Lebanon: A Reminder Of Persistent Misery

By Husam Itani

This comment was published in al-Hayat on 23/11/2010

The report carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) yesterday takes the investigation in to the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri back to square one.

The information published by CBC (which the Washington Post said it had access to prior to publication), provides insight into the atmosphere surrounding the international committee investigating the Hariri assassination. On par with a film noir movie that revolves around mobsters and gangs, suspicions begin to emerge regarding names that were hitherto above reproach, and regarding the liquidation of key participants in the investigations and the mishandling of evidence.

If only a fraction of what was published is true – all parties concerned declined to comment on this –, then we are facing a broad infiltration of the international investigation committee. There is no doubt that multiple parties are involved in this breach, as it can be inferred from the names that were mentioned. The report also adds weight to the suspicions raised by Hezbollah and its allies in what regards the leaks of investigation information. However, Hezbollah’s suspicions regarding the information leaks to Israel are absent as an issue in the report, which instead mentions in clear terms that several sides are manipulating evidence and eliminating, through physical liquidation, those who made progress towards revealing the truth, as happened with Captain Wissam Eid.

The direct implication of these facts (again, if the Canadian report is indeed correct), is that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is facing fierce resistance from both within and without, targeting the investigation progress, and its impartiality and neutrality. The other implication is that those who are impeding the progress of the STL possess the means and capabilities to gain access to detailed information such as those submitted by Captain Eid.

Based on this, one may infer that the most important task of the STL, namely to stop the assassinations and put an end to them as a method to shape political and public life in Lebanon, is exactly what is being tested in the harshest possible manner. Also, the extent of the powers seeking to disrupt the work of the STL does not boil down to individuals or small groups of extremists. Instead, what we are facing are organized security services that are highly proficient in the field intelligence work.

Therefore, the Canadian report shows another bitter fact about the work of the STL: That those who carried out the assassinations between 2004 and 2008, have not stopped for fear of exposure and punishment by international justice, but because of the fact that the circumstances that drove them to adopt assassinations as a method of political action had changed.

What is worse is that there is no guarantee -with or without the investigation committee and the STL- that political discourse in Lebanon will move beyond assassinations and threats of assassinations, to one that is based on semantics, no matter how bellicose they may be. It also goes without saying that abandoning assassinations is a first step toward building bridges among the various belligerents in the intense civil conflict.

In this context, the name of the accused, the infiltrators and the instigators is not important. These may be acquitted by the court for lack of evidence. What matters instead is that the culture that is hostile to law and that feels comfortable violating it, is actually common to all the Lebanese (and other Arabs, naturally). There is no authority above that of violence – it seems - in resolving any problems, be they minor or major. The only resort for both individuals and groups in our country thus remains that of the use of arms, assassinations and revenge.

The report of the CBC demonstrates then, that all hopes that were pinned on an end of assassinations and politically motivated killings are still delusions. And the Lebanese, even when they do not need a report from distant lands to remind them of the hopelessness and horrors of their situation, appear, with this report, to be more powerless than ever in changing things for the better.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, And The New Allies

By Tariq Alhomayed
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 23/11/2010
 
Whenever we look at the regional situation around us, we see Iran and its negative influence, and by contrast we see the Saudis and the Egyptians as firefighters. This is what is happening in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. The roles may vary, and increase or decrease, between Riyadh and Cairo, but these two countries represent the centre of gravity for Arab rationality in the region.
 
For the Iranians, their strength lies in their insurgent allies; the militias, or through other allies who play a covert role, either by wasting time, providing stances that could complicate the situation further without any significant progress (only to ensure than matters move towards the desired Iranian solution), or by merely acting as a form of painkiller, which doesn’t offer any long term solution to the sick body.
 
There are two other countries that have a significant impact on the region, both positively and negatively. They are the ambitious state of Turkey, or according to ‘The Economist’ magazine, ‘the China of Europe’, as well as Pakistan. The significance of these countries becomes clear when examining their geographical location, their characteristics, and their components. Turkey borders Iran, Iraq and Syria, and enjoys economic, political and military influence. It also holds a strategic location inside Europe, and is the only member of NATO in the Middle East. Furthermore, its political agenda is clear, in relation to Iraq and other countries in the region. It has clear economic motivations and potential, and an interest in the stability of the region on the whole.
 
As for Pakistan, it is a nuclear Islamic state, with significant population density, and a close relationship with Saudi Arabia. It borders Afghanistan, a hotbed for terrorism, which it has significant influence over. It also shares a border with Iran. As we said yesterday (that the Turks prioritized their interests over political rhetoric, when agreeing to the NATO missile defense system, which we described as a cunning Turkish move) the Pakistanis are also keen on their alliance with Riyadh. There is a balance of political trust between them and the Saudis, supported by bilateral interests. Therefore, adding to what we said previously, the Saudis and the Egyptians must re-examine their communications, and interactions, with Turkey and Pakistan, and the need to form new alliances, considering the current state of affairs in the Middle East.
 
If Iran is allied with its militias, and covert states, then Saudi Arabia and Egypt must ally with state institutions, such as Turkey and Pakistan, for the benefit of the region on the whole. Pakistan is vital for the stability of Afghanistan, limiting Iranian interference in the country, or Tehran’s support for the Taliban and al-Qaeda, especially considering the impending U.S. withdrawal. As for Turkey, it has influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and support for the Palestinian cause. Such issues are in dire need of states with clear stances.
 
Of course, I am not advocating the ‘neighboring states’ proposal, put forth by the Secretary General of the Arab League. This is not a further development of that idea. Rather, this is a call to restructure the Middle East according to the common interests in the region, and according to states, rather than for the benefit of certain sects, parties, or militias. It is not in the interests of the region for Iraq to be a weak state, for Lebanon to be in flames, or for Iran to extend its reach throughout the Middle East. What we must be mindful of here is that Turkey and Pakistan represent a pair of scissors, able to cut the noose that Iran and its allies have tied around the neck of the region.

Gaza’s Blockade Silences Women Voices

By Mary Robinson and Lakhdar Brahimi

This comment was published in The Jordan Times on 23/11/2010

We have just visited Gaza Strip where we met many courageous people trying to live relatively normal lives despite the crippling effects of the illegal Israeli blockade. The blockade was imposed to punish the Hamas-led government, but it is women and children who are paying the highest price.

In our conversations with a range of women, we learned that despite the apparent “easing” of restrictions by Israel and Egypt, important socio-economic indicators such as poverty, malnutrition, unemployment and family violence are getting worse.

Women in this conservative society find their domestic responsibilities made all the more difficult and time consuming by the blockade - and they bear the brunt of society’s frustration and anger in such trying times.

Equally disturbing are the creeping restrictions on women’s freedom imposed by Hamas activists. These restrictions are not being imposed through the introduction of laws, but rather through party-led initiatives that are enforced without any system of accountability. For example, there is no legal decree stating that all schoolgirls must wear a headscarf, yet those who don’t wear it are harassed. Women are punished if they smoke in public, while their male compatriots are allowed to do so. And at the beach? Gaza’s main source of fun and entertainment, women and men are strictly segregated.

The erosion of women’s freedoms is compounded by their lack of participation in politics. In Gaza, women already struggle to be heard. The absence of women from politics fuels perceptions of women as passive; they are seen as victims of the ongoing conflict, rather than active participants in shaping opinions and political processes. Despite the extremely challenging circumstances in which they live, it was therefore encouraging to meet a remarkable group of women in Gaza who are working hard to counter pr?vailing stereotypes. They are doing it in particular through a UN mechanism called 1325.

Ten years ago, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 which recognised that sustainable peace could not be achieved in any conflict without the full participation - and protection - of women. We were impressed to see that women groups in Gaza are working hard to mobilise support for the democratic principles of Resolution 1325. At the heart of this resolution is the conviction that women, like men, have a right to participate as decision makers in all aspects of governance. Women have ? right to a voice in institutions that are democratic and accountable, including those that govern peace making.

Women groups in Gaza told us that they are doing their best to raise awareness about Resolution 1325 among local leaders.

They have provided training to women on the ground in how to exercise their political rights. They have documented human rights violations and violence against women, and participated in the UN investigation, led by Judge Richard Goldstone, to establish whether war crimes were committed during the devastating Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008/January 2009. However, they don’t feel that there has been any positive improvement in the lives of Gazan women.

Women activists are clamouring for help from beyond Gaza.

“What we do ourselves is not enough,” they told us.

“We need help to make sure that our voices are heard in the outside world.”

These women are very keen to join worldwide networks that are working on Resolution 1325 and women’s rights more generally; they want to stand in solidarity with women around the world and feel that they are not alone. They want to reach out to the wider international community, but they are penned in - the blockade prevents them from doing so.

This is one, largely unrecognised, price of the blockade of Gaza: it is hampering women’s efforts to cooperate and build a movement that can effectively advance gender equality. The effect extends beyond politics; the disempowerment of women hinders post-conflict reconstruction, reduces the likelihood that it will be sustainable, and prevents any meaningful progress on development.

As Elders, we call for the immediate and complete lifting of the blockade on Gaza. The ongoing siege is a denial of dignity; it is the denial of rights of a people, particularly its women, who yearn to be free.

Lakhdar Brahimi and Mary Robinson are members of The Elders - www.theElders.org - an independent group of eminent world leaders brought together by Nelson Mandela. Brahimi is a distinguished diplomat and mediator. He was foreign minister of Algeria from 1991 to 1993 and led UN missions in South Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan. Robinson was the first woman president of Ireland from 1990 to 1997 and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002. They contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

Iran And The NATO Messages

By Ghassan Charbel

This comment was published in al-Hayat on 22/11/2010

I do not know how Iran will read the results of the NATO summit that was held in Lisbon – I mean a quiet reading behind closed doors. Had I been Iranian, I would’ve felt concerned, even if the President continues to brandish his fist in the face of the world and the Supreme Leader still renews his support to the President.


The summit didn’t take a decision regarding a war on Iran and didn’t hint at anything of the sort. It didn’t mention Iran by name, as per President Abdullah Gul’s request. It was obvious that Turkey wishes to maintain a delicate balance between respecting the obligations imposed by its NATO membership and keeping the ability to talk to Iran and perhaps regain the role of intermediary pertaining to its nuclear file.


Moreover, accusing Iran openly would embarrass Turkey, as it wishes to extend the “zero-problems” formula with its neighboring countries. Indeed, it is a formula cherished by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davotoglu.


NATO’s summit in Lisbon was occupied with clarifying its new strategic concept. This is the third revision it makes in order to justify its continuity and its role in a world that has changed after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new and different challenges in the world – particularly after the September 11 attacks, and what followed in Afghanistan and Iraq.


However, what NATO avoided to mention in its paper was disclosed by President Nicolas Sarkozy with remarkable candor when he stated that Iran is behind the danger of ballistic missiles which threatens Europe. It was no secret in the summit’s corridors that most of the participants share Sarkozy’s view in considering Iran as a source of danger that requires the launching of the anti-missile shield project.


Had I been Iranian, I would’ve felt in danger, as some of the 28 participating countries have a great economic, military, and political weight and play a significant role in the Security Council and in international decisions. An additional reason for concern is the return of warmth or something like it to the relation between NATO and Russia, whose President Dmitri Medvedev was present at the summit. He responded positively to NATO’s call for Russia to cooperate in the anti-missile shield project. In fact, NATO explicitly called Russia to build “a real strategic partnership”.


What happened in Lisbon helps Iran understand Russia’s decision not to deliver to it S-300 air defense missiles, in accordance with the sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Iran because of its nuclear program. We are faced with a different international scene, and what used to apply during the Cold War is no longer valid today. The extent of Russia’s interests with the United States and Europe is much more important than weapons deals with Iran. What is true for Russia is also true for China, despite the different calculations and methods for managing relations.


Iran could act defiant and say that what happened in Lisbon is just ink on paper. However, the makers of Iranian policy need to remember that a combination of economic and political measures and a costly armament race caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and made it disappear from the map. They can also remember that the Soviet Union used to be a nuclear strike force that also invaded space and adopted hostile policies. And yet, its defeat took place when the model it built was unable to improve the conditions of those living under it, and guarantee their freedom.


Iran can affirm that it achieved during the first decade of this century many successes regionally and that it excelled in benefiting from the conduct of both Al Qaeda and the United States, and hence broadened its presence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. However, the coming decade could be tough on Ahmadinejad’s country. The stances of the front opposing its nuclear ambitions are becoming increasingly unrestrained. Also, the countries opposing its manner of imposing its role in the region classify it as a source of danger. Its descent into the armament race and increased obligations outside its borders will lead to additional economic difficulties that make way for more dissidents and disgruntled people. It is time for Iran to make a new reading of the international scene and the limits of its role in the region. Without this reading, the Iranian policy will clash with many on both the inside and the outside, with extremely high costs as a result.

How International Law Affects The Palestine 'Peace Process'

The Israel-Palestine 'peace process' is in a vegetative state, leaving the application of international law a complex process

By Oliver Miles

This comment was published in The Guardian on 22/11/2010

Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair and Israel's opposition leader Tzipi Livni attend a conference in August. Photograph: Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images

We Do'nt Need Another Middle East War

By Bruce Riedel
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 22/11/2010
 
If Iran becomes a nuclear weapons capable state in the next few years, as seems likely, Israel’s forty year old monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East will end. But its military superiority over Iran will not. It will remain the dominant military power in the region for the foreseeable future, and it does not need to attack Iran to ensure its security.
 
Israel is the state that feels most threatened by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and with good reason. The founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was the first to call for Israel to be wiped off the map of the Middle East, and it was he who sent the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Lebanon in 1982 to establish Hezbollah. He was also pragmatic enough, however, to buy arms from Israel during the war with Iraq. Iran’s current president has called for Israel’s destruction often, most alarmingly last month when he toured Lebanon. Today Israel is believed to be considering the wisdom of a strike against Iran.
 
Estimates by international think tanks generally concur that Israel has about 100 nuclear weapons, maybe twice that number. Even under a crash program Iran will not achieve that size arsenal for many years, perhaps decades.
 
Israel also has multiple delivery systems. It has intermediate-range ballistic missiles, the Jericho, capable of reaching any target in Iran. Its fleet of F-15 long-range strike aircraft can also deliver nuclear payloads. Some analysts have suggested that it can also deliver nuclear weapons from its German-made Dolphin submarines using cruise missiles. This is the reality of the balance of power in the Middle East, but it is rarely said in public.
 
Israel will also continue to have conventional military superiority over Iran and the rest of the region, The Israel Air Force is capable of penetrating air defense systems with virtual impunity, as it demonstrated in 2007 when it destroyed Syria’s nascent nuclear capability. Israel’s intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities are vastly superior to its potential rivals. Israeli satellites provide it with coverage of Iranian facilities and capabilities every day, a major advantage in modern warfare.
 
Iran, on the other hand, has never fully rebuilt its conventional military from the damage suffered in the Iran-Iraq war. It still relies heavily for air power on equipment purchased by the Shah. Moreover, the new United Nations sanctions, UN Security Council resolution 1929, impose a very stringent arms ban on Iran. Virtually all significant weapons systems -- including tanks, aircraft, naval vessels and missiles -- are banned from sale or transfer to Iran. Training and technical assistance for such systems is also banned. In other words, even if Iran wants to try to improve its conventional military capability in the next few years, with the help of foreign suppliers, and has the money to do so, the UN arms ban will make that close to impossible. Iran does not have the capability to produce state-of-the-art weapons on its own, despite its occasional claims to be self-sufficient. To compensate for its weakness Iran has built an impressive asymmetric capability in missiles and terrorists to threaten massive retaliation for any attack.
 
Finally, Israel will continue to enjoy the support of the world’s only superpower for the foreseeable future. Assistance from the United States includes roughly $3 billion in grant aid every year. That is the longest-running financial assistance program in American history, and dates back to the 1973 war. It is never challenged or cut by Congress and permits Israeli planners to do multi-year planning for defense acquisitions with great certitude about what they can afford to acquire.
 
U.S. assistance also goes far beyond mere financial aid. The Pentagon and the IDF engage in constant exchanges of technical expertise on virtually all elements of the modern battlefield. Missile defense has been at the center of this exchange for over 20 years now. Officials in Washington and Tel Aviv say the Obama administration has strengthened and expanded the relationship as the new US offer of 20 F35 aircraft illustrates. The United States and Israel also have a robust and dynamic intelligence relationship that helps ensure Israel’s qualitative edge.
 
American support for Israel comes despite Israel’s refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Since 1969, the United States has implicitly supported Israel’s nuclear deterrent by providing Israel with high-performance aircraft and not pressing for NPT signature. Every American president since Richard Nixon has been a supporter of maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge over its potential foes. President Obama reaffirmed these commitments to Israel early in his term, even as he has pushed for a world without nuclear weapons.
 
Iran, in contrast, has no major power providing it with financial help. Its arms relationships with Russia and China have been severed by UN Resolution 1929. Its only military ally is Syria, not exactly a powerhouse.
 
The Iranian challenge is a serious danger to regional, and even global, stability, which should be addressed in the full context of the real balance of power in the area. Those engaged in such a discussion cannot pretend Israel is a weak and helpless state. But they must also address Israel’s legitimate concerns about Iranian recklessness.
 
In the 2008 presidential primaries, then-senator Hillary Clinton suggested extending a nuclear umbrella over Israel and others who feel threatened to deter Iran. That is a good idea whose time is coming soon.

Evidence Links Hezbollah To Hariri Death

By Colum Lynch
This article was published in The Washington Post on 22/11/2010

A Lebanese police officer and U.N. investigators unearthed extensive circumstantial evidence implicating the Syrian-backed Hezbollah movement in the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, according to an investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

The U.N. International Independent Investigation Commission's findings are based on an elaborate examination of Lebanese phone records. They suggest Hezbollah officials communicated with the owners of cell phones allegedly used to coordinate the detonation that killed Hariri and 22 others as they traveled through downtown Beirut in an armed convoy, according to Lebanese and U.N. phone analysis obtained by CBC and shared with The Washington Post. The revelations are likely to add to speculation that a U.N. prosecutor plans to indict members of Hezbollah by the end of the year.

The work of the commission, whose mandate has expired, has been given to the U.N. Special Tribunal, which will carry out prosecutions. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah - who claims Israel killed Hariri - has made it clear that the group will not accept the U.N.'s prosecution of its members.

 

A spokesman for the United Nations, Farhan Haq, declined to comment Sunday night on the substance of the allegations, referring questions to the tribunal. But he said the U.N. has made it clear to CBC that the U.N. documents cited in its report "are United Nations documents enjoying inviolability under Article II of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Inviolability entails that United Nations documents cannot be disclosed to a third party, copied or used without the consent of the United Nations. Beyond that, I have no further comment on the documents at this stage."

The CBC report says that the head of the U.N. tribunal, Daniel Bellemare, declined a request to comment, and others in his office did not respond to phone calls. A U.N. attorney warned the CBC that U.N. would alert Canadian authorities that the news agency had obtained privileged U.N. documents, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The Post.

The latest findings mark a major development in an investigation that initially had implicated Syrian and pro-Syrian Lebanese officials. In October 2005, U.N. prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, a German, issued a report saying that Hariri's assassination "could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security forces." Mehlis's successors, Serge Brammertz of Belgium and Bellemare, a former Canadian justice official, have revealed virtually none of their findings, saying that the evidence will be presented in court.

The CBC's reporting also uncovered an internal U.N. document indicating that a top Lebanese intelligence official, Col. Wissam al-Hassan, who serves as Lebanon's key liaison with the U.N. investigators, was considered by some U.N. sleuths as a potential suspect. Hassan oversaw security for Hariri at the time of the assassination but had taken the day off to take an examination at a university.

A confidential internal U.N. memo, dated March 10, 2008, prepared for the commission's top investigator, Garry Loeppky, said Hassan's "alibi is weak and inconsistent" and recommended that he be "investigated quietly" to determine whether he played a role in Hariri's killing. But the CBC report states that the commission's management "ignored the recommendation" to investigate Hassan.

Hassan declined a request to speak with CBC.

The report also faults the U.N. for misplacing a vital piece of evidence - a complex analysis of Lebanese phone records that allegedly pinpointed the phones used by Hariri's killers - in the early months of the investigation. It also criticizes the U.N. commission for failing to provide sufficient security for a key Lebanese officer, Col. Wissam Eid, who was killed after helping the U.N. unravel the crime mystery.

Eid, a former student of computer engineering, had conducted a review of the call records of all cellphones that had been used in the vicinity of the Hotel St. George, where Hariri's convoy was bombed. He quickly established a network of "red" phones that had been used by the hit squad. He then established links with other small phone networks he suspected of being involved in planning the operation. He traced all the networks back to a landline at Hezbollah's Great Prophet Hospital in South Beirut, and a handful of government-issued cell phones set aside for Hezbollah. "The Eid report was entered into the U.N.'s database by someone who either didn't understand it or didn't care enough to bring it forward. It disappeared," according to the CBC.

It would be another year and a half before a team of British investigators, working for the U.N., discovered Eid's paper and contacted him. Eight days later, Eid was killed in a car bomb. "Lebanon gave Eid a televised funeral and at the UN inquiry there was outrage as well," according to CBC. "But mixed with shame."