English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For September 10/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.september10.20.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ
Letter to the Galatians 01/01-10/:”Paul an apostle sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead and all the members of God’s family who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 09-10/2020

Text of Treasury Department press release: Treasury targets Hizballah’s enablers in Lebanon
Pompeo Comments on U.S. Sanctions on Khalil, Fenianos
Schenker Reports Progress on Israel-Lebanon Border Talks
Hizbullah Condemns U.S. Sanctions, Aoun Asks Foreign Ministry to Inquire
Sri Lanka Tea Storm Swirls around President Aoun
Caretaker Foreign Minister Tests Positive for COVID-19
Berri Calls Parliamentary Committees for Joint Meeting after Blast
Crisis-Hit Lebanon Launches Central Bank Audit
AMAL Defends Khalil Following U.S. Sanctions
Franjieh Says 'Political' U.S. Sanctions Won't Change Marada Position
Geagea Slams 'Shameful' Govt. Formation Delay, Lauds Adib
Army Blocks Migrants Attempting Sea Crossing
The roadway to reform in Lebanon must tackle the issue of Hezbollah/Patricia Karam/The Hill/September 09.2020
US, France follow different paths on dealing with Hezbollah/The Arab Weekly/September 09/2020
US sanctions ex-Lebanese ministers over Hezbollah ties/The Arab Weekly/September 09/2020

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 09-10/2020

Israel, UAE to sign deal at White House next week
Arab League condemns Turkey and Iran
Europeans set to face down US demands over Iran sanctions
Syria Battles Forest Fires for Seventh Day Straight
Trump Racks Up Foreign Policy Wins -- amid Gaping Holes
Iraq Reforms Stymied by Shadowy Groups' Wave of Attacks
Saudi Arabia Struggles to Turn Page on Khashoggi's Murder
Algeria Journalist Denies 'Incitement' Charge in Appeal Hearing
Iran signals further pursuit of uranium enrichment

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 09-10/2020

How Trump can enforce the snapback of UN sanctions on Iran/Richard Goldberg/The Washington Examinar/September 09/2020
Erdogan and Hamas: ‘He’s presenting himself as leader of Muslim world’
Mehul Srivastava in Jaffa and Laura Pitel in Ankara http:/Financial Times/September 09/2020
What is Nato good for?/Sholto Byrnes/The National/September 09/2020
Peace for Warplanes?/Neri ZilberThe Washington Institute/September 09/2020
How Arab Americans can help influence US foreign policy/Raya Hanania/Arab News/September 09/2020
How 2020 election could affect US’ global standing/Alistair Burt/Arab News/September 09/2020
UK risks forfeiting credibility with law breach/Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/September 09/2020
Musk’s brain chip ambition presents ethical dilemma/Nidhal Guessoum/Arab News/September 09/2020

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 09-10/2020

Text of Treasury Department press release: Treasury targets Hizballah’s enablers in Lebanon

نص قرار وزارة الخزانة الأميركية الخاص بفرض عقوبات على علي حسن خليل ويوسف فينيانوس
Treasury Targets Hizballah’s Enablers in Lebanon
4.6K388
September 8, 2020
Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned former Lebanese government ministers Yusuf Finyanus and Ali Hassan Khalil, who provided material support to Hizballah and engaged in corruption. These designations underscore how some Lebanese politicians have conspired with Hizballah at the expense of the Lebanese people and institutions. The United States supports the Lebanese people in their calls for a transparent and accountable government free of corruption. The catastrophic explosion at the port of Beirut on August 4, 2020, has amplified these urgent calls, and the U.S government stands firmly in support of the Lebanese people’s demands.
“Corruption has run rampant in Lebanon, and Hizballah has exploited the political system to spread its malign influence,” said Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “The United States stands with the people of Lebanon in their calls for reform and will continue to use its authorities to target those who oppress and exploit them.”
These individuals are being designated pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, as amended.
The multi-layered crisis in Lebanon stems from decades of corruption and economic mismanagement. Some Lebanese political leaders have used backdoor deals and reliance on Hizballah for personal gain and gains for their political allies ahead of the needs of the Lebanese people. Since October 2019, popular, cross-sectarian protests across the country demanded political and economic reform in Lebanon. The protesters’ calls for “all of them, means all of them” demonstrates the seriousness of their desire for reform and to pull back the curtain on certain groups’ corruption, including Hizballah.
CORRUPT MINISTERS SUPPORT HIZBALLAH AND BENEFIT PERSONALLY
Yusuf Finyanus is the former Minister of Transportation and Public Works (2016-2020). As of mid-2019, Hizballah used its relationship with officials in the Lebanese government, including Finyanus as Minister of Transportation and Public Works, to siphon funds from government budgets to ensure that Hizballah-owned companies won bids for Lebanese government contracts worth millions of dollars. In 2015, Hizballah gave Finyanus hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for political favors. Also in 2015, Finyanus met regularly with Wafiq Safa, whom the U.S. Treasury designated in 2019 for his leadership role in Hizballah’s security apparatus. Finyanus also helped Hizballah gain access to sensitive legal documents related to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and served as a go-between for Hizballah and political allies. In addition to his activities supporting Hizballah, Finyanus engaged in corruption while in his position as Minister of Transportation and Public Works by diverting funds from the ministry to offer perks to bolster his political allies.
Ali Hassan Khalil previously served as the Minister of Finance (2014-2020) and Minister of Public Health (2011-2014). As Minister of Finance, Khalil was one of the officials Hizballah leveraged a relationship with for financial gain. In late 2017, shortly before the Lebanese parliamentary elections that would take place in May 2018, Hizballah leaders, fearing a weakening of their political alliance with the Amal Movement, reached an agreement with Khalil where he was prepared to receive Hizballah support for his political success. Khalil worked to move money in a manner that would avoid U.S. sanctions enforcement from government ministries to Hizballah-associated institutions. Additionally, Khalil used his position as Minister of Finance to attempt to have U.S. financial restrictions on Hizballah eased so that the group would have less difficulty moving money. Khalil also used the power of his office to exempt a Hizballah affiliate from paying most taxes on electronics imported to Lebanon, and a portion of what was paid was collected to support Hizballah. As of late 2019, Khalil as Finance Minister refused to sign checks payable to government suppliers in an effort to solicit kickbacks. He demanded that a percentage of the contracts be paid to him directly.
SANCTIONS IMPLICATIONS
The Treasury Department continues to prioritize disruption of the full range of Hizballah’s illicit financial activity, and with this action has designated over 90 Hizballah-affiliated individuals and entities since 2017. OFAC took this action pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, which targets terrorists and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism. Hizballah was designated by the Department of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in October 1997 and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) pursuant to E.O. 13224 in October 2001.
As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the individuals named above, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or otherwise exempt, OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons. The prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services from any such person.
Furthermore, engaging in certain transactions with the individuals designated today entails risk of secondary sanctions pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, and the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations, which implements the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015, as amended by the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Amendments Act of 2018. Pursuant to these authorities, OFAC can prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction for a terrorist group like Hizballah, or a person acting on behalf of or at the direction of, or owned or controlled by, an SDGT such as Hizballah.
OFAC closely coordinated this action with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). DEA’s work with OFAC is part of DEA’s broader effort under its Project Cassandra to target Hizballah’s global criminal support network that operates as a logistics, procurement, and financing arm for Hizballah.
View identifying information on the individuals designated today.

Pompeo Comments on U.S. Sanctions on Khalil, Fenianos
Associated Press/Naharnet/September 09/2020

بومبيو يعلق على العقوبات على فينيانوس وخليل
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commented on the US administration’s decision to impose sanctions on former Lebanese ministers Youssef Fenianos and Ali Hassan Khalil. “We stand with the Lebanese people’s call for reform and will promote accountability for anyone facilitating Hizbullah’s terrorist agenda. Today the U.S. is designating two corrupt former Lebanese ministers who abused their positions to provide material support to Hizbullah,” said Pompeo in tweet on Wednesday. The United States on Tuesday slapped sanctions on the two ministers for alleged corruption and support of Hizbullah in a rare move against politicians close to the Iran-backed group. The sanctioned officials are former finance minister Ali Hassan Khalil and former public works and transportation minister Youssef Fenianos. Khalil is currently a member of the Lebanese Parliament. The sanctions appear to be a strong message to politicians in the country, which is experiencing its worst economic and financial crisis in decades. It is also a strong warning to Hizullah and its allies who control majority seats in Parliament that the sanctions could target more politicians. Khalil is a senior official with the Shiite Amal group that is headed by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri while Fenianos is a member of the Christian Marada group that is allied with Hizbullah and the Syrian government. The U.S. Treasury said Khalil and Fenianos “provided material support to Hizbullah and engaged in corruption.” U.S. officials have been warning that a new wave of sanctions will target allies of Hizbullah, which is considered a terrorist organization by Washington. Hizbullah used its relationship with officials in the Lebanese government, including Fenianos as minister, to siphon funds from government budgets to ensure that Hizbullah-owned companies won bids for Lebanese government contracts worth millions of dollars, the U.S. Treasury said. It added that Finianos also helped Hizbullah gain access to sensitive legal documents related to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and served as a go-between for Hizbullah and political allies. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon last month convicted a Hizbullah member in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. It added that Khalil used his position as finance minister to attempt to have U.S. financial restrictions on Hizbullah eased so that the group would have less difficulty moving money. The Treasury said the designations underscore how some Lebanese politicians have conspired with Hizbullah at the expense of the Lebanese people and institutions. The U.S. supports the Lebanese people in their calls for a transparent and accountable government free of corruption, it added.

Schenker Reports Progress on Israel-Lebanon Border Talks
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 09/2020
A US envoy Tuesday said that he hoped to sign a framework agreement in the coming weeks for Lebanon and Israel to start discussing their disputed maritime border. Lebanon in 2018 signed its first contract to drill for oil and gas in its waters, including a block disputed by its southern neighbour Israel, with which it has fought several wars. The Israeli government in May 2019 said it had agreed to enter US-mediated talks with Lebanon to resolve the maritime border dispute. "I believe that we are making some incremental progress," US Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker said.
"I'm looking forward to finishing up with this framework agreement so you and the Israelis can... move on to actually negotiating about your borders," he told Lebanese journalists during a telephone conference. "I hope to be able to come over to Lebanon and sign this agreement in the coming weeks," he added. "This will open the opportunity for both Lebanon and Israel to start to actually make some real progress." He refused to comment on obstacles towards reaching the deal, but said more than a year of US shuttling back and forth between both countries just to reach a preliminary understanding was "an unfortunate waste of time". In early August, Lebanon's parliament speaker Nabih Berri told Lebanese newspaper Annahar that discussions with Washington over drawing the maritime border with Israel were "at their conclusion". Lebanon and Israel are still technically at war. The issue of the shared maritime border is sensitive, mainly because of a dispute over coastal drilling rights. In February 2018, Lebanon signed its first contract for offshore drilling in two blocks in the Mediterranean for oil and gas with a consortium comprising energy giants Total, ENI and Novatek.
Lebanon in April said initial drilling in Block 4 had shown traces of gas but no commercially viable reserves. Exploration of Block 9 has not started and is much more controversial as Israel also claims ownership over part of it.

Hizbullah Condemns U.S. Sanctions, Aoun Asks Foreign Ministry to Inquire
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 09/2020
Hizbullah on Wednesday condemned new U.S. sanctions against two former ministers from allied political parties over alleged corruption and aid to the group.
"We view this unjust decision as a badge of honor for our two dear friends," Hizbullah said in a statement. Hizbullah has long been targeted by U.S. sanctions and blacklisted as a "terrorist" organization, but the Iran-backed Shiite group is also a powerful political player with seats in Lebanon's parliament.
Washington Tuesday imposed sanctions on former finance minister Ali Hassan Khalil and ex-transport minister Youssef Fenianos. "Everything that is issued by this administration is condemned and rejected," Hizbullah said of U.S. President Donald Trump's government. Washington "will not be able to implement its goals in Lebanon," it said. President Michel Aoun, whose party is allied with Hizbullah, directed the foreign ministry to contact the U.S. embassy in Beirut and Lebanese embassy in Washington to inquire about the circumstances that led to the sanctions, the presidency said in a statement. The U.S. Treasury Department said that Khalil, who has also served as health minister, helped direct funds to Hizbullah institutions to evade U.S. sanctions against the group. Fenianos, it alleged, received "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from Hizbullah in return for political favors. The Treasury Department also said he provided sensitive documents to the group on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which last month found a member of Hizbullah guilty over the 2005 murder of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Khalil hails from the AMAL Movement of Nabih Berri, the powerful speaker of parliament, while Fenianos is a member of the Christian Marada Movement. Hizbullah spearheaded military operations against Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon after the civil war but local and foreign rivals criticize the party for having retained its arsenal of arms despite Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Israel occupied much of southern Lebanon between 1978 and 2000 and its invading army reached the capital in 1982. It also fought a devastating 2006 war with Hizbullah in which more than 1,200 people, mostly civilians, were killed in Lebanon.

Sri Lanka Tea Storm Swirls around President Aoun
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 09/2020
President Michel Aoun has come under fire after reports and activists said that tea donated by Sri Lanka for victims of the Beirut blast was distributed instead to families of his presidential guards. But the press office of the Presidency hit back on Wednesday, noting that an official memo sent by Sri Lanka to Lebanon's Foreign Ministry had mentioned that "1,675 kilograms of Ceylon tea" were "a donation to His Excellency the President, General Michel Aoun, as a gesture of solidarity and friendship between Sri Lanka and Lebanon." The press office also noted that the memo had mentioned that the shipment contained "1,000 food parcels meant for free distribution." It also pointed out that the Lebanese Army, which is overseeing the flow and distribution of post-blast foreign relief aid, had informed the presidential palace of the arrival of the shipment, asking it to "take delivery of the donation belonging to the President." A copy of the Foreign Ministry statement circulated on social media quotes Sri Lanka's embassy in Lebanon as describing the shipment as "humanitarian aid." A leaked copy of a statement issued by the embassy meanwhile says that "Ambassador Shani Calyaneratne Karunaratne officially handed over a special consignment of exclusive Ceylon tea to the President of the Republic of Lebanon, HE General Michel Aoun on 24 August 2020 at the Presidential Palace." Critics have said that the controversy is yet another example of official corruption in a country reeling from the August 4 explosion that killed more than 190 people, wounded thousands and ravaged central Beirut. Sri Lanka, many of whose expat community in Lebanon work as housemaids, was one of several nations that rushed to show support in the wake of Lebanon's worst peace-time disaster.
The president's office on August 24 released a picture of Aoun receiving the Sri Lankan ambassador, and quoted her as saying Colombo had "donated 1,675 kilos of Ceylon tea to those affected by the Beirut blast."
After Lebanese media and social media asked what happened to the donation, it issued a second statement on Tuesday. The presidency said Aoun had written to his Sri Lankan counterpart to thank him for "a gift of Ceylon tea that had been received by the army... and distributed to the families of soldiers in the presidential guard." Social media erupted in criticism, with the hashtags "tea thief" and "Ceylon tea" trending on Twitter. "The tea was sent to the Lebanese, particularly those affected by the explosion. Of course it wasn't a present for those who don't need it," wrote Paula Yacoubian, a former MP who resigned after the blast many blame on official neglect. "Distributing the aid to your entourage is shameful," she wrote. Another user quipped: "The excuse that it was a present for the president is even worse than the sin itself." Beside the tea controversy, social media users have also been up in arms over the fate of 12 tons of fish that Mauritania sent in mid-August. After widespread calls to know its whereabouts, the army said Monday it had received the fish and "stored it according to public safety standards." It was talking to several associations preparing meals for those in need "to cook it and distribute it to those affected by the port blast." On Twitter, yet another user made light of the food aid controversy. "The presidential palace, or the palace of the people, invites you to a free lunch on Sunday," she wrote. "Open buffet on Mauritanian fish, and open bar on Ceylon tea."

Caretaker Foreign Minister Tests Positive for COVID-19
Naharnet/September 09/2020
Caretaker Foreign Minister Charbel Wehbe reportedly tested positive for Coronavirus and will be isolating for two weeks, the National News Agency said on Wednesday. The Minister did not comment on the matter nor were any details revealed. Lebanon has seen a remarkable increase in coronavirus cases, mainly after the August 4 Beirut port blast. 498 cases were recorded on Tuesday and seven deaths. According to official data, Lebanon registered 6722 recoveries since the outbreak of the virus on February 21.

Berri Calls Parliamentary Committees for Joint Meeting after Blast
Naharnet/September 09/2020
Speaker Nabih Berri called the parliamentary committees for a joint meeting on September 16 to discuss a number of draft laws submitted by lawmakers after the Beirut port blast. The committees of: Finance and Budget, Administration and Justice, Education and Higher Education and Culture, Public Works and Transportation, and Energy and Water Resources were called for a meeting at 10:30 a.m. on September 16, 2020. Interlocutors will discuss three draft laws, one obliging Banque du Liban to pay ten thousand US dollars, according to the official exchange rate at 1515, for Lebanese university students studying abroad for the academic year 2020-2021. The committees will also discuss a second draft law aimed at protecting and rebuilding the areas affected by the explosion in Beirut port. The third draft law calls for freezing sales of real estate located in the affected areas as a result of the Beirut Port explosion on August 4, 2020.

Crisis-Hit Lebanon Launches Central Bank Audit
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 09/2020
Lebanon on Wednesday launched a forensic audit of the central bank, in line with a long-standing request of donors, an outgoing minister said, as the country suffers its worst economic crisis in decades. "Today the first phase of the forensic audit started," caretaker Finance Minister Ghazi Wazni said in a statement. It would involve New York-based firm Alvaro and Marsal presenting the minister with "a preliminary compilation of information requested from the central bank... within the next 24 hours," he said. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and France are among those demanding the audit as part of urgent reforms to unlock desperately needed financial aid. Earlier this month, as French President Emmanuel Macron visited Lebanon for a second time since its devastating port blast, Wazni signed a deal for Alvarez and Marsal to handle a forensic audit of the central bank. Two other companies, KPMG and Oliver Wyman, were hired to conduct traditional audits of the financial institution. Wazni said the three firms would form teams to start work "very soon." Lebanon's worst economic crunch since the 1975-1990 war has seen the local currency plummet against the U.S. dollar, and poverty double to more than half of the population. The country for the first time defaulted on its sovereign debt in March, before launching into talks with the IMF towards unlocking billions of dollars in aid. But by July these talks had stalled, and several members of the Lebanese negotiating team had resigned amid disagreements over the scale of total financial losses. The government has blamed Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh for the crisis, though the latter has rejected all charges. Pressure for reforms has mounted since the August 4 explosion at the port that killed more than 190 people, reignited popular anger -- also against the central bank -- and led the government to resign. A prime minister-designate, Mustafa Adib, has been tasked with forming a new government.

AMAL Defends Khalil Following U.S. Sanctions
Naharnet/September 09/2020
AMAL Movement that is headed by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri held an urgent meeting on Wednesday on the heels of the US sanctions slapped against its senior official and former finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil. The party defended the minister and issued the following statement:
First, the (US) decision will not at all change our convictions and our national constants. Second, we will not compromise or relinquish our borders and sovereign rights in sea and land regardless of the sanctions and pressure from whichever side they come. Revealing a truth, the agreement with the US on demarcating the maritime borders in southern Lebanon was completed and approved on 9/7/2020, but the US so far rejects the announcement without any justification. Third, the “decree” of the US Treasury Department, came at a time when the majority of Lebanese political and parliamentary forces stand close to reaching a comprehensive government that can steer Lebanon out of its crises. Fourth, targeting brother MP Ali Hassan Khalil does not only target a person who has occupied a ministerial position for a specific period of time, but rather targets Lebanon’s sovereignty and the political organization it belongs to, targets the course of AMAL Movement and the course of defense for Lebanon and its unity as a final homeland for all its citizens, and targets our right to defend our principles, our rights and our borders. You are mistaken about the time and place but the message has been delivered.
The United States on Tuesday slapped sanctions on two former Lebanese ministers for alleged corruption and support of Hizbullah, vowing to isolate the Iran-backed Shiite armed group and political party. The Treasury Department targeted Khalil and former transport minister Youssef Fenianos, a member of the Christian Marada Movement that is allied with Hizbullah and the Syrian government. The U.S. Treasury said Khalil and Fenianos "provided material support to Hizbullah and engaged in corruption."

Franjieh Says 'Political' U.S. Sanctions Won't Change Marada Position
Associated Press/Naharnet/September 09/2020
Marada Movement chief Suleiman Franjieh on Wednesday described the U.S. sanctions imposed Tuesday on Marada’s ex-minister Youssef Fenianos as a “political decision.”The sanctions will only push Marada to cling to its “path and political alignment,” Franjieh said in a short statement.
He added: "We never were or will be shy about our position, which we are openly proud of." The U.S. Treasury charged Tuesday that, as a minister, Fenianos had received "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from Hizbullah in return for political favors. It said he also provided sensitive documents to Hizbullah on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The sanctions marked the first time that allies of Hizbullah have been targeted by sanctions. Some analysts in Lebanon saw the sanctions as a message to Hizbullah's allies to review their links with the Iran-backed group, especially by targeting a Christian ally for the first time.
"Fenianos and Ali Hassan Khalil are two central figures in the coalition that is led by Hizbullah," said Ali Hamadeh, a political writer at Annahar newspaper who is often critical of Hizbullah. He added that by sanctioning Fenianos, the U.S. is sending a message to Franjieh, who is a presidential hopeful. Hamadeh said Hizbullah's non-Shiite allies will now have to "think seriously about the repercussions of their relations with Hizbullah." He said at a later stage, the sanctions might target members of President Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement, which has been Hizbullah's strongest Christian ally since 2006.

Geagea Slams 'Shameful' Govt. Formation Delay, Lauds Adib
Naharnet/September 09/2020
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Wednesday described the reported obstacles delaying the formation of the new government as “very shameful.”“What’s happening as to the formation of the government is very shameful,” Geagea said in a statement. He added that there are headlines such as “the Shiite duo does not accept…”, “Jebran Bassil wants…” and others about the distribution of shares “despite the death of 200 victims-martyrs in Beirut, the wounding of 6,000 people, the partial or full destruction of 10,000 residential units, the homelessness of hundreds of thousands of citizens, and a suffocating financial-economic crisis that has entered its 11th month.”“As long as this ruling clique continues to control things, there will be no hope,” Geagea went on to say. Lauding Prime Minister-designate Mustafa Adib, who was not backed by the LF in the binding parliamentary consultations, Geagea said he acknowledges Adib’s “persistent efforts, until the moment, to form a harmonious, neutral, independent and specialist government away from any leverage or influence.”

Army Blocks Migrants Attempting Sea Crossing
Naharnet/September 09/2020
The Lebanese army prevented a group of Syrians and their Lebanese handlers from illicitly leaving the country by sea from the northern city of Tripoli, the official ANI news agency reported. "A Lebanese army naval patrol, in coordination with army intelligence, thwarted an operation to smuggle several people across the sea after the boat was spotted off the northern coast," ANI reported on Tuesday.  The Lebanese and Syrian passengers were returned to Tripoli port, it said. It was the second failed clandestine attempt within days by people seeking to leave the country via Tripoli. On Saturday, a boat illegally transporting Lebanese and Syrians was intercepted off the coast of Cyprus to the west, and forced to turn back. On Monday, Cyprus said it would send a team to Lebanon to discuss dealing with the increasingly frequent crossing attempts. Cyprus, just 160 kilometres (100 miles) from Lebanon's coast, is so close that the deadly explosion that devastated Beirut on August 4 was heard on the island.  It fears becoming a magnet for those fleeing a political and economic crisis. Cyprus is on alert after at least five boats carrying over 150 migrants were spotted off the coast of the tourist island by authorities in recent days, and the interior ministry held an emergency meeting on the situation on Monday. Lebanon, which hosts around a million people displaced from neighbouring war-torn Syria, was undergoing a severe economic crisis even before the coronavirus pandemic struck. That was exacerbated by the massive August 4 explosion at Beirut port which laid waste to whole neighbourhoods of the capital and killed over 190 people.

The roadway to reform in Lebanon must tackle the issue of Hezbollah
Patricia Karam/The Hill/September 09.2020

باتريشيا كرم: طريق الإصلاح في لبنان يجب أن تعالج ملف حزب الله
Only hours before the second visit from President Emmanuel Macron of France to Lebanon last week, the political elite selected Mustafa Adib as the new prime minister. Adib is an unknown diplomat who is denounced for having little charisma, no track record, and shaky integrity, which is a profile that seems to have become an archetype of the prime minister of Lebanon at a time when the political establishment is under fire.
Adib secured the backing of an overwhelming majority in the parliament, representing Hezbollah and its linked political groups, including the Free Patriotic Movement and the Amal Movement. The nomination of Adib was met with dismay by the civil society and youth activists leading numerous protests to overthrow a kleptocratic ruling class that has been turning the country dry. This same revolution brought down the government last year and turned into a grassroots resistance against the establishment. It even took on Hezbollah, the heavily armed Shia militia backed by Iran which is increasingly viewed as the main obstacle to change in Lebanon.
Is Lebanon going through a familiar mutation to another face of the same entrenched sectarian elite that has ruled Lebanon since the conclusion of its civil war? While tasked to form a new cabinet that can introduce reform measures, the leaders are threatened this time around by sanctions if they do not. But Adib must confront a financial crisis because of such spiraling national debt, a fraying banking sector, and endemic corruption.
Lebanon has hyperinflation, unemployment is at 40 percent, and half the population lives on poverty. Government branches, public administration, political parties, and the security sector are also plagued with bribery and nepotism that are fueled by pervasive clientelism and patronage. There is no will to battle the broad corruption or structures to combat it.
Macron called on the government to focus on policy and credible reform promises from leaders, including a timeline to enact changes. Hezbollah was also left out of the framework. Elections are seen as the solution, but they will not solve the national problems of Lebanon. The current system draws constituencies along sectarian lines, so that citizens are mobilized to vote with these narratives, all but securing victory for sectarian blocks and leaving the political outsiders out. Lebanon needs a law that enables new actors to enter the system and ensure a level playing field.
For any chance of success, a path to reform must realize that Lebanon is captured by a political and military formation with striking power superior to the Lebanese Armed Forces and a chain of command that runs, not to the office of the prime minister, but to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in Iran. All deployments of Hezbollah are conducted under orders from Tehran. Its political strength eclipses even its military strength. It has secured positions of power in every agency and institution in Lebanon. Its party wing has intertwined itself into the system.
Hezbollah has used violence judiciously in the last few decades to shape the political landscape and suppress opposition. But its mainstay is the psychological operation that saturates the cultural space with messages designed to instill support for a narrative of resistance. This disinformation campaign masks the corruption in which Hezbollah is engaged, ranging from street level shakedowns done by mafias and militias to the clientelism and patronage seen in authoritarian states.
After the explosion in Beirut, the unthinkable happened. Anger against the ruling class turned into outrage and then into condemnation of Hezbollah. In addition to dominating the government, Hezbollah had blocked access for years to the port which it controls. Days after the blast, the verdict of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon implicating a Hezbollah operative in the murder of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri fueled the ire of citizens who are finally waking up to the nefarious role of Hezbollah.
US sanctions former Lebanese ministers for supporting Hezbollah
Congress must protect kidney disease patients during the COVID-19...
If it does not lead to change, the concord envisioned by Macron could be part of a history of failures that has befallen Lebanon in the last decade. It will validate the political establishment that oversaw an economic collapse, a public health crisis, and now a humanitarian catastrophe with lasting implications. Any solution has to focus first on sustaining momentum in the civil society and preventing it from sinking into despair.
But a roadmap to reform must ultimately tackle Hezbollah and its role in Lebanon. The balance of power can only shift with its disarming. When that happens, not only will the satrapy be unveiled, but Lebanon will finally be handed a chance to thrive.
*-Patricia Karam is regional director for the Middle East at the International Republican Institute, a nonprofit organization that promotes democracy.

US, France follow different paths on dealing with Hezbollah
The Arab Weekly/September 09/2020

الإسبوع العربي: فرنسا وأميركا تتبعان طرق مختلفة للتعامل مع حزب الله
BEIRUT- As both France and the US push for a new Lebanese cabinet to pursue long-sought reforms, stark differences are emerging in the two countries’ outlook on the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
Nothing better illustrated these divergent paths than Washington’s decision Tuesday to impose sanctions on two former Lebanese government ministers it accused of providing material and financial help to Hezbollah. It even warned of further measures targeting the Iran-backed Shia group.
US officials said Washington was coordinating with France on Lebanon but voiced criticism over a meeting French President Emmanuel Macron recently held with a prominent figure of Hezbollah, seen as a terrorist organisation by the United States. The US and France’s competing foreign policy visions are playing out vividly as they head separate diplomatic tracks following Beirut’s port explosion last month that led the government to resign.
While France seems willing to compromise with the Iran-backed party, viewing it as a “political reality” to be reckoned with, the US refuses to engage with the group, instead seeking to contain it with wide-ranging sanctions.
According to experts, Washington sees Hezbollah as a Tehran proxy and regional spoiler while Paris focuses on resolving Lebanon’s internal crises and defusing its tensions. France has taken the lead in attempts to influence the course of events in Lebanon, with French President Emmanuel Macron making repeat visits to the stricken Lebanese capital to help negotiate a new government and reform drive.
Macron’s government has been consistent in its demands for urgent reforms and an end to corruption, tying them to the provision of financial aid to Beirut. But the French president has also been relatively flexible in working with Lebanon’s entrenched political elite, including Hezbollah figures often blamed for fueling corruption and destabilising the country by maintaining weapons outside of state control. Lebanese demonstrators have rejected deals they fear would keep Lebanon “a hostage” in the hands of the Shia militias. Macron has also been criticised for coordinating his moves in Lebanon with Hezbollah’s sponsors in Tehran.
During his last visit to Beirut, the French head of state met with lawmakers that included Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc chief Mohammad Raad, before all sides agreed to form a new government headed by incoming Prime Minister Mustapha Adib. Macron’s unannounced meeting with Raad was first revealed by French journalist Georges Malbrunot in a report in Le Figaro, which called the face-to-face meeting “unprecedented.” A previous report by the same journalist stated that Macron had threatened to impose sanctions on Hezbollah if they did not cooperate with France’s reform efforts.
Macron lashed out at the sensitive news report, personally rebuking Malbrunot, a prominent French reporter who was once held hostage in Iraq, at a public news conference for what he called “serious, unprofessional” and “irresponsible” reporting. The Elysee Palace later followed up with a statement saying Malbrunot should have reached out to the French presidency to react to the information.
The dispute highlighted the sensitivity of Macron’s diplomatic outreach in Lebanon, particularly involving high level Hezbollah figures.
France’s willingness to work with Hezbollah sets it apart from other Western governments, particularly the US, which has labeled the group in its entirety as a “terrorist organisation” and demanded it give up its weapons and be excluded from any future Lebanese government.
Paris distinguishes between Hezbollah’s political and military factions, recognising the former as a legitimate entity.
Analyst Karim Bitar told AFP that France “wants to maintain a channel of dialogue with Hezbollah in order to prevent the destabilisation of Lebanon.”
However, others have argued that France’s unwillingness to blacklist Hezbollah has more to do with its desire to retain unique access to a powerful militant element of its former protectorate.
Last month, the Washington-based Atlantic Council ran an article arguing that France was doing more harm than good by granting Hezbollah legitimacy, pointing to the Shia group’s long history of militia recruitment, terror involvement and money laundering.
“Macron’s belief in France’s special responsibility to Lebanon is evident. If he wants to help the people suffering under Hezbollah there, Macron should follow the German example, and lead a ban of Hezbollah at home,” wrote senior nonresident fellow Jeremy Stern in the article.
Not all French political circles share Macron’s belief that Paris should remain open to Hezbollah either. A group of prominent French figures urged the government on the eve of Macron’s last Lebanese trip to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organisation and to not block European Union efforts to blacklist the militant group. “Without a firm condemnation of Hezbollah, France’s action, in trying to lend support to an old friend in the region, would be futile,” wrote the signatories, who included former Prime Minister Manuel Valls and former Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy.
Senior US officials visiting Lebanon have given similar warnings about the Shia group’s potential participation in future government lineups.
US Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker, who was visiting Lebanon last week, said that Hezbollah “cannot be trusted” to follow through with reforms, a Shia figure he met with told AFP. “Hezbollah has been given ample opportunity since 2005 to really involve itself in the state and has not changed its behaviour,” the source reported Schenker as saying.
In addition to fostering unrest within Lebanon, the US accuses Hezbollah of helping carry out Iran’s divisive regional agenda with a vast network of proxy militias, further isolating Lebanon on the international scene.
“As the Lebanese people suffer through a crushing economic crisis, Hezbollah’s exploitation of Lebanon’s financial system, its degradation of Lebanese institutions, and its provocative and dangerous actions threaten the Lebanese people and jeopardise Lebanon’s financial well-being and potential recovery,” US Secretary Mike Pompeo said last month.
But while the US has publicly taken a firm stance against the Shia group’s participation in a future government, analysts say Washington, focused on domestic challenges and an upcoming presidential election, could allow France a margin of manoeuvre as it negotiates with the key players.
At the end of the day, however, Washington has the capacity to lift or impose sanctions, giving it decisive veto power over the course which these manoeuvres will eventually take.

US sanctions ex-Lebanese ministers over Hezbollah ties
The Arab Weekly/September 09/2020

أميركا تفرض عقوبات على وزراء سابقين يغطون ويؤيدون حزب الله
WASHINGTON – The United States expanded its sanctions on Lebanon on Tuesday, blacklisting two former government ministers it accused of providing material and financial help to Hezbollah and warning that more actions targeting the Iran-backed Shia group were in the pipeline.
US officials also said Washington was coordinating with France on Lebanon but voiced criticism over a meeting French President Emmanuel Macron held with Lebanese politicians, including a member of Hezbollah, seen as a terrorist organisation by the United States. In a statement, the US Treasury Department said it had designated former Lebanese Transport Minister Yusuf Finyanus and former Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil for engaging in corruption and leveraging their political power for financial gain. "Finyanus and Khalil were involved in directing political and economic favors to Hezbollah and involved in some of the corruption that made Hezbollah's work possible in Lebanon," David Schenker, assistant secretary for Near East Affairs at the US State Department told a briefing call."This should be a message to both to those who cooperate with Hezbollah, those who enable Hezbollah but also to Lebanon's political  leaders," Schenker said. "Everyone should absolutely expect more designations to come," he added. Media reports suggested that Washington had initially been looking to designate Gebran Bassil, the influential son-in-law of Lebanese President Michel Aoun and a former foreign minister who heads the largest Christian political bloc in the sectarian power-sharing system. Asked by reporters if Bassil and Riad Salama, a Lebanese central bank governor, were next to be sanctioned by the United States, senior US government officials on a separate briefing call declined to comment.
Fifteen years after the assassination of Lebanon's Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, heavily armed group Hezbollah has risen to become the overarching power in a country that is now collapsing under a series of devastating crises. Lebanon's banks are paralysed, its currency has crashed and sectarian tensions are rising. On top of that, a huge port blast last month smashed a large swath of Beirut, killing more than 190 people and causing damage estimated at up to $4.6 billion. Macron, whose pressure prompted Lebanon's bickering leaders to agree on a new prime minister, has spearheaded international efforts to set Lebanon on a new course after decades of corrupt rule led to its deepest crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war. While France, Lebanon's former colonial power, is at the forefront of diplomacy, Iran through its support for Hezbollah also has influence. The United States is also a major donor to Lebanon, including to the Lebanese army.
 

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 09-10/2020
Israel, UAE to sign deal at White House next week
MATTHEW LEE/AP/September 09/2020
Israel and the United Arab Emirates will sign their historic deal normalizing relations at a White House ceremony on Sept. 15, officials said Tuesday.
Senior delegations from the two countries will be led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Emirati Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the brother of Abu Dhabi’s powerful crown prince. U.S. officials, who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the ceremony would either be on the South Lawn, the Rose Garden or inside depending on weather. Late Tuesday, Netanyahu tweeted he “was proud to leave for Washington next week at the invitation of President Trump and to participate in the historic ceremony at the White House” to sign the deal with the UAE. The UAE’s state-run WAM news agency acknowledged Sheikh Abdullah would lead the Emirati delegation to the signing. Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE’s day-to-day ruler named in the joint announcement of the U.S.-brokered deal, apparently will not attend.
Sheikh Mohammed has not traveled to the U.S. since being named tangentially in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on President Donald Trump and Russian interference in America’s 2016 election. His inclusion stemmed from his mysterious role in a 2017 meeting between a Trump associate and a Russian middleman for Vladimir Putin in the Seychelles. The UAE-Israel ceremony will come just a month after the agreement to establish full diplomatic relations was announced on Aug. 13. The historic deal delivered a key foreign policy victory to Trump as he seeks reelection, and reflected a changing Middle East in which shared concerns about archenemy Iran have largely overtaken traditional Arab support for the Palestinians. That announcement was followed by the first direct commercial flight between the countries and the establishment of telephone links.
The UAE also announced the end of its boycott of Israel, which allows trade and commerce between the oil-rich Emirates and Israel, home to a thriving diamond trade, pharmaceutical companies and tech start-ups.
The Palestinians have rejected the deal as trading away one of the few cards they have in moribund peace talks with Israel to establish its own independent state — the Arab boycott of Israel. The UAE presented the agreement as taking Israel’s planned annexation of parts of the occupied West Bank off the table. But Netanyahu insisted the pause was “temporary.”Abu Dhabi also hopes the deal will allow it to purchase advanced American weaponry, like the F-35 stealth fighter jet.

*Associated Press writer Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed to this report.

Arab League condemns Turkey and Iran
The National/September 09/2020
Palestinian resolution off the table as UAE reiterates support for two-state solution
Arab League states met on Wednesday on the foreign ministerial level to discuss Turkish and Iranian interference in the region and the Palestinian cause.
Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri told the meeting that Cairo “will not stand motionless in face of the Turkish greed that is especially being show in northern Iraq, Libya and Syria.”He said Egypt supports Iraq “against continuous Turkish aggression into its borders” and backs measures Baghdad “is taking against these intransigent instances of interference”.Turkey launched a major cross-border military operation into northern Iraq in May saying it was battling Kurdish militants. Several civilians and Iraqi border guards have been killed.
Last month, Iraqi officials cancelled a visit by Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar in protest of a Turkish drone killing of two Iraqi officers. Assistant Arab League Secretary Hussam Zaki said Iran and Turkey are seeking to interfere in Arab affairs and seek opportunities at the expense of Arab states.
The Cairo meeting on Wednesday was presided over by Palestine, as it took over the presidency of the Arab League from Oman, and was held remotely due to the coronavirus pandemic. In a press briefing after the meeting, Mr Zaki said the Palestinian delegation presented a draft resolution to the meeting that did not have the agreement of the other members. The draft affirmed Palestinian rights and specifically referred to the Aug 13 peace accord between the United Arab Emirates and Israel, but did not endorse it. However, an amended draft resolution that focused on Palestinian rights and the need to establish a two-state solution supported by a number of Arab countries, also did not pass. Known as the Abraham Accord, the US-brokered the deal between the UAE and Israel to establish normalised relations in return for a halt to Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory.
UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr Anwar Gargash spoke at the meeting, saying the Abraham Accord created a “new momentum for peace” and reaffirmed his country's support for the two-state solution. “We definitely think that this is an important chance to jump on and build upon and push all the concerned parties to achieve a just and comprehensive solution to the conflict according to the agreed basis and UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative,” he said. “The sovereign and strategic decision by the UAE to sign a peace accord with Israel includes, among other things, tacit Israeli approval and a US guarantee to freeze the annexation of the Palestinian land,” he said. “From our view, this constitutes and achievement and an important step towards peace.” Dr Gargash said the UAE’s position in support of the Palestinian cause is a hallmark of the country’s policy since it was founded “and will remain in the future.” The minister of state also condemned Turkey’s activities in the region, saying recent activity in the Eastern Mediterranean undermines “security and safety of maritime traffic in the Mediterranean waters, in a clear violation of relevant international laws and conventions and a violation of the sovereignty of states.” He added: "Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Arab countries continues thought its support for armed militias and armed groups in some Arab countries, and Iran continues to threaten the security and safety of maritime traffic and energy supplies in the waterways of the region".
The Arab League ministers also declared their full solidarity with Sudan as it battles devastating floods and declared its support to Lebanon.

Europeans set to face down US demands over Iran sanctions
The National/September 09/2020
Britain, France and Germany sustain a united front despite new breaches of 2015 nuclear deal uncovered
The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has sought to put pressure on a group of European countries to re-impose sanctions on Iran after the discovery of growing stockpiles of uranium in contravention of the 2015 nuclear deal.
Mr Pompeo said in a tweet that Britain, France and Germany should “wake up to the reality” that the nuclear deal was history and join the United States in more punitive measures aimed at preventing Iran securing a nuclear weapon.
The three countries – knowns as the E3 – have been steadfast in backing a diplomatic solution that brings Iran back to compliance with the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Analysts said there was little sign of them giving up their united front just weeks before US elections that could bring significant shift in policy if Donald Trump loses the vote and his campaign of “maximum pressure” is consigned to history.
Dr Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said: “I don’t see any movement from the E3 to the continuing pressure from the US on that front.”
She said it was difficult for the US to declare a win on this policy with two months to go before elections in the United States.
The 2015 nuclear agreement has been on the rocks since President Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from the accord that gave Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme.
In retaliation for the US withdrawal, Tehran started producing uranium at a higher grade than allowed under the deal. Last week, the UN's nuclear watchdog said that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium stands at more than ten times the limit set down in the 2015 nuclear deal.
Mr Pompeo said: “Iran's uranium stockpile is reportedly more than 10 times the limit set by the JCPOA. The E3 and other nations must wake up to the reality that the nuclear deal is history and should join us in imposing strong sanctions. Pressure and comprehensive talks are the only path forward.”
The E3 group in June issued a joint statement giving its continuing support to the nuclear deal and expressed “regret and concern” that the US had turned its back on it and re-imposed sanctions.
The three countries added that they reaffirmed that they “are ready to engage in a meaningful and realistic approach and await a constructive Iranian response”.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told MPs this week that the UK was reluctant to ditch the nuclear deal until a broader deal that addressed Iran’s destabilising activities in the region was in place. He said that the JCPOA provides “the vehicle for some kind of restraint on Iran, although I accept that it has been eroded because of systemic non-compliance”.But he added that MPs “should not lose sight of what the JCPOA adds”. Dr Sanim Vakil, the deputy director of the Middle East North Africa Programme, at Chatham House said a new initiative from the E3 could not be ruled out but the group’s main theme is likely to be continuity. “They have held it together for the last two years so they will want to make sure they remain on the same page,” she said.
 

Syria Battles Forest Fires for Seventh Day Straight
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 09/2020
Syrian firefighters and army helicopters Wednesday battled forest fires for a seventh consecutive day in government-held areas of the war-torn country, state media said. Damascus ally Iran sent in a firefighting plane Wednesday carrying 40 tonnes of water to help fight the fires in the hilly woodlands of Latakia and Hama provinces, in northwestern and central Syria respectively, state news agency SANA said. State media has published repeated images of billowing smoke above tree tops and charred vegetation. "Numerous fires have been put out, others brought under control, but the fires continue to rage in some areas" of Latakia, forestry official Hassan Fares told AFP. The agriculture ministry said steep terrain was an obstacle to fire trucks being able to reach the fire hit areas quickly. There was no immediate data for how large an area had been affected overall. But Hama governor Mohammed al-Hazouri said the blaze had ravaged eight square kilometres (three square miles) of agricultural land in his province alone. Summer fires, sometimes sparked by accident and generally not linked to the war, are common in Syria, but residents have said this year's are worse than usual. Syria's war has killed more than 380,000 people, displaced millions from their homes, and decimated the country's economy.

Trump Racks Up Foreign Policy Wins -- amid Gaping Holes
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 09/2020
With elections fast approaching, President Donald Trump has quickly racked up a string of foreign policy achievements to showcase, even as progress remains elusive on his major goals. The U.S. military said Wednesday it was pulling some 2,200 troops from Iraq and the White House plans a similar announcement for Afghanistan as Trump seeks to honor his pledge to wind down America's "endless wars." Next week, the Republican incumbent will preside over a signing ceremony between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, the first additional Arab state to recognize the close US ally in decades.
And the leaders of Serbia and Kosovo recently met at the White House to normalize economic relations. Unlike former president Barack Obama's signature international efforts such as the Iran nuclear deal, Trump's recent moves enjoy wide U.S. support and face little risk of reversal if Democrat Joe Biden defeats him on November 3. But plenty of larger issues remain stuck. There has been no visible progress for more than a year with North Korea, with which Trump had voiced hope of reaching a historic accord after a string of summits with leader Kim Jong Un. Venezuela's leftist leader Nicolas Maduro is still in power despite a year and a half of US efforts to topple him, and a U.S. effort to extend a UN arms embargo on Iran failed spectacularly. Despite Trump's tough rhetoric, China shows no signs of backing down and has cracked down on freedoms in Hong Kong, while some see Russian President Vladimir Putin as being emboldened by supportive remarks from Trump.
No new wars
Sarah Kreps, a professor at Cornell University, said that Trump can legitimately campaign on having kept the United States out of new wars, while cautioning that few Americans are likely to cast their ballots based on foreign policy issues. "I cannot recall another president in the post-Cold War period, if not going back further, who used military force less," she said. "Whether it's an achievement or success is probably in the eyes of the beholder. For people who think the US has become over-extended, it could be considered a success." She noted that Trump withstood heavy criticism from the foreign policy establishment over his previous decisions to pull troops from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. "So it looks like he's trying to fulfill a campaign promise now that he's given the military time to plan for the drawdown," she said. But Trump has also carried out drone strikes, notably a January attack at the Baghdad airport that killed Iran's most prominent general, Qasem Soleimani. Tensions have soared with Iran since Trump pulled out of Obama's nuclear accord and imposed sweeping sanctions in an effort to reduce Tehran's regional clout. "It's hard for Trump to make the case that he kept America out of war when we were just minutes away from war with Iran in 2019 and 2020," said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "There have been too many close calls, too much unhinged bellicose rhetoric, and too much misuse of the Pentagon's resources to make that case credible," he said.
- 'Minor blips' vs. pandemic -
Katulis described the recent accords and troop drawdowns as "minor blips on a radar screen that is blinking with much bigger crises at home and overseas.""Trump's main legacy on foreign policy -- and the greatest security crisis on Trump's watch -- is the one still unfolding before us, the coronavirus pandemic and the economic fallout," he said. "The lack of coordination with key partners on responding to the pandemic and economic fallout will make things tougher on America for years to come and has led to a decline in America's standing in the world." Trump has been trailing Biden in the polls amid criticism over his handling of the pandemic, from which the United States has suffered the highest death toll of any nation, as well as his brazenly divisive posture as anti-racism protests sweep the United States. But the Trump administration has been eager to highlight international successes -- it is pushing for long-delayed Afghan peace talks to get underway and also for a resolution to a three-year rift between Qatar and fellow US allies in the Gulf. Robert O'Brien, Trump's national security advisor, even last week characterized a deal between Turkey and Syrian Kurds -- brokered after Trump abruptly pulled US troops -- as a diplomatic success.
"You're seeing a pattern here of the president being a true peacemaker," he said.
The Pentagon will slash the level of U.S. troops in Iraq to 3,000 this month, a senior general said Wednesday, as President Donald Trump seeks to honor a pledge to withdraw from foreign conflicts. General Kenneth McKenzie, the head of the U.S. military's Central Command, said in Baghdad that the decision was "due to our confidence in the Iraqi Security Forces' increased ability to operate independently." "In consultation and coordination with the Government of Iraq and our coalition partners, the United States has decided to reduce our troop presence in Iraq from about 5,200 to 3,000 troops during the month of September," he said. McKenzie said the U.S. would be able to continue supporting the Iraqi military in its fight against the Islamic State group, which was driven out of its "caliphate" territory last year but remains scattered around Iraq. He said the U.S. was committed to its "ultimate goal" of an Iraq where local forces alone can prevent the Islamic State from returning and secure "Iraq's sovereignty without external assistance." "The journey has been difficult, the sacrifice has been great, but the progress has been significant," the general said. By late 2018, there were an estimated 5,200 American troops still stationed in Iraq, making up the bulk of the 7,500 coalition forces there, according to U.S. officials. Over the past year, dozens of rocket attacks have targeted those forces, the U.S. embassy and logistics convoys heading to Iraqi bases, killing at least six military personnel -- three Americans, one Briton and two Iraqis. U.S. officials have blamed the violence on hardline factions close to Tehran, which as Washington's longtime foe has repeatedly demanded US troops leave the Middle East. Trump is also set to announce further troop withdrawals from Afghanistan in the coming days, a senior administration official said. Washington currently has 8,600 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan in accordance with a bilateral agreement signed in February between Washington and the Taliban. Trump, who is trailing Democratic rival Joe Biden in the polls ahead of the November 3 presidential election, has promised to bring troops home in a bid to wrap up what he has called America's endless wars.

Iraq Reforms Stymied by Shadowy Groups' Wave of Attacks
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 09/2020
War-scarred Iraq hopes to launch reforms and revive its battered economy, but the drive is being derailed by a wave of violence blamed largely on shadowy pro-Iranian groups. Since Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhemi took office in May, he has promised to rein in rogue militias, fight corruption and roll out long-awaited restructuring after years of war and insurgency. But the closer his government gets to its stated aims, the more armed actors with suspected links to Washington's arch enemy Tehran are lashing out, top Iraqi officials and analysts told AFP. "Every time these groups see us getting close to their military or economic interests, they either launch rockets or propaganda campaigns to distract us," said one senior government official. Violence, already rising before Kadhemi met US President Donald Trump in Washington in mid-August, has only flared further. On September 3, an attack targeted the Baghdad headquarters of British-American security company G4S. One intelligence official told AFP a drone had dropped a small explosive charge on the building. No faction claimed responsibility, but Tehran-backed groups had accused G4S of complicity in January's US drone strike that killed Iran's top general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad. Days earlier, a UN worker was wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated underneath an aid convoy in the northern city of Mosul. A faction identifying itself as part of the "Islamic resistance" -- a catch-all phrase for pro-Iran factions -- took responsibility, accusing the UN of using its convoys to transport American spies. "Your vehicles will burn in the streets of Iraq," it threatened online.
Smokescreen -
A half-dozen previously unheard-of such factions have made similar threats in recent months under the "Islamic resistance" banner, but officials say they are a smokescreen. "Five groups, including Kataeb Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and others, are behind the recent instability across the country," an Iraqi intelligence officer said. These hardline groups are members of Iraq's Hashed al-Shaabi, a state-sponsored network dominated by factions close to Iran and wary of the United States. US officials have made similar accusations, naming Kataeb Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq as the real perpetrators of rocket attacks on American installations in Iraq. "They declared a unified front after Soleimani's killing and began working under pseudonyms, which allowed the government of PM Adel Abdel Mahdi to save face as they were nominally under his command," the Iraqi official said. The same groups had accused Kadhemi of plotting against Soleimani when the former was Iraq's top intelligence official and were furious when he rose to become premier. They have understood Kadhemi's pledges to reign in armed groups as an attempt to clip their wings, officials and experts have told AFP. Beyond escalating rocket attacks, the groups have also ramped up pressure through unconventional media outlets. Anonymous channels on messaging application Telegram publish taunting warnings of attacks on military convoys well before they happen, deepening a sense of impunity. The same forums have targeted Iraqi television channels critical of Iran. Dijla TV was torched last week after the Telegram channels turned on them, and a new wave of threats have targeted Sunni-owned UTV. The campaign began after the US government seized the website domains of Al-Etejah, an Iraqi television station linked to Kataeb Hezbollah.
'Putting out fires' -
The government is not looking for a direct confrontation with these groups, said Kadhemi's spokesman Ahmad Mulla. "Instead, we are looking to dry up their funding resources by targeting border crossings," used for lucrative smuggling from Iran, Mulla told AFP. Officials knew this could be dangerous. When the PM launched a sweeping anti-corruption campaign on Iraq's porous borders, they braced for the worst. "They will blackmail officials, threaten their families, mobilise the tribes and maybe even commit assassinations," one senior official told AFP in July. Indeed, two anti-government activists were gunned down weeks later in the southern port city of Basra, and tribal violence erupted north of Baghdad. "We are constantly putting out fires, so we can't properly focus on the bigger strategy," another Iraqi official said, about Baghdad's efforts to reform the state and revitalise an economy hit by the Covid-19 pandemic and low oil prices. A third official told AFP that Iraq's Finance Minister Ali Allawi missed his August 24 deadline to submit an economic reform plan to parliament because of the recent tumult. Last week, Kadhemi set up an anti-corruption council, authorising the elite troops of the Counter-Terrorism Service to arrest officials usually considered too senior to touch. His forces also carried out search operations in Basra and Baghdad to seize unlicensed arms, but few have turned up. Iraqi security expert Fadel Abou Raghif said the situation was "dangerous". "Ultimately, Kadhemi should open a real dialogue with the spiritual leaders of these groups to avoid a clash."

Saudi Arabia Struggles to Turn Page on Khashoggi's Murder
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 09/2020
Saudi Arabia sought to turn the page on a journalist's murder with a final court ruling, but observers say the damaging scandal that sparked global revulsion will continue to haunt the kingdom. The global fallout over Jamal Khashoggi's 2018 murder tarnished the reputation of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, casting a shadow on his ambitious reforms, putting the kingdom's human rights record under the scanner and testing old alliances with Western powers. Saudi Arabia aimed to draw a line under the case on Monday, with a local court overturning five death sentences in its final ruling and handing jail terms of up to 20 years to eight unnamed defendants after secretive legal proceedings. But analysts say the murder stain will be hard to wash off, especially as a government crackdown on state critics continues two years after the killing. "Justice is served," screamed a front-page headline in the pro-government Okaz newspaper on Tuesday. But for global campaigners, the ruling, which came after Khashoggi's sons paved the way for a less severe punishment as they "pardoned" the killers, is nothing but a travesty of justice. "I do not believe the verdict and the sentences will draw a bright line under the Khashoggi case," Hussein Ibish, a scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, told AFP. "It does not appear to the outside world that justice has been served. The Saudis may be haunted by this for a long time."
- 'Whitewash' -
Saudi Arabia, beset by low crude prices and gearing up to be the first Arab nation to host a G20 summit in November, appears desperate to reboot its international image. But it will not be easy to move past the killing.
On Tuesday, Amnesty International branded the verdict a "whitewash" as it fails to address "Saudi authorities' involvement." Riyadh has described the murder in the kingdom's Istanbul consulate as a "rogue" operation, but both the CIA and a U.N. special rapporteur have directly linked Prince Mohammed to the killing, a charge the kingdom denies. Particularly galling for campaigners is that senior officials implicated in the killing were exonerated, including two former top aides to the crown prince -- deputy intelligence chief Ahmed al-Assiri and the royal court's media czar Saud al-Qahtani. The government has appeared careful not to punish loyalist officials, a move that analysts say could have dangerously backfired as they only appeared to be following orders. "By downgrading the (punishment), it appears that Prince Mohammed and the Saudi state feel more confident that the world is losing interest in the Khashoggi case," said Bessma Momani, a professor at Canada's University of Waterloo. "The lessened charges also somewhat help restore Saudi intelligence officers' confidence in that the state has their backs when knowledge of their operations is exposed."Even as global outrage over the killing dissipates, Prince Mohammed will struggle to rehabilitate his international image as a self-styled reformer, analysts say.Before the murder, the crown prince had marketed himself in PR-slicked campaigns as a liberalizer seeking to modernize his conservative petro-state.
- 'Positive brand' -
Still, the prince is pushing to jumpstart foreign investment after observers said the scandal impeded his reforms and mega projects that are aimed at steering the economy away from oil. Global bankers and executives returned to a glitzy Davos-style investor conference in 2019 after a boycott in the previous year over the killing. But the murder has increased the reputational risk for Western firms doing business in Saudi Arabia. "Saudi rulers have learned that having a positive country brand can be important to advance goals like attracting foreign investment and signing business deals with the West," said Momani.
Since the killing, the kingdom has pushed to improve its much-criticized human rights record with a slew of reforms. The government recently moved to abolish court-ordered floggings and end the death penalty for crimes committed by minors. But casting a pall on those endeavors is an intensifying crackdown on domestic dissent. A string of Saudi citizens overseas have also reported attempts by the state to intimidate or silence them. Saad Aljabri, a former intelligence czar exiled in Canada, claimed in a recent lawsuit that a Saudi hit team was sent after him just two weeks after members of the same squad murdered Khashoggi. "It does still seem that Saudi citizens, both at home and especially overseas, remain very vulnerable to intimidation, arrest and potential harm" by the state, said Ibish.

Algeria Journalist Denies 'Incitement' Charge in Appeal Hearing
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 09/2020
Algerian journalist Khaled Drareni Tuesday denied a slew of charges against him, insisting at his appeal that he was just doing his job in a case seen as a barometer of press freedoms in the country. Battling a three-year jail term handed down in August for his coverage of the Algerian protests, Drareni was greeted by a crowd of supporters outside the court in the capital Algiers. "From the first day, all I did was do my job as a journalist. I am here because I covered the 'Hirak' (movement) in all independence," he told the court. His lawyer said the appeal verdict would be delivered on September 15. Editor of the Casbah Tribune news site and correspondent for French-language channel TV5 Monde, Drareni, 40, was convicted of "inciting an unarmed gathering" and "endangering national unity" with his coverage of the year-long demonstrations that ousted longtime president Abdelaziz Bouteflika last year. Press freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), for which Drareni also works, has condemned the three-year jail term and a fine of 50,000 dinar ($388) as "arbitrary, absurd and violent."Drareni was arrested on March 7 while covering a protest led by the Hirak, and accused of having criticized Algeria's political system on Facebook, according to RSF. "You can look again at all my posts to see if there was anything endangering national unity. I was recounting the facts," he said in court.
'Restricting coverage
Very few reporters were allowed into the courtroom to cover Tuesday's hearings, and some 30 lawyers were due to speak. The prosecutors called for a four-year jail term for Drareni. "The appeals trial of @khaleddrareni opened without almost any witnesses. Only about 10 journalists were allowed into the courtroom, compared with a 100 in the first hearings," RSF said in a tweet. It added it was clear the "authorities want to limit very symbolic media coverage... by imposing without warning new restrictions on journalists' access."Drareni was swept into the court complex by bus from Kolea prison outside Algiers, where he has been held since March 29. A small crowd of supporters met him, shouting "Khaled Drareni is a free journalist". The appeals of co-defendants Samir Benlarbi and Sliman Hamitouche, both leading Hirak figures, were also being heard. They were each sentenced to two years, but with most of the term suspended, they have already been released and freely presented themselves to the court. Since Drareni was jailed last month, thousands of people have signed petitions calling for his release, noting that his sentence was "the heaviest" handed down to a journalist in decades in Algeria. Signatories include academics, lawyers and fellow journalists, as well as writer and independence war veteran Louisette Ighilahriz.
Press freedom 'symbol'
RSF secretary general Christophe Deloire said authorities in the North African country had "made him (Drareni) a symbol of the defense of freedom of the press."The appeal comes after the government agreed draft changes to the constitution over the weekend that will be submitted to parliament for approval ahead of a nationwide referendum in November. President Abdelmadjid Tebboune said the reforms "respond to the demands of the popular movement."Tebboune, a former premier under Bouteflika who was elected in December, has promised to break with the old regime, seen as synonymous with authoritarianism, corruption and nepotism. But the proposed constitutional changes fall far short of the protest movement's demands for wholesale political reform and the departure of all Bouteflika-era officials. Regular weekly protests organised by the Hirak movement petered out in March in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. But as the referendum looms, they are expected to regain steam. In recent months, the government has accused journalists of spreading discord and subversion. During a meeting with the press in May, Tebboune hinted without naming Drareni that he may have been "an informer for foreign embassies". RSF ranked Algeria 146 out of 180 countries and territories in its 2020 World Press Freedom Index, five places lower than in 2019.

Iran signals further pursuit of uranium enrichment
The Arab Weekly/September 09/2020
TEHRAN--Iran’s nuclear body signaled Tehran’s intent to press ahead with its pursuit of uranium enrichment as it announced Tuesday the launch of a new “advanced centrifuge” facility to replace one badly damaged by “sabotage” at its main Natanz nuclear fuel plant in July. “It was decided to create a more modern, larger and more improved station in the heart of the mountains around Natanz, and the implementation of this project has started,” Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic agency, said on state television. “We started the preliminary work by supplying the equipment and setting up a series of production chambers for advanced centrifuges,” he added, without giving further details. Advanced centrifuges are used in the process of uranium enrichment. Iran said last month that an explosion at its plant in Natanz had been caused by “sabotage.”After the July explosion, Iran sent warnings to Washington and Israel, two countries which accuse Tehran of developing a secret military nuclear programme, claims Iran has always denied. On Sunday, Iranian atomic energy spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said that after investigations into the Natanz explosion they had identified the “elements” responsible. No further details were given. The 2015 nuclear agreement has been faltering since US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from an international accord that gave Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme.
In retaliation to the US withdrawal, the Islamic republic started producing uranium at a higher grade than allowed under the deal.Last week, the UN’s nuclear watchdog said that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium stands at more than ten times the limit set down in the 2015 nuclear deal.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 09-10/2020

How Trump can enforce the snapback of UN sanctions on Iran
Richard Goldberg/The Washington Examinar/September 09, 2020
President Trump recently demanded the indefinite restoration of the United Nations's sanctions on Iran that were terminated by the Obama-Biden nuclear deal — including an arms embargo that was scheduled to expire in October. Russia and China will contest Trump’s assertion and threaten sales of advanced conventional weapons to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
To defend America’s security, Trump should use his own sanctions toolbox to enforce disputed multilateral restrictions, whether Moscow and Beijing like it or not.
Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo notified the U.N. Security Council that Washington was triggering a 30-day process known as a “snapback” to restore international sanctions on Iran — a move that effectively delivers last rites to the nuclear deal and denies Iran its remaining strategic benefits.
In addition to billions of dollars in sanctions relief, Iran had won important changes at the Security Council in 2015: an expiration on the arms embargo in 2020, an expiration on the prohibition of foreign support to its missile program in 2023, removal of prohibitions on uranium enrichment and missile testing, and future legitimate pathways to an industrial-sized nuclear program. Under the snapback, all of these concessions disappear. Instead, older Security Council resolutions return to life, eliminating sunsets on key restrictions while demanding that Iran immediately halt all enrichment and missile-related activities.
President Trump is not influencing an October vaccine, science is
Russia, China, and European countries that support the nuclear deal are contesting the U.S. snapback, arguing that America forfeited its standing to trigger the mechanism when it left the deal in 2018. Russia and China’s interests are apparent. The Defense Department reported that both countries want to sell fighter jets, tanks, and naval platforms to Iran when the arms embargo ends.
Supporters of the nuclear deal in London, Paris, and Berlin, on the other hand, know that a snapback is their last stand. If the snapback occurs, the deal is finally dead. They are willing to undermine their own security interests in letting the arms embargo on Iran expire just to preserve a more politically expedient appeasement foreign policy. According to senior advisers, former Vice President Joe Biden falls into this camp too.
Detractors claim that the refusal of most Security Council members to recognize America’s triggering of the snapback leaves the United States more isolated, ignoring widespread support from across the Middle East. These claims dismiss a more fundamental truth: Doing nothing would give Iran uncontested international legitimacy in developing its conventional, missile, and nuclear capabilities. By triggering the snapback, Trump puts a cloud of uncertainty and illegitimacy over any U.N. member state that considers breaching binding Security Council resolutions -- a cloud he can turn into a thunderstorm of deterrence by enforcing the snapback with the threat of U.S. sanctions.
Trump is scheduled to address the U.N. General Assembly just hours after the U.S. completes the snapback. He should use this speech to announce an executive order threatening the full range of financial sanctions against any firm connected to the transfer of conventional arms, ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, and related components to Iran. Though not covered by the U.N. embargo, transfers of air defense systems like the Russian S-400 should be included.
If a Russian or Chinese defense firm tries to sell weapons to Iran, that firm and all the supporting institutions involved in a transaction would face secondary U.S. sanctions. Sanctions would apply not just to new sales but also to maintenance and modernization of existing equipment. Banks, underwriters, shippers, ports, freight forwarders, and other logistics firms would have to choose: involvement in Russian and Chinese military sales or a cutoff from the U.S. financial system and market.
Congress inserted a similar provision in a 2017 sanctions law, but that legislation failed to address the broadest range of possible military-related transfers and potential sanctions to deter them. Trump has an opportunity to take this bipartisan legislation and greatly expand its impact.
For a firm like Rosoboronexport, Russia’s state organization in charge of defense exports, a designation under this executive order could disrupt billions of dollars in global sales. While Rosoboronexport is already blacklisted by the U.S. for its activities in Ukraine, secondary sanctions have not been enforced.
China, whose arms export industry has grown in recent years, would face the same risks. Beijing uses several state-owned enterprises — NORINCO, Aviation Industry Corporation of China, China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, and China South Industries Group Corporation — to sell military products.
Recent examples demonstrate that state-owned enterprises with global business behave just like other multinational corporations when it comes to U.S. sanctions compliance. China has gone to great lengths to distance its state-owned energy companies and banks from illicit oil transactions with Iran. Last November, a Russian state-owned nuclear fuel company suspended its work at an Iranian facility after U.S. sanctions were reinstated. Russian and Chinese diplomats can make all the speeches they want; their state-owned enterprises, nonetheless, typically make financially prudent decisions.
America may stand alone at the Security Council in recognizing the snapback of U.N. sanctions on Iran. But Trump can send a powerful message to a corrupt and dysfunctional multilateral system by unilaterally enforcing that snapback with the deterrent power of U.S. sanctions.
**Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He served on Capitol Hill, on the U.S. National Security Council, as the governor of Illinois’s chief of staff, and as a Navy Reserve Inte

Erdogan and Hamas: ‘He’s presenting himself as leader of Muslim world’
Mehul Srivastava in Jaffa and Laura Pitel in Ankara http:/Financial Times/September 09/2020
Turkish president’s relationship with militant group that controls Gaza Strip riles Israel
At Friday prayers at the Al Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem, the faithful often hold up portraits of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president, worshipping under the gleaming gold crescent on the Dome of the Rock that was paid for by Turkey.
Mr Erdogan’s popularity with Palestinians reflects his long championing of their struggle for nationhood and comes as their cause has slid down the list of regional concerns, sidelined by Israel’s wooing of the Gulf states. He has stepped into that vacuum, coupling his adventures in Libya and Syria with a desire to wield influence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For Israel the most troubling aspect is his embrace of Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, and is considered a terrorist group by Israel, the EU and the US.
The US, a close Israel ally, has also voiced concerns. Last month, in a rare public statement on this relationship, it strongly objected to Mr Erdogan hosting two Hamas leaders in Istanbul, chiding him for his “outreach to the terrorist organisation”.
The US rebuke came after Mr Erdogan tweeted a photo of his meeting with Hamas figures, including Saleh al-Arouri, a prominent military commander who worked in Lebanon, Syria and the occupied West Bank.
“There are both geopolitical and ideological considerations here,” said Sarah Feuer, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the INSS in Tel Aviv, referring to Turkey’s regional rivalry with the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
“Erdogan sees emerging alliances in the region as a threat but he’s also presenting himself as the leader of the Muslim world and flag bearer for Islamist movements, to counter the Emirati-Saudi-Egyptian camp. There’s a broader struggle still under way over the contours of the regional order, and that is partly what motivates him.”
“It fits in perfectly,” said a UN official, who has mediated between Israel and Hamas for nearly a decade. “Find the one thing that Israel doesn’t have an answer to, doesn’t know how to manage and can’t get rid of, and make it your own personal vanity project.”
In the past decade, Turkey has funded hospitals, schools and economic projects both in the Gaza Strip, run by Hamas, and in the occupied West Bank, moves that have irked the Israeli government but been welcomed by Palestinians, who have long sought a champion unmoved by Israel’s anti-Iran posture and untamed by American foreign policy demands.
The Turkish president has regularly scolded prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has led Israel’s most rightwing government in years. Mr Erdogan has made the Al Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third-holiest shrine and perhaps the most sensitive of issues dividing the Jews and Arabs, a centrepiece of his pledges to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation.
Mr Erdogan’s embrace of Hamas makes ideological sense. The Islamist militant group emerged in 1987 as a rival to the secular, left-leaning Palestine Liberation Organization, drawing inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood of neighbouring Egypt. The Turkish president, whose own roots lie in Islamist politics, views the Brotherhood and its offshoots as fellow travellers. “There is this sense of kindred spirit and solidarity,” said Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington.
It also works politically for Mr Erdogan, who has increasingly melded foreign policy with domestic considerations, and strives to cast himself at home as a champion of Muslims across the world.
Mr Erdogan inherited a strong relationship with Israel when he swept to national power almost 20 years ago. Turkey, which was the first Muslim-majority nation to recognise the fledgling Jewish state, forged close co-operation on defence and security with Israel in the 1990s. Trade with Israel was $6bn last year, according to the Turkish official statistics — up from $4.3bn in 2016.
But a fiery clash between Mr Erdogan and President Shimon Peres on a Davos stage in 2009 marked the “dividing line” between two chapters in Turkey-Israeli relations, said Asli Aydintasbas, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
For Israel, Turkey’s ideological support of Hamas had until recently been a manageable irritant.
But a 2019 meeting between Mr Erdogan and Ismail Haniyeh, the chief of Hamas’ political wing and who polls say is the most popular leader in the Palestinian territories, signalled a shift in Turkish strategy, from moral support to material, according to people briefed on the issue.
As well as financial help, over the past two years, Turkey has also granted citizenship to dozens of Hamas members, according to one person briefed on the issue, allowing them to travel without visas to more than 100 countries. This brought the relationship between Turkey and Israel to a near halt, according to two others briefed on the situation — and was what triggered the recent reprimand from the US.
The Israeli security establishment had already been suspicious of Turkish passport holders, subjecting them to stringent scrutiny the Turks describe as targeted harassment. Turkey insists that it never grants citizenship to people with proven links to terrorism or violence.
Turkey argues that Hamas — which won the last election in 2006 — is the legitimate representative of the people of Gaza. Officials stress that they also have strong ties with the secular Palestinian party Fatah, which runs the West Bank.
Ankara believes that Israeli pressure on Turkey stems from a sense of emboldenment built on the basis of strong support from Donald Trump and the recent deal to normalise relations with the United Arab Emirates.
“They [ the Israelis] have been isolating Gaza for a long time physically and politically,” said a senior Turkish official. “And now they are targeting countries that have contacts with Hamas.

What is Nato good for?
Sholto Byrnes/The National/September 09/2020
The military alliance is seeing its members' values diverge, but in security matters maybe values aren't everything
Several factors make this a timely question. The first, involving as it does Donald Trump, has provoked fits of the vapours in the usual quarters. According to a new book, the US President’s former chief of staff, retired marine general John Kelly, said that “one of the most difficult tasks he faced with Trump was trying to stop him from pulling out of Nato". Even if Mr Trump doesn't officially do so – either before the presidential election or after, if he wins – there is speculation that he could effectively destroy Nato by reinterpreting Article 5 of Nato’s founding treaty.
This has always been deemed to mean that an attack on one member would be followed by collective, armed self-defence. But the wording is not strict. In such circumstances, each member is bound to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". But as Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution told The New York Times: “He could just reinterpret it as, ‘I could just send a strongly worded letter'.”
This may have partisans of the Atlantic alliance wringing their hands, but in a period when Nato members Turkey and Greece have exchanged threats of war over disputed gas resources in the Mediterranean – and may escalate further – instant invocation of armed collective action would be impossible. Nato could not come to the defence of both sides, after all.
Further, Nato has expanded so egregiously in recent decades that there is uncertainty that Article 5 is the same cast-iron guarantee that it was during the Cold War. Would all parties go to war for North Macedonia, or over an “accidental” Russian border incursion into Estonia?
Mr Trump is not alone in asking what Nato is for these days. He is echoed by French President Emmanuel Macron, who last November declared that the organisation was “brain dead”. Mr Macron also queried whether Article 5 would still trigger a collective response.
This not only a matter for the 30 members of the alliance. For Nato has long been looking east. It established Global Partnerships with South Korea, New Zealand, Mongolia, Australia and Japan in the first half of the last decade, and is now focusing increasingly on China. Other voices are urging the “Quad” of the US, Japan, Australia and India to become the basis of an “Indo-Pacific Nato”, as the US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun put it at the end of last month.
If Nato is to have a larger presence and an enhanced role in East Asia, or is to be joined by a regional version, the question still remains: what is its purpose?
One answer to that is that it is an alliance of democracies. Mr Biegun alluded to that in his remarks, saying that the Trump administration’s “Indo-Pacific strategy is focused around democracies”. Nato’s London Declaration issued last December also states in the second sentence that the organisation “guarantees… the values we share, including democracy, individual liberty, human rights, and the rule of law”.
As a core raison d’etre of the alliance this is problematic, however. Firstly because one of Nato’s current challenges is that a number of members – including Hungary, Poland and Turkey – remain democracies but are deemed to have taken a markedly illiberal or even authoritarian turn. Secondly, as the US academics James Goldgeier and Garret Martin pointed out in a recent article, being a democracy during the Cold War was not a pre-condition of membership: “Portugal did not become a democracy until 1974. As for Greece and Turkey, the former was governed by a military dictatorship from 1967 to 1974, while the latter was the subject of multiple military-led coups.”
President Macron’s pointed questions remain the key ones. “Who is our common enemy?” he said. “This question deserves to be clarified. Is our enemy today, as I hear sometimes, Russia? Is it China? Is it the Atlantic alliance’s purpose to designate them as enemies? I don’t think so.”
It is worth asking whether Nato today should consider Vladimir Putin's Russia or Xi Jinping's China as enemies or as partners against a common threat. AP Photo
It is worth asking whether Nato today should consider Vladimir Putin's Russia or Xi Jinping's China as enemies or as partners against a common threat. AP Photo
I agree with Mr Macron, but there are plenty of Nato boosters who don’t. For instance Ian Brzezinski, a senior defence official under former US president George W Bush, proposes setting up a Nato-China Council, which sounds promising. He then writes, though, that “its establishment would underscore that this dimension of great power competition is not between China and the United States but between China and the transatlantic community".
The London Declaration similarly oscillates between sounding conciliatory – “Nato is a defensive Alliance and poses no threat to any country” – and more bellicose, declaring that “Russia’s aggressive actions constitute a threat to Euro-Atlantic security” and that “China’s growing influence and international policies present both opportunities and challenges that we need to address together as an alliance".
The truth is that for all the airy talk of “the values we share”, what bound Nato together during the Cold War was standing up to the Soviet Union. It is a security alliance; it is not and cannot be an alliance of liberal democracies (otherwise several members would have to be expelled and others in Asia would not want to join). For it to be strong, perhaps it does need a common enemy; but that is not an argument for choosing one that makes confrontation more likely.
Better, perhaps, for Nato to expand to become a global security umbrella and agree with Mr Macron when he said that our common enemy is “terrorism, which has hit all of our countries".
This would be a much scaled-down, less ambitious Nato. It would be a shadow of the military alliance that once kept the West safe – no disadvantage in the Covid-19-straitened present. But with Russia and China inside it, or at least as strong partners, it would be a better one for our times. And it would be a Nato that could adequately answer the question: “what is it for?”
*Sholto Byrnes is an East Asian affairs columnist for The National

Peace for Warplanes?
Neri ZilberThe Washington Institute/September 09/2020
How domestic and foreign disputes over the potential sale of F-35 jets to the UAE could complicate the country's normalization deal with Israel.
The Trump administration wants to push through within months an arms deal with the United Arab Emirates that includes the world’s most advanced warplane, the F-35, an ambitious timetable that could well be thwarted by the U.S. Congress, depending largely on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position on the sale. Publicly, Netanyahu has said he opposes the deal, insisting that Israel’s position on Middle Eastern states acquiring such high-end weapons had not changed. But the Trump administration and Emirati officials have suggested that the F-35 sale was one of the understandings that led the UAE to normalize relations with Israel this month—in a watershed agreement brokered by Washington.
The arms deal is important enough to the UAE that Emirati diplomats canceled a trilateral meeting with Israel and the United States recently as a sign of displeasure over Netanyahu’s vocal opposition to the sale, according to a report in Axios. And defense officials were removed at the last minute from an Israeli ministerial delegation that traveled to Abu Dhabi on Monday for talks with U.S. and Emirati counterparts.
U.S. officials and congressional sources who spoke to Foreign Policy said a large weapons deal like the one proposed with the UAE would usually take almost a year to process. They said the Trump administration wants to get it underway within two to five months, ideally by the time of the U.S. election in November and certainly ahead of any presidential transition in January, in the event that Trump loses the White House.
According to the complicated timeline of the arms deal, Congress would need to be provided with details of a proposed sale by October so that lawmakers would have time to consider it and raise objections. “I don’t see how the UAE would have agreed [to the deal] if it wasn’t happening in three to four months,” one congressional staffer with knowledge of the process told Foreign Policy. “They read the tea leaves, and they know things will change for them in the next administration.” A Democratic congressional aide versed in foreign-policy issues was even blunter: “If Biden wins, this is never going to happen.”
The UAE this month became only the third Arab state to agree to full diplomatic relations with Israel, following Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. The agreement outlined a series of collaborations and projects in trade, investment, tourism, and COVID-19 response initiatives. It also called for Israel to suspend its planned annexation of West Bank settlements.
The UAE has wanted for years to buy the F-35, a sophisticated stealth fighter plane that only Israel among countries in the Middle East has been allowed to purchase. U.S. presidential advisor Jared Kushner, who mediated the UAE-Israel deal, said in a recent interview with CNN that the “peace agreement should increase the probability of them getting it.”
President Donald Trump echoed the sentiment at a news conference the week after the deal was announced. “[The Emiratis] have the money, and they would like to order quite a few F-35s...It’s under review, but they made a great advance in peace in the Middle East,” he said.
Emirati officials believe Israel should have no grounds for opposing the deal now that the two countries are officially at peace. “The UAE expects that its requirements [regarding the F-35s] will be accepted, and we feel that with the signing of this peace treaty in the coming weeks or months...that any hurdle towards this should no longer be there,” Emirati Foreign Minister Anwar Gargash said at a recent talk at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank.
An unnamed senior Emirati official told the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth that, indeed, Netanyahu knew and gave his approval for such a move. But several former and current officials in Israel and the United States told Foreign Policy that selling F-35s to the UAE could have adverse consequences for the national security of both countries.
In Israel, the main concern is that the sale would undermine the country’s military superiority in the region—its qualitative military edge (QME), in U.S. diplomatic parlance. QME is a U.S. commitment that dates back to the 1970s, now codified into law, whereby the United States is legally bound to uphold Israel’s military advantages over any individual Middle Eastern state or coalition of states.
Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz, who was not consulted about the UAE deal ahead of time, said at a recent press conference that while the normalization is a positive step, it should not come at the expense of Israel’s security. “It’s not good for Israel that the [F-35] plane is going around in other places,” he said. This position was reportedly echoed by Israel’s air force chief this summer.
Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli military intelligence chief, told Foreign Policy that the F-35’s unique attributes would help Israel maintain its regional military edge. “The F-35 isn’t just a stealth fighter but also an entire system of advanced sensors, intelligence, radars, avionics, and weapons that give the pilot a very unique picture of battle,” he said.
Yadlin, also a former fighter pilot who now heads the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, added that the real difference between the F-35—a fifth-generation jet—and fourth-generation warplanes like the F-15 and F-16 held by Israel, the UAE, and other regional states was the stealth component. “It’s like the difference between a smartphone in 2020 and a regular mobile phone in the year 2000.”
Other Israeli analysts said they were worried about the precedent such a sale would set in a region where political orientations and alliances are volatile. “It can turn on us in an instant without advance warning,” said Amos Gilead, a retired general and former top Defense Ministry official. “Who could have predicted that Turkey and Iran would now be serious rivals of Israel, after they were such close friends? Or the Islamist takeover of Egypt and then the [Abdel Fattah al-] Sisi takeover from them and return to the alliance with Israel? You can’t predict these things.”
Gilead, considered one of Israel’s foremost experts on the QME agreement with the United States, said Egypt and Saudi Arabia might also want F-35s after the Emiratis received theirs. The U.S. would have “already established the principle, so you would just be negotiating the price,” he said. “I don’t want to risk our security in the long term, and you can’t put your faith in miracles.”
Netanyahu said at a press conference last week with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the peace agreement “did not include Israel’s acceptance of any arms deal, and I don’t know of any arms deal that has been agreed upon...Our position hasn’t changed.”
Yet doubt lingers about the veracity of such denials and just how strong Netanyahu’s opposition will be. “There is opposition on paper, and then there is opposition via all channels available to you. The U.S. won’t sell [the F-35s] if there is real opposition” from Israel, Gilead said.
Several U.S. congressional sources said Netanyahu’s position on whether the sale degrades Israel’s QME will be crucial once lawmakers are asked to vote on the deal. “It will be difficult [for Congress] to oppose if Bibi blesses it,” the congressional staffer said, using Netanyahu’s common nickname. The senior Democratic aide said aggressive lobbying by Netanyahu and the Israeli Embassy in Washington “could tip it in the Emiratis’ favor.”
Prior to any congressional vote, however, the State Department will be required by law to certify whether an F-35 sale undermines Israel’s military advantage. According to the congressional staffer, the State Department has yet to say whether certain restrictions would be imposed on where and how the Emiratis can use the F-35 and other weapons systems now contemplated for sale, including advanced armed drones. A sale without limits would be unacceptable to many members of Congress, the staffer said.
Both Yadlin and Gilead remain skeptical that any limits—technical or geographic—placed on a weapons system like the F-35 would be enough to ameliorate Israeli concerns. Apart from how the sale would affect Israel, congressional staffers pointed to the UAE’s human rights record in Yemen and Libya as an additional area of concern for lawmakers that could at least delay approval of any F-35 sale.
In addition, the U.S. Defense Department must also approve the F-35 deal based on whether the UAE can meet the technical security criteria to own and operate the planes. This, too, could pose an obstacle to the deal.
“The UAE will have to display a level of technological knowledge that they don’t currently possess and that they’re a long way from,” said Michael Stephens, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a London-based think tank. “It’s not just a plane. It’s a completely different level of command and control, maintenance and servicing, and operational integration.”
At present, only a handful of NATO states and partner countries—including Israel, South Korea, and Japan—operate the F-35. Stephens said concerns about Chinese espionage are another reason the United States and Britain tend to withhold their best technology from Gulf states.
“What’s the guarantee that, with the Gulf increasingly looking eastward, that our [Western] technological edge won’t seep out? There’s a reason you keep people out who aren’t part of the club—you can’t expose your equipment to that level of scrutiny.”
If the deal is ultimately scuttled, the UAE will have to decide whether to proceed with normalization, without the F-35s. “The F-35 was the first thing I thought about” after the peace deal with Israel was announced, the congressional staffer told Foreign Policy. “The UAE was getting something out of this, and it wasn’t direct flights from Abu Dhabi to Tel Aviv.”
But Trump could use an emergency arms sale authority to bypass Congress. Though rarely invoked, Trump used this provision last year to ram through an $8 billion deal to Saudi Arabia and the UAE that included precision-guided missiles—drawing rebukes from even some Republican lawmakers. According to congressional staffers, Trump is almost certain to do the same this time around if necessary, so long as there is no two-thirds (veto-proof) majority against the sale in the House of Representatives and Senate.
In any event, actual physical delivery of the planes to the UAE could take up to a decade due to production backlogs and prioritized deals with nations that are partners in the production of the F-35. “The planes aren’t there, and the [pilot] trainers aren’t there,” said Stephens, the RUSI analyst. “It’s not like ordering 100 Mars bars out of the factory.”
*Neri Zilber is a journalist based in Tel Aviv and an adjunct fellow with The Washington Institute. This article was originally published on the Foreign Policy website.

How Arab Americans can help influence US foreign policy
Raya Hanania/Arab News/September 09/2020
The perception of Arab Americans’ involvement in politics is not reflected in the reality when it comes to congressional districts in the US, according to a recent analysis by the New York Times. It lists the 25 districts with the largest Arab populations, the vast majority of which are represented by non-Arabs.
Sometimes, Arab and Muslim American voters face a dilemma. Should they support an Arab or Muslim candidate who has no real chance of winning or should they support a non-Arab or non-Muslim who stands a chance of winning and being their voice in Congress? Arab Americans must weigh their interests against their egos. Having a voice in a congressional district often means we must forgo the Arab candidate.
That was the choice Arab American voters faced in March’s Democratic primary election in the 3rd congressional district in Illinois, which ranks eighth in the 25 districts identified by the New York Times analysis. It had been represented since 2005 by Dan Lipinski, who regularly marginalized Arab American concerns. The more progressive Marie Newman, who works closely with the Arab American community, came close to unseating Lipinski two years ago.
In March’s rematch, Newman won despite the fact that a Palestinian American candidate, Rush Darwish, also threw his hat into the ring. Darwish, who raised more than $500,000 in campaign funds from the Arab community, embarrassingly received only 5.7 percent of the 110,000 votes cast. Newman, whose campaign manager is a Palestinian American, Shadin Maali, triumphed with a near-3 percent margin over Lipinski, a Chicago machine stalwart. She will face little-known Republican Mike Fricilone in the Nov. 3 general election. With the district being overwhelmingly Democratic, Fricilone’s chances are slim.
Newman’s election is a reminder that issues and policy are more important than personalities and even ethnicity.
The New York Times list of 25 congressional districts with the largest Arab and Iranian populations surprisingly only includes the districts of two of the nine Arab Americans who currently serve in Congress.
If Arab Americans want to empower their political voices, especially on foreign policy issues like Palestine, they need to be smarter and make decisions based on facts, not emotions or egos.
If Arab Americans want to empower their political voices, especially on foreign policy issues like Palestine, they need to be smarter and make decisions based on facts, not emotions or egos. That means engaging actively with the incumbents in these districts and setting aside cultural selfishness. The fact there are only nine Arab Americans among the 435 current members of the House of Representatives underscores that need.
We tend to focus on two of those Arabs in particular — Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, both Democrats — because they scream the loudest when it comes to Palestine. In reality, Tlaib, Omar and their partners in “The Squad” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley — only represent a small segment of Arab American voices.
Tlaib and Omar are the only two of the nine Arab American congressmen and women whose districts are on the New York Times list. The other 23 districts are all represented by non-Arabs and non-Muslims.
The other seven Arab American representatives barely focus on populist Arab issues like Palestine. Six of them are Lebanese Americans, of which three (Ralph Abraham, Garret Graves and Darin LaHood) are Republicans and three (Charlie Crist, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and Donna Shalala) are Democrats. How distant are their views? LaHood and his father, who held the seat previously, have been leading supporters of Israel. Last year, LaHood led the charge in attempts to punish Americans who support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, falsely linking it to “anti-Semitism.”
The final Arab congressman is a Palestinian Christian, Rep. Justin Amash. He has remained distant from foreign policy concerns and this year decided to retire when his current term ends as he could no longer support President Donald Trump. He was the only Republican member of the House to vote in favor of both articles of impeachment against Trump. However, this was not because Amash, who has since joined the Libertarian Party, disagreed with Trump’s Middle East policies.
Arab American activists insist on telling us that Palestine is the cornerstone of the community’s political activism, yet their activism has been a failure. In reviewing the New York Times list, it is clear that being Arab American, or Muslim, has nothing to do with who will represent Arab Americans or Muslims in Congress. Obviously, Arab Americans should run for office when they can raise the necessary funds and rally enough support. But, if they can’t win, should our loyalty be to them or to empowering our community through partnership with those who can win?
Arab Americans need better leaders. We need to focus on those 25 districts where Arab Americans and Muslims can maximize their voter strength by supporting winners, and on 30 other districts that the Arab American Institute (AAI) identifies as having significant numbers of Arab American and Muslim voters. That way, issues such as support for Palestine can be given greater prominence in Congress.
**Ray Hanania is an award-winning former Chicago City Hall political reporter and columnist. He can be reached on his personal website at www.Hanania.com. Twitter: @RayHanania

How 2020 election could affect US’ global standing
Alistair Burt/Arab News/September 09/2020
If this article was a cartoon, it would show the British Isles as the mythical figure Britannia to the right of our picture, peering fearfully through her fingers across to the map of the US on the left; a US full of cracks and divisions, shaped like a face in which anger is the predominant motif.
The UK follows US elections closely. The outcome is nothing to do with us; any free, democratic state is entitled to the government it chooses, which the UK will honor. The mood in the UK is currently one of apprehension, in which who wins is important, but it is not the whole story. We are used to competitive elections, fierce competition and no small amount of division. As a regular visitor to the Hill, I know that the divisions between Democratic and Republican have been growing sharper during my political lifetime: Shutdowns did not begin with President Donald Trump. But a political tradition in the free world of winning elections “in the middle” is beginning to fade, and the US is a prime example.
To repeat a previous victory, it seems now that you need to deliver to your base ruthlessly, and not waste time trying to attract new votes. This mindset suggests that there are people in the electorate who do not matter to you, whose opinions are worthless, whose votes are thus immaterial and, indeed, if not cast, who cares? By contrast, the process of trying to “win over” voters ensures that all voters matter and, even though people may not agree, the act of appealing to them essentially moderates a message.
This matters beyond boundaries. Such a mindset carries over into other spheres, not least international. If you are part of an international community, from NATO to climate change to the World Health Organization, the first mindset means you demand what you want and if you don’t get it you walk away, while the second suggests that you work with others to achieve a common objective. If you are engaged in the Middle East, in an admittedly difficult role, perhaps no longer of America’s choosing, how you approach the complex problems there matters and sends signals. So how the US fights this election is watched carefully for what it might tell us about the next four years in the international rules-based order.
This election is being watched carefully for what it might tell us about the next four years in the international rules-based order.
The UK learned a lot from 2016, and it will not make the mistake it made then of treating the Trump candidacy lightly and the result as a foregone conclusion. We did not appreciate how Hillary Clinton was seen by so many, while the outsider’s pitch seemed so extraordinary to us that it could not possibly succeed. We now know better and this time the question to ask is that, if you voted for Trump last time, what would persuade you not to vote for him this time? And what we think internationally just doesn’t matter. We know enough to know this question makes things look close.
The atmosphere in which the election is taking place is again, sadly, not new. Violence and “law and order” is not a new theme (just think of 1968), but the ferocity associated with events following the death of George Floyd feels different and it illustrates the new power of personal media and its focused messaging. These have two rather frightening potential consequences for US watchers. Firstly, the number of armed militias, with non-uniform uniforms, prepared to act as judge and jury according to an agenda they set themselves. We have always known that the US has the highest number of civilian guns per capita in the world — it needs a consensual social contract in place to ensure something doesn’t go wrong. And, secondly, the risk of an election result not being accepted by one party or another, claiming fraud and malpractice, leaching into the situation of arms and agendas, ending that social contract. An unresolved election is high on our list of worries at present.
Beyond the mechanics of the vote itself, the UK wonders what type of America will emerge to navigate a world full of problems and in which its influence is essential. Some immediate issues are clearly on hold, such as the next steps with Iran and the nuclear deal, or the Middle East peace process and the implications of the UAE-Israel agreement, in which the US played a significant role. Other long-term problems — a number of which pre-date the Trump administration — including nuclear weapons talks, involvement in the Middle East and North Africa, the assertiveness of Russia and China, and climate and environmental issues, will sit on the desk of Joe Biden or Trump regardless.
Whoever it is, the UK will welcome a US finding confidence in consistency, engagement and the valuing of allies, enabling us to take our hands away from our eyes in worry and look a friend straight in the face.
*Alistair Burt is a former UK MP who has twice held ministerial positions in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office — as parliamentary undersecretary of state from 2010 to 2013, and as minister of state for the Middle East from 2017 to 2019. Twitter: @AlistairBurtUK

UK risks forfeiting credibility with law breach
Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/September 09/2020
Irrespective of what staunch Brexiteers proclaimed, Brexit was never going to be easy. No divorce of a couple that has been married for 47 years — for that is how long the UK was a member of the European community — is negotiated easily. Ahead of any negotiations, particularly those with the EU, we can expect grandstanding. Last week, the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier voiced his concern and disappointment over the UK government’s rigid stance. The UK’s chief negotiator David Frost then accused the EU of the same, declaring that Britain would not become a client state of the EU.
He was referring to the outstanding disagreement over the so-called level playing field, the importance of which to Europe was stipulated as recently as Tuesday by French Trade Minister Franck Riester. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson piled on the pressure when he said that, if there was no agreement by mid-October, the UK would allow the Brexit transition period to lapse without a trade deal being signed. He went as far as declaring that no deal would also be a good outcome.
All of this is nothing out of the ordinary in such hard-fought negotiations. However, what has transpired this week goes much further than Brexit, as it potentially disregards international law and could undermine Britain’s standing in the international community for a long time to come.
On Wednesday, the UK government introduced the Internal Market Bill, which is designed to ensure the internal functioning of the four constituent nations in a post-Brexit world. However, the bill undermines the following two points of the Northern Ireland protocol, which was signed alongside the withdrawal agreement: Under the withdrawal agreement, the UK must notify the EU of any state aid to Northern Ireland and paperwork must be filed when sending goods from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK.
The latter is particularly important as it allows for the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland to remain open and ensure the integrity of the EU’s common market. The open border was laid down in the Good Friday Agreement of 1997, which ended decades of bloody sectarian strife in the North. The resulting de facto border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain was easily the most controversial point in the withdrawal agreement that London and Brussels agreed on last year.
It is nothing new for autocratic regimes to ignore international agreements, but it is a sign of the times that major democracies such as the US or UK are unilaterally abrogating or terminating treaties.
Controversial or not, once the withdrawal agreement was ratified by all parties concerned, it became international law. Unilaterally amending it denotes a breach thereof, which Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis acknowledged in Parliament on Tuesday. This turn of events created quite the stir on both sides of the Channel.
Barnier insisted last week that “a precise implementation of the withdrawal agreement” was a precondition for a trade agreement and a matter of trust. Johnson’s predecessor Theresa May on Tuesday raised the question of the country’s standing and trustworthiness in the worldwide community if it runs roughshod over international agreements. The head of the government’s legal service, Sir Jonathan Jones, resigned over the issue.
Regarding May’s point, former ambassador to the US Kim Darroch warned on the BBC’s flagship Newsnight program that this behavior could even endanger a potential trade deal with the US, which would have to be ratified by Congress. With the Democrats currently holding a majority in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced last year that the party would vote against any trade deal if Brexit threatened any disadvantage to Ireland.
The UK has built its reputation on the rule of law and never tires of saying so, such as when former spy Sergei Skripal was poisoned on British soil, in the recent case of the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, regarding the ongoing protests in Belarus, and especially when it comes to Hong Kong. London feels that China’s new security law is in breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, which was the precondition for the UK to hand over its former colony to Beijing under the one country, two systems regime. Johnson made no secret of his outrage over how China’s new security law breached international law.
But international law only works when all parties adhere to it. It is valid to want to change it, but, to do so, one must enter into negotiations with the other party or parties. Our whole architecture of international organizations, trade deals and international treaties like peace deals is predicated on international law.
It is nothing new for autocratic regimes to ignore such agreements. However, it is a sign of the times that major democracies such as the US or UK are unilaterally abrogating or terminating treaties. We saw this when the Trump administration terminated America’s membership of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Agreement on climate change. The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, while forced, was at least based on a negotiation.
Western democracies often take the moral high ground when it comes to the rule of law, and they are right to do so if they themselves walk the talk by adhering to the rules of the game on the international stage. If they fail to do so, it is at their own peril because they forfeit credibility.
*Cornelia Meyer is a Ph.D.-level economist with 30 years of experience in investment banking and industry. She is chairperson and CEO of business consultancy Meyer Resources. Twitter: @MeyerResources

Musk’s brain chip ambition presents ethical dilemma
Nidhal Guessoum/Arab News/September 09/2020
Elon Musk last week made another public presentation that was meant to drop our jaws: A pig (affectionately named Gertrude) with a chip in her brain showing a signal whenever she sniffed for food. The signal and the demonstration were far from impressive, but Musk added various explanations and comments to convince us that “the future is going to be weird,” as he put it.
First, some reassurance had to be given that putting a coin-sized chip in a brain is safe. So, with Gertrude, another two pigs were displayed: One that had a chip implanted in its brain and then removed, and one that had never had any such thing. All three pigs seemed normal, with nothing to tell which had that kind of intervention. Musk joked: “I could have a chip just under my hair and you wouldn’t know it… maybe I do.”
Second, some basic explanation of how that “brain reading” works. The chip just detects electric signals and sends them wirelessly to a computer, where a program interprets the specific neural activity, in this case “sniffing for food.”
The same kind of chip has been tried on mice and monkeys. Most importantly, Neuralink (Musk’s company doing this research) applied for human trial permits last year and preliminary authorization has been given, so testing will start later this year.
So is this a breakthrough? Will this have positive and important applications for us humans? Or is this some misguided research by the transhumanist gang?
Until now, we have had two things. The first is the prosthetics (metallic or plastic arms and legs, mainly) that can connect to nerves in one’s body and be controlled by the brain, nicely replacing any cut-off limb. No chip needed in the brain, and wonderful applications, thank you. The second is the wired head caps that can detect brain waves and have them interpreted by a computer program. These “EEGs” are done in hospitals every day, but they are also used by “futuristic” gamers to play without using any control devices, but rather by sending commands wirelessly from their brain to the computer or video games machine.
Three years ago, Facebook announced a project to develop a headband that would allow people to type 100 words per minute just by thinking. And, last year, it revealed that it was funding extensive university research to that effect, with human volunteers.
Some transhumanists have implanted chips in their hands (to open doors as if with a magnetic card, for example) or, in very rare cases, in their heads, for other purposes. But, mostly, no serious work has been done with chips in human brains. Musk wants to change that. Why? For two reasons.
One, he says, is that we are in a race with artificial intelligence and if machines reach superintelligence before us we may be doomed, as they (the machines) may just decide to get rid of us, as we will be useless and a nuisance (to them). Thus, Musk and the transhumanists say, we have a duty to reach higher and higher levels of intelligence — and one way to do that is to link our brains with powerful computers and smart programs.
If used in limited, specific applications, Elon Musk’s Neuralink chip in the brain can be a positive development. But if allowed to be applied in dangerous fields, it may be just an evil Pandora’s box.
Two, they stress, is that there can be important medical applications for chips in our brains: They could help remedy conditions like spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s and dementia, epilepsy, and other serious illnesses. How would that work? By programming the chip to stop the early signals associated with trembling and seizures, averting them before they develop.
However, I must note that this is far from possible now; this is — at best — sometime in the future, if we allow such developments to occur. Indeed, decoding brain signals is notoriously complex and simply reading signals that one can then both quickly associate with trembling and seizures and stop is easier said than done. Now, what are the concerns? First, there is a fundamental difference between non-invasive brain-device connections (as with prosthetics) and invasive chip-in-the-brain systems: For example, the risk of internal damage or scars are non-negligible; the human body does not like “foreign objects” and will attack them (chemically); and secondary, unintended effects (such as impulses and strange actions) have been observed when wires are introduced in people’s brains even temporarily.
Secondly, and very importantly, there are issues of privacy (of one’s thoughts) and security: Can someone’s brain be hacked and probed for ideas and memories? Musk seems to think that “uploading” one’s memories to a machine, storing them and downloading them back later is a great prospect to look forward to. He does not seem to see the potential abuse of that capability, if — and it’s a big if — and when that becomes possible. It is true this is not inherent in the procedure itself, but rather rests in how it may be used or abused. But still we need to keep that in mind.
To make a long story short, this brain chip is not (yet) a breakthrough; it only will be when it is successfully tested on humans. However, we definitely need to discuss it and set guidelines for it. If used in limited, specific applications, it can be a positive development. But if allowed to be applied in dangerous fields (including the military), it may be just an evil Pandora’s box.
As always, science, research and technology must proceed under the guidance of ethics, which is society’s wise men and women.
*Nidhal Guessoum is a professor at the American University of Sharjah, UAE. Twitter: @NidhalGuessoum