English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For July 20/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.july20.20.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006

Bible Quotations For today
Jesus said to them, ‘Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, “Doctor, cure yourself
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 04/22-30/:”All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, ‘Is not this Joseph’s son?’He said to them, ‘Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, “Doctor, cure yourself!” And you will say, “Do here also in your home town the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.” ’And he said, ‘Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s home town. But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up for three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.’ When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage. They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way.”
 

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on July 19-20/2020
Al-Rahi: Neutrality System Not Sectarian or Imported Proposal
Al-Rahi to Visit Vatican Soon after His Calls for Neutrality
Rahi: Neutrality is not a sectarian, factional, or imported proposal, but a restoration of our identity, a doorway to the salvation of all Lebanese
Kattar hails Rahi's stances
Bassil from Diman: Neutrality Needs National Dialogue, Foreign Umbrella
Cyprus Reportedly Extradites Hizbullah Suspect to U.S.
Qabalan Hits Back at al-Rahi, Slams Those who 'Sympathize with Traitors'
Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab insists he will not resign/Sunniva Rose/The National/July 19, 2020
Former Lebanese Minister Ahmed Fatfat: Hizbullah Is Occupying Lebanon, Is The Country's Main Problem; It Must Be Dismantled/MEMRI/July 19/2020
Qatar finances Hezbollah terrorism, declares ‘Jews are enemies’ - report/Benjamin Weinthal/Jerusalem Post/July 19/2020
Lebanon’s identity is under threat from the ‘Axis of Resistance’ – it needs support/Rami Rayess/Al Arabiya/July 19/2020
 

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 19-20/2020
UN agency confirms 'hijacked' tanker taken to Iranian waters
France, Germany and Italy threaten sanctions over Libya weapons embargo
Iran Hackers Caught Plotting to Steal US State Secrets
Explosion Hits Iran Power Plant
Iran Halts Execution of 3 Convicted over November Protests
Five dead, 85 wounded in car bomb attack in Syria’s Azaz: Reports
Syrians Vote for New Parliament
Israel Approves Pipeline Deal to Sell Gas to Europe
Iraq’s PM to Arrive in Saudi Arabia Amid ‘Great Expectations’
Libya’s GNA Says Russian Detainees to Be Released Soon
Palestinians Demand ICC Investigation Into Israeli Crimes
Saudi Pursues, through Interpol, Fugitive Ex-Official Accused of Corruption
Erdogan Visits Hagia Sofia after Reconversion to Mosque
Turkey: Divisions in Erdogan’s Party
Rojava Accuses Turkey of Smuggling ISIS Wives
 

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 19-20/2020

The United Nations' Institutional Racism/Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/July 19, 2020
Europe's response to Islamist extremism is encouraging but not enough/Damien McElroy/The National/July 19/2020
The Founding Fathers Would’ve Been Pro-Face Mask/Justin Fox/Bloomberg/July, 19/2020
The World Is Masking Up, Some Are Opting Out/Elaine He and Lionel Laurent/Bloomberg/July, 19/2020
How Much Is a College Campus Worth?/Tyler Cowen/Bloomberg/July, 19/2020
World Leaderships Are Nowhere to Be Seen/Eyad Abu Shakra/ Asharq Al-Awsat/July 19/2020
Is India out of Chabahar port project?/Krzysztof Iwanek/Arab News/July 19/2020
China’s new Silk Road passes through Tehran/Baria Alamuddin/Arab News/July 19/2020
Syria: Russia vulnerable should UN withdraw from Damascus/Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab News/July 19/2020
Turkey’s Erdogan ignores international opposition to Hagia Sophia mosque conversion/Yasar Yakis/Arab News/July 19/2020
Cancel culture: Dangerous mob rule or new form of accountability?/Omar Al-Ubaydli/Al Arabiya/Sunday 19 July 2020

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on July 19-20/2020
Al-Rahi: Neutrality System Not Sectarian or Imported Proposal
Naharnet/July 19/2020
Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi on Sunday stressed that “the system of neutrality is not a sectarian, partisan or imported proposal.”“It aims to regain our main identity and nature and it is a gateway for salvation for all Lebanese without exception,” al-Rahi added in his Sunday Mass sermon, explaining his repeated calls for Lebanon’s neutrality in recent weeks. “The neutrality system requires the presence of a state that is strong through its army, institutions, law and justice, a state that is capable of defending itself, uniting its people and creating political stability and economic growth,” the patriarch said. He also called for completing the 1943 National Pact and the 1989 Taef Accord with “a system of active neutrality,” describing it as “a pact for domestic unity and stability.”

Al-Rahi to Visit Vatican Soon after His Calls for Neutrality
Naharnet/July 19/2020
Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi will soon visit the Vatican, in the first foreign trip following his landmark calls for Lebanon’s neutrality, MTV said. He will visit the United States after the U.S. presidential elections, the TV network added. Al-Rahi has repeatedly called for neutrality in his recent statements, describing it as the only way out of Lebanon’s compounded crises. On Thursday, he openly criticized Hizbullah and linked the country’s unprecedented economic and financial crisis to its “hegemony” over the government and Lebanese politics. “Today we are saying that for the good of all Lebanese without exception, there is no salvation for Lebanon except through declaring the system of effective, positive and committed neutrality. This would pull us out of the hegemony of any Lebanese component and of political and military conflicts,” al-Rahi added, in an interview with the Vatican News portal. Asked about the mechanism to achieve Lebanon’s neutrality, the patriarch said one or two permanent U.N. Security Council member states can present a suggestion to the U.N. Secretary General to create “a system of positive and effective neutrality” in Lebanon.
“The Secretary-General would then put the issue to a vote… and we are counting on the effective role of the Holy See regarding this issue,” al-Rahi went on to say.

Rahi: Neutrality is not a sectarian, factional, or imported proposal, but a restoration of our identity, a doorway to the salvation of all Lebanese
NNA /July 19/2020
"The system of neutrality is not a sectarian, factional, or imported proposal, but rather it is a recovery of our identity and basic nature, and a salvation path for all Lebanese with no exception," emphasized Maronite Patriarch, Cardinal Beshara Boutros al-Rahi, during his Sunday Mass sermon in Diman this morning.
"My hope is that a real, simple understanding of the concept of an active system of neutrality will be achieved through scientific intellectual dialogues that reveal its legal, national and political meaning, and its importance for stability and prosperity," he said.
"The system of neutrality requires the presence of a strong state with its army, institutions, law and justice, one that is capable of defending itself and boosting the unity of its people, and creating political stability and economic growth," the Patriarch underlined.
He considered that through the above, Lebanon will be able to "achieve the Human Academy for Dialogue of Cultures, Religions and Civilizations, which was approved by the United Nations in its 2018 session at the request of His Excellency, President Michel Aoun."
"We live in solidarity and sympathize with the tragedies of the poor and disadvantaged Lebanese, whose number is increasing due to the government's inability to undertake any reform in the structures and sectors concerned, and because of Lebanon's isolation from the Arab and international community," al-Rahi said, urging the government to take the necessary action and steps to stop the people's sufferings. The Patriarch concluded by raising prayers to the Lord Almighty to ensure the rise of the country's politics from the quagmire of narrow personal or factional gains, to the higher standard of the honorable art of serving the common good and preserving the interest of the state and its people.

Kattar hails Rahi's stances
NNA /July 19/2020
State Minister for Administrative Development Affairs, Damianos Kattar, on Sunday, praised Patriarch Rahi's stances, deeming that "neutrality is the highest ceiling in the national concept," stressing the importance of internal positioning, away from international and regional isolation. He added: "Bkerke's goal was and still is to gather the Lebanese, not divide them, and relieve the pressure on Lebanon to restore its point of convergence and being a bridge connecting the East and the West together."In this regard, Kattar made it clear that Rahi's positions are not against anyone, but rather an openness to securing the public interest and easing the isolation to which Lebanon is exposed. He also revealed that the Patriarch's visit to the Vatican will demand the neutralization of Lebanon from international and regional conflicts.

Bassil from Diman: Neutrality Needs National Dialogue, Foreign Umbrella
Naharnet/July 19/2020
Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil on Sunday supported Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi’s call for Lebanon’s neutrality but said it has prerequisites such as the neutrality of the “neighboring countries.”"The FPM supports the neutralization of Lebanon and we have also implemented this issue at the Foreign Ministry. Neutralization is a self decision while neutrality is a decision required from us and from others too," said Bassil after meeting al-Rahi in Diman. "Neutrality is a strategic alignment and we must seek to secure the circumstances for its success, which are based on domestic consensus, and this requires national dialogue to reach a national conviction or else we would be causing domestic problems," Bassil warned.He accordingly called for "securing a foreign umbrella for implementing this issue," stressing that "the neighboring countries must acknowledge and accept this principle."Bassil added: "We support the neutrality that preserves Lebanon's unity and all elements of strength, protects it from Israel's ambitions and attacks as well as from terrorism, and which relieves Lebanon of the burden of refugees."

Cyprus Reportedly Extradites Hizbullah Suspect to U.S.
Naharnet/July 19/2020
Authorities in Cyprus have extradited to the United States a Hizbullah member accused of drug dealing, Al-Arabiya TV reported on Sunday. Cyprus' supreme court had on May 29 upheld an order to extradite a suspected Hizbullah member to the U.S. on money laundering charges, according to official media. A five-judge bench unanimously dismissed an appeal against a decision by a lower court in September 2019 to extradite the man, identified only by his surname Diab, the Cyprus News Agency said. The suspect was wanted by authorities in Florida for alleged money laundering crimes. According to the extradition papers, the charges related to money laundering in excess of $100,000 (90,000 euros), conspiracy to money launder, the transfer of unlicensed money and illegal use of wireless communication. The court said the suspect conspired with individuals in 2014 to launder drug money. Diab was arrested at Larnaca airport in Cyprus when he arrived from Lebanon in March 2019. Police apprehended him when they found there was a U.S.-issued warrant for his arrest. The supreme court ruled in May that he would remain in detention until his extradition could be arranged by the justice ministry.

Qabalan Hits Back at al-Rahi, Slams Those who 'Sympathize with Traitors'
Naharnet/July 19/2020
Higher Islamic Shiite Council chief Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan snapped back Sunday at Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi over the latter’s calls for Lebanon’s neutrality, in a statement marking the 14th anniversary of the 2006 war with Israel. Blasting “silliness and pettiness,” Qabalan lashed out at “those who sympathize with traitors and collaborators under various slogans seeking to distort the image of resistant Lebanon after it triumphed over the Zionist enemy.”He said their aim is to pull out Lebanon of “the conflict with a tyrannic enemy which is still occupying our land and which constantly violates our sovereignty and steals our water and oil resources.”The Shiite leader accordingly warned against “losing the compass of national and ethical interest as to Lebanon’s position and the means to rescue it amid these tornadoes and the international and regional onslaught seeking to tear it apart.”“They once impose an economic siege and sanctions on it and other times they interfere in its internal affairs and incite a component against another, all the way to calling for federalism, blaming the Resistance for the economic and social crisis, and proposing Lebanon’s neutrality as a way out of the current crises,” Qabalan added. He noted that neutrality “according to the principles of Prophet Mohammed and the Messiah is to side with the right and to defend a country that is being slaughtered with the sword of economic siege.”“Neutrality according to the principles of Prophet Mohammed and the Messiah is to be in the position of rescuing the looted country, to commit to the causes of aggrieved peoples and entities wherever they may be, to tell the tyrant that he is a tyrant and to say thank you to those who struggled, fought, liberated the land and were martyred for the sake of that,” Qabalan went on to say.
 

Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab insists he will not resign
Sunniva Rose/The National/July 19, 2020
Lebanon's six-month-old government has been unable to make headway in country's economic crisis
Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab struck a defiant tone on Saturday, saying that he would “not resign” despite hitting a brick wall in negotiations for a bailout with the IMF as the country sinks deeper into its worst economic crisis.
“I will not resign,” Mr Diab, who has served as prime minister since January, told journalists after meeting Maronite Patriarch Bechara Rai.. Lebanese politicians, including two ministers affiliated with President Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement, have publicly discussed the possibility of the government’s resignation. Government members questioned the “benefit of continuing in light of the lack of achievements”, Energy Minister Raymond Ghajar told a local radio station on July 4.
Others pushed for the return of former prime minister Saad Hariri, who stepped down on October 29 under the pressure of nationwide anti-government protests triggered by the economic crisis. Mr Diab said that if he resigned, “an alternative would not be found easily. We will be a caretaker government for perhaps a year or two, and this is a crime against the country and against the Lebanese.”Negotiations to form a government or appoint a president in Lebanon can take months or years as political parties must reach a consensus to maintain the country’s delicate sectarian balance.
Protesters face water cannon from riot police during a demonstration organised by supporters of Hezbollah, Lebanese communist party, and other Lebanese national parties at the US embassy against US interference in Lebanon's affairs, in Awkar area north-east Beirut, Lebanon. EPA
Mr Diab formally requested IMF assistance in early May, after announcing that the country would default on its debt for the first time, but the negotiations on a bailout have not moved forward. The IMF has blamed the deadlock on the lack of a unified Lebanese position on the losses of the country’s banking sector.Starting last summer, a cash crisis has pushed Lebanon, one of the world's most indebted countries, into the worst economic and financial crisis in its modern history. Half of the Lebanese population is now living in poverty and the value of the local currency has dropped by roughly 80 per cent.
Mr Diab’s statement came after increasing criticism from Mr Rai of the Shiite Muslim party Hezbollah, one of the government’s most influential backers and an ally of President Aoun. In an interview with Vatican News on Thursday, the Maronite patriarch said Hezbollah “sidelines the state, and declares war and peace wherever it chooses. It helped precipitate war in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.” Mr Rai said the United States, European Union and Arab Gulf countries would not help Lebanon because they did not want their financial aid to be used by Iran-backed Hezbollah.
“That’s why we’re paying the price,” he told Vatican News.
Earlier in the week, Mr Rai met Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon Mohammad-Jalal Firouznia, who said that his country “does not intervene in internal Lebanese affairs”. On Saturday, the patriarch reiterated calls for Lebanon to remain “neutral”, in what has been widely interpreted by Lebanese media as a criticism of Hezbollah's military interventions in the region. His calls have been well received by Mr Hariri and the Lebanese Forces, a Christian party, but was rejected by Shiite clerics in their sermons on Friday, local media reported. Mr Diab dismissed claims that his government was controlled by Hezbollah, likening them to “a broken record”. “The topic of neutrality is political and needs a deep political dialogue between all parties in Lebanon,” he said.

Former Lebanese Minister Ahmed Fatfat: Hizbullah Is Occupying Lebanon, Is The Country's Main Problem; It Must Be Dismantled
MEMRI/July 19/2020
Lebanese politician Ahmed Fatfat said in a July 4, 2020 interview on MTV (Lebanon) that all the militias in Lebanon, first and foremost of which he said is Hizbullah, should be dismantled in accordance with the Taif Agreement and the Lebanese constitution. He said that in his view, Hizbullah has carried out acts of terrorism, is Lebanon's main problem, and is preventing any reforms from taking place. Furthermore, he said that Hizbullah is not a legitimate political party, that it is occupying Lebanon and its political decision-making process, that it believes in Iran's Rule of the Jurisprudent rather than the Lebanese constitution, and that its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is effectively the person ruling Lebanon.
Ahmed Fatfat: "The Taif Agreement requires all the militias to be dismantled. We need to look at what's in the Taif Agreement and in the constitution. The Taif Agreement says that there shall be no weapons other than those of the State of Lebanon."
Host: "Which militia do you want to dismantle today?"
Fatfat: "First of all, Hizbullah."
Host: "Hizbullah is a militia?"
Fatfat: "Of course it is. What else could it be?"
Host: "It's not a resistance movement?"
Fatfat: "No. It was a resistance movement when it was fighting Israel, but when it invades Beirut, the word 'militia' describes it very mildly. As far as I'm concerned, this is an act of terrorism.
"In my view, Hizbullah is the country's main problem. There can be no solution, no reform, and no escape from any economic or political crisis as long as these illegal weapons exist.
"We are currently under occupation. The Hizbullah militia, which represents Iran, is occupying Lebanon and the political decision-making process.
"Hizbullah believes in the Rule of the Iranian Jurisprudent, and not in the Lebanese constitution.
"Today, Lebanon's real ruler is Hassan Nasrallah. He is effectively the President. Let's not deceive ourselves."

Qatar finances Hezbollah terrorism, declares ‘Jews are enemies’ - report
Benjamin Weinthal/Jerusalem Post/July 19/2020
Doha sought to silence whistleblower with 750,000 euros
A German private security contractor, who has worked for the federal republic’s intelligence and security services, leveled bombshell allegations against Qatar’s regime, stating Doha finances the US and EU-designated terrorist movement Hezbollah and has declared Jews to be the enemies of the tiny Gulf state.
The German weekly news outlet Die Zeit first reported on Friday about the security contractor Jason G. who obtained explosive details about Qatari terror finance.
“In Doha, G. came across some unsavory information. There was an alleged arms deal with war munitions from Eastern Europe that was supposed to be handled by a company in Qatar. And there were alleged money flows from several rich Qataris and exiled Lebanese people from Doha to Hezbollah – the organization that is part of the government in Lebanon but is internationally outlawed as a terrorist organization and has been completely banned in Germany since April. The donations are said to have been processed with the knowledge of influential government officials through a charity organization in Doha,” wrote the veteran Die Zeit journalists Yassin Musharbash and Holger Stark.
The paper added that “a thick dossier with compromising material emerged, which Zeit was able to see in parts and which is somewhat explosive: Israel and the USA have long been trying to dry out [the finances of] Hezbollah. Concrete evidence that money is flowing from the Gulf to terrorist groups would increase pressure on Qatar and may lead to sanctions.”
G. met with Michael Inacker, who works for the German public relations company WMP, and is well connected to a top Qatari diplomat who was not named in the article. WMP also did work for Qatar's regime.
Die Zeit reported that G. presented the incriminating material from Doha to both a well-connected Berlin lawyer and Inacker. The paper said the question was raised about how much cash could be earned with the dossier.
“The estimates ranged up to ten million euros,” wrote Die Zeit.
This is “possibly the [target] amount that the informant himself or his lawyer hoped for from a sale,” Inacker told Die Zeit, adding that he found the material “potentially important for combating the financing of Islamist terrorism.”
It is unclear how Inacker’s role went from shielding a document about Qatar’s alleged role in funding Hezbollah from public scrutiny to combating terror finance. Inacker, however, claimed Israel’s existence plays an important role in his life.
The paper reported that “according to Jason G., because of Inacker’s mediation, there were half a dozen meetings between G. and the Qatari diplomat.”
Die Zeit further wrote that “according to G., ugly comments about Israel had also been made at one of the meetings, the [Qatari] diplomat said that they had learned from the ground up that the Jews were their enemies.”
The Qatari top diplomat did not respond to a Die Zeit press query about his alleged anti-Jewish comment. Qatar’s state-controlled Al Jazeera frequently publishes and broadcasts antisemitic reports, according to experts in the field of antisemitism.
G. said he received €10,000 a number of times from Qatar’s diplomat, including an additional €100,000 over a period of months.
The paper reported that Qatar’s regime offered G. €750,000 in exchange for remaining silent about his knowledge of Qatar’s financing of Hezbollah.
After the negotiations ostensibly broke down, G. offered his services via his attorney in connection with the dossier to Israel’s Embassy in Berlin, wrote Die Zeit.
Die Zeit wrote that “neither the government of the Emirate nor the Qatari ambassador in Berlin want to comment on the details, a government spokesman from Doha merely says that Qatar ‘plays a central role in international efforts to combat terrorism and extremism in the Middle East.’ The country has ‘strict laws to prevent private terrorism from being financed,’ and anyone caught doing so will be punished with all the harshness of the law.”
Yet, Qatar has long been accused of financing terrorism in the Middle East. The monarchy state provides organizational space to the US and EU-designated terrorist movement Hamas, as well as for the Taliban. Qatar has also built a strong alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran – the worst state-sponsor of global terrorism, according to both the Obama and Trump administrations.
In 2014, German Development Minister Gerd Mueller accused Qatar of financing Islamic State terrorists. “This kind of conflict, this kind of a crisis always has a history... The ISIS troops, the weapons – these are lost sons, with some of them from Iraq,” Mueller told German public broadcaster ZDF.
“You have to ask who is arming, who is financing ISIS troops. The keyword there is Qatar – and how do we deal with these people and states politically?” said Mueller.
Die Zeit used a different name for the security contractor in its article. Qatar has employed surveillance operations in the US and other countries to spy on its alleged opponents – hence the apparent need to use the alias Jason G.
In a related Hezbollah terror finance development, The Jerusalem Post first reported on Friday that the Hezbollah-controlled community center in the northern German city of Bremen funnels money to the Lebanese-based terrorist movement Hezbollah.
Bremen’s domestic intelligence service wrote in its Thursday report that the Al-Mustafa community center “is involved in the financial support” of the Shi’ite terrorist organization Hezbollah. Al-Mustafa organized a talk with a radical Germany-based Islamist who agitates against Israel’s existence.
It is unclear if Bremen or the German government will shut down the Al-Mustafa center for terror finance. After the German interior ministry outlawed all Hezbollah activities in April, 2020, the authorities raided the Al-Mustafa center.
The Post uncovered the Shi’ite organization’s bank account – the Bremen-based Sparkasse.
The Sparkasse bank did not immediately respond to the Post press queries on Friday.

Lebanon’s identity is under threat from the ‘Axis of Resistance’ – it needs support
Rami Rayess/Al Arabiya/July 19/2020
The Lebanon known to the world is withering away. The country that was previously compared to Europe and described as “Switzerland of the Orient” is no longer the same. What used to be a vibrant, open and dynamic society is now striving to secure its basic food necessities. Tens of thousands of citizens are trying to leave in search of a better future elsewhere.
Lebanon’s long history of democracy, openness and its traditional free economy have come under existential threat as the country’s identity is being remodeled along new lines. This new identity is contrary to its long heritage as belonging to the Arab world and having deep relations with both the East and the West. Lebanon was a founding member of the Arab League and the United Nations back in 1945.
The Taif Accord, an agreement reached in 1989 by Saudi-led efforts with international backing, put an end to the 15-year-long civil strife and introduced political reforms that gave equal representation to Muslims and Christians, regardless of the demographics of each sect, and stipulated that Lebanon is an Arab and final homeland for its citizens. At the war’s conclusion, all the warring parties – except Hezbollah – handed in their heavy machinery to the Lebanese state in 1990. Its stated reason for refusing to turn in its arms was resistance against Israel that would not withdraw its occupying forces from Lebanon in 2000.
Since then, the Lebanese state has been reluctant to hold open discussions regarding the national defense strategy that should address how to best incorporate Hezbollah’s weaponry with the official apparatus.
The party’s influence has grown over the years, and the traditional delicate balance of power within the country has tipped to favor Hezbollah’s agenda and interest. Along with its ally the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), Hezbollah currently controls the incumbent cabinet headed by Prime Minister Hassan Diab, as other parties preferred to move toward opposition.
Lebanon has never suffered such isolation from Arab and international counterparts before as it is now. The international community, along with the Gulf States, convened in Paris in April 2018 at the CEDRE Conference and pledged to extend $11 billion of aid to Lebanon, provided it launched a long-awaited reform plan, which it never did because of local political differences.
As the country descends into total collapse due to spiraling inflation, Hezbollah suggested that the country look east, an invitation explained by many as strengthening ties with Damascus, Tehran, and Beijing.
Those calls are merely based on political, and not economic, interests that serve the so-called “Axis of Resistance.”
Such calls disregard the US Caesar Act, which came into force on June 17 and threatens to put Lebanon and its economic sectors –which are deeply ailing already – under American sanctions if found in violation of the legislation.
Normalizing Lebanese relations with Damascus under economic pretext will drag the country again under Syrian tutelage, a step most Lebanese would not appreciate taking into account the heavy price paid to put an end to Syrian domination in 2005 after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri.
As for Tehran, the case might be even more complicated. The country itself has failed, over the past 20 years, to withdraw from the international monetary system and find an alternative to the US dollar for external transactions. In addition, the Islamic Republic is under severe American sanctions, and this would also jeopardize Lebanon’s position in the world and push it toward further seclusion.
Besides the economic perspective regarding increasing cooperation with Damascus and Tehran, which is complicated itself, the question is whether Lebanon really wants to be part of the “Axis of Resistance.”
Politically, this will mean losing all its heritage of openness, diversity and democracy, regardless of how fragile its democratic system is. It will also mean more limits on freedom of speech, the end of peaceful demonstrations and liberal education. Socially, it will mean surrendering its cosmopolitan life style, destroying its middle class, weakening its rich human resources and eliminating its ties to the Arab world, Europe and the West.
The Lebanese people appreciate the efforts and sacrifices made by the parties that helped liberate its southern territories from Israeli occupation without surrender or a peace treaty, an effort that leftist parties begun in the mid-1980s that Hezbollah continued. Yet, acknowledging these historical facts is one thing, and changing Lebanon’s identity is something else. In his last speech, Hezbollah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah said that the Lebanese can look up to the Iranian people as a role model – a statement that was not welcomed by all Lebanese, not because they do not respect the Iranian community, but because they do not want to be a society at continuous war, like the one Tehran has engaged in with its people for the last 40 years or so.
Lebanon cannot be Syria or Iran, and Beirut cannot be Damascus or Tehran. These two cities sit on magnificent historical heritage but are currently controlled by regimes that simply do not exemplify the Lebanese model.
Ultimately, the cost of leaving Lebanon to confront its fate unilaterally will be more expensive than supporting it before its falls into chaos. Lebanon’s incapacity to overcome this debacle will push it further into the control of the “Axis of Resistance,” a step that would be detrimental to its Arab identity and belonging. It would provide additional space to the Axis players to exploit it as an arena for their political benefit. This is why supporting Lebanon at this pivotal moment is crucial for its survival as we know it.
*Rami Rayess is a Lebanese writer and journalist. He is also a University Instructor and translator. He holds a Masters degree in Political Science from the American University of Beirut. He writes regularly to several newspapers and websites in both Arabic and English. He tweets @RamiRayess

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 19-20/2020

UN agency confirms 'hijacked' tanker taken to Iranian waters
The Naqtional/July 19/2020
The MT Gulf Sky, hijacked on July 5, was allegedly smuggling Iranian crude oil
A seafarers organisation says an oil tanker sought by the US over allegedly trying to circumvent sanctions on Iran was hijacked on July 5 off the coast of the United Arab Emirates. Reuters. A seafarers organisation says an oil tanker sought by the US over allegedly trying to circumvent sanctions on Iran was hijacked on July 5 off the coast of the United Arab Emirates. Reuters. The United Nations has said that a “hijacked” oil tanker has returned to Iranian waters after an apparent attempt to smuggle crude oil for the Islamic republic.
The International Labor Organisation said that the MT Gulf Sky was hijacked off the coast of the UAE July 5, citing its captain. "The vessel was taken to Iran," the ILO told the Associated Press. The ILO cited the International Seafarers' Welfare and Assistance Network for its information. The ILO earlier filed a report saying the vessel and its sailors had been abandoned by its owners without pay since March off Khorfakkan, a city on the eastern coast of the UAE. Upon arrival in Iran, authorities took 26 members of the crew, all from India, and flew them back to their home country on July 15. Two more members of the crew did not fly because they did not have passports. Their circumstances remain unknown but it is believed that they remain in Tehran. The admission is significant as it means that the ship could have been seized by the Iranian authorities to stop the United States getting access to it amid allegations of oil smuggling. Iranian state media and officials have not acknowledged the hijacking and arrival of the MT Gulf Sky to Iran. The US government similarly has not commented. In May, the US Justice Department filed criminal charges against two Iranians, accusing them of trying to launder some $12 million to purchase the tanker, then named the MT Nautica, through a series of front companies. Court documents allege the smuggling scheme involved the Quds Force of Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is its elite expeditionary unit, as well as Iran's national oil and tanker companies. The two men charged, one of whom also has an Iraqi passport, remain at large. A US bank froze funds associated with the sale, causing the seller to launch a lawsuit in the UAE to repossess the vessel, the Justice Department earlier said. As tensions between Iran and the US heated up last year, tankers plying the waters of the Mideast became targets, particularly near the crucial Strait of Hormuz, the Arabian Gulf's narrow mouth through which 20 per cent of all oil passes. Suspected limpet mine attacks the US blamed on Iran targeted several tankers. Iran denied being involved, though it did seize several tankers.

France, Germany and Italy threaten sanctions over Libya weapons embargo
Callum Paton/The National/July 19, 2020
The warning from European nations comes as eastern and western factions face-off in central Libya
The leaders of the three European nations met on the sidelines of negotiations over an unprecedented €750 billion (Dh3.147 trillion) EU bailout fund to discuss deteriorating conditions in the North African nation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and French President Emmanuel Macron urged warring factions in Libya and their foreign supporters to immediately deescalate the conflict. “We also urge all foreign actors to end their increasing interference and to fully respect the arms embargo established by the United Nations Security Council,” the three leaders said in a statement.
“We are ready to consider the possible use of sanctions should breaches to the embargo at sea, on land or in the air,” they added. The warning from the European countries came as Libya’s principal eastern and western factions face off around Sirte in central Libya. In recent months, violence has escalated in the country after an intervention by Turkey to bolster the Government of National Accord (GNA) in the capital Tripoli. Following a succession of victories against the Libyan National Army (LNA), led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, GNA forces are now poised on the outskirts of Sirte. The strategically significant town and Jufra to the south are the gateway to the oil crescent and a series of ports and oil terminals to the east. The eastern strip of the Gulf of Sirte is the location for four of Libya’s six hydrocarbon export terminals. More than 50 per cent of crude oil exports leave Libya through the four facilities. In the last 24 hours, the GNA has pressed its forces closer to Sirte. Witnesses and GNA military commanders told Reuters that a column of about 200 vehicles moved eastwards from Misrata along the Mediterranean coast towards the town of Tawergha, about a third of the way to Sirte.
Europe has found itself increasingly side-lined in Libya by Turkey and Russia. In January Germany tried to seize the initiative hosting a summit in Berlin in which world powers pledged to abide by a UN weapons embargo imposed on Libya since the 2011 Nato-backed intervention.
In the subsequent months, however, violence has increased in Libya and the country is more awash with weapons than ever. Egypt’s warning it will intervene in the conflict to support eastern forces, should the Turkish-backed GNA backed encroach on Sirte, threatens to throw open a new round of escalation and violence.
 

Iran Hackers Caught Plotting to Steal US State Secrets
London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 19 July, 2020
Iranian hackers with links to the country's regime targeting US State Department staff and defense officials have been reportedly caught in an unprecedented operation. “IBM's X-Force security team obtained roughly five hours of video footage apparently shot on the screens on hackers showing how to break into email accounts and steal data. The IT giant believes the culprits work for a group they call ITG18, which other security firms have codenamed APT35 or Charming Kitten, and which the US believes is closed connected to Iran's ruling theocracy,” Britain’s The Daily Express reported. The videos were among 40 gigabytes of data apparently stolen from the accounts of victims, including US and Greek military personnel. They are also thought to have targeted US State Department staff as well as an unnamed Iranian-American philanthropist. It was revealed in May that hackers linked to Iran targeted staff at US drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc. In one case, a fake email login page designed to steal passwords was sent in April to a top Gilead executive involved in legal and corporate affairs, according to an archived version on a website used to scan for malicious web addresses. Allison Wikoff, a senior analyst at IBM X-Force, told tech website Wired about the recent hacking: "When we talk about observing hands-on activity, it's usually from incident response engagements or endpoint monitoring tools. "Very rarely do we actually see the adversary on their own desktop. "It's a whole other level of "hands-on-keyboard" observation. "To see how adept they are at going in and out of all these different webmail accounts and setting them up to exfiltrate, it is just amazing. It’s a well-oiled machine." Emily Crose, a security research with cyber security experts Dragos, likewise said the team's success was unprecedented. "This kind of thing is a rare win for the defenders,” The Daily Express quoted her as saying. "It's like playing poker, and having your opponents lay their entire hand out flat on the table in the middle of the last flop."

Explosion Hits Iran Power Plant
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 19/2020
An explosion hit a power plant in the central Iranian province of Isfahan Sunday, state news agency IRNA reported, saying it was triggered by faulty equipment and caused no casualties. A "worn out transformer... at Isfahan's Islamabad thermal power plant exploded at around 5:00 am today," the managing director of Isfahan's electricity company Said Mohseni told the agency. The facility returned to normal working conditions after about two hours and Isfahan's power supply was uninterrupted, he added. A cellophane factory also caught fire on Sunday in the northeastern province of Eastern Azerbaijan, IRNA said. Two firefighters suffered injuries while battling that blaze, the province's fire brigade was quoted as saying. The incidents are the latest in a string of fires and explosions at military and civilian sites across Iran in recent weeks.
Two explosions rocked Tehran in late June, one near a military site and the other in a health center, the latter killing 19 people. Fires or blasts also hit a shipyard in southern Iran last week, a factory south of Tehran with two dead and the Natanz nuclear complex in central Iran earlier this month. Iranian authorities called the Natanz fire an accident without elaborating and later said they would not reveal the cause, citing "security reasons." The string of fires and explosions have prompted speculation in Iran that they may be the result of sabotage by arch enemy Israel.
Israel accuses the Islamic republic of seeking to acquire a nuclear bomb while Tehran insists its nuclear program is entirely peaceful.

Iran Halts Execution of 3 Convicted over November Protests
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 19/2020
Iran has halted the executions of three young men linked to deadly November protests, sentences which had sparked widespread outrage, one of the accused's lawyers told AFP on Sunday. Last week a court had upheld their death sentences over evidence the judiciary said was found on their phones of them setting alight banks, buses and public buildings during the wave of anti-government demonstrations. "We conveyed a request to review the verdict to the supreme court and they have accepted it," the lawyer, Babak Paknia, said over the phone. "We hope the verdict will be overturned." The lawyer identified the three as friends Amirhossein Moradi, a 26-year-old retail worker, Said Tamjidi, a 28-year-old driver for Snapp (Iran's Uber), and Mohammad Rajabi, also 26 and unemployed. They were sentenced to death for "collusion to endanger national security" and "destroying and setting fire to public property with the aim of confronting the political system of the Islamic republic," said Paknia, who represents Moradi. The trio had also received prison sentences on other convictions including theft and leaving the country illegally, he added. The demonstrations erupted on November 15 after authorities more than doubled fuel prices overnight, exacerbating economic hardship in the sanctions-hit country. They rocked a handful of cities before spreading to at least 100 urban centers across the Islamic republic. Petrol pumps were torched, police stations attacked and shops looted before security forces stepped in amid a near-total internet blackout.
'Very hopeful'
A senior Iranian lawmaker said in June that 230 were killed and thousands injured during the protests. Authorities had for months refused to provide casualty figures, rejecting tolls given by foreign media and human rights groups as "lies."London-based rights group Amnesty International has put the number of deaths at 304, and a group of independent UN rights experts said in December that 400 could have been killed, including at least 12 children, based on unconfirmed reports. The United States has claimed that more than 1,000 were killed in the violence. Four lawyers representing the accused said they were "very hopeful" that the verdicts would be overturned. In a statement published by state news agency IRNA, they noted that "one of the judges at the supreme court had opposed the verdicts before." Paknia also appeared optimistic, saying the process to overturn the verdicts "could take a few months". The lawyer said the defense team planned to make a request to Iran's chief justice if their current push does not succeed. Numerous calls had spread online since the verdict was announced, using the hashtag #DontExecute to call for a halt to executions in the country. Judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili said at the time that the verdict could still change over "extraordinary proceedings," pointing to a legal clause that could trigger a retrial if deemed necessary by the chief justice. A group of U.N. rights experts had urged Iran on Thursday to overturn the sentences. "Today we join hundreds of thousands of Iranians on social media who condemned these death sentences," said more than a dozen independent U.N. experts on issues including arbitrary executions, freedom of assembly and torture. France said it was "deeply shocked" by the verdicts and reaffirmed its "steadfast opposition to the death penalty."U.S. President Donald Trump also weighed in, tweeting that executing "these three people sends a terrible signal to the world and should not be done!"

Five dead, 85 wounded in car bomb attack in Syria’s Azaz: Reports
Reuters/Sunday 19 July 2020
A car bomb attack in northwestern Syria’s Azaz region killed five people and wounded 85 others, Turkey’s state-owned Anadolu agency said on Sunday. The incident took place in the village of Siccu, across the border from Turkey’s southern province of Kilis, Anadolu said.
It said 15 of the wounded had been brought to a hospital in Turkey and that some were in critical condition. Azaz has been under the control of rebels backed by Turkey since Ankara’s first incursion into Syria in 2016, in an operation that aimed to drive away ISIS militants and the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia from its border with Syria. Ankara regards the US-backed YPG as a terrorist organization. The operation ended in 2017. In another development, Syria held a parliamentary election on Sunday, gripped by a collapsing economy and new US sanctions after President Bashar al-Assad clawed back control of most of the country. People voted across government territory at more than 7,000 polling stations, including for the first time in former opposition bastions that the army has recaptured over the last two years. Assad’s opponents denounced the vote as a farce, nearly a decade into a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and made millions refugees.
 

Syrians Vote for New Parliament
Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 19 July, 2020
Syrians voted Sunday to elect a new parliament as the regime grapples with international sanctions and a crumbling economy after retaking large parts of the war-torn country. More than 7,400 polling stations opened across government-held parts of Syria, including for the first time in former opposition strongholds, the electoral commission said. President Bashar al-Assad's Baath party and its allies are expected to take most of parliament's 250 seats in the third such polls to be held since the war started nine years ago. In Damascus, dozens of voters -- some in face masks to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus -- headed to polling stations to cast their ballots, an AFP correspondent said. Inside one center, several posted their choice in a sealed envelope into a plastic ballot box, as organizers in face coverings and gloves looked on. Nearby, volunteers carried the programs and pictures of their candidates of choice, and tried to draw in passersby to come in a vote. Hana Sukriye, 29, an employee at the finance ministry, said she was voting for the first time in her life. "My vote alone won't make a difference, but if we all come together to choose worthy candidates, there will be an impact and change," she said. "Everybody needs to choose now so that they can later hold accountable and object to the performance of candidates who get elected" if necessary. On the eve of the polls, one person was killed and another wounded in a blast in Damascus, state news agency SANA said, but the cause of the explosion was not immediately clear. Several lists were allowed to run across the country but any real opposition is absent, and the ruling Baath party is expected to retain its hegemony. Portraits of the contenders have been displayed across the capital for weeks, with the 1,658 candidates including several prominent businessmen. The elections, twice postponed from April due to the coronavirus pandemic, come at a time when most Syrians are worried about the soaring cost of living. Many candidates are running on programs pledging to tackle inflation and improve infrastructure ravaged by the conflict. For the first time, voting will take place in territory retaken by the government, including in the Eastern Ghouta region outside Damascus and in the south of Idlib province in the country's northwest. In the last polls in 2016, turnout stood at 57 percent.

Israel Approves Pipeline Deal to Sell Gas to Europe
Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 19 July, 2020
The Israeli government on Sunday approved an agreement with European countries for the construction of a subsea pipeline that would supply Europe with natural gas from the eastern Mediterranean. The Eastmed pipeline, which has been in planning for several years, is meant to transport gas from offshore Israel and Cyprus to Greece and on to Italy. A deal to build the project that was signed in January between Greek, Cypriot and Israeli ministers had still required final approval in Israel. The countries aim to reach a final investment decision by 2022 and have the 6 billion euro ($6.86 billion) pipeline completed by 2025 to help Europe diversify its energy resources. A land and sea survey is currently underway to determine the route of the 1,900-km (1,200-mile) pipeline. The European Union and the pipeline's owner IGI Poseidon, a joint venture between Greek gas firm DEPA and Italian energy group Edison, have each invested 35 million euros in the planning. "The government approval of the framework agreement for laying the Israel-Europe natural gas pipeline is another historic milestone for making Israel an energy exporter," said Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz. The pipeline is planned to initially carry 10 billion cubic meters of gas a year with the possibility of eventually doubling the capacity.

Iraq’s PM to Arrive in Saudi Arabia Amid ‘Great Expectations’
Baghdad, Riyadh- Fadhel al-Nashmi and Abdul Hadi Habtoor/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 19 July, 2020
Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi will arrive in Saudi Arabia on Monday in an official visit taken upon the invitation of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Kadhimi will be accompanied by a delegation of high-ranking officials and ministers, Iraqi official sources said, expecting great results from the visit. Iraqi ambassador to Saudi Arabia Qahtan al-Janabi said that Kadhimi will visit Saudi Arabia in the “coming days” to discuss bilateral relations between the two countries and develop Iraq’s relationship with its Arab neighbors. Janabi said that an Iraqi delegation headed by Iraqi Finance Minister Ali Abdul-Amir Allawi had arrived in Saudi Arabia to get a head start with the meetings of the Saudi-Iraqi Coordination Council. “It is expected that the visit, which is the first for the PM outside Iraq, will have significant positive results at the level of bilateral relations between the two countries, and we expect to develop and strengthen these relations to the level that meets the ambition of the leadership in the two countries, and the level of ambition of the two neighboring brotherly peoples,” Janabi told Asharq Al-Awsat. Janabi asserted that the visit will primarily aim to develop Iraq’s relations with its Arab neighbors, and will also discuss regional and global issues, including the coronavirus pandemic. On Sunday, before heading to Saudi Arabia, Kadhimi is expected to meet with the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif in Baghdad. Iraqi Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ahmed Al-Sahaf told Asharq Al-Awsat that Zarif will meet Iraqi leaders and the foreign minister. Kadhimi is also planning to visit Washington this month to launch the second round of the US-Iraq strategic dialogue that is the first of its kind in more than a decade. They aim to put all bilateral issues on the table, including the faltering Iraqi economy and the possible withdrawal of US troops.

Libya’s GNA Says Russian Detainees to Be Released Soon
Moscow- Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 19 July, 2020
The Russian Foreign Ministry said Saturday it had received written assurances from Libya's Government of National Accord – led by Fayez al-Sarraj - that two Russian nationals imprisoned in Tripoli would be released soon, according to Russia Today.
The two Russians, who are employees of Russia's Foundation for National Values Protection, were detained in Libya in May of last year. "As a result of our persistent efforts, we have recently received written assurances from Foreign Minister Mohamed Siala of Libya's Government of National Accord that the issue related to our citizens would be settled soon," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement. Notably, they were accused of espionage, carrying out practices that undermine the state’s security, and trying to tamper with the upcoming general election.

Palestinians Demand ICC Investigation Into Israeli Crimes
Ramallah- Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 19 July, 2020
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki affirmed that Palestine is pressing to accelerate the issuance of a decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) First Pre-Trial Chamber's judges regarding the geographical jurisdiction of Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to start an official investigation in the Palestinian territories. Maliki said that the Palestinian Authority demanded that the ICC set a date to announce its decision regarding the geographical jurisdiction of Bensouda. The ICC decided to adjourn without opening an investigation against Tel Aviv over possible war crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territories. The ICC pre-trial was supposed to assess if Bensouda has the authority to open an investigation into war crimes by Israel. The main topics to be brought before the court are the settlements and the large-scale Israeli aggression waged on the Gaza Strip in 2014.
He added that Palestine is ready to fully cooperate with the ICC to open an official and comprehensive investigation into Israeli war crimes. "The question remains, will Israel cooperate with the court? We don’t expect that," he said. The PM said that Palestine has offered to sign agreements with the ICC to facilitate the court's investigation of Israeli war crimes in the Palestinian territories. Dr. Omar Awadallah, head of public administration for UN human rights organizations at the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that the process of making decisions in this regard is imminent. He added that the occupation authorities are trying to divert the investigations and give it a political print. Yet, he stressed the legality of the investigation and its importance in defending the rights of Palestinians in their occupied territories. Further, Awadallah asserted that internal reports of ICC and outcomes of the international investigation committees prove that the occupation has committed crimes on the occupied lands, including the settlements and annexation plan.

Saudi Pursues, through Interpol, Fugitive Ex-Official Accused of Corruption
Riyadh - Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 19 July, 2020
As part of the Kingdom’s efforts to counter corruption, Saudi inspectors are pursuing a former corrupt official who escaped to Canada. Saad Al-Jabri, the former top Saudi official, and a group of men he led while he was working at the Ministry of Interior wasted $11 billion in government funds, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). The Saudi authorities issued extradition requests and requested Interpol for a notice. US intelligence agencies sources who spoke to WSJ said al-Jabri, who is now an international fugitive, ran a special interior ministry fund that was focused on high-level counter-terrorism efforts. The paper said he had misspent $11 billion over 17 years to pay himself, his family, and acquaintances in bonuses. “Al-Jabri, a 61-year-old with a doctorate in computer science, was the effective No. 2 in the Interior Ministry, which was run for years by Prince Muhammad bin Naif.”
“Al-Jabri ran a special ministry fund that mixed government spending on high-priority antiterrorism efforts with bonuses for al-Jabri and others, according to documents reviewed by the Journal and interviews with Saudi officials and Mr. Jabri’s confidants,” the WSJ report read. “In the 17 years he oversaw the fund, $19.7 billion flowed through it. The government claims $11 billion was spent improperly through overpayments on contracts or was diverted to destinations including overseas bank accounts controlled by al-Jabri, his family and his associates,” the report said. Documents seen by the WSJ and corroborated by corporate filings in Saudi Arabia showed that the funds originating from the special unit was funneled through a company called Technology Control Co. which was funded by the ministry itself but also owned at times by al-Jabri’s brother, his nephew and two close associates. “Technology Control was transferred to the government. Saudi investigators discovered that the Interior Ministry paid the company more than $11,000 a piece for 2,000 secure landline and mobile phones that cost $500 to manufacture, according to the people familiar with the investigation. The equipment was later discarded because it didn’t work well,” the WSJ reported citing people familiar with the investigation from Saudi Arabia.

Erdogan Visits Hagia Sofia after Reconversion to Mosque
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 19/2020
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid a surprise visit to Hagia Sofia on Sunday just days before the first Muslim prayers are due to be held at the Istanbul landmark since it was reconverted to a mosque last week. In a lightning visit billed as an inspection, Erdogan took stock of the conversion work, the president's office said, providing pictures showing scaffolding inside the building. Diyanet, the country's religious authority, said Christian icons would be curtained off and unlit "through appropriate means during prayer times." It was unclear whether Erdogan planned to be among some 500 worshipers set to attend Friday prayers. Turkey's top court paved the way for the conversion in a decision to revoke the edifice's museum status conferred nearly a century ago. The sixth-century building had been open to all visitors, regardless of their faith, since its inauguration as a museum in 1935. Earlier this week, Diyanet said the building would continue to be open to all visitors outside the hours given over to prayer. The UNESCO World Heritage site was built as a cathedral during the Byzantine empire but converted into a mosque after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It was designated a museum in a key reform of the post-Ottoman authorities under the modern republic's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Erdogan said last year it had been a "very big mistake" to convert the Hagia Sophia into a museum. The reconversion sparked anger among Christians and tensions between historic foes and uneasy NATO allies Turkey and Greece.

Turkey: Divisions in Erdogan’s Party
Ankara - Saeed Abdulrazek/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 19 July, 2020
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) has recently witnessed divisions as the opposition said the authorities have an intention to hold early elections. A total of 15 members resigned from the party in objection to Erdogan’s policies on different matters. AKP has lost around 16,000 of its members since the local elections in Turkey in March 2019. It also lost 129,808 members between June 2019 and February 2020. Deputy president of the parliamentary group of the Good Party Lotfi Turkan said early elections are likely. In a statement on Saturday, he said that the economic and promotion campaigns led by AKP are an introduction to snap polls. Turkan said while the country awaits tangible solutions for several problems, officials are preoccupied with imposing restrictions on social media networks. According to him, AKP is endeavoring to divert people’s attention by introducing discussions on valueless matters instead of economic issues. A survey showed that 77.3 percent of Turks reject holding early elections while 10.1 percent back it. Meanwhile, a total of 12.6 percent is indecisive. More than half of party voters requested from the Republican People's Party, the Peoples' Democratic Party and the Good Party to go for early elections. However, followers of the Democracy and Progress Party – led by Ali Babacan – and Future Party that is headed by former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu rejected this proposal.

Rojava Accuses Turkey of Smuggling ISIS Wives
Qamishli - Berlin - Kamal Sheikho - Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 19 July, 2020
The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava, accused Turkey of smuggling and receiving ISIS members and their families and supporting the terror group’s cells while crippling the counter-ISIS efforts of the international coalition and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Abdulkarim Omar, co-chair of the Foreign Relations Commission of the Rojava, stressed that Turkey’s admission to smuggling a Moldavian ISIS wife and her four children represents hard evidence that the country is involved with extremist cells. The SDF had captured 24 individuals suspected of being ISIS recruits as part of its second phase of countering terror. The Rojava, in a statement, pointed out to documented evidence that confirms Turkey’s involvement with ISIS. In its statement, the Rojava said that Ankara helping save a Moldavian woman and her children from al-Hol camp is dangerous evidence that Turkey continues to seek revitalizing ISIS in the region. The Turkish intelligence had “freed” the woman and her four children from the camp, where ISIS wives and family members are held in northeastern Syria, Anadolu reported on July 17. The Turkish state-run agency claimed that the woman, “Natalia Barkal,” had traveled to Syria with her husband and children in 2013 to “do business.” Anadolu didn’t clarify what type of business would take an entire family to a war-torn country. The identity of her husband or his whereabouts also were not disclosed. According to Turkey’s claims, Barkal and her four children were illegally held in al-Hol by Kurdish forces. The Turkish intelligence “freed” them upon an official request from Moldavian authorities. Al-Hol, which is located in eastern al-Hasakah, is hosting 67,000 people, including 40,000 family members of ISIS fighters. An entire section of the camp is dedicated for foreign wives of ISIS terrorists. The camp is run by the US-backed SDF. Omar, for his part, said that all women who escaped the camp had headed towards Turkey. According to investigations into women who attempted escaping, they were planning to head to Turkey. SDF authorities at the camp thwarted the attempt of four women to escape with their children two days ago.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 19-20/2020

The United Nations' Institutional Racism
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/July 19, 2020
There is simply a whopping international double-standard here on what passes as institutional racism and what does not -- and it needs to be acknowledged.
At the very least, people might question whether an organization that has made discrimination against one country in the world one of its operating principles... is worth the exorbitant cost. The United States, for instance, as the organization's single largest donor, in 2018 funded the UN to the tune of $10 billion.
At a minimum, instead of paying a mandatory "slightly less than one-fifth of the body's collective budget" every year, the US -- and the UN -- would fare far better if the US paid for what it wanted and got what it paid for. At present, the UN has long ceased being a force for good and is being used, first, to prop up its majority of un-transparent, unaccountable anti-democratic despots, and second, to perpetuate conflicts -- largely at the US taxpayers' expense.
All those who truly care about the eradication of discrimination and racism should ask themselves why, if racism is unacceptable everywhere else, it should still be a matter of course at the UN.
The systematic discrimination of the United Nations is too obvious to ignore. There is simply a whopping international double-standard here on what passes as institutional racism and what does not -- and it needs to be acknowledged. Pictured: The Secretariat Building at United Nations headquarters in New York. (Image source: UN)
As accusations of "institutional" racism in organizations, professions, universities and cultural institutions continue to make the headlines, no one is calling out the institutional racism of the United Nations (UN).
What is institutional racism? The first entry on Google tells you, "Institutional racism is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization".
If you google "racism", a Google dictionary defines it as:
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized".
The UN counts all the states in the world as its members, and all are ostensibly equal under international law, to which the UN claims to adhere. According to its own rationale, therefore, all the member states in the UN should be treated equally by the organization's various bodies and be judged according to the same standards. If the UN would systematically single out a minority of only one member state to be condemned for alleged human rights abuses for example, while completely ignoring the documented human rights abuses of an entire host of member states, this double-standard would amount to systematic discrimination, or "racism", against that state according to the definition of "institutional racism" mentioned above.
This form of systematic discrimination, or "racism", is in fact what the UN has been engaging in for decades against one country, Israel, a tiny state of roughly 8.7 million citizens – with a landmass roughly the size of New Jersey -- out of a total world population of 7.8 billion people:
The UN General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the UN Commission on Human Rights have passed a large number of resolutions and decisions against Israel. According to the human rights non-governmental organization (NGO), UN Watch:
"Every year, the General Assembly adopts some 20 resolutions against Israel and only 5 or 6 against the rest of the world combined, with one each on Iran, Syria and North Korea. The General Assembly adopts zero resolutions on systematic abusers like Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia".
The discrimination is too obvious to ignore. There are 193 member states in the UN. For 20 resolutions a year to be lobbed at the only democratic country in the Middle East, which actually observes human rights and equality under the law -- but only 5 or 6 at the remaining 192 states, which include major violators of international law such as China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Nigeria and Iran -- speaks of an extremely ingrained form of state-sponsored discrimination or "racism".
China, a state of 1.4 billion people, continues to be the number one executioner in the world, according to Amnesty International. The Chinese Communist regime ruthlessly persecutes ethnic and religious minorities, and withholds from its own citizens the most basic human rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly, as previously reported by Gatestone Institute. Every one of those rights is enshrined in the UN's own conventions and declarations. In addition, China continues to occupy Tibet, which it invaded in 1950, and where it has moved millions of ethnic Chinese to "Sinicize" the area -- in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that an occupying power may not "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Even though China is a leading violator of international law and one of the most outrageous abusers of human rights, neither the General Assembly nor the UNHRC has condemned its actions.
There are countless other examples of UN member states who do not live up to even a fraction of the UN's treaties and declarations of human rights, yet those countries are never called out. The UNHRC has not passed a single resolution against Saudi Arabia, for instance, a country of more than 33 million people that largely continues to operate according to medieval human rights standards, despite the efforts of Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman to effect some reforms. Last year, the kingdom surpassed its own record for executions, according to Amnesty International, when it beheaded 184 people. Saudi Arabia only decided to end flogging a few months ago. The desert country, which takes up most of the Arabian Peninsula, also still operates a male guardianship system, which treats women as legal minors, so that they usually can only travel and perform the most mundane tasks, such as applying for a passport, under the supervision of a male guardian.
The UNHRC has not passed a single human rights resolution against Egypt, one of the top 5 most prolific executioners in 2019. There are countless other examples of countries with atrocious human rights records that are not only not called out by the UN and its human rights bodies, but actually serve on those bodies; countries such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia, which all currently serve on the UN Human Rights Council.
In contrast, Israel's perceived and alleged crimes feature as a permanent item on the UNHRC's agenda, the so-called Item 7 Agenda, so that when the UNHRC is in session, Israel is always condemned. No other country, no matter how wanton its human rights abuses, is singled out.
Israel is also singled out in several other UN bodies, such as UNESCO, which set about systematically renaming ancient Jewish sites as if they were Muslim sites. The area of the Western Wall -- a retaining wall which is all that remains of the Jewish Second Temple that was destroyed by the Roman Legions in 70 CE, was renamed by UNESCO "The Al-Buraq Plaza", after the steed that the Islamic Hadiths wrote carried Muhammad to the heavens and back. UNESCO has also renamed the Jewish sites of the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem and Hebron's Tomb of the Patriarchs as "Palestinian sites." UNESCO "deeply regrets" that Israel has refused to remove the sites from its national heritage list.
Even the UN's World Health Organization (WHO), at its annual assembly, assigns Israel its own separate agenda item, number 14. In it, every year, Israel is condemned as a violator of "Palestinian health rights" in the "Occupied Palestinian Territories, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan".
The UN's Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) "dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women", also routinely singles out Israel for condemnation for "violating women's rights", while countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia and Iran, some of the world's most dangerous countries for women, are not even mentioned. Not only is there no condemnation of Saudi Arabia -- where women are still treated as legal minors, and where campaigners for basic women's rights face long prison sentences -- but Saudi Arabia was even elected to the CSW a few years ago to assist in the task of "promoting women's rights".
Regrettably, almost all UN member states, apart from the United States, appear to find this discriminatory treatment of just one country in the world to be completely normal and as matters should be. There is simply a whopping international double-standard here on what passes as institutional racism and what does not -- and it needs to be acknowledged.
Ironically, the institutional racism against Israel at the UN takes the focus away from countries that are in acute need of scrutiny -- which is possibly the reason for its success. Countries where women have few to no rights, where political opponents are tortured and stashed away in prisons or killed, and where people cannot speak their minds freely, get a pass. At the very least, people might question whether an organization that has made discrimination against one country in the world one of its operating principles -- as institutionalized in permanent agenda items and almost ritual condemnations -- is worth the exorbitant cost. The United States, for instance, as the organization's single largest donor, in 2018 funded the UN to the tune of $10 billion.
At a minimum, instead of paying a mandatory "slightly less than one-fifth of the body's collective budget" every year, the US -- and the UN -- would fare far better if the US paid for what it wanted and got what it paid for. At present, the UN has long ceased being a force for good and is being used, first, to prop up its majority of un-transparent, unaccountable anti-democratic despots, and second, to perpetuate conflicts -- largely at the US taxpayers' expense. The money saved could be put to better use repatriating American businesses and protecting the free world from America's most predatory adversaries.
Finally, all those who truly care about the eradication of discrimination and racism should ask themselves why, if racism is unacceptable everywhere else, it should still be a matter of course at the UN.
*Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Europe's response to Islamist extremism is encouraging but not enough
Damien McElroy/The National/July 19/2020
Europe has awakened to the challenges posed by networks of political Islamist movements within its social and political institutions. Country after country is moving to address the particular challenges of groups operating within the law but working steadily to challenge the common values underpinning the system.
In doing so, the policy makers are focusing beyond the threat of terrorism that has dominated global security responses for two decades. Instead, there is a wider issue at play. How does the state gain insight about, and ultimately sanction, groups that exert ideological control over segments of the population?
Since many of the people targeted by European groups are immigrants, or from migrant backgrounds, there is a longer-term calculation to make about how society is evolving. No nation wants to deal with a situation in which different communities live largely separate existences.
The most pressing concerns on the continent surround the Muslim Brotherhood, the Turkish state’s "consular" reach into its diaspora and Iran’s intelligence network there.
Last week the French government relaunched its state of the nation agenda around tackling Islamism. It has promised legislation to target activity directed against the republican traditions of the state. The Austrian government separately launched an observatory that has been tasked with monitoring Islamist activities within the public sphere. This month a committee of Dutch parliamentarians submitted an urgent report calling for an urgent official response to underground Brotherhood networks in the country.
There has been fierce pressure on the Swedish government to intervene to prevent exploitation of public schools and even kindergartens. Known Islamist extremists have been receiving state money to work as head teachers but are not providing recognised and standard Swedish education. Denmark’s intelligence and security services have reported their concerns over ideological hostility to the kingdom within certain community organisations.
Last week a report from the Slovakia-based think tank Globsec Policy Institute noted that the Brotherhood’s pan-European Federation of Islamic Organisations (FIOE) in Europe has set up a central and eastern Europe division. It echoed the concerns of Britain’s Middle East minister James Cleverly, who said that the Brotherhood would capitalise on the hardships brought on by Covid-19 to broaden its influence.
The Brotherhood tops the list of groups that exert this kind of influence. Its mindset is a threat to social integration and cohesion in Europe.
Within Europe, the Doha-based chief ideologue Yusuf Al Qaradawi has directly instructed the chapters not to directly engage in terrorism – but only for the practical reason that he does not think it would prevail. In the eyes of many Europe intelligence agencies, however, the Brotherhood creates a fertile environment for other groups to build on for radicalisation purposes.
According to the leading researcher in the field, Lorenzo Vidino, author of the book The Closed Circle – Joining and Leaving the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, European governments are increasingly going on the offensive to defend their constitutional systems from Islamist influence.
When the British-based Anas Al Tikriti appeared before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in 2016, he claimed that the UK did not have a Muslim Brotherhood organisation. But Mr Al Tikriti, who runs an advisory group that supposedly aims to "bridge the gap of understanding between the Muslim world and the West”, conceded that the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) did espouse its basic tenets.
Mr Vidino’s book states that there is an extensive European Muslim Brotherhood that makes membership arduous to gain and even more traumatic to leave.
In a 2018 report, the influential French think tank Institut Montaigne profiled the spread of the Brotherhood. It said the programme of expansion was built on a militant logic and its definition of Muslim citizenship to which its adherents belonged. This has allowed activists to focus on issues of identity, education, inclusiveness and their own broadly drawn concepts of Islamophobia.
This has also allowed Brotherhood-controlled groups to have both a subversive agenda and to interpose as an interlocutor between the state and community groups. For this purpose, organisations such as the MAB, FIOE and others have become power brokers that influence politicians and the media. In France there is Union of Islamic Organisations of France and in Italy there is the Union of Islamic Communities and Organisations.
A common trait is the exploitation of charitable status by the organisations to advance their outreach. It was notable, for instance, that Qatar had made substantial contributions to the Italian branch of the Brotherhood as Rome struggled to contain its Covid-19 outbreak.
While it is encouraging that European governments have mobilised themselves to tackle the problem at home, that is only half the story. The Institut Montaigne makes the concluding point that it is also necessary for the European Commission and its member-states to set this policy at the heart of the continent's diplomatic agenda. Without broad recognition that Islamist extremism is a common threat, European foreign policy fails to distinguish between friend and foe in an appropriate way. That is the ultimate dividing line.
*Damien McElroy is the London bureau chief of The National

The Founding Fathers Would’ve Been Pro-Face Mask
Justin Fox/Bloomberg/July, 19/2020
During a smallpox outbreak in March 1662, officials in East Hampton, near the eastern tip of New York’s Long Island, tried to cut off movement between the town and surrounding Indian villages. “It is ordered that no Indian shall come to town into the street after sufficient notice upon penalty of 5s. or be whipped until they be free of the smallpox,” they decreed. Town residents who visited nearby “wigwams” were to suffer the same punishment.
Year-round residents of East Hampton might have welcomed such a restriction this March, when rich New Yorkers fled the city for their summer homes in the Hamptons and elsewhere, in some cases bringing the new coronavirus with them. Now, the states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are requiring travelers from 22 states where Covid-19 is on the rise to self-quarantine for 14 days after arrival. No whippings await those who flout the rules, but a fine of up to $10,000 might.
The limitations on movement, commerce and fashion (by which I mean face-mask mandates) that have been imposed to fight Covid-19 in the US this year have been decried in some quarters as unprecedented and unconstitutional affronts to liberty. As is apparent from the historical example above, there’s nothing unprecedented about restricting freedom in the name of fighting infectious disease. There’s nothing unconstitutional either: The US Supreme Court explicitly endorsed state quarantine powers in 1824, and though citizens have occasionally challenged the application of those powers as violations of the due process clauses of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, they have usually lost their court cases.
Still, it is at least conceivable that some measures used this year to slow the spread of Covid-19 have been so harsh and so disproportionate that they represent a break with this country’s disease-fighting history and values. A couple of questions posed recently on Newsmax by Stephen B. Presser, an emeritus professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and a critic of coronavirus lockdowns, put matters nicely if hyperbolically in focus:
Would George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, or Thomas Jefferson wear facemasks?
Would they have closed down American society, abrogating all constitutional rights and freedoms out of fear of a pandemic?
The answer to the first is easy. Yes, they probably would wear face masks. Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson were all creatures of the Enlightenment, firm believers in science and in progress. Not every Founding Father was like that (John Adams had his doubts about progress), but the three that Presser cites certainly were.
All three were pro-vaxxers, for example. As commanding general of the Continental Army, Washington required in 1777 that all his soldiers be inoculated against smallpox by infecting them with mild cases of the disease, leaving his right-hand man Hamilton to tangle with officers who balked at the edict. Then, after English doctor Edward Jenner introduced vaccination with cowpox, a largely harmless disease that conferred immunity to smallpox, Jefferson enthusiastically embraced the practice as president, conducting trials of the vaccine on his family and neighbors, disseminating it among Native American tribes and promoting the career of the Boston doctor who was Jenner’s chief American disciple. In 1813, Jefferson’s successor and political ally James Madison signed into law a Vaccine Act that made maintaining an adequate supply of smallpox vaccine a federal responsibility and provided free postage for its distribution.
With face masks there is no “proof” in the form of randomized controlled trials that they slow the spread of Covid-19, but there is by now a growing pile of persuasive evidence and a firming scientific consensus that widespread mask-wearing probably helps a lot in keeping the disease under control. It is difficult to imagine Washington, Hamilton or Jefferson observing such a consensus and not putting on a mask in response.
Abrogating Rights to Fight Disease
Presser’s second question is a little harder to answer. Government officials have many times since the 1600s abrogated some rights and freedoms to fight disease, as they have done again this year. It’s worth noting, though, that the diseases they were fighting in the past — mainly smallpox and yellow fever in the era of the Founding Fathers, with cholera coming along later — were far deadlier on a case-by-case basis than the coronavirus, which has so far killed 4.5% of those with confirmed cases around the world and probably something under 1% of those infected. The most common variant of smallpox has a fatality rate of 30%, yellow fever’s ranges from 15% to 50%, and cholera, while not very dangerous now if treated, kills half of those afflicted without treatment.
Smallpox was the first big threat, plaguing colonists — and, even more, the Native Americans they encountered — from the beginnings of European settlement. The disease spreads through close contact with those who have it and their clothing and blankets, and the colonists appear to have understood this well. In 1678, the selectmen of Salem, Massachusetts, ordered a smallpox sufferer named William Stacy to confine himself to home for three weeks and then “shift his clothes” afterward. In 1763, Jeffery Amherst, the top British military commander in the colonies, infamously suggested to an underling that he infect his Indian adversaries in western Pennsylvania with smallpox-infected blankets.
In the interim, a slave working in the Boston household of famed Puritan preacher Cotton Mather had introduced smallpox inoculation to North America. Onesimus, one of Boston magazine’s “100 Best Bostonians of All Time,” told Mather about the procedure and said it was widely performed in West Africa. The minister then began an inoculation campaign in 1721, overcoming early opposition to make the practice widely accepted in Massachusetts. After Jenner’s cowpox discovery, the state began encouraging towns to offer free smallpox vaccination in 1810, and in 1855 it became the first state to require that children be vaccinated against smallpox in order to attend public school.
Smallpox thus began to recede from the picture. But yellow fever outbreaks gained in frequency in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and after arriving from Europe in 1832 cholera became the worst scourge of all. Yellow fever is spread by mosquitoes and cholera via contaminated drinking water, but doctors didn’t begin to figure out either transmission mechanism until the latter half of the 19th century. The main defense was thus quarantine, with Massachusetts adopting the first such regulation in the colonies in 1647 to combat a “plague” from the Caribbean that was probably yellow fever. The rule required vessels from the West Indies to anchor off an island in Boston harbor and banned crew members from coming onto the mainland or coming within four rods (about 50 feet, or 15 meters) of anyone not from their own ship without permission from local authorities. Some serious social distancing, in other words.
Most of the quarantine efforts that followed were similarly aimed at threats from overseas, with islands by major ports dedicated to holding new arrivals from places experiencing epidemics. In New York, the quarantine location moved over time from Governor’s Island to what is now Liberty Island to Staten Island and finally, after Staten Island residents burned the facilities down in 1858 in the wake of a yellow-fever outbreak, to two artificial islands just south of Verrazzano Narrows.
Over time more and more of the responsibility for this work shifted to the federal government’s Marine Hospital Service, which had been created by Congress in 1798 as a sort of health maintenance organization for American merchant seamen, was rechristened the US Public Health Service in 1912 and lives on today as the umbrella entity for a group of agencies that includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, and Office of the Surgeon General. An 1891 law put the Marine Hospital Service in charge of screening newly arrived immigrants for diseases, and another enacted in 1893 instructed it to station medical officers in ports around the world to head off ships that were harboring infections.
There were domestic quarantines and other measures too, and not just in East Hampton. Some of the toughest were imposed in 1793, when yellow fever devastated Philadelphia, killing thousands of the city’s inhabitants and sending tens of thousands fleeing. With Philadelphia the nation’s temporary capital at the time, Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson were among the refugees. President Washington said later that he had considered staying longer in Philadelphia but didn’t want to endanger his wife, Martha. Secretary of State Jefferson wrote that he was going to stick around because “I do not like to exhibit the appearance of panic,” but ended up leaving a week after Washington. Both were able to make it home to Virginia unscathed and unimpeded.
Treasury Secretary Hamilton and his wife, Eliza, though, came down with the disease. After recovering they headed north to visit her family in Albany, but it wasn’t easy getting there. “At town after town, they had to contend with barriers erected to keep out potentially contagious Philadelphians,” wrote Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow. “Even New York posted guards at entrances to the city to deter fugitives from the plague-ridden capital.” When the couple finally arrived across the Hudson from Albany, they learned that a city ordinance enacted two days earlier banned ferrymen from transporting people from disease areas. It took intense lobbying from Eliza’s father, and examinations by multiple physicians, before they were allowed across.
Nearly a century later, restrictions on domestic travel were still being used to stop yellow fever. In 1879, the Marine Hospital Service established a cordon of quarantine stations from Laredo to Corpus Christi, preventing inhabitants of Texas’s southern tip from traveling northward until they had cooled their heels for 10 days first. In 1888, the agency erected a detention camp near the Florida-Georgia border to hold those fleeing yellow-fever-beset Jacksonville.
For a long time it was believed that yellow fever, cholera and other diseases spread via foul air, so another big priority was improving sanitary conditions, which cities did by banning “noxious” trades such as soap- and glue-making from city centers, ordering property owners to clean up garbage and drain flooded cellars, taxing dogs and otherwise restricting both bad smells and economic freedom.
Not all such efforts were salutary: In New York City, the Tammany Hall Democratic political machine was by the mid-1800s using health inspections as a vehicle for graft, and in Honolulu an attempt in 1900 to stop an outbreak of bubonic plague by burning infested buildings resulted in an out-of-control fire that consumed 35 city blocks, destroying the city’s Chinatown and leaving 6,000 people homeless.
Still, from the 1860s onward local and state health agencies did grow increasingly professionalized just as advances in germ theory enabled them to target their interventions much more effectively. New York City’s mortality rate, which had risen over the first half of the century, began a long, spectacular decline, and other US cities saw similar drops — up until the deadly influenza pandemic of 1918-1919, that is.
Coping With Influenza
Influenza pandemics were nothing new. A giant one swept through Europe and North America in 1781 and 1782 and another in 1789 and 1790, and no I’m not aware of Washington, Hamilton or Jefferson endorsing drastic measures to fight either, even though Washington came down with a pretty severe case as president in the spring of 1790. Controlling the spread of the disease was much harder than with smallpox or yellow fever — by one estimate, three quarters of Europe’s population became infected in 1781 and 1782 — and the risk of dying if you got it was for otherwise healthy people usually quite low. As lexicographer and proto-epidemiologist Noah Webster put it in reference to the especially virulent second wave of the 1789-1790 pandemic: “Many plethoric persons of firm habit almost sunk under it; while consumptive people and hard drinkers fell its victims.”
For most people, and for government officials, the disease was simply something to be endured. Compared with the other health threats they faced in those days, the risk-reward calculations on influenza didn’t seem to justify much action. The last great pandemic before 1918, the “Russian epidemic” of 1889 that a few scientists have suggested was caused by a coronavirus but was probably influenza, had a case-fatality rate that has been estimated between 0.1% and 0.28% and is more or less indetectable in the mortality records of US cities.
The 1918-1919 influenza, which killed an estimated 675,000 people in the US, certainly is detectable in the mortality charts. That’s partly because it was more dangerous than earlier strains: More than 2% of the people who came down with it died, and young adults were among the hardest hit. But the great improvement in overall health conditions also made its effects stand out more. The US mortality rate (in age-adjusted deaths per 100,000 inhabitants) jumped 12% in 1918 — which merely brought it back to about the level of 1900.
The reaction to the pandemic in the US seems to have started out as old-style influenza fatalism, albeit informed by increased knowledge about how the disease spread. When I asked Alex Navarro, a medical historian at the University of Michigan and co-editor of the invaluable online Influenza Encyclopedia, about attitudes as the disease began to spread, he emailed:
In the late summer of 1918, as the influenza epidemic began to take off in the military camps, the general consensus among civilian public health officers was that these outbreaks would be over soon. They almost universally warn residents to cover their coughs, avoid crowds, and avoid panic, and reassure them that it will pass quickly.
After hospitals started filling up and people began dying in large numbers, health officials changed their tune. With the country entangled in a World War and President Woodrow Wilson unwilling to pay heed to the disease, Washington’s role was limited. The two massive mid-20th-century histories of the US Public Health Service from which I got many of historical details in this column give only cursory attention to the 1918 pandemic.
But many cities took significant measures to slow the spread of the flu, from isolating infected people and quarantining their households to closing schools, theaters, pool halls and churches, banning other large gatherings and, yes, mandating the wearing of face masks, whose usefulness in thwarting the spread of infections in hospitals had been established two decades earlier. Most of these rules were in place only briefly, though, and some faced fierce opposition. Owners of shuttered businesses protested in many cities, and in San Francisco an “Anti-Mask League” agitated for the resignation of the mask-mandating mayor.
Afterward, these efforts were not seen as a big success. A major study of the 1918 pandemic published by the American Medical Association in 1927 concluded that while quarantines had kept influenza out of some small towns they were less effective in cities, and that the evidence on school closures, bans on gatherings and face-mask mandates was inconclusive.
In subsequent years, as vaccines and pharmaceutical treatments vanquished once-dreaded disease after once-dreaded disease, such seemingly primitive methods of disease control fell out of fashion. The federal government dismantled most of its infrastructure for keeping diseases out of the country, and the rise of mass international air travel made it seem impractical in any case.
With influenza, scientists first isolated the virus in 1933, and vaccines soon followed. It was then discovered that there were multiple influenza viruses, which mutated over time, limiting the effectiveness of vaccines. But they did reduce the threat. The two worst influenza pandemics of the vaccine era, those of 1957-1958 and 1968, killed an estimated 116,00 and 100,000 Americans respectively, mostly in the absence of interventions other than brief school closures.
The Return of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions
Over the past two decades, though, attitudes have shifted. A key reason was the emergence of new diseases for which there were no pharmaceutical treatments, most notably Covid-19’s coronavirus cousins Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. SARS, which appeared in the Chinese province of Guangdong in November 2002, spread rapidly in several East Asian countries and in Canada before isolation of afflicted patients, quarantines, travel restrictions and near-universal mask-wearing in some places succeeded in bringing it in check by mid-2003.
After that, researchers began re-examining the effectiveness of what they had come to call “nonpharmaceutical interventions.”
A much-cited 2006 modeling study in Nature concluded that case isolation and household quarantine could be extremely effective in mitigating an influenza pandemic, and that school closings might at least slow it down substantially. Two different 2007 studies of pandemic-fighting efforts in US cities in 1918, one co-authored by Navarro, found that, when implemented in a timely fashion, quarantine orders, school closures and public-gathering bans appeared to have reduced deaths from the disease. And in 2007, the CDC made “early, targeted, layered use of nonpharmaceutical interventions,” including what it called “social distancing,” the centerpiece of its strategy for fighting influenza pandemics.
Which brings us, finally, back to Covid-19. It seems to be in the same ballpark as the 1918 influenza in overall fatality rate, but doesn’t pose nearly the danger to young adults. Eighty percent of deaths from it so far in the US have been among those 65 and older. If Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson had been confronted with this exact disease when they were running the then-very-youthful US together in the early 1790s, it seems highly unlikely that they would have endorsed large-scale quarantines and business and school closures to fend it off. (As already noted, I don’t think they would have had any objection to wearing masks.)
Still, there are good reasons we seldom turn to the Founding Fathers for medical advice. Science has progressed a lot since their time, and the infectious diseases that worried them most have been largely defeated, at least in the developed world. Among the threats that remain, Covid-19 is the biggest one to come along in quite a while. The 138,784 American lives it had taken as of Friday are still less as a percentage of the population than the toll of the 1957-1958 or 1968 influenza pandemic, but that’s been in the space of just four-and-a-half months, and in the face of what has to be the most widespread application of nonpharmaceutical interventions ever seen in this country.
Some of those interventions have surely been more effective — and cost-effective — than others. With the benefit of hindsight and several months of research into how Covid-19 spreads, it seems like stay-at-home orders are probably excessive, as are “nonessential business” closures that fail to differentiate between businesses likely to be hotbeds of disease spread (bars) and those that aren’t (garden centers). The efficacy of school closures also remains a topic of much debate. But it’s clear from looking around the world that the countries that treated Covid-19 as a disease to be contained like smallpox or yellow fever have fared much better than those that by policy or by default have let it wash over them like influenza. Also, even just delaying the disease’s spread has great value in an environment where doctors can quickly develop better ways to treat patients, and new pharmaceutical treatments and maybe even vaccines can be ready in a matter of months. This isn’t the late 1700s, happily enough. We can do better.

The World Is Masking Up, Some Are Opting Out
Elaine He and Lionel Laurent/Bloomberg/July, 19/2020
Nothing symbolizes our battle with the novel coronavirus like the face mask — it’s the most visible, humbling and contentious reminder of the deadly, invisible invader that we must live with until we find a vaccine.
In 2020, wearing a mask in cities like New York, London or Paris has gone from being a marker of the paranoid or vulnerable to the badge of the conscientious in the era of Covid-19. Even US President Donald Trump put one on after previously disparaging them. Several studies suggest face coverings help — provided they’re properly made, maintained and worn — in limiting the spread of tiny exhaled particles carrying the coronavirus.
Still, not everyone’s wearing them.
The initial guidance from health officials was confusing, with many saying masks were only necessary for medical professionals or people exhibiting symptoms of infection. Or that only certain types of masks were effective. A shortage of supplies didn’t help either.
A survey early on in the pandemic by Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research found that mask-wearing in the West lagged far behind other precautions, such as keeping one’s distance from other people, regularly washing one’s hands and avoiding public transport.
Facebook users in eight countries showed a lot of conformity in protective behaviors, except for mask wearing, where they diverged.
But as the health advice evolved to emphasize wearing masks, so did some personal practices. Pollster YouGov has been surveying people’s self-reported mask-wearing habits globally and three distinct patterns emerge from the findings.
The trajectory of people who say they’ve worn a mask in public in the past two weeks to protect against Covid-19 falls into three main groups.
All of the areas that had high mask usage to start with, and where the practice of wearing face masks remained elevated in response to the pandemic, are in Asia.
That’s where the Covid-19 outbreak began and where the 2003 SARS outbreak is ingrained in people’s memories. Some places mandated face masks along the way. Japan gave cloth masks out to the public without imposing a draconian lockdown. That alone may have saved lives.
Places that had low mask usage initially, but where adoption subsequently rose, had different experiences of the outbreak. Yet there’s a unifying theme: Usage significantly rose after rules were established around wearing them.
High reported usage in France, where people needed a self-signed permission form to leave home at the height of lockdown, and Spain, where children weren’t allowed outside, reflects high death tolls, strict lockdowns and mandatory mask policies in those countries.
In the US, state politicians and the private sector are taking matters into their own hands: All but two states have at least some mask requirements, according to volunteer organization Masks4All, including New York, which accounts for almost a quarter of the country’s virus death toll. That’s a big reason why more than 70% of Americans report having worn a mask, according to YouGov. Meanwhile, restaurant and retail chains like Walmart Inc., McDonald’s Corp. and Starbucks Corp. are requiring them in their establishments.
Experiences in countries where the virus has remained relatively under control underline the power of clear policies over gentle nudging or relying on people’s common sense.
Germany, lauded for its cautious, consistent handling of the outbreak, saw adoption surge after introducing mask-wearing rules in April. There was a significant jump in Mexico after local governments mandated their use and gave out masks free. Singapore’s level shot up to 90%, from around 23% in early March, after the government ceased discouraging residents from donning face coverings, distributed them free and made them compulsory with a fine for failing to comply.
Then there are the countries where mask usage has stayed low.
In some places, such as Denmark, Finland and Norway, that’s easy to understand. Their Covid-19 outbreaks have been relatively contained, with among the lowest death tolls in the world. So low mask adoption doesn’t necessarily signal a policy failure. After all, masks are only one tool among many, and they’re by no means a panacea where they are in use.
Denmark’s health authority has discouraged mask wearing for healthy people going about their normal lives, questioning its effectiveness and saying it “can cause more harm than good.” There have been concerns that people who cover their mouth and nose may let down their guard or that face coverings may even become a vector for the virus if mishandled.
One Italian study, however, shows masks did encourage people to keep their distance. The US CDC recommends wearing cloth masks as a preventative measure, while a WHO study found an apparent 85% reduction in infection risk when masked.
What’s striking about the low-mask-wearing group is that it includes Nordic neighbor Sweden, where a decision to keep much of society open as the outbreak worsened has led to a considerably higher mortality rate. Even as calls multiply for government measures such as rules on masks, Swedes aren’t taking it upon themselves to wear them.
The UK is even more confounding. It has the highest death toll in Europe, yet only 38% of respondents to YouGov’s latest tracker poll said they wore a mask. They cite many reasons, including staying home, inconsistent guidance and a failure of leaders to be role models. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was only recently pictured wearing a mask for the first time, in spite of overcoming a serious bout with Covid-19 in April.
In general, mask wearing has been the norm in places where fear is much greater.
When clear rules are introduced, such as last month’s public transport requirements in England and Scotland, Brits show they will comply. In fact, an Ipsos MORI survey in April and more recent results from YouGov in July found that though few Brits wear face coverings, a large majority support doing so or would wear them if the government mandated it. As part of efforts to jumpstart the economy, England will follow Scotland in requiring masks be worn in shops starting July 24.
Most countries have some kind of mask recommendation or already have near-universal adoption.
Even rules can become politicized, though, as seen in the US and Latin America, where the stakes are arguably the highest. Strongmen leaders who revel in tough-guy personas don’t generally like face masks: Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro has watered down his own country’s mask law, while Trump’s resistance to wearing a mask (until his recent change of heart) has given succour to American anti-maskers who skew Republican.
All in all, masks are gaining momentum as countries reopen their economies while battling a virus that’s still very much with us. The looming challenge will be overcoming resistance from people who remain unconvinced by their merits or fatigue from those who feel Covid-19 is less of a threat.
As with changing social behavior on safety issues, such as wearing a seatbelt or not driving when drunk, mask adoption will take time and effort. The limits of enforcement will likely lead to more carrot-and-stick approaches: Masks should ideally be free or widely distributed, government messaging should be clearer on where masks are required and why, and fines should be levied where necessary. Masks themselves should become more comfortable and fashionable to wear.
Until we have a vaccine or effective treatment, all countries should be on their guard. Once the mask straps start to loosen, they may do so for good.

How Much Is a College Campus Worth?
Tyler Cowen/Bloomberg/July, 19/2020
A university campus in Vermont has come up for auction. The minimum opening bid for the 155-acre grounds of now-defunct Green Mountain College, appraised four years ago at $20 million, is $3 million.
I can’t afford it myself. Still, I can’t help asking: What if a wealthy benefactor bought the place, started a new college or university, and put really smart people in charge? Could they sidestep the varied problems in higher education today — the high cost, the mediocre teaching, the excess political correctness?
Sadly, I think the answer is no.
First, hiring would be difficult. Even if enough people wanted to move to Vermont, this new university would basically have to re-create the talent pool at other, more established institutions, thus replicating their basic character. If anything, the new school probably would have to hire the malcontents, as they are the most likely to leave their current jobs for a new and untested venture. If you think existing universities have too much infighting and rancor, wait till you see this new project.
You might think that the leaders of the new college could shape and improve the incentives of their faculty. But that isn’t easy. For many talented people, the key incentives are outward-facing — they will be looking to get published and win rewards, prizes and eventually job offers from the outside world. Creating a new institution does not change these basic incentives, for better or worse.
Alternatively, you might try to make their rewards more inward-looking — pay them a big bonus if they contribute to campus life in the right way. But that tends to be expensive and to reward people who are good at gaming the system, again increasing the risk of fractiousness. Nor would it attract academic superstars, who typically excel at marketing themselves to the wider and wealthier outside world.
Maybe you could market your university as a kind of safe haven for professors who were “canceled” for their controversial pronouncements at their previous institutions. That would not change the fact that their larger reputations would remain ruined for some time, however undeservedly.
What possible advantages might the new university have?
Maybe it could economize by hiring relatively few administrators. But that’s not necessarily a selling point for prospective students. In the opening years, what would the school have to offer compared to public universities in such states as Wisconsin or Texas, much less Harvard or Princeton?
The record of new colleges and universities is not encouraging. My home institution, George Mason University, which dates from the 1970s, is one of the relatively few successes. But even with a rapidly growing region behind it and a succession of above-average presidents, it took the school almost 50 years to become recognized as a top research university.
You might wonder why a list of top schools, as measured in 1911, is close to that same list today, except of course that newer schools such as Stanford arose on a West Coast that was rapidly being settled and developed. You couldn’t find the same persistence of quality in any other sector in the US, except perhaps professional baseball.
The issue is how to attract a cluster of talent. Smart people wish to go to Harvard because other smart people go there, and that creates a self-reinforcing dynamic. This is in contrast to the corporate world, where top talent is (sometimes) willing to join risky new ventures because of the financial reward. If you were an early employee at Facebook, for example, you are probably much wealthier now than if you had gone to work for Yahoo or AOL.
Non-profit academic institutions, obviously, are not able to offer new employees options or equity. While the best of them accumulate wealth, they don’t have much in terms of a distributable surplus. For-profit universities, meanwhile and for whatever reasons, have been an unmitigated disaster. Many did not have strong incentives for long-term value creation and are now disgraced or bankrupt.
So, about that auction: It’s scheduled for Aug. 18. I am sorry to report, however, that if you want to create a top new academic institution, you will need to consider a bolder move than buying a slightly used college campus at a steep discount.

World Leaderships Are Nowhere to Be Seen
Eyad Abu Shakra/ Asharq Al-Awsat/July 19/2020
The decision of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to reconvert the Hagia Sophia Museum to a mosque, as it was during the Ottoman era, is an important political move. It is a significant step in Turkey’s attempts to resurrect Ottoman heritage and use it as a source of ‘political legitimacy’ for its ambitious plans in the vast geographic realm occupied by the Ottoman Empire in its heydays between the 16th and 18th centuries.
Sure enough, the decision is within Turkey’s sovereignty, even if one is entitled to criticize it, support it, or contemplate its timing. On the issue of timing, in particular, we must keep in mind that this decision is entwined with Turkey’s political and military presence across the Mediterranean (in Libya) for the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It also concurs with the stationing of Turkish troops in northwest Syria, in addition to Turkish ‘hot pursuit’ attacks in northern Iraq targeting the bases of armed Turkish Kurds there.
On the other hand, the Arab ‘Mashreq’ remains under a continuously growing dark Iranian ‘cloud’, that has since 2003 become a virtual ‘occupation’. Thus, without a serious international intervention, this ‘occupation’ will get stronger and partition the region, unleashing destructive gangs that will destroy themselves and undermine world security.
The assassination of Hisham al-Hashimi, the Iraqi political and security analyst, the growing number of anonymous explosions inside Iran, and freeing the Hezbollah ‘financer’ Qassem Taj al-Din from an American jail, are all noteworthy developments in an ‘exceptional, American election year.
Next comes the Israeli stop. Here, behind the ‘annexation’ plans in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley, are several considerations the most important of which are:
- Finishing off the lame ‘two-states’ solution.
- Consolidating the ‘Jewishness’ of the state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan Valley.
- Unifying Israel's internal front before embarking on the process of drawing the map of regional spheres of influence.
Although there seems to be a declared international opposition to the ‘annexation’ plans, as well as lack of internal consensus, Israel’s relations with the four major global players; i.e. the USA, Russia, China, and the EU, are quite good. So the issue remains in the hands of the Israeli government, and its internal maneuvers, while the ‘big four’ remain preoccupied with their own problems.
Here we reach the most interesting angle.
The truth that needs reiterating is that the three regional powers: Turkey, Iran, and Israel, would never be doing what they have been doing had it not been for two factors:
- The frightening Arab weakness.
- The absence of wise, brave, and responsible world leaderships.
If the Arab weakness is so obvious that it requires no explanation, the ‘absence’ of true leaderships in major capitals is undermining international trust and cooperation, as well as the respect of international resolutions; and is threatening the concepts, institutions, and frameworks that are vital for having a proper ‘world order’.
It is true that enmities and ideological differences were acute during the Cold War, and the resulting global bipolarity; but it was also true there were movements, initiatives, and leaderships that were aware of the dangers of the unknown, so they created checks and controls in global hot spots and flashpoints.
Even lengthy wars, such as those in Indo-China (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), Korea, the Indian sub-continent, Afghanistan, and Africa (the Congo and Angola), were contained, and gave international mediation the useful credibility to be ‘shock absorbers’.
In fact, the nuclear deterrence under the American-Soviet bipolarity may have been the major reason for maintaining that ‘shock absorber’. A proof of this is that after the collapse of the USSR, and global bipolarity, the old world order disappeared without a clearly defined secure replacement.
Another dangerous factor that has emerged is the cyber technology, which has given the major powers smarter and more lethal weapons than the previous military arsenals which were neutralized by the nuclear deterrence.
However, what makes the situation even worse is that the current ‘big four’ plus India – the world’s most populous democracy – either do not believe in democracy as a political system, or disregard diversity, co-existence, and broad consensus. This is happening as future technology threatens traditional jobs, along with the guarantees and rights accorded to the working class.
From the outside, both the Chinese and Russian models practice elections and symbolic devolution of power; however, this is just a façade. There is no real power in China other than the Chinese Communist Party, which has monopolized politics since the days of Mao Zedong. In Russia too, there has been no actual change in the exclusive reign of the sole leader, from the days of ‘tsar’ Peter the Great, through ‘comrade’ Joseph Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin the past, present, and future ‘president’.
In the other camp, democracy is present in the USA, and so are the separation of powers and devolution of power; however, what has happened during the last four years – especially, after the social and economic repercussions of Covid-19 – may usher radical change that undermines national consensus, reopen old wounds, and widen the gap of polarization.
Heading the executive branch is a President who does not believe in consensus, but is obsessed with satisfying his loyal hardcore supporters and solidifying it, rather than broadening his appeal nationally. As for the legislative branch, the Congress is deeply divided between a rightwing Republican-led Senate and a leftwing Democratic-led House of Representatives. Finally, the Supreme Court, which heads the judiciary branch, has relied since 2018 on the single deciding vote of its Chief Justice John Roberts, which decides on key issues against a background of a deep ideological – partisan division between 4 rightwing conservative and 4 leftwing liberal judges.
Well, the situation in Europe is not much better than it is in the USA. Traditional parties of government in Germany, France, and Italy are losing support to populist extreme rightists and utopian and radical leftists; while broad national identities in countries like the UK and Spain are threatened by secessionist momentum fuelled by economic crises and personal ambitions.
Thus, given the fragility of leadership, the failure of parties to cope with unemployment-generating technology, and the complexities of national identities, interests have clashed and actions have become confused, as we have seen with Iran’s nuclear program and the Libyan crisis.
Europe has been directly involved with both Iran’s and Libya’s crises, specifically, with regards to oil and refugees, but still failed to develop a coherent and wise strategy.
As for the Washington, Moscow, and Beijing ‘trio’, it is playing tactics, through maneuvers, adventures, and gambles.

Is India out of Chabahar port project?
Krzysztof Iwanek/Arab News/July 19/2020
Over the past few days, various media outlets have been suggesting that Iran and China will sign a “megadeal” and that, as if by corollary, India will be excluded from the Chabahar port development project. These news stories are less convincing, however, when we break them into pieces. On closer inspection, these reports turn out to be typical media hype and attempts to connect the dots of facts with blurry lines of causation. In reality, neither the Iran-China megadeal is confirmed, nor is there any evidence that India will be left out of the Chabahar port project.
Firstly, the currently reported Iran-China deal should be treated as unconfirmed until officially announced. It was first reported in 2019 by a shady portal of little credibility — Petroleum Economist — and only by it. It is only recently that the deal has been described in a reputed outlet, the New York Times, but the article it published also does not offer any way to corroborate its claims.
The amount of Chinese investment to Iran which was supposedly envisaged in this “megadeal” — $400 billion — appears to be bloated and is not to be blindly trusted either. Even given that the promised sum is to be gradually transferred over 25 years, it would have meant a massive financial commitment by Beijing and a vast multiplication of what China has invested in Iran over the past year — China’s investment in Iran has actually been very modest in the recent past. Most importantly, to date, the deal has not been announced by either Beijing or Tehran. Even when it is, one should patiently watch how it will be put into effect, and this may take years.
Chabahar may emerge as potential regional competition to the Chinese project of developing the nearby Gwadar port in Pakistan. While Islamabad is Beijing’s staunch partner, China’s financial support to the Chabahar project, if successful, would have undercut the geographical leverage that Pakistan enjoys over Afghanistan.
Secondly, there is no proof so far that the fate of the Chabahar port development project is in any way dependent on that “megadeal.” Chabahar is a town in southeast Iran, and the initiative to enlarge the city’s port and its nearby infrastructure is a joint effort of India, Iran and Afghanistan. The gossip about Tehran’s “megadeal” with Beijing offers hardly any concrete details, and the Chabahar project is not an element which has been mentioned in this context so far.
However, when NYT broke the story of the deal on July 11, its shockwave was closely followed by another one: in the next few days, certain news outlets reported that India will be excluded from the Chabahar port project. Once again, no verifiable source for this information is at hand. Certain Indian media, such as WION, The Quint or The Hindu were quick to connect the dots — if only with a blurry line — putting the exclusion next to the megadeal within the same texts. While this has not been stated openly, such articles suggest causation, as if the promise of massive Chinese investment in Iran could have affected an Indian project realized in the Islamic republic.
Thirdly, a look beyond the screaming headlines reveals that even according to these media reports India is to be excluded from the Chabahar rail project, not the Chabahar port development project as a whole. The former envisaged construction of a railway track from Chabahar to Zahedan, an Iranian town close to the border with Afghanistan. As one of the objectives of the Chabahar project is an enhancement of Afghanistan’s connectivity with Iran — and through it with the world — the railway line is certainly a significant aspect of the entire initiative, but not the only one. Leaving Indian entities out of the railway line development would not imply that New Delhi would lose its role in the entire Chabahar project. As the news outlets have also admitted that the exclusion of India from the railway line construction is supposed to be due to its slow progress — as New Delhi was reportedly not wiring the money fast enough — they were actually confirming that there is no evidence that this move was in any way connected to the Iran-China megadeal.
Moreover, the officials from both New Delhi and Tehran have promptly denied that even Indian involvement in the Chabahar-Zahedan railway project has been canceled. This does not have to mean that there are no problems with this initiative. The spokesman of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs has suggested that the blame lies on the other side, declaring that the Tehran authorities were to “nominate an authorized entity to finalize outstanding technical and financial issues” of the railway construction — and that they have not done so since December.
Fourthly, supporting the Chabahar project in its current form would make little sense for Beijing. As mentioned above, the port and its related infrastructure is to enhance connectivity between Iran and Afghanistan. In a broader scheme of things, for Tehran, the port project would enhance the country’s connections with both the world and Afghanistan. For Kabul and New Delhi, one of the main objectives of this initiative is to create an alternative land route to Afghanistan, one which would make this landlocked mountainous country more connected to the world, but also less dependent on transfers via Pakistan, thereby also making India-Afghanistan exchange easier.
It is no coincidence that India had earlier constructed the Zaranj-Delaram road in Afghanistan. This route connects the Afghan “Ring Road,” a highway that links Afghanistan’s four main cities, with the town of Zaranj which lies next to the border with Iran. Zaranj is not far from Zahedan, and thus the establishment of the Zahedan-Chabahar rail link, and an expansion of the Chabahar port are all part of India’s strategy to create routes to Afghanistan that would bypass Pakistan.
These goals, by themselves, are not aimed at Chinese but there is little reason for China to support them either. Indirectly, Chabahar may emerge as potential regional competition to the Chinese project of developing the nearby Gwadar port in Pakistan. While Islamabad is Beijing’s staunch partner, China’s financial support to the Chabahar project, if successful, would have undercut the geographical leverage that Pakistan enjoys over Afghanistan.
*Dr. Krzysztof Iwanek is the head of Asia Research Center at War Studies University, Poland.

China’s new Silk Road passes through Tehran
Baria Alamuddin/Arab News/July 19/2020
As the Russian naval expert Captain Anatoly Ivanov has pointed out: “From the coast of Syria, there is an opportunity to control not only the eastern part, but the entire Mediterranean Sea.” Since time immemorial, whichever empire dominated the Mediterranean — the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, classical Arab civilization, colonialist Europe — enjoyed universal supremacy and vast wealth.
Wrangling for influence in Syria between the new “Axis of Evil” states — Russia, Iran, Turkey and China — is thus part of a wider struggle for supremacy through the Central Asian “Silk Road” into the Mediterranean basin. “The Silk Road is not a silk road if it does not pass through Syria, Iraq and Iran,” according to senior Assad adviser Bouthaina Shaaban — an apparent expression of her regime’s receptiveness to being trampled underfoot by powers seeking to dominate this corridor.
While Russia has a head start with expansive naval facilities at Latakia, China is also seeking access to the Tartus and Latakia seaports via multibillion-dollar investments in infrastructure, telecommunications and energy, complementing Beijing’s existing presence in Greek and Israeli ports. Vladimir Putin is furthermore pursuing expansion of the 2015 accord governing Moscow’s naval presence in Tartus, increasing the volume of shipping and guaranteeing Russian presence for decades to come.
Investments along the Lebanese coast, including the possible upgrading of Tripoli’s seaport, would allow China greater freedom to maneuver than in Russia-dominated Syria. The Hezbollah-backed Lebanese government is considering numerous Chinese proposals for financial and infrastructural support as a golden ticket for severing Beirut’s longstanding ties with the West. Most Lebanese vociferously reject this eastward turn, and refuse to accept becoming a Sino-Persian satellite state.
No less a figure than the Russian ambassador in Beirut has argued that embracing trade with Iran, China, Syria, Iraq and Moscow was the solution to Lebanon’s economic woes, – despite the mostly dreadful state of those economies. Tehran and Hezbollah likewise advocate a trading bloc of “resistance” states, impervious to foreign sanctions and blockades.
When civilized nations withdraw from the world, illiberal, anti-democratic opportunists ruthlessly take advantage.
For these axis powers the ideal solution for neutralizing Western sanctions is a vast trans-Asian bloc trading exclusively with each other, bartering arms, oil and gas to avoid resorting to dollars. Vast, opaque financial institutions and industrial conglomerates with no connections with the West can’t be targeted by US sanctions. With the US currently pursuing legislation targeting Chinese banks connected to the crackdown against Hong Kong, such sanctions-avoiding tactics are just getting started.
Beijing and Tehran are negotiating an agreement whereby China will invest $400 billion over 25 years on Iranian petrochemical and infrastructure projects, in return for access to Iranian oil at bargain basement prices. Is this a geopolitical game-changer, or just a warning shot to the Trump administration? It isn’t clear whether China itself has yet decided. However, such an arrangement would be a major step toward a Beijing-dominated trans-Asian trading axis.
Iran’s regime has seized this prospect like a drowning rat clinging to a floating log. The Chinese military may gain control over substantial port facilities, with 5,000 Chinese security personnel protecting such installations. Iranian sources wistfully suggest that China would conduct joint military exercises, develop weapons, and share intelligence with Tehran.
Experts are nevertheless skeptical about the $280 billion pledged for Iran’s energy sector and $120 billion for manufacturing and transport infrastructure – noting that this is far greater than Beijing’s total annual overseas spend, which itself has been shrinking amid China’s stuttering growth and the coronavirus pandemic. Iran’s leaders have been touting this deal as the solution to all their problems, but Beijing is not a charity and Chinese officials stress that investments will be judged on their compatibility with Chinese national interests.
China perceives Iran’s influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as a Trojan horse for Beijing’s own trans-continental ambitions — Iran becoming the jewel in the crown of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, with shiny new roads and railways creating a corridor to Europe, the Arab world, the Black Sea region and Africa.
China would face international opprobrium for making itself overlord of the world’s No1 terrorist state, but Beijing already plays a similar role with North Korea, shielding Pyongyang from efforts to curtail its nuclear and ballistic weapons programs.
Such deals are reminiscent of treaties signed by Iran’s 19th century Qajar shahs, enriching themselves personally while squandering territory, sovereignty and trading concessions. If the ayatollahs follow their usual practice of cannibalizing cash windfalls for overseas militancy, Iranians will derive no benefit from remortgaging their birthright natural resources and national infrastructure to China. As Iranian commentators noted, revolutionary Iran didn’t end decades of dependence on America to become a Chinese protectorate.
Trump’s predilection for lobbing sanctions at whoever the chosen enemy is during a particular news cycle, with no apparent strategy, has brought these axis powers closer together while driving away America’s traditional allies. Axis states are now looking beyond Trump, knowing that Western nations remain by far the most powerful bloc on the global stage when they act in concert. The Arab world, likewise, scarcely knows its own strength when it summons the wherewithal to act decisively.
Russia gained a foothold in Syria only after a failure of muscular multilateral diplomacy in enforcing a solution. Russia is gaining supremacy in one African state after another in the absence of any engaged community of nations. Unless fragile states are supported by benevolent, wealthier nations, the predators, parasites and pariahs swarm in to carve them up for their own ends.
Countries that desire to participate in the global community of trading and peace-loving nations must voluntarily abide by shared rules against external aggression and internal oppression. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council isn’t fit for purpose while habitual violators of international law wield a veto; Bush and Blair’s illegal invasion of Iraq is a case in point. We need an international system rooted in effective multilateralism, in which UN dithering can’t serve as an excuse for self-serving adventurists to go it alone.
The past four years offer ample proof that when civilized nations withdraw from the world, illiberal, anti-democratic opportunists ruthlessly take advantage, placing the pluralist, tolerant ideologies of Western democracies under threat.
The Axis of Evil is ascendant only because there has been no community of nations dedicated to championing the causes of justice and peace. The world is stable, civilized and prosperous only when we intervene to make it so. When we fail, we discover that we are a few short steps from anarchy.
Read Part One
Baria Alamuddin is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster in the Middle East and the UK. She is editor of the Media Services Syndicate and has interviewed numerous heads of state.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point-of-view

Syria: Russia vulnerable should UN withdraw from Damascus
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab News/July 19/2020
The Issam Fares Institute held a series of webinars last week on the effects of the Caesar Act on Syria and Lebanon. Russian, American, European and Syrian experts discussed the issue. A large part of the discussion revolved around the Belgian-German crossings proposal that was vetoed by China and Russia at the UN Security Council this month. In the current conditions, delivery of humanitarian aid is a crucial matter, but unfortunately the issue is subject to politicization.
The Russians use their weight at the Security Council to pressure the international community to channel aid through Damascus, forcing it to deal with the regime and its affiliated organizations, such as the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and the Syria Trust for Development headed by President Bashar Assad’s wife. They rely on the fact that international aid should be delivered in coordination with the government of the affected country.
However, Assad is the source of the calamity of the Syrian people, waging war on a large part of the population. A 2018 article by Foreign Affairs found that only between two and 18 percent of Syrian international aid goes to people in need — the rest gets swallowed up by the regime. Assad uses food and medical supplies provided by the UN to pressure his opponents in the north of the country. Social media has previously shown that tents provided by the UN and intended for refugees have been used by Assad’s supporters as a center for his re-election campaign. This is only one example of the usurpation of UN aid that has been going on for years.
At the Brussels IV Conference on Syria held by the EU last month, one of the speakers from a civil society organization expressed frustration and said that it is impossible to work with the regime regarding aid. Because of this, the international community is growing increasingly frustrated. In fact, some say UN aid has propped up Assad. He has been able to extort cash from UN agencies based in Damascus by forcing them to lodge in a government-owned hotel and imposing taxes on them, in addition to the embezzlement of aid that is being sold on to provide a source of income for Assad operations. According to one source of mine who is a member of the opposition, the aid is being used to reward his “shabiha” (thugs), who rule the streets of Damascus, for their criminality.
The refugees could have a boomerang effect on Russia, which would find itself responsible for millions of people.
The West was very frustrated by the Russian/Chinese veto on the proposal to keep both the Bal Al-Hawa and Bab Al-Salam border crossings open for aid deliveries. Two other crossings with Iraq and Jordan were closed earlier this year. Now, only Bab Al-Hawa is open and, in a year’s time, this crossing could be closed altogether. However, the West is unlikely to bow to Russia and China and give Assad any “breathing space,” according to Charles Lister, the director of the counterterrorism and extremism program at the Middle East Institute, who was one of the panelists at the session on Syria.
Another panelist, Marc Otte, the vice president of the European Institute for Peace, said that the closure of one of the crossings will not prevent the delivery of aid, but it will make it slower. He added that aid “can be delivered anyway,” even without a Security Council resolution, and that the West has all the legal arguments to do so. Lister warned that, unless Russia changes its course and pushes Assad for a change of behavior, it is heading toward a “war of attrition.”
Actually, the West is in a much more comfortable position than Russia. It is not enmeshed with its military the same way Russia is. The West can simply give the Russians what they want and tell them “Assad’s Syria is yours; deal with it.” What if UN organizations decided to exit Damascus altogether, leaving Russia to deal with a looming famine and an increasingly incompetent and brutal ally? The UN estimates that 9.3 million people in Syria are now food insecure. Then Russia will have to apply the “Pottery Barn rule:” You break it, you own it.
The West will not give another chance to Assad, especially as he has not shown any signs of goodwill toward his own people. He recently issued an order asking people who wanted to return to the country to pay a $100 fee — a sum no refugee can afford. This was another way of telling them to stay in Lebanon after the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs devised a plan regarding the return of refugees to Syria.
The West can come to an agreement with Turkey to deliver aid to the north of Syria and render that area viable, while the areas under Assad’s rule linger. Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq can close their borders to prevent another wave of refugees. The West, meanwhile, could handle accommodating the existing refugees in neighboring countries by helping them so that they don’t affect the host community.
In this case, the Russians would have to deal with hungry people, with the closed borders preventing another wave of Syrians from leaving the country. Then, the refugees — the point of pressure Assad and his allies are using against the international community — could have a boomerang effect on Russia, which would find itself responsible for millions of people. Russia is already incurring heavy costs that its economy cannot afford. It cannot, on top of this, feed people in regime areas.
The next American administration, regardless whether it is Joe Biden or Donald Trump who wins the November election, must be united on the issue of Syria. The Caesar Act is set in stone. It is a law ratified by Congress; therefore, it is unlikely that a new administration would change course. One panelist last week signaled that the Russians and the Americans have been holding ongoing talks on Syria. This is why Moscow is better off negotiating with the international community on a future for Syria without Assad, rather than entering a long war of attrition, in which it has the less favorable position.
*Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She holds a PhD in politics from the University of Exeter and is an affiliated scholar with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut.

Turkey’s Erdogan ignores international opposition to Hagia Sophia mosque conversion
Yasar Yakis/Arab News/July 19/2020
A controversy that has been on Turkey’s political agenda for decades is now disposed of, but debates on it and its international implications are likely to continue for some more time.
The Council of State, which is Turkey’s highest judicial authority on administrative matters, this month concluded that the decision adopted in 1934 to convert the Hagia Sophia into a museum was unlawful. It stated this was because Sultan Mehmet II, the conqueror of Istanbul, had in 1453 converted the Byzantine cathedral into a mosque, established a pious foundation, and donated the Hagia Sophia mosque to this foundation. Therefore, the allocation of the Hagia Sophia for a purpose other than a mosque was considered by the court to be inconsistent with the will of the founder of the pious foundation.
In fact, Sultan Mehmet, in the extremely long act of foundation, used harsh language, saying: “Whoever attempts to amend, modify or obliterate one single sentence of this (act) or explain it away or cancel the pious foundation status of Hagia Sophia or anyone who helps him doing so would be committing the biggest sin. May God’s biggest curse, that of the Prophet and those of all Muslims, be eternally upon him. May their sufferance in hell never diminish. May nobody have pity on them on the Day of Judgment. May God’s fury remain on them.”
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in his public address immediately after the court’s decision, reiterated some of the sultan’s words. He said: “The decision to reconvert Hagia Sophia into a mosque allows us to redress a mistake that was committed 86 years ago and set us free from Sultan Mehmet’s curse.” He said the mosque will be inaugurated on July 24 with Friday prayers.
Erdogan did not need a court decision to convert the museum back into a mosque, as he had the sovereign right to do so. The entire exercise looks more like an effort to undo what Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did in 1934. However, in order to avoid any reaction among the Kemalist public opinion in the country, Erdogan avoided any direct reference to Turkey’s former leader. Instead, he focused on harshly criticizing the policy.
The entire exercise looks more like an effort to undo what Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did in 1934.
Last year, Erdogan used an entirely different narrative. In a special TV program broadcast ahead of the March 31 local elections, commenting on those who were asking for the reconversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, he said: “It is not a problem for us to overcome these hurdles. But we have to weigh its advantages and disadvantages. We may have to pay too costly a bill. We have thousands of mosques all over the world. Can those who voice these wishes figure out what would happen to these mosques? They utter their wish without thinking of this aspect of the question. They do not know the world. They do not know their counterparts. As a political leader, I did not lose my direction to engage unnecessarily in such a game.”
It is difficult to guess how Erdogan’s calculus evolved to bring him to this decision. One possibility is that, because of the continuously weakening support for his ruling party, he may have thought that such a move could contribute to regaining the support of conservative segments of his power base.
Another possibility is that he may have been encouraged by his close advisers. Parliament Speaker Mustafa Sentop, who was this month re-elected to this prestigious post, probably at Erdogan’s behest, said in a recent interview that the reconversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque had been his dream since a young age. Erdogan expressed the same feeling with exactly the same words. Many others repeated similar sentiments after Erdogan spoke out. This shows that the Hagia Sophia issue has remained deep in the hearts of many in Erdogan’s inner circle.
Despite these reasons, we have to keep in mind that Erdogan is a leader who very closely follows the trends in public opinion. He carries out regular polls and must have done so for the Hagia Sophia. So he must have decided to cater to domestic public opinion rather than the international community. Even countries with a predominantly Muslim population have refrained from supporting Turkey’s decision. So far, only Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia and Hamas have publicly extended support. But Erdogan has ignored the silence of the Islamic Ummah. Stepping back from this decision now has to be considered almost impossible.
Whatever the eventual outcome, choosing this moment for such an important decision is bound to have negative repercussions on the international stage.
*Yasar Yakis is a former foreign minister of Turkey and founding member of the ruling AK Party. Twitter: @yakis_yasar

Cancel culture: Dangerous mob rule or new form of accountability?
Omar Al-Ubaydli/Al Arabiya/Sunday 19 July 2020
Recently both celebrities and ordinary people have found themselves being “canceled” – a new term that loosely means being subjected to public humiliation via the internet, with secondary consequences that might include losing a job, being canceled to speak at an event, or having social media accounts closed.
While some people have criticized this “cancel culture” as a dangerous manifestation of mob rule, others argue that it serves as a new way of holding people accountable for their actions.
Concepts from economics can help analyze cancel culture – and show that while canceling can serve an important accountability role when governments or organizations are too slow to act, it can also lead to dangerous herding behavior in which people follow the crowd regardless of right or wrong.
How can bad behavior be stopped?
Some actions, such as eating an apple or watching a movie, have “no externalities” – they do not impact the well-being of others. However, other behavior, such as polluting a river or playing music loudly, has “negative externalities” – it negatively impacts other people’s welfare.
Left completely unchecked, behavior that has negative externalities will likely be practiced more than society can tolerate. This is why governments tax gasoline and regulate construction yard noise: to limit activities that have negative externalities.
There are two general methods for dealing with negative externalities. The first is “external enforcement,” whereby a third party is given the material resources and authority to punish people whose behavior has negative externalities: a school principal suspending a child who bullies, or the UN sanctioning a country that commits war crimes.
External enforcement can be very effective if the third party is given sufficient clout, and the size of modern governments – including the police forces and judiciaries that they oversee – is testament to the efficacy of this method of managing negative externalities.
However, external enforcement has two basic flaws. First, it can be unwieldly, especially when it becomes as large as a modern government. The result is a slow or absent response in a situation that require one, such as looting during a natural disaster, or irresponsible behavior during a pandemic.
Second, external enforcers can selfishly abuse their power, such as a corrupt mayor who awards family members tenders at an inflated cost; or for the benefit of a party that has “captured” them, such as the video games regulator ESRB condoning video games gambling because it is financially lucrative to major games developers. Accountability mechanisms can be formulated, but all systems have flaws, rendering external enforcement an imperfect solution to the problem of negative externalities.
Cancel culture: Mutual enforcement
The alternative to external enforcement is mutual enforcement: people policing each other without the involvement of a third party. This can be using “extrinsic” (material) incentives, as in me boycotting a restaurant where a waiter mistreated me; or using “intrinsic” (psychological) incentives, as in my teammates refusing to look me in the eyes if I am always late to football practice.
Cancel culture is mutual enforcement using a mixture of extrinsic and intrinsic incentives. Crucially, cancel culture is inherently spontaneous: there is no central orchestrator composing rules and authoritatively demanding adherence. Instead, like other decentralized phenomena such as language, it emerges and mutates unpredictably, because how people behave depends at least partly on what they imagine other people regard as acceptable, which can be very uncertain during times of flux.
Just as words morph in meaning over time, leading to misunderstandings between people who use a word in its old meaning and those who have adapted it, cancel culture also risks misunderstandings during transition periods in the perception of certain behavior.
Some traditionally inoffensive terms are now coming under scrutiny and resulting in people being canceled for using them. For example, the phrase “blacklist” – an unwanted list of items or people – is currently in a transition phase. Google Chrome and Android stopped using the word due to its association of negativity with Blackness, but many will continue to use it, either out of ignorance or malice, risking punishment via cancel culture.
It is important to note that cancel culture is partially a response to the failure of external enforcement. Waiting for the government to designate words like “blacklist” as offensive is likely fruitless, due to a combination of government sclerosis and inherent biases and abuses within the government’s ranks. Many who have illegally removed offensive statues felt compelled to act after legal channels failed to deliver the same outcome. In this regard, cancel culture’s decentralized and spontaneous nature is a virtue, because it stops powerful bigots – including those who work in government – from derailing the process.
Moreover, the decentralized and spontaneous nature of cancel culture also gives it a much higher degree of flexibility and adaptability than is associated with modern government. For example, the #metoo movement was able to make some women feel safer overnight because abusive men feared sanctions, a much quicker process than anything the government could ever hope to achieve.
However, the unpredictability of cancel culture is a double-edged sword. When humans base their behavior on what others deem acceptable, which itself may be unstable and changing because of social transition, they can fall into “herd behavior” – ignoring their own moral compass or understanding of sensible actions and instead following others for fear of straying from the herd. This is analogous to the irrational herding process in financial markets that leads to stock market bubbles and catastrophic financial crises.
In the case of cancel culture, many people may think that an individual does not merit social sanctions, but they fear deviating from the herd. Just like stock market bubbles in financial markets reflect unsound investments, the herding intrinsic to cancel culture during a transition period can lead to unsound social sanctions: people who were incorrectly identified, misquoted, genuinely repentant, and so on. One advantage of external enforcement over cancel culture is that it allows for a formal appeals process: someone who is wrongly sentenced to prison can have their record expunged by the government, but there is little hope for those who are “canceled” online, just as there is little hope for an economy whose currency was ruined by speculators acting on a whim or false “inside information.”
In fact, as is evident in their readiness to impose sanctions without even hearing the accused’s version of events, some cancel culture activists actively reject an “investigation” period where the accused is given a chance to defend themselves before being sanctioned, as a way of making the sanctions more acute, in much the same way that French revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre espoused carrying out executions for those accused of opposing the revolution the day after the trial and sentence – an effective way of ensuring that people tried extra hard to avoid behavior that might be perceived as counterrevolutionary.
So, is cancel culture good or bad? In general, during stable times, when misunderstandings and herding are unlikely, cancel culture makes an important contribution to social order. It can make up for the tendency of external enforcement structures to be abused or simply slow. However, during transitional periods, its unpredictability and spontaneity is both a blessing and a curse: it helps us rapidly overcome entrenched oppression, while threatening considerable collateral damage due to the herding behavior that generates financial bubbles. And this probably explains why the British philosopher Bertrand Russel once quipped: “Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.”
*Omar Al-Ubaydli (@omareconomics) is a researcher at Derasat, Bahrain