The purpose of the comment section is to promote informed debate, share pertinent information and news items, and encourage constructive criticism and analysis. The comment section is monitored. Messages containing any of the following elements will not be tolerated:

Comments that violate these guidelines may be edited or deleted at the discretion of the moderating team. Furthermore, commentators who repeatedly violate the site regulations may be warned, temporarily suspended from posting, limited to a set quantity of daily posts, or permanently banned.

Finally, we ask that commentators bear in mind that even well-intentioned humor or sarcasm can be "lost in translation" on an online discussion forum. As such, commentators should maintain a respectful tone with others and be tolerant of opinions that may differ from their own.

Photo: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert shakes hands with U.S. Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence Stuart Levey (R) March 4, 2007 in Jerusalem, Israel. (Photo by Moshe Milner/GPO via Getty Images)

U.S. pressures Turkcell to abandon Syria deal
Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:13pm BST
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis

DAMASCUS (Reuters) – The United States is putting pressure on Turkish mobile phone operator Turkcell to abandon a $1 billion takeover of a cellphone company owned by a Syrian tycoon targeted by U.S. sanctions, diplomats and Arab financiers said on Wednesday.

The U.S. Treasury Department is warning American investors in Turkcell TCELL.IS (TKC.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which is listed on the Istanbul and New York bourse, about the company’s plan to buy the leading Syrian operator Syriatel, they told Reuters.

Syriatel is at least 69 percent owned by Rami Makhlouf, the cousin of President Bashar al-Assad. Washington imposed high profile sanctions on Makhlouf in February for alleged involvement in public corruption in Syria as relations between the Damascus government and the United States plummeted.

“The U.S. Treasury communicated indirectly with U.S. investors in Turkcell to reconsider the deal and hinted that there could be legal implications of doing a business transaction involving a huge amount of dollars upfront with Rami Makhlouf,” one of the diplomats following the deal told Reuters.

The sanctions explicitly state no U.S citizen can do business with Makhlouf. Several Turkcell executives have American citizenship and hold shares in the company, industry sources said.

Makhlouf, 39, has denied the U.S. charges, saying he does not have assets in the United States and his businesses that employ thousands of Syrians are legitimate.

“America is serious about making the sanctions against Rami (Makhlouf) stick. The way the Treasury is applying the pressure is through whispering to investors’ ears,” said the diplomat.

Makhlouf, Syria’s most powerful businessman, stands to receive close to an estimated $1 billion in cash if the deal for Turkcell to buy most of his shares goes ahead. The U.S. pressure has contributed to the delay in the deal, the sources said.

Turkcell said this month that “any possible U.S. citizenship” by its management would not affect the talks, despite the sanctions against Makhlouf, which were imposed while the deal was being negotiated.

“We are aware of the situation between the United States and Syria. But since Turkcell is a Turkey-based company and there is no legal restriction on the purchase of Syriatel, the situation does not have any impact on the talks,” Turkcell said.

Sureyya Ciliv, Turkcell’s chief executive officer, said in late February that he had expected to complete talks with Syriatel in a month.

A senior Arab banker said the deal could still be signed after Turkcell negotiated a lower price following the sanctions on Makhlouf.

“The Americans have succeeded in delaying the deal, but it is still on,” the financier said.

STRATEGIC RAMIFICATIONS?

Gulf mobile operator Zain (ZAIN.KW: Quote, Profile, Research) has said it was also interested in buying Syriatel. Saad al-Barrak, Zain’s chief executive, last week described competition to acquire Syriatel as strong but he could not be drawn on the status of any talks.

A Turkcell-Syriatel deal would be one of the largest in the region’s telecom sector. The two companies say they have a majority share of the market in their respective countries.

Political stakes are also high. Syria has been rebuilding ties with Turkey strained by Syria’s support for Kurdish separatists a decade ago, and Turkey has been mediating to relaunch peace talks between Israel and Damascus.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was in the Syrian capital on Saturday to open a large Syria-Turkish business forum. Makhlouf has said that a deal with Turkcell would further improve relations with Turkey.

High-level politicians from both countries have been consulted on the takeover, the diplomats said.

“The fate of this deal has strategic ramifications for relations between Syria and Turkey and the American-led drive to isolate Syria,” another diplomat said.

The United States imposed sanctions on Syria in 2004 for supporting anti-U.S. groups in the Middle East. The Treasury Department designated Makhlouf under an expansion of the sanctions announced in an executive order by President George W. Bush on February 13 as “a regime insider whom improperly benefits from and aids the public corruption of Syrian regime officials.”

The order freezes any assets Makhlouf holds under U.S. jurisdiction and forbids American citizens or entities from doing business with him.
[end]

Price of bread to remain unchanged: There is a political decision not to increase the price of bread and of basic food items, Prime Minister Naji Al-Otri said, amid growing concerns over spiralling food prices. Read

Economic Intelligence Unit: 29 Apr 2008

The Syrian government has revised upwards the official procurement prices for the country's main crops, notably wheat, in a bid to stimulate higher production and cut down on smuggling, as farmers and traders have been lured into taking advantage of higher prices in neighbouring countries. In the face of rising prices for most foodstuffs in local markets, the government has also slapped a ban on exports of tomatoes until the end of May.

These measures show that, even though Syria meets a large portion of its food requirements, with agriculture accounting for some 24% of GDP, it is by no means immune to the effects of global food inflation. Syria claims to be the only Arab country to be self-sufficient in wheat, and since 2001 has become a significant exporter of this staple crop. However, the last two harvests have been disappointing, as a result of poor weather conditions, and the government faces the risk of available domestic supplies being further constrained by smuggling as the fixed price paid to farmers has failed to keep pace with the rapid increase in international wheat prices. The cabinet accordingly announced on April 15th that the procurement price for hard wheat was to go up to S?ú16,500 (US$360) per tonne and that for soft wheat to S?ú16,000/t. The prices have been fixed for several years at Syp 11,800/t and Syp10,080/t respectively. Prices for barley and maize have beenvirtually doubled to Syp 11,800/t and Syp10,080/t respectively. Prices for barley and maize have beenvirtually doubled to S?ú15,000/t, the cotton price has risen by 30% to Syp 35,000/t, and the price for sugar-beethas gone up by a similar margin to syp 3,500/t.

Prior to 2007 the price that Syria's state-owned General Establishment for Cereals Trade and Processing (Hoboob) paid to farmers for their wheat was comfortably above world prices. However, that situation has been turned around, and even with the latest increases the government procurement price is still some way short of the current world market price of some US$440/t. Farmers have been turning increasingly to private traders to buy their wheat, rather than selling to Hoboob. In announcing the new prices, the government said that it would seek to stamp out the activities of private wheat traders.

Syria's wheat production ranged between 4.7m t/y and 4.9m t/y between 2001 and 2005, but it slipped to about 4.2m tonnes in 2006 and to barely 4m tonnes last year. In the meantime, consumption has been rising fast, partly as a result of the influx of Iraqi refugees, and reached an estimated 4.7m tonnes in 2007. Syria has only been able to meet its export commitments through drawing on its stocks, which have shrunk from over 5.1m tonnes in 2005 to less than half that figure now. In 2007 Syria exported 1.2m tonnes of wheat to Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey, bringing in revenue of some US$270m, according to the government. Export volumes are likely to be significantly lower in 2008….

Mortgages for Syrians

Amlak Finance and Cham Holding Sign MoU to Launch Home Finance Solutions in Syria

Dubai, UAE, April 20, 2008 – Amlak Finance, the largest real estate financier in the Middle East, announced today the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Cham Holding, with the objective of making available Amlak's innovative and pioneering home finance solutions in the Syrian market. The new venture, to be called "Amlak Finance Syria", marks another feat in Amlak 's ambitious expansion plans across the region, which is currently operational in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and will launch in 2008 in Jordan and Qatar.

"Syria has witnessed a major real estate boom in the past few years, and as a leading financier in the region we are delighted to announce our partnership with Cham Holding, in order to make available our innovative and pioneering home financing solutions and services in the Syrian market," said H.E. Nasser Bin Hassan Al-Shaikh, Chairman of Amlak Finance. "Amlak is swiftly gaining a solid ground in the region following its market leadership in the United Arab Emirates, which will ultimately re-enforce the company's strong brand positioning across the Middle East."

Regional investments into the Syrian economy, coupled with the government's introduction of a series of regulations to organize wealth sectors, notably the passing of Investment Law (10) and the drafting of the Real Estate and Mortgage laws, have placed Damascus as a regional center for real estate investment activities. All such positive factors led to a soaring 80% increase in real estate turnover in 2006, reaching US$50billion.

Commenting at the signing ceremony, Mr. Nabil Al Kouzbari, Chairman of Cham Holding, said: "The Syrian economy is one of the key emerging markets in the Middle East and North Africa region, and presents unprecedented growth opportunities. Our partnership with Amlak will result in great benefits to the Syrian citizens, and the Syrian real estate market will lend further momentum to our ambitious investment plans across the country."

According to Al-Shaikh, Cham Holding is "a key player and a reputable conglomerate in the Syrian market, and I am confident that our alliance will play a key role in the development of Syria's booming housing sector".

"The public sector is a red line that cannot be sold or privatized". Syria-News

Ehsani 2 writes: "I have news for MR. Usama Udai: "islah" or reforming this public sector WILL NOT WORK. Why on earth should the state be in the business of running 250 businesses from making biscuits to manufacturing car tires? What a hopeless case.

Exporting of tomatoes was banned for 45 days. As prices reached syp 60 a kilo internally, the government decided to ban exports. The end result is very unhappy farmers who clashed with police in Tartous (Syria-News)

Iraq and Syria have signed a transit agreement to expedite the transfer of imported food commodities from the Syrian ports by surface transport to the western provinces of Iraq, which are adjacent to the Syrian border. As part of the deal, Iraq will import Syrian products that are used in the rationing system in Iraq [which was established by Saddam Hussein to alleviate the impact of the international sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s but was kept in place by the subsequent Iraqi governments since the invasion in 2003].

New York Times – NEW DELHI — The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, arrived here for a dinner meeting with government officials on Tuesday, but he was expected to sign no path-breaking bilateral deals, nor iron out the kinks in a proposed 1,600-mile-long natural gas pipeline. Instead, he brought the Indian government a strange boon: a chance to show that it is willing to buck pressure from the White House and shake hands with a man Washington reviles.

“It is good for the government to be seen taking a stand that the U.S. may not like,” observed Lalit Mansingh, a former Indian ambassador to Washington.

In fact, for energy-hungry India, good relations with Iran are important for at least three reasons. It is the second largest supplier of oil to India, after Saudi Arabia, and a potential source of natural gas in the future; it wields influence in Afghanistan, which India increasingly considers critical to regional stability; and it commands loyalty from India’s substantial community of Shiite Muslims.

Iran’s new thrust into India and Sri Lanka comes as it is increasingly isolated by the United States and Europe.

Iranian Foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who attended university in the southern Indian city of Bangalore, is credited with driving this “Look East” strategy.

Bilateral trade between Iran and India, the bulk of which is oil and gas-related products, increased 55 percent in the last fiscal year to $9.3 billion, according to figures from the Indian government. That amount is about a third of India-United States trade.

In February, the Confederation of Indian Industries, the country’s largest business group, took a delegation of 10 companies to Iran to discuss possible business partnerships, said one executive who went on the trip but did not want his name used because he did not want to comment on government matters.

With increased diplomatic pressure from the West on Iran, the executive said, “this is the right time for Indian companies to step in.”

Indian companies have had difficulties signing deals with their Iranian counterparts because international banking restrictions make it difficult to get a valid bank guarantee known as a “letter of credit” from an Iranian company, he said. But some Indian banks are finding ways around international banking rules, by putting these letters of credit in different currencies, he said.

A breakthrough on the pipeline project, the executive added, would encourage greater business opportunities for Indian companies.

India for its part must figure out how to balance its broader relationships in the Middle East. Its second largest defense partner, after Russia, is Israel, and its largest source of oil, to the tune of 25 million metric tons last year, is Saudi Arabia. From Iran, it bought nearly 15 million metric tons during the same period, followed by about 13 million each from Iraq and Nigeria. India imports roughly three-fourths of its oil from abroad. 

Bashar and Olmert: The First Test
Eyal Zisser
Dayan Center
April 29, 2008 

Bashar al-Asad's confirmation, in an interview to the Qatari daily al-Watan, that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had given him a commitment to return the entire Golan Heights to Syria has one meaning: Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations are warming up. For the first time since the failure of the Clinton-Hafiz al-Asad Geneva summit of March 2000, there is a real chance for the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria, and perhaps even for a breakthrough.

As the results of the 2006 Lebanon War gradually became clear to both sides, the Israeli and Syrian leaderships began exchanging messages expressing interest in restarting the long-stalled peace negotiations. Yet, up until recently, they produced no results. In fact, imbedded in these exchanges was a fear of the consequences of resuming negotiations, reflecting the lack of genuine political will to move ahead, not to mention an unwillingness to pay the price which would be entailed by a peace agreement.

Over the years, Syria's unwavering precondition for the resumption of the peace process was an Israeli commitment to full withdrawal from the Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 lines.  Israel's difficulty in accepting this demand was at the root of the failure of the Syrian-Israeli negotiations conducted with Hafiz al-Asad by the Barak government in 1999-2000. Since then, no Israeli prime minister has been ready to commit himself to full withdrawal before Syria clarified what it intended to offer Israel as a quid pro quo.

Now, however, it seems that Prime Minister Olmert is prepared to comply with the Syrian demand.  In this, he is following in the footsteps of Yitzhak Rabin, who tendered a similar commitment (the Rabin deposit) in August 1993, when he made it clear to the Syrians that in return for a peace agreement acceptable to Israel, he would be ready to withdraw to the 4 June 1967 lines. All subsequent prime ministers expressed their readiness to accept Rabin’s commitment. Yet at the moment of truth, each of them got cold feet, refusing to take the political risk entailed in acceding to a Syrian return to the Galilee shoreline.

For Olmert, accepting the Rabin deposit is the inevitable outcome of pursuing a peace deal with Syria. It has long been clear to Israeli leaders that neither Hafiz al-Asad, nor his son and successor Bashar, would follow in the footsteps of Egypt’s Anwar al-Sadat and undertake dramatic public initiatives and symbolic gestures on behalf of Arab-Israeli peace. Hence, it would be up to Israel to make the requisite initial gestures towards Damascus in order to pave the way to an agreement.

This raises the question of why Bashar chose to disclose the Olmert commitment, delivered to him by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. There are several possible answers. The Syrians may have feared that the existence of a secret Turkish channel between Syria and Israel would be leaked to the Israeli media, and thus preferred to be the first to make it public, in order not to find themselves on the defensive. More likely, the Syrians may have wanted to test Olmert's seriousness, to check whether the message delivered to them was reliable, and whether Olmert would be capable of weathering the inevitable criticism from portions of the Israeli public. The fact that the Israeli Prime Minister's Office declined to deny the news of the commitment has been understood as a tacit confirmation of its veracity. Syria, incidentally, was not worried about the embarrassment it might cause Olmert. Supporting an Israeli prime minister in the difficult challenge he may be expected to face among his own public has never been on Syria’s agenda.

Olmert and Bashar have successfully passed their first joint test. Olmert dared to do what no other Israeli prime minister in the last decade had done, and Bashar reacted relatively positively, praising Olmert for his efforts to advance peace.

Nonetheless, a word of caution is in order. Notwithstanding the fact that Jimmy Carter concluded his recent visit to Damascus by declaring that 85% of the problems between Israel and Syria had already been settled during the previous rounds of the peace negotiations, the picture is far more opaque. First, all understandings reached between Syria and Israel in the past have been left unwritten, and are hence given to interpretation. Second, the current reality on the ground and the overall regional configuration have changed substantially in the last eight years. For example, earlier Syrian-Israeli understandings regarding Hizballah were reached at a time when the organization had only a few thousand rockets of limited range. Now, however, the organization has in its possession tens of thousands of advanced rockets that can reach as far as Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona, in southern Israel. In addition, Syria’s primary regional ally, Iran, and their Palestinian joint client, Hamas – both of whom embody a hard-line, rejectionist position towards Israel – have far more weight then they had in 2000. Finally, achieving real progress in the Israeli-Syrian peace process will require active American participation. So far, the US has not reacted officially to the latest Olmert-Bashar exchange. However, it concurrently revealed information regarding the Israeli attack in northern Syria in September 2007 against a nuclear facility under construction with North Korean assistance. To be sure, the revelation was not designed as a response to the incipient resumption of Syrian-Israeli negotiations. Nevertheless, it served as another reminder of the low point that Syrian-American relations have reached in recent years, and the lack of any readiness in the Bush administration to change its attitude towards Syria.

In conclusion, much water will flow through the River Jordan and into the Sea of Galilee before the Syrians are allowed to wade into them. Nonetheless, it seems clear that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has taken the first plunge.

U.S. Was 'Clueless' on Counterinsurgency
BY ELI LAKE – Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 29, 2008

WASHINGTON — Paul Wolfowitz, in his first public remarks on the Iraq war in years, said the American government was "pretty much clueless on counterinsurgency" in the first year of the war.

The former deputy secretary of defense said yesterday that the force sent to Iraq was adequate for fighting Saddam Hussein's military, citing the speed with which American troops toppled the regime. But Mr. Wolfowitz said no one in the Bush administration anticipated that Saddam would order his security services to wage an insurgency after their formal defeat on the battlefield.

Mr. Wolfowitz's remarks came at a forum for a new book, "War and Decision," by the former no. 3 official at the Pentagon, Douglas Feith. In the book, Mr. Feith argues that America's greatest mistake in the war was establishing a coalition provisional authority instead of installing a group of Iraqi exiles in an interim government until elections could be held….

SYRIA: More questions about alleged nuclear site
LA Times Blog — Borzou Daragahi in Amman, Jordan

Professor William Beeman at the University of Minnesota passed along a note today from "a colleague with a U.S. security clearance" about the mysterious Syrian site targeted in a Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike.

The note raises more questions about the evidence shown last week by U.S. intelligence officials to lawmakers in the House and Senate. 

The author of the note pinpoints irregularities about the photographs. Beeman's source alleges that the CIA "enhanced" some of the images. For example he cites this image: ….

LEADING EDITORIAL IN TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL

—- Original Message From: DAVID KIM (BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUB) At: 4/29 8:13:19 Plutonium on the Euphrates — II April 29, 2008; Page A12 We finally know what Israel bombed in the Syrian desert on September 6 last year, and it isn't pretty. After seven months of silence, the Bush Administration confirmed last week that the target was a nuclear reactor being built with the aid of North Korea.

The prospect of nuclear technology in the hands of another terrorism-sponsoring state is scary enough. Worse is the notion that Syria's reactor is no big deal.

That's the interpretation being shopped in Washington by anonymous Administration officials, presumably at State, who have been quoted as saying the CIA has "little confidence" that the goal was to build a bomb.

The no-big-deal thesis expounded by the President's men directly contradicts their boss. After briefing Congress behind closed doors, the White House put out a statement expressing "confidence" that "this reactor was not intended for peaceful activities." CIA Director Michael Hayden said yesterday an operational reactor could have produced enough plutonium to make one or two nuclear bombs.

This is article about permanent bases in the ME and especially in Iraq

Damascus think tank chief handles Syrian talks on Israel
Ha'aretz, Israel
Yoav Stern

The Syrian official in charge of the Turkish-mediated contacts with Israel is Samir Taqi, head of a Damascus-based research institute, Israeli officials told Haaretz Monday. The officials said Taqi was very close to decision-makers in Damascus and enjoyed the confidence of the Turkish government. People who know Taqi personally said Monday they believed he was very well-connected to the Syrian intelligence services.

Taqi served for years as an adviser to the previous Syrian president, Hafez Assad. In recent years he received the official title of adviser to the prime minister, and heads the Center of Oriental Studies, a political think tank.

Prior to taking up his advisory posts, Taqi, who is a Christian, was a cardiac surgeon, who studied medicine in London. In recent years he has has frequently met with journalists and academics to discuss political issues.

Last year, the Turks welcomed Taqi's visit to northern Cyprus at the head of an unofficial Syrian delegation, when he met with with the foreign minister of the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. His act aroused the ire of Greek Cypriots, who oppose recognition of the Turkish part of the island as an independent state, which only Ankara recognizes.

Haaretz has learned that Taqi was the bearer of Israel's main message to Syrian President Bashar Assad more than a week ago, following his visit to Ankara. Taqi's principal contact in Ankara is Ahmet Davutoglu, a close associate of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Report: Assad demands Israeli guarantee on Golan pullout Ha'aretz

Gulf Times: TURKEY is “really hopeful” that Syria and Israel will soon sign a peace deal that will ultimately “change the course of history”, Turkish Ambassador Mithat Rende told Gulf Times yesterday.

He said Turkish leaders had been fervently pursuing a proposal to make lasting peace between Israel and Syria by following the path of “quiet diplomacy”. The proposal includes a deal wherein Israel will return to Syria the Golan Heights occupied in the Six-Day War of 1967. In return, Damascus and Tel Aviv will sign a peace treaty, it is learnt.

According to the ambassador, Turkish leaders have made many trips to Damascus carrying fresh proposals and new ideas. “We have made it clear that it is not in any-body's interest that Syria is isolated or alienated. The talks are being held at the highest levels, since the matter is of grave concern and the decisions have far-reaching consequences.”

Asked about the reasons for the high optimism in Turkish circles, the ambassador said Turkey “is considered a honest broker, who maintains equidistant between the two parties. We also have been consistent in our policies.” Rende said peace efforts and development should go hand in hand. “Durable peace is possible only with a change in the standard of living of the people. A poor population has a fertile mind, suitable for indoctrination by militant groups,” the envoy opined.

Don’t Be Afraid of Peace With Syria
by Haaretz, Editorial

There seems to be a need to repeat, over and over, this basic fact: Nothing contributes to Israel’s security more than a peace accord. Before the protests of solidarity with the Golan Heights begin, it should be emphasized that withdrawal from the Golan in exchange for peace is endorsed not only by bleeding hearts, but by distinctly security-minded figures. …

Peace is not a commodity in high demand when the border is quiet, but peace with Syria might open up the possibility of regional peace by changing the balance of interests in the area. Access the full article>>

North Koreans May Have Died in Israel Attack on Syria, NHK Says

By Tak Kumakura

April 28 (Bloomberg) — Ten North Koreans may have been killed in an Israeli air strike on Syria in September, NHK reported on its Web site, citing unidentified South Korean intelligence officials.

The 10 people, whose remains were cremated and returned to North Korea in October, had been helping with the construction of a nuclear reactor in Syria, Japan's public broadcaster said. Some North Koreans probably survived the air attack, NHK said. The U.S. government last week accused North Korea of helping Syria build a secret nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tak Kumakura in Tokyo at [email protected]

Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek, here:  (Thanks FLC)

"…. The neoconservative vision within the speech (McCain's) is essentially an affirmation of ideology. Not only does it declare war on Russia and China, it places the United States in active opposition to all nondemocracies. It proposes a League of Democracies, which would presumably play the role that the United Nations now does, except that all nondemocracies would be cast outside the pale……

"……McCain appears to think that he can magically unite the two main strands in the Republican foreign-policy establishment. But he can't. This is not about personalities but about two philosophically divergent views of international affairs. Put together, they will produce infighting and incoherence. We have seen this movie before. We have watched an American president unable to choose between his ideologically driven vice president and his pragmatic secretary of State—and the result was the catastrophe of George W. Bush's first term. Twenty-five years earlier, we watched another president who believed that he could encompass the entire spectrum of foreign policy. He, too, gave speeches that were drafted by advisers with divergent world views: in that case, Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It led to the paralyzing internal battles of the Carter years. Does John McCain want to try this experiment one more time?"

Evidence-based Bombing   (Thanks T)
By publishing intelligence on a possible Syrian nuclear facility, the US has endorsed after the fact Israel's illegal use of force in attacking it

By Scott Ritter
26/04/08
"The Guardian"

It looks as if Israel may, in fact, have had reason to believe that Syria was constructing, with the aid and assistance of North Korea, a facility capable of housing a nuclear reactor. The United States Central Intelligence Agency recently released a series of images, believed to have been made from a videotape obtained from Israeli intelligence, which provide convincing, if not incontrovertible, evidence that the "unused military building" under construction in eastern Syria was, in fact, intended to be used as a nuclear reactor. Syria continues to deny such allegations as false.

On the surface, the revelations seem to bolster justification not only for the Israeli air strike of September 6 2007, which destroyed the facility weeks or months before it is assessed to have been ready for operations, but also the hard-line stance taken by the administration of President George W Bush toward both Syria and North Korea regarding their alleged covert nuclear cooperation. In the aftermath of the Israeli air strike, Syria razed the destroyed facility and built a new one in its stead, ensuring that no follow-up investigation would be able to ascertain precisely what had transpired there.

Largely overlooked in the wake of the US revelations is the fact that, even if the US intelligence is accurate (and there is no reason to doubt, at this stage, that it is not), Syria had committed no crime, and Israel had no legal justification to carry out its attack. Syria is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and under the provisions of the comprehensive safeguards agreement, is required to provide information on the construction of any facility involved in nuclear activity "as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced to a new facility". There is no evidence that Syria had made any effort to introduce nuclear material to the facility under construction.

While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global watchdog responsible for the implementation of nuclear safeguards inspections, has pushed for the universal adherence to a more stringent safeguards standard known as the "additional protocol of inspections", such a measure is purely voluntary, and Syria has refused to sign up to any such expansion of IAEA inspection activity until such time as Israel signs the NPT and subjects its nuclear activities to full safeguards inspections. While vexing, the Syrian position is totally in keeping with its treaty obligations, and so it is Syria, not Israel, that was in full conformity with international law at the time of Israel's September 6 2007 attack.

The United States and Israel contend that the Syrian-North Korean construction project was part of a covert nuclear weapons programme. However, even the United States admits that the facility under construction in Syria lacked any reprocessing capacity, meaning its utility for producing plutonium for a nuclear bomb was nil. Rather than serving as the tip of the iceberg for a nuclear weapons programme, it seems more likely that the Syrian facility was intended for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Following the same path as Iran, Syria most probably was positioning itself to present the world with a fait acompli, noting that the current US-Israeli posture concerning the regime in Damascus would not enable Syria to pursue and complete any nuclear programme declared well in advance. By building the reactor in secret, Syria would be positioned to declare the completed facility to the IAEA prior to the introduction of any nuclear material, and then hope to hide behind the shield of the IAEA in order to prevent any Israeli retaliation.

But this is all speculation. By bombing the Syrian facility, Israel not only retarded any Syrian nuclear ambition, peaceful or otherwise, but also precluded a full, definitive investigation into the matter by the international community. Perhaps fearful that Syrian adherence to the NPT would underscore its own duplicity in that regard, the Israeli decision to bomb Syria not only allowed the Syrian effort to be defined as weapons-related (an unproven and unlikely allegation), but by extension reinforced the Israeli (and American) contention that the nuclear activity in Iran was weapons-related as well.

The international debate that has taken place about the Syrian facility shows how successful the Israeli gambit, in fact, was, since there is virtually no discussion about the fact that Israel violated international law in attacking, without provocation, a sovereign state whose status as a member of the United Nations ostensibly affords it protection from such assault. The American embrace of the Israeli action, and the decision to produce intelligence information about the nature of the bombed facility at this late stage in the game, only reinforces the reality that the United States has turned its back on international law in the form of arms control and non-proliferation agreements.

The Bush administration seeks to use the alleged Syrian nuclear facility as a lynchpin in making its arguments against not only the Iranian nuclear programme, but also to scuttle the current discussions with North Korea over its nuclear weapons activities. Having embraced pre-emptive war as a vehicle to pursue its unilateral policy of regime change in Iraq (and having sold that conflict based upon hyped-up weapons of mass destruction charges), it should come as no surprise that the Bush administration would seek to support, and repeat, past patterns of behaviour when pursuing similar policies with Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Truth, and the adherence to international law, have never been an impediment to implementation of American policy objectives under the Bush administration.

Ibrahim Hamidi, al-Hayat's Bureau Chief in Damascus, sent this translation of Hamas' official response to President Carter: Ibrahim writes:

Dear  Josh,

Please find attached, the remarks and observations made by Hamas on the proposed statement of Jimmy Carter. I got the official text and published it in Al-Hayat . Here is the English version.

Please note that Hamas accepts on written paper to recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Hamas will accept the results of final status peace talks.

Best,
Ibrahim HAMIDI
Al-Hayat

We highly appreciate the courageous step taken by the Hon. President Carter to move about in the region in order to meet all pertinent parties. In particular it is worth mentioning his meeting with the leadership of the Hamas movement.

We express our goodwill for the held meetings with President Carter which were in a warm environment of transparency and clearness that prevailed
though the course of the discussion.

And after we confer in deep concern the way of formulation to the proposed statement, let us brief you about our remarks and observations, as follows:

Firstly;

1- In regard to the first point (Unilateral Ceasefire and Border Crossing):

In the light of the last meetings of our delegation with the Egyptian's leadership, we advanced positively at the level of accomplishing an agreement on the issue of reciprocal cease fire, we in the leadership of the movement dealt with the Egyptian efforts sincerely and positively to reach the said reciprocal cease fire, carrying in mind the advices of President Carter and his recommendation at this issue and his keen interest to conclude a cease fire agreement.

2- In regard to the second point ( Exchange of Prisoners)

Due to the sensitivity and high importance of the issue of prisoners to our people, we still believe that we have to continue the negotiation on the
swap deal from the point previously reached and build on it forward.

Mr. Khaled Mesha'al: the President of political bureau: affirms his response to the request of President Carter during their meeting in Damascus; to
convey a letter from captured soldier Gilad Shalit to his parents; via the Carter Centre, as it was proposed.

3. Referendum. If  President Abbas succeeds in negotiating a final status agreement with Israel, Hamas will accept the decision made by Palestinian
people and their will through a referendum monitored by international observers, including those from the Carter Center, or by a newly elected
Palestine National Council by mechanism agreed upon nationally, even if Hamas were opposed to the agreement. In order to ensure that the referendum
can be debated and the choice by voters truly reflects the will of the Palestinian people, a national reconciliation and in particular between Fatah and Hamas will be necessary.

4. Rafah Crossing. To alleviate the suffering by the people of Gaza. It is very important to lift the siege; and that is what was demanded by Hamas and the Palestinian people. To that end, Hamas is prepared to cooperate in the opening and running of the border crossing at Rafah, which would be controlled by Palestinian Authority and Hamas officials as well as those from Egypt and the European Union. Final decisions on running the crossing
would be made by Egyptian officials. I hope that Israel will use the period of calm to agree to these procedures and allow the freer movement of goods
and people.

5. National Reconciliation. Hamas is prepared to negotiate an agreement with President Abbas to create a government of national consensus, which would have authority over both the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas supports a unified professional security force for the West Bank and Gaza. A dialogue among all forces and factions is needed to discuss the details of creating such a force. I have personally suggested that one option worthy of consideration would be a Cabinet composed of technocrats belonging to neither Fatah nor Hamas, though approved by both, which would govern at least until the schedule elections in 2010.

6. During the course of my conversations with the leadership of Hamas, they expressed their greatest concern with the terrible suffering; due to the
occupation atrocities and siege; felt by the Palestinian people. They reiterated that the fulfillment of their national right of self-determination and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 borders as affirmed by them in the National Reconciliation Document would create the basis for true peace.

Patrick Seale on the likelihood of Israel Talking to Hamas
Al-Hayat     – 25/04/08

…A further major worry on the Israeli horizon is that the next American president might not be as aggressively pro-Israeli as George W Bush has been. The possibility of an American withdrawal from Iraq and of a U.S. 'grand bargain' with Iran must also be a source of great anxiety. It is not surprising that U.S.-Israeli lobbyists, including the big guns of the Washington Institute, strongly support John McCain, smear Barack Obama and have mounted a venomous campaign against Jimmy Carter.

Has Israel got an alternative? Yes, the alternative is a comprehensive peace. But Israel is unwilling – indeed unable — to pay the price of such a peace, which would require a withdrawal to the 1967 borders.  No Israeli leader has the political vision or the moral authority to contemplate such a move. Too many 'facts' have been created on the ground on Palestinian territory. The messianic Israeli dream of controlling the whole of historic Palestine remains very much alive.

Nor can Israel consider accepting the terms proposed by Hamas, which are an exchange of prisoners, a lifting of the Gaza siege and a mutual ten-year truce. To accept such terms would mean accepting a form of mutual deterrence, something Israel has traditionally rejected.

The truth would seem to be that Israel can neither wage a full-scale war against its opponents nor make peace with them. It is therefore condemned to continue to rely on its present policies of besieging Gaza, intimidating its opponents by long-distance air and commando strikes, and decapitating hostile resistance movements by assassination….

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday that he failed to achieve any progress in Middle East peace talks with U.S. President George W. Bush and he is returning home from Washington with little to show for his visit. In an interview with The Associated Press on Friday, the Palestinian leader sounded pessimistic about the prospects of achieving any deal with Israel this year, despite a big U.S. push that began five months ago at a Middle East peace summit in Annapolis, Maryland.

Paul Woodward at War in Context has a good editorial on the Syrian reactor. 

Jihad Makdissi, Syria's very able Spokesman for the Syrian embassy in London on BBC Arabic explains the Syria position: Makdissi BBC Arabic on Nuclear

On the surface, the CIA evidence that Syria was building a Yongbyon-type nuclear facility is compelling. There are some writers who seem less convinced, such as Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com who expresses his "Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea."  He writes: "After flamboyantly announcing that they had actual video of North Korean nuclear scientists inside the Syrian building, it turned out that the "video" was merely a compilation of rather unrevealing still photographs patched together, in Colin-Powell-at-the-UN fashion, with ominous narration making accusations with a level of certainty completely unmatched by the "evidence" itself.

Most skeptics argued that we cannot trust the CIA any longer and the photos could be cobbled together to suggest Syrian guilt. I have no way to judge this, but Syria could certainly have done more to back up Ambassador Imad Moustapha who has been left alone to deny photographic evidence. The Syrian government could at the very least supply a few photos of its own, suggesting that what it called a military warehouse was, in fact, just that. It has not chosen to do that for reasons it has not explained.

The second criticism of the CIA's effort was to argue that Washington should not be encouraging Israel to launch bombing raids without first going through legal channels, international agencies, and peaceful alternatives. Shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later policies are sure to undermine US legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. They will do nothing to dispel Arab anger at US and Israeli arrogance. On the contrary, the propensity to use force as a first option will convince others to do the same.

Watch the video of the CIA presentation to the congressional committees. Washington Post

US Syria claims raise wider doubts
By Jonathan Marcus
BBC News

More than half a year after the Israeli air strike that destroyed the alleged nuclear reactor under construction in Syria, Washington's release of what it says are still images of the facility before the raid amounts to the diplomatic equivalent of throwing a very large rock into a deep pool.

[landis: it should be noted that in the photo copied below, the Syrian side of this pair of photos has been colored red by a US technician in order to make the viewer see a greater similarity between what are being called the refueling ports in each shot.

Such arguments appear strongest with regard to North Korea. It is clear that conservative voices both inside and outside the Bush administration see the proposed agreement with North Korea as fatally flawed.

More liberal arms control experts also hold that view. "It stinks," one told me, "but perhaps the US should hold its nose in the hope of keeping the negotiating track open".

So were the intelligence revelations intended to anger Pyongyang to damage any chance of a deal?

Or was this a clearing of the air ahead of further progress? Interestingly, the chief US negotiator, Christopher Hill, has now noted that in the US view, nuclear co-operation between North Korea and Syria is no longer continuing.

During the coming weeks it will be interesting to see how things unfold. Will Syria-Israel tensions be stoked up? Will Pyongyang walk away from the negotiating table or offer up the long-delayed description of its nuclear activities?

IAEA ire

…A statement from the IAEA says that Dr ElBaradei "deplores the fact that this information was not provided to the agency in a timely manner". It is now going to investigate further.

But with the site of the alleged reactor razed, a new building constructed over it – and the Syrians unlikely to provide access – it is hard to see how far the IAEA's investigations can go.  [BBC]

Less conclusive, however, is any firm evidence that Syria was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, according to the U.S. official. "People will probably spin this information in whatever direction they want," the official said.

By contrast, the BBC and Bloomberg are running stories explaining that Israel is "Willing to Return the Golan Heights." The point of this story is not that real peace talks are going on between Israel and Syria, but that Olmert has evidently told Turkey's Erdogan that in a future agreement, Israel would be willing to relinquish the entire Golan. Whether that is to a "Peace Park, we do not know. We also do not know what prerequisites went with the story. Israel has been adamant about Syria cutting relations with Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas as a precondition for such talks.

.

Syria seems to be making this public at this time because it does not want secret talks and insists that what contacts take place between Israel and Syria be official and open. Syria wants Israel to break the US backed isolation policy toward Syria as a sign of good faith. 

One analyst in Washington does not believe this is more than posturing by both sides. He writes:

No durable peace deal between the Israelis and the Syrians is possible without US endorsement. As much as I would like to believe this story, it's a nonstarter. To say the least, the Turks cannot finance the deal, only the US can. The Israelis will ask for a security package from Washington worth more than $20 billion.

Here are the articles: 

Israel Willing to Return Golan, Erdogan Tells Syria
By Massoud A. Derhally   

April 23 (Bloomberg) — Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told the Syrian government that Israel's premier, Ehud Olmert, has agreed to return all of the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace, Syria's state-controlled Cham Press said.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad confirmed this week that his country exchanged messages with Israel via third parties to explore the possibility of resuming peace talks. Cham Press, which cited unidentified diplomatic officials for the report on Erdogan, didn't provide details.

Erdogan called the Syrian president yesterday and relayed the same message from Israel, Al-Watan reported from Damascus. The daily didn't provide additional information.

Olmert told Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper last week that the two countries clarified what they expect from a potential peace accord. Each side now understands what the other wants, Olmert said. Syria broke off negotiations on a peace treaty with Israel in 2000 after the two sides were unable to resolve their dispute over the Golan Heights, which Israel has occupied since 1967.

Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, said today there was “nothing new to say,'' when asked about peace talks with Syria. “I can only refer you to what the prime minister said in interviews published only a few days ago in Israeli newspapers. We know what the Syrians expect from us and the Syrians know what we expect from them.''

“There are efforts exerted in this direction,'' Assad said during a meeting with officials from his ruling Baath Party, according to the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency.

Erdogan will be visiting Syria April 26, his spokesman, Akif Beki, said in a telephone interview today. He declined to provide details about the visit.

Secret Talks

“Syria rejects secret talks or contacts with Israel,'' SANA cited Assad as saying. “Anything Syria does in this regard will be announced to the public.''

Negotiations must be serious and “in compliance with United Nations resolutions,'' Assad added. “Israel knows well what is accepted and not accepted by Syria.''

Tensions between the two countries have grown since Israeli forces fought a 34-day conflict in Lebanon in 2006 with the Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah that is backed by Syria and Iran.

Syria said Israeli warplanes crossed its northern border on Sept. 6 and were repelled by its air defenses after dropping ammunition on Syrian territory. Israeli officials have declined to comment on the incident.

The BBC adds:

'Expectations'

On Thursday, Mr Olmert told Israel's Channel 10 television that he was interested in peace with Syria, and that both sides knew what the other wanted.

"Very clearly we want peace with the Syrians and we are taking all manner of actions to this end," he said. "President Bashar al-Assad knows precisely what our expectations are and we know his. I won't say more."

Mr Erdogan is due to visit the Syrian capital, Damascus, this weekend

The former US President, Jimmy Carter, who held talks with the Syrian leader recently has said he believes "about 85%" of the differences between Israel and Syria have already been resolved, including borders, water rights, the establishment of a security zone and on the presence of international forces.

"[Mr Assad said] the only major difference in starting good-faith talks was that Israel insisted that there will be no public acknowledgment that the talks were going on when Syria insisted that the talks would not be a secret," Mr Carter said earlier this week.

Mr Carter said it was now "just a matter of reconvening the talks and concluding an agreement" between the neighbouring countries.

The Syrian reports on Wednesday have sparked outrage in the Israeli parliament, however, where several MPs said they would seek to accelerate the passage of a bill requiring any withdrawal from the Golan to be dependent on a referendum.

"Olmert's readiness to withdraw from the Golan represents an unprecedented political and national abandon," Yuval Steinitz of Likud told the Haaretz newspaper.

Correspondents say returning the Golan to Syria is not a popular concept in Israel, and the details of a possible Israeli withdrawal have bedevilled past negotiations between the two countries.

A ‘Surge’ for Refugees

By MORTON ABRAMOWITZ, GEORGE RUPP, JOHN WHITEHEAD and JAMES WOLFENSOHN
April 22, 2008, New York Times
Op-Ed Contributors

IT is a grave humanitarian crisis: 1.5 million Iraqi refugees living in deplorable and declining conditions in Syria and Jordan.

(Photo: Jiro Ose) The pricey bus fare in Amman keeps Samira, 16, out of school. She was first in her class in Iraq and dreamed of becoming a doctor. Last year her family fled to Amman to escape constant bombings over their Baghdad home. Now she stares at the four walls of a small apartment in East Amman that she shares with six family members. She lives in a state of excruciating boredom with endless hours to conjure up the death and destruction caused by all those explosions.

They are clustered not in camps but in overcrowded urban neighborhoods, crammed into dark, squalid apartments. Many have been traumatized by extreme violence. Their savings are dwindling; many cannot afford to pay for rent, heat and food; few have proper medical care.

They are clustered not in camps but in overcrowded urban neighborhoods, crammed into dark, squalid apartments. Many have been traumatized by extreme violence. Their savings are dwindling; many cannot afford to pay for rent, heat and food; few have proper medical care.

After meeting with refugees, leaders in both Syria and Jordan and United Nations experts, we came to the inescapable conclusion that this crisis could endure for years and that much more help is needed now.

There is absolutely no denying that the United States has a special responsibility to help. The sectarian violence these Iraqi refugees have fled is a byproduct of the invasion and its chaotic aftermath — yet America has paradoxically done far less than its traditionally generous response.

But while the United States must lead, the scale of this humanitarian emergency and its uncertain duration require international contributions, including the active participation of European and Gulf Arab states.

The refugees face three alternatives: return, remain or resettle. None is a good option. It is too dangerous to go back, they will become increasingly destitute if they remain where they are, and yet only a few will be resettled in other countries.

The United States and the international community must therefore take three actions to ease the plight of displaced Iraqis until the day comes when they can safely return home.

First, these refugees simply need more aid. We estimate that to serve this population a minimum of $2 billion is needed annually for at least the next two to four years and it is fitting that the United States cover at least half of this cost.

Contributions from the international community have been woefully inadequate. So far this year the United States has given only $208 million in direct humanitarian assistance for displaced Iraqis. The gulf states have given $11 million since last October. And with its significant oil funds, the Iraqi government must do better in assisting its own uprooted citizens: the $25 million it has allocated in this year’s budget is grossly insufficient. Host countries must also allow nongovernmental organizations better access to Iraqi refugees and affected local communities.

Second, because a sizable population of Iraqis will not return home under any circumstances, more refugees must be resettled in more third countries. Unfortunately, many doors have closed or are being closed. Again, the United States must lead, and it is failing: our government has resettled fewer than 5,000 Iraqi refugees since the war began.

This year America should at a minimum meet its target of resettling 12,000 Iraqi refugees and fulfilling its commitment to admit 5,000 Iraqis (and their dependents) who have worked for the United States and are eligible for special immigrant visas.

In the years ahead, the United States can realistically admit at least 30,000 Iraqis annually. European countries — especially Britain, which, like America, bears a particular responsibility — should be taking in larger numbers of vulnerable Iraqis like single women with children and those who worked for the coalition.

Third, it is important to bring attention to the Iraq refugee problem. To this end, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, should organize a high-level conference of regional countries and interested donors.

The conference should examine the plight of Iraqi refugees and pledge concrete help. Because there is also an urgent need for actions that can improve conditions in Iraq and facilitate the safe, voluntary return of many refugees, the conference must include foreign ministers who can grapple with the diplomatic and political aspects of the crisis, not simply the humanitarian ones.

Discussions about Iraq both here and abroad inevitably focus on the surge and on timelines for troop withdrawal. Missing is any realistic assessment of the fate of Iraqi refugees, 1.5 million people who have a crucial role to play in ensuring the long-term stability of the region.

Morton Abramowitz is a former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. George Rupp is a former president of Columbia. John Whitehead is a former deputy secretary of state. James Wolfensohn is a former president of the World Bank. They are members of the International Rescue Committee’s board.