LCCC NEWS BULLETIN
MARCH 28/2006

Below news from miscellaneous sources for 28/03/06
Saad Hariri Talks to Asharq Al-Awsat-Asharq Alawsat
Most Arab leaders survive to see another summit-Jackson News-Tribune
Lebanon talks seek to resolve fate of Lahoud-Khaleej Times
Lebanon's Lahoud to attend Arab summit despite opposition -Xinhua - China
UN envoy admits disarming Hezbollah unrealistic-Middle East Online
Viewpoint: Syria: Real fears or crocodile tears-Middle East Times
Below news from the Daily Star for 28/03/06
UN Security Council 'will OK' international court
No agreement on Lahoud's fate in talks
Lahoud, Assad discuss relations in Arab summit as Siniora heads to Khartoum
PSP mocks Lahoud statement, describes president as 'temporary'
MPs to convene at session for questioning ministers
Assad again denies government role in Hariri murder
All the signs show that getting rid of Lahoud is off the agenda
Larsen calls for action on national dialogue
British warship arrives for goodwill visit
Operation 9": something like coming home
Another year in the Arab world and another predictable summit
Israel's elections and the ruins of Oslo-By Geoffrey Aronson
 

Saad Hariri Talks to Asharq Al-Awsat
27/03/2006-By Thair Abbas
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat- As the fourth round of the national dialogue talks kicked off in Beirut, disagreements over Hezbollah's arms and the fate of President Emile Lahoud were expected to continue to dominate the proceedings. Asharq al Awsat met with Saad Hariri, Beirut MP and head of the Future Bloc in the parliament, on Sunday and asked him his opinion about the ongoing talks, the investigation into the assassination of his father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and Syrian-Lebanese relations.
Below is the full text of the interview:
Q: How long will you remain engaged in the national dialogue?
A: The national dialogue talks will continue until Emile Lahoud leaves the presidency and a solution is reached on Hezbollah's arms. If we examine the talks so far, we find that there are topics we did not dream of mentioning but were able to reach a solution for. I have full confidence that we will succeed, through dialogue, in solving the issue of the presidency and agree on a new president in the next few weeks.
Q: Have you sensed a response from the forces that are opposed to President Emile Lahoud’s departure from power?
A: Our discussions take place around a round a table and at the same time, aside meetings are being held, because of the sensitivity of the presidency issue, in order to reach consensus on a new name.
We all know there is a problem concerning the presidency. All we ask for is stability. Emile Lahoud does not represent any kind of stability. We have seen throughout his seven years in power, whether it be when prime minister Rafik Hariri was alive or under president Salim Hoss and Rashid Karameh. We are looking for stability. It cannot occur under President Emile Lahoud. I believe that all those attending the national dialogue know this. The main issue we are discussing is the replacement, not whether Lahoud will remain in power. We cannot keep the Lebanese people in this situation because someone wants to be president. The presidency is vacant. We need to consider how to fill it. The issue of the presidency matters to all Lebanese and not just to one category.
Q: We have noticed lately a sort of counterattack in the attitudes of Hezbollah and General Michel Aoun concerning the presidency. The party of God indicated it would not strike a deal between the resistance’s arms and President Lahoud.
A: No one wants to barter on the two issues. Both points are very important. We have to solve them through dialogue. If we as Lebanese are able to sit around one table and examine the country’s problems, we can also solve all these issues. However, if we allow foreign interferences on this subject or our personal wishes, it becomes a different story. But I see that all those sitting around the table have a nationalist outlook to solve these crises. Those who do not want the Lebanese to achieve stability have to be held responsible.
Q: What if all sides did not cooperate?
A: I believe that everyone is cooperating. When we first instigated a discussion about the presidency, there was a total rejection on even speaking about the issue. But, at present, we are currently discussing alternatives [to president Lahoud] and the means to reach our goal, and what is the appropriate name for the position. On this respect, we are always behind the Patriarch. Whomever he blesses, we will accept.
Q: Will you start discussing names on Monday?
A: We hope so and nothing prohibits us from doing so. We are open to everything and there are no taboos. If names will be discussed, then so be it. We have no problem with that.
Q: When talking of a replacement, will you be looking at an individual or several possible candidates?
A: No, not at all. There has to be several candidates. We either live in a democracy or not.
Q: What are the characteristics that you will accept in the forthcoming president?
A: He has to be a nationalist who defends what we have achieved so far. We have gained our victory and our will. We want to develop our democracy and our economy. We do not accept the presence of a man who is creating obstacles for our economic growth. Our historical problems with president Lahoud is that he obstructed the Paris-1 and Paris-2 conferences and took a number of steps that held back the country, in addition to his attempt to transform Lebanon into a police state.
The new president should not change his opinions every day. We cannot accept a president in this manner. There are a number of constants in Lebanon. We are a country that requires stability and economic development and fighting crime and corruption. These are not mere slogans. We hope that everyone who committed a crime or stole government funds be held accountable, but this is not political score settling. This has to be applied for everyone. We are against politicizing justice. The legislature should remain independent.
In addition, he has to be a democratic president who accepts divergent opinions and is not angered if someone criticized him or shut down a paper because it wrote an article against him. We are being insulted everyday and face campaigns against us, be we have no acted. This is democracy where we have to accept different opinions whatever they may be. The president has to be accepting of criticism and he has to be democratic.
Q: Are you ready to accept a settlement candidate?
A: Whatever the Patriarch says or blesses we will accept.
Q: Even if he isn’t a member of the March 14 coalition?
A: What he blesses we accept.
Q: What about the head of the Lebanese army or a former military officer?
A: If these characteristics apply to a certain person, we will accept him.
Q: What about General Michel Aoun?
A: We need to know his program.
Q: Has he put himself forward as a candidate?
A: There is more than one candidate. Personally, I have a number of pledges I am committed to and constants in our outlook to the country’s situation.
Q: Some people are saying that you seek a weak president who will follow your instructions?
A: No, on the contrary. The president has to be independent and strong because our problem with the current president is that he cannot address the Arab world or the west and not even the Lebanese. We need a strong president who can speak his mind and convince others. The president’s utmost duty should be to convince the Lebanese of the [country’s] main interests. Politics is persuasion.
Q: Are you optimistic about the possibility of putting into practice/achieving what you have reached so far in the national dialogue?
A: Of course. What we have achieved in the national dialogue is very important. Some sides are tying to give the impression that what has taken place was mere talk. The national consensus that was reached on these issues is crucial. If political leaders do not bear responsibility for the agreements we have reached, then there is a problem, because it shows bad intentions. But I can safely say that until now all those sitting around the table have very good intentions.
Q: In your view, how will the constitutional amendment be achieved?
A: If we agree, everything becomes easy. The mechanisms can be easily discussed and executed. The important thing is the decision.
Q: What about the issue of armed Palestinian groups?
A: We are not seeking to confiscate Palestinian arms to oppress people. We are seeking security. We want to be able to guarantee to our Palestinian brothers their pressing social needs. The Palestinians paid a heavy price for Israeli aggression. We were with them and will continue to defend them and put ourselves in frontline if anyone tried to attack them. We have to provide them with an acceptable standard of living while maintaining their right of return. We will also strive, through all diplomatic and non-diplomatic means, to return them to Palestine. This is the dream of every Arab. The Palestinian question is our first and last issue on an Arab level.
Q: We have noticed a difference in opinion between yourself and your ally MP Walid Jumblatt, especially regarding the Shebaa Farms and the resistance.
A: We, the March 14 powers consider ourselves one parliamentary bloc. There are differences in style. Walid Jumblatt is saying the Shebaa Farms are not Lebanese according to international maps. Let us be realistic, this is true. But we are saying they are Lebanese. We want this to be internationally recognized. But, as Lebanese leaders, we must put our people first. It is the right of everyone who owns land in the Shebaa Farms to know his land will return to him after it is liberated from Israeli occupation. We cannot tell him after liberation to go and obtain your right from Syria. No one should ask us about the reason we are seeking to demarcate the border. This is a right for the Lebanese.
Achieving an international proof [of the status of the Shebaa Farms] legitimizes the resistance. The United Nations’ charter gives the right to any people whose land has been occupied to resist. We are resisting until our land if free. But, in the eyes of international law, our resistance is illegitimate. We have to win over the international community by proving the legality of our resistance. Our resistance humiliates Syria, we the only country who has liberated its land through resistance.
Q: What opinion will you present at the national dialogue regarding armed resistance?
A: This is a matter for me to say at the talks. But it is clear the priority is to obtain international recognition for the legitimacy of the resistance by recognizing the Shebaa Farms as Lebanese.
Q: What about relations with Syria?
A: A consensus has emerged in the national dialogue on relations with Syria and the distinction between bilateral relations and uncovering the truth [in the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri]. This is a great sacrifice on our part as Lebanese, members of the March 14 coalition and the family of the martyr. We put the national interest and Lebanon’s interests first and indicated that bilateral relations with Syria should be exceptional and built on opening embassies and friendship. We are extending our hands to our Syrian brothers.
Q: But what if it was proven that Syrian officials were involved in [Hariri’s murder]? Will you continue to hold your opinion n distinguish between the relationship with Syria and the murder investigation?
A: This is a matter of concern for the Lebanese government. Rafik Hariri is the property of the Lebanese state not solely his family. My personal feelings are different. He was my father and his death has a different effect on me. I cannot impose on the government and the Lebanese people something they do not want. There is a Lebanese consensus about discovering the truth. This honors me. In the end, any criminal should be punished. We emerged from a civil war with a unanimous agreement to forgive what had happened in the past. We said we whoever commits a crime in the future should be punished. We are seeking punishment because [otherwise] it would signal that the Lebanese scene was open and that whoever wanted to kill a Lebanese could do so. Punishment is to be found in all religions and laws. It is a deterrent against more crimes.
Q: Did the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri move his family and followers away form his principles?
A: Rafik Hariri’s attitude was to always work for the interest of Lebanon and with the Palestinian cause and other Arab issues. This is what we are doing and we will never go back on. We have never said that we will be against the Palestinian issue or the resistance.
We are committed to President Hariri’s principles. Following his death, it is not required of us to support decisions that are against Lebanon’s interest.
Q: What is your view of the Arab role in the Lebanese crisis?
A: The Arab role is essential. I consider what happened against the former Arab initiative a great mistake that we and the March 14 powers committed. We need to understand that the Arabs are always looking for our best interest. All Arab initiatives have been in Lebanon’s interest and in order to achieve stability and end the war, as what happened at the Taif conference. This is why we support every Arab initiative and every action that seeks to bring about Lebanon’s stability. We are Arabs and we aspire for Lebanon to have a position in the Arab world.
Q: Is there fear of an Arab initiative to normalize the situation with Syria, which will lead to mitigating the truth?
A: No, not at all. The truth is the property of the international community, including of course the Arab world. Some of the unanimous decisions that were taken during the national dialogue in relation to Syria need Arab [assistance] to put it on the right track.
Q: Where does Lebanon feature on the Arab summit’s agenda?
A: Lebanon is a very important topic because of the [ongoing international] investigation and the relationship with Syria and the continuing Israeli aggression.
Q: Will the topics you have reached require an Arab initiative, especially when it comes to Syria ?
A: We have reached a consensus amongst Lebanese to establish exceptional diplomatic relations. No one can deny there is a problem with Syria. If Arabs find a way to draw viewpoints closer, they are welcome. If there is no dialogue between us, who better than the Arabs to calm the atmosphere?


Arab leaders survive to see another summit
Staff and agencies-27 March, 2006
By Jonathan Wright 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
KHARTOUM - When Arab leaders gather in the Sudanese capital Khartoum on Tuesday for their yearly summit, the ballot box will have made fewer changes in their ranks than the grim reaper or military coups.
Two years ago in Tunis the Arab heads of state, most of them the same men now gathering in Khartoum, promised to promote democracy, expand popular participation in politics and reinforce women‘s rights and civil society. But in practice elections have led to changes at or near the top mainly where the authorities have not been in full control -- in Iraq and the Palestinian territories.
Iraqis are still trying to form a new government based on voting last December while in the Palestinian territories the militant Islamist group Hamas won control of parliament in a shock result which showed the popularity of political Islam. In the other 19 members of the Arab League, power has stayed in the same hands or within the same hereditary ruling family.
Even in Lebanon, which has gone through political turmoil since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri in February 2005, two of the three big posts -- the presidency and the speakership of parliament -- have not changed hands. The doyen of Arab rulers, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, has been in power since he overthrew the monarchy 36 years ago. Four other presidents have been in office since the 1980s. In Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, aged monarchs died in the past year and close relatives succeeded them. In Mauritania, an army colonel led a bloodless coup in August against President Maaouya Ould Sid‘Ahmed Taya, who had ruled since 1984.
The Tunis summit made its promises toward the peak of the U.S. campaign for democracy and political reform in the Arab world, launched in earnest after Washington‘s other reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 became difficult to sustain. Arab League spokesman Alaa Rushdi said political change in the Arab world is a reality even if the pace is modest. "Democracy in the Middle East is slow, some say very slow. But the wheel has begun to turn," he added, citing the Palestinian elections, changes in Egypt and the role of the Kuwaiti parliament in a succession dispute this year.
But Nader Fergany, a sociologist who has written major U.N. reports on the region, said he could not see the change. "It‘s more like a standstill," he told Reuters. "There is hardly any change, even cosmetic. It‘s more of the same." Analysts say the U.S. reform campaign, which briefly made Arab governments try at least to give an impression of change, has since lost much of its momentum and authoritarian Arab rulers no longer feel so threatened. "The balance of their (Washington‘s) interests has shifted in a different direction. Now it wavers between supporting the present undemocratic regimes on the one hand and shy attempts to help reform on the other," said Fergany.
In Egypt, for example, which had its first multi-candidate presidential elections last September, the government has continued to detain members of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood without trial or charges.
The politician who came a distant second to President Hosni Mubarak , Ayman Nour of the liberal Ghad (Tomorrow) party, is serving a five-year prison sentence on what he says are fabricated forgery charges.
The opposition expects the ruling National Democratic Party to try to install Mubarak‘s son Gamal as successor within a few years, creating a political dynasty similar to Syria ‘s.
Lebanon had parliamentary elections in May and June but at least in Beirut and the south powerful politicians struck alliances based more on sectarian allegiance than on any coherent reformist agenda.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, an ally of former power broker Syria, remains in office, though under increasingly pressure to step down. He said this month he would not resign.
Lebanese leaders, many of them scions of the families which have run regional fiefdoms for decades, are holding a "national dialogue" to end a paralyzing political crisis, but they have been unable to agree on the fate of Lahoud. The position of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, part of a political dynasty now in power for 36 years, did look shaky last year after U.N. investigators linked Syrian security in the assassination of Lebanon‘s Hariri. But Assad has since consolidated his grip on security forces and delayed political reforms in anticipation of a long standoff with the United States, diplomats and Baath Party sources say.
"The United States has no appetite for military action against Syria. There is no chance of popular revolt and a coup is unlikely, although the Syrians are not off the hook completely over the Hariri killing," one diplomat said.

Lebanon talks seek to resolve fate of Lahoud
(AFP) 27 March 2006
BEIRUT - Lebanon’s leaders held fresh talks on Monday focusing on one of the most contentious issues dividing supporters and opponents of Syria -- the fate of pro-Damascus President Emile Lahoud whom the parliamentary majority wants to oust. The talks, which resumed after a five-day break, are aimed at ending Beirut’s political paralysis, which set in after Syria pulled out its troops after dominating life in its tiny neighbour for some three decades. “Talks focused on one essential subject, that of the presidency of the republic ... and this point remains on the agenda for the next session, next Monday,” parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri told journalists after the meeting which lasted fewer than three hours.
Earlier at the start of the talks, Samir Geagea, head of the former Christian militia, the Lebanese Forces, and a member of the country’s anti-Syrian majority attending the Beirut talks, told journalists: “We do not expect that the remaining problems will be resolved during Monday’s session.” The Lebanese newspapers Al Balad and as-Safir both suggested that the question of the presidency would have to wait for decisions taken at the Arab summit in Khartoum this week. One MP with the anti-Syrian majority, Bassem Al Sabeh, told Al Mostaqbal: “The Arabs must intervene in the departure of Lahoud”, as his presidential mandate was extended by an Arab country -- Syria.
Evidence of the gulf between the two sides over Lahoud showed clearly in the decision of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Fuad Siniora to attend the summit in addition to Lahoud, believing this would better represent the country. “This decision (for Siniora to go) is aimed at making up for the inadequate representation of Lebanon which is limited to the president of the republic,” said a government source, who asked not to be named. The anti-Syrian majority in Lebanon’s parliament have contested Lahoud’s right to represent the country at the summit, arguing that he is only still in office as his mandate was extended by Syria.
In September 2004, the previous Lebanese parliament under Syrian pressure extended Lahoud’s mandate by three years in the face of opposition from a majority of Lebanese and a UN Security Council resolution.
The source pointed out that MPs from the anti-Syria parliamentary majority had already protested at Lahoud’s attending the summit. In a letter to Arab leaders, they said Lahoud’s participation was an “attack on the constitutional legitimacy” of the country because his position as head of state “resulted from the extension of his presidential mandate by Syria.”
Since then, several western powers have effectively boycotted Lahoud. During a four day visit to Lebanon, Terje Roed-Larsen, envoy of UN secretary general Kofi Annan, did not meet the head of state.
Lahoud indirectly responded to the parliamentary majority’s statement that his presence at the summit was “illegal”. Presidential sources quoted by the press said the renewal of his mandate was constitutional and recognised by the Arab countries since they had invited to their summits as head of state.
Siniora was initially reticent about going to a summit attended by Lahoud but was persuaded after meeting Saudi King Abdullah on Sunday, a diplomatic source told AFP. The source said the king had indicated that Syria was ready to show itself cooperative.

Lebanon's Lahoud to attend Arab summit despite opposition objection
www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-27
BEIRUT, March 27 (Xinhua) -- Lebanese President Emile Lahoud left Beirut on Monday for the annual Arab summit in Karthoum amid opposition calls for his resignation and doubt over the legitimacy of his presidency. According to a statement issued by the president's office, Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Seniora will also attend the summit, which starts on Tuesday in the Sudanese capital.
Anti-Syrian majority groups in Lebanon's parliament had objected on Saturday to being represented by pro-Syrian Lahoud at the summit. "The representation of Lebanon by Lahoud is not legal, as his mandate was extended under pressure by the Syrian regime and it was unconstitutional," a statement by the majority in parliament said. Last week, 71 parliamentarians signed an open letter to leaders of Arab countries calling on them not to have contact with Lahoud, according to reports. Lahoud's term was extended for three more years in 2004. The anti-Syrian opposition, which won the majority in parliament after the elections in 2005, has repeatedly called on Lahoud to resign, but the president has insisted on serving out his term.

UN envoy admits disarming Hezbollah unrealistic
Terje Roed-Larsen calls on Lebanon to integrate Hezbollah's arms inside Lebanese army.
BEIRUT - The UN's representative to Lebanon admitted Sunday it was unrealistic to try to disarm the Shiite militia Hezbollah and urged that its armed wing be adopted into the Lebanese military.
"We don't think it's possible to go to the south or the Bekaa (in the north) and disarm Hezbollah," the UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen told reporters, alluding to the group' strongholds.
Instead, the diplomat called on Lebanon "to integrate" Hezbollah's arms inside the Lebanese army.
Hezbollah, which is the only Lebanese party to have both an armed wing and parliament seats, has near untouchable status in Lebanese politics thanks to its guerrilla campaign against Israel that forced the Jewish state's exit from south Lebanon in 2000. In other developments, Roed-Larsen urged Syria and Lebanon "to agree on their respective borders" concerning the disputed Shebaa Farms territory, which Israel currently occupies. "It takes two to trace a border," Roed-Larsen said, highlighting the need for improved communications between the neighbours.
He also called on the countries to "establish diplomatic relations" in lieu of the vacuum left by Syrian troops' exit from Lebanon last April, which was triggered by the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri. The Shebaa Farms, seized by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war, is claimed by Beirut with Damascus's approval. Hezbollah has launched periodic attacks on Israel from the Shebaa farms since 2000. Talks between Lebanese political leaders recently confirmed that the area belongs to Lebanon and called on Prime Minister Fuad Siniora to undertake legal procedures with Syria to certify its possession.
Syrian authorities have verbally confirmed that the territory is Lebanon's but have said they cannot go further because they do not possess the land.Roed-Larsen arrived in Beirut on Thursday.

Viewpoint: Syria: Real fears or crocodile tears?
Rime Allaf- March 27, 2006
While American and British officials continue to live in a state of denial about the situation in Iraq, for most others talk of a civil war has for now overtaken talk of the de facto fragmentation of the country, brought closer with the passing of an ominous constitution in October 2005. After the most recent upsurge in violence, hopes are fading that further divisions along sectarian lines can be averted.
But with or without a civil war, and regardless of the level of violence in different areas in Iraq, there seems to be little chance of a stable, centralized Iraqi state in these circumstances. The segmentation that the new constitution didn't completely achieve has been compounded by the inability of the major Iraqi parties during the past three months to agree on the formation of a government.
With serious disagreements on issues such as Kirkuk and the designation of the prime minister, with Shia and Kurdish parties making no pretense anymore about their own clashes, let alone those with Sunni groups, the matter of Iraq's break-up may have become inevitable.
So what does this portend for Iraq's neighbors who have been carefully observing developments? Throughout the Middle East, conventional wisdom had it that a break-up of Iraq would be disastrous for the region and that exported chaos was unavoidable. On the popular level, there certainly seems to be much sympathy with Iraqis mourning the loss of Iraq as they know it, and a lamentation that one of the great Arab states is being purposely broken up in what many believe is a systematic, organized remapping of the region nearly 100 years after Sykes-Picot. The world's powers do not want a strong Arab nation, believes the proverbial Arab street, and Iraq is just the beginning.
This has certainly been the rhetoric of the Syrian regime, which has found attentive ears among its citizens and even with other Arabs frustrated by their powerlessness. But in spite of statements and speeches decrying Iraq's fragmentation, it is getting increasingly difficult to believe that regimes in the area - including the Syrian one - are really shedding tears over the demise of the state of Iraq.
Initially, Syria (like other Arab states) would have probably preferred a central but weakened Iraq with which it could do business. After much American pressure, the Syrian regime made some belated efforts to seal its border with Iraq (including building a sand wall to restrain vehicles), in an apparent attempt to control the flow of assistance to insurgents. But three years after the invasion, as Iraq's fragmentation begins, the Syrian regime will have noticed that there are also advantages to be had.
In Damascus, Syrian Baathism - which the regime persisted in describing as "the beating heart of Arabism" no matter how hard Baghdad tried to compete - lives on. After pressure started accumulating on Syria, there ensued wave of both regime-sponsored and spontaneous displays of nationalism and Arabism, and the regime has gleefully seen its official raison d'etre reincarnated with new fervor. With Syria now being touted as the last bastion of Arabism, the image of Syrian officials losing sleep over the disintegration of the only other (and larger) Arabist state becomes incredulous.
If Iraq breaks up into three main entities, the smallest and weakest will be the so-called Sunni triangle, where Syria's long-standing competitors (technically its natural allies and ideological companions) will remain entrenched in a resource-less, violent environment with little potential for revival.
Some people on both sides will still ignore artificial man-made borders, and tribal ties will keep on cultivating social and economic interests between parts of Syria and Iraq, including its mainly Sunni heartland. This will endure whether or not Iraq fragments.
Syria's relations with major Arab states (especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt) soured temporarily after its meddling in Lebanon, but ties with Iran and Turkey remained unspoiled, all three having recognized and respected each others' vested interests in keeping Iraqi problems - and particularly dealings with Shias and Kurds - manageable. Most Shia politicians have criticized Syria in sync with American accusations, but it is only a matter of time before Iran becomes the only real influence over what promises to be a large area of joint hegemony; Damascus only needs to wait for the fruits of its rapport with Tehran to flourish and win over the Iraqi Shia leaders who have thus far been reluctant to embrace Syria. Decades of Syrian support for Iran will not have been in vain.
While Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran could well become inspired by their Iraqi brethren's autonomy, they are unfortunately only too aware of the harsh repercussions their own aspirations could have. Thus, Kurdish gains are likely to be limited to Iraq, and potential transgressions over the borders would be quickly met by the neighbors.
Moreover, the landlocked Iraqi Kurdish leaders are intent on maintaining good relations with their neighbors and on reassuring them that Kurdish nationalism is not a threat. For the time being, Iraqi Kurds are more concerned with their fragile coexistence with Iraq's Shia majority, and with the apparent Shia-Turkish understanding over issues like Kirkuk.
Even if most of these developments were not deliberate, they can benefit a Syrian regime that is less fearful than other Arab regimes of a strong Iranian influence in the region, which pays lip service (and possibly more) to the Arab insurgency, and which has ensured a harmonious coordination with its neighbors on the Kurdish question. Three years ago, it would have been ludicrous to predict that Iraq's invasion and subsequent disintegration could have been advantageous to the "rogue" neighbor that the US remains keen to contain, but such is the law of unintended consequences. Rime Allaf is associate fellow at Chatham House. Acknowledgement to bitterlemons-international.org

For Immediate Release
Reacting to a Military Court Ruling against Him,
Mugraby Calls for Securing the Fundamental Rights of the Lebanese to
Knowledge, Justice and Freedom of _Expression
Beirut, March 23: Dr. Muhamad Mugraby called for securing the fundamental constitutional and human rights of all Lebanese and all residents of Lebanon beginning with the right to knowledge, the right to justice and the right to free _expression. Dr. Mugraby was addressing a press conference, held on March 23, 2006, at Liberty House, Beirut, in which he reacted to the decision of March 20th by the military court of Beirut, headed by an army brigadier general, upholding its jurisdiction over charges brought against Dr. Mugraby arising from his testimony on the conditions of human rights in Lebanon, at the European Parliament, Brussels, on November 4, 2003, i. e. two and a half years ago.
Read full news article online by clicking here.
Related Documents & News:
 British MP Brazier 'horrified' by prospect of convicting Mugraby and calls the military court ruling a 'severe setback' (full story)
 Human Rights Watch casts doubt on Lebanon's commitment to human rights (full story)
 International Commission of Jurists: Perversion and absurdity in prosecution of Mugraby before military court (full story)
 Article19 supports human rights lawyer Dr. Muhamad Mugraby and his right to freedom of _expression (full story)
 Amnesty International: Latest Charge Against Human Rights Lawyer Dr Muhamad Mugraby Must be Dropped and all Harassment Against Him Cease (full story)
 Solidarity with Dr. Mugraby from Lebanese Association for Human Rights (full story)
 Lebanon's Military Tibunal declares itself competent to try Dr. Mugraby for his testimony before the European Parliament, defying treaty obligations and Article 19 human rights, while Siniora arrives in Brussels seeking aid (full story)
 EU Ambassador slams decline in the liberty of _expression in Lebanon (full story)
For further information: info@cdrl.org and visit http://www.cdrl.org/.