The US government continued its campaign to sanction Syria by adding well established German firms to a blacklist because they do business in Syria, which is considered a sponsor of terror. Siemens, one of the firms blacklisted, is refitting high voltage transformers throughout the country to help upgrade the electrical grid. Syria has been plagued by electricity cuts over the last few weeks, because of heat waves and low water flow in the Euphrates.

Nevertheless, US trade with Syria tripled from 2005 to 2006.

The US imports over 10 times as much from Syria as does Iran. Total exports to the Unite States stood at SYP 10.45 billion (USD 209 million) and to Iran at only SYP 890 million (USD 17.8 million).

Syria’s total foreign trade volume rose to USD 20 billion in 2006, an annual increase of 12 percent, according to preliminary estimates from the Central Bureau of Statistics.

Exports rose to USD 10.1 billion (+19 percent) while imports reached USD 10.62 billion from USD 10.04 billion in 2005 (+5.7 percent).

Italy is Syria’s main export market and bought 20 percent of all the country’s exports (USD 1.979 billion). France is Syria’s second client, (USD 889 million; 8.81 percent of total exports), followed by Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Kingdom, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Spain, Turkey.  

Main export destinations (2006; USD, million) 

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics (Thanks to Syria Report)

China is Syria’s main supplier. Total imports from China reached USD 691 million. Egypt in #2 at USD 553 million, South Korea USD 441 million, Italy at USD 356 million, Turkey at USD 338 million, Japan at USD 317 million and Germany at USD 308 million.

Syria is strengthening ties with China, which sold very little in Syria in 2000. Although China is Syria's main supplier of imports, it is not its largest trade partner, which is Italy. 

In general Syria is moving trade from the West to the East. 

You can see from the chart copied below that Syria's share of imports from the EU have fallen by 15% from almost 50% to 35% over the last 3 years.

Syria's share of exports to the EU has fallen over 17%.

German Siemens, Deutsche Bank, BASF Included in U.S. SEC Blacklist, 2 July 2007, German News Digest

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has published a list of companies active in countries sponsoring terrorism, it was reported on July 2, 2007. Among other foreign companies, the list includes German electronics and engineering group Siemens, chemical and pharmaceutical group BASF AG, as well as banking group Deutsche Bank AG (DB). Among the sponsors of terrorism SEC has listed Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Data from the US Department of Commerce (USDC) shows that trade between the two countries increased three fold in the last six months, i.e. the last quarter of 2006 and the first of this year, compared to a year earlier. In the last quarter of 2006 total trade volume between the two countries reached USD 217 million from only USD 43.4 million in Q4 2005, while in the first quarter of 2007 it reached USD 144 million from USD 72 million in the same period of last year. As a total, in the last six months, trade between Syria and the United States stood at USD 361 million, from USD 116 million in last quarter of 2005 and the first of 2006. USDC does not provide a breakdown of trade items for these last two quarters.

Syria is looking to further strengthen its ties with Beijing to open up new markets and to encourage even higher levels of investment from China.

On June 26, the final session of the Third Sino-Syrian Joint Committee in Damascus saw the signing of a series of agreements, which included a document setting out terms of co-operation for economic and trade efforts at the international level and the activating clauses of previous investment and economic agreements in the fields of higher education, transport and communications.

The agreements, signed by Syria's Deputy Minister of Economy and Trade Ghassan Habash and Assistant Minister of Commerce Chen Jian on behalf of China, also foresee the extending of the terms of earlier agreements and a further opening up of trade opportunities between the two countries.

Syria announced that it had officially recognised China's market economy status, a move that strengthens Beijing's hand in the international trade arena. By granting market economy status, Damascus accepts that China has minimised state funding, prohibits monopolies and met other criteria established by the World Trade Organisation. In particular, market economy status helps protect a country against anti-dumping claims, something China has often been accused of.

"The recognition indicated that both Syria and China would develop bilateral economic and trade relations in accordance with the World Trade Organisation standards, which is bound to have a positive impact on future economic cooperation between the two countries," Chen said.

Although the two have had diplomatic ties since 1949, following the Chinese revolution, Syria's trade relations with China really took off after President Bashar al-Assad visited Beijing in 2004.

Since then, bilateral trade has skyrocketed to $1.5bn last year, with officials tipping this to double by 2011, a far cry from the $100m of 2000. China has also become Syria's biggest imports partner, with $691m worth of Chinese goods and services being exported to Syria in 2006.

One of the proposals put forward during Chen's visit was to establish a Syrian-Chinese bank, a step that would facilitate joint ventures and investments in Syria by Chinese firms.

Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Abdallah al-Dadari used the delegation's visit to call for more Chinese companies to invest in Syria. The areas of particular interest are the industrial, information technology, petrochemicals, agriculture, textiles and energy sectors.

It is a call that has already been heeded. Chinese firms have a strong presence in Syria, much of it in the energy sector. One of the most high profile investors is the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which, in late 2005, joined forces with its partner, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, to buy a stake in the Al-Furat oil and gas fields in a $573m deal. CNPC is also involved in developing the Kbeibe oil field in Syria's northeast.

China also has investments in Syria's cement, fabrics and agro-industries, giving it one of the more diverse spreads of foreign direct investment in the country. While Syria is a source of raw material, especially cotton that China needs for its increasingly dominant textiles industry, China has the technology that Syria has needed to upgrade and expand its industrial base.

Syria’s trade with the EU (million euros) 

Sources: Central Bank of Syria and DG Trade/ European Commission (Thanks to Syria Report)

.

EU to grant Syria EUR 130 million in 2007-10, The Syrian Report, 02 July 2007

The European Commission will be offering EUR 130 million in grants to Syria in the coming four years according to Vassilis Bontosoglou, Ambassador and Head of the EC delegation in Syria. The money will be mainly used to support the country's reform agenda, assist Syria in its transformation into a social market economy, prepare it for the terms of the Association Agreement with the EU and for accession to the World Trade Organization.

.

The EC's operations in Syria focus mainly on capacity building, the transfer of know-how and technical expertise. During the period 2007-2010 the EU will therefore grant Syria an average of EUR 32.5 million a year, which represents a 30 percent increase over the amounts allocated in 2006 and 2005 (around EUR 25 million each). The level of EU grants reached a peak in 2004 (EUR 55 million), the year the AA was initialled, and in 2000 (EUR 49.7 million), when President Bashar Al Assad took over power.  Syria and the European Union initialled an Association Agreement between them in October 2004 (Read Syria, EU initial Association Agreement).

.

However, the agreement never entered into force because of the strained relationship between Syria and some EU countries, in particular France, which followed the extension of the mandate of Lebanon’s President, Emile Lahoud, in the fall of 2004 as well as UN resolution 1559, which asked Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. "Our cooperation with and support to Syria is not restricted to the finalization of the AA," Mr Bontosoglou told The Syria Report.

The European Commission will be offering EUR 130 million in grants to Syria in the coming four years according to Vassilis Bontosoglou, Ambassador and Head of the EC delegation in Syria. The money will be mainly used to support the country's reform agenda, assist Syria in its transformation into a social market economy, prepare it for the terms of the Association Agreement with the EU and for accession to the World Trade Organization.

.

The EC's operations in Syria focus mainly on capacity building, the transfer of know-how and technical expertise. During the period 2007-2010 the EU will therefore grant Syria an average of EUR 32.5 million a year, which represents a 30 percent increase over the amounts allocated in 2006 and 2005 (around EUR 25 million each). The level of EU grants reached a peak in 2004 (EUR 55 million), the year the AA was initialled, and in 2000 (EUR 49.7 million), when President Bashar Al Assad took over power.  Syria and the European Union initialled an Association Agreement between them in October 2004 (Read Syria, EU initial Association Agreement).

.

However, the agreement never entered into force because of the strained relationship between Syria and some EU countries, in particular France, which followed the extension of the mandate of Lebanon’s President, Emile Lahoud, in the fall of 2004 as well as UN resolution 1559, which asked Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. "Our cooperation with and support to Syria is not restricted to the finalization of the AA," Mr Bontosoglou told The Syria Report.

Lebanon's search for a President: Two new candidates

Friday Lunch Club writes that:

"Michel Edde interim President of Lebanon for 2 years: A Lebanese Official, who was in Paris at the time Siniora was there for talks with president Sarkozy & Condoleeza Rice, rapports the following in an email: Michel Edde is gonna be president for an interim period of 2 years during which a new electoral law will be drafted and a new parliamentary election held, to select a president for 6 years …

Michel Suleiman: "Looks like he's starting to establish himself as a "national figure,"" A friend writes.

The US, Israel, and UN are ratcheting up the pressure on Syria and the Lebanese opposition in the run up to Presidential elections in November. Even more immediate is the Paris meeting of Lebanese zaims (leaders or strong men) scheduled in two weeks time. France will be looking for cracks in Aoun's and Hizbullah's allience with Syria. It will also be looking for Syria to make some helpful gesture. What it may be offering the Lebanese opposition or the Syrians for their cooperation is unclear.  

Israel keeps pressure on Syria over alleged arms smuggling to …, Daily Star – Lebanon.

Israeli Defense Ministry adviser Amos Gilad told Israel Radio that Syria continues be a transit point for Iranian weapons and money to Hizbullah. "Syria … is allowing the Iranians, and is itself arming Hizbullah in a massive fashion, and is putting it [back] on its feet," said Gilad.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration, fearing a rupturing of Lebanon’s political system, is ratcheting up pressure on Syria and its Lebanese allies
ahead of what the U.S. believes could be a bid by opponents of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora to set up a parallel government in Beirut by the fall.

On Friday, President Bush signed a proclamation blacklisting from U.S. travel any Syrian or Lebanese individuals seen as threatening Beirut’s democratically
elected government. It also listed 10 people who the U.S. believes are playing central roles in seeking to overthrow the current government.

The U.S. moves come as the United Nations reports an unimpeded flow of weapons into Lebanon from Syria, part of an apparent campaign by Damascus and Iran to rearm the Shiite militia Hezbollah after last summer’s war with Israel.

U.S. and Lebanese officials say these arms are also reaching a growing number of Palestinian and Sunni militant groups in Lebanon challenging Mr. Siniora’s control in the north and south of the country.

This mix of arms and political polarization is infecting Lebanon with rising sectarian tensions and the threat of a return to all-out civil war, said U.N.
and Lebanese officials. It is also stoking concern in Washington and Tel Aviv of another major conflict erupting between Lebanon-based militants and Israel in the months ahead.

“I am deeply concerned that Lebanon remains in the midst of a debilitating political crisis and faces ongoing attacks aimed at destabilizing and undermining its sovereignty,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wrote in a report released Friday. Mr. Ban said he was particularly alarmed by last
month’s bombing in southern Lebanon that killed six Spanish U.N. peacekeepers, as well as the firing of three Katyusha rockets into Israel from the same
region.

Among the 10 individuals who the U.S. believes are playing central roles in seeking to overthrow the current Beirut government are Assef Shawkat, who is
the brother-in-law of Syrian President Bashar Assad as well as the country’s and intelligence chief; Hisham Ikhtiyar, one of the Syrian leader’s top
advisers; and Rustum Ghazali, former head of Syrian intelligence insideLebanon. Six former Lebanese ministers who are viewed as working as proxies for
Damascus inside Lebanon are also on the list. U.S. officials acknowledged that the U.S. travel bans are unlikely to have much direct impact on Syrian leaders. But they say they are more focused on dissuading Lebanese politicians from siding with the Syrians against Mr. Siniora.

Of particular focus are Christian politicians who have joined into a formal political alliance with Hezbollah in a bid to unseat Mr. Siniora. Some of them,
such as retired Gen. Michel Aoun, have in the past coordinated closely with the U.S. on Lebanon policy, particularly on the need to reduce Syrian influence. They also have presented themselves as potential allies to Washington if any new government is formed in Beirut.

“A lot of people are opposed to Siniora, and might try to bring him down but still want to present themselves as friends with the U.S,” said a senior Bush
administration official working on the Middle East. “We want to convey to them that there’s a price to pay” for their actions…..

Lebanese Lawmakers Leave Amid Threats
Saturday June 30, 2007 10:46 PM
By SAM F. GHATTAS, AP

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) – About 20 anti-Syrian lawmakers in Lebanon have temporarily left their conflict-ridden country this summer – apparently seeking safety abroad amid mounting security threats and the recent assassination of an outspoken politician.

An Associated Press count found more than two dozen lawmakers, many from the leading majority party bloc, have left Lebanon in the past 10 days. Some have returned, but about 20 remain abroad.

A senior Arab intelligence official said Lebanese lawmakers allied with U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora were advised to seek shelter elsewhere after names appeared on a hit list. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity.

The Lebanese As-Safir newspaper, which leans toward the opposition that is led by the Hezbollah militant group, reported June 20 that “an Arab security agency chief has informed a number of leaders in the majority team that they should take summer vacation outside Lebanon.''

Another pro-opposition newspaper, Al-Akhbar, on Friday reported that arrangements were being made to move 65 pro-government lawmakers, or more than half the legislature, as well as 35 other politicians to Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and France. The report said party leaders would remain in Beirut.

One lawmaker from Lebanon's majority still in the country denied receiving warnings to leave, but added that some colleagues had done so for safety.

“Some lawmakers have left Lebanon temporarily because they don't have security capabilities to protect themselves,'' Samir Franjieh said. “There is no decision from our leadership or the Lebanese security authorities to leave the country. This is a self-made decision by members after the assassination of Eido to guarantee their own safety.''

An atmosphere of apprehension has descended over Lebanon in recent weeks, with the army fighting al-Qaida-inspired militants up north, a car bombing that killed six peacekeepers in the south and half a dozen bombings in the Beirut area.

Saniora has been largely holed up with some members of his Cabinet at government headquarters in downtown Beirut, behind razor wires and troops. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah's whereabouts are a deep secret. Parliament speaker Nabih Berri rarely leaves his heavily guarded residence. And when in Beirut, Saad Hariri, leader of the majority party bloc and son of slain Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, lives in a fortified compound.

Recent U.S. statements also have highlighted the security concerns.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, after a recent meeting with Saniora in Paris, issued a veiled warning to Syria, saying a Lebanese-international tribunal created by the U.N. Security Council must be safe while it probes Hariri's 2005 murder.

Spanish Intelligence & Hezbollah: dialogue between partners… (From Mideastwire.com)

Nicola Nassif, a regular columnist for the independent pro-opposition newspaper Al Akhbar, wrote on June 30: “Meetings abounded in the last few days between Spanish security officials and others from Hezbollah to discuss the means to coordinate between the two sides to prevent another security incident following the attack on the Spanish unit’s patrol operating as part of the UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon last Sunday with an explosive charge that killed six Spanish soldiers. During the discussion, Hezbollah confirmed its respect for UNSCR 1701 and its commitment to implementing the security section that stipulates that no illegitimate weapons should exist south of the Litani River.

“Hezbollah pointed out to the international officials that it hasn’t carried out any military action since the resolution went into effect last August neither on the blue line nor in the Shab’a Farms. Hezbollah also pointed out that no security incidents occurred with the Lebanese army which is responsible for the security of the region. Hezbollah added that this should be enough to corroborate Hezbollah’s commitment to this resolution and that they do not hide their reservations concerning some of the articles in its introduction. Hezbollah also confirmed to the Europeans that the south is a “friendly environment” for the international forces and that it looks at their military role positively because they preserve security and because they help economically because of the stability that they engender.

“The security issue dominated the meetings despite the limited political role handled by the representative of the secretary general of the United Nations in Lebanon Geir Pederson who held a few meetings with officials in Hezbollah to confirm that they are cooperating with the international forces. This reflected the security nature of the problem. The attack on UNIFIL didn’t arouse any political discussions between the international forces and Hezbollah because they knew that Hezbollah didn’t have anything to do with it or with the launching of the Katyusha missiles on Israel from Khiyam on the 17th of last June which is corroborated by the fact that none of the international reactions to the two incidents included any public or implied criticism of Hezbollah even though Washington seemed more inclined, same as the March 14 forces, to accuse Syria.

“Thus the Spanish intelligence services entered into the fray. Meetings were held between security officials in the Spanish unit and Hezbollah and between officials in Hezbollah and others in other international units to guard against other incidents. The Spanish intelligence services and the Spanish unit in the south didn’t ask Hezbollah for any guarantees about no more attacks taking place but both sides agreed to increase the military coordination to a level which pushes, according to a concerned diplomat, Hezbollah to the position of an actual partner in its implementation and the prevention of its abandonment and in the protection of the UNIFIL forces. Based on what the diplomat announced, Hezbollah can’t present any such guarantee because of the size of the area but it pledged that it will cooperate fully because it found itself targeted with the message sent through the incident and because it is concerned with protecting the UNIFIL forces.

“The Spanish officials asked Hezbollah to present them with a complete security file about the traffic in and out of the operating zone of the Spanish unit in the days that preceded the attack which includes all the sightings and statements about the movement of cars and people. Hezbollah confirmed to them that it will provide them with this file as soon as it is complete. Thus the cooperation, according to the diplomat, focuses on the intelligence and information branches as the military and security operations are the purview of the Lebanese army and the international forces. The intelligence reports possessed by both sides were similar.

“While the Spanish officials suspect that the perpetrators, or at least those who handled the observation, entered the operating theatre of the Spanish unit through the area between the Shab’a Farms and Kfarshouba, the leads possessed by Hezbollah and the intelligence directorate in the Lebanese army show that a Salafi organization was behind the attack. According to confessions given by Salafi detainees more than a month ago to the Lebanese security services, members of Al-Qa’idah reconnoitred the Lebanese south more than once, with special emphasis on the operating theatres of the UNIFIL units, their movements, and patrols in order to attack them. The detainees confirmed that they were planning attacks on the UNIFIL forces based on previous attitudes that incited them to do so issued by Abu Mus’ab Al-Zarqawi before his death and the number two man in Al-Qa’idah Aiman Al-Zawahiri.

“According to the discussions in the meetings in the past two days, the series of arrests of Salafis carried out by the security forces following the attack enhanced the belief among the Lebanese and international intelligence officers that Salafi terrorism is active in more than one area in Lebanon including the south and aims to spread anarchy and chaos in Lebanon. The nationalities of a number of detainees was announced and they include Saudis and Yemenis…No information is available about the identity of the militants who launched the missiles at Israel and who carried out the attack, but the Spanish and Lebanese intelligence officers and Hezbollah pointed to Salafis on whom the investigations are focusing to determine whether they were Lebanese or Palestinians.

“According to some of the available information, Palestinian Salafis were behind the missile attack which points fingers at the Osbat Al-Ansar group based in the Ain Al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp…”  

2007-06-28, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By John Harwood

ALARMED OVER rising violence in Lebanon, U.S. and Lebanese officials explore dispatching international troops to seal Syrian border. Bush administration
views Syria as primary conduit for arms and militias that have proliferated inside Lebanon.

Ibrahim Suleiman – the unofficial Syrian peace negotiator – was on the Riz Khan show on Al Jazeera International last night (Thanks to Damian Quin)https://exchange.ou.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysD0eFmIsPM

Power Outages Sweep Syria and Lebanon due to heat wave

Intermittent power-outages in Damascus and other major Syrian cities were caused in the last few days by increasing demand for electricity in the country, Israel Radio reported Sunday.

Syrian Prime Minister Naji el Atari called on Electrcitiy Minister Ahmad Ali to take the measures necessary to maintain a steady supply of power.

The prime minister was also called for a special parliamentary session devoted to the electricity crisis. Atari explained the power outages were caused by the lack of sufficient reserves in the country's power infrastructure, the current heat wave and a decline in the Euphrate River's flow, which is one of the main sources of Syria's electricity production.

EDL blames theft, heat wave for tight rationing

Book Review: 

Paul Collier, “The Bottom Billion.” 
He is the director of the Center for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University. A former World Bank economist
(from NYTimes)

There are, he suggests, four traps into which really poor countries tend to fall. The first is civil war. Nearly three-quarters of the people in the bottom billion, Collier points out, have recently been through, or are still in the midst of, a civil war. Such wars usually drag on for years and have economically disastrous consequences. Congo (formerly Zaire, formerly the Belgian Congo) would need 50 years of peace at its present growth rate to get back to the income level it had in 1960. Unfortunately, there is a vicious circle, because the poorer a country becomes, the more likely it is to succumb to civil war (“halve the … income of the country and you double the risk of civil war” is a characteristic Collier formulation). And once you’ve had one civil war, you’re likely to have more: “Half of all civil wars are postconflict relapses.”

Why, aside from their poverty, have so many sub-Saharan countries become mired in internal conflict? Collier has spent years trying to answer this question, and his conclusions are central to this book. Civil war, it turns out, has nothing much to do with the legacy of colonialism, or income inequality, or the political repression of minorities. Three things turn out to increase the risk of conflict: a relatively high proportion of young, uneducated men; an imbalance between ethnic groups, with one tending to outnumber the rest; and a supply of natural resources like diamonds or oil, which simultaneously encourages and helps to finance rebellion.

It was in fact Collier who first came up with the line “diamonds are a guerrilla’s best friend,” and a substantial part of this book concerns itself with what economists like to call the “resource curse,” his No. 2 trap. As he sees it, the real problem about being a poor country with mineral wealth, like Nigeria, is that “resource rents make democracy malfunction”; they give rise to “a new law of the jungle of electoral competition … the survival of the fattest.” Resource-rich countries don’t need to levy taxes, so there is little pressure for government accountability, and hence fewer checks and balances.

Countries don’t get to choose their resource endowment, of course; nor do they get to choose their location. Trap No. 3 is that landlocked countries are economically handicapped, because they are dependent on their neighbors’ transportation systems if they want to trade. Yet this is a minor handicap compared with Trap No. 4: bad governance. Collier has no time for those who still seek to blame Africa’s problems on European imperialists. As he puts it bluntly: “President Robert Mugabe must take responsibility for the economic collapse in Zimbabwe since 1998, culminating in inflation of over 1,000 percent a year.”

The Middle East Monitor has a series of excellent articles by Gary Gambill, who is sympathetic to General Aoun. The first is on the failure of US policy in Lebanon: 

Lemons from Lemonade: Washington and Lebanon after the Syrian Withdrawal

He begins:

Much like the Bush administration's spectacular liberation of Iraq, however, the emancipation of Lebanon has been overshadowed by chronic instability, sectarian polarization, and the looming threat of civil war. While American officials have put a brave face on Lebanon's unfortunate trajectory, it has been a strategic disaster for Washington, catalyzing the collapse of Syrian diplomatic isolation, renewed Arab engagement with Iran, and the proliferation of Al-Qaeda affiliates in the heart of the Arab Levant.

He then explains how the March 14 coalition ruined its chances of winning a strong majority within Lebanon by excluding Aoun, thereby splitting Christians and depending on weak Sunni leadership that could mobilize only a third of Lebanese.

For all of their anti-Syrian rhetoric, Hariri and Jumblatt preferred to leave Assad's man in the presidency rather than bow to the wishes of nearly three quarters of the Christian electorate and accept Aoun's ascension. Without controlling the presidency, they would be unable to unilaterally replace Syrian-vetted military officers, judges, and diplomats. Furthermore, they refused to offer the FPM a major ministry to join the government after the elections (Aoun would have accepted interior or justice), turning instead to Hezbollah …. The result was a cabinet composed mostly of former high-ranking officials of Syria's 1990-2003 satellite state or their political subordinates (Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was the longest-serving finance minister of Syrian-occupied Lebanon).

None for All

The March 14 coalition began its stewardship of Lebanon with a perilously weak democratic mandate. Christians and Shiites (roughly two-thirds of Lebanon's population) had voted overwhelmingly for the FPM and Hezbollah, respectively, while the coalition could claim majority support only among Sunnis and Druze (roughly a third of the population).

The result of this mistaken March 14 and US backed policy was the creation of a powerful pro-Syrian opposition uniting Christians and Shiites. Washington believed the key to destroying this coalition was to isolate and weaken Syria, eliminate Lahoud, and split the Shiites, after allowing Israel a chance to smash Hizbullah.

In February 2006, the FPM and Hezbollah signed a memorandum of understanding outlining their vision for reform, which was greeted with virtually unanimous assent in the Shiite community and 77% approval in the Christian community.[35] The Bush administration was infuriated by the accord, fearing that it would make the March 14 coalition even more willing to kowtow to Hezbollah in south Lebanon. That was true, of course, but only because the coalition was so manifestly unable to win Shiite support through other means – which is precisely what Aoun claims to be attempting. The FPM insists that the majority of Shiites (if not Hezbollah itself) will eventually countenance the disarmament once they feel their future in Lebanon is secure.

The idea that Shiite alienation is a "fixable" obstacle to Hezbollah's disarmament seems to have escaped American policymakers. The administration was convinced by its new Lebanese allies that the solution to the Siniora government's lack of "backbone" was the removal of Lahoud, which would enable it to establish firmer control over the Lebanese military. The only way to achieve this (short of accepting Aoun as president) was by ratcheting up pressure on Assad to the point that he would be willing to sacrifice his remaining institutional foothold in Lebanese government. It was also hoped that isolating Syria might help persuade Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, the leader of the pro-Syrian Amal party (which formed unified Shiite alliance with Hezbollah after the Syrian withdrawal) to break with Nasrallah and support Lahoud's impeachment. The Bush administration was already committed to squeezing Syria for broader strategic purposes, but the erroneous belief that Damascus held the key to solving Lebanon's domestic problems (as March 14 leaders invariably maintained) validated its unwillingness to press for political and economic reform…..

Targeting Damascus

Lebanon, once a carrot in the toolbox of American diplomacy with Syria, was now a stick. The most powerful weapon at the administration's disposal was the UN International Independent Investigation Commission (IIIC) established to investigate the killing of Hariri.

However, while the commission quickly uncovered significant (if hardly conclusive) circumstantial evidence of collusion and evidence tampering by Lebanese security officials close to Lahoud, no direct evidence of Syrian involvement ever came to light, save for the testimony of secret witnesses later revealed to be highly questionable[36] and likely planted by the March 14 coalition (or possibly, as Jumblatt has suggested, planted by the Syrians to taint the investigation).[37] Four senior Lebanese security officials have been detained at the behest of the IIIC for eighteen months in hopes that they will implicate Syria, but to no avail. The commission has since backed away from claims of Syrian involvement.

Unable to produce conclusive evidence of Syrian complicity in the Hariri killing, the Security Council expanded the mandate of the IIIC to include subsequent assassinations of (mostly marginal) Christian public figures, but none of these investigations appears to have borne fruit. Indeed, in an environment where fear of Syria has been effectively channeled into support for the ruling coalition, the presumption of Syrian involvement in most of the killings is rather dubious – particularly in view of past "false flag" killings by the Lebanese Forces.[38] …

Read the whole report. Gambill's conclusions are provocative. He argues that both the French and Saudis are ready to abandon Washington's ongoing and barren policy of "creative instability" in Lebanon.

Another excellent article explores the recent theories on who backs Fatah al-Islam:

The Rise of Fatah al-Islam
by Gary C. Gambill, June/July 2007

Here is a bit from the introduction:

The sudden outbreak of fighting between the Lebanese Army and Fatah al-Islam in late May has touched off a flurry of conspiracy theories about the meteoric rise of this shadowy terrorist group. Supporters of Lebanon's ruling March 14 coalition typically allege that the militant fundamentalist organization is an "imitation al-Qaeda" secretly controlled by the secular Baathist regime of neighboring Syria,[1] while those on the other side of the political divide allege that Fatah al-Islam is a creation of Lebanon's ruling coalition.

Here is the conclusion: (But read the entire report)

On May 19, a band of Fatah al-Islam gunmen robbed a bank near Tripoli (their third) and were tracked to an apartment in a wealthy neighborhood in the city. For reasons that are not entirely clear (but probably owe much to the visit of US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch three days earlier), this time Siniora sent the ISF into action (with a camera crew from Hariri's Future TV station in tow to record the momentous event). The pre-dawn raid was a disaster – not only was it easily repulsed, but Siniora's failure to inform the Army beforehand left Lebanese soldiers stationed outside Nahr al-Bared vulnerable to a withering reprisal hours later while most were asleep in their barracks (nine were found with their throats slit). While the deaths of 22 soldiers that day (the ISF aborted its raid before anyone got killed) united the Lebanese people behind the Army's campaign to eliminate Fatah al-Islam, the political parameters that impede the government from addressing the threat posed by militant Sunni Islamists have not changed.

As fighting continued off and on for the next month, media outlets sympathetic to the Siniora government continued to advance the claim that Fatah al-Islam is a proxy of Syrian intelligence, frequently citing security sources on alleged "confessions" by captured militants. However, in an interview published June 21, Defense Minister Elias Murr put the speculation to rest: "Does the government so far have an official confession about the links of these [Fatah al-Islam militants] or some of them to Syria? So far, there is no answer."[22]

Allegations in the same media outlets that the Syrians have been caught red-handed smuggling weapons into Lebanon also turned out to be unsubstantiated. UN specialists who spent most of June investigating border security in Lebanon reported to the Security Council that "not a single on-border or near-border seizure of smuggled arms has been documented to the team." While there are undoubtedly arms pouring across Lebanon's borders, corruption and incompetence within the Lebanese security services appear largely to blame.

US Bans top Syrians from Traveling to the US

As a message to Syria, US bans entry for people who undermine Lebanese government, AP, June 29, 2007

The United States increased pressure on Syria by barring U.S. entry to people it says are undermining the stability of Lebanon and its fragile Western-backed government.

President George W. Bush signed a proclamation Friday suspending entry into the U.S. by people who have harmed Lebanon's sovereignty or its democratic institutions, or who have worked to destabilize Lebanon through terrorism, politically motivated violence, intimidation or the reassertion of Syrian control in Lebanon.

"This is a tool the United States has to demonstrate to Syria our desire for them to stop meddling in Lebanon — to demonstrate to Syria and those who want to destabilize the democratically elected government in Lebanon that we will continue to increase pressure until they suspend their activities," said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

They include top Syrian military intelligence officials; an adviser to Syrian President Bashar Assad; former Lebanese ministers of defense, labor, environment and information; and a former Lebanese member of parliament. Two of the more prominent people on the list are Hisham Ikhtiyar, adviser to Syrian President Bashar Assad, and Jama'a Jama'a, top Syrian military intelligence official. A year ago, the U.S. Treasury Department froze their assets, alleging they had played key roles in support of terrorist organizations.

When the news of the ban surfaced earlier this week, Wi'am Wahhab, former Lebanese minister of environment and a staunch Syrian ally in Lebanon, told a news conference that such a decision would have no relevance. "It's not like I spend my evenings in Las Vegas or I go to Miami to swim," Wahhab said, noting he's never been to America and has no intention of going there. "This decision is silly, like Bush's face …. "We tell Bush he won't let us go to America and we won't let him rule Lebanon," Wahhab said, adding that he would be proud to be sanctioned for his views. "It's a medal on my chest," he said, calling Bush a "madman."

Syria's economic reforms widen wealth gap. AFP 01/07/07

"Among those of Fadlallah's bodyguards not killed in the explosion, 22 year-old Imad Mugniyah would join the emerging Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah and, over the next decade, as a shadowy chief of security, direct a series of reprisal attacks against Americans in a bloody chain reaction of terror and counter-terror. Among Fadlallah's admirers, outraged by the bombing and ever after distrustful of the Americans he had once admired, was a round-faced, 25 year-old theology student of already recognized charisma and organizational skills. He would rise to become Hezbollah's leader — and, after his forces fought the Israeli invasion of Lebanon to a standstill in the summer of 2006, one of the most popular figures in the Arab world: Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. "

Dear DR.LANDIS,

An interview ( the full-text in Turkish can be read here. For video, http://www.cnnturk.com/video/index.asp?vid=416, http://www.cnnturk.com/video/index.asp?vid=411, http://www.cnnturk.com/video/index.asp?vid=410) with [Damascus-based Hamas leader] Khaled Meshal was aired in CNN-TURK yesterday, June 28. In this interview recorded in Syria, H. Meshal claimed that Hamas is not considering to create a separated administration in Gaza and do not want a more divided Palestine. He also renewed the Hamas request for dialogue with Abbas.

The main points made in the interview are as follows;

* " We entered the general election to complete the political processes"
* " We always wanted a national reconciliation government but we were refused"
* "The international society did not accept the democratic result [general election]  

* "No body could not digest that Hamas came to power”
* "The US and Israel provoced a group inside Al Fatah”"
* "The situation in Gaza are being tried to resemble Taliban"
* "We do not force anybody to accept a religious administration”"
* " Israel is invader, we have the right to defend”
* "The Palestine people are being punished instead of Hamas”
* "They want to turn Gaza into hell and to make a heaven in West Bank"
* "The West has a double-standard to Hamas"
* "The US and Israel provoced Abbas to Hamas”
* "We miss Arafat".

Best, Kaan Kutlu ATAC, from Hacettepe University

Michael Young has written an interesting article criticizing his government for suggesting that al-Qaida types are responsible for killing the 6 UNIFIL soldiers. He would prefer that the blame be pinned on Syria. In particular, he singles out Ghazi Aridi, Lebanon's Information Minister for being weak on Syria and Hizbullah.

Information Minister Ghazi Aridi noted that "[t]here is a link between the attack which targeted the Spanish contingent of UNIFIL and the fighting between the Lebanese Army and the terrorists of Fatah al-Islam in Nahr al-Bared." He went on to say, "Lebanon is the victim of a terrorist wave striking from the North to the South in which the latest target was the Spanish contingent. This attack was preceded by confessions from arrested terrorists about preparations against UNIFIL." You have to wonder what Aridi was talking about. He and his political allies have been arguing, with considerable legitimacy, that Lebanon is today facing a Syrian effort to return to the country and torpedo the Hariri tribunal. In that case why fall back on a charade – a Syrian-created charade at that – that everything going wrong is the work of an obscure Salafist group facing annihilation in Nahr al-Bared? Once that fight is over and the bombings and killings continue, who will the Siniora government then blame? Indeed, who do we blame for the bombings and killings in 2005, when Fatah al-Islam wasn't even present in Lebanon?

Michael's main argument is:

By going along with the argument that an alleged Al-Qaeda group is the one targeting UNIFIL, the [Lebanese] authorities are downplaying that what is taking place is the methodical dismantling of Resolution 1701. And that's not Al-Qaeda's priority; it is Iran's and Syria's priority, and Hizbullah's.

I am quoted:

Even an academic sympathetic to the Syrian regime saw its hand in what happened last weekend. On his blog, Joshua Landis wrote: "I think the bombing of the UNIFIL troops was an indication of the troubles that the UN can look forward to if it presses the Syrians or their ally Hizbullah."

Michael is absolutely correct to suggest that Syria hopes to dismantle Resolution 1701, but this is only true so long as UN troops in Lebanon are used to ensure that the Golan Heights is not returned. The UN's selective application of UN Resolutions is designed to prevent Syria from getting back the Golan Heights – at least that is the way Syria interprets the UN's actions, and it is not wrong in this. Any weakening of Hizbullah before the Golan is returned diminishes the chances of its eventual return. That is why Syrians of every stripe were ecstatic when Hizbullah stood its ground against Israel's attempt to destroy it and assassinate its leaders in the summer of 2006. It is also why Israel and the US insisted on stuffing as many foreign troops between Hizbullah and the Israel border as possible through the agency of Resolution 1701 while at the same time refusing to engage Syria. or encourage Israel to reopen peace negotiations. All of this maneuvering is designed to help Israel consolidate its hold over the Golan. That is the only way Syria can interpret it. Syria's strategic objective is the return of the Golan. So long as Resolution 1701 is used to prevent this, it will also be Syria's objective to undermine it. 

Where Michael is wrong is to argue that al-Qaida does not seek to kill UNIFIL troops as a strategic priority. Al-Qaida has made it perfectly clear that it will target UNIFIL troops. This fulfills several al-Qaida objectives.

1. Ridding the Middle East of foreign troops is the primary objective of al-Qaida

2. Al-Qaida has proclaimed its next objective, ever since establishing itself in Iraq, to be to expand beyond the Iraqi theater into Bilad al-Sham, or the Levant, from where it can open a front with Israel, the center of the Crusader-Zionist presence in the Islamic World. Killing UNIFIL troops fits this bill perfectly.

3. Al-Qaida was upset by Hizbullah's success in 2006. Its amour propre was wounded because Shiites had upstaged it and became the anti-Israel heroes of the Islamic World.

4. Al-Qaida groups in Lebanon have repeated on several occasions that the best strategy to implant itself in the Levant is to force conflict between Syria and Lebanon, thereby weakening both governments. The creation of failed states is the preferred strategy of al-Qaida. This was Zarqawi's rational for sparking civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. He knew that civil war in Iraq was the surest way to guarantee the failure of the "American government" installed government in Iraq and of frustrating US designs to implant itself permanently in region. Al-Qaida wants to do the same thing in Lebanon. What better way than killing UNIFIL troops and having analysts sympathetic to the Siniora government accuse Syria of the crime?

For these reasons, targeting UNIFIL troops is a strategic objective of al-Qaida.

What is more, the bomb that killed the UNIFIL troops was identical to the bomb that killed the Lebanese MP over a week ago, which the Lebanese government quickly blamed on Syria. Aluminum powder, which was particular to both bombs, was found in large quantity in the apartments of al-Qaida operatives in Tripoli. These facts have pursuaded most analysts of al-Qaida's authorship of the two crimes. They should not be dismissed lightly, even if they are politically inconvenient. There can be little dispute that al-Qaida is an independent force in Lebanon that does not share Syria and Hizbullah's strategic objectives.

Syria is not anti-UNIFIL in principle, as is al-Qaida. Syria is only anti-UNIFIL so long as UN troops are used to inhibit the return of the Golan to Syria. If, however, UNIFIL leaders pressure the UN and Europe to reopen the Golan question, as they should and as Bashar al-Assad has requested on many occasions, Syria will support and protect UNIFIL. There is no reason why the UN cannot be an advocate of both countries' sovereignty.

There is a shared interest between UNIFIL, Syria, and Hizbullah in combating al-Qaida, stabilizing Lebanon, and encouraging peace and the application of all UN resolutions in the region. It only needs to be agreed upon and pursued.

When an Italian envoy spoke to President Assad and Vice President Sharaa following the UNIFIL bombing, he was asked about the Golan. We can presume that Syria's leaders were making this argument with him. Most likely Sharaa explained that if the Italians could push forward talks to have the Golan returned, there would be no reason for Syria to oppose the presence of UNIFIL in Lebanon. On the contrary, it would be in Syria's interest to combine forces to protect UNIFIL troops and destroy al-Qaida in Lebanon.

Hizbullah would take the same approach. Hizb has no love for al-Qaida, but it will work to undermine UNIFIL troops in Lebanon if their presence is used by the Siniora government to prevent an agreement being hammered out between the Shiite party and March 14 leaders to guarantee Shiites a larger share of power in Lebanon.

Many members of the Future Movement fear a possible agreement between Syria and Hizbullah on the one hand and UNIFIL leaders and Europe on the other. They do not want more Hizbullah or Shiite influence in Lebanon. The door for such an understanding has already been opened by the Sarkozy government, when it invited Hizbullah to Paris later this month and claimed that it was not opposed to engagement with Syria. Responsible international leaders seem willing to explore this way out of the regional quagmire.

Such an agreement can be good for Lebanon and help restore its sovereignty. It should be in the interest of both the Lebanese government and Europe to encourage bringing Hizbullah and Syria into the peace tent. Al-Qaida types will proliferated in the absence of regional peace.

To use such terms as "alleged al-Qaida" and argue for al-Qaida's innocence in the latest bombings in Lebanon, Young insists that only Syria and Hizbullah are interested in murdering UN troops. The evidence suggests otherwise. There can be little doubt that Syria can share al-Qaida's strategic interest of destabilizing Lebanon if it is forced into a corner, but this is not what Syria wants. Syria wants the Golan and the application of the UN resolutions that ensure its justice. Syria will only stand against the UN so long as the UN stands against it.

Here is Young's entire article:

The dismantling of Resolution 1701
Michael Young, 28 June 2007, Daily Star

Beirut — For those following events in South Lebanon, the deadly attack on Sunday against soldiers of the Spanish contingent of UNIFIL was expected. Among the United Nations troops, it was the Spaniards who had the reputation for most forcefully implementing their mandate. The undermining of UN Security Resolution 1701 has, plainly, started. However, before we assume that the South is on the verge of turning into a new Iraq, with foreign troops transformed into walking targets, a more subtle degradation of the resolution may be in the works.  

There were probably two principal reasons, aside from the kill factor, for the car-bomb attack against the soldiers. The first was to make UNIFIL more timorous in its patrolling of the border area, in such a way that, with the removal of Lebanese Army units to fight in Nahr al-Bared, more room would be cleared up for Hizbullah to rebuild its military infrastructure south of the Litani River. That's not to say that Hizbullah detonated the device that killed the UN soldiers, but it's very difficult to accept that the party was unaware of what was about to take place. Hizbullah, for all its declarations of sympathy for UNIFIL, views the international force and the Lebanese Army as grave obstacles to the pursuit of "resistance" in the South. For an organization that could not survive without armed struggle, that recently saw its Hamas comrades establish an autonomous territory alongside Israel in Gaza, now is the time to act, in collaboration with Iran and Syria, to again make of South Lebanon a front line against Israel. 

The attack was also a warning to the UN not to contemplate sending observers along the Syrian-Lebanese border to prevent the supply of weapons to Hizbullah. Syrian officials have consistently spoken against such a deployment, and even threatened to close the borders with Lebanon. However, it's not clear the Syrians can do so without Iraq and Jordan closing their crossing points with Syria. Amman and Baghdad have not publicly said they would retaliate in this way, but there were reports last week that they might, which supposedly prompted Damascus to leave the Masnaa crossing open. If the information is correct, then Syria's most effective way of blocking an observer mission might be to hit UNIFIL through its Palestinian proxies in Lebanon, showing what would happen if the force expanded out of the South.

Even an academic sympathetic to the Syrian regime saw its hand in what happened last weekend. On his blog, Joshua Landis wrote: "I think the bombing of the UNIFIL troops was an indication of the troubles that the UN can look forward to if it presses the Syrians or their ally Hizbullah."

The oddest statement, however, came from the Siniora government. Information Minister Ghazi Aridi noted that "[t]here is a link between the attack which targeted the Spanish contingent of UNIFIL and the fighting between the Lebanese Army and the terrorists of Fatah al-Islam in Nahr al-Bared." He went on to say, "Lebanon is the victim of a terrorist wave striking from the North to the South in which the latest target was the Spanish contingent. This attack was preceded by confessions from arrested terrorists about preparations against UNIFIL."

You have to wonder what Aridi was talking about. He and his political allies have been arguing, with considerable legitimacy, that Lebanon is today facing a Syrian effort to return to the country and torpedo the Hariri tribunal. In that case why fall back on a charade – a Syrian-created charade at that – that everything going wrong is the work of an obscure Salafist group facing annihilation in Nahr al-Bared? Once that fight is over and the bombings and killings continue, who will the Siniora government then blame? Indeed, who do we blame for the bombings and killings in 2005, when Fatah al-Islam wasn't even present in Lebanon?

Perhaps the Siniora government doesn't want to state the obvious: that what is going on in the South might involve Hizbullah more than it is prudent to admit at a moment of ambient sectarian tension. Maybe that's why Walid Jumblatt last week thanked Hizbullah for distancing itself from the rocket attack against Kiryat Shmona two Sundays ago. However, for the government to keep lines open is different than falling back on an absurd line of reasoning where it only discredits itself. By going along with the argument that an alleged Al-Qaeda group is the one targeting UNIFIL, the authorities are downplaying that what is taking place is the methodical dismantling of Resolution 1701. And that's not Al-Qaeda's priority; it is Iran's and Syria's priority, and Hizbullah's.

The killing of the soldiers is worrisome for other reasons. If the European contingents that form the backbone of UNIFIL become more timid in the South (and according to a senior March 14 politician, the Sunday bombing "scared" their governments), there is a risk that they will become gradually more dependent on Hizbullah, which has the most interest in neutralizing their mandate. Already, the word out among many journalists is that Hizbullah is protecting UNIFIL forces far more than UNIFIL is protecting the inhabitants of South Lebanon. If that view becomes generalized, if it reflects the reality of the situation in the border area, than we can start kissing Resolution 1701 goodbye. 

Perhaps most disquieting is that if the UNIFIL mandate begins breaking apart, it will be Israel that looks for ways around Resolution 1701 to defend its northern border. This would suit Hizbullah and its Iranian and Syrian patrons just fine, since it's the Israelis who would take the blame for returning South Lebanon to where it was before the summer 2006 war.

But the Israeli shift may come with an addendum: the next war in Lebanon, if there is one, could become a regional war. That's why the UN must do some serious thinking about how to respond to the Sunday bombing, beyond issuing verbal condemnations. And that's why it must press forward with controlling the Syrian-Lebanese border, even if there are electronic means to ensure that UN troops are not sitting ducks. 

Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

A Western Syria analyst weighs in on the UNIFIL bombing, explaining why Syria does not want to kill Europeans. Syria cannot afford to further ruin relations with European leaders, on whom it is depending to find a way out of the present morass. Sarkozy has extended a hand, even if tentative, to Hizbullah and Syria. Tony Blair is taking the position as head of the Quartet. The new British PM is presently formulating a fresh Mid East policy for Britain. The Spaniards and Italians have been polite to Syria in the past. European leadership is going through an important change; Syria will want to create a good first impression and show its helpfulness on security.

Read the following thoughtful analysis by someone who knows Arabic well, has spend years following this topic, and has access to information that I do not:

I'm shocked at you. Why on God's green earth would Syria bomb Spaniards? Syria is working like hell to split the EU from the Cheney and his cult-like followers. That you would hint that Syria was behind this is not normal.

I know this was a concern, and both Hizballah and Syria have actually been working with the governments, appraising them of any information they had on possible attacks. It does not benefit either one to have these attacks, for it gives the impression that Hizballah can not maintain security (which given a sophisticated attack, no one can) and it continues to give Syria bad media when they are pushing for the opposite.

Have you been reading too much Young? Maybe you should read the Washington Post's expose on Cheney (and Hubris). He still has an effective organization that can overcome our entire government's decisions. He wants war with Iran and Syria. He was able to achieve his little war on Somalia with no one giving a damn about the horrendous human rights abuses committed by the Ethiopian troops in their effort to take control.

Farid Ghadry even said that Bush is using the tribunal to go after the Syrian regime.

And Jund Ash Sham, Ansar Allah, and others, who the Hariris supported to counter the evil Shi'ites, are all more closely allied to al-Qa'ida than any type of national organization. Of course, Syria gets blamed for them.

Hizballah had parliament surrounded. Had they wanted to seize government, they could have. That is not what they want. They just want an equal say in government, something the US will refuse to do at all costs. The US will just point to Hizballah as being irresponsible for not letting rich party boy Sa'd Hariri run the country. A punk with no political experience who has to pay to have anyone back him.

Anyway, just thought I'd write to counter the Michael Young loving 'analysts' that probably never listen to Arab speeches.

On that topic, I'm having a hell of a time finding an English version of Haniyah's speech. He went off on the kidnappers of Johnston. Most US media present it hinting that Haniyah was in cahoots with the kidnappers. But if you heard the whole speech, you can obviously tell otherwise. Nor do they mention the British-Hamas coordination on tactics used to try to get his safe release.

Anyway, just thought I'd pass my 2 cents..

Italian officials visited Damascus yesterday in order to limit UNIFIL casualties in Lebanon and come up with a rational for not expanding UNIFIL's commitment in Lebanon.

Here is Faruq al-Shara'a's statement on Lebanon: Syria Comment has referred to Sharaa's statement in the last few days as the Syrian hard line now dominant among Syrian officials: (Quoted from Ya Libnan)

Shara believes that 'a bunch of politicians' in Lebanon cannot bring Syria to cut its relations, close its borders and enter into an armed conflict, even if these politicians had a 'portion of the Lebanese masses'. He added, "In Lebanon we have stronger allies than others, if they wanted to use this power."

Syria says it wants Lebanon to form a government of national unity that includes a larger share for the opposition. In talks with Italian authorities, Syria also raised the issue of the return on the Golan as the key to stability in the region. Here is the story from the Syrian News agency, followed by the Italian version of the same meeting between Shara'a and Lamberto Dini.

A little background first: Italy currently supplies 2,500 soldiers in the UN peacekeeping operations in Lebanon. An Italian general has led the 13,000 multinational force since February this year. Six Spanish speaking UNIFIL troops were killed by a car bomb Monday. The Italian PM Romano Prodi said that the deadly car-bomb attack on United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon revealed a need for greater coordination in the contingent.

Lebanese government officials have blamed Fatah al-Islam for the Attack on UNIFIL, but they blame Syria for covertly encouraging Fatah al-Islam. UNIFIL commanders have said they do not know who was behind the car bombing and will have to study it further.

Some Lebanese government officials have encouraged the UN to expand their forces in Lebanon in order to patrol the long Syrian-Lebanese border and stop any Syrian attempts to rearm Hizbullah. Syria has said it will view such a move as an inimical act. This is because Hizbullah is Syria's main leverage to regain the Golan Heights, which was occupied by Israel in 1967 and annexed to it in 1981. Attempts to disarm Hizbullah are understood by Damascus as attempts to deny it the Golan.

Lebanese officials have also expressed fears that the Italians will "sell them out" to the Syrians in order to insure the safety of UNIFIL troops, which the Italians command. The Italians have denied such claims by proclaiming that they are prepared to stand firm in Lebanon and accept sacrifices. What the Italians will probably not do is expand the number of their troops to police the Syrian border unless all sides show tangible resolve to find a political solution to the regional conflict. The discussion between Italian and Syrian officials, recorded below, in which Syria brought up the Golan issue as the key to stabilizing the region will allow the Italians to report back to the UN that no further Italian commitment can be made in Lebanon without the Golan being put on the table accompanied by meaningful US-Israeli engagement with Syria.

I think it is safe to say that the Golan will not be put on the table. Italy will not expand its presence in Lebanon. Arms will not be cut off to Hizbullah. Hizbullah will not be disarmed. UNIFIL troops will continue to be vulnerable, and Lebanon will see further violence and instability. The international community will increase support to the Lebanese army and increase international pressure on Syria (mostly through tightening economic restrictions) in order to compel Syria to cut relations with the Lebanese opposition without guarantees of dialogue or a return of the Golan. Syria will dig in its heals and accept lower economic growth and the impoverishment of its people. The Lebanese government will also accept the impoverishment of their people rather than making concessions. The Lebanese economy has been brought to a standstill. If this goes on for a long time, the entire region will resemble Gaza. But that will take a long time. Gaza has a big head start.

Al-Shara renews Syria's Commitment to Stability and Security

Monday, June 25, 2007 – 05:40 PM

DAMASCUS,(SANA)-Vice President Farouk al-Shara on Monday renewed  Syria's commitment to achieve security and stability in the region , hailing "the role that could be played by Italy and Europe to realize this purpose, based on the mutual interaction between the two Mediterranean banks".

Al-Shara, meeting Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Italian Senate Lamberto Dini and an accompanying delegation, discussed the latest developments in the region and bilateral relations between the two friendly countries.

For his part, Mr. Dini indicated to the importance of dialogue and communications with Syria to deal with regional issues, in light of Syria's basic role in realizing satiability.

Here is Italy's take on the story:

Damascus, 25 June (AKI) – A delegation of Italian senators visiting Syria has met with top officials in Damascus to discuss ways of how to relaunch a peace process in the Middle East. The head of the delegation, former Italian prime minister Lamberto Dini, held talks on Monday afternoon with Syria's deputy president, Faruq al-Sharaa. Sharaa said he appreciated Italy's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflicts in the Middle East.

Dini and members of his delegation, who arrived in Syria over the weekend, earlier met Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and the country's parliamentary speaker Mahmud al-Abrash. The discussion focused on bi-lateral relations and development initiatives.

According to Syrian sources, the issue of the return to Syria of the Golan Heights which were occupied by by Israel in 1967 were also discussed.

The Italian senators' visit follows one by Italian foreign minister Massimo D'Alema earlier this month in which he urged Damascus to play a postive role in creating stability in neighbouring Lebanon.

"Strategic Reset: Reclaiming Control of U.S. Security in the Middle East." is a left critique of the Iraq situation with a number of policy proposals by serious analysts. The main thrust is that the US is tied down in a losing battle in Iraq that only benefits al-Qaida and weekens Washington's ability to influence other regions possitively. It calls for enacting the Baker Hamiliton recommendations and engaging all Iraq's neighbors and seeking Arab-Israeli peace. It was written by:

By Brian Katulis, Lawrence J. Korb, Peter Juul
Center for American Progress
June 25, 2007

I recently received this note from a Western analyst working for a private risk analysis outfit.

Josh

I hope your stay in Syria is going well and you are not working too much. I have a quick question – while off the record it could start a nice discussion on the site.

It seems to me as if Syria is being forced into a tough corner right now. When the Arab League left Beirut, the finger was pointed at the opposition and Syria for foiling the talks – Mussa even said that Beirut will not be left in control of foreign powers. Pretty direct talk for him. Since Saudi, Qatar, Egypt and others were involved in those talks, the Arabs may try to isolate Syria again with the hope of changing Presidents in Lebanon by the end of the summer. At the same time, the UN is moving forward with Hariri trial and is even considering UN forces along the Syria-Lebanon border. Both real no-go areas for Syria.

Now, Asad has a number of options to him to try to stop these. One was nicely outlined by Michael Young in the Friday article – while I cant see a Hizballah coup, a parallel government seems the likely path for Lebanon after Aug. 5 elections are held. At the same time, we can also see more action by Sunni militant groups – i.e. the UNIFIL attack on Sunday or other bombings – or Hizballah activity along the border with Israel. Syria can also encourage allies in the PA – i.e. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – to attack Israel. Or, Syria could attempt a cross border attack to re-capture small parts of Golan Heights back from Israel (or all 3 at the same time).

The way I read Syria, it could easily take a military approach to getting out of this whole – and frankly, I don't think it has a diplomatic way out unless it is willing to make major concessions with so signs that it will be rewarded for it. I wanted to get your perspective on this. Any help you have will be greatly appreciated.

Landis Responds:

One gets the sense in Damascus that the regime feels embattled by the situation in Lebanon and Palestinian, the International Tribunal, and the lack of any progress with the US or Israel. Most Syrians cannot see a way out, but they are quite anti-Lebanese (or more correctly, March 14) and anti-US, which gives the government latitude to raise the pressure in Lebanon and dig in its heels. The president is popular and the regime faces no organized opposition, which has been dealt with severely. The regime has prepared the ground in Syria for struggle.

I think the bombing of the UNIFIL troops was an indication of the troubles that the UN can look forward to if it presses the Syrians or their ally Hizbullah. My sense is the Syrians are angry and believe they are not being offered an acceptable way forward. Syrians believe they are a crucial piece of the regional geo-strategic architecture and should not be treated with disdain. They are not about to allow Hizbullah to be isolated. The government is confident it can withstand considerable international pressure if needs be. It will fight, but covertly.

I do not think they will do anything on the Golan, however. This would be to hand Israel a golden opportunity to pound Syria. There is too much Western and Arab opposition to Syria for the regime to risk any open hostilities with Israel. No one would be there to stop Israeli attacks as they were in the case of Lebanon 2006. Anything Syria might grab for a few hours on the Golan would be retrieved by Israel in no time and at great cost to Syria.

The Syrian government is gambling on economic growth in Syria. It would not want to squander that on adventures with Israel. The example of Lebanon's economic slump since its 2006 misadventure with Israel is a stark warning. Syria has nothing to gain from direct conflict with Israel. The March 14th government and Western troops in Lebanon, however, are sitting ducks. They are exposed, militarily, politically, and economically. If Western leaders believe they can take on Syria and the Lebanese opposition without engaging them or making concessions, I think they will be in for a nasty fight. The Lebanese will suffer, particularly the well off, who are not used to deprivations.

Many Western diplomats here are of the opinion that this Syrian policy of tit for tat is short sighted because any increase of extremism in the region will eventually bleed back into Syria. The West is far away, they observe. This is probably true in the long run. Extremism is good for no one. However, Syria seems willing to play this game of chicken. It believes it can survive it. The fact that there have been no successful acts of terrorism in Syria for 20 years has produced a sense of invulnerability – perhaps a false one, as foreign diplomats like to point out.

One Syrian recently wrote on Syria Comment the following indelicate warning:

Do not keep f…ing with the long arm of Syria. Shar’a [Faruq al-Sharaa, Vice-President] has already given the US/Moderate camp another not so subtle hint when he said Syria’s friends in Lebanon are more powerful than their opponents. Know what he meant and implied? Forget Iraq; it is gone, now forget Gaza and the West Bank, and Lebanon is a done deal with the eventual collapse of Saado/Jaja/Junblat looming not far away.

I think this sentiment encapsulates the dominant thinking of authorities here.

I do not know what strategy the Syrians will support toward the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections. Much of this will probably be left up to the Lebanese opposition to decide. So long as March 14 cannot establish a constitutional and viable way forward without coming to the negotiating table, Syria will have made its point.

Not a rosy picture. I don't see anything good happening in the region so long as the present constellation of forces remains entrenched. There is zero trust between the various actors, hatreds are being nourished, and each side believes it can win a war of attrition.

Best to you, Joshua

The Damascus Center for the study of Human Rights publishes invaluable reports on the state of human rights in Syria. The Director of the center is Dr. Radwan Ziyada and the Assistant Director of the center is attorney Razan Zeitounah. Razan Zeitounah's monthly newsletter – Shril – which documents the various cases brought before the Supreme State Security Court is also invaluable.

The Center has just published a report entitled: "Can Extraordinary Courts Ensure Justice? The Supreme State Security Court," by Attorney Razan Zeitouneh and revised by: Prof. Abdul Haï Al-Sayyed, May 2007.

The report explains the history of the Supreme State Security Court in Damascus, which tries most of the prisoners of conscience and explains the many difficulties that the lawyers and defendents face in presenting their cases before this extraordinary court. The report is filled with personal testimony of the activist lawyers who have been fighting the bureaucracy and irregular procedures of the court. It also records personal testimony of the defendents who come before it.

Unfortunately the report has not been published on-line yet at the Center's website: www.dchrs.com

Earlier reports are published, however. The web site has yet to be blocked here in Syria. Here is an example of an earlier report:

"Post-prison roads: Situation of Political Prisoners and Prisoners of Conscience in Syria After Being Released from Custody," by Doctor Hossam Al Saad and Razan Zaitouneh, J.D. The translation was reviewed by Abdulhay Al-Sayyed, J.D., August 2006.

Human Rights News of the last few days

On Friday, some 200 people were arrested in the province of Dara'a on suspiscion of belonging to "Salafist" trends. Unfortunately Islamists who are arrested do not get much attention in the West. 

Seven student activists were sentenced to harsh prison terms this week. Here is the article about them:

US Slams Syria for Jailing Young Democrats
22 June 2007, Agence France Presse

WASHINGTON, June 22, 2007 (AFP) –

The United States on Friday criticized the Syrian government for what it called harsh sentencing of seven young democrats and sought their immediate and unconditional release.

The seven defendants, in their 20s, were sentenced to between five and seven years in jail for "exposing Syria to acts of aggression," according to the Syrian National Human Rights Organisation.

"The United States condemns the harsh sentencing of seven young civil society activists, several of them university students … by the Syrian government," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

They were sentenced to prison simply for forming a discussion group and posting their writings on a website, he said.

"The unjust sentences reflect the Syrian regime's contempt for fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression and association. They also reflect a legal system devoid of legitimate standards," he said.

The group was arrested early last year after trying to found a youth association for democracy and pacifism.

The charges were brought under state of emergency laws in place in Syria for more than four decades.

McCormack alleged that the young "prisoners of conscience" were held incommunicado for months and denied access to their lawyers and families.

The United States called on the Syrian government to "immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners and to observe its obligations under international human rights law," he said.

The United States also remained committed to supporting Syrian citizens in their efforts to build a "less corrupt, more prosperous, and more democratic country," he said.

The United States also accuses Syria of aiding anti-US insurgents in Iraq, trying to topple the pro-Western government in Lebanon and backing rejectionist Palestinian groups.

Other Reports:

GIGA : The Potential of Regional Integration Agreements (RIAs) in Enhancing the Credibility of Reform: The Case of the Syrian-European Association Agreement

Iran's and Syria's plan: an interpretation
By Michael Young
Daily Star staff
Thursday, June 21, 2007

Many Lebanese, particularly in the majority camp, have been preoccupied with the court being set up to try suspects in the assassination of the late Rafik Hariri. The resignation of Serge Brammertz from the International Criminal Court to devote himself full-time to the upcoming Hariri trial suggests there is something there for them to look forward to. However, they miss the larger picture. The court has become just one utensil in a much broader conflict to determine the future of Lebanon and of the Levant, in the context of a regional power struggle between Iran, Syria and their allies Hizbullah and Hamas on the one side; and all those who would deny them the advantages they seek on the other.

In recent days, some have suggested that Hizbullah intends to do in Lebanon, or part of Lebanon, what Hamas did in Gaza. The reality may be worse, if more subtle. A statement on Sunday by Hizbullah's Nabil Qaouk could be read as notification that the party might defend what he termed "Lebanon's unity" by force – shorthand for a military coup. Qaouk's warning that foreign observers should not deploy on the Lebanese-Syrian border, his describing such a project as "Israeli," his presumption that he had the right to impose a new "red line" on the state, all suggest a new mood in Hizbullah, one that is dangerous.

Hizbullah's attitude is only convincingly explained in the framework of Iran and Syria implementing a project to reclaim Lebanon, but more importantly perhaps to eliminate international, particularly Western, involvement in the Levant. After having won in Gaza, Tehran and Damascus are now pushing forward in South Lebanon. Their joint objective, regardless of their different priorities on other matters, appears to be to remove the Siniora government, undermine United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, and create a situation where the international community would have to accept a Syrian return to Lebanon, which would, by extension, scuttle the Hariri tribunal.

How would such a project be carried out? Here's one interpretation.  The priority is to emasculate the Siniora government, whether by taking control of its decisions or through the creation by Syria of a parallel government. In this context, the opposition's calls for a national unity government don't favor unity at all. Opposition parties will only enter a Cabinet they can control and bring down. We know that because they rejected the 19-10-1 formula proposed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, which would have given them the means to block decisions they didn't like. But the opposition's insistence on a 19-11 division is valid only for torpedoing a government through the resignation of its 11 ministers. The aim is apparent: to bring to office a president sympathetic to Syria.

If its conditions for a unity government continue to be rejected by the majority, the opposition might create a parallel government or engineer a situation allowing President Emile Lahoud to remain in Baabda. There are surely problems in a second government, not least of which that Sunni representation is bound to be anemic. This could create a troubling sense that a Sunni-dominated Siniora government is facing off against a Shiite-dominated pro-Syrian government, which could backfire regionally against Hizbullah and Iran. There is also the fact that Michel Aoun's bloc might begin cracking if the general enters such a government.

What would the purpose of this second government be, beyond wreaking havoc in the country and putting pressure on Siniora's government? Simply, to neutralize the effectiveness of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL in the South, by making their interlocutor in the state unclear. Many have overlooked that the Nahr al-Bared fighting might have been a stage in a process to render the army less effectual in South Lebanon. Several units have been pulled out of the South in the past six months – first to prevent sectarian clashes in Beirut after the opposition built its tent city in the Downtown area last December; then to engage in fighting in the North. This has given Hizbullah much more room to maneuver in the border area, while also opening space up for groups operated from Syria. Even if Hizbullah did not fire the rockets against Kiryat Shmona on Sunday – probably the work of pro-Syrian Palestinians – it almost certainly was aware of the attack, and did not oppose it.

Iran's, Syria's and Hizbullah's purpose in reopening a northern front against Israel, aside from reviving Hizbullah as a military force (which is essential for its own survival), is to empty Resolution 1701 of its content. Better still, if cross-border rocket attacks continue, it will be Israel, not Hizbullah, that will start casting doubt on the UN resolution's merits. Hizbullah's recent insistence that the Cabinet return to its 2005 policy statement as a condition to end the governmental crisis only showed the party's true intentions toward Resolution 1701. The policy statement defends the right of armed resistance, unlike the later UN resolution. 

For Syria and Iran, as well as for Hizbullah, Resolution 1701 is the door through which the international community entered Lebanon in force, after Resolution 1559 and the Hariri tribunal. That's the reason Tehran and Damascus want to render UNIFIL powerless, even though there will remain useful idiots in Europe who think they can reach an understanding with the Syrian regime to protect UN forces. Syria has no interest in this, however, because it has likely taken a strategic decision with Iran to remove any vestige of international influence in Lebanon – as it did in Gaza – with the goal of reviving its domination over the country.

In this context, even an illegitimate parallel government to that of Fouad Siniora could prove useful in the long term. Look what the Soviet Union did in Poland during World War II. It created the so-called Lublin Committee, which initially had far less clout than the London-based Polish government in exile. However, when the balance on the ground in Poland shifted, it was Moscow's puppets who were recognized as the power in Warsaw.

The Syrians and Iranians may be thinking along the same lines in Lebanon. Create a parallel government; erode UNIFIL's effectiveness while compelling the Lebanese Army to manage Syrian-created security brushfires; press your advantage against the drained Americans, the spineless Europeans, and the debilitated Arabs; and then, when the international community and Arab states are truly lost, strike using Hizbullah and drive your coup toward its logical conclusion: a new Pax-Syria in Lebanon, supported by Iran.

Such an ambitious project could fail, as so many others do in Lebanon. The real question is whether the country can avert civil war. Has Hizbullah's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, forgotten that at the funeral of Walid Eido, many of the Sunni mourners provocatively shouted "USA! USA!"? Has the party forgotten that after the fighting between Sunnis and Shiites in Tariq Jedideh in January, there was talk of sectarian war? These are disquieting trends, and while Nasrallah may have no latitude to challenge the orders of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei – as party members frequently remind us – that only says we may soon be paying the price for the conceit of an Iranian leadership with negligible knowledge of inter-Lebanese relations.

Several measures can dent Iran's and Syria's plans. The first is for the Lebanese Army to make a statement that it opposes the setting up of a parallel government, but also that it can no longer protect Lahoud when his mandate ends, for constitutional reasons. This is not as easy as it sounds, because there are conflicting loyalties in the officer corps. However, the army has never been as united as it is today, thanks to Nahr al-Bared. There would be nothing unseemly for army commander Michel Suleiman to warn that a parallel government or yet another extension for Lahoud would only lead Lebanon into the unknown, and that the armed forces might not be able to manage the consequences. That statement would probably not check Syria, but it could induce those vacillating Lebanese politicians to reconsider participating in the scheme.

Second, Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir should take a much firmer position against Christian participation in a parallel government. He's already declared his opposition to such a move, but now it's time to name names. Michel Aoun is vulnerable, and while it may be hopeless to expect anything from a man now playing Syria's game, a direct warning to the general from Bkirki, even if it angers pro-Aoun bishops, could considerably impair his preparations to enter such a government. Sfeir can back this up with the influence he enjoys over several Aounist parliamentarians, and can play on Michel Murr's reluctance to stand athwart of Maronite public opinion, and of the Gemayels, in the Metn.

Third, the Saudis and the Egyptians have to display more nerve. Iran and Syria humiliated them both by demolishing the Mecca agreement in Gaza. What have the Arab states done in return? Almost nothing, though Egypt has said it would cut its ties with Hamas unless Gaza was returned to the Palestinian Authority. Iran's expanding power poses existential threats to the regimes in Riyadh and Cairo. More efforts are needed to impose a consensus that isolates Iran and puts Syria on the defensive. The Saudis have a range of tools they can use in Lebanon, including helping Fatah financially in the refugee camps, giving the Lebanese Army better weaponry, and working more actively in the Arab world to suffocate establishment of a parallel Lebanese government.

And fourth, the UN must draw the consequences of its own reports that Syria is sending weapons across the Lebanese border – a direct violation of Resolution 1701. Some UN members with troops in the South have to stop trying to cut deals with Damascus to protect their own troops. What is happening today threatens UNIFIL in its entirety. Iran and Syria never accepted Resolution 1701, so efforts to offer Syria "incentives" miss the point that Syria intends to win back, with Iran, the whole Lebanese pot once international forces are intimidated. The Italians in particular must be less timorous. Foreign Minister Massimo d'Alema won't get from Syrian President Bashar Assad what the Saudis and the Americans couldn't. Whether the UN likes it or not, it is at the center of a regional battle, and its forces cannot afford to be as craven as they were in Srebrenica.

In the coming months, the trick will be to abort the reckless Syrian and Iranian adventure, while also avoiding a descent into sectarian carnage. This is achievable, but only if everyone realizes what is at stake.

Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.