By law, the US Treasury cannot punish or freeze the assets of any company in which a sanctioned person owns less than 50% of the shares. The sanctioned person must own over half of a company for the Treasury Deptartment to be able to impose penalties on it or take action against other shareholders. Makhlouf claims he only owns 12% of Sham Holding Company, so his partners cannot be hurt or intimidated by the US government. Certainly, Rami Makhlouf will be inconvenienced.

But if the United States wishes to have an effect on the Syrian economy by its sanctioning measures, it will have to list many more people in the category of public corruption. As the treasury department claims, no sanctioned person has ever won a court case against it, so there is little to keep the Bush administration from sanctioning as many major Syrian businessmen as it wants. Getting information of them all would be expensive and time consuming.  

The stock market and money markets are not open yet in Damascus, so very few companies have listed themselves publicly and their finances and ownership are not a mater of common record. Makhlouf has established many off-shore companies to hide his ownership of towers in Dubai and other holdings in Europe and elsewhere. Tracking these down and proving their real ownership will require that the treasury and FBI devote major resources to the case, but one must imagine that Makhlouf will simply find sleeping partners to claim 51% of any company.

Here is the article:

Syrian Tycoon Bristles At US Sanctions Against Him
2008-03-26 19:41 (New York)
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By Mariam Fam in Damascus, Syria, and Jay Solomon in Washington

As the U.S. places economic sanctions on Syrian President Bashar Assad and his inner circle, one of Syria's richest men is expanding his foreign partnerships and promising to fight Washington's attempts to rein him in.

In February, the U.S. Treasury Department banned U.S. firms and individuals from doing business with companies controlled by Syrian tycoon Rami Makhlouf. The sanctions would also freeze any of Mr. Makhlouf's American assets. The designation was part of an effort by the Bush administration to economically and diplomatically isolate Damascus. The U.S. says Syria is seeking to destabilize the Lebanese government while supporting militant groups operating in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories.

The U.S. is sanctioning Mr. Makhlouf because it says he is involved in corrupt activities. That is a twist: Most Treasury sanctions in recent years
have been of companies or individuals allegedly supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation. The Bush administration has already sanctioned a number of
Syrian government officials and companies for aiding militant groups operating inside Lebanon and Iraq.

In a rare interview, Mr. Makhlouf said the sanctions had little effect on his business and won't change Syria's behavior. He added that there were ways to circumvent the sanctions.

He also said he had been unfairly targeted and would fight back. "I will sue everyone that issued this decision," he said in his offices in Damascus. "I
will demand my rights and ask to be compensated for any past or future damages."

A U.S. official said the Treasury Department has been sued in recent years in relation to its blacklisting of firms alleged to be financing terrorism. The
official said the department has won all these cases.

The Treasury Department's sanctioning of Mr. Makhlouf fits into an emerging strategy being employed by Washington as it attempts to punish hostile regimes: targeting their most-prominent business executives and companies. Over the past two years, the Treasury Department virtually froze North Korea out of the international financial system by blacklisting the Macanes bank through which it conducted most of its overseas transactions. In recent months, the Treasury Department has sought to isolate Myanmar's military government by sanctioning a Burmese businessman widely viewed as the junta's most important fund-raiser.

Mr. Makhlouf's "corrupt behavior, which includes intimidation and obtaining improper business relationships, has both disadvantaged Syrians and entrenched the regime," said Adam Szubin, director of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, in an interview. "He's very close to the Assad regime, personally and economically."

Mr. Makhlouf, 38 years old, is a cousin of Mr. Assad. His business interests include tourism, real estate, banks and telecommunications. While he is a
prominent figure in Syria, he keeps a low profile; many Syrians don't know what he looks like.

In recent years, he has increasingly hooked up with investment partners from other Arab countries and Europe, including some key American allies. That could complicate Washington's efforts to isolate him. The sanctions are only applicable to American citizens, but Washington hopes they will discourage
non-American firms from doing business with him as well.

Last year, Mr. Makhlouf and dozens of other prominent Syrian investors established Cham Holding, considered Syria's largest private company. Mr.
Makhlouf is the company's vice chairman. He holds about a 12% interest through an investment fund called Al Mashreq, his office said.

Since then, Cham has agreed with Syria's state airline and a Kuwaiti company to set up a new airline. Mr. Makhlouf has also been in talks to sell a stake in his Syrian cellphone operator, Syriatel Mobile Telecom SA, to a Turkish company. Mr. Makhlouf is Syriatel's chairman and majority shareholder.

This month, shortly after the sanctions were imposed, Dubai-based real-estate company Emaar Properties PJSC announced it had agreed to set up a $100 million venture with Cham to develop projects in Syria. Emaar representatives didn't return phone calls and email requests for comment.

In the interview, Mr. Makhlouf said he has no investments or money in the U.S., and that the U.S. move hasn't had much financial impact on his business
at home.

Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said he couldn't comment on whether assets related to
Mr. Makhlouf were frozen in the U.S. He added that more important than any frozen assets has been "the information we're providing to governments,
businesses and financial institutions around the world" relating to Mr. Makhlouf.

Mr. Levey said he couldn't comment on what specific actions Treasury might take against Cham Holding or other companies associated with Mr. Makhlouf. He said his office, however, "is looking into all of them," including their ownership structures.

He said the Treasury Department charges against Mr. Makhlouf, particularly regarding corruption, "might make people exercise discretion in determining
whether to do business with him."

Mr. Makhlouf said the blacklisting has won him the support of many Syrians, and that there are ways to get around the sanctions.

"Today, I publicly associate myself with companies that I publicly say I own. Tomorrow, maybe I will come up with companies that no one knows I own," he said. "If other companies want to work around this, if they want to work in the country, they can. Syria is a promising market." He also said that the move could rattle potential investors. "After all, this is America," he said. "Most big companies have interests in America."

It remains unclear just how much pressure Washington's actions will place on Mr. Makhlouf and companies doing business with him. An early test case may be Gulfsands Petroleum PLC, a publicly traded, United Kingdom-incorporated energy company. Mr. Makhlouf is a minority shareholder, through Al Mashreq.

Gulfsands' chief executive and largest shareholder, John Dorrier, is an American citizen, and the company has offices in Houston. In October, Gulfsands formed a strategic partnership to develop oil fields in Syria and Iraq with Cham Holding. A Gulfsands executive said the Treasury Department's blacklisting of Mr. Makhlouf will have no impact on the company pursuing its partnership with Cham. Gulfsands said it would comply with any rulings made by the Treasury. Mr. Levey said he couldn't comment on Gulfsands, and couldn't discuss companies believed to be tied financially to Mr. Makhlouf. Mr. Makhlouf said Washington's approach to trying to change Syria's behavior won't work. "This is not how to solve the issue," he said. "Syria is a main player in the region. . . . Pressure on it doesn't produce results."

Senior U.S. officials said they tried to engage Damascus directly by inviting a Syrian delegation last November to the Washington-sponsored Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Md. Since that time, American diplomats said Syria has displayed no willingness to cooperate with the U.S. and its allies to stabilize the political situation in either Lebanon or the Palestinian territories. The recent sanctioning of Mr. Makhlouf and other Syrian officials is a result of Washington's frustration with President Assad's government, these U.S. officials say.

Associated Press

Obama's pledge to hold direct talks with foreign adversaries is drawing fresh fire from both rivals and political strategists. Critics say the approach may legitimize leaders whose power the U.S. seeks to undermine. 

"If you look beyond Iraq, the entire diplomatic approach [of Senator Obama] seems to be kind of New Age: let's talk to our enemies rather then reinvigorating our allies," said Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign's director of foreign policy. "It's naive."

The Obama campaign said it may be necessary to balance the Bush administration and the way it isolated hostile countries and alienated allies.

"I don't think [what Obama's proposing] is that much of a difference from what U.S. policy used to be." said Anthony Lake, a senior foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Obama and a national-security adviser to President Bill Clinton. "It's just different from what the other candidates are saying."….

Sen. Obama has pledged his support for Lebanese sovereignty in the face of what is seen as extensive efforts by Syria to undermine Beirut's political process. He also has pledged his commitment to United Nations resolutions calling for the disarming of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, of which Syria is seen as the main arms supplier.

"Saying you'll talk to Syria no matter what undercuts Washington's position," said Emile El-Hokayem, a Middle East expert at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. "I don't think it's feasible to revolutionize how diplomacy is conducted" with Damascus.

Still, Mr. El-Hokayem said he believes Sen. Obama's leadership could have a profound impact on the Middle East. "Switching from a hawkish leader to a charismatic one will have a huge impact" on Washington's perception in the region, he said.

Sen. Obama's aides disputed the charge that he would recklessly move into talks with Washington's adversaries. Still, they said Washington doesn't have the luxury to wait indefinitely to hold talks with the likes of Tehran or Damascus because of the depths of the instability in the Middle East.

Russian firm signs deal to fix Iraq-Syria pipeline

MOSCOW, March 26 (Reuters) – Russian firm Stroytransgaz has signed a protocol with Iraq to reactivate an oil export pipeline to Syria's Mediterranean terminal of Banias, the Russian firm said on Wednesday.

It said it had signed the deal in Amman, Jordan, with Iraqi North Oil Company.

"The participation of Stroytransgaz in this project will represent a substantial contribution by Russian firms to reconstruction and modernisation of Iraqi economic infrastructure," the statement said.

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote a letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki calling on him to support Russian investments in the country.

The letter was sent as a delegation of Russian businessmen was visiting Baghdad.

The delegation included the head of oil major LUKOIL which is trying to revive a $3.7 billion Saddam Hussein-era deal to develop the West Qurna oilfield, one of Iraq's largest.

Putin specifically mentioned in his letter a project to rebuild the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline and West Qurna. Iraq has repeatedly said the West Qurna deal had been cancelled and LUKOIL would have to compete with other firms at a new tender.

Syria has a 600-km (375 mile) border with Iraq. U.S. forces bombed the 300,000 barrel per day pipeline on the Iraqi side during the 2003 invasion that removed Saddam Hussein from power.

Resuming Iraqi oil exports through Banias would net Syria an estimated $1-$1.5 billion a year in transit fees. (Reporting by Dmitry Zhdannikov; editing by James Jukwey)

“14 Arab leaders heading to Damascus, Abdullah & Mubarak to boycott it” (mideastwire.com)

Al-Akhbar, an independent pro-opposition newspaper, wrote on March 25: “The Saudi announcement about decreasing the level of Saudi representation in the Arab summit to the level of ambassador caused negative repercussions among the Syrian leadership and other Arab leaderships. Knowledgeable Syrian sources informed Al-Akhbar that more than 14 Arab leaders will participate in the summit and that Egypt has yet to announce its final attitude despite leaks about the intentions of the Egyptian president Husni Mubarak to follow Saudi Arabia’s lead by boycotting the summit and tasking a high ranking Egyptian official to represent him in it. According to the same sources, Damascus was informed that the leaders of Kuwait, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar, Sudan, Iraq, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Somalia, Palestine, Mauritania, Djibouti, and the Islands of the Moon will attend.

“The sources added that the Bahraini king will issue his decision today or tomorrow and pointed out that the Bahraini king had already held communications with the Syrian leadership in which he announced that he endorses the summit. The sources pointed out that the Sultan of Oman is accustomed to boycotting the summit along with the Moroccan king who will send his crown prince and a large delegation. It seems that the special protocol issues concerning the opening session have been solved as there are precedents that allow the president of the host nation to receive the presidency of the summit automatically and to head the sessions of the summit in case the previous head of the summit was absent. Thus the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad will not receive the presidency of the summit from the Saudi delegate, who might not get a chance to speak in the opening session.

“The sources added that the guests of the summit who are present at the level of foreign ministers were informed that they will not be allowed to recite speeches in the opening session where only the secretary general of the Arab League Amr Moussa and President Al-Assad are expected to speak. It has not been settled yet whether other leaders will recite speeches in the opening session. While Lebanon’s seat in the meetings of the Arab delegates to the Arab League being held in Damascus to discuss the economic and political issues to be discussed in the summit remained vacant, official Lebanese sources announced that the decision of the Lebanese government headed by Prime Minister Fu’ad Al-Sanyurah to participate or boycott the summit will be taken within the next 24 hours. The sources postulated that Lebanon will more likely boycott the summit.

“Arab diplomatic sources announced that Al-Sanyurah held a series of talks with Riyadh in which he was informed of the Saudi decision to decrease the level of Saudi representation in the summit. The sources discounted the possibility that the “ruling team in Lebanon might dare take a decision contrary to the Saudi decision despite the fact that several Arab factions advised Al-Sanyurah to send a representative”… Damascus seemed unconcerned about the absence of the Saudi king. A high-ranking Syrian official announced to Al-Akhbar that King Abdullah’s absence “was expected”. He refused to link Saudi Arabia’s attitude to the complications in the Lebanese crisis. He pointed to the necessity “of sitting together to solve the problems” and added that “Syria can’t appoint a president for Lebanon”. He stressed that the Lebanese crisis “is on the list of thorny issues in the region that might not be solved quickly”…” – Al-Akhbar Lebanon, Lebanon

Egypt, Saudi lower Arab summit representation as success unlikely
by Ibrahim Hamidi in al-Hayat
25 March 2008
BBC Monitoring Middle East

Excerpt from report by London-based newspaper Al-Hayat website on 25 March

[Report by Ibrahim Humaydi in Damascus and Muhammad Salah in Cairo: "Start of Preparations for Arab Summit in Damascus in Lebanon's Absence. Riyadh and Cairo Do Not See 'Conditions for Success'. Saudi Arabia To Be Represented by its Envoy to Arab League and Egypt and Jordan Expected to Attend at Ministerial Level"]

Ambassador Ahmad Abd-al-Aziz Qattan, the Saudi envoy to the Arab League [AL], announced yesterday he would be representing his country at the Arab summit which is scheduled to be held in Damascus on 29 and 30 March. Meanwhile, Egyptian sources in Cairo reported that Egypt and Saudi Arabia believe the conditions in which the summit is held "cannot guarantee its success" and "are surprised by the Syrians' insistence on seizing Lebanon by the neck and preventing the election of a Lebanese president and a solution for the crisis." [Passage omitted on Saudi cabinet statement on situation in Lebanon and other Arab countries]

Qattan delivered, in his capacity as his country's representative who will chair the summit before chairmanship is handed over to Syria, a written speech at the start of the Arab envoys' preparatory meeting for the summit and from which Lebanon's envoy Khalid Ziyadah was absent after asking the AL Secretariat General to postpone discussion of the Lebanese issue until the ministerial meeting on Thursday. It is believed that this meeting will determine the decision of Lebanon and other countries about the level of representation in the summit. The Saudi envoy considered "the continuing postponement" of the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies' sessions for electing General Michel Sulayman as the consensual president "unjustified" and urged all concerned parties "to avoid the dangerous vacuum and speed up" the election of Sulayman "while hoping for an active Syrian role to achieve national accord on the Arab initiative's basis."

Informed sources in Damascus told "Al-Hayat" that the envoys' agenda included 22 items, one of which dealt with the "Arab-Israeli conflict", and four points, among them "solidarity with Lebanon" without mentioning the Arab initiative for solving the crisis and pointed out that agreement was reached by the concerned parties to refer the hot dossiers to the meetings of the ministers and leaders. [Passage omitted on Qattan's statements after the meeting]

The sources expressed their belief that the Saudi representation at the AL envoy's level would affect the level of Egypt and Jordan's representation. They said Hazim Khayrat, the Egyptian envoy to the AL, would most probably lead the Egyptian delegation to the foreign ministers' meetings and Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu-al-Ghayt would lead the delegation to the summit. It was learned that an argument broke out yesterday between Khayrat and Yusuf al-Ahmad, the session chairman and Syria's envoy, because of the clear instructions to the Egyptian delegation that the Arab peace initiative "should not be harmed."

The sources stressed that between 12 and 14 leaders would attend the summit, among them Sudanese President Umar al-Bashir, Yemeni President Ali Abdallah Salih, Palestinian [National] Authority President Mahmud Abbas, United Arab Emirates President Shaykh Khalifah Bin-Zayid Al Nuhayyan, Qatari Amir Shaykh Hamad Bin-Khalifah Al Thani, Kuwaiti Amir Shaykh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jabir al-Sabah while Bahraini King Hamad Bin-Isa Al Khalifah has a date at the White House on Thursday. It was learned that Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika would be the first to arrive in Damascus on Friday morning. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will lead the Iraqi delegation while Libyan leader Colonel Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi linked his participation to the issue of Imam Musa al-Sadr's disappearance. It was also learned that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would not attend the summit's opening session.

In Cairo, informed Egyptian sources asserted that President Husni Mubarak would not attend the summit and the delegation would be headed by the foreign minister. The sources disclosed that there was Egyptian-Saudi coordination about the participation issue and that the two countries concluded that the conditions in which the summit would be held "cannot guarantee its success" and "are surprised by the Syrians' insistence on seizing Lebanon by the neck and preventing the election of a Lebanese president and a solution for the crisis" in Lebanon.

The sources told "Al-Hayat" that King Abdallah and President Mubarak "are dissatisfied with Damascus's insistence on imposing its desire to hold the summit on time while at the same time impeding a solution of the Lebanese crisis." They pointed out that all the Syrian stands on this issue "were received with much surprise" (in Egypt and Saudi Arabia) which decided "to lower the level of representation at the summit since Lebanon will not be represented by a president of the republic because of the Syrian stand." The sources added that the two countries "concluded that the discussions inside the summit are not going to be effective, particularly as the Lebanese crisis remains exerting pressure on the Arab order and the crisis cannot be solved without a president for Lebanon."

The sources pointed to the tacit criticisms by officials in both countries of the close rapprochement between Syria and Iran even though the Arab agendas differ from the Iranian ones and concluded that Cairo and Riyadh decided that Damascus "has not taken constructive stands that ensure success for the first summit to be held in its territories." [Passage omitted on AL Secretary General Amr Musa's interview with Reuters]

Source: Al-Hayat website, London, in Arabic 25 Mar 08

Syria's Finance Minister supports continuing the public industries and argues that the public sector is compatible with the new social market economy. He has also delayed the opening of the bond and money market.

Cheney accuses Iran and Syria of sabotaging peace process

US Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday hit out at Iran and Syria as he wrapped up a Middle East peace push, saying the two countries were undermining the renewed but faltering Israeli-Palestinian talks. Iran and Syria "are doing everything they can to torpedo the peace process," Cheney told reporters in Occupied Jerusalem as he wrapped up a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories before heading to Turkey.

During his talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, "I reaffirmed the president's commitment to help the process forward," Cheney said.

US President George W. Bush has said he hoped the two sides could strike a deal before he ends his term in January 2009.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who met twice with Cheney during his visit, "reaffirmed his commitment to the president's vision and his willigness to do everything he can to achieve a result in 2008 although he is well aware of the difficulties," Cheney

Even if few presidents show up at the Arab summit in Damascus, the hoteliers will consider the event a success.

More Than 5,000 Rooms Booked for Summit in Syria, Al-Hayat Says
By Massoud A. Derhally

March 23 (Bloomberg) — More than 5000 hotel rooms have been reserved for an Arab summit in Syria this month, causing prices to rise as much as 80 percent, Al-Hayat reported.

Of the total rooms reserved, about 1,500 have been booked at five-star hotels, the Saudi-owned newspaper reported. The Moroccan delegation to the summit, which will take place March 29-30, asked for 250 rooms. Libya initially asked for 700 rooms, then reduced the number to 200, in addition to reserving 200 luxury cars. Syria will close Damascus International Airport to all commercial flights March 28-30. About 850 journalists are covering the summit.

Three Kurds shot dead in northern Syria: Nayrouz turned bloody again this year. Almost every year tensions between Syrian state security and Kurds in the northeast of Syria boil over during the Nayrouz holiday. Nayrouz has taken on "national" significance for Kurds, who are widely discriminated against in the northeast of the country, where they predominate. Syrian authorities try to discourage all national sentiment amongst Kurds, banning the use of Kurdish language in print and in schools. The state fears that in giving more freedom to Kurds of the region they will demand to be annexed to Iraqi Kurdistan. Syria has resisted reforming its notoriously outdated citizenship law for fear of granting full national rights to the some 300,000 Kurds who have been denied citizenship since the infamous census under President Qudsi of 1962.. Most Syrian Kurds insist that Kurdish secessionist sentiment is fanned by the pervasive discrimination of the state. If Kurds were given full rights and freedoms, they claim, the call for the creation of a greater Kurdistan would not spread. The Syrian authorities do not buy this argument. Most Syrian Arabs are deaf to the Kurdish claim that Arab nationalism is a form of racism in Syria because it assumes that Syrian Kurds will embrace Arabism, happily chant Arab nationalist slogans during their schooling, and salute Arab symbols rather than Syrian symbols during their national military service. Kurds insist that Syrians should jettison their Arabism in favor of a more inclusive Syrianism. At the same time, many Kurds insist that they should be allowed to celebrate their own Kurdish national identity. 

National anxieties and identity politics which have become so vexed in the region often find their flash point in Nayrouz. The US invasion of Iraq and support for  quasi-Kurdish independence there has increased the disatisfaction of Syria's Kurds. No longer can Syria claim to treat its Kurds better than neighboring states do. In 2004, tensions boiled over in what has become known as a Kurdish intifada. Ever since, Syrian security in the northeast has been tighter than ever.

"Syria: Investigate Killing of Kurds," by Human Rights Watch

Hold Accountable Those Responsible for Unlawful Killings

(New York, March 24, 2008) – Syrian authorities should seek an independent investigation into the March 20 shootings by security forces that left three Kurds dead and at least five wounded at a New Year’s celebration, Human Rights Watch said today. The circumstances of the shootings raise concerns that state security forces used unnecessary lethal force in violation of international law.

On March 20 at about 7:00 p.m., Syrian internal security forces opened fire on Kurds celebrating the New Year (“Nowruz”) in the largely Kurdish town of Qamishli in northeastern Syria, eyewitnesses told Human Rights Watch. The shots killed Muhammad Yahya Khalil and Muhammad Zaki Ramadan immediately. A third man, Muhammad Mahmud Hussein, died later from his wounds. All three were between 18 and 25 years old. Those wounded include Muhieldin Hajj Jamil `Issa, Karam Ibrahim Yusif, Muhammad Kheir Khalaf `Issa, Riad Yussef Sheikhi, and Khalil Sulayman Hussein.

Participants in this year’s festivities told Human Rights Watch that about 200 people gathered around 6:30 p.m. on a road in the western part of Qamishli. They lit candles on the side of the road and a bonfire in the middle, around which some performed a Kurdish traditional dance. “This was a celebration of Nowruz, not a political demonstration,” one of the participants told Human Rights Watch.

Firefighters appeared on the scene to extinguish the bonfire while police and intelligence officers fired teargas canisters and live ammunition in the air to disperse the crowds. Two participants told Human Rights Watch that when the celebrants failed to disperse, individuals wearing civilian clothes and driving in a white pick-up truck of the type usually used by intelligence officials fired their assault rifles into the crowd. “Without any warning, they started firing to the ground and suddenly bullets started flying indiscriminately,” an eyewitness told Human Rights Watch.

It is unclear what provoked the security forces to fire into the crowd. According to three participants in the celebrations, none of the Kurds were armed or resorted to violence. Reuters reported that one resident in Qamishli told them that some “youths burned tires and threw stones at the riot police,” but Human Rights Watch was unable to confirm this claim.

“Syrian officials have to justify why security forces opened fire at a Kurdish celebration,” said Joe Stork, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Those responsible for using unnecessary lethal force should be brought to justice.”….

Barzani slams Syria's killing 3 Kurds

Syria raises the price of petrol for the second time in 6 months. (Arabic)

Feltman: Washington Pursues Independent Policy on Lebanon

Deputy assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman was quoted Saturday as saying Washington has for the first time ever adopted an independent policy on Lebanon that would persist irrespective of who wins the forthcoming presidential elections. Feltman, who was ambassador to Lebanon for over three years, said such a policy is based on support by both the Republican and Democratic parties for Lebanon as a cornerstone in the foreign policy of the United States. He explained that Washington's stand on Lebanon is based on the nation's "democracy and sovereignty" in contrast with Israel's stand, which is based on a security concept. He accused Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun of carrying out a "Syrian agenda." Hizbullah, according to Feltman, maintains its weapons "in line with a regional Syrian-Iranian agenda."

Peres: Israel will not cede Golan Heights for Syria-controlled Lebanon (Ynetnews.com)

Peres told Cheney that "Israel will never agree to cede the Golan Heights in exchange for an Iranian-Syrian controlled Lebanon; and peace talks with Syria cannot begin while it keeps supplying Lebanon with weapons.

"Mass amounts of Iranian-bought weapons are making their way to Hizbullah everyday via Syria," Peres explained, "thus making it an Iranian satellite trying to take over Lebanon – just like Hamas has taken over Gaza," added Peres.

Vice President Cheney reiterated the US' sentiments on the matter, saying the US "is very concerned about the Syrians providing Hizbullah with weapons… it appears like (Syrian) President Bashar Assad is not interested in any kind of negotiation."

As for the Iranian threat, Peres told Cheney a US-led international move to stop Iran from developing new long-range missiles must be put in motion.

"Iran is investing large amount of money in developing long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warhead – right under the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) nose.

"These missiles are living proof that Iran's nuclear developments have nothing to do with civilian purposes, but are rather aimed at mass destruction."

When discussing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Cheney stressed that the US was complete committed to it, and that the American administration is willing to lend whatever assistance necessary to push the negotiations further. US President George W. Bush, he added, "can't wait to visit Israel again and celebrate its 60th anniversary."

In a bold defense of Israel, Vice President Dick Cheney has said the U.S. will never pressure the Jewish state to take steps that would jeopardize its security and vowed not to ignore "the darkening shadows" of the situation in Lebanon. (Naharnet)

Russian FM's Mideast peace push encounters Israeli skepticism

With friends like these
By Gideon Levy
HAARETZ, 23/03/2008

The amount of support being shown for Israel these days is almost embarrassing. The parade of highly-placed foreign guests and the warm reception received by Israeli statesmen abroad have not been seen for quite some time. Who hasn't come to visit lately? From the German chancellor to the leading frontrunner for the American presidency. And the secretary-general of the United Nations is on his way. A visit to Israel has become de rigueur for foreign pols. If you haven't been here, you're nowhere.

The visitors are taken, of course, to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, the Western Wall and now to Sderot as well – the new national pilgrimage site. A few also pay a perfunctory visit to Ramallah; no one goes to the Gaza Strip, and they all have nothing but praise for Israel. Not a word of criticism on the occupation, on Israel's violent operations in the territories, on the siege and the starving – with the exception of a few vague remarks on the need for a solution. Israel squeezes the Sderot "informational" lemon for all it's worth.

The mix of Sderot and the Holocaust, international Islamophobia and Hamas rule in Gaza do the trick. Israel hasn't scored this kind of foreign-policy success since the days of the Oslo Accords. To judge by the declarations of our foreign guests and our hosts abroad, no other state in the world is more loved than we. A state that imposes a siege that is almost unprecedented in the world today in terms of its cruelty, that adopts an official policy of assassination, is embraced by the family of nations, if we are to judge by the words of the many statesmen who cross our doorstep.

It is, of course, pleasant to revel in this wave of support, but it is an illusion. Public opinion in most of the countries whose leaders are heaping all that praise upon us is not joining in. Israel remains a state without approval, sometimes even outcast and despised. The world sees images from Gaza on television – in comparison, Sderot looks like a resort – and it draws its own conclusions. The natural sense of justice that dictates support for the freedom struggles of oppressed people such as the Tibetan dictates natural support for the Palestinian struggle for liberation. The fact that it is a struggle between a Palestinian David and an Israeli Goliath only adds to the story. With the exception of the U.S., the world is indeed against us, apart from its statesmen. Therefore, we must not give in to the illusion: The current bout of official support for us is not genuine.

Also not genuine is the idea that blind, unconditional friendship is friendship. The support for Israel as a just enterprise that is extended by most of the West does not mean accepting all of its caprices. A true friend of Israel, one that is sincerely concerned for its fate, is only that friend who dares to express sharp criticism of its policy of occupation, which poses the most serious risk to its future, and who also takes practical to steps to end it. Most of the "friendly" statesmen do not understand this.

The stance of the European leaders is particularly perplexing. We're not speaking about the U.S., with its Jewish and Christian lobbies, but rather opinionated Europe; it, too, has lost its ability to act as an honest broker, the type that wields its influence to bring an end to the conflict that endangers it, too. We need Europe, the peace needs Europe, but official Europe covers its eyes and automatically falls in line with the U.S. and its blind support for Israel and its boycott of Gaza. Angela Merkel, who received such a royal reception here last week, did not bring up any controversial issue in her speech at the Knesset. And so, her "historic" speech turned into a hollow one.

The same behavior was displayed by her colleague in the European leadership, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, during the visit to his country of President Shimon Peres. The Israeli flags waving along the Champs-Elysees and the much-talked-about Israeli booth at the Paris Book Fair could not hide the fact that many French citizens are pained by the occupation. By not speaking about the siege on Gaza, the starvation imposed on it and the killing of hundreds of its people, Europe's leaders are not meeting their political and moral obligations. Those who believe that only honest international intervention can bring an end to the occupation find themselves desperate and disappointed. Yes, Europe, precisely that continent that carries justifiable feelings of guilt about the Jewish Holocaust, should have found another way to come to Israel's aid. Saccharine visits and sweet speeches in fact express a deep disrespect for Israel – and for European public opinion.

This blind friendship enables Israel to do whatever it wants. The days have passed in which every mobile home erected in the territories and every targeted assassination were carefully considered out of fear of international criticism. That time no longer exists. Israel has a carte blanche to kill, destroy and settle. The U.S. long ago gave up the role of honest broker, and Europe is now following in its footsteps. How depressing: With friends like these, Israel almost doesn't need enemies.

Fatah-Jund al-Sham Fight it Out in Ein al-Hilweh, Casualties

Berri: Parliament Cannot Legislate:

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Friday reiterated that he would not call the house to legislate as long as Premier Fouad Saniora's government remained in office. Berri made the stand in a statement released by his press office.

"The absence of any legitimate (executive) authority prevents the convening of parliament in a law making capacity," he statement said.

U.S. Pushed Allies on Iraq, Diplomat Writes
Chilean Envoy to U.N. Recounts Threats of Retaliation in Run-Up to Invasion

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 23, 2008; Page A11

UNITED NATIONS — In the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pressed for the recall of U.N. envoys that resisted U.S. pressure to endorse the war, according to an upcoming book by a top Chilean diplomat.

The rough-and-tumble diplomatic strategy has generated lasting "bitterness" and "deep mistrust" in Washington's relations with allies in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, Heraldo Mu¿oz, Chile's ambassador to the United Nations, writes in his book "A Solitary War: A Diplomat's Chronicle of the Iraq War and Its Lessons," set for publication next month.

"In the aftermath of the invasion, allies loyal to the United States were rejected, mocked and even punished" for their refusal to back a U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein's government, Mu¿oz writes….

It also sought support from Chile on issues such as peacekeeping in Haiti and support for U.S. efforts to drive Syria out of Lebanon. The U.S.-Chilean free trade agreement, while delayed, was finally signed by then-U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick in June 2003.

Mu¿oz said that Rice, as secretary of state, called him to ask for help on a U.N. resolution that would press for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. The United States had secured eight of the nine votes required for adoption of a resolution in the Security Council. Mu¿oz had received instructions to abstain. "I talked to [Lagos], and he listened to my argument, and we gave them the ninth vote," he said. 

Posted by Alex 

I received an email from Boaz Wachtel, an independent peace activist formerly associated with Freedom House. He is hoping to get feedback from readers of Syria Comment on the proposed Peace Canal project as well as the optional Tank barrier proposal. Boaz added: “The truth of the matter is that a senior member of Israeli politics, someone close to the top, is promoting the Peace Canal Plan among decision makers as a viable option to be discussed with the syrians in the next round of negotiations”

Here are the highlights of the plan:

The 'Peace Canal Plan' was introduced (in collaboration with Freedom House, NYC*) during the First Israeli-Palestinian water conferenc e in Zurich (1992). Modifications were made since to include constructive feedback from the parties, especially from the Turkish government.

The revised 'Plan' is relevant now as ever. Its aim is multifold:

• Help Syria & Israel reach a peace agreement by allowing a safe Israeli withdrawal  and the demilitarization of the Golan Heights.
• Stabilize water inventories in northern Jordan, western Syria, Israel and Palestine.
• Produce hydro-electric power on the slopes of the Heights
• Restore the Jordan River and the Dead Sea's past qualities.

Turkish presidents officially offered number of times in the past to sell up to 4 Billion cubic meter of water a year to Middle Eastern countries from rivers flowing to the Mediterranean in south central Turkey.

The Peace Canal Plan:

The 'Peace Canal Plan' is based on the purchase from Turkey of about 2 billion c/m/yr, (or more as needed) from the Ceyhan and Seyhan rivers (14 b/c/m/yr combine discharge) for distribution of about 250-500 million cm/yr. each between Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Israel via closed canal and pipelines.

In Syria, the water could be used in western cities (that lack adeqate water of good quality) and on the Golan Heights where Syria plans to resettle thousands of people once its back in her hands.

The Jordanian share could be used in the Jordan Valley and pumped from the Golan Geights to cities on the elevated Jordanian plateau.

Israel and Palestine could use their shares to recharge the Coastal, mountain and Gaza aquifers and support an equitable water sharing agreement.

Additional water could be purchased by the Israeli and Jordanian governments/industries from Turkey and conveyed through the Peace Canal Plan to:

A) Rivitalize the Jordan River and slow the rapid decline of the Dead Sea level
B) Allow for more Palestinian and Jordanian agricultural production in the Jordan Valley.

The project is designed to produce hydro-electricity on the western and southern slopes of the Golan Heights to offset the conveyance costs (700 KM to the central Golan Heights from Turkey) for the reciving parties.
    

An option exists to construct a 40km section of the project, on most of the current Syrian-Israeli border on the Heights, as a wide and deep open water canal and combine it with a tank barrier.

The open canal can be utilized as:

1. A tank barrier to deter and delay surprised armored attacks of either side,
2. A shared storage reservoir for the Syrians and Jordanians on the Golan Heights,
3. For pumped storage reservoir vis-à-vis the Sea of Galilee (for electricity production during peak and off peak hours).

In unity, these elements add water, energy and physical security for the parties without infringing upon the territorial integrity or the water inventory of either side.

The Peace Canal Plan could:

1. Facilitate a peace agreement between Israel and Syria through a safe Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and the resolution of the territorial and water dispute.
2. Support an equitable water sharing agreement between Israel and Palestine.
3. Enhance and stabilize recipients' water inventories.
   Save the Jordan River and the Dead Sea from drying up.

The project could be constructed with standard technologies in 3-4 years with private or international institutional capital. It requires US and International (UN) guarantees to provide the necessary level of security for the parties. Price per cm for final users is estimated at under $0.50 US dollar. Wachtel (1992) estimates the cost of such a project at US$5,000-$7,000 million.

______________________________________
(*) Freedom House is the first Human Rights and Democracy Advocacy organization in the world, established by Eleanor Roosevelt)

Here are the many trenchant and, I believe, representative views of both Syrians and Lebanese to the previous post, in which I wrote: "Syria needs to make a clear statement about its Lebanon policy, explaining on what terms it will normalize relations."

Georges said:

What a bunch of horse manure. Syria no more needs to articulate its long-term position on Lebanon than Egypt needs to articulate a long-term position on Sudan or Saudi Arabia on Qatar. As a Syrian, I reject the very notion, and refuse to continue to prove our innocence over and again. Syria has repeatedly expressed its recognition of Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty, and more recently, its willingness to establish diplomatic relations with Beirut once the current cloud is cleared. Why should Syria go any further? Indeed, she shouldn’t.

During the Lebanese civil war, Syria (unfortunately) intervened in Lebanon at the behest of the Lebanese, and with full diplomatic cover by the Arab League. During that time, Syria had every right to safeguard its national interest when there is a failed state whose war can easily extend to its own territory. It took a little longer for the Syrian government to pull its troops out (we now see the reason why). But, thankfully, we’re OUT now, and Syria is all the better for it – economically and politically.

Three years on, after repeated demands to leave Lebanon alone, Syria is now requested (indeed pressured) to actively intervene to influence one group (who is friendly to it) to vote for a President/Government/Agenda that is hostile to its own national interests. Does anyone see the irony and stupidity here?

In my opinion, Syria should:

1. Refuse ANY attempt to articulate a long-term position on Lebanon beyond the standard recognition of sovereignty when appropriate.

2. Reiterate its willingness to establish full diplomatic relationships, including opening of embassies once the current hostile government refrains from the constant accusations and attacks.

3. Reject any and all calls for intervention or influence with its friends in Lebanon to pass (or block) the vote on President Suleiman or any other agenda. This should be the free choice of the opposition alone. Let demographic (and other factors play out here). Syria can provide moral support based on the position taken by Lebanese players and their consistency with its own national interest.

4. Treat Lebanon as any other state with similar hostile political climate (as exists today), by cutting electricity and fuel subsidies, charging more competitive fees to trucks and transit passing through our territory, as well as reviewing contracts unduly awarded to Lebanese companies.

To me, this is pretty simple, straightforward, and surprisingly normal.

ausamaa said:

No matter how diplomatic we want to be about it and let no one fool himself,; Lebanese “Independence” stops where Syria’s National Security starts.

norman said:

Enlightened one ,

These are my thoughts,

Lebanon has many problems , Syria only kept them under wrap during it’s stay , now that Syria is out everybody is trying to correct the wrong that is practiced in Lebanon , from Christians seeing their representatives elected by Muslims and Shia not having full representation and Sunnies hijacking the government and power and making the Christian presidency a joke ,

The government people try to use Syria as an scapegoat for the lack of political reform that will make the Lebanese feel that they are well represented.

The way i see a solution in Lebanon is to have small districts and have primaries to chose candidates from the opposition and a candidate from the ones in power then have an election to chose one of the two, redistricting could be done by an American university and no matter what the mix of people in these districts , with free movements and anti discrimination laws in housing and jobs , that mix will change having small districts will make it easier for people to elect people they know and like , each county in Lebanon can elect 4 senators to the upper house and like in the US , laws are made after passing by both houses .

The president would be elected by the total population after a primary that will chose the candidates for the opposition and the Government and can be of any religion , the time has come to have real democracy so the people can feel that they can be anything they want if they want to be in politics .

I think Syria just want Lebanon to stop being a tool to attack Syria,
We all know that Syria went into Lebanon because as Hafez Assad said that Jumblat did not want to eat grapes from the vainer he wanted to kill the keeper ( Christians ) and that he could not let happen , so the Lebanese of the government , they do not want to get rid of Syria’s influence in Lebanon they want to destroy Syria and that , the Syrian people will not allow to happen.

TheOtherPointOfVieW said:

The realistically cynical view:
– Syria made a huge mistake in assassinating Hariri
– Tried to do damage control by withdrawing from Lebanon
– Tried to reclaim influence through HA
– Is scared beyond reason of the international tribunal convincingly implicating Senior Syrian leaders, and reaching or coming close to Bashar
– All maneuvering by Sryia is driven ultimately by this survival need to dissolve or at least diminish and deflect the tribunal
Hence the insistence on HA’s veto in the Lebanese government, refusal to recognize the tribunal, and all other Syrian positions.

I know I’ll be asked for “proof” etc., as I’ve read in so many posts here. Instead, I ask you to consider that there are 2 possibilities: (1) Syria did kill Hariri and (2) Syria did not kill Hariri.

If (1) is true, all my statements above are validated

If (2) is true, what a lousy defense by Syria to proclaim its innocence. In that case you really have a bumblingly incompetent regime.

Alex said:

When there is a peace settlement between Syria and Israel, Syria will not mind recognizing Lebanese borders and sending an ambassador …etc.

Syria has no secret plans to integrate Lebanon … Ausamma is right, Syrian national security is Syria’s priority … Syria will require guarantees that Lebanon will not be used by anyone against Syria. Syria will probably require a solid guarantee from the United States, France, Saudi Arabia and Israel, that none of them will interfere in Lebanon

That’s all.

The rest will fall in place naturally … Lebanese and Syrian business people will invest in the two neighboring countries almost as if they are one country … there will be a return to warm relations … and the Lebanese will find out that Syria really does not want to send its army back in, and really does not want to destroy their “democracy” … The Lebanese can also expect that “Syria will not be governed against Lebanon” … etc.

ghassan said:

I never seen any Lebanese who likes Lebanon to be part of Syria, even the Hizballah people! Lebanon is an independent country and will never be part of Syria!

I agree with “TheOtherPointOfVieW” that Syria did a big mistake with killing Hariri and someone will pay the price.
Sooner or later the Syrian will wake up and overthrow its Asad Mafia regime. Then Lebanese and Syrian people will live in peace and harmony, and mutual respect.

offended said:

I don’t think we need to philosophize much about Syria’s policy toward Lebanon. It’s too futile at this point of time, me thinks. Simply because Lebanon is changing dynamics. Hence, the Syrian short term policy will have to be dynamic and flexible. Otherwise we’d fall in the trap of committing our self to a plan and then getting trapped within its confinements.

Long term policy? ….. the Al Ba’th party charter says it very clear:

“Arab unity is the ultimate goal of the entire struggle for freedom and independence”

…and I totally agree with it!

Mr President said:

Lebanon is not a nation state. The Lebanese people know that. For you to know that you just have to pass by beautiful and rich Zahleh on your way to a ghetto called Balabek. the Sunnis and Christians robbed the so called Lebanon for so many years for their own self interests. They did that because they never thought and still never thinks that it is a country for everyone. it is really just a collection of warlords and their crowds. Also, economically it cannot sustain itself and survive on its own. It always needed the help of Syria in term of labor force, major food (grain,…), electricity, defense, law and order… also, Syria was and still the shopping center for all the poor people of Lebanon. Hence, Syria provides subsidies to Lebanese poor. That tells you that the two countries are so close and so interconnected. In fact, I have yet to find a Lebanese or Syrian family, yourself included, that does not have major extended networks of cousins and uncles in both countries. Syria is not interfering in Lebanon. It is the Saudis with the help of Bush and the king of Jordan the ones interfering in it. As always the warlords of Lebanon are asking outsiders to come and help them win, by force, against their own Lebanese brothers and sisters. This time the Druze and Sunni warlords of Lebanon ran to the Saudis/Bush to help them steal the country. In return, these warlords are offering to be the center for taking over Syria for the Saudi. …

The solution for Lebanon is One-man One-Vote democracy. Everything else will fall into place between Syria and Lebanon on its own. Just like everything else fell into place for the last couple of hundred years due the strong social, economical, and educational connections between the two areas.

wizart said:

I visited the new, ultra modern and beautiful Lebanese museum at the American University of Beirut recently and looked at the historical map of Lebanon from the early days of the Phoenicians.

What stuck with me is how the country was always reliant on trade to sustain itself and it’s only natural for Lebanon to have an interdependent relationship with the country that surrounds it the most. Let’s not forgot Lebanon until very recently was actually a nice part of Syria before the French decided to divide and concur the area and create a separate Lebanon as an independent state which is very romantic although pretty stupid and unpractical in retrospect. Surely easier to control. Imagine if an imperial Germany or a colonial force had a chance to cut off California from the rest of the union, manufacture false pride, nationalism and hunger for independence among the California population and then wonder why they can’t live in peace and be governed independently!

Cutting off Los Vegas from California is a very bad idea. Cutting off Lebanon from Syria is a far worse idea for both countries.

TheOtherPointOfVieW said:

All this talk about Syria withholding the establishment of an embassy in Lebanon until some future event or development is precisely the kind of blatant evidence of Syria’s arrogant hegemony over its smaller neighbor.

“GEORGES” is a proud Syrian nationalist and should be commended for that. So is Norman. Commendation and respect for both. But the fact is that they are blinded by this pride to the point that they fail to have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of the Lebanese. The Lebanese are just as proud and are asking for just as much respect.

“Mr. President” says “Lebanon is not a nation state.”

“Offended” spells it out frankly “Arab unity is the ultimate goal of the entire struggle for freedom and independence.”

You all probably mean well, but you unconsciously dismiss the inevitable momentum of the creation, through evolution, of a new Lebanon, completely severed from Syrian control. This does not mean a Lebanon that is the enemy of Syria, nor a Lebanon that will not deal with Syria. It simply means a Lebanon that will interact with Syria – cooperate, mutually support, jointly develop economic ties – from a position of mutual respect and complete independence.

Until and unless such respect is extended – including the establishment of an embassy and the halting of subversive actions of enabling illegal weapons flow through the border – Lebanon is and should be free to defend itself in the court of world opinion and claim the full airing and accounting of the true culprits in its assassination strings.

The US is treating Syria to no more than Syria is treating Lebanon. At least the US still has an embassy in Syria (even if the ambassador has been withdrawn) and periodic attempts are made by some US politicians (as well as Europeans) to re-connect with Syria. What has Syria done? Persistently insult the democratically elected government of Lebanon and call its Prime Minister a slave.

Georges said:

THEOTHERPOINTOFVIEW,

I am Syrian, and yes, I am proud. I also know and appreciate that a Lebanese (or a person from Mali or Denmark, for that matter) would also be proud of their country. This concept is not lost on me. So, I don’t appreciate you playing a psychologist to decipher what I may be “blinded by”, just because you may have read a couple of newspaper articles.

You got it wrong. I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with Lebanese independence, and I would offer my respect to ANY country and people, near or far, that respects itself. I didn’t want Syrian troops in Lebanon a long time before the assassination of Hariri and don’t want Syria to rule the Lebanese anymore than I want to be ruled by anyone else. That said, I do support a Syrian policy that actively supports those whose agendas and vision is shared by me and my country, particularly when they’re up against another group whose agenda is to spread chaos in my region.

So, I don’t “unconsciously dismiss” the blah blah blah. Please try to read before responding, and stop parroting the same thing. It is you and others who live in this endless paranoia about Syrian hidden designs on Lebanon. I know I speak for a lot of people in Syria who don’t give a damn. I actually mean this nicely. Since our troops’ withdrawal, Syria has adopted more (but not enough) of a Syria-first policy: With even the shy and inadequate reforms that have been made in the last 3 years, billions of dollars have been repatriated into Syrian banks from Lebanon, Syrians are now shopping in Damascus instead of Beirut….and foreign investment has been flowing.

If the Lebanese want my (and others’) respect, they need to demonstrate that they’re worthy of it…or at least that they’re not deserving of me withholding it. Over the last 3 years, they have failed to earn my respect…and I suspect that of so many others, in the region and elsewhere. Among the few characteristics that the Lebanese share with one another is mistrust, suspicion and agency to one foreign country or another against each other. I would not respect that – not in Lebanon…or Somalia!

TheOtherPointOfVieW said:

Georges,

Thank You! Nothing in what you just wrote is disputed. Nothing. The Lebanese do have a LOT of problems and a LOT of evolution to go through to get their house in order.

The specific policy actions from Syria are what’s at stake:

– arguing against establishing at this time an embassy (the arguments don’t hold water and lead to the suspicions and accusations I level, or more accurately, I forward)

– refraining from controlling the border and hence enabling illegal weapon transfers

– denigrating the government of Lebanon by insulting its Prime Minister

Isn’t that interference? Everyone applauds a Syria-first policy and a strong, competitive, advanced Syria. The re-emergence of Syria as a beacon for the Arab world and culture is celebrated by all except the rotten extremists or bigots on the other end of the spectrum. These will be drowned if/when objectively valid cases are made for Syria. The Syria cultural exposition in Canada a few years ago was a resounding success and lauded by all.
Therein does NOT lie the problem. The problem lies in the actions and positions of the Syrian government vis-a-vis Lebanon.

Qifa Nabki said:

In all seriousness, though, I would invite Georges to consider that almost EVERYTHING that has been said by our Syrian colleagues on this thread could have been said by a Jumblatt supporter on a M14 blog, substituting the word Syria for Lebanon.

The Lebanese aren’t paranoid about Syrian designs on Lebanon. Paranoia implies an undue anxiety about an external threat. These anxieties are not undue! You guys like to imagine that what the Lebanese are worried about are ancient Syrian tanks lumbering back into the Bekaa, and bored 21 year-old Syrian troopers standing guard at checkpoints in the Chouf. This is not the issue.

As Alex said very clearly:

When there is a peace settlement between Syria and Israel, Syria will not mind recognizing Lebanese borders and sending an ambassador …etc.

This is not a secret position, and so the anxiety about it is not undue, and so does not represent paranoia. What Alex is saying is that Syria will continue to exert its control over Lebanon via its proxies until its own objectives are met. Forgive me if I am not thrilled about this, given the track record of the past several decades.

If Syria is serious about peace and about establishing proper diplomatic relations with its neighbors in the context of mutual security guarantees, then it needs to be clear about its policy. Anything less than a stated policy which conforms to reality will not be good enough for the Lebanese. You see, we also have our national security to think about.

And unlike Syria’s national security [which depends overwhelmingly on a Lebanese resistance group], we don’t have anyone but ourselves looking out for our interests.

Anybody who accuses Lebanon of being disconnected from regional realities is completely insane. Lebanon is the epicenter of regional realities. It is also, ironically, the only semi-democractic country in the region. I would prefer that the rest of the region become more like us than the other way around.

And I think the millions of Syrians who work, study, get medical treatment, and go on vacation in Lebanon would agree, deep down.

ausamaa said:

QN

1- Lebanon unfortunately does not have ONE national interest but at least two. Always had. The national interest of almost three quarters of the Lebanese is aligned with Syria’s and the overall Arab cause.

2- You claim:” we don’t have anyone but ourselves looking out for our interests.”

Ecexuse me, but what exactly do you call the continued support and interest of Bush, Olmert, Larsen, Koshner, and King Abdullah in supporting the Feb 14 gang? Not to mention the USS COLE and USS Philippines etc, etc? Unless you realise that they are just using part of the Lebanese chiftains and people to further their own interests which are not necessearily alligned with the intersts of the majority of the Lebanese in the long term.

BTW, since an Embassy is so important to Lebanon’s existance, why ddoesn'taudi have an Embassy in US Occupied Iraq yet? And Syria has repeatedly said an Embassy, a demarcation, and a… whatever would be done but not under pressure from the outside.Bashar al Assad made a State Visit to quell your imagined anexity early during his term, but even that is forgotten. You can not cherry pick what you want from Syria, actually, given the size and nature of both countries, reality dictates that the opposite should be the norm.

So please, realize the relative size and importance of Lebanon and act according to it, and do not keep counting on either drawing the outsiders in to counter-balance Syria’s weight, or to induce temporary additional ppressuresn Syria. It has not worked in the past, it is not working now, and it will not work in the future.

You first define what your policy towards Syria should be. Check it out with three quarters of the Lebanese and obtain their agreement, then take a taxi to DDamascus see what adjustments Syria requiers, integrate those into the plan and then implement a Lebaneses Syrian policy that benifit both. And be very Modest while you at it. Very!

The Prima Donas of the Arab World; Guess who fits this discription best?

Qifa Nabki said:

Ausamaa,

1- Lebanon unfortunately does not have ONE national interest but at least two. Always had.

Agree.

The national interest of almost three quarters of the Lebanese is aligned with Syria’s and the overall Arab cause.

Disagree. (And by the way, you equate Syria’s cause with the overall Arab cause. But who’s in the dog house in the Arab world, allying with the Arabs’ current enemy? Yes, you guessed: it’s Syria!)

Excuse me, but what exactly do you call the continued support and interest of Bush, Olmert, Larsen, Koshner, and King Abdullah in supporting the Feb 14 gang?

Actually, amazingly, we agree on this point. Bush and co do not have Lebanon’s best interests at heart. Did he come to Lebanon’s defense while Israel was bombarding us? No. Did Syria? No again. (Syria was offering to sell Hizbullah out, if you believe Alon Liel).

There is no question that we are the prima donnas of the Arab World. Keep fawning secretly… it does wonders for our complexion.

mslevantine said:

This blog is suffering form a serious firehouse syndrom: the same 6 guys convincing each other of strange ideas. Some of my favorites are:

-”Lebanon” has always been part of “Syria” until the nasty Frenchies came along. Has any of you bothered to look at maps of the M-E before making such an elightening comment?

-Lebanon has always been a source of destabilization for Syria: Landis came up with 100 guys training in the Chouf in the 50’s. Any other insights you care to share?

Sorry for disturbing the self-congratulatory ciclejerk.

Tata.

Qifa Nabki said:

It’s so refreshing to hear the female perspective on things.  🙂

I’m so ashamed.

wizart said:

Ms Levantine,

Merci for bursting some limited circulation bubble here as Mars and Venus do speak different languages sometimes and I appreciate that.

If someone lied to me, and the French never meddled in Syrian/Lebanese politics, please feel free to reorient my views.

Bon Voyage!

By Mike Lanchin and Mona Mahmoud
BBC News, Damascus

With news of some improvements in security back home in Iraq, earlier this year Ahmed decided to take a chance and leave Damascus with his family, where they had sought refuge 18 months ago.

But when he arrived in the Iraqi capital, the former Baghdad estate agent said he soon found that he had made the wrong decision.

"I thought the situation would be better, that's what the media were saying," Ahmed said back in the family's cramped one-bedroom flat in the run-down Damascus area of Jaramani, home to thousands of Iraqi refugees.

"I thought I'd find work again, and be able to stay. But it was the opposite."

He said that soon after he got to his old Baghdad neighbourhood he found he had to register with the local Shia militias, the same people he believed were behind previous threats to his life.

He also found food was scarce and the area was without electricity.

After just four days, the family packed up and headed back to Syria for a second time.

Ahmed's 12-year-old son begged his father to let them stay put, but Ahmed said that his mind was made up.

"It wasn't a difficult decision for me to take," he said. "Life is the most important thing."

UN assistance

Back in Damascus, Ahmed said he was still unable to work and the family were again living off the savings they had brought with them, having sold off their car and furniture before leaving Baghdad.

The funds would probably run out in another two months, he said, at which time he would have to make another difficult decision.

"What am I going to do? I can't go back to my original neighbourhood. Perhaps I will try another part of the country, whether it's secure or not."

At one point during the upsurge of sectarian violence in Iraq in 2005-06, almost 30,000 Iraqis crossed into Syria each month.

Although that figure has declined – partly due to visa restrictions imposed by the Syrian government last year – estimates are that around 1.5m Iraqis live in Syria.

Around 140,000 of them are currently receiving regular food parcels from the UN on a two-monthly basis.

UN officials say they expect that number to almost double by the end of the year, as more families run out of the resources they have brought with them.

Short visits

According to a survey of around 1,000 Iraqi refugees in Syria carried out in March for the UN's refugee agency, UNHCR, an overwhelming 96% said they were still not planning a permanent return home.

Less than 30% said they knew anyone who was intending to move back.

"The mood is not for a massive return," said Sybella Wilkes, UNHCR's regional public information officer.

She said that as the UN was unable to verify the conditions on the ground in many areas of Iraq, it could not recommend to refugees that they begin returning home.

"We can't start suggesting it's safe to return until we can verify that."

There is, however, evidence that many Iraqis living in Syria have been travelling back and forth across the border on short visits – for family funerals, to get pensions and to check on property or to test the waters back home.

Abu Feras, a former member of the ruling Baath party, now in exile in Damascus, told the BBC that he had recently been over into Iraq for family reasons, but had no plans to make a permanent move back.

He said he had stayed for just a few days in order to avoid being recognised.

Another mid-level former party official, now in Syria, Abu Abdullah, who used to work on the Iraqi Olympic committee in the city of Basra, said he had no intention of taking his family back to Iraq for fear of sectarian reprisals.

He dismissed as "lies" the recent reform to the de-Baathification legislation, passed by the Iraqi parliament last year, which lifted some of the restrictions on former Baathists.

He said it was an attempt by the authorities to make Baathists return home in order to eliminate them.

Dreams of reaching Europe grind to a halt in Beirut ghetto

Rabi'a is one of two million Iraqis who have ended up in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in the hope of making a better life in Beirut

Friday March 21 2008
by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad in Beirut
The Guardian

Rabi'a, an Iraqi refugee, is cooking in the narrow, filthy corridor that doubles as a makeshift kitchen in his tiny apartment in eastern Beirut. There is a gas burner, a sink, a cupboard and a small plastic bucket overflowing with garbage and potato peelings. At one end of the room a door leads to a reeking toilet. The heavy smell of urine mixes with that of the months-old oil he is pushing round the frying pan.

"I fry the best tomatoes in the world, the most delicious dish," he tells me. "You must have some with us."
In Iraq they used to call this dish the "dinner of the sanctions", after the decade-long economic blockade imposed on the country in the 1990s.

Kitchen-sink drama

Rabi'a lives in one of Beirut's poor Christian neighbourhoods. He is tall and well-built, with heavily muscled shoulders, thick wavy hair and a fashionable trimmed goatee. A small crucifix dangles from a silver chain around his neck.

He carries the hot frying pan, a plate of potatoes and some yoghurt to the next room where he sits with another refugee friend around a small table.

They have dinner and drink Iraqi tea from a kettle on the floor. Rabi'a is one of more than 2m Iraqis who have fled to Syria, Jordan and Lebanon since the start of the war, making up what the UN describes as the biggest movement of people in the Middle East since the creation of the state of Israel.

In one way at least, Rabi'a and his friend are lucky. They have a bedroom, albeit a tiny one, where Rabi'a shows me his cracked leather bag.

"I keep it packed ready to leave," he says. Next-door there are more than 12 Iraqi refugees living in a three-roomed apartment.

Rabi'a and his friend spend most of their time in Lebanon indoors. Like most Iraqi refugees they have no genuine papers, and if they are arrested they will end up in a Kafkaesque cycle of jail and police cells and fines which will eventually lead them back to Iraq.

He is too scared to go out except for work. "When I go to work I walk, so that if there is a police checkpoint I can see it from a distance and take a detour."

Rabi'a now works in a supermarket loading crates of beer. Before that he had a job as a barman in a smart beach resort in the south of Lebanon, and before that, he was an electrician. Now, he says, he gets $250 (£126) a month, out of which he pays $50 for the apartment and tries to save as much as $150 to send back to his family in northern Iraq.

Rabi'a was a student in the Institute of Technology in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. As a Christian, he and his family experienced the sectarian violence of Iraq two years before it reached Baghdad and became an open civil war. They were targeted by al-Qaida in Iraq and Sunni extremist groups.

The first signs that they were being targeted were the letters that came to their Christian quarter. "They posted them to everyone in the street," he said. "They called us infidels.

"My father and I and our friends would stay awake all night, waiting and guarding the street," he says.

Violent threats

The threats soon turned into violence. Rabi'a's uncle was as a policeman, which made him a double target. He was beheaded, and a note was pinned to his chest claiming responsibility by al-Qaida in Iraq. He and his uncle had been like friends, he said. When he had joined the police he had just been happy to get a job and salary.

When three more people from the street were kidnapped and killed over the following weeks Rabi'a decided he had to leave. He dips a piece of bread into the greasy pan of tomatoes. "Have some," he offers, "it's really good."

"Rabi'a is the best cook here," his friend says.

"I really want to forget that day," says Rabi'a. "I want to forget everything. I want to go to Europe, or Britain. I prefer Britain because they speak English."

There are two ways to reach Europe from Iraq: the expensive way, which costs up to $10,000 and is relatively comfortable, and the poor man's way, which costs little more than $2,000.

Rabi'a tried to get to Europe the cheap way. His mother sold the few bits of gold she had, his father borrowed some money and they sent Rabi'a off. The plan was that when he reached Europe he would establish himself and make enough money and get his brothers and sisters out of Iraq.

He travelled to Kurdistan in the north of Iraq. From there Kurdish smugglers took him across the border to Syria, and from there they crossed into Turkey.

"We took nothing, just a backpack. We walked for three days across the mountains following a mule, until my legs couldn't carry me any more."

Once in southern Turkey Rabi'a and his friends were taken to a safe house and then by car to Istanbul. From there they were to take the ferry to Europe.

"Once we were in Greece, they told us, we would cross to Slovenia and then take the train to Germany. I wanted to get to Sweden."

Instead, Rabi'a and his friends were arrested by police in Istanbul. "They put us in jail for 10 days. They were nice to us. Then they sent us back to Syria."

He spent two months in a Syrian jail. "The Syrians were bad: the Syrian intelligence agents would beat us, asking us who smuggled us."

Eventually he was dropped across the border in Iraq, and stayed there for few weeks. "I felt I was suffocating. I was scared, the insurgents drive openly in the streets. Everyone is scared of them."

Two weeks later he fled Iraq again. This time he entered Syria on a forged Iraqi passport and paid $200 to smugglers who brought him to Lebanon.

"In Iraq there is no future, no one has a future. Iraq is like a big prison," he says. "We are talking to a people smuggler now. He has a very good plan for how we can reach Europe, but it's very dangerous. It doesn't matter, though, because if I go back to Iraq, I will die."

[end]

Syria needs to make a clear statement about its Lebanon policy, explaining on what terms it will normalize relations. Bilal Saab is a balanced analyst, but in this short essay, he expresses the anxiety shared by many Middle Easterners that Syria is not prepared to recognize Lebanese independence. He advocates a strong but reformed US role in Lebanon, in large part to ward off Syrian influence.

Shaping Lebanon’s Future 
Bilal Y. Saab, Senior Research Assistant, Saban Center
Executive Summary 

Lebanon is mired in a long running and seemingly intractable political crisis. The country has been without a president since November 2007, a reflection of deep-rooted problems in Lebanese politics. Three years after the withdrawal of Syrian troops, Lebanon has become less, not more stable. The United States therefore needs to craft a Lebanon policy that can help ease the country out of its constitutional gridlock. Such a policy would seek to rebuild state capacity and shield Lebanon from negative foreign interventions, respect its internal balance of power, push for the convening of the international tribunal on the murder of Rafiq Hariri and other Lebanese politicians, and continue sponsoring moves towards Israeli-Palestinian peace. (read – Shaping Lebanon’s Future)

Here is an excellent article by Peter Harling of the International Crisis group. 

The key to ending the stalemate between Syria and the West starts with understanding why the French initiative failed.

French mediation efforts in Lebanon were based above all on the assumption that initiating a dialogue with Syria would bear more fruit than the pressures exerted by the Bush administration. The failure of this enthusiastic push now leaves many Western and Arab officials under the impression that dialogue is in itself sterile, thus reactivating a policy of isolation and sanctions, of questionable effectiveness. If the next American administration is to break the stalemate, it will have to learn the lessons of this aborted rapprochement.

It is a mutual disappointment for Paris and Damascus. President Sarkozy wanted to score a rapid, spectacular success, in accordance with the image that he seems to cultivate of politics and of himself. More fundamentally, his credibility in Washington was at stake: having obtained “carte blanche” in Lebanon, he could not tolerate for long a situation of uncertainty and stagnation.

But a hasty solution was not to Damascus’ liking, as – from its perspective – the stakes involved should induce caution. Indeed, since the Syrian withdrawal in 2005, the Lebanese scene has undergone dramatic changes, creating both temptation and angst. Syrian influence may emerge strengthened or considerably weakened – a stated objective of Washington and its Lebanese allies. Notably, the replacement of the pro-Syrian President Lahoud is likely to have profound repercussions on a political system founded on subtle balances and on rules that are up for renegotiation.

The question of whether Syria wants to restore its full hegemony over its neighbour remains open to debate. What is certain is that Lebanon is of crucial importance to Damascus, something French enticements could not eclipse. The feeling that Beirut is historically the beachhead through which all attempts at destabilising Damascus are initiated, remains firmly rooted. Hezbollah, which remains a bargaining card for the return of the Golan Heights (occupied by Israel), appears at present as Syria’s key asset in maintaining its influence in Lebanon, thwarting the perceived malevolent projects of a pro-Western majority, and projecting its strategic importance. Thus it is doubtful that Damascus would try to force a solution that Hezbollah would begrudge. However, the French, by delegating dealings with Hezbollah to Syria, deprived themselves of the means to understand – and therefore overcome – its red lines. The Elysée expected Damascus to twist Hezbollah’s arm, while treating the other major player of the Lebanese opposition, General Aoun, as though his only option was political suicide. 

But Syria is only part of the solution in Lebanon, and dialogue is no substitute for a genuine mediation effort aiming to reduce the still-yawning gaps. From Syria’s point of view, France also was only part of the solution.  The rapprochement only made sense if it initiated a wider dynamic, heralding a package deal: recognition of its interests in Lebanon, reconciliation with Arab states, a change of mind of the United States and negotiations over the Golan. Damascus first wanted to see if Paris could alter Washington’s policies. Then, as the first effects materialized, Syria made some timid overtures, by approving the principle of a consensus president, facilitating the departure of Lahoud and participating in the Annapolis peace conference – which sowed doubt among its allies with regards to its potential change of camp.

Given the potentially high price for Damascus of any further concession, matters stopped there, to the Elysée’s frustration. Irritation climaxed as Damascus, seeking to gain time, repeatedly reassured its French partners about the imminence of a solution which was each time postponed by the Lebanese opposition. The latter’s multiplying and shifting demands, provocative Syrian declarations and renewed political assassinations finally convinced Paris that Syria was playing a double game; a forceful return of the Bush administration in Lebanon led Damascus to draw the same conclusion.

As a result, the Elysée has been weighing up various ways to punish Syria. President Sarkozy, who could have been President Assad’s best friend, could now become his worst enemy, if his efforts at sanctioning him are as energetic as was his seduction campaign. In Damascus, a belligerent discourse has come back into vogue. It refers in an almost obsessive manner to the dignity and sovereignty of a country that will not yield to pressure. But no one doubts this anymore. The question that arises is which approach has a chance of resolving a crisis that is doomed to worsen. Mere “dialogue”changes nothing, ultimately. The incoming American administration will have to engage in tough negotiations aimed at a package deal, to know if an agreement in Lebanon is possible… and ascertain, if not, that a showdown is inevitable.

Peter Harling is the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon project director at the International Crisis Group.

Alon Liel: Syria talks could resume within months of US elections
Ha'aretz, Israel – Mar 17, 2008

Al Hayat:  Did President Hafez Assad talk to you about Lebanon?

A.G:  President Assad did not talk to me; I was number two in the embassy.  I met him so many times I was with my ambassador or with a Senator or Secretary of State.

Al Hayat: How was his thinking about Lebanon was it that Lebanon is a province of Syria?

A.G:  Hafez Assad was so smart in many ways I remember him once saying: "Do no think I am foolish enough to believe that I can create an air force (I think he chose air force because it would be the part of military he knew most since he came from it) that can compete with the Israelis within a generation.  Why?  Because it is not sophisticated fast planes that made good air forces, it is pilots who had the advantage of having a splendid education from the time they were children.  Not just brief technical education, he was right wasn't he?  But I wish I could have asked him a question I never understood by doing  the Iranians the favor of allowing them to export their revolution to Lebanon from the Iranian embassy in Damascus, it seemed to me and to anybody who was watching that what was going on in the Bekaa and in the South the weaponry that must have been going in, the independence of a  group of people that in the end would be very difficult to control and which you could not control by cutting off their grenade because they had already so many buried that they could fight for years, seemed to me a very dangerous thing for Syria , it was an Islamic revolution and remember what happened to Syria when the "Ikhwan" tried to take over in the North . I could never understand why he could be so certain that this could not turn around and bite Syria on the heel because he cannot control Hezbollah.

Al Hayat: Was he convinced that Lebanon is part of Syria or he needed Lebanon for his agenda in the region?

A.G:  He was much too clever to give us such an insight. He would never say this.  It would be the kind of thing Saddam and Iraqis would say about Kuwait that it was part of Iraq historically.  Assad was much too subtle to say or imply anything like that.

AL Hayat; But he refused embassies between both countries?

A.G:  Absolutely, but I just don't know what he thought.  If you were very old fashioned you could argue about whether or not he believed in Baas ideology, if he did there should not be any Syrian embassy anywhere.

Al Hayat: How would you compare Saddam and his people and aides to Hafez Assad and his aides?

A.G:  Completely different, everybody around President Assad respected his power.  Assad was much too subtle and smart to want people to say yes to him all the time.

Al Hayat:  What about the "Moukhabarat" system in both countries? How do you compare?

A.G:  A little more subtle in Damascus.  For example my life as a diplomat in Syria was as free as it would have been in Beirut, no doubt people were watching us and knew where we were but no Syrian would think twice about inviting me to their house; I was surrounded by people who had been to AUB.In  Bagdad, no Iraqi was allowed to invite a foreign diplomat to his house.  And if a foreign including Arab diplomat wanted to invite any Iraqi, any, to their house you had to make a formal request to the Foreign Ministry including the invitation card and the Foreign Ministry would decide any invitation card  would be sent.  I never entered an Iraqi house except once and that was for a cultural event.

Al Hayat: You attended meetings as number two with Assad and with Saddam two Baas leaders who hated each other  what would you say of both?

A.G:  Assad was the Eastern Mediterranean, a Levantine; he could be extremely charming which is interesting coming from a very disadvantaged background as he was in every way.  He had a great deal of self confidence, he was charming, he could have been a Beirut hostess, he could be genuinely amusing, he always spoke Arabic although I knew from his pilot training he must know some English.  We once had Senator Tower visiting him in his office. There was President Assad and Senator Tower and me only in his office; Senator Tower smoked, there was a big bowl of cigarettes and the Senator ran out of cigarettes.  Assad pushed the bowl towards him and they were all Syrian cigarettes and of course the Senator did not know, so Assad said suddenly in English a very complex sentence with lots of subordinate clauses:  "I am sorry I do not have any American or English cigarettes which I know you would have preferred".  Had I known you smoke I certainly would have, and my jaw dropped so surprised I was although I was supposed to keep a straight face, he looked at me and laughed out loud and said in Arabic: "Senator she dropped her pencil so I shocked her".  He really laughed and we did as well.  Saddam when you were with him there was this huge tension in the air because everybody in the room from his own staff was afraid of him and I never heard him make a joke but if he would have, everybody would have laughed.  It was a completely different aura.  In Iraq, it was much more frightening for example:  It never occurred to me for example if I were in the North of Syria that I should avoid getting out of my car to buy some plums.  The Syrians could not care less.  I did that in Kurdistan once, it was very foolish of me because we all knew that you could not talk to any Iraqi, they got taken away and interrogated but I was in a little Kurdish village.

I put my head out of the window of my car and asked if there was any honey because Kurds are very famous for their white honey.  He said no there isn't, I drove away and I looked back.  They were following me with a car.

THE parliament returned by Iranians in nationwide voting on Friday March 14th appears at first glance to be a replica of the outgoing one. Conservatives who claim stricter adherence to the 1979 Islamic revolution’s ideals, and adopt a more combative tone with the outside world, retained a majority almost as crushing as the one they gained in the last parliamentary election, in 2004. A claimed 60% of the electorate turned out for the vote, allowing Iran’s unelected supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to declare that his people had foiled an enemy plot to foment voter apathy. But as with many aspects of life in the Islamic Republic, the election result is more nuanced than it may seem.

Commentary: Demonocracy, not democracy
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large
Date: Monday, March 17, 2008

 WASHINGTON, March 17 (UPI) — Washington's Pakistan kibitzers will soon rue the day they squeezed President Pervez Musharraf to restore democracy. "Demonocracy" is what has now emerged, or an unholy alliance of longtime America-haters, including the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal coalition of six politico-religious extremist parties that lost the Feb. 18 elections, plus a gaggle of former generals and admirals against Musharraf, and friends and admirers of A.Q. Khan, the man who ran a nuclear Wal-Mart for the benefit of America's enemies (North Korea and Iran).

More ominous still is the acquiescence of Pakistan's two principal "moderate" leaders.

 Acting as behind-the-scenes catalysts are two prominent America-haters, Gen. Aslam Beg, former army chief of staff (1988-91), and Gen. Hamid Gul, former Inter-Services Intelligence chief (1989-91). In his regular "geopolitical" column, Beg recently advised Iran "to attempt to degrade the defense systems of Israel, harass it through the Hamas government of Gaza and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon," or the same policy Pakistan once adopted toward India in Kashmir through terrorist groups and extremist factions.

“Geagea to Rai Aam: Syrian wager on new US administration is wrong” (Thanks Mideastwire.com)

On March 17, the independent Al-Rai al-Aam daily carried the following interview with the leader of the Lebanese Forces and one of the poles of the March 14 movement, Samir Geagea:

“…Q: “American sources said that you have focused on the Palestinian issue during your meetings with American officials. Why was that?

A: “I believe that the region will not rest before a solution is reached to the Palestinian issue. It is the real passageway toward solving the issues of the Middle East. On the other hand, there is no solution on the horizon until now. The only solution ever reached was the one between former Israeli PM Ehud Barak and the late PA head Yasser Arafat in 2000. This solution should be taken and a few missing details should be added to it so that we see the emergence of a Palestinian state. This way, we would have seen the end of a major problem which is currently complicating all other problems in the Middle East.

Q: “Do you believe that what happened and what is currently happening in the Gaza Strip is affecting the Lebanese issue?

A: “Certainly. Each event entails negative repercussions in the Middle East as a whole, and therefore in Lebanon. Had it not been for the events in Gaza, maybe the Arab summit would not be held in Damascus. The Syrians today are using the Gaza issue as a pretext and are hiding behind it to get all the Arab states to partake in the summit. And this is just an example.

Q: “It was said you presented action papers to the American officials. What was in them?

A: “I presented papers in which I put forward our opinion regarding all the issues on the table, such as the Lebanese identity of the Shab’a Farms and the rejection of Palestinian nationalization in Lebanon. This opinion represents our viewpoint in the Lebanese Forces, one which is similar to that of the March 14 alliance.

Q: “You have met with the advisors of the American candidates and a number of them suggested engaging in dialogue with Damascus in case their candidates were to be elected. What have you heard from them?

A: “Any dialogue with Syria, Iran, Turkey or Israel will not affect Lebanon. Engaging in dialogue with Syria – if it were to happen – and the attempt to reach something with Syria is one thing, and the protection of Lebanon’s sovereignty, independence and the freedom of its people is a completely different thing…

Q: “Do you mean that the March 14 alliance is not afraid of an American-Syrian dialogue?

A: “I have an opinion and I related it to the American officials. Any dialogue with the current Syrian regime will be useless. Look at the history of dialogue with them. However, in the future, the Americans might want to engage in a new dialogue and we would have no problem with that, since Lebanon is an issue in itself and is not affected by anything.

Q: “It is said that the Syrian regime is using this time and is betting on the arrival of a new administration that would show more openness toward it.

A: “The Syrians’ wager on a new administration is wrong and out of place. A new administration might come and open dialogue channels with Syria. However, it will reach the same result. Do you remember the Baker-Hamilton report following which US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Damascus? How long did the American openness last afterwards? One visit and it was over because nothing can be reached with the Syrians… Moreover, French President Nicholas Sarkozy also wanted to try. A few weeks later, his aides told him that nothing could be reached with the Syrian regime. Why? Because the international stance towards Lebanon has become clear and this is very important to us. This is a grain for Lebanon whether within the American administration or the international community…

"IRAQI REFUGEES: Improve UN Outreach in Syria" by Refugees International Download a .pdf of this information here.
Sign up to receive Email from Refugees International.Sign up to receive Email from Refugees International.

Iraqis Make Up Largest Group of Asylum-Seekers to EU
Deutsche Welle, Germany:

In 2007, 338,000 total asylum applications were filed in 43 industrialized countries — 10 percent more than in 2006, when a 20-year low was registered. The rise was largely attributed to the ongoing crisis in Iraq.

Iraqis topped the list of applicants for the second year in a row, accounting for over 10 percent of the total with 45,200 applications in 2007. Among the top five countries of origin were Russia (18,800 applications), China (17,100), Serbia (15,400) and Pakistan (14,300). Half of all asylum applications came from Asia. "It is important to bear in mind that Iraqi asylum-seekers in industrialized countries represent only 1 percent of the estimated 4.5 million Iraqis uprooted by the conflict," the UNHCR report said.

(XIN) Syria says 2 billions U.S. dollars sent back by expatriates in 2007
2008-03-17 14:00 (New York)

DAMASCUS, Mar 17, 2008 (Xinhua via COMTEX) — Syrian Minister of Expatriates Butheina Sha'aban said on Monday that the Syrian expatriates transferred almost 2 billion U.S. dollars back to the homeland in 2007, the official SANA news agency reported.

Sha'aban made the remarks at a seminar at the National Institute for Public Administration titled "the role and relations of Syrian expatriates with their motherland". The expatriates serve as a tributary to all economic, trade and development sectors in Syria, the minister noted.

Sha'aban added that the legislation issued over the past few years have helped attract the expatriates and their sons and build economic, trade and scientific
ties with them.