LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS
BULLETIN
December 31/07
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint
Matthew 2,13-15.19-23.
When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph
in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and
stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy
him."Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for
Egypt. He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said
through the prophet might be fulfilled, "Out of Egypt I called my son."When
Herod had died, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in
Egypt and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of
Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead." He rose, took the child
and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus
was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go back
there. And because he had been warned in a dream, he departed for the region of
Galilee.He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been
spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazorean."
Free Opinions and Releases
Misestimating Iran's Nuclear Strategies-Dr. Walid
Phares-International Analyst Network-December 30/07
Happy New Terrorism!-By: Mshari Al-Zaydi -Asharq Alawsat-December
30/07
2007: A Global Assessment of the Confrontation.American
Thinker - By Walid Phares-December 30/07
A Call for a Coup d'Etat. By:
Hassan Haydar. December 30/07
Interview with the Lebanese
MP. Antoine Zahra from Naharnet
Zahra Predicts Arab, European, American Pressures on Syria.
Naharnet. December 30/07
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for December 30/07
Arab League to Tackle Lebanon's Presidential Crisis-Naharnet
Saniora Accuses Berri of Seizing Parliament Power, Berri Counter
Attacks-Naharnet
UNIFIL steps up supervision to deter Hezbollah re-armament-Ha'aretz
Hezbollah attacks Lebanon ¡®s government-Ya
Libnan
Brammertz From Lebanon To Former Yugoslavia-Naharnet
France to boycott Syria over Lebanon crisis-Africasia
UNIFIL steps up supervision activity to deter Hezbollah re-armament-Ha'aretz
Specter, Patrick Kennedy Visit Syria-The
Associated Press
Israel Wants to
Distance Syria from Hizbullah, Iran-Naharnet
Sarkozy after Meeting
Mubarak: France Mission in Lebanon Completed-Naharnet
Hajj Hassan: Government
Works to Ensure U.S. Interests-Naharnet
Option Group Holds Opposition Responsible
for Power Vacuum-Naharnet
Cabinet Approves 700 Decrees Left Unsigned
by Lahoud-Naharnet
LF Warns Berri against turning Lebanon
into Parliamentarian Regime-Naharnet
Moussa Fears 'Complicated' Lebanon
Situation Could have Impact on Arabs-Naharnet
Aoun: Government is Coordinating with
External Powers to Preserve Power-Naharnet
Franjieh: No President before Opposition
Obtains Guarantees on Veto Power-Naharnet
Gemayel Warns against Prolonging
Presidential Void-Naharnet
Iranian negotiation
By: Lawson Kass Hanna
Dear all,
One of the syrian agents in Lebanon told us yesterday that it is not a problem
for the prime minister Seniora to stay.
what does this mean?
it means that the Iranian regime is telling Hezbollah and the Syrian regime to
buy some time in Lebanon if they are not able to take over the power.
The Iranian regime is telling their allies to keep the situation stable in
Lebanon and not to initiate a war between the Sunni and the Shiite because Iran
is in a process of negotiating with the western world a deal where Iran will be
the police of the region.
on the other side, the western countries are not allowing the smuggling of
weapons from Turkey and Jordan through the Syrian borders to avoid a civil war
in Syria which would change the situation in Syria.
in the negotiation, the Iranians are promising the western world that they can
create stability in the region. right now they stopped the terrorism in iraq to
prove that they can keep the situation under control.
One of the pending issue in the negotiation is the Lebanese situation as the
western world is not willing to give up Lebanon as part of the deal with Iran.
Iranian are promising the west that they don't have any bad intention toward
Lebanon and they want to help.
at the same time the Iranian are telling their allies to buy some time in
Lebanon and keep the situation stable till they finalize their negotiations and
get what they want.
The iranians are cheating the west and they have a plan to take over Lebanon,
the same way Joseph Staline cheated the western world alliance about the romania
and Poland issue during the world war and later on took over these two
countries.
to all my friends the Lebanese patriots, i ask you to be very careful.
To
all Lebanese Patriots,
By: Lawson Kass Hanna
One of the Syrian agents in Lebanon notified us yesterday that there will be no
election without certain conditions.
it is very obvious that they will not elect General Michel Suleiman.
Mr. Raymond Eddeh used to tell me in Paris that I have to repeat myself again in
order to remind the Lebanese people of the facts.
When the Syrian president Hafez Assad appointed Mr. Elias Harawi as president of
Lebanon, he accepted to appoint Lahoud as head of the army.
if Lahoud does not follow orders, the Syrian regime can ask President Harawi to
replace him, and if president Harawi messes up with Syrians, they can use the
council of minister against him.
this is the same scenario that happened at the time Mr. Amine Jemayel was
president. they used the council of ministers against him when he wanted to
replace Michel Aoun.
When the Syrian president Hafez Assad appointed Mr. Lahoud as President of
Lebanon, he also interviewed Michel Suleiman and other army officers but finally
picked Suleiman as head of the army.
if Lahoud messes up with Syrians, they can use the army or the council of
ministers against him. the same goes with Suleiman and they can use the
president to replace him.
for the Syrian regime nothing has change regardless if they are inside or
outside the country. they want a weak President who does not control the army,
appoint the army commander and they want to secure their share in the council of
ministers in order to control the president.
this has been always the way the Syrian were able to manage and control the
country.
this time the Lebanese president is going to reflect what the Lebanese are
looking for in a president, and the army commander is going to be based on the
people will.
for the Syrian to accept general Michel Suleiman as president, they are asking
their ally in Lebanon (Hezbollah) to approve the name of the future army
commander and to secure their share in the council of ministers. This has been
always the same plan and the way the Syrian were able to manage and control the
country.
A Call for a "Coup d'Etat"
Hassan Haydar
Al Hayat - 28/12/07//
There are usually many motives behind the military coups d'etat that third world
countries witness, including the Middle East. This is even though the Arabs who
belong to this world and to an underdeveloped one have fled from this kind of
"policy" a while ago. Some are triggered by military men's belief that rulers
are corrupt and there is no way to fix, reform and restore their regime except
through armed force. Others are rooted in a political ideology espoused by some
officers but not by a wide mass base that is enough to prompt a change through
vote ballots, if available. Still others can be inspired by a close or faraway
nation which has a certain influence or interests that require protection or
reinforcement. Some can be elicited by personal interests and a simple yearning
for ruling.
Lebanon has witnessed in its modern history a revolutionary attempt during the
era of President Fouad Chehab. It was undertaken by officers belonging to the
"Syrian National Party" but it was doomed to failure. Some considered forming a
government of military men towards the end of the era of President Amine Gemayel
a sort of "a coup d'état" though it was constitutional. But this country is
witnessing today a vicious crisis that practically started with the
assassination of PM Rafik Hariri and became more prominent when the Shiite
Ministers left the government. It is a crisis that paralyzed the institutions
and the economy, and hindered the election of a new president for the republic.
There doesn't seem to be any solution for it on the horizon as a result of the
severe political rift between the ruling majority and the opposition, the
prevailing mistrust between them, and the exchange of subjection and monopoly
accusations.
The striking factor, however, is that they are all in agreement regarding the
candidacy of the Head of the Army General Michel Suleiman for the Presidency.
The parliamentary majority upholds his candidacy to date and has called for
amending the constitution in the parliament to protect his mandate from any
speculation or contestation. The opposition rushed in to confirm that he was
their candidate in first place and stood up for this candidacy, not to mention
that they praised his deeds and history. Suleiman's candidacy was also praised
by France, welcomed by the US, supported by Syria, and acclaimed by Iran. Thus,
it seemed that the elections were hours away and were subject to minor
negotiations on the way to amend the constitution and its details. However, the
Lebanese were surprised to learn that the conflicts between the Lebanese parties
transcended the mere election of a president and encompassed all that revolves
around politics, economy, and consensus. They also learned that the stream of
conditions and counter conditions is endless, and what is publicized is
different from what is being harbored and what is said is different from it is
being whispered. The reports and statements carry more than one denotation and
connotation. They became convinced that it is an open crisis and is probably
awaiting the outcome of the Arab summit of Damascus next March. It may also
linger until the following summit. Thus, they may have to remain without a
president, without an active parliament, and without a full-fledged government
until further notice.
In light of this complicated situation that is intertwined and tangled with the
local, regional and international situation, it is probably the right of the
Lebanese to call for a "military coup d'état" as long as there is an existing
consensus to have the head of the army take over the presidency as a fait
accompli. This way, he can overcome the rifts and hurdles of the politicians and
revive the institutions on a balanced basis. He can form a government of
resigned technocrats whose main mission would be to reassure the Lebanese about
their future by focusing on their actual, rather created, problems.
But the real questions is: what will the army do then about the other "armies"
present on the Lebanese territory, whether local or regional, and will they
allow him to fulfill his mission to keep Lebanon at bay of conflicts and their
upshots
UNIFIL steps up supervision activity to deter
Hezbollah re-armament
By Barak Ravid - Haaretz
In the past few weeks UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) forces in
South Lebanon have heightened supervision of bridges and passages over the
Litani River to deter Hezbollah from moving weapons from the North to the South,
particularly in areas bordering Israel. UN forces say UNIFIL commander Maj.-Gen.
Claudio Graziano of Italy believes the forces under his control are preventing
the entry of heavy weapons into South Lebanon. Israeli officials fear that
Lebanon's political instability - the country has not had a president since
November 23 - will contribute to a renewal of Hezbollah's power.
For several months Hezbollah has been rebuilding itself, especially in the area
north of the Litani. New medium- and long-range rocket units have been digging
into positions and bases created in this area. The organization makes no secret
of the fact that it wants to be able to move freely south of the river as well,
as reflected in the major exercise it held a few months ago. Despite Hezbollah's
boasts to the effect that the exercise proved that its military might was
restored, Israeli sources stress that it was a command exercise only, without
the participation of field units. Advertisement
UN sources note the recent decision to step up supervision of the north-to-south
arms routes as well as UNIFIL activity in the Hezbollah "nature reserves" aimed
at preventing militants from reoccupying these former strongholds. It must also
be noted that UNIFIL has not apprehended any trucks carrying rockets or other
heavy armaments.
Israel satisfied with UN force
Israeli military officials express great satisfaction with UNIFIL's activities.
A senior Jerusalem official singled out the European units of UNIFIL,
particularly the Italian, French and Spanish contingents, for their professional
manner of conduct. "They do their job and cause significant discomfort to
Hezbollah," he said. "They have had quite a few successes."
Senior Israeli officials who are familiar with events in Lebanon, however,
express increasing unease over the effect of the current political crisis in
Beirut on South Lebanon. The country's various factions have still not agreed on
a presidential candidate and approval for the main candidate, army chief of
staff Michel Suleiman, does not appear imminent.
"The political crisis in Lebanon has suspended processes related to UN Security
Council Resolution 1701," a senior Israeli official admits. "In the best case
scenario, the situation in Lebanon won't improve and in the worst case it will
deteriorate. We could see a return to the pre-war situation, in which Hezbollah
can become more powerful unobstructed," the source said.
UN officials point an accusatory finger regarding Lebanon's political crisis
toward Syria, claiming that "Syria defeats every attempt at an agreement and
pushes Hezbollah and its other allies in Lebanon to increase their demands all
the time." They say that Syria's President Bashar Assad wants to demonstrate at
any price that "nothing moves in Lebanon without him" and predict that as a
result the crisis in Lebanon will continue for months to come.
The main problem, as the UN officials see it, is that not enough pressure is
being placed on Assad. "He will only move if he senses a threat to the stability
of his regime," they said. "If the Americans were, for example, to send ships
close to Lebanon's beaches, that would send a clear message to Assad, but
they're not doing that."
The Arab world is nearly the only means left for pressuring Assad. Next March an
Arab summit is scheduled to convene in Damascus. The hope of many in Europe and
in Washington is that prominent Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia will
boycott the conference to send Assad a clear message telling him to stop
interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs.
Happy New Terrorism!
Asharq Al-Awsat’s
Mshari Al-Zaydi
29/12/2007
After every announcement made by Saudi Arabia that a fundamentalist terrorist
group has been arrested the same question follows: what is the failing?
On 23 December, it was announced that 28 militants were arrested. This means
that over the past two months the Saudi Ministry of Interior has repeatedly
announced that it has detained groups of terrorist suspects affiliated to
Al-Qaeda.
Last month, the ministry stated that 208 suspects were arrested, which followed
the arrest of a terrorist network that was comprised of 172 people. Earlier in
the year; January 2007 to be more precise, 10 Al-Qaeda financial supporters were
detained in Saudi Arabia.
This is a brief glimpse into the ongoing terror sweeps that are executed by
Saudi security, which brings to mind the “long-winded talk” about intellectual
and educational confrontation and the repeated campaigns calling for ‘al
Munasaha’ committees (advisory committees).
Many have spoken of the crippled state of the organization’s ideology not of
its soldiers and cells.
In my opinion, the media clamor that surrounds any great successes [in combating
terrorism] and the preoccupation with propagating them has reached a point that
has made states, Eastern and Western alike, scramble towards these ‘reformers’
with the intention of exporting the experience.
However; the reality on the ground away from this media parade is that we are
barely skimming the surface and not reaching the core of the matter. The reason
is clear: Some people are deluded into believing that intellectual confrontation
will lead to posing daring questions, the repercussions of which public opinion
could not handle. Questions such as: Is the present religious discourse capable
of counteracting Al-Qaeda’s ideology and preventing its impact on societies? Do
we suffer from an inherent social and religious extremism that has facilitated
the spread and impact of Al-Qaeda on those whom it has influenced?
Such questions are always answered in an evasive manner rather than a critical
one. Meanwhile, if these questions are not answered frankly this confrontation
against ‘terrorist ideology’ will be prolonged and perhaps even evolve in an
unprecedented manner that we cannot imagine. I do not claim to have the answers
to these questions; however, I am calling for a new way of thinking in Saudi
Arabia with which to approach this dilemma that has been destroying society
since Al-Qaeda was struck in May 2003.
In light of this; I would like to raise a crucial point: Why do we always think
about the results and forget about the introductions? By this I mean; why do we
do focus on terrorism, which is inevitably rejected, and yet disregard
extremism? Isn’t this extremism the source of terrorism, since every terrorist
is necessarily an extremist but the opposite is not necessarily true?
We were conquered early on when the weakest amongst us were conquered; we were
lenient towards the decreasing tolerance in our societies which caused more
damage with every passing day. Most of us avoided really seeing what was
happening and ignored it.
Following are some examples that demonstrate how overlooking the protection of
values of tolerance from the start has led to repercussions and facts on the
ground that are difficult to change later on. We are embroiled in an endless
auction of religious one-upmanships.
I read an article written by Saudi journalist Mamdouh al Meheni in the online
newspaper ‘Elaph’ about the transformations that have taken place within the
faculty of medicine at the King Saud University in Riyadh over the recent years.
The report shocked readers with the magnitude of the changes that had occurred.
The article referred to a crisis that the dean of the faculty of medicine, a
religious and conservative man, was enduring. He had introduced new conservative
features within the college, such as obliging female students to wear long black
skirts, among other new rules. And yet this did not spare him the criticism of
those who are more possessive about religion and who call for a “purer” society.
The dean was subjected to a systematic attack because of his insistence upon
maintaining a bare minimum of professional and academic requirements in medical
study, including enabling students to practice clinical training which entails
examining human bodies, male and female alike, to learn medical procedures.
“Fourteen doctors who work under the supervision of the dean had staged a
protest after putting pressure on the dean to impose a new policy that states
upon forcing male and female medical students at the university to only treat
patients of the same sex, forbidding them from examining members of the opposite
sex.”
“The purer” doctors succeeded in mobilizing the fundamentalist and conservative
opinions in general to the extent that their campaign became an intolerable one
that was featured on the internet and in gatherings. It was propagated in a
manner that made it seem like the college dean’s only preoccupation was to
corrupt public morals, while the university’s obsession transformed from
medicine to sex and abstinence.
Al Meheni’s article is an interesting one and apparently, according to a
professor friend who teaches political science at King Saud University; it is a
common model as well. He said that there were similar ones, in varying degrees,
that can be found in other departments at the university.
Such activities work on the infrastructural level of society with the intention
of reformulating its taste, culture and consciousness through controlling all
the sectors of society, including its universities, colleges and non-profit
organizations. This is a known trend among politicized fundamentalist parties
or rather, all totalitarian parties.
However, our age-old predicament lies in the fundamentalist parties; through
their control of the community and the inherent solutions within it. Thus, the
helm of society is managed by a new reality that is imposed upon it and which
becomes increasingly difficult for any politician or decision-maker to change.
And if such a politician were to attempt to elicit any change, he would need a
much greater effort as opposed to taking earlier initiative from the start.
The real issue here is about the transformation of such groups into “religious
authorities” that decide what is forbidden in the community, creating new trends
that all heed mostly out of conviction but also others decide to just follow the
herd or join as a way of avoiding troubles.
But this trait does not only characterize the politicized fundamentalist groups
in Saudi Arabia alone, or even the Sunni ones as an exception. Egypt’s Muslim
Brotherhood (MB) is a pioneer in this slow and gradual tactic. In fact; this
trait is the common denominator amongst all extremist parties the most
prominent example of which is the other sectarian-driven plot and Lebanese
party, Hezbollah, with its ‘Khomeini identity’.
Hezbollah’s opposition today against all parties and the automatic manner by
which people join its ranks is attributed amongst other reasons to a long
past of preparation and restructuring within Lebanon’s Shia community, in
addition to imposing a new “culture” that has led to the creation of the
“Hezbollah state” within the state, as stated in Waddah Sharara’s book entitled
‘The Hezbollah State’.
In his book, Sharara talks about the need to spread awareness about the social
revolutionary objective of the party from an early stage among its leadership
and the affiliated intelligentsia. He quotes Mr. Ibrahim Amin, one of the
party’s symbols and the head of the party’s politburo in an interview with the
weekly ‘al Shahri’ magazine as saying, “The region should be dominated by Islam
again; it should not be governed by man but rather by Islam,” (State of
Hezbollah, p.210). Sharara commented by stating that this trend connotes, “the
formation of new social and civil ties that revolve around the notion of Islam.”
This ‘Islam’ is that which was conceived of by Khomeini, as the leader of
Hezbollah referred to the concept of exporting the Iranian revolution.
In practice, this new reformation of the community and the nation; the nation of
Hezbollah, had already taken place on various levels: from the status of women
to fashion, restaurants and new terminology, as recorded by Fadi Tawfiq in his
book ‘God’s Narrow Land’.
One of the anecdotes recounted by Tawfiq is the story behind the breakaway
faction that became Hezbollah after splitting from Amal movement. He maintains
that it was because the latter had deviated off Musa al Sadr’s track, even on
the level of its leader’s personal appearance; as in the case of head of Amal
movement Nabih Berri’s clean shaven face.
The purpose behind such talk is to say that confronting terrorism and getting
results is much more difficult than most can imagine. Combating terrorism and
social isolation is but the first battlefield so that the people may be
protected against the proliferation of terrorism. Any leniency towards extremism
means weakening the efficiency of the fight against it.
In the end, this article is not an analysis of terrorism; rather it aims to
point out a deficiency in understanding it. Also, what was mentioned above does
not necessarily mean that all extremists are terrorists; however it does mean
that extremism is a battlefield for an unadulterated ‘ideological’
confrontation.
Unless that were to happen we could very well find ourselves saying at the end
of the year: Happy New Terrorism!
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=11289
Arrogance pays
By Adar Primor - Haaretz
Israel is thrilled. Since May, the Elysee Palace has been ruled by a president
who views the establishment of the Jewish state as "the central event in the
20th century." He has vowed to help stymie the establishment of Hamastan in
Gaza, and never to compromise Israel's security.
It may or may not be connected to his "Jewish genes," but Nicolas Sarkozy is
perceived as one of ours. He has an Israeli temperament, too, going berserk when
probed about personal issues during a television interview, calling his aide an
idiot on live TV, and threatening to fight a fisherman who insulted him.
The French are also pleased with their unconventional leader. "The French
Republic disappeared somewhere between Cinderella's castle and the roller
coaster," a paper wrote this week after Sarkozy revealed his affair with
singer-model Carla Bruni at EuroDisney, of all places. He has turned the Elysee
into a perpetual reality show, wrote Le Monde. He's a solo contestant on "Big
Brother," a soap opera star who began as "Desperate Housewives" and morphed into
"The Brave and the Beautiful." The magic kingdom Sarkozy built is one of celebs
and camera flashes, the realm of Rolexes, yachts and designer sunglasses.
Some 56 percent of the French support their "tele-president," nicknamed the
"bionic president" and the "Speedy Gonzales of international diplomacy." But the
former tennis star Yannick Noah - voted the most popular Frenchman of them all
in a poll last week - thinks he's nauseating.
"Everything appalls me," he told Le Journal du Dimanche. "The attitude, the
tone, the arrogance, the cynicism, the flaunted wealth, his manipulation of the
media to present his personal life."
Socialist leader Segolene Royal (who'd won Noah's vote) complains he has forged
a dangerous foreign policy, "a policy of appearances" that range from
improvisation to provocation, a policy of unexpected turns, frequent
contradictions and a tendency to lavish unobtainable promises that impair
France's credibility and international status.
Hard truths
During his campaign, Sarkozy vowed that France "would not compromise any more on
preserving democracy, respect for human rights and proper administration." In
his first speech as president-elect, he vowed to adopt "moral diplomacy" and
declared France would stand by the oppressed of the world. He named Bernard
Kouchner, a leftist champion of humanitarian action, as foreign minister, and
appointed a young Muslim woman of Senegalese origin, Rama Yade, as secretary of
state for human rights. These moves led everybody to expect dramatic changes in
France's foreign policy, an end to the image of a hypocritical France willing to
sell its soul for crude oil.
The higher the expectations, the harder the fall. Two weeks ago a convoy of
limousines carrying Muammar Gadhafi paralyzed traffic in Paris as it moved from
the Elysee to the Ritz, between the Louvre and the giant khaki tent the Libyan
leader had erected in the heart of the city. That traffic shutdown, at the
height of International Human Rights Day, upset the French much less than the
warm embrace the guest received.
Gadhafi foreswore terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in 2003, condemned
al-Qaeda and even compensated the families of those killed in the Pan-Am and UTA
plane bombings. He deserves a reward for his conversion, and he was redeemed,
partially at least, when the former prime ministers of Britain and Italy, Tony
Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, visited Tripoli, and Romano Prodi, as president of
the European Commission, received him in Brussels. But they greeted him with
clenched lips, while Sarkozy declared his delight in welcoming Gadhafi to the
City of Light.
Right before his visit to Paris, the "guide of the Libyan revolution" addressed
Portuguese students in Lisbon, where the Euro-African summit was being held. He
said one could understand the weak countries that resort to terrorism against
the superpowers.
When Yade declared, "Our country is not a rug on which leaders - whether
terrorists or not - can wipe their feet of their victims' blood," Sarkozy
summoned her to the palace for a 20-minute excoriation, says an Elysee source.
Kouchner snubbed the dinner for Gadhafi: By happy coincidence, he said, he had
to be in Brussels. But he also told the press, "At these hard times, do our
manufacturers have to leave the Libyan market to European competitors?" During
Gadhafi's visit, French companies signed contracts worth billions of euros.
Sarkozy's policy is diplomacy in the service of trade, The Economist wrote after
the visit. Author Pascal Bruckner was sharper: Even when you do business with
the devil, you don't have to wallow with him in the muck, he said.
Blinded by interests
"Germany also has economic interests in its relations with other countries,
mainly with Russia as a supplier of oil and gas, and China as a gigantic,
tempting market," Yossi Sarid wrote for Haaretz. "Yet these interests do not
blind Chancellor Angela Merkel ... During a recent visit to Russia, Merkel met
with opponents of the regime, to the consternation of her hosts. In September
she hosted the Dalai Lama in her office, despite Beijing's threats. Merkel does
not allow herself to be silent. She's no George Bush or Gerhard Schroeder ...
nor is she Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak, who speak or fall silent at
their convenience."
Sarid didn't mention Sarkozy, but Le Monde did it for him. In an editorial, the
paper noted the difference between the chancellor, who doesn't shy from
addressing human rights and democracy, no matter whom her interlocutor, and the
French president, who takes advantage of Europe's inability to formulate a
united policy on these issues to stand by leaders with poor human rights
records.
Shortly before visiting China in November, Sarkozy ordered Yade to unpack her
bags, leaving the human rights secretary home in order not to irritate the
Chinese. In Beijing, he appeased his hosts at the expense of the "freest
democracy in Asia." "Taiwan is an integral part of China's territory. France
does not support its independence," he said when leaving Beijing, contracts
worth $20 billion in hand.
Although the European Union deemed the Duma elections crooked, Sarkozy called
Vladimir Putin to congratulate him. He was the only western leader to do so.
Hero or joke
He's a friend of Iran's president, and a man whose enmity for the U.S. and the
West is legendary. Nevertheless, Hugo Chavez received red-carpet treatment when
he visited Paris in November. The Venezuelan president was invited to discuss
efforts to secure the release of Colombian-French politician Ingrid Betancourt,
who was kidnapped in 2002 by the FARC, the Marxist guerrilla organization.
Sarkozy, who said obtaining Betancourt's freedom was top priority, hoped that
Chavez, who has ties to the FARC, would obtain her imminent release. In an
unusual step, Sarkozy also contacted the FARC leader on video, calling on him to
release the captives. Some officials in Paris suggested taking in FARC members
imprisoned in Colombia, as part of a deal to secure the release of Betancourt
and her friends. The guerrilla movement has rejected the idea, and is calling
for the ouster of Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, whom Chavez calls "a
marionette of the Americans."
Sarkozy's conduct regarding Betancourt reveals he is a Machiavellian willing
even to negotiate with an organization on the EU terror list to achieve his
ends. If Sarkozy does indeed achieve his goal, the "leftist bleeding hearts"
will shut up and he'll be a hero. If he fails, he'll be a sad joke, a leader
whose principles are tenuous to the point of nonexistence.
When Sarkozy threatens
In September 2006, Socialist presidential candidate Segolene Royal visited the
Lebanese parliament. A member of the foreign affairs committee, a Hezbollah
representative, compared Israel's occupation of the territories to the Nazi
occupation of France. Royal did not react and later claimed she hadn't heard
him. Sarkozy and his colleagues on the right exploited the incident to slam her
"unforgivable" mistake. They also criticized her meeting with a Hezbollah
representative, even though he was an elected member of parliament. "Hitler was
also elected, but that didn't make him a respectable interlocutor," Sarkozy said
at the time.
Seven months later, in July 2007, Sarkozy's France invited all the Lebanese
parliamentary factions to Paris, including Hezbollah. Israel's muted protest,
and the French Jews' loud protest, were rejected. "Hezbollah is an important
political player in Lebanon," the Elysee Palace stated.
When Royal speaks of Sarkozy's frequent contradictions, she apparently also is
referring to his decision to renew dialogue with Damascus, ending the boycott
started by Jacques Chirac. Sarkozy has called Bashar Assad three times and sent
Kouchner to Beirut seven times, yet Lebanon's stalled presidential elections
have been postponed 11 times so far. In their latest conversation, Sarkozy gave
Assad an ultimatum: Let Lebanon's election be held by Saturday, December 22, or
Sarkozy would speak up and it would hurt. Assad must have laughed: Until then
he'd been told to stay out of Lebanon and here he was being asked to wield
influence. As his deputy, Farouk Shara, says, Syria's influence has not been so
strong since its withdrawal from Lebanon in April 2005.
War, yes and no
When it comes to the Iranian nuclear threat, France has taken the strongest
stand in Europe. Sarkozy started the call for European sanctions, to circumvent
the Russian and Chinese veto at the UN Security Council. He also stated that
they wanted to avoid facing "a dilemma of disasters: an Iranian bomb or bombing
Iran" - meaning, he was willing to contemplate war.
But France seems inconsistent: On September 16, Kouchner told the French channel
RTL that France was prepared for the worst, namely war. Iran then threatened to
cancel a joint project with the French oil company Total, Germany howled about
"erroneous threats of war" and even the U.S. Department of State said that for
the moment, it was pursuing diplomatic means. Two days later, Kouchner lambasted
the press for twisting his words and Sarkozy told the International Herald
Tribune that he himself doesn't use the word "war."
On November 18, the day after the International Atomic Energy Agency published a
report describing Tehran's growing cooperation, Haaretz asked Kouchner if France
would participate in a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran, should things come to
that. The minister adopted Sarkozy's formula of keeping all options open.
"I intend to continue with great determination along this path [of pressuring
Iran], which is the only way to bring about an agreed solution and prevent us
from having, one day, to be faced with a dilemma of 'an Iranian bomb or bombing
Iran,'" he said. The next day he again complained of media manipulations and
said the Haaretz headline, "Not ruling out strike on Iran," was "horrible."
Less than a month later, on December 13, it turned out that the word "war" is in
Sarkozy's lexicon. Talking with Le Nouvel Observateur, he stated that he never
has advocated war, but added that the danger of war with Iran does exist.
Unnuanced Machiavellian
Make no mistake - Sarkozy is the most dominant leader in Europe today, and he
stands out on the global dais, too. Internally he's pushing reforms that nobody
dared try before him. He's the living spirit behind the Lisbon Treaty, a
constitution in all but name for Europe. Internationally he's ending a 40-year
streak of pro-Arab and anti-America diplomacy, which had aimed to position
France as a counterweight to the U.S. Israel attests to a sea change in
bilateral relations, too.
Some of Sarkozy's rebuttals to critics make sense. For instance, he calls for
embracing errant rulers who repent, and tempering idealism with realism. Indeed,
no leader can afford to disavow realpolitik. But as Dominique Moisi wrote in the
Financial Times, diplomacy is the art of nuances, and nuances are not Sarkozy's
forte. His constant, keen desire to fix the world and his Machiavellian tactics
tend to blind him and distance him from his grand promises of a new kind of
diplomacy, free of cynicism and narrow interests.
Misestimating Iran's Nuclear Strategies
Dr. Walid Phares
International Analyst Network
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1491
28 Dec 2007
The Iran threat NIE has is impacting the war on terror and impacting both the
allies (negatively) and the foes (positively) of the US, including the Tehran
regime. The new assertion is that Iran has abandoned its nuclear military
strategy as of 2003; hence the US would be at fault if it engages in military
action against that regime. But was the 2003 Iranian decision a stop in the
process of obtaining an atomic weapon? Washington has trapped itself with the
best product of its national intelligence. But if anything, this NIE has shown a
major systemic problem with national security analysis: America’s ability to
detect threats as was the case with the assessments in the 1990s which ignored
al Qaeda’s menace. The findings of this NIE, warns us that the systemic crisis
the 9/11 Commission warned about is still evolving. Here is why:
1) The NIE concluded that the Iranian regime had abandoned its nuclear strategy,
because it stated that they stopped their nuclear program in the fall of 2003.
The counter argument is that stopping one process of producing the nuclear
weapon is not putting an end to the nuclear strategic policy. A real change in
Iranian policy would only be acknowledged if Ayatollah Khamenei s declares an
abandonment of military nuclear power. That has not happened; just the opposite.
The ruling elite have been boasting about its “intention” of nuclear parity and
its right to obtain these weapons and even use them. This is not similar to
Moammar Qaddafi’s choice to abandon the pursuit of WMDs or the decisions made by
South Africa and Ukraine in the 1990s.
2) The NIE architects chose not to inform policy makers and the public about the
wider context in which that specific 2003 decision was made nor about the
following steps in the Iranian nuclear strategy. Such selectiveness crippled the
political conclusion of the document. Not to analyze why a foe halted a process
while resumed many other processes to obtain greater results derails US analysis
of the enemy’s global strategies. Indeed the real story is that the Iranian
regime, reconfiguring its previous nuclear strategy –gradual build up- realized
by the end of the summer of 2003 that hostile forces (US led Coalition) have
deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, hence altering the ability of pursuing that
initial route without expecting a lethal reaction. The Khatemi Government,
preferring avoiding an unbalanced confrontation deciding to suspend the open
build-up. Meanwhile the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) seized the nuclear
program and reconverted it in the underground. Hence, the global strategy wasn’t
halted but an alternative strategy was adopted.
3) In 2004 (US election year) the deep American divide over the War in Iraq was
perceived by the Iranian hardliners as a factor aiding in re-launching the rapid
pace nuclear race. By early 2005, Ahmedinijad was brought to power and greater
Syro-Iranian backing of Terror in Iraq aimed at weakening the hostile forces
west of Iran. From Tehran’s perspective, the “insurgency’s” goal was to provide
time and ability to run faster towards deploying the nuclear weapons-to-be.
4) The NIE failed to explain that the 2003 decision was a change of strategy not
a halt to a strategy. For Ahmedinijad wanted to engage the US in Iraq so that it
won’t take out Iran’s crucial early stages in the arming process. What was
missed in Washington is that Tehran was building the missiles before completing
the fissile. As attention was focused on the uranium enrichment process, the
Pasdaran were setting up the actual threat system, the delivery weapons. The
bomb part of the Iranian nuclear strategy comes to fit perfectly with the
missiles. What the Khomeinists need to achieve by the end of 2007 as their
missiles are developed is a shock and awe phenomenon in Washington to deter it
from acting against the delivery power. Tehran’s other worry is the European
based American anti-missiles batteries. Smartly by convincing the American
public that Tehran had already abandoned the whole nuclear strategy in 2003, the
ability to act against the missiles in Iran and erect counter batteries in
Europe is delegitimized. Thus the secret nuclear program would accelerate as the
delivery system is being completed.
By the time America would discover it has been duped, not only a nuclear test
would terrify the world, but the nukes would be sitting on top of the missiles.
All what it takes in Jihadi strategies is to use the enemy’s political systems
against it. Hence if the NIE analysts fail to provide the global context and
shape it to serve a political agenda over national security priorities, Iran’s
Khomeinists wins regardless of who will occupy the White House in January 2008.
For that next Presidency would be faced with security crises by far more
dramatic than any challenge we’ve witnessed since 9/11: Iranian Missiles with
Jihadi bombs aimed at two thirds of the world.
**Dr Walid Phares is the Director of Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation
for Democracy. He is the author of the War of Ideas.
29 Dec 2007 11:53:43