LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
MARCH 18/2006

Below News from the Daily Star for 18/03/06
Families learn fate of loved ones after 15 years
Security Council to meet soon on Hariri tribunal
FM invited to Syria as Aridi slams Lahoud 'press machine'
Rana's extradition ball is lobbed into Brazil's court
Fadlallah urges leaders to continue dialogue
Druze spiritual leader visits Nasrallah
Hashash accepts Sfeir's advice to abandon poll
Ministries 'neglecting' Jeita Grotto upkeep
Decision to boost aid to poultry farms welcomed
Organizer of U.S. Embassy sit-in slams 'police state'
U.S. warns Palestinians not to join Hamas coalition
Hamade: Conditions ripe for selling off telecom sector
March 14 Forces in Australia call on Lahoud to quit
Political Commentaries
A war the Americans at last are learning to fight.By David Ignatius-Daily Star 18.3.06
Syrians have not been told how their aspiring rulers intend to govern -Daily Star 18.3.06
What will round three of national dialogue produce? By Walid Choucair  -Daily Star 18.3.06
Counter the West's distrust of Islam with a united Muslim front.By Buthaina Shaaban -Daily Star 18.3.06
Lebanon's experiment with a hybrid tribunal-By Jerome Mayer-Cantu  -Daily Star 18.3.06
Three years, three momentous questions-By Rami G. Khouri -Daily Star 18.3.06
Below news from miscellaneous sources for 18/03/06
Politician wins Lebanese legislative seat unopposed-Khaleej Times
Tehran defiant as Security Council meets-AFP
Coptic Church rejects court order on remarrying divorcees-AFP
UN alerts Israel, Lebanon, Syria to border fears-Reuters AlertNet
Lebanon still in Syria's grip in-Gulf Daily News
Helicopters scrambled after suspected Lebanon border breach-Ha'aretz
The US Democratization Program and the Kurds of Syria-KurdishMedia
Syria 'crucial' to Hariri inquiry-BBC News
Talk Is Cheap:Dialogue vs. Divestment In the Struggle
From Massacre to Militia: The Case Against Palestinian Disarmament
UN preparing to ask more of Syria in Hariri probe-Reuters.
Report: Bishara acted as Syria-Israel mediator in 1990s talks-Ha'aretz
Bishara denies he was Barak's emissary to Syria-Jerusalem Post
Syria to hold talks with investigators in Hariri probe-Houston Chronicle
Assad Says U.N. Investigators Will Meet, Not Interrogate Him-Naharnet
Larsen Reports Accord Among Key Security Council Countries-Naharnet
Hashash Pulls Out of Baabda-Aley Legislative Vote, Dakkash Wins Uncontested-Naharnet
Lebanon Has 60 Days to Present Koleilat Extradition Request-Naharnet
Saniora Determined to Privatize Mobile Companies Despite Lahoud's Reservations-Naharnet
Annan Warns Of Possible Violence Flare-Up Along Lebanese-Israeli Border-Naharnet
Syria opposition forms united front to oust Assad-Reuters

Families learn fate of loved ones after 15 years
Authorities inform relatives after remains of 10 men in mass grave identified
By Rym Ghazal -Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 18, 2006
BEIRUT: Ten families in Lebanon received an unexpected yet dreaded phone call this week from the army, informing them that the "bodies" of their relatives - missing for over 15 years - had been identified. "We are still in great shock and can't believe it," Roger Nakhoul told The Daily Star in an interview Friday.
Roger Nakhoul is the brother of Corporal Jacques Hanna Nakhoul, whose remains were among the 20 bodies found in the mass grave at the Defense Ministry in Yarze last November.
The army's investigating committee notified the families in a phone call and then an official visit. Some 85 family members provided DNA samples to the Saint Joseph University Genetic Lab, and DNA analyses of the remains were completed this month. "For 15 years we were living with the hope that he was alive and detained in Syria, with updates of his whereabouts being passed on by former detainees or through tips here or there," said Roger. "All lies."
Nakhoul, remembered as one "with the heart of a child," was killed at the age of 28, along with six other soldiers on October 13, 1990, the date of a Syrian military offensive against then-army commander General Michel Aoun, who was waging a "War of Liberation" against Syria. The three other soldiers identified were killed in 1984 in the village of Shahar al-Gharbi in Mount Lebanon during the Druze-Christian war.
Nakhoul's mother Souad recalled visiting Baabda several times after the battle and searching through the "displayed deformed bodies" for her son. "He had a scar on his shoulder, and he wore very distinct sporty white socks. I kept searching for him for days, but found no trace of him," said Souad, who doesn't understand how his body was not among those displayed at the time, but accepted that "these things happen." "We were told it was a chaotic time, and unfortunate mistakes like these do happen," she said. But what the Nakhoul family and others interviewed "can't forgive" is that some people took advantage of their grief and "took money" for false information.
"One Lebanese military personnel took LL50,000 and promised to take me to my son, and I got all dressed up and waited for him the next day. But he never showed up," said Souad.
Some of the families interviewed were angrier at the government, and will be conducting another DNA test on the bodies found. "They have lied to us for 15 years, why should I believe anything they say now?" said Georgette Bashour, sister of the identified Corporal George Tanios Bashour. "He was stationed at Monteverde, and I was told that they found his body 20 days later, deformed and rotted beyond recognition," said Bashour.
"I think my brother, who died for his country, deserves better respect than what he and the other martyrs got. For 15 years, the Army used to play football over their graves," she said.
"If it wasn't for the pressures from the sit-in protest over this issue, and God bless him, Gebran Tueni's push before his death, I doubt we would have ever gotten any information and we would have been thinking our loved ones were alive in Syria," she added. On December 6, six days before he was assassinated,Tueni called publicly for Lebanese President Emile Lahoud to be questioned about the Yarze mass graves on the grounds that Lahoud was Lebanon's military commander in 1990.
Tueni also called for an inquiry into the mass grave uncovered at Anjar to be carried out jointly by Lebanese and international experts. The official ceremony for the deceased will be held on Saturday at 9 a.m. at the Central Military Hospital, during which those identified will be awarded the Badge of War Casualties, with an open call for "everyone" to join.
But convincing the actual family members to participate wasn't easy. Most, when contacted by The Daily Star, did not wish to talk about the issue. "I had to convince some of the families to accept this reality, as some rejected the bodies and will be demanding more DNA analyses to be conducted," said Ghazi Aad, head of Support of Lebanese in Detention and Exile (SOLIDE), who met with the families near the ESCWA on Thursday. "Knowing the truth is better than waiting, even if it is as bad as this, for at least now, some of the relatives have closure and can move on," said Aad.

Security Council to meet soon on Hariri tribunal
By Majdoline Hatoum -Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 18, 2006
BEIRUT: The UN Security Council is expected to meet early next week to discuss the international tribunal to try suspects in the murder of former Premier Rafik Hariri and entrust UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to hold discussions with the Lebanese government over its formation and jurisdiction. Talking to The Daily Star, a source in the Justice Ministry said the Lebanese judicial delegation that headed to New York recently to discuss the operational formula for the tribunal made a good impression on under secretary general for legal affairs, Nicolas Michel. As a result, the Security Council is set to meet and delegate Annan by the end of the month at the latest. According to the source, the tribunal is expected to be called the "Lebanese-International Tribunal," and be held in a neutral location with most of the judges and the public prosecutors expected to be foreign. Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad said late Thursday that he would hold talks in April with UN investigators into the assassination of Hariri.
Assad told Britain's Sky News that Syria would put on trial any citizen found to be involved in the February 14, 2004 assassination as a traitor, but did not rule out handing over any suspects to be tried abroad. "We told [the UN investigators] formally in a letter that they are going to meet with the president and the vice president ... it's a meeting, so it's different from interrogation," said Assad. "In the meeting they can ask about anything and we expect them to ask about the political background of the problem or the relations between Syria and Lebanon and all these things."
On Thursday, Serge Brammertz, head of the International Independent Investigation
Committee into the assassination of Hariri commended recent cooperation by Syria with the probe, and said that Assad and his Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa had agreed, for the first time, to talk to the inquiry.
The decision reflected improved relations between Syria and the inquiry since Brammertz replaced German Detlev Mehlis as head of the investigation team. Syria also welcomed the Belgian prosecutor's report as "highly professional," as opposed to Mehlis' reports which were slammed as "politicized." Assad, however, said that the level of Syrian cooperation had not changed since the probe took on its responsibilities last year under Mehlis' command. "What's changed is the president of the committee. This last report was more objective because it recognized Syrian cooperation," said Assad.
Asked if Syria was ready to hand over any suspect implicated in the killing to an international tribunal, Assad said, "According to our law they are traitors and they should be punished immediately, so there's no discussion about this in Syria. They are traitors." "But it's too early to decide. This would be discussed and studied from a legal point of view that depends on the procedures that they are going to take in the UN, not in the investigation. But so far we are talking about the Syrian law."
 This comes as Terje Roed Larsen, UN special envoy overseeing the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, is to start his Middle Eastern tour Saturday with a visit to Saudi Arabia, then Egypt and Jordan before arriving in Lebanon early next week. Larsen is likely to meet with the MPs who signed the petition to oust Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. He is also expected to focus in talks with senior officials on disarming Palestinian factions, countering weapons smuggling from Syria into Lebanon, and the fate of the presidency. - With agencies

FM invited to Syria as Aridi slams Lahoud 'press machine'
By Therese Sfeir -Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 18, 2006
BEIRUT: Signs of improvement in Lebanese-Syrian relations began to appear Friday, as Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem sent an invitation to his Lebanese counterpart to visit Damascus and as Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's visit to the Syrian capital approaches. As participants in the national dialogue emerged from the last session Tuesday, they voiced a unanimous agreement that diplomatic relations with Syria and a demarcation of the borders would be a priority.
Siniora's visit is expected to tackle the establishment of a diplomatic mission with Syria and discuss the demarcation of the borders, especially the Shebaa Farms. The Secretary General of the Higher Lebanese-Syrian Council Nasri Khoury paid a visit Friday to Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh and handed him an official invitation to Damascus from Moallem.
Speaking after the meeting, Khoury said: "The aim of the visit is to study the issues on the Arab Summit's timetable, which is to be held in Khartoum on Mach 28 and 29."Khoury said he would try to meet with Siniora soon "to discuss the premier's views regarding the visit to Damascus," and added: "Siniora is always welcome in Syria; he is known to be an official who tries to preserve Lebanese-Syrian interests."Concerning the outcome of the national dialogue, Khoury described it as "positive" and said: "Syria has always been concerned about Lebanon's stability and prosperity."
As to the demarcation of the borders, he said: "This issue will be resolved in a way that serves the interests of both sides."
Sources quoted by the Central News Agency said Syria's invitation reflected its "satisfaction at the outcome of the investigation committee's report and the decrease of pressure it has been facing, which would allow Damascus to restore its relations with Lebanon." As the dialogue is set to kick off again on Wednesday, diplomatic visits among the relevant parties continued Friday.
Egyptian Ambassador Hussein Darrar stressed that there was "no need for an Arab initiative or interference in Lebanon, as long as the Lebanese internal dialogue is progressing."Darrar paid a visit on Friday to the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP Michel Aoun in Rabieh. Asked following the meeting if Egypt would help in the negotiations between Syrian and Lebanon, he said: "We will not hesitate to help if we are asked to."
French Ambassador Bernard EmiŽ, after a visit to Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, said he informed the prelate that "France welcomed the outcome of the national dialogue," stressing the need to maintain national unity to face "political, financial and economic challenges." He added that discussions covered the report of Belgian Prosecutor Serge Brammertz on the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Emie said "everyone admitted that progress has been achieved in the investigations," reiterating France's "support for the committee and its keenness on the uncovering of the truth, in line with UN resolutions pertaining to the case."
Following his meeting with Sfeir on Friday, MP Butros Harb stressed the importance of the "dialogue's big achievement" represented in the agreement over the "establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria, based on mutual respect of each country's sovereignty." "We have agreed on principles that resolve the problems facing the Lebanese-Syrian relations and put an end to the Syrian interference in our internal affairs," Harb added. Commenting on the presidency, he said the new president should be "competent, have a clean record and be able to lead the country to a safe haven."
Sfeir also met with a delegation from the Qornet Shehwan Gathering which included MP Samir Franjieh, former MP Fares Soueid and Antoine Khawaja. In a separate development, Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said Friday "once again the sources of President Emile Lahoud have violated the dignity of the Cabinet and falsified its statements."
Aridi explained: "We were surprised to read on Friday a headline published in An-Nahar newspaper which said that Lahoud stressed the need to interrogate (Syrian witness Zuheir) Siddiq, adding that the four former security officials would not escape the country if they are freed."
The information minister said the "first part of Lahoud's statement was true but the second part was created by the press machine of the president.""This is not the first time such things have happened," he said, adding that Lahoud was "used to leaking statements and pretending that he had said them during the Cabinet sessions."During Thursday's Cabinet session, Lahoud insisted on the interrogation of key witnesses in Hariri's assassination, such as Zuheir Siddiq, who was until recently detained in prison in France and "whose statement resulted in the arrest of the country's four major security officers who have not so far been incriminated."

Rana's extradition ball is lobbed into Brazil's court
By Majdoline Hatoum -Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 18, 2006
BEIRUT: Lebanon was awaiting Brazil's response to a request to return Rana Qoleilat, the former Al-Madina Bank executive suspected of having links to the murder of Lebanese former Premier Rafik Hariri, Friday. Talking to The Daily Star, a spokesman from the Justice Ministry said Lebanon "did what it should do, and sent a request to the Brazilian authorities to extradite Qoleilat.""The ball is in the Brazilian court now, and we have not heard anything from them so far," the spokesman said. Lebanon, which does not have an agreement regulating extradition with Brazil, had sent a memo asking the Brazilian authorities to hand over Qoleilat. But legal experts in Brazil said the extradition might take some time because Qoleilat is “s accused of attempting to bribe police officers in Sao Paolo last week.
The Lebanese government on Wednesday formally requested the arrest of Qoleilat with the purpose of extradition.
It has 60 days to present its justifications, which will be examined by the supreme court to decide whether to grant the request.
Qoleilat, who is currently accused of financial crimes in Lebanon, was arrested for "active criminality" Sunday in Sao Paolo, the ministry said in a statement. Qoleilat tried to bribe the police officers arresting her, offering them up to $200,000 for her freedom, police had said. Qoleilat is also wanted for questioning by the United Nations commission investigating Hariri's murder. She is suspected of providing financial help, directly or indirectly, to the politician's assassins.
Qoleilat is also suspected of financing Rustom Ghazaleh, the former head of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon, as well as Lebanese intelligence services. With agencies

Fadlallah urges leaders to continue dialogue
Daily Star staff-Saturday, March 18, 2006
BEIRUT: Senior Shiite cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah and Higher Shiite Council Vice-President Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan called on the country's leaders to continue with the national dialogue to salvage the security, economic and social sectors. Speaking from the Imamein Hassanein Mosque in Haret Hreik, Fadlallah said he hoped the ongoing talks would have "positive and practical results." The cleric urged participants in the dialogue to be "serious and honest" when touting the "Made in Lebanon" nature of the talks, since some embassies are trying to exercise undue influence, especially concerning international resolutions such as Resolution 1559.
According to Fadlallah, this resolution aims at disarming the resistance under the cover of establishing internal security, and will leave Lebanon defenseless against Israeli attack. Fadlallah called on those taking part in the dialogue to reduce the country's economic obstacles, by increasing taxes if necessary, starting with the growing budget deficit.
In a separate sermon, Qabalan congratulated the Lebanese on the convening of the national dialogue, and also expressed hope that foreign interference would not hamper its outcome. Qabalan suggested that Speaker Nabih Berri open the dialogue to more participants so that the country can benefit from their ideas.
"Lebanon needs a workshop on the economic, social, health, and cultural levels," the cleric said, stressing the importance of promoting national cooperation to protect against the ever-present Israeli danger."We have to protect the resistance and never doubt it because it is at the service of all the Lebanese," Qabalan said. - The Daily Star

Druze spiritual leader visits Nasrallah
Daily Star staff-Saturday, March 18, 2006
BEIRUT: Acting Druze spiritual leader Sheikh Bahjat Ghaith said the Lebanese should not talk about the presidency before agreeing on President Emile Lahoud's successor. Speaking after a visit Friday to Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah at his residence in Haret Hreik, Ghaith said: "The purpose of the visit is to thank Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah for the efforts he deployed to make the dialogue succeed." Discussions covered developments in the region and the outcome of first two rounds of the Lebanese national dialogue. Addressing journalists following the meeting, Ghaith said he hoped the next dialogue sessions would yield positive results and resolve the country's pending issues.
Ghaith added "Lebanon's sole enemy was Israel," underlining the need to maintain friendly relations with Syria."
He also accused Israel and the United States of misleading some Lebanese politicians "who want to fulfill their personal ambitions." Asked if there was a solution to the presidency crisis, Ghaith said: "The Lebanese should not talk about a presidency crisis and challenge the status of the president before agreeing on a replacement."Commenting on the agreement over the role of the resistance, the spiritual leader said he was optimistic about the dialogue's outcome regarding that matter. - The Daily Star

Hashash accepts Sfeir's advice to abandon poll
Electoral ngo says his withdrawal is illegal
By Hadi Tawil -Special to The Daily Star
Saturday, March 18, 2006
BEIRUT: Parliamentary candidate Pierre Hashash withdrew from the Baabda-Aley by-elections Friday, at the request of Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir. As a result, Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat announced Pierre Dakkash the winner of the district's legislative seat. Hashash, who had vowed to continue his candidacy till the end, met with Sfeir at Bkirki accompanied by Roger Edde. After the meeting, Hashash said: "The message I wanted to give to politicians has been delivered, nobody can impose anything on me by using consensus as a weapon."
"I don't want to become an MP at this time," he added. Explaining his apparent turnaround of opinion on the matter, Hashash said: "Patriarch Sfeir asked me to withdraw my candidacy, without exerting any pressure on me, unlike the pressure I got from other politicians." Providing further details of his meeting with the Prelate, Hashash said: "Sfeir told me that it's not my time yet. Maybe in the coming elections I will be a strong candidate supported by Edde and Bkirki."
Stressing that he had withdrawn only after being asked to do so by the patriarch, Hashash noted that "several politicians even offered me up to $100,000, but I refused." In a telephone interview, Hashash said: "Sfeir sent me Roger Edde to urge me to withdraw, and that was the only reason that would make me withdraw my candidacy."
In addition to Sfeir's request, Hashash pointed to reports that the people were against his campaign aired on LBC, "which were wrong," as further motivation for his withdrawal election.
Asked whether he would be reimbursed the LL10 million entrance fee for candidates, he said: "Technically I lost the money. However, I know that Edde is a generous person ... I will not ask him to reimburse me."
As for any future plans to run for office, Hashash said: "I will now start working for a new electoral law that would suit the Lebanese people."He continued: "Unless the electoral law is fair for all Lebanese, I will not run in the coming elections."
But in a statement issued by the "Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections" (LADE), the association rebuked the decision by Fatfat to cancel the elections, contending it is not legal. Basing its claim on article 37 of law number 171/2000-- which regulates the election of MPs - LADE said Hashah should have withdrawn his candidacy at least 10 days before the election date. Article 37 of the law reads, "A candidate is not allowed to withdraw his candidacy except through a legal statement verified by a notary public and presented to the Interior Ministry 10 days before the date of elections".
"We ask the acting Interior Minister to inform the public opinion of the legal basis to announcing Hashash's withdrawal," the statement read.

Ministries 'neglecting' Jeita Grotto upkeep
Mayor claims almost none of the revenues from ticket sales find their way to the municipality
By Karen Mneimne -Special to The Daily Star
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Environment hotline
BEIRUT: The road leading to one of Lebanon's main touristic sites, the Jeita Grotto, is riddled with potholes and abundantly littered with waste, making it dangerous and unappealing for the thousands of foreigners and locals who visit the area every year. In an article published in Al-Bia Wal Tanmia magazine in the Environment Hotline's March issue, Mapas, a company investing in the grotto and Jeita's mayor each highlighted their side of the story.
Nabil Haddad, the managing director of Mapas, contacted the hotline, complaining about the roads "that are awful during the winter when they get filled with water and look like puddles and swamps."Haddad added: "Not only that, but waste is just randomly thrown on the road." Haddad has also asked the relevant officials to build barriers along the road and fortify the walls along the road to minimize the risks of accidents from the road conditions. According to Haddad, the Jeita Municipality "is to blame." He accused it of "negligence and for not responding to the repeated complaints that I have filed." Haddad had constantly stressed the importance of the touristic aspect of the site and the need to maintain the safety of its visitors.
"The municipality receives 5 percent of the entrance fees to the grotto and in 2004 its revenues amounted to LL 106 million ($70,667)," he said. The price of an adult ticket is LL18,000 ($12) and for children the ticket costs LL11,000 ($7.5).
"The Tourism and Public Works ministries are not concerned with making the necessary improvements despite several complaints I have submitted to them," he said. "The Tourism Ministry is paid around 15 percent of the grotto entrance fees besides the entrance fees of restaurants, cable cars and others facilities in the grotto," he said. Meanwhile, Jeita's mayor Samir Baroud told the hotline that the Public Works Ministry "is responsible for fixing the roads." As for the waste problem, he said the municipality "is responding to the issue and cleaning the roads." But there seems to be a dispute between the municipality and the company investing in the grotto, because Baroud believes the investors are "looting the grotto's revenues leaving the municipality to make only LL 300 ($0.20 cents) from each entry ticket."
Baroud said the municipalities in other touristic areas get half of the ticket sales. In 2004, 362,000 tourists visited the grotto and in 2005, there were around 228,000 tourists. He said: "We can't compare the fees that the Jeita municipality makes from the grotto with the fees that municipalities like Baalbek and Jbeil (Byblos) make."
He said there are needs like equipment to be secured for Jeita. "We need to pay expenses for electricity for 16 boats inside the grotto, the lighting and salaries for 150 employees."Showing concern, the hotline complained to the Public Works Ministry, to which Director General Fady Nammar responded: "The ministry has started taking the necessary measures to solve the problem quickly." Nammar added that the ministry established hot lines to take citizen's complaints about the status of roads on the following numbers: 03-117127 and 05-552989.

Organizer of U.S. Embassy sit-in slams 'police state'
By Leila Hatoum and Mohammed Zaatari -Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 18, 2006
BEIRUT: The organizer of Thursday's aborted sit-in outside the U.S. Embassy in Awkar lashed out Friday at interim Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat and the "police state." Meanwhile, residents of the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp outside Sidon threw rocks and a grenade at security personnel deployed outside the camp since late Wednesday. Reports of the discovery of a bomb outside the camp's entrance could not be confirmed. Mohammad Safa, a former detainee in Israel and the head of the Follow-Up Committee for the Support of Lebanese Detainees in Israeli Prisons, held an "emergency news conference" to denounce the increased security measures outside the country's Palestinian camps and the prevention of the embassy sit-in.
The sit-in was meant to denounce this week's Israeli siege of a Palestinian prison in Jericho and the arrest of all its inmates.
Safa claims he, along with three other would-be protesters, was briefly detained by the Lebanese Army Thursday to prevent him from reaching the embassy. The three others detained are Bassam Qantar, the brother of the longest-held Lebanese by Israel Samir Qantar, Mahmoud Abbas and Wael Yehia, both former detainees of Israel.
Safa alleged that the four men were harassed by an army officer a short distance from the U.S. Embassy, and then handcuffed and detained. He further alleged that army personnel struck a photographer with the butt of their rifles when the photographer tried to take pictures of the handcuffed demonstrators. "We call on Army Commander Michel Suleiman to conduct an in-depth investigation into the matter," Safa said.
Both the Interior Ministry and the army on Thursday denied that any of the demonstrators had been detained.
Interim Interior Minister Ahmad Fatfat said Friday: "The only thing we asked is that (the demonstrators) complied with the law when it comes to demonstrations. They refused to apply for a license, which is why we stopped the demonstration."
The acting minister added: "They can demonstrate as much as they want once they go through the legal procedures, which have been in place for a very long time." But, according to Safa, "this is the police state that everyone complains about. We congratulate the minister (Fatfat) for his victory in detaining former detainees of Israeli prisons ... for turning Lebanon into a big prison and for causing stagnation in public life." Safa suggested the security measures were due to fear the sit-in would turn violent, as was the case with the so-called Black Sunday riots in Achrafieh on February 5.
"The total number of those who were going to take part in the sit-in was around 70 people, whom we all know ... I don't think 70 people are a threat." Safa demanded the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee look into the matter, "or what is the use of its existence?" The Follow-Up Committee for the Support of Lebanese Detainees in Israeli Prisons is planning another sit-in, to be held Monday at 11 a.m. outside the Interior Ministry to denounce Thursday's oppression.
"Why are some people allowed to demonstrate and sign petitions against (the president) and we are not allowed to demonstrate against Israel's oppressive actions?" Qantar asked, urging Lebanese authorities not to turn Beirut's streets into "detention camps." Strict security measures enforced Wednesday and Thursday included encircling and closing all exits to the country's Palestinian refugee camps, a move denounced by Palestinian leaders through diplomatic channels. Khaled Aref, the Fatah secretary in the Southern Palestinian camps, met with Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir Friday to discuss the security measures. He said afterward the patriarch had seemed empathetic to the Palestinians' complaints.
The closure of the refugee camps was lifted late Thursday night after extensive contacts between Palestinian and Lebanese officials.

Hamade: Conditions ripe for selling off telecom sector
Minister says cellular revenues main source of state income
By Osama Habib -Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 18, 2006
BEIRUT: Political circumstances and market conditions are ripe for privatization of the telecom sector in Lebanon but the government will not sell the money-spinning sector at any price, Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamade said Friday. "Even President Emile Lahoud would not object to privatization if the amount offered was reasonable," he told The Daily Star.
But the minister refused to disclose the price which the government aspires to for both cellular networks, saying that the Cabinet will review all offers and make the "right choice."
According to the proposed five-year economic plan, which is yet to be approved by the Cabinet, the government will revoke the four-year contracts with Lebanon's two mobile operators MTC Touch and Alfa to pave the way for the privatization of the networks. The contracts, which were signed with former Telecommunications Minister Jean Louis Qordahi nearly two years ago, stipulate that the Telecommunications Ministry has the right to cancel the contracts after giving the companies six months' notice. Hamade said that income from the telecom sector is the largest single source of revenue for the government.
"We are getting more than $800 million a year from both networks and this does not include the fixed-line service," the minister said. International investment bank JP Morgan recently completed a study on the mobile sector to determine its true value.
Hamade declined to reveal the price tag placed by JP Morgan on the networks but stressed that the amount was close to reality. Asked about his projection for the privatization of telecoms, electricity and other stated-owned companies, Hamade said that Lebanon can definitely get an offer of more than the $5 billion which was the amount projected in the Paris II conference paper.
"At that time the market value for the sectors was down but now we are envisaging more than this figure," he added. International consultants KPMG carried out a study on behalf of the Telecommunications Ministry in 2003 to calculate the gross revenues of the two telecom sectors which at that time were run by LibanCell and FTML. The study showed that total revenues from both networks will reach $24 billion over the next 20 years. It added that were the government to securitize the mobile sector over the next 20 years rather than privatize it, it could collect $10.2 billion.
Privatization is one key element in the government plan to reduce the $38 billion public debt, representing 183 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product. "I'd like to see the government revenues from the telecom kept one way or another," the minister said, suggesting that it would be a good idea if the state kept a share and sold the rest to foreign companies.
"I am in favor of democratization of the telecom sector because I want to see Lebanese citizens owning a stake in the companies," Hamade said. But sources said some Cabinet members favor full privatization because this would attract more investment in the IT and software industries in Lebanon.
"There are several scenarios to hand, such as full privatization and dividing the telecom sector between the state and the government," Hamade said. He stressed, however, that the state should not have majority share in the telecom sector as this would scare away potential investors. The minister said that OGERO, which is operating the fixed-line network, will soon be replaced by Liban Telecom. OGERO (Organisme de Gestion et d'Exploitation de l'ex Radio Orient), established in 1972 to manage and operate the telegraph and submarine telecommunications of Radio Orient (the early 1900s company) is one of the most inefficient companies run by the government. It is 100 percent owned by the government and acts under the supervision of the telecommunications minister. OGERO has 1,800 kilometers of fiber optic cables in its national network.
Staff from OGERO fear the government may lay off most of them once Liban Telecom is formed. Experts say the government may keep around 1,500 staff from OGERO and end the contracts of the rest. Hamade said the regulatory body, which will oversee the privatization of the telecom sector, will be formed soon. "I am not going to name any one for positions of regulatory body. The people will be selected on qualification basis." But Kamal Shehadeh, president of Connexus consulting firm, said some issues need to be sorted out before privatization.
"The government did not yet sort out the problem with LibanCell, which won an arbitration case against the ministry for revoking the BOT contracts prematurely."He added that FTML, part owner of the other former mobile operator, had already settled for $96 million to be paid over the next three years. Shehadeh said it is wrong to view the telecoms sector from a revenue angle only. "Privatization is important to improve the whole sector and bring in more investments," he said.

Coptic Church rejects court order on remarrying divorcees
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Saturday, March 18, 2006
CAIRO: The head of Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Church has strongly rejected a court order obliging the Church to let followers remarry after obtaining a civil divorce, the semi-official Al-Akhbar reported Friday. "Granting divorces falls within the jurisdiction of the court, but it has no authority to carry out marriages," Pope Shenuda III told the paper. "Only the Church has that authority." Shenuda was commenting on a controversial ruling by the administrative judicial court on Tuesday.
Most churches, including the Coptic Church, seldom grant divorce and allow divorcees to remarry only under strict conditions. These include a marriage being terminated due to adultery or a member converts to another religion.
The Church, said Shenuda, was "implementing the teachings of the Holy Bible with regard to the issue of marriage. And the Bible does not approve divorce except in the case of adultery or change of religion." Shenuda first criticized the court ruling during his weekly sermon and meeting with the faithful on Wednesday, which also included a warning to priests who may be tempted to heed the order.
"Be assured. No power on earth can force on the church anything against the teachings of the gospels or the Church," the independent Al-Masri al-Yawm quoted the pope as telling his flock. "The Church will never wed divorcees ... regardless of the court rulings," he added. Many Copts face a dilemma as a result of the church's uncompromising stance, with the many caught up between loyalty to the church and the desire to terminate troubled marriages at any cost.
The Church's following, which it claims to account for around 10 percent of the country's 73 million citizens, has dwindled over the issue, as many who want to get on with their lives are forced to convert to other faiths. - AFP

Assad Says U.N. Investigators Will Meet, Not Interrogate Him
Syrian President Bashar Assad has affirmed that he would meet with the U.N. commission investigating former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination next month. "We (have) told them formally in a letter (that) we're going to meet with the president and the vice president" of the inquiry that is led by Belgian prosecutor Serge Brammertz, he told Britain's Sky News television Thursday. Speaking in English, Assad stressed that the encounter would be a meeting, and not an interrogation. "It's different from interrogation," he said, adding that no question would be off-limits. "They can ask whatever they like."
"We expect them to ask about the political background of the problem, or the relations between Syria and Lebanon and all these things," said Assad, who was interviewed by former U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin.
Syria is suspected of involvement in the Feb. 14, 2005 bomb blast in Beirut that killed Hariri and 22 others. But Assad rejected any suggestion of complicity in Hariri's assassination, saying the murder did not serve Syria's interests.
The president praised the latest report by the U.N. commission investigating the killing, as "more objective and more professional" than what the commission had produced in the past.
Two earlier reports published about the assassination implicated Syrian officials and accused Damascus of trying to obstruct the probe. The most recent report, by the commission's new chief Serge Brammertz, noted increased cooperation.
Assad also said that, should any Syrian officials be proven guilty of involvement in the assassination, they would be punished as "traitors," although he expressed reservations about any possible trial before an international tribunal, saying that Syrian suspects should be subject to Syrian law. In a report to the U.N. Security Council Tuesday, Brammertz cited progress in his investigation into the five-time prime minister's killing, but stressed that Syrian cooperation would be "a critical factor" in order to make further progress. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke with Assad by telephone Thursday and voiced hope Damascus would continue to cooperate with the U.N. probe, a spokesman said.
Hariri's killing sparked massive demonstrations against the Syrian occupation of Lebanon and increased the Assad regime's isolation abroad. Syrian troops eventually left Lebanon, completing their withdrawal in April last year.
The Syrian regime has since come under heavy international pressure to cooperate with the U.N. investigation into Hariri's death.(AFP-AP-Naharnet) Beirut, Updated 17 Mar 06, 14:02

UN preparing to ask more of Syria in Hariri probe
Thu Mar 16, 2006
By Irwin Arieff-UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The head of a U.N. probe into the murder of ex-Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri said on Thursday he was preparing to make new demands of Syria and it would take weeks to learn whether Damascus will keep its promise of full cooperation. "Our expectations vis-a-vis the Syrian authorities are high in this respect. The commission has already prepared several new requests for cooperation to the Syrian Foreign Ministry," Belgian Serge Brammertz told the U.N. Security Council. "The coming weeks will prove whether our requirements will be justified and our cautious optimism was justified."Syrian Vice Foreign Minister Fayssal Mekdad, addressing the council after Brammertz, said Damascus had offered its full cooperation in the belief that finding the truth was "part and parcel of our interests."
U.N. investigators, in their third progress report to the council, which ordered the investigation, said this week they were closer to a detailed understanding of how the 2005 plot was carried out and predicted success in getting to the bottom of the crime, in part because of better cooperation from Syria.
The report also said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Vice President Farouq al-Shara had agreed for the first time to interviews, which would take place in April. Assad, in an interview on Sky News television, confirmed on Thursday that he and Shara had agreed to meet with investigators, but "not for interrogation." "In the meeting they can ask about anything and we expect them to ask about the political background of the problem or the relations between Syria and Lebanon and all these things," the Syrian president said. Assad had initially refused to be questioned, and an earlier report accused Shara, then Syria's foreign minister, of providing investigators with false information in a letter.
U.N. investigators have previously accused Syria of providing false and misleading information, limiting their access to Syrian witnesses and restricting their ability to freely question them once access was gained.
'GET TO THE TRUTH' - ANNAN
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Assad on Thursday to encourage him to fully cooperate "so we can all get to the truth and complete the investigation as soon as possible," chief U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Reuters.
Hariri was a strong critic of Syria's decades-long domination of Lebanon, and many Lebanese suspect Syrian involvement in his killing, which Damascus flatly denies. An earlier U.N. report concluded Hariri could not have been assassinated without the approval of top Syrian security officials and their Lebanese counterparts. The new report on the death of Hariri and 22 others in a February 14, 2005, bombing in Beirut was the first since Brammertz took over the probe in January from German Detlev Mehlis. Mekdad on Thursday criticised some of the investigative work performed under Mehlis, saying it was clear a number of witnesses had made false allegations aimed at damaging Syria.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, speaking to reporters on Wednesday after private talks with Brammertz, said the question of Syrian cooperation "remains to be seen.""Performance is what we are looking for -- the end of its obstructionist behaviour," he said. "We'll see what happens."Brammertz said that while his inquiry was making progress, it had also entered a new phase in which investigators were consolidating their findings in anticipation of eventual trials, and he did not want to publicly discuss new findings.But he was optimistic they would "provide critical links in identifying and holding accountable those responsible for the crime, at all levels of the chain of command."Brammertz also disclosed that the handover from Mehlis had led to deep staff losses that continued to hamper his work.

UN alerts Israel, Lebanon, Syria to border fears
16 Mar 2006 20:28:49 GMT
UNITED NATIONS, March 16 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the leaders of Israel, Syria and Lebanon to take steps to ease tensions along Israel's northern border following reports a possible confrontation may be in the works, the United Nations said on Thursday. Annan called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Thursday to discuss reports reaching the secretary-general "of heightened tensions and possible confrontation along Israel's northern border," chief U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said. Annan told the Syrian leader "it was essential everyone take steps to avoid that," Dujarric said. The U.N. leader called acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on Wednesday with a similar message, he added. Israel put its armed forces on high alert along the border with Lebanon earlier this week following intelligence reports warning that Hizbollah guerrillas planned to carry out cross-border attacks or try to kidnap Israelis in the area. The reports surfaced in the heat of campaigning for a March 28 Israeli election. They also came just before the release of a progress report by the U.N. commission investigating the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, in which Syrian involvement is suspected.
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told Israeli television on Monday that Hizbollah, a Syrian-backed militant group that entered into the Lebanese government last year, wanted to carry out attacks on Israel to distract world attention from the U.N. Hariri investigation. Israel shares its northern border with both Lebanon and Syria. Tensions have been high along the border since May 2000, when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon after 22 years of occupation.
Profiting from the power vacuum created by the Israeli pull-out, Hizbollah moved into the area and has since come to dominate it, despite regular U.N. pleas to the Lebanese government that it move its security forces into the south and assert control over it. Hizbollah guerrillas sporadically clash with Israel forces across the border, with Hizbollah rocket or arms fire often triggering retaliation in the form of Israeli military flights over Lebanese territory.

Talk Is Cheap: “Dialogue” vs. Divestment In the Struggle for Justice in Palestine
By James M. Wall-Washington Report, March 2006-Christianity and the Middle East
THE GENERAL Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is the governing body of a Protestant denomination of 2.4 million members, 11,100 congregations and 14,000 ordained and active ministers. At its last meeting in the summer of 2004, already on record opposing the occupation policies of the Israeli government and prodded by a proposal from a local Presbyterian group in Florida, the Presbyterians voted to begin a process to withdraw their investment funds from U.S. corporations that support Israel’s occupation.
That action evoked an immediate response from allies of Israel within and outside the denomination. These forces began an immediate nationwide campaign to influence the Presbyterians to rescind their divestment decision at their next meeting in the summer of 2006. Virtually all of the mainline Protestant denominations in the U.S. are on record in support of the end of violence on both sides in the conflict, and most are specifically opposed to the occupation. Pro-Israel forces have learned to ignore those written and verbal criticisms as just so much God-talk. But divestment is another matter, in part because of the lesson of what divestment accomplished in South Africa.
This concern over Israel’s image took the form of a well-orchestrated series of “dialogue” meetings “requested” by Jewish leaders and Christian Zionists. Meetings were arranged with influential pastors, judicatory executives and anyone else with the ability to influence church and public opinion. At least one editor of a national (Catholic) magazine made his first visit to Israel following an e-mail exchange with an influential Jewish leader in the U.S. The rabbi met him in Israel and arranged for a guided tour. (Tom Roberts wrote about his trip in the Nov. 4, 2005issue of his magazine, National Catholic Reporter.)
The demand for dialogue, which began as soon as the ink was dry on the Presbyterian resolution, is an effective tactic to use with Protestants and others who pride themselves on their desire to “get along” with everyone, and who feel a special obligation to maintain positive relations with the Jewish community. Interfaith denominational executives were especially important to this process, since they have spent many years working to create a positive connection between the two religious communities. In addition to interfaith Protestant leaders, many other Protestants have a strong commitment to peace and justice in the Middle East, with a particular concern to identify with Palestinian suffering caused by Israel’s occupation. In October-November 2005, a group of peace and justice-oriented Presbyterians, in advance of a December vote on divestment within their judicatory body, took a fact-finding trip to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Palestine to meet with religious and political leaders in those countries.
Pauline Coffman, co-chair of Chicago’s Middle East Task Force and a member of the October-November delegation, reported to her constituents that her group was especially interested in the work of churches and its members in Lebanon and Syria, the region in which, under polity agreements with other Protestant bodies, the Presbyterians have worked since the 19th century. Coffman wrote: “We also met with Sheikh Nabil Qawuq, press spokesman for the social welfare arm of Hezbollah, that wing of Hezbollah we knew had been a primary provider of social services to the people of south Lebanon during the 1978-2000 Israeli occupation, during which several villages and five of our churches were destroyed.” (The New York Times report of Dec. 2 incorrectly described the meeting as taking place with an unnamed “commander” for Hezbollah.)
Coffman’s group had been back in Chicago for several weeks when the report on their trip surfaced in The New York Times, stimulated by news reports circulating in American Jewish publications. Reporter Jodi Wilgoren wrote:
“Scrambling to maintain fragile friends with Jewish groups, local and national officials of the Presbyterian Church (USA) are distancing themselves from a meeting in Lebanon between a Hezbollah commander and a Presbyterian delegation that included the denomination’s Chicago leader [Executive Presbyter Robert Reynolds].”
Signaling that the focus of the story would be “dialogue,” and not the impact of divestment on peace and justice, Wilgoren’s article quoted several Jewish leaders, including Jay Tcath, director of Chicago’s Jewish Community Relations Council, who likened the meeting with Hezbollah to one with the Ku Klux Klan. Nowhere in the Times piece was there any reference to the Presbyterians’ historic involvement with Lebanon’s Christian community.
Dr. Jay Rock, the Presbyterian national coordinator for Interfaith Relations, signaled his own priority for Jewish-Christian “dialogue” over divestment when he “promised” Jewish leaders in a letter, reported in The Times, that Presbyterians would develop guidelines for members traveling in “troubled regions,” adding that those attending the Hezbollah meeting should have made clear the church’s position “against terrorism in any form, and for the security and vitality of Israel.”
Martha Reese, chair of the Oak Park, IL Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine, sent an “open” letter to Rock in which she wrote:
“Are you really proposing that the PCUSA should draft a list of necessary statements to be used in meetings between church members and parties in the Middle East? Perhaps, then, we would be required in meetings with Israeli government and military officials to condemn settlement construction and expansion, land theft by expropriation, home demolitions, population transfer, the kidnapping (indefinite imprisonment under “administrative detention” without legal representation or charge) of thousands of Palestinians, the unrestrained violence of Jewish settlers, and the killing and maiming of Palestinian civilians?”
Reese addressed the Hezbollah issue by noting that “it is important for us to understand why [Hezbollah] has succeeded in building a popular base in Lebanon. Similarly in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and in Palestine, Hamas. Who are they? What do they stand for? How do they explain themselves—in their own words? In all three of these cases, Islamist political movements have gained representation by election to their national parliaments. What does this mean for the growth of Middle Eastern democracy, a cause the U.S. is ostensibly promoting?
“A serious student of the region should gather information and experience first hand—that’s the point of travel. If we’re not going to talk to people and listen to them, shouldn’t we just stay home and let journalists and special interest groups filter our information for us?”
The discussion between “dialogue” and divestment will continue at least through the summer of 2006, when the national church’s General Assembly meets again. Meanwhile, the Chicago Presbytery meets every two months to conduct church business. High on the agenda at its Dec. 13 meeting were two resolutions, each seeking to provide guidance for its national delegates on how to proceed on a vote to confirm or revise its stand on divestment at the June 2006 General Assembly meeting, to be held in Birmingham, AL.
The first resolution, presented by the Middle East Task Force, called for an affirmation of the national church’s 2004 resolution to instruct its Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRIC) to continue action that would lead to the divestment of funds from corporations supplying materials for Israel’s occupation.
The second resolution came from a local Downers Grove, IL congregation that would have the church “engage corporations regarding ethical and responsible business practices so as not to contribute to human suffering.” This resolution, however, instructs the Investment Committee “to remove the perceived threat of divestment by more accurately referring to and renaming the process ‘progressive corporate engagement.’”
This latter resolution was the end result of a 17-month churchwide campaign conducted by supporters of Israel—both within and outside the church—to eliminate the term “divestment” from any resolution related to Israel’s occupation. Debate over the two resolutions was intense, culminating in a vote by around 200 delegates (the exact number was not announced by Presbytery leaders). The leaders announced that the two resolutions had been supported by exactly the same number of delegates—i.e., there was no agreement. Efforts were made over lunch to arrive at compromise language between the “progressive engagement” and “divestment” factions, but were unsuccessful. The debate will resume at the February meeting of the Chicago Presbytery.
Meanwhile, Presbyterians meeting in similar Presbytery gatherings around the country could see that, while the movement to divest from corporations servicing Israel’s occupation has not been derailed, in Chicago, at least, it had been shunted off to a side track. There the two sides will continue to fight for, on the one hand, divestment as a sign of support for Palestinians under occupation, versus continued dialogue to rebuild “fragile” Jewish-Christian relationships in the U.S. through the use of euphemisms like “progressive engagement”—anything to avoid the dreaded “divestment” term.
Of course, everyone involved knows that when the church brought pressure to bear against the white rulers of South Africa, it was the hard economic pressure of “divestment” that led to the demise of apartheid—not “constructive engagement,” as the Reagan administration then called it. Supporters of Israel in the Chicago discussions resent the comparison, but advocates of divestment will not hesitate to evoke the example of South Africa, pointing to the fact that, through laws, walls and other “facts on the ground,” Israel continues to force Palestinians into their own apartheid compounds.
James M. Wall, a United Methodist clergyman who has traveled to the region on a regular basis since 1972, writes frequently on Palestine and Israel. From 1972 through 1999 he was editor of the Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, IL, and is currently its senior contributing editor.

Lebanon still in Syria's grip in
BEIRUT: Despite its troop pullout from Lebanon, Syria still has the last word on whether pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud should heed calls for his resignation and on the choice of any successor, analysts said. Lahoud, whose term was extended at Syria's behest in 2004, has so far survived a concerted drive by Lebanon's majority anti-Syrian coalition to remove him from power. The anti-Lahoud campaign has stumbled partly because Lebanese factions have not agreed who should replace him and because the president still has support from Syria's Shi'ite allies, blocking any swift constitutional way to impeach him.
That leaves compromise with Syria as the most viable option. "Emile Lahoud can't be toppled without the consent of the Syrian president," Nicola Nassif, a columnist at Beirut's leading An-Nahar newspaper, said. "Syrian President Bashar Al Assad owns the head of Emile Lahoud." Anti-Syrian leaders who say Lahoud is a remnant of a fading era of Syrian tutelage had pledged to remove him by March 14. But they failed to win over Shi'ite politicians at a "national dialogue conference" called to tackle disputes over the ousting of Lahoud and the disarming of Hizbollah guerillas - two elements of a 2004 UN Security Council resolution. While agreeing on less contentious issues like calling for full diplomatic ties with Syria and the disarming of pro-Syrian Palestinian fighters outside refugee camps, the leaders adjourned on Tuesday, saying only they would meet again on March 22 to discuss the "crisis of rule" in the country.
Anti-Syrian leaders said this showed there was a consensus about the need to replace Lahoud, while pro-Syrian participants said it was simply an agreement to more talks on the issue. Several names have circulated as possible presidential candidates. They include former member of parliament Nassib Lahoud and current MP Boutrous Harb, both from the anti-Syrian camp, as well as Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh. But each candidate - all Maronite Christians in line with Lebanon's confessional system - appears to be unpopular with one or more factions. Ironically, the factions that campaigned to end Syria's influence in Lebanon still need Damascus if they are to topple Lahoud. They accuse him of blocking the work of the government formed after they won May/June parliamentary elections.
The anti-Syrian coalition is well short of the two-thirds majority in parliament needed to unseat Lahoud - a process that legislators could take up to eight months any way. Reaching the threshold would require unlikely defections by deputies of the Syrian-backed Shi'ite Amal and Hizbollah groups or by MPs loyal to Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun.
Political sources said Aoun would support Lahoud's removal if he was chosen to succeed him, an improbable scenario given that Aoun is loathed by many in the anti-Syrian coalition. Lahoud's opponents could resort to street protests to force him to quit, but this could lead to clashes with pro-Syrian counter-demonstrations and plunge the country into choas. So diplomacy could be a better option for the anti-Syrian coalition led by Saad Al Hariri, son of the assassinated Sunni Muslim ex-premier Rafik Al Hariri, Druze chief Walid Jumblatt and former Christian militia boss Samir Geagea.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are working behind the scene to end the impasse, diplomats, political sources and analysts say.
They expect contacts with Syria before the Arab summit in Sudan at the end of March but it remains unclear what they could trade for Syrian consent to Lahoud's removal, other than a pledge that any new president would not be hostile to Damascus.
But an Arab diplomat said Cairo and Riyadh were unlikely to exert much pressure on Syria when it is already under fire from the United States and France over its role in Lebanon and its suspected role in Hariri's assassination on February 14, 2005.
A UN inquiry has implicated Syrian and Lebanese security officials in the killing. Damascus denies any involvement. "I can't see an end to the issue of the president outside a comprehensive deal whose details are not quite clear yet," analyst Rafik Nasrallah said. Nassif agreed, saying: "If there is no compromise involving the Arabs and agreement on the successor, Lahoud will not fall." Prolonging the status quo would mean continued government paralysis, harming business and an economy with a $36 billion debt, and could lead to more violence, diplomats warn. Isolated by his foes and by Western leaders, Lahoud cuts a lonely figure in his presidential palace, but the former army commander still vows to serve out his term until November 2007.

The US Democratization Program and the Kurds of Syria
3/16/2006 KurdishMedia.com - By Jeff Klein
Kurdish American Committee for Democracy in Syria
“Democracy in Syria and Kurdish Human & National Rights”
The following speech was given on March 13, 2006 at the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, DC as part of a panel discussion entitled “American Foreign Policy and Spread of Democracy – Kurdish Strategy”.
Since September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush has gone on the offensive against terrorism and conveyed to Americans and the world that he believes that the current struggle is one between good and evil, between proponents of freedom and its most dedicated and brutal enemies. His response to the atrocities of that day have resulted in the elimination of two of the world’s most oppressive regimes, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Ba’athist regime in Iraq.
Despite the liberation of what President Bush has called 50 million people, the US has few friends in the Middle East. The US continues to find itself implicated in a variety of crimes courtesy of the conspiracy theories that are the currency of the region. American flags are burned routinely throughout the Muslim world, from Pakistan to Iran, and are occasionally even set ablaze in the streets of Turkey. Thankfully, for the time being, President Bush and his administration do not seem to be wavering in their vision for the Middle East. In initiating the War on Terror following unprecedented attacks against civilians on US soil, the President began to speak of democratization of the Middle East. This ambitious democratization program seems to have become a centerpiece of American foreign policy, and the President’s rhetoric indicates that the US indeed has an interest in the freedoms of the region as a whole, even beyond the borders of Iraq. Speaking of the former Iraqi regime and its sister regime in Syria, the only surviving Ba’athist regime which is by definition driven by the same totalitarian and racist ideology that inspired Saddam Hussein, the President stated in his speech at the commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy that “dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories” but “they’ve left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin.” The truth of this statement, following years of oppression, mass murder, and terror at the hands of Iraqi and Syrian Ba’athists, cannot be disputed.
For decades the Kurds have suffered as the Syrian regime, consistent with its Ba’athist ideology, has actively pursued a campaign of Arabization of the country, and today we have heard in great detail about the terrible consequences of this policy.
It is logical that the US would keep a close watch on Syria, especially following the elimination of Saddam Hussein’s regime, for a variety of reasons. The Asad regime in Syria is related to the former Saddam regime in both its official ideology and its repressive practices. Both regimes were active sponsors of terrorists who attack American interests. Following the fall of Saddam’s regime, Syria provided free passage and shelter to a number of former Iraqi Ba’athist regime members, disregarding past tensions between the two regimes. Since the beginning of the US-led attack on Saddam’s regime in 2003, thousands of Syrians and non-Syrians have crossed the Syrian/Iraqi border for the purpose of fighting US and coalition soldiers and disrupting efforts made to bring democracy to Iraq. For some time after the initiation of the military campaign against Saddam’s regime, public advertisements could be seen in Syria which called for volunteers to go fight the Americans in Iraq. It is simply inconceivable that this could occur in a police state such as Ba’athist Syria without the knowledge and blessing of the governmental authorities.
The Kurds of Syria are a natural and dependable ally for the US in its democratization program simply because they, like their brothers in Iraq, embrace the concepts of secular democracy and equal rights for all regardless of religion, gender, or ethnicity. On March 12, 2004, Kurdish soccer fans in Qamishlo responded to pro-Saddam chants with pro-Kurdistan and pro-America slogans. The total number of Kurds detained, tortured and murdered as a result of the ensuing events discussed today now known as the March 12 Uprising, Serhildana Duandzê Adarê, remains unknown. During the course of these events, the US government paid little attention to the uprising in Syria, despite the undeniable fact that a pro-American force was spontaneously rising against one of America’s most dedicated enemies in the region.
Unfortunately, this was not the last time in recent memory that the US ignored a grave crime committed by the Syrian regime against the Kurdish people. Of course I am referring to Sheikh Mohammed Ma’ashouq al-Khaznawi, a staunch advocate of Kurdish rights, a critic of terrorism in Iraq, and a vocal proponent of democracy. The liberation of Iraq had inspired the Kurdish cleric to the point where he told a newspaper that he was speaking against the Syrian regime, quote, “because the Americans are trying get rid of dictators and help the oppressed.”
As Western commentators rarely miss an opportunity to complain about the lack of moderate Muslim scholars, it is a wonder that the abduction, torture and subsequent death of a pro-American Muslim leader who was one of the terrorists’ most prominent opponents in the Muslim religious community did not seem to be of much interest to those in the West who preach about a War on Terror and democratization of the Middle East. Syrian-backed assassinations of political figures in Lebanon provoked strong words from US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, but yet there were no resounding words of condemnation or threats directed at the Syrian regime following the abduction and murder of Sheikh Khaznawi, events that drove thousands of Kurds in Qamishlo and elsewhere to take to the streets in protest and mourning.
It is nothing short of perplexing that the US government and those who claim to support a War on Terror and democratization in the Middle East chose to remain silent following the murder of Sheikh Khaznawi. He was a brave and honest supporter of the cause of bringing freedom to his people, Kurds and non-Kurds alike. He was a charismatic leader with widespread support, as seen by the outpouring of protest following both his abduction and murder. Nonetheless, the US government, and media for that matter, both ignored his politically motivated elimination.
It is time for the US to embrace its true natural allies in the Middle East. Much effort is made by the US government to build bridges with hostile groups in the region, and thus it makes sense for some level of effort to be made to aid those groups, such as the Kurds of Syria, who are true friends of the US and share the ideology and vision of US, the President, and his administration. If valuable potential allies and true freedom fighters such as Sheikh Khaznawi are to be ignored in both life and death, then there is little reason give any credence to lofty talk of democratization in the Middle East. The restive masses suffering under dictatorship will be hesitant to raise their voices in support of freedom if they see their leaders who attempt to act as pioneers in the democratization project fall victim to bloody business as usual at the hands of dictators without so much as a word of protest from the US President or his government. The President and his administration must make a choice, and if the democratization program is to be a reality as opposed to a mere rhetorical device, the US government simply must take a more active role in protecting and assisting the Kurdish people of Syria, a natural ally who in turn can be of great assistance to the US in any attempt to bring peace and freedom to the Middle East.
Thank you.

Syria 'crucial' to Hariri inquiry
By Susannah Price -BBC correspondent, United Nations
The investigation commission's mandate ends in June
The head of the UN inquiry into the murder of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri says improved co-operation from Syria was critical to its success. Chief investigator Serge Brammertz told UN Security Council members he had been given permission to meet Syria's president in the coming month. Mr Brammertz also said a number of new leads had led to "faster than expected progress" in certain important areas. Mr Hariri was killed in a massive car bomb in Beirut in February 2005.
The previous UN chief investigator, Detlev Mehlis, had accused Syria of failing to co-operate and said this had impeded the investigation. Mr Mehlis had also concluded that Mr Hariri, a critic of Syria's involvement in Lebanon, could not have been killed without the knowledge of Syrian and Lebanese officials. Syria said it was not involved in the assassination and that it is co-operating. The investigation commission's mandate ends in June and Mr Brammertz warned they could not guarantee that their work would be finalised in a few months.

Special Report
From Massacre to Militia: The Case Against Palestinian Disarmament in Lebanon
By Marwan Kanafani and Elizabeth Schiffrin
WALKING through the unpaved streets of Ain el-Helweh—with approximately 50,000 inhabitants, the largest Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon—I find myself surrounded by concrete and garbage. With each breath I take I inhale either sewage or gasoline fumes, the latter from the diesel engines of cars squeezing through the narrow roadways. Old men scatter along the roads selling anything they can: tomatoes, car parts, batteries. There is no coherence about the items they sell, but this is the order they have made for themselves in a place defined by chaos.
Located on the outskirts of Sidon in south Lebanon, across the street from an amusement park called “Funny World,” this camp has existed since 1948, when, with the creation of the state of Israel, 700,000 Palestinians fled or were pushed from their native land. Today, the number of Palestinian refugees who live in Lebanon is approximately 350,000, according to the United Nations Relief Works Agency. Hoards of children carry toy guns so closely resembling authentic weapons they would be banned in the United States. These are the children of the Palestinian militia in Lebanon. When they grow strong enough, many of them will join the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP GC), graduating from pellet gun to Kalashnikov.
Origins of the PFLP GC
To understand the origins of a group like the PFLP GC, and why the U.S. is trying to disarm it, one must refer back to 1964, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was created by a group of Palestinian intellectuals in the Diaspora. With a priority placed on liberating Palestine through armed struggle, the PLO became the official representative of the Palestinian people. Between 1964 and 1967, the PLO was plugged into a broader nationalist struggle based on the ideology that Palestinian liberation was inextricably linked to the liberation of all Arabs.
This nationalist cause was forever altered following the 1967 Six-Day War. As Egypt, Jordan and Syria were mobilizing their forces along their strategic borders, Israel, pre-empting any Arab attack by launching an offensive which destroyed the Arab armies in a mere six days. Having seen that the rest of the Arab world could not successfully come to the aid of the Palestinian cause, many Palestinians took this defeat as motivation to take up their own armed struggle. As a result, groups such as the PFLP GC, founded by a Palestinian refugee living in Syria named Ahmed Jibril, began to splinter off from the more political factions of the PLO in order to make armed resistance their primary objective.
The PFLP GC has since developed into the most significant Palestinian militia group in Lebanon. However, its existence has been challenged by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, sponsored by Washington and passed in 2004, which “calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.” But, according to PFLP GC Central Committee spokesman Hamzi Bishtawi, a Palestinian refugee who was displaced with his family to the Shatila camp in 1948, until the Palestinian refugees currently living in Lebanon are allowed to return to a Palestinian state, the PFLP GC will remain armed. “We know what wealth of weaponry the enemy possesses,” Bishtawi says, “and we know that mostly because of our casualties. At this point in history we have attempted to acquire whatever we can put our hands on to fight the enemy.”
In the opinion of Salah Mohammad Salah, chairman of the Palestinian Refugees Standing Committee, a department of the PLO in Lebanon, the current U.S. focus on Palestinian disarmament is a political tactic rather than an attempt to address a real threat. The PFLP GC is ready to take up arms in defense of their people, he points out, not as an active provocation against Lebanese security forces. “Many would like to say that Palestinians are still used by the Syrians and that they are very dangerous to the internal situation,” he notes, but contends that this is an attempt “to avoid dealing with the real issue: the right of return.” The United States would like to bundle the PFLP GC and the Syrians together, Salah asserts, thus making a case for disarmament easier to swallow.
Since PFLP GC founder Ahmed Jibril was a former captain in the Syrian army, he garnered support from forces within Syria, thereby ensuring a steady supply of Kalashnikovs, Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), explosives, mines, hand grenades and other light- to medium-grade weaponry. Nor have these weapons, hidden underground inside refugee camps such as Ain el-Helweh as well as in various caves in the Bekaa Valley, been subject to regular inspection and maintenance. In addition, training on the use of these weapons has been sparse. Despite these disadvantages, however, many young Palestinians continue to gravitate toward armed resistance. The daily realities of their lives—rampant unemployment, substandard living conditions, and little access to education—push them to take up arms. But beyond their modern-day struggles lies a history that quickly reveals why these young people believe their survival depends on their ability to defend themselves.
A History of Resistance
In 1982, the Israelis invaded Lebanon and pushed their way up to Beirut under the pretext of routing the PLO. After a massive Israeli bombing effort against Palestinian camps and neighborhoods in Beirut, a deal was finally struck allowing for safe passage of the PLO out of Lebanon. Two days after the PLO fighters were evacuated, Israel deployed its armed forces around the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in breach of the cease-fire agreement. Nevertheless, Israel was not asked to withdraw by the supervising international forces. On the evening of Sept. 16, 1982, then Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon reportedly invited Lebanese Phalangist militia units to enter the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. For the next 36 to 48 hours, they massacred 3,000 to 3,500 unarmed Palestinian refugees.
Three years later, as the survivors of Sabra and Shatila were still recovering from what the U.N. General Assembly called an “act of genocide,” another foe attacked. At the time, Syria was seeking to assert its own dominance over the PLO’s growing control of south Lebanon through the creation of Amal, a militia comprising Lebanese Shi’i Muslims. Amal launched attacks against the Palestinian refugees camps of Sabra, Shatila, and Burj el-Brajneh in Beirut and, in south Lebanon, the Rushidiyye camp of Tyre. Between 1985 and 1988, the Amal War of the Camps claimed the lives of 3,781 people, with close to 7,000 injured.
In 1989, the Taif Accords were signed in Saudi Arabia, ending the Lebanese civil war. Taking into account the Sabra and Shatila massacres and the Amal War, Palestinians were allowed under Taif to retain “light weaponry.” The accords assigned Syria to be the main security force in Lebanon while various militias—Lebanese and Palestinian—remained armed.
Over the next 16 years, tensions brewed between Syrian forces and armed Lebanese nationalists struggling for control of their country. This tension culminated on Feb. 14, 2005, when a massive bomb exploded in a truck parked along Beirut’s seaside corniche, killing former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Harriri. Rumors immediately circulated that the assassination was a Syrian plot to rid Lebanon of one of its most ardent and popular anti-Syrian leaders. The universal outcry at the loss of such a revered leader was just what the U.S. needed to shift attention away from its unpopular war in Iraq and to rally support for the disarmament of anti-Israeli armed militia groups. In other words, it was a perfect time to push for implementing U.N. Resolution 1559.
U.N. Resolution 1559
Drafted in 2004, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 contained three main demands: immediate withdrawal of Syrian forces and intelligence, free Lebanese elections, and the disarmament of all militia. Within six months of Harriri’s assassination, Syria’s last soldier was on his way back to Damascus. With Syria gone, Lebanon lacked any legitimate security apparatus that could combat Israeli aggression in the south. That void was filled by Hezbollah.
The most popular armed militia in Lebanon for Palestinians and Lebanese alike, Hezbollah can briefly be described as an Iranian-backed Shi’i Muslim resistance organization, dedicated to defending Lebanon from Israeli invasion and occupation. Since the end of the Lebanese civil war in 1989, U.S. policy toward Lebanon has focused increasingly on security for Washington’s major ally in the region: Israel. However, the U.S. knows it cannot achieve this aim as long as armed militia groups control certain areas, such as Hezbollah in south Lebanon and the PFLP GC in the refugee camps.
Speaking with Cairo’s Al-Ahram newspaper, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated, “Of course, in the long run you can’t have a democratic society and a society based on rule of law where you have groups or organizations that are committed to violence outside of that framework.”
According to Rami Khoury, a Jordanian-Palestinian free-lance journalist for Lebanon’s Daily Star, the discussion of the disarmament of Palestinian militia must take into account Hezbollah. “Palestinian arms are coupled with Hezbollah arms,” Koury maintains. “The Palestinians defend themselves against any threat of Israeli aggression, Lebanese aggression, and internal feuds. The fact is, though, the Palestinians aren’t a danger to the security of Lebanon, and Hezbollah is the only group able to fight the Israelis. The Lebanese are intent on incorporating Hezbollah into the security force. At this point, disarmament is a waiting game.”
Under 1559 the Palestinian refugees cannot be forced to give up their weapons without the concurrent disarmament of Hezbollah. But Hezbollah has become a vital element of Lebanese security. The question therefore becomes, points out Khalid Ayid of the Institute of Palestine Studies in Lebanon: “With public support for the U.S. war in Iraq withering away in the sun and a weak Lebanese security apparatus, who is up for the mighty task of disarming Hezbollah?”
Backed Into a Corner
With their outdated weapons hidden in caves and an untrained youth militia patrolling the cramped streets of some 12 refugee camps, the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon do not constitute a major military threat. However, they are being backed into a corner by Resolution 1559. According to Khoury, all the Palestinians have left to continue their struggle is light weaponry—and Washington want them to give even that up.
Moreover, the plight of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is further exacerbated by the lack of coherence among Palestinian leaders. The PFLP GC’s Bishtawi believes that Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas is limited by his attempts to meet the demands of the U.S. administration. “Abu Mazen [Abbas] is imprisoned by the road map and by Oslo and whatever the American administration is able to hand out to them. We’re always asking him to leave this prison,” Bishtawi says. “It’s the ambitions of the Palestinian people and their vision and their faith that you cannot restrict us by Oslo or by the road map. There is another road map that the Palestinians have chosen: the resistance and the intifada.”
Recent talks between the PA and the Lebanese have not dealt directly with the disarmament issue. Speaking to Agence France Presse (AFP), Prime Minister Abbas said, “The Palestinians are being hosted temporarily by Lebanon, and the law of this country must apply to us as it applies to others. This resolution (1559) concerns the Lebanese government, which is free to apply it as it wants.”
Essentially, Abbas and the PA essentially have relinquished the responsibility of disarmament to the Lebanese, the question becomes, who is going to advocate on behalf of the Palestinian refugees? Abbas is the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A disregard for the plight of the refugees could further fracture his already tenuous position. With only 47 percent of Palestinians who live in Lebanese refugee camps favoring disarmament because of their overwhelming fear of yet another massacre, Abbas will have to alter his approach if he is to convince the refugees in Lebanon that they will not be forgotten.
In the wake of Harriri’s assassination and renewed efforts to implement Resolution 1559, the U.S. faces the challenge of finding a way to negotiate the issue of disarmament among Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian refugees. Israel cannot expect normalized relations while it continues to fly over Lebanese airspace, bomb south Lebanon, and threaten its neighbor’s sovereignty. Hezbollah, the PFLP GC and other armed militia groups cannot realistically be asked to disarm while Israel still poses a threat in the region. Palestinian refugees will be unwilling to give up their limited means of defending themselves without their own state through which they may realize autonomy and power. Nor can the U.S. successfully negotiate without holding Israel responsible for its continued expansion of illegal Jewish settlements, construction of its annexation wall, and unwillingness to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes as guaranteed by international law and U.N. resolutions.
Paying the Highest Price
Ultimately, Lebanon’s Palestinian refugees pay the highest price. With promises of security having collapsed into bloody massacres, and the constant fear of attack looming over their daily lives, Palestinians in Lebanon will not disarm. “These fears [will not] be easily forgotten by the Palestinian refugees in the camps,” observes the Institute of Palestine Studies’ Ayid, “because they paid dearly for it and I don’t think they can afford to pay for it once more.”
This is a reality Washington must acknowledge. The armed refugees in the Ain el-Helweh camp hold onto their weapons the same way the old men hold on to the keys of the homes from which they were expelled. Such artifacts may be outdated and worn, but they are the last means of survival for an abandoned people.
**Marwan Kanafani, a Lebanese-American writer currently living in Beirut, is editor of The New Constitution Magazine, <www.thenewconstitution.com>. Elizabeth Schiffrin is a free-lance writer based in New York.

Bishara denies he was Barak's emissary to Syria
By JPOST.COM STAFF
17/03/06: Former Syrian vice president Abdel Halim Hadam revealed on Friday that MK Azmi Bishara served as an emissary of the Ehud Barak government, assisting in the negotiations between Syria and Israel.
The Nazareth-based a-Sinara reported Hadam as saying that in one of his visits Bishara brought a sketch of Israel's future borders drawn on a napkin by Barak's advisor MK Danny Yatom.  According to Army Radio, Bishara denied the report, saying it was "utter nonsense and the timing, so close to the elections, raises some questions."

Syria to hold talks with investigators in Hariri probe
Assad insists his cooperation level has not changed
By IRWIN ARIEFF-Reuters News Service
March 16, 2006, 10:54PM-LONDON - Syrian President Bashar Assad said on Thursday he would hold talks in April with U.N. investigators probing the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri last year. Assad told Britain's Sky television in an interview Syria would put on trial as a traitor any citizen found to be involved in the Feb. 14, 2004, assassination, but he did not rule out handing over any suspects to be tried abroad.
"We told (the U.N. investigators) formally, in a letter, that they are going to meet with the president and the vice president ... it's a meeting, so it's different from interrogation," Assad said without giving an exact date in April.
"In the meeting, they can ask about anything, and we expect them to ask about the political background of the problem or the relations between Syria and Lebanon and all these things." On Tuesday, the United Nations investigation committee said in its third report on Hariri's assassination that Assad and Vice President Farouq Shara had agreed for the first time to talk to the inquiry but the panel did not say when. The decision reflected improved relations between Syria and the inquiry since Belgian Serge Brammertz replaced German Detelv Mehlis as head of the investigation team. In his first report since taking charge, Brammertz said the probe was closer to a detailed understanding of how the plot was carried out and also predicted success in solving the crime, partly because of better cooperation from Syria.
A previous report by Mehlis had implicated senior Syrian officials and their Lebanese allies in the killing. It also accused Damascus of dragging its feet over the investigation.
Hariri was a strong critic of Syria's decades-long domination of Lebanon and many Lebanese suspect Syrian involvement in his killing. Damascus denies involvement. His killing in a suicide truck bombing in Beirut sparked international outrage and Lebanese protests that ultimately led to Syria's withdrawal of its troops from the country. Assad said the level of Syrian cooperation had not changed. "What's changed is the president of the committee. In his last report ... it was more objective because it recognized Syrian cooperation," he said. "So we haven't changed, but we are more optimistic because things now are getting more objective and more professional."
Asked if Syria was ready to hand over any suspect implicated in the killing to an international tribunal, Assad said: "According to our law, they are traitors and they should be punished immediately, so there's no discussion about this in Syria. They are traitors."

A war the Americans at last are learning to fight
By David Ignatius -Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Three years on, the American military is finally becoming adept at fighting a counterinsurgency war in Iraq. Sadly, these are precisely the skills that should have been mastered before the United States launched its invasion in March 2003. It may prove one of the costliest lessons in the history of modern warfare.
I had a chance to see the new counterinsurgency doctrine in practice here this week. U.S. troops are handing off to the Iraqi Army a growing share of the security burden. As the Iraqis step up, the Americans are stepping back into a training and advisory role. This is the way it should have happened from the beginning.
A brutal stress test came on February 22, when Sunni insurgents destroyed a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra. For a moment, Iraq seemed to be slipping toward civil war, but the Iraqi Army performed surprisingly well. In many areas, Iraqi forces - backed up by overwhelming U.S. firepower - helped restore order. "You never know the tipping point until you're past it," says General George Casey, the commander of U.S. forces. With many other American and Iraqi officials, he hopes Samarra may have been such a tipping point, for the better.
Iraq is still a mess. Traveling over Baghdad by Black Hawk helicopter, you can see piles of fetid trash on nearly every block and pools of raw sewage glinting in the sun. Car bombs and roadside explosions are still a daily feature of life, and the death toll remains horrific, especially for Iraqi civilians. But it would be a mistake to think that nothing is changing. The country is fragile, but it hasn't splintered apart.
I visited two bases where you can see the new American strategy beginning to take hold. The first was at Taji, straddling the Tigris River north of Baghdad, where the American 4th Infantry Division is gradually handing off responsibility to Iraqi units. After the Samarra bombing, enraged Shiites killed two Sunni clerics and there was a danger that the reprisal killings could escalate.
Tensions eased after an Iraqi brigade commander, a Shiite, rolled his armored vehicles into the Sunni stronghold of Tarmiya and told local imams that his men would protect their mosques against Shiite attacks - and that in return, they must control Sunni militants. "He laid down the law," remembers Colonel Jim Pasquarette, who commands U.S. forces in the area. The crisis gradually eased there, with U.S. forces mostly remaining in the background.
"This is the hardest thing I've ever done," says Pasquarette of the new rules of counterinsurgency. "In the old days, it was black and white - see a guy and shoot him. But counterinsurgency is a thinking man's sport. Every decision you make, you have to step back and say, 'What's the next thing that's going to happen?"' He says he drills his troops to remember the "three P's" of the new Iraqi battlefield: "be polite, be professional, be prepared to kill."
The town of Abu Ghraib, just west of Baghdad, faced a similar test after Samarra. The area is almost entirely Sunni; the Iraqi Army unit that has responsibility there is largely Shiite. That sounds like a recipe for disaster, but the Iraqi brigade commander, a feisty Shiite from southern Iraq named General Aziz, is making it work. After the Samarra explosion, Aziz told me, he convened a meeting with local tribal and religious leaders.
"I am responsible for your safety," he admonished them. "The law should protect us all. There are no militias in this area." He told the local leaders they could protect their homes and mosques, but if he found anyone carrying weapons on the streets, he would kill them. The message seemed to work. A fiery local Sunni imam told his worshipers last Friday they should try to live with their neighbors.
Inside his headquarters, Aziz shows me a video of a suicide bomb that nearly killed him and his American adviser, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Samson, two weeks ago. "He has the blood of my soldiers on his uniform," he says respectfully of the American. Outside Aziz's office is what he calls a "martyr tree," listing the names of the 22 men in his brigade who have died. "There can be only one hero in Iraq - the army," he tells me.
I wouldn't pretend that these two snapshots are an accurate representation of the whole of Iraq. If that were so, the country wouldn't be in such a mess. But this is the way this war is supposed to be going. It's several years late, but the new U.S. strategy is moving in the right direction.
***Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.

Syrians have not been told how their aspiring rulers intend to govern
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Editorial-Daily Star
On Friday, a group of 14 exiled Syrian politicians were gathering in Brussels to discuss the future of their home country. From the comfort of their hotel conference room, the alliance of strange bedfellows - which includes former Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam, the Muslim Brotherhood, communists, liberals and Kurds - called on Syrians to overthrow what they labeled a corrupt, authoritarian regime in Damascus.
The call for Syrians to risk their lives and rebel against President Bashar Assad was reminiscent of former U.S. President George H. W. Bush's call on February 15, 1991 for Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein. By March 3, 1991, the Iraqis had heeded Bush's call, but the consequences were disastrous. Hussein's forces responded to the rebellion with an iron fist, and as many as 100,000 Iraqis were killed in the ensuing violence. The U.S. administration that had urged Iraqis to rebel was either unable or unwilling to intervene. The result was that those Iraqis who had followed Bush's advice were led like lambs to the slaughter.
Even assuming that the outcome of a Syrian revolt would be different and that the Syrian opposition can cement their control over the country, Syrians still have little idea what to expect from their aspiring rulers, who have virtually no popular support at home. Ordinary Syrians are understandably skeptical of Khaddam, who was for 35 years one of the sentinels of the regime. Even those who accept that Khaddam has shed his authoritarian stripes and is now a true democrat have not been told what kind of future he envisions for the country.
While opposition leaders have vigorously criticized the regime, they have not put forward a platform on how, if given the chance, they intend to govern the new Syria. How are Syrians to believe that they will not be substituting one brand of corruption with another? What strategy for political or economic change does the opposition have?
The Muslim Brotherhood, which probably has the largest following out of the parties gathered in Brussels, commands some respect at home because of their perceived commitment to justice and their reputation as honest leaders. But even the Brotherhood has given few hints about how it will run the affairs of the state. And Syrians can't expect justice and honesty alone to generate jobs and economic growth.
Without a solid manifesto, the opposition is merely poking fun at an embattled regime. Although this is fair in politics, it is unfair to the Syrian people. It also illustrates how out of touch the opposition is with the plight of ordinary Syrians, who are in dire economic straits and defenseless against a repressive regime. Improving the lives of Syrians will require more than just overthrowing Assad. Until the opposition produces a plan that will be understood and appreciated by ordinary Syrians they have little hope of gaining allies in their quest for power.

What will round three of national dialogue produce?
By Walid Choucair -Daily Star
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Questions continue to abound concerning the upcoming third round of the national dialogue to be convened next Wednesday, particularly concerning the fate of President Emile Lahoud and Hizbullah's military wing. There is, however, a persistent rumor that the dialogue's participants will agree on a defense policy to protect Lebanon from Israeli aggression.
Accordingly, an audience of Lebanese is in a state of cautious expectation, despite the positive results reached during the dialogue's last round.
One member of the March 14 Forces said the level of progress achieved in previous rounds of the dialogue is evidenced by the Shiite alliance's agreement to discuss Hizbullah's arms, considering that attempts to even broach the subject have long been taboo. This political camp believes the national dialogue has already climaxed, as far as tensions are concerned, and is now moving forward toward agreement on the necessary compromises.
Another positive sign is that the Shiite alliance did not turn its request for a suspension of the dialogue on March 7 into a situation reminiscent of their seven-week boycott of the Cabinet.
At the insistence of Speaker Nabih Berri and Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the dialogue was adjourned after a disagreement over whether to ask Syria to acknowledge the Lebanese identity of the Shebaa Farms. The alliance attributed the break in the dialogue to statements made by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt in Washington.
But the Shiite alliance returned to the table willing to find a moderate solution to proving the Farms' identity, thus overcoming Jumblatt's statements. Maintaining a suspension of the dialogue for too long would have cost the resistance its raison d'etre, as Hizbullah has repeatedly listed its main mission as liberating Lebanese territory.
The discord over asking Syria to prove the Farms' identity prodded Jumblatt to up the stakes. The Chouf MP first went in front of the cameras and said the Farms were Syrian; then accepted to agree they were Lebanese in exchange for official Syrian documentation of the claim. This Syrian confirmation had been rejected outright by the Shiite alliance until the very last moment, but was finally agreed due to the insistence of Future bloc leader Saad Hariri, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and the entire March 14 coalition. Another member of the dialogue believed that any progress on the Palestinian file is laudable, particularly as any and all decisions concerning the weapons outside Lebanon's refugee camps are made in Syria.
Some parties suggest that if the discussions held two months ago between Hariri and the Shiite alliance had been properly managed, several issues would have been settled much sooner. This belief is based on the fact that the text adopted to pronounce the Lebanese identity of the Shebaa Farms is the same that was proposed to secure the return of the Shiite ministers to Cabinet. But one participant in the dialogue said the issue of toppling the president had not been raised at that time, and in exchange for this omission, the March 14 Forces secured Shiite approval to address the issue from the position of an existing "crisis of rule."
Some observers are pinning their hopes on the sideline meetings held between Hariri and Hizbullah. According to sources close to the talks, Hariri supports preserving the resistance as a "deterrence force," but believes that it is important to put this force under government control. As for the presidency, the same sources said that while the Shiite alliance continues to support Lahoud's mandate, meetings held on the sidelines are discussing names of potential successors.
Geagea has already said the March 14 Forces may come to an agreement on that name before Wednesday. Despite all of these advances, the issue is dependent on Arab-Syrian talks to be held during the Arab summit set to begin March 28. Consequently, the remaining issues will not be solved before next month.

Counter the West's distrust of Islam with a united Muslim front
By Buthaina Shaaban _Daily Star
Saturday, March 18, 2006
The only time U.S. President George W. Bush spoke of India and Pakistan as equals is when he urged leaders of both countries to "resolve the issue between them." The issue being Kashmir, an unresolved dispute left behind by the British occupation. In all other matters, Bush found them to be different: "Two different countries, with different needs, and different histories." Acknowledging those differences was in the context of justifying the dissimilar American treatment of both countries regarding nuclear cooperation.
Otherwise, and from a historical perspective, it's rather difficult to spot the differences mentioned by Bush between India and Pakistan. After defeating British occupation, Pakistan seceded from India due to inter-religious conflicts. Later, India conducted nuclear testing, and Pakistan followed suit to achieve a military balance.
As a result of the deal recently concluded with the United States, India has gained access to nuclear technology in exchange for disentangling its civilian nuclear program from its weapons-building facilities. Pakistan, on the other hand, only received a verbal confirmation from Bush of its position as "a vital ally in the war on terrorism." Bush, of course, hinted at the necessity of conducting "transparent and democratic elections" next year.
Practically, and unlike India, Pakistan was ineligible for a nuclear cooperation with the United States for civil purposes. Bush, however, did not forget to urge Pakistan to replace "the ideology of hate" with an "ideology of hope." Then he asked for "intelligence exchange" between the two countries, as the "best means to defeat Al-Qaeda."
This typical discourse used with Muslim countries is now used with Iran to stop its attempts at nuclear enrichment. John Bolton, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said that the minute it acquires the scientific and technical ability for nuclear enrichment, even only in labs, Iran will be able to use this power in industrial activities. Therefore, Bolton emphasized that, as Americans, "we are very convinced that we should not allow any nuclear enrichment in Iran." As for Scott McClellan, the White House's spokesperson, he called on the "international community" to resume its efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons: "It's a matter of trust, and the political system in Iran has showed, over almost two decades, that it cannot be trusted."Indeed, it is a matter of having trust, not only in Iran, but also in Pakistan and any other Muslim country. Obviously, "Muslims" cannot be trusted, nor dealt with on grounds equal to non-Muslim countries. This is the core issue that underlines the difference in American treatment toward India and Pakistan. Were it not for the American war on terrorism and need for "intelligence," Pakistan today would have faced the threat of sanctions that Iran is facing, to halt its nuclear program.
It has become quite evident that Muslims are not allowed to acquire advanced technology due to "a matter of trust." The West does not "trust" Muslims, regardless of the varying justifications. Public polls in the United States show that almost half the American population believes that Islam feeds terrorism. One out of four Americans confessed to harboring racist sentiments against Muslims and Arabs.
It is high time that the more than 50 Muslim states around the globe stand up for one another. Instead, however, the Organization of Islamic Countries is being used for trumpeting Western agendas. One can only wonder why there isn't some unified Islamic authority that guarantees the dignity and rights of Muslim people around the world. Muslim leaders need to resolve "matters of trust" among themselves. Only then will the "international community" trust them, and respect their aspirations. Only then, will the American administration treat India and Pakistan on equal grounds.
**Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban is the Syrian expatriates minister.

Lebanon's experiment with a hybrid tribunal
Questions linger as to cost of court, use of death penalty, exact location
By Jerome Mayer-Cantu -Special to The Daily Star
Saturday, March 18, 2006
The UN Security Council is scheduled to receive a report early next week from Undersecretary General for Legal Affairs Nicolas Michel on the progress made in establishing an international tribunal to try those accused of former Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri's murder. It has also been reported that Secretary General Kofi Annan is to hold talks with Lebanese officials this month on forming the tribunal. Based on other international trials in the world in recent history, The Daily Star looks at the probable form of the International-Lebanese Tribunal.
BEIRUT: Lebanon has taken one step closer toward the establishment of a tribunal to try those responsible for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamade announced on March 9 after a meeting in New York with UN officials that the court would begin its proceedings in June and would be based in either Vienna or Geneva. Lebanese government officials and UN representatives report that they have drafted an agreement outlining the tribunal's shape, jurisdiction and mandate.
Lebanese authorities have asked for a trial with an "international character" in order to give the tribunal international assistance and attention, in the hopes of avoiding the influence or pressures stemming from Lebanon's tumultuous politics.
Hamade announced that a Lebanese judge will not lead the court, but is not yet known whether the prosecution and defense will be led by Lebanese nationals or by international staff.
While most details are still in negotiation, one fact is clear: the court will be a "hybrid" tribunal, a relatively new, experimental instrument of criminal law. A hybrid tribunal is a court in which both international judges and local judges sit side-by-side, drawing their decisions from a blend of both local and international laws. In the coming months, UN and Lebanese officials must determine the precise legal system upon which judicial opinions will be based, as well as the tribunal's procedural rules, which concern the admissibility of evidence, witness testimony, and criminal sentencing.
The Lebanese court will differ greatly from all previous hybrid tribunals in that it is the first to address a political assassination rather than war crimes on a larger scale. While its original objective is to try those responsible for the assassination of Rafik Hariri, both MP Walid Jumblatt and the Brammertz Report have mentioned the possibility of expanding its mandate to include the prosecution of those behind the spate of bombings and explosions that have rocked Lebanon for the past 18 months.
Based on the experience of other hybrid tribunals, some predict that the Lebanese court may face serious difficulties. David Cohen, founder of the Berkeley War Crimes Center, which monitors trials worldwide, and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley said the success of the tribunal will depend upon "whether Lebanon can offer a sufficiently secure environment for a highly charged trial and whether, given the politics, it will be possible to have an independent court and a firm process where witnesses will not feel intimidated from coming forward to testify."
Hybrid tribunals are an innovative method of bringing prominent criminals to trial created in the wake of notable failures of both national and international tribunals to meet these challenges.
National trials have often proved to be one-sided or insufficient measures to try prominent criminals; many believe it impossible for a government to prosecute crimes it may have been complicit in committing. In addition, national trials can devolve into ruthless "kangaroo courts" or sham trials used to eliminate political enemies rather than to redress wrongs. From Stalin's show trials to the Iraqi court trying Saddam Hussein, national tribunals have been subject to fierce criticism for lacking impartiality.
In 1993, the UN agreed to establish an international criminal tribunal to try individuals responsible for the mass murders and "ethnic cleansing" committed during Yugoslavia's Civil War. This was the first international tribunal since Nuremburg and Tokyo in 1948. The following year, a similar tribunal was created to try those who orchestrated and executed the massacre of over 500,000 individuals in Rwanda. While these tribunals were hailed as groundbreaking, they were soon criticized for their exorbitant costs, slow pace, and remote location.
Following disappointments in both local trials and international tribunals, hybrid tribunals were seen as a compromise that could combine their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. The first hybrid courts were established in Kosovo in 2000, and were soon followed by hybrid courts in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Bosnia. Cambodia is in the final stages of establishing a hybrid court to address crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge, and Lebanon is the latest country to express its desire to create a hybrid tribunal.
The decision to hold the tribunal in Geneva or Vienna is likely due to security fears. Proponents of holding the trial abroad say that this location may avoid violence that has marred the trial of Saddam Hussein, in which several members of the court have been kidnapped and killed. Nevertheless, critics argue that holding tribunals outside the country makes it difficult - or impossible - for the average citizen to be directly informed of trial proceedings. The dearth of news from the Yugoslav tribunal has provided fertile ground for nationalist Serb politicians to manipulate local perceptions of the trial.
While it was announced that the trials would begin in June of this year, it has not yet been determined for how long the tribunal will continue to operate. The UN-sponsored international tribunals have been criticized for their bureaucratic delays and for proceeding at a snail's pace. The recent death of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic underscores the fact that his trial had dragged on for over four years without reaching any conclusion. The Lebanese tribunal may have to establish a timeline or completion strategy in order to avoid similar criticisms.
From now until June, it will be necessary for the Lebanese tribunal to construct or designate a physical location for the trial's chambers and offices, a detention center for those indicted and found guilty, and structures to house and protect witnesses. In addition, it will be up to the UN and the Lebanese government to recruit and train judges, prosecutors, lawyers, security guards, translators, and other staff.
Lebanon's tribunal has more resources at its disposal than many other previous tribunals, which have often taken place in countries where courtrooms, universities, law libraries, or other facilities were completely destroyed. Sierra Leone's tribunal was held in a nation laid to waste by nine years of civil war, and East Timor's tribunal took place after Indonesian militias had nearly demolished the entire area with its "scorched-earth" policy. While the Lebanese tribunal will benefit from the resources at its disposal, its choice to hold the trial in Geneva or Vienna may drive up the costs of establishing these structures and of paying employees' salaries.
Lebanon's tribunal has not yet secured funding, nor has a budget been determined to outline its costs. The budget has been a thorny issue for several other tribunals; both UN-sponsored international tribunals have been criticized for their outrageous costs. The Rwandan tribunal has cost roughly $50 million per individual trial in a country where the average yearly income is only $1,300. On the other hand, the hybrid tribunal in East Timor was plagued by a meager annual budget of $6 million, which did not provide for translators, stenographers, or even electricity for the first three years of its operation. Cambodia's court has been repeatedly delayed due to an inability to secure funding. Ultimately, Lebanon's financial resources will define and circumscribe its operations. Since annual budgets for previous tribunals have cost as much as $200 million per year, Lebanon is looking to Western countries to contribute the majority of the funds. Nevertheless, Lebanon itself will most likely foot most of the bill. The legal system used by Lebanon's tribunal will most likely give ascendancy in decision-making to international judges. Previous hybrid tribunals have been led by a 3-2 or 4-3 majority of international judges, thus endowing them with the ultimate say in trial decisions. The hybrid tribunals in East Timor and Kosovo have used local laws as their primary legal source, but they rejected aspects of local law that were incompatible with international law. It is therefore expected that the Lebanese tribunal will try individuals according to Lebanese law, with necessary amendments to bring it into line with international standards.
Previous trials have seen conflicts between local law and articles of international law concerning the death penalty and the right to an appeal. The Iraqi tribunal trying Saddam Hussein mandates that defendants found guilty of murder be executed within 30 days with no opportunity for clemency, leaving little or no time to request an appeal or hold a retrial. Many human rights groups and international organizations have singled this provision out as a draconian violation of the most basic tenets of a fair trial.
It has not yet been determined whether or not the Lebanese tribunal will have recourse to the death penalty, which is currently permitted under Lebanese law but forbidden under international law. It is expected that the UN will strongly oppose any efforts to allow its use. The ultimate legacy of the Lebanese tribunal will not be based solely on whether or not it finds individuals guilty of Hariri's murder, but whether it further progresses the field of international law by providing the accused with fair and unbiased trials. Cohen says, "there is a recognition that hybrid tribunals can make a very positive contribution, but only if they are run right."

Three years, three momentous questions
By Rami G. Khouri -Daily Star staff
Saturday, March 18, 2006
This weekend marks the third anniversary of the war against Iraq that toppled the Baathist regime, and, not surprisingly, most key dimensions of that country's future remain clouded. Will Iraq remain a single country? Will it enjoy real sovereignty, or unofficially become a sort of Islamic Puerto Rico, a new, long-distance American protectorate? Will Iraq soon enjoy security and stability under a legitimate national government? How will the violence in Iraq impact on other hot regional issues?
Following Washington's cue, there is a tendency these days to assess Iraq through three main lenses, all of which are not, in my view, the most important ones. At the same time, the three truly historically significant issues at hand are not widely discussed - and almost never raised in public in the United States and much of the Western world.
The first lens through which the world discusses Iraq is that of an imminent American withdrawal. This is a non-story precisely because withdrawal is imminent, and now very desirable for both Americans and Iraqis. As happened in Vietnam three decades ago, the U. S. will withdraw mainly due to its own domestic considerations, while real conditions or prospects on the ground in Iraq are secondary. After all, America started the war, not Iraq, and therefore America decides when the mission is accomplished, or hopelessly confounding, and thus when it's time to leave.
The second lens is that of the capability and assertive deployment of the new Iraqi Army and internal security forces. This has been designated by President George W. Bush as the litmus test and trigger of an American military withdrawal. So, square-jawed, self-confident, able American colonels on the ground will sign off on the capabilities of the Iraqi armed forces, just as American generals did in South Vietnam. This is a done deal.
The third lens is the American-declared "global war on terror" - a fundamentally sound idea that has been fundamentally turned on its head by the impact of the American-ordained war in Iraq. Terrorism continues to confound and plague much of the world, especially pro-American Arab allies in the Middle East, in large part because of the unintended consequences of the Iraq war. Iraq is now the world's greatest motivator, training ground, and dispatching station for Al-Qaeda-type terrorists, and for the widespread anti-American grassroots political environment around the world in which such terrorism breeds so easily.
The Western media will speak much during these days and weeks of improved counterinsurgency tactics in Iraq, increasingly managed by Iraqi forces, signaling an improved security situation that opens the way for an American withdrawal and a stable, unified, democratic Iraq. I sincerely hope this is true. Yet, having grown up with the realities of foreign military adventures and occupations in Vietnam, Israel and Palestine, as well as Lebanon, I think some skepticism is warranted. When foreign armies are sent halfway around the world or next door to fight in an alien land, the occupied peoples inevitably become hostile in response to the presence and conduct of the foreign troops ruling them. Iraq is only the most recent affirmation of this universal fact. The double resentments of Iraqis against the long brutality of Baathist rule and the more recent American-led experiment in designer democracy will take some time to dissipate, with unknown results once the dust settles.
Three other issues in Iraq may prove to be more significant in the medium and long run, with historic implications. The first is the fragility of the modern Arab state. Iraq has revealed that people's allegiances to tribal, religious, ethnic and communal identities are often much stronger and more durable than their sense of citizenship in the Iraqi state. This is not just an Iraqi problem; it is a common Arab problem that plagues most of this region, but that has been exposed most visibly in Iraq.
The second, and related, development is the collective Arab inaction, or impotence, in the face of events in Iraq; or, worse, direct Arab involvement in stoking the conflict there. This adds to the already glum reality of vulnerable individual Arab states having low legitimacy the further ignominy of weakness and ineptitude at the collective Arab level. Cruelly, and unusually, the Arabs are simultaneously sinking alone and together.
The third big issue highlighted by the Iraq war is the use of American troops worldwide. This issue gains added important because the U.S. is likely to remain the world's sole truly global power for some years to come, and its leadership today continues to say that military action will not be ruled out as an option to achieve political goals, whether in Iran or elsewhere. Most countries around the world still ask important questions about the legitimacy, appropriateness, efficacy and consequences of American military intervention, especially when such militarism is largely unilateral and not formally approved by the United Nations Security Council.
Iraq will clear up and settle down in a few years; the likelihood is that the uncertainty surrounding these three other issues will not.
**Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.