of financial services for the
purpose of investing in the Syrian oil sector.
For information on the October 4 announcement, please visit Canada Expands
Sanctions Against Syria.
On December 23, 2011, Canada further expanded its sanctions against the Syrian
regime. The measures prohibit all imports from Syria, with the exception of
food; all new investment in Syria; and the export to Syria of equipment,
including software, for the monitoring of telephone and Internet communications.
Canada also imposed an asset freeze and prohibited economic dealings with 33
additional individuals and 10 additional entities associated with the Assad
regime.
For information on the December 23 announcement, please visit Canada Further
Expands Sanctions Against Syria.
On January 25, 2012, Canada expanded its sanctions by adding the names of 22
individuals and seven entities associated with the Assad regime to its list of
designated persons.
For information on the January 25 announcement, please visit Canada Further
Expands Sanctions Against Syria.
On March 5, 2012, Canada further expanded its sanctions by adding the names of
seven individuals—all senior members of the Assad regime—and one entity, the
Central Bank of Syria, to the list of those subject to a dealings prohibition
and asset freeze. The amendments also introduced a complete ban on the provision
or acquisition of financial or other related services to, from, or for the
benefit of, or on the direction or order of Syria or any person in Syria.
For information on the March 5 announcement, please visit Canada Further Expands
Sanctions Against Syria’s Assad Regime.
On March 30, 2012, Canada imposed further sanctions against Syria by imposing an
asset freeze and dealings prohibition on 12 additional individuals and two
entities associated with the Assad regime.
For information on the March 30 announcement, please visit Canada Expands
Sanctions Against Assad Regime.
The measures announced are consistent with Canada’s foreign-policy priority to
promote freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world.
Watching the new state of South
Sudan fall into chaos
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
Ha'aretz
May 18, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3234/south-sudan-chaos
When the state of South Sudan came into existence last July, with great fanfare,
Israel was one of the first nations to recognize it, having provided support for
South Sudanese leaders since the 1960s during the first civil war. Indeed, in
late December, Salva Kiir Mayardit - the president of South Sudan - came to
Jerusalem, where he discussed the unique prospect of locating the country's
embassy there. It was therefore no surprise that President Shimon Peres spoke so
enthusiastically of the visit as a "moving and historic moment" for him and
Israel.
Now, less than a year later, in light of Israel's plans to deport South Sudanese
refugees, it is worth taking a look at how the world's youngest nation is
faring.
Arguably, the worst problem the country faces is tribalism, despite the unity
that was cultivated among South Sudanese rebels during decades of resistance to
Khartoum's aggressive campaigns of Islamization against the animists and
Christians in the south, prior to independence.
Early signs of this malaise became apparent when low-level clashes between the
Lou Nuer and Murle tribes in Jonglei state in the east of the country - going as
far back as 2009 - suddenly intensified in August 2011. By the start of 2012,
over 3,000 were dead and more than 100,000 displaced. The origins of these
tensions lie in the mutual theft of cattle.
In an attempt to calm tensions, an agreement was signed early this month to end
the violence, by tribal leaders representing six ethnic groups in Jonglei: the
Dinka (who are regarded as politically dominant in South Sudan's government),
Kachipo, Jie, Nuer, Anyuak and Murle.
Stability in Jonglei is crucial to South Sudan's economic future, because it
offers a potential pipeline route that can go through Ethiopia to Djibouti,
making it possible for the country to export its vast oil reserves without
having to rely on its northern neighbor. However, Sudan has not only imposed
heavy transit fees on South Sudan; it has also permitted itself the liberty of
seizing part of the oil production when those fees haven't been paid.
Yet the unilateral decision to respond to Sudan's policies by suspending oil
production before it had laid an alternative pipeline can only be described as
folly on the part of the leadership in Juba, the capital.
As a confidential World Bank report recently leaked to the Sudan Tribune
revealed, the shutdown of the oil industry - together with the austerity
measures subsequently adopted by the government - could increase the poverty
rate from 51 percent this year to 83 percent by 2013, while infant mortality is
expected to double in the same period.
The reason such startling statistics could become reality is that, like
post-Saddam Iraq, South Sudan is extremely dependent on petroleum, with oil
exports accounting for 98 percent of government revenue. Unfortunately, Mayardit
and his cabinet appear to be oblivious to the implications of their
decision-making.
Meanwhile, it is not only in the rural areas of South Sudan that tribalism is
evident. The phenomenon extends even to the university campus in the capital. As
the Dubai newspaper The National reported, a minor incident at a soccer match on
March 27 among Juba University alumni led to a square-off between 100 students
the following morning. Since then, the university has been closed.
The newspaper also interviewed the president of the student union at the
university, Ajang Ajang, who pointed out that "people still think about their
tribes first, their nation second." Many members of the union sought to expel
him after he decided to ban tribal associations on campus in February.
If such tribalism is evident on the country's main university campus among
students who will likely constitute South Sudan's future elite, then it should
come as no surprise that the president appears to be displaying authoritarian
tendencies.
For when sectarianism and tribalism become institutionalized, it often follows
that politicians become preoccupied with holding on to personal rewards of power
instead of tackling national problems, and so a leading figure will probably
emerge to assert himself as a strongman. Mayardit has been behaving in precisely
this manner.
For example, The National recently highlighted the case of James Okuk, an
employee of South Sudan's foreign ministry. When he returned home from a trip to
Brazil in October he was arrested by police, held at an abandoned house for four
days and charged with "offending the president" simply because he wrote some
articles critical of Mayardit's tenure.
Okuk is now on trial. The case may partly have to do with the fact that Okuk's
uncle is Lam Akol, who broke away from the country's ruling political faction -
the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM ) - to form the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement: Democratic Change (SPLM-DC ) in 2009.
Akol has reportedly been resented by the Dinkas who dominate the SPLM for quite
some time, but he has the support of the Shilluk people of the country's
northeast. Of course, Akol's residing in Khartoum while his children finish
their schooling there hardly helps his image.
When South Sudan declared independence, there were high hopes for a model
democratic country in sub-Saharan Africa, but developments so far point to a
country plagued by tribalism, government authoritarianism and disastrous
economic policies that could greatly exacerbate poverty levels in the country,
such that one may have to agree with the World Bank's fears of a "state
collapse." A bleak outlook indeed.
*Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University,
and an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Question: "What does the Bible teach about human
trafficking?"
gotquestion.org/Answer: Simply put, human trafficking is a modern term for
slavery. Anytime a person is held in a forced labor situation, regardless of the
reason, it is defined as human trafficking.
The United Nations defines human trafficking as “the recruitment,
transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the
threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of
deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the
giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.
Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution
of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services,
slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”
Experts have noted that human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal
activity in the world and one of the most lucrative. Overall the International
Labour Organization estimated the human trafficking industry at over $31 billion
per year in 2005. Some estimate that as many as 29 million people exist in
slavery worldwide, more than twice the number of slaves transported during the
entire Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
The problem is clearly large and growing. What does the Bible teach about human
trafficking? This question cannot adequately be answered without a clear
understanding of God’s value of human life. The Bible records that when God
created humans, He created them in His image (Genesis 1:26). Every life is of
infinite value and God loves all individuals.
As a result, God teaches love for our neighbor (Matthew 19:19) as well as love
for those in need (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus was the one who taught the Golden Rule:
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this
sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). Further, Proverbs 31:8-9
teaches us to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the
rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of
the poor and needy.” These principles certainly all apply to those hurt through
the illegal practice of human trafficking.
How can people today practice these biblical principles of helping those in the
bondage of slavery? First, we must pray for those in bondage. As James 5:16
notes, “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” Human
trafficking is a clear need that requires God’s power for any adequate change to
occur.
Second, we must speak out on behalf of those in need (Proverbs 31:8-9). Those in
our schools, businesses, churches, and community often are unaware of the
problem of human trafficking and how to help. Perhaps God is calling you to be
one of the people who would speak out and help provide justice to those without
a voice in this area.
Third, we must act to help those in bondage. These actions can involve a variety
of means, ranging from volunteering in an anti-trafficking organization to
financial giving to teaching about the topic where you live. A growing number of
organizations have emerged in recent years that provide new opportunities for
Christians to serve in this area. International Justice Mission (www.ijm.org)
provides many international opportunities, while others, such at Mercy Movement
(www.mercymovement.com) concentrate on addressing the issue in the United
States.
One additional way to provide practical assistance is through supporting fair
trade and survivor-made products. Fair trade products include items sold by
those who adhere to practices that remove any unfair labor practices, especially
slavery. Coffee, teas, chocolate, and fresh flowers are common products that
offer fair trade alternatives to help keep slavery out of the supply chain.
The retail chain Ten Thousand Gifts is an example of this practice applied to an
entire store, while the Christian organization Worldcrafts (www.worldcrafts.org)
offers the opportunity to buy international gifts from artisans who have escaped
slave situations and other poverty-related conditions.
In summary, human trafficking is a gross indignity against men, women, and
children who have been created in God’s image. As followers of Christ, we have a
responsibility to pray, to speak out against human trafficking and modern
slavery, and to live in ways that help create change in the lives of those
impacted by this tragic crime.
For further insights on this topic, please visit: Human Trafficking Statistics
Recommended Resource: Not in My Town: Exposing and Ending Human Trafficking and
Modern Day Slavery by Burroughs & Powell