LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 27/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.april27.18.htm

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

New Congress bill to 'disarm Hezbollah' and pressure UN force

Scrutiny of how group is getting arms could lead to fund cuts for UN mission in Lebanon: expert

Joyce Karam/The National/Updated: April 24/18

https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/new-congress-bill-to-disarm-hezbollah-and-pressure-un-force-1.724190

A Hezbollah fighter stands in front of anti-tank artillery at Juroud Arsal on the Syria-Lebanon border July 29, 2017 during an offensive against Syrian rebels groups. Ali Hashisho / Reuters

A bill to seek a US intelligence report on Hezbollah’s arsenal and to evaluate the effectiveness of the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon is gaining support from both parties in the US Congress.

The Disarm Hezbollah Act requires the director of national intelligence (DNI) to produce, within 90 days of its passage, a report detailing Hezbollah’s “capabilities, arsenal, and the illicit supply routes it uses to procure weapons”, according to a final draft obtained by The National.

The six-page bill does not include punitive measures against either Hezbollah or the Lebanese government, but the DNI report will be used to evaluate the role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil).

“For decades, Hezbollah has continued to present a clear and present danger to the United States and our allies, and despite sanctions on this terrorist organisation, they continue to grow and sow chaos in the Middle East,” Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger said while introducing the bill with Democrat Tom Suozzi.

He specified its goals as strengthening the role of the UN force in Lebanon and establishing ways to block Hezbollah’s armament process.

Mr Souzzi also emphasised the growing threat from Hezbollah. The group’s increased capabilities “threaten our Middle East interests and allies, particularly Israel”, he said, adding that the bill would “help improve our intelligence community’s understanding of a serious ongoing threat on the doorstep of one of [our] allies”.

The bill deems Hezbollah, designated as terrorist organisation by the US in 1997, a “grave danger" to the United States and its interests and allies.

It accuses the Iran-funded and backed group of “conducting armed interference in multiple conflicts, most notably those of Yemen, Iraq, and Syria”.

Congress bill urges designation of Hezbollah as a 'foreign narcotics trafficker'

The bill also examines the role of the UN force and whether its mandate to assist the Lebanese army in establishing an arms-free area in South Lebanon has been successful. The force has come under intense scrutiny from both the Trump administration and Israel for failing to demilitarise the area it operates in.

“It’s time the Security Council puts teeth in the Unifil operation,” the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said in August. “We don’t need to be giving terrorists a pass.”

She said the 10,000-strong force was “not doing its job effectively”, and that its commander “seems to be the only person in south Lebanon who is blind” to weaponry passing into or through the area of its control.

Randa Slim, a director of conflict resolution at the Middle East Institute in Washington, told The National she saw the bill as “laying the groundwork for Congress to stop funding Unifil".

The Trump administration has already sought a 42 per cent cut in funds allocated for the force in the 2019 budget, down to $84.2 million from about $146m in previous years.

While the bill, if enacted into law in its current version, could be used to cut funding or exert pressure strengthen Unifil's mandate, Ms Slim did not expect it to end the UN peacekeeping mission altogether in Lebanon. Despite the problems, “the trilateral forum mediated by Unifil between the Israeli and Lebanese armies' personnel has been quite effective in addressing conflicts related to land borders”, she said.

“It has also proven effective at preventing misperception or miscalculation on the Hezbollah and Israeli sides and another war since 2006.”

The bill could put political pressure on Hezbollah or its allies in Lebanon'S government if it led to funding cuts for either the army or the Unifil mission, Ms Slim said.

But as far as disarmament is concerned, she said, “there is no force that can disarm Hezbollah if Hezbollah does not want to disarm itself”.

How Trump could tell the truth about Armenian genocide

By Hagar Hajjar Chemali/CNN/April 26/18

For years, the Armenian-American community has called on US presidents to officially recognize the 1915 mass killings of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as genocide. Their failure to do so has been a perennial feature of American politics for decades.

And yet, despite his well-known disregard for facts, the one president uniquely positioned to speak the truth after so many of his predecessors have refused is Donald Trump.

This is because of two defining aspects of his approach to international relations: he doesn't care what other countries think about his foreign policy; and he wants to achieve what he believes his predecessors could not.

We all know the reasons to make this declaration. It's the right thing to do. It respects historical facts, and appropriately honors those killed. It upholds our values as a nation to speak truth to power. It also answers the call of a key American constituency: the United States is home to roughly 1.5 million Americans of Armenian descent -- the second largest population of Armenians outside Armenia. But these reasons have always been there and every modern-day US president surely understood them.

They also understood that such a move would upset Turkey -- which vehemently denies that a genocide occurred -- and felt it could possibly undermine a number of important joint efforts with the key strategic ally.

President Barack Obama came close to making the genocide declaration several times. At the beginning of his tenure, after promising to make this declaration during his campaign, he decided against making the move because he did not want to disrupt or undermine Turkey-Armenia reconciliation talks that were taking place at the time.

Why Obama won't say 'Armenian genocide'

Why Obama won't say 'Armenian genocide' 03:04

Later in 2015, the Obama administration came close to making the declaration for the 100th anniversary of Armenian Remembrance Day, but the administration was concerned such a move would undermine joint efforts with Turkey to combat ISIS in the region.

President Ronald Reagan is the only sitting US president to have used the word "genocide" in describing the atrocities, and he called on others to follow through on an official recognition -- but neither Congress nor subsequent Presidents did this. Like President Obama, President George W. Bush also promised during his presidential campaign that he would make this declaration, but did not.

The United States continues to work with Turkey in a number of ways that support US national security objectives, for example on counterterrorism efforts in Syria. The United States also provides military aid to Turkey and has used the air base at Incirlik to support military operations in the region -- a factor that is glaringly significant given the current situation in Syria and related mounting global tension. And of course, although it is unclear how much this matters to President Trump, Turkey is a NATO ally.

Up to this point, the Trump administration has been following the apparent tradition of not making a declaration. President Trump's statement last year on Armenian Remembrance Day, made weeks before Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's visit to Washington, like every other such statement before it, fell short of recognizing the Armenian genocide.

But now the time is ripe for President Trump to make the genocide declaration.

First, Turkey's recent actions go directly against our national security objectives and the resources we have put behind achieving them.

Pope joins chorus against Armenian 'genocide'

Pope joins chorus against Armenian 'genocide'

Agencies/April 26/18

The Turkish government has taken direct military action against Syrian Kurds whom we have armed and supported, and who helped us combat ISIS and successfully remove ISIS's territorial control in Syria. Beyond that are the concerning authoritarian steps Prime Minister Erdogan has taken within his own borders, such as last year's constitutional referendum giving the prime minister sweeping executive powers, as well as moves increasingly taken to detain journalists. Let's not forget his security detail's indefensible (and illegal) attack against protesters demonstrating in front of the Turkish ambassador's residence in Washington, DC. Second, President Trump likely doesn't care what Turkey thinks anyway, just as he doesn't care how other countries react to his other foreign policy decisions.

This is illustrated in a number of his foreign policy moves -- such as his announcement that the United States will increase tariffs on steel and aluminum, his decision to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and his undiplomatic and militaristic tweets on North Korea. So let Trump capitalize on this characteristic and make this declaration his own victory. Certainly, Turkey is likely to react negatively, even harshly, at first. This could possibly pose risks during American engagement in Syria, but as evidenced by the recent summit in Ankara where Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Prime Minister Erdogan met to discuss Syria, Turkey has appeared to forge an alliance with Russia and Iran in this crisis anyway. Like every other time a nation has recognized the genocide, Turkey will ultimately be forced to move on. Turkey is no stranger to overcoming differences with a country when doing so serves its interests. Russia, for example, officially recognized the Armenian genocide (in 1995, 2005, and 2015), and yet Turkey has recently sought warmer relations with Moscow. The relationship between Moscow and Ankara, Turkey's capital, has proven to be much bigger than this dispute. And so it is with the United States.

Armenia: 'Genocide' as a word 'exactly shows the truth' 07:34

Third, and most importantly, President Trump stands to win on other foreign policy objectives from a genocide declaration.

Such a move would underscore US resolve to hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable and would also demonstrate a willingness to unapologetically uphold our principles without fear. That kind of approach gives the United States leverage in negotiations or other diplomatic pursuits -- for example as they relate to supporting Vice President Mike Pence's promise to defend Christians in the Middle East or the persecution of other minorities -- because others will know the United States is not afraid to speak the truth.

For a President apparently unconcerned with diplomatic fallout and undeterred by threats of unsustainable retaliation, recognizing the Armenian genocide on this year's Armenian Remembrance Day is an easy win -- not only for the United States and the Armenian-American community, but for a President who has a global reputation for indifference to truth.

 **Hagar Hajjar Chemali is founder and CEO of Greenwich Media Strategies LLC. She was Director for Syria and Lebanon at the National Security Council and Spokesperson for the US Mission to the United Nations under the Obama administration. The opinions expressed in this commentary are her own.

Jerusalem and Muslim-Christian relations
Radwan al-Sayed/Al Arabiya/April 26/18
Earlier this month, Cardinal Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in the Vatican, visited Riyadh where he met with King Salman bin Abdul Aziz. His visit was considered historical.
Over the past six years, despite the rising number of extremist and terrorist incidents, relations between Christians and Muslims have witnessed major breakthroughs in terms of exchanging visits with the Vatican. Pope Francis has himself paid visits to Egypt and Turkey, while Arab and Muslim religious officials have also visited the Vatican, the World Council of Churches and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The debate over the usefulness of visiting Jerusalem is a waste of time and is no longer justified. Zionist colonies are expanding in Jerusalem and adjoining areas, while Palestinians, Muslims and Christians are being displaced against their will or by the purchase of their lands
There was a consensus to cooperate to combat extremism and terrorism, confront immigration and Islamophobia, issues facing Muslim minorities across the globe and the cohabitation between Christians and Muslims in the Arab world and other Islamic countries.
Pope Francis has taken distinctive positions on issues pertaining to violence and wars in Arab and Muslim countries and against the discrimination endured by Muslims in the West. The Pope was displeased with the position taken by US President Donald Trump on the Jerusalem issue, along with the halting of peace talks to bring justice to the Palestinian people.
Jerusalem at the center of conflict
Yet, there is quite some level of ambiguity over the question of Jerusalem itself. The Vatican has for a while now maintained that the holy sites in Jerusalem must be internationalized and taken out of the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Arab parties have kept their silence on this issue considering that Zionists want to take control of all of Jerusalem, especially its religious sites, and that the unification of Jerusalem as an eternal capital of Israel will further harm peace between religions in Jerusalem. Still, no one saw an interest in opposing the Vatican, given the fact that the Arab parties insist that the Old City of Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian state, of course without excluding its holy sites.
Now that President Trump’s possible visit to Israel in mid-May has neared, the US has started negotiations with the Vatican over the possible special status of Christian holy places, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the surrounding areas, to facilitate the final phase of colonization of Jerusalem for Israelis without the objection of the Catholic and Orthodox Christian authorities, especially since some Protestant and Evangelical authorities share closer positions with the Israeli stance.
There is a solid Arab and Islamic position regarding Jerusalem and its freedom and which insists that it is the political capital of the Palestinian Arab state. Then there is the position of the Arab Christians of Palestine and Jerusalem — currently living in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.
They were always against the colonization of Jerusalem by Zionists, including the holy sites. It is known that some of them opposed Trump’s statement. We also know that the former Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria had banned the Copts of Egypt from visiting Jerusalem under occupation. Muslims are still disputing over whether or not to visit Jerusalem in support of its people, despite the fact that the Palestinian Authority supports such visits.
The debate over the usefulness of visiting Jerusalem is a waste of time and is no longer justified. Zionist colonies are expanding in Jerusalem and adjoining areas, while Palestinians, Muslims and Christians are being displaced against their will or by the purchase of their lands. The Palestinian people are urging for our solidarity, even if through a visit.
The Palestinians today are trying to do something beginning from Gaza. It is then unnecessary to hesitate on whether to visit Jerusalem or not under the pretext that it is occupied. The occupation aims to displace people and remove holy places. A visit by a million or two million people to Jerusalem every year will send a message to the Palestinians that we have not abandoned them.
Moral Christian influence
The numbers of Christians in Jerusalem and Palestine have decreased because of the pressure and circumstances of the occupation. Yet the Vatican has a great moral influence, just like the Christians of Palestine and the world. The same thing can be said about the Eastern Orthodox Church, whom the majority of Arab Christians belong to, and Russian and Greek political and religious positions.
There is no doubt that the Palestinian Authority should be the one to approach the Catholic and Orthodox communities, as well as the Protestant and Anglican churches that disagree with the orientations of the new Zionized evangelical institutions.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and Jordan and their religious authorities have great moral and political power in Arab and Islamic societies as well as in the international community. Palestinian and Arab parties should thus work together in solidarity with the Arab Christians to complement their role towards the world’s religious and political parties.
I do not know if there has been any development in terms of communication and agreement, or in terms of taking action in this regard, but the visit of Cardinal Tauran to Riyadh may have fostered this consultative spirit and the spirit of solidarity in preserving Jerusalem’s freedom, religious safety and holy places.

Awaiting May 12: What will Trump decide on Iranian nuclear deal
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/April 26/18
After about two weeks, American President Donald Trump will have made up his mind and decided to either withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran or remain committed to it in some form. This decision will have many repercussions that are very important.
However, before we discuss what this decision will mean, we must understand the circumstances surrounding it. French President Emmanuel Macron who supports the deal with Iran came to Washington in hopes of convincing Trump not to abandon the deal. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose stance is similar to Macron’s, will also visit Washington for the same purpose.
The aim is not to cancel JCPOA as some think, but it is to renegotiate Iran’s commitments in it. The harsh economic sanctions which had subjugated the Iranian regime were all lifted although they were imposed against Iran’s dangerous practices towards the region’s security and US interests
Before them, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who has an opposing point of view was in Washington. Meanwhile, the Iranians are trying to pre-empt Trump’s decision, which will be announced on May 12, via speeches and statements that convey different messages of intimidation and enticement.
The US stance
The Iranian regime threatens Trump by threatening the security of the region, Israel and the US while at the same time it “whispers” that it’s willing to make concessions. There’s no doubt that Tehran is very worried and scared of Trumps’ decision, and had made promises to make enticing concessions such as releasing American prisoners in exchange for keeping the deal.
The US’s stance, under Trump’s administration and which he has repeatedly stated, is that he’s against the deal which the former administration of Barack Obama negotiated and signed three years ago. Trump believes that even if the deal suspended enrichment for military purposes, it strengthens Iran’s military hand in the region as it’s become a massive destructive force in Syria and Yemen, it militarily expanded in Iraq and its militias became active in Lebanon and Gaza.
Trump believes that the agreement is unfair to his country and harms its interests in the region, and above all it paid huge sums of compensatory money to the Iranian regime, of which some are Iranian funds that were frozen after the revolution.
Renegotiating the deal
The aim is not to cancel JCPOA as some think, but it is to renegotiate Iran’s commitments in it. The harsh economic sanctions which had subjugated the Iranian regime were all lifted although they were imposed against Iran’s dangerous practices towards the region’s security and US interests.
The deal only addressed the nuclear aspect which Tehran compensated for by increasing its military and terrorist activity in the region. Iran has become more dangerous and hostile after the agreement was signed. It’s responsible for the death of more than half a million people in Syria and for the failure of the central government in Baghdad. It toppled the legitimate government in Yemen and funded the war there against Saudi Arabia.
Despite all this, the possibilities of reaching a middle-ground solution with Tehran is very likely due to the intervention of Europeans, who were very careful in formulating the deal and signing it, and who are very concerned about keeping the deal in place.
The Europeans are not really concerned about curbing Iran as they do not have the military capability to deter Iran on their own and they are not enthusiastic about defying it. They think that halting its nuclear military program is a great achievement on its own and that Middle Eastern countries can solve their problems on their own despite the human and financial price.
Possible scenarios
This is the European’s perspective. They’re now afraid that Trump will scrap the deal which they worked five years to finalize. There are still two complementary stances, the Gulf and Israeli ones. Riyadh sees the deal as incomplete and that it puts trust in a regime with a bloody history instead of setting conditions that guarantee proper behavior. Meanwhile, Israel criticizes it because it is temporary as it freezes Iran’s nuclear activity only for ten years instead of putting an end to it. Later on, Israel began to see that the deal also failed in linking this activity to Iran’s regional behavior.
If Pompeo becomes the secretary of state, and he’s about to be appointed, then we will have a good duo: Pompeo himself and John Bolton who was appointed National Security Advisor. Both men have a clear vision that opposes the deal but this does not necessarily mean that they will succeed in pushing Trump to scrap it amid the several opposing pressures. There are three possibilities: scrap the deal, accept it as it is or make limited amendments to it through Europe and upon Iran’s approval.

The US’s November 2018 battle
Ahmad al-Farraj/Al Arabiya/April 26/18
When a US president is elected, it’s important, for both him and his administration, that the majority of the Congress belongs to the same party. If the majority of both Congress chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives, belongs to the same party as the president’s, it will most likely help the latter pass his decisions and plans. If this majority is only within one chamber, passing decisions and plans will not be as easy; however, the disaster is when the majority of both congress chambers belongs to the opposing party like what happened with former President Barack Obama during his second presidential term. It’s not clear what will happen in November because in the US, a single development one day ahead of the elections may completely shuffle the formula in favor of one of the two major parties
Obama suffered a great deal from this, just like the case has been with former presidents who faced a similar scenario. Partisan bickering dominates the scene thus hindering the approval of plenty of decisions and plans since in the US institutional system, powers are distributed among the president, the Congress and the Supreme Court.
Trump’s Republican majority
Trump has been very lucky when he was elected president because the majority of both the Senate and the House of Representatives was Republican. Imagine how Trump’s situation would be if the majority of the Congress was Democrat, especially amid the current challenges and problems he’s confronting and the fierce war launched against him by the media. The majority of the Senate is Republican at the moment and the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is very conservative, just like Trump. McConnell is considered a supporter of Trump and this has helped fulfill the appointment of Trump’s candidates to important posts, especially that of the Attorney General – a post held by Jeff Sessions.
This has also been the case with the House of Representatives whose Republican speaker is Paul Ryan. Ryan is a political fox who stands with Trump for purely partisan reasons. However, in a painful blow to Trump, Ryan announced his early resignation a few days ago, perhaps because he grew tired of the arguments and embarrassment which the Trump administration has caused for the Republicans in the Congress.
Democrats pushing for majority win
This relatively comfortable situation for Trump may not last because in November 2018, the midterm congressional elections to elect House of Representatives members (which happen every two years) will be held.
Elections will also be held at the Senate as 33 of the 100 seats in it will be contested (the Senate members are elected for a six-year-term). It’s not clear what will happen in November because in the US, a single development one day ahead of the elections may completely shuffle the formula in favor of one of the two major parties.
If the Republicans continue to have the majority in both Congress chambers, then this will greatly ease everything for Trump. However, if the Democrats manage to gain the majority in both chambers, Trump will be in a difficult situation because he will face a fierce war during the two remaining years of his term as president. The Democrats do not hide their intentions and they’re working hard to harvest a majority.
Meanwhile Trump has been affirming that his loyal supporters who brought him to the White House will re-elect Republicans this coming November so the Republican Party continues to dominate until the end of his presidential term. We will follow up on this as the November battle has begun now.