LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 16/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias
Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.june16.18.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since
2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible
Quotations
Love one another
deeply from the heart. You have been born anew, not of perishable but of
imperishable seed
First Letter of Peter 01/22-25: "Now that you have purified your souls by
your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one
another deeply from the heart. You have been born anew, not of perishable
but of imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God. For
‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The
grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord endures for
ever.’ That word is the good news that was announced to you.""
Question: "Why is faith without works dead?"
Answer: James says, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith
without works is dead also” (James 2:26). Faith without works is a dead faith
because the lack of works reveals an unchanged life or a spiritually dead heart.
There are many verses that say that true saving faith will result in a
transformed life, that faith is demonstrated by the works we do. How we live
reveals what we believe and whether the faith we profess to have is a living
faith.
James 2:14–26 is sometimes taken out of context in an attempt to create a
works-based system of righteousness, but that is contrary to many other passages
of Scripture. James is not saying that our works make us righteous before God
but that real saving faith is demonstrated by good works. Works are not the
cause of salvation; works are the evidence of salvation. Faith in Christ always
results in good works. The person who claims to be a Christian but lives in
willful disobedience to Christ has a false or dead faith and is not saved. Paul
basically says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10. James contrasts two
different types of faith—true faith that saves and false faith that is dead.
Many profess to be Christians, but their lives and priorities indicate
otherwise. Jesus put it this way: “By their fruits you will know them. Do people
pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree
bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad
fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good
fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will
know them. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say
to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not
drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I
will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you
evildoers’” (Matthew 7:16–23).
Notice that the message of Jesus is the same as the message of James. Obedience
to God is the mark of true saving faith. James uses the examples of Abraham and
Rahab to illustrate the obedience that accompanies salvation. Simply saying we
believe in Jesus does not save us, nor does religious service. What saves us is
the Holy Spirit’s regeneration of our hearts, and that regeneration will
invariably be seen in a life of faith featuring ongoing obedience to God.
Misunderstanding the relationship of faith and works comes from not
understanding what the Bible teaches about salvation. There are really two
errors in regards to works and faith. The first error is “easy believism,” the
teaching that, as long as a person prayed a prayer or said, “I believe in
Jesus,” at some point in his life, then he is saved, no matter what. So a person
who, as a child, raised his hand in a church service is considered saved, even
though he has never shown any desire to walk with God since and is, in fact,
living in blatant sin. This teaching, sometimes called “decisional
regeneration,” is dangerous and deceptive. The idea that a profession of faith
saves a person, even if he lives like the devil afterwards, assumes a new
category of believer called the “carnal Christian.” This allows various ungodly
lifestyles to be excused: a man may be an unrepentant adulterer, liar, or bank
robber, but he’s saved; he’s just “carnal.” Yet, as we can see in James 2, an
empty profession of faith—one that does not result in a life of obedience to
Christ—is in reality a dead faith that cannot save.
The other error in regards to works and faith is to attempt to make works part
of what justifies us before God. The mixture of works and faith to earn
salvation is totally contrary to what Scripture teaches. Romans 4:5 says, “To
him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith
is accounted for righteousness.” James 2:26 says, “Faith without works is dead.”
There is no conflict between these two passages. We are justified by grace
through faith, and the natural result of faith in the heart is works that all
can see. The works that follow salvation do not make us righteous before God;
they simply flow from the regenerated heart as naturally as water flows from a
spring.
Salvation is a sovereign act of God whereby an unregenerate sinner has the
“washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” poured out on him
(Titus 3:5), thereby causing him to be born again (John 3:3). When this happens,
God gives the forgiven sinner a new heart and puts a new spirit within him
(Ezekiel 36:26). God removes his sin-hardened heart of stone and fills him with
the Holy Spirit. The Spirit then causes the saved person to walk in obedience to
God’s Word (Ezekiel 36:26–27).
Faith without works is dead because it reveals a heart that has not been
transformed by God. When we have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, our lives
will demonstrate that new life. Our works will be characterized by obedience to
God. Unseen faith will become seen by the production of the fruit of the Spirit
in our lives (Galatians 5:22). Christians belong to Christ, the Good Shepherd.
As His sheep we hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:26–30).
Faith without works is dead because faith results in a new creation, not a
repetition of the same old patterns of sinful behavior. As Paul wrote in 2
Corinthians 5:17, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have
passed away; behold, all things have become new.”Faith without works is dead
because it comes from a heart that has not been regenerated by God. Empty
professions of faith have no power to change lives. Those who pay lip service to
faith but who do not possess the Spirit will hear Christ Himself say to them, “I
never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers” (Matthew 7:23).
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from
miscellaneous sources published on June 15-16/18
Our Minister of Foreign Affairs hit all times record/Khalil
Helou/Face Book/June 15/18
Report: Hezbollah refused Russian demand to leave south Syria/Liad Osmo/Ynetnews/June
15/18
Interview with Daniel Pipes: U.S. Embassy Move May Bring Regrets/Canadian Jewish
News/June 15/18
The Turkish Race/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/18
Like it or Not, Singapore Summit was a Success/Joseph Detran/Cipher/June 15/18
Refugees and the Arab States - Part Three/Denis MacEoin/Gatestone Institute/June
15/18
Who Sanctions Russia? Not Germany./Shoshana Bryen and Stephen Bryen/Gatestone
Institute/June 15/18
Sweden: "It's Fun to Build a Mosque"/Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/June
15/18
Does the World Need Another Megadeal/Brooke Sutherland/Bloomberg View/June,
15/18
Why Economists Avoid Discussing Inequality/Noah Smith/Bloomberg View/June, 15/18
Iran continues to reap benefits of opportunism and division/Sir John
Jenkins/Arab News/June 15/18
Can Turkish-Iranian cooperation work against PKK?/Sinem Cengiz//Arab News/June
15/18
Senior Iraqi legislators turn against the parliament/Adnan Hussein/Al Arabiya/June
15/18
Is it a case of now or never for Pakistan’s Imran Khan?/Syed Jawaid Iqbal/Al
Arabiya/June 15/18
Israel, Jordan fear escalation as Russia seeks provincial division in Syria/Shehab
Al-Makahleh/Al Arabiya/June 15/18
Using soft power to isolate Iran supporters/Mohammed Al Shaikh/Al Arabiya/June
15/18
Titles For The
Latest LCCC Lebanese Related News published on
June 15-16/18
Our Minister of Foreign Affairs hit all times record
Mufti Daryan Slams FPM over Citizenship Decree, Attacks on U.N.
Jumblat Says Aoun's Tenure a 'Failure', FPM Hits Back
Jreissati: Jumblat Attack on President Term after Return from KSA Suspicious
Berri Says Talk of Imminent Govt. Formation 'Totally Inaccurate'
Lebanon’s Government Formation Faces 3 Obstacles
Lebanon: Western Dismay on Refugee Policy, Foreign Ministry Retreats with
Conditions
Joumblatt calls out FPM's "racist campaign against refugees"
Return of Syria refugees now possible, says Aoun
Report: Hezbollah refused Russian demand to leave south Syria
Titles For Latest LCCC
Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on June 15-16/18
Rouhani Criticizes Iranians’ Recourse to Foreign Media
Netanyahu Accuses Iran of Stoking Sectarianism in Syria
Israeli Intelligence: Trump's Actions Will Cause Significant Damage to Iran
Assad: We Need Iran, ‘Hezbollah’ for a Long Time
Assad in Rare Appearance outside Capital
EU's Top Court Upholds Asset Freeze for Makhlouf
Afghanistan Says US Drone Kills Pakistan Taliban Chief
Jordan withdraws ambassador from Iran: Source tells Al Arabiya English
PA Suppresses Peaceful Demonstrators in Ramallah
Egypt: Key Cabinet Posts Reshuffled, Including Defense and Interior
Coalition Forces Near Hodeidah Airport as Houthis Suffer Losses
Arab Commitment to Back Yemen, as League Condemns Houthis
U.N.: Parts of Yemen Missiles Fired at KSA were Iranian-Made
U.N. Calls for Yemen Port to be Kept Open despite Offensive
Israel Ministry Report Shows Concern over Trump's N. Korea Summit
Trump Announces Tariffs on $50 Billion in Chinese Imports
Migrant Crisis on the Menu as Macron Meets Italian Leader
Poll: In Merkel Migrant Row, Germans Back Tough Policies
Latest LCCC Lebanese Related News published on
June 15-16/18
Our Minister of
Foreign Affairs hit all times record
Khalil Helou/Face Book/June 15/18
Our Minister of Foreign Affairs hit all times record all categories by
alienating Lebanon against the Arab world, European countries and the United
States of America. Furthermore, our relations with Russia are not
culminating high. Never in the history of modern Lebanon we went into such a
bad situation, creating xenophobic feelings among our public, based on false
allegations and lies. Our foreign affairs minister is blaming western
countries for Syrian refugees crisis, accusing westerners of willing to
settle refugees in Lebanon, turning a blind eye on Syrian regime, the real
and unique responsible for the refugees crisis. We have never had such a bad
diplomacy, knowing that our major financial resources come from our
emigrates in Arab world, and our major military support comes from western
countries, and that foreign friends of our minister never helped :Lebanon
neither financially nor militarily. Never in our history we have had such a
military support from westerners, especially the USA, that is rewarded by
the ungratefulness of our FA minister. Very bad ... he doesn't represent me
anyway.
Mufti
Daryan Slams FPM over
Citizenship Decree, Attacks on U.N.
Naharnet/June 15/18/Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Latif Daryan on Friday blasted
the Free Patriotic Movement, without naming it, over its calls for returning
Syrian refugees to their country and a controversial decree granting
citizenship to dozens of Arabs and foreigners. Syrian refugees “were forced,
through bombardment and several years of siege, to leave the homeland in
which they lived for hundreds of years. They are facing the threat of being
prevented from returning and the threat of continued shelling and killing,”
Daryan said in his Eid al-Fitr sermon. Apparently referring to the FPM and
its officials, the mufti added: “People among us are saying that they are
fed up with those who were forced to flee to Lebanon, seeking to give the
false impression that the party that displaced them now wants to return
them.”“They're claiming that what's preventing this (return) is the
international community, which is offering the minimum help to these
aggrieved (refugees) in anticipation of salvation from this tragic
situation,” Daryan went on to say. He added: “How can an individual or a
party decide over such a dangerous issue, as if there is no longer a
government with a unified policy towards the country and the world?” Daryan
lamented that this gives the impression that “every sect now has its own
statelet, army and policy which it can impose on others whenever it
wants.”“The policies of discrimination and segregation have been aggravating
since a while now... and there are efforts to expel these aggrieved people
to the same fate that they escaped from. At the same time hundreds of people
are being randomly naturalized, which reflects the presence of double
standards,” the mufti added. He pointed out that instead of “naturalization
and accusations against the international community, those who have demands
over shares should end their selfishness and cooperate with the
premier-designate in order to finalize the cabinet line-up.”
Jumblat Says Aoun's Tenure a 'Failure', FPM Hits Back
Naharnet/June 15/18/Several Free Patriotic Movement ministers and MPs
responded fiercely Friday after Druze leader Walid Jumblat said the tenure
of President Michel Aoun has been a "failure." "Our tragedy is a
presidential tenure that has been a failure since its first moment," Jumblat
tweeted. His tweet is linked to the latest row over Syrian refugees and the
calls for returning them to their country. "The displaced of the earth enjoy
neither Eid nor rest. Death haunts them in seas and deserts... They flee
tyranny and wars for a better life only to be faced with the walls of hatred
and racism that are getting higher everywhere," Jumblat said. He added: "In
Lebanon they are calling for handing them over to the executioner under the
excuse of the bad situations and our tragedy is a presidential tenure that
has been a failure since its first moment." Caretaker Energy Minister Cesar
Abi Khalil of the FPM was quick to snap back. "This presidential tenure has
achieved in one year what all the previous terms had failed to achieve and
you were a key component of those tenures," Abi Khalil tweeted, addressing
Jumblat. "The Lebanese are witnesses to your failure and corruption in all
the files you handled. It is our destiny and commitment to fix what you
ruined," the minister added.
Jreissati: Jumblat Attack on President Term after
Return from KSA Suspicious
Naharnet/June 15/18/Caretaker Justice Minister Salim Jreissati on Friday
described as “suspicious” the timing of Druze leader Walid Jumblat's
criticism of President Michel Aoun's tenure. “Your attack on the president's
term immediately after your return from the kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) is
suspicious,” Jreissati said, addressing Jumblat. “Why are you trying to
implicate the kingdom by hinting that you are carrying out a futile diktat
against a tenure whose master is beyond your reach and the reach of your
cronies,” Jreissati added. “The President had described you on Sep. 26,
1997, so check the archives,” the minister went on to say. And describing
Jumblat's son and apparent political heir MP Taymour Jumblat as a
“promising” politician, Jreissati accused Jumblat of endorsing and “betting”
on “the heavy Syrian presence on our soil.”Earlier in the day, Jumblat had
slammed Aoun's tenure as a “failure” against the backdrop of a row over
Syrian refugees and calls for returning them to Syria.
Berri Says Talk of Imminent Govt. Formation 'Totally Inaccurate'
Naharnet/June 15/18/Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri has dismissed reports
claiming that the new government will be formed soon as “inaccurate.”“All
the talk and rumors about an imminent government formation are totally
inaccurate,” Berri's visitors quoted him as saying in remarks published
Friday by al-Anwar daily. Berri also denied that the cabinet formation
process has reached the stage of distributing ministerial portfolios, noting
that statements in this regard are mere “wishes.” “Things are still at the
beginning and there is nothing serious regarding the government,” the
Speaker added, revealing that “the President has not yet received any
cabinet line-up.”
Lebanon’s Government
Formation Faces 3 Obstacles
Beirut - Youssef Diab/Asharq Al Awsat/Friday, 15 June, 2018
Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri has so far failed to reach a
breakthrough in the cabinet lineup as political parties held onto their
stances in having wider representation in the new government. Asharq Al-Awsat
learned on Thursday that the cabinet formation is facing three key obstacles
that are unlikely to be resolved in the near future. “The first lies on the
Christian representation amid a dispute between the Lebanese Forces and the
Free Patriotic Movement after FPM leader Jebran Bassil rejected offering the
LF four ministries in the new government,” the sources explained. The second
problem lies in the PM’s insistence to stop the March 8 coalition from
having a Sunni representative in the cabinet. The sources said the
portfolios allocated to the Druze ministers were the third and major
obstacle hindering the government formation process.
“The Progressive Socialist Party insists on appointing the three Druze
ministers, refusing to allow MP Talal Arslan a share in the new cabinet,”
they said. The Shiite representation in the government was kept outside the
cabinet formation tension, after an agreement reached between the Amal
Movement and “Hezbollah” to have an equal share of seats. Meanwhile, sources
close to Baabda Palace denied reports that President Michel Aoun had
rejected an initial cabinet lineup offered by Hariri during a meeting last
Tuesday. “The President neither rejected nor accepted a draft government
lineup because, in the first place, he hasn’t received any,” the sources
said. Presidential Palace sources downplayed reports about key obstacles to
the mission of the PM-designate. Discussions among key political parties
regarding the government lineup entered a serious phase in the past hours,
sources close to Hariri said. “Hariri already completed 90 percent of his
government’s shape, with only few details awaiting amendment,” the sources
said.
Lebanon: Western Dismay on Refugee Policy, Foreign Ministry Retreats with
Conditions
Beirut- Asharq Al Awsat/Friday, 15 June, 2018/Lebanon expressed a
conditional readiness to lift the measures taken by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs against the UNHCR staff, in light of European pressure and
resentment of the Lebanese rhetoric, “which accuses the Europeans of working
to settle the refugees in Lebanon.” German Ambassador to Lebanon Martin Huth
said the international community was “dismayed by repeated false
accusations” that it is working to settle Syrian refugees in Lebanon. This
came after caretaker Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil accused the UNHCR and
the international community of preventing the return of Syrian refugees to
their country. Sources close to the matter told Asharq Al-Awsat that there
was an “international consensus to denounce the language of the Lebanese
State on resettlement,” adding that “settling the displaced is out of the
question.” The sources also highlighted a “total rejection of any organized
return in large numbers,” describing it as an “illusion” at the current
stage. They added that the British and US positions “are the most stringent
in this regard.” Meanwhile, Bassil showed a conditional willingness to
backtrack on his actions towards UNHCR. He told UN High Commissioner for
Refugees Filippo Grandi in Geneva on Thursday that he was ready to lift the
initial actions taken against UNHCR if he saw a change in the policy
adopted, and was ready to increase it in the absence of any change. Last
week, Bassil ordered a freeze on the renewal of UNHCR staff residency
permits until further notice, claiming that the agency had scared refugees
away from returning to Syria through a series of warnings and threats. “I am
willing to lift the foreign ministry’s measures against UNHCR if I see a
change in its policy and I'm ready to increase them should there be no
change,” Bassil said in Geneva. “Preventing the early return of refugees to
their country is a rejected policy and we’re not asking the agency to
encourage Syrians to return; we are rather asking it not to scare them of
returning,” the caretaker minister added.
Joumblatt calls out FPM's "racist campaign against
refugees"
Georgi Azar/Annahar/June15/18/Joumblatt took to Twitter to blast the FPM's
"racist campaign against refugees, who are being sent back to face execution
at the hands of Assad,"
BEIRUT: The rift between Progressive
Socialist Party leader Walid Joumblatt and the Free Patriotic Movement
escalated Friday after the former MP took a swipe at the FPM by labelling
President Michel Aoun's tenure as a "failure" for blaming his presidency's
shortcomings on the plight of Syrian refugees. Joumblatt took to Twitter to
blast the FPM's "racist campaign against refugees, who are being sent back
to face execution at the hands of" Assad, maintaining that "refugees are
being blamed for the dire state of the country but our disaster lies in a
failed Aoun tenure since the beginning."
Return of Syria
refugees now possible, says Aoun
Gulf News/June 15/2018 /UN official says he is not opposed to voluntary
returns but current conditions in Syria are not promising.
Beirut: Lebanese President Michel Aoun said
on Thursday refugees in Lebanon could begin a phased return to areas of
Syria that have become safe, and that should happen before a political
solution is reached for the conflict. “Lebanon considers that a return has
become possible in stages to areas that have become safe and stable in
Syria, which are five times the size of Lebanon. Most displaced people in
Lebanon are from these areas which have become secure,” Aoun said on his
Twitter page, in remarks to the ambassadors from the countries in the
International Support Group for Lebanon. As Syrian forces and their allies
retake more territory, Lebanon’s president and other politicians have
increasingly called for refugees to go back to areas where fighting is over
before a deal is reached to end the war. The international view is that it
would not be safe for them to return yet. “Political commitments change with
developments on the ground, making us unable to wait for a political
solution to the Syrian crisis before the displaced start to return,” he
said. The UN. has registered about a million refugees in Lebanon - nearly a
quarter of Lebanon’s population. The Lebanese government, which puts the
figure at 1.5 million, says their presence has strained public services and
suppressed economic growth. Lebanese Foreign Minister Jibran Bassil in the
past week has escalated a row with the United Nation’s refugee agency UNHCR,
accusing it of working to stop refugees from returning to Syria . UNHCR has
denied the accusations, saying it supports the return of refugees when it is
safe for them to go back to Syria and that it helps those who choose to
return with their documentation. Martin Huth, the German envoy, told Reuters
in an emailed statement that the international community was “fully aware of
the heavy burden Lebanon is bearing”. “Many of us are doing all we can to
alleviate the situation,” Huth said, citing aid and commitments made to
Lebanon through donor conferences and UN agencies. He said the international
community and the United Nations were “fully committed to an eventual return
of refugees to Syria”. “At the same time, and while we do not oppose
voluntary returns to Syria, conditions in that country, in our view, do not
allow for a general and comprehensive return of refugees at this time,” he
added. In May, Aoun said UN and EU comments pointed to “a disguised
settlement (of refugees in Lebanon) that contradicts our constitution and
sovereignty”.
Report: Hezbollah refused Russian demand to leave south Syria
هاررتس/حزب الله رفض طلب روسي الإنسحاب من جنوب سوريا
Liad Osmo/Ynetnews/June 15/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/65360/ynetnews-hezbollah-refused-russian-demand-to-leave-south-syria-%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B3-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%B6-%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A8-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3/
Syrian human rights monitoring group claims Kremlin asked the terror group
to vacate its forces from its war-torn client state’s border near Lebanon,
but that no rift ensued as a result; report comes day after Syria's Assad
said 'Hezbollah is a basic element in this war.'A Syrian human rights
monitoring group reported on Thursday that the Hezbollah terror group’s
leadership has refused to accede to a Russian request that its forces vacate
a number of locations in southwest Syria near the Lebanese border. Moscow,
which has served as Syrian President Bashar Assad’s chief patron in the
war-ravaged country, reportedly demanded that the terror group withdraw from
the southern and western suburbs in the Homs locality and the Lebanese
vicinity as part of a wider effort to return Russian troops back to certain
positions in the area away from Hezbollah. Despite the refusal, no dispute
or fraying of relations were detailed in the report. The rights group said
that Hezbollah is sporadically “renewing its ranks” in military posts
straddling the Syrian-Lebanese border, serving as proof that it has no
intention to evacuate the area.
One of the locations in which the Shi’ite terror group plans to maintain its
presence is the western Syrian city of Al-Qusayr, 35 kilometers south of
Homs. Last month, a Hezbollah airfield in the area was bombed in a strike
that was widely attributed to the Israel Air Force.
In May, Arab news outlets, including the Syrian rights organization,
reported that Russian forces had withdrawn from the Homs vicinity and would
soon be replaced by Assad’s army. No indication, however, was mentioned in
the report that the Russian withdrawal has yet been implemented.
The Kremlin is currently in the midst of a tense relationship with Iran and
its proxy Hezbollah over their presence in Syria, a reality which Israel has
repeatedly raised concerns over and stated that it will employ all means
necessary to flush them out of the country.
Concerned that Hezbollah will eventually use Syrian soil as a launchpad from
which to unleash its aggressive designs on Israel, Jerusalem has urged the
Russians to reign in the terror group and remove them from the border.
Following Israel’s exhortations, Russia announced its position that military
presence in southern Syria should be restricted exclusively to Assad’s army.
A feud erupted shortly after between Russia and Iran and Hezbollah, with the
two complaining that the declared new position was not coordinated with them
first.
Assad said on Wednesday Iran does not have any military bases in Syria,
unlike Russia, but added that if there is "a need for Iranian military
bases, we will not hesitate."
Speaking in an interview with Iranian channel al-Alam News published in an
English translation by Syrian state news agency SANA, Assad said his Syrian
troops are supported by fighters from Iraq, Iran and Lebanon.
When asked if he had asked Lebanese Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah to leave
Syria, Assad said the group would remain until "Hezbollah, Iran, or others
believe that terrorism has been eliminated".
"Hezbollah is a basic element in this war—the battle is long, and the need
for these military forces will continue for a long time," he said. “When
Hezbollah or Iran are satisfied that we have destroyed the terror, they will
tell us: ‘We want to return to our countries.’
Secretary-General of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah said on Friday that his
organization will remain in Syria as long as Syrian President Bashar Assad
wants it there, defying renewed US and Israeli pressure to force Tehran and
its allies to quit the country.
"I will tell you that if the whole world comes together to force us to leave
Syria, they will not be able to evict us," Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a
televised address to hundreds of supporters who gathered in the village of
Maroun el-Ras on Lebanon's border with Israel to mark Jerusalem Day.
He added that only the Syrian leadership could ask them to leave.
Reuters contributed to this report.
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5287153,00.html
Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News
published
on June 15-16/18
Rouhani Criticizes
Iranians’ Recourse to Foreign Media
London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 15 June, 2018/Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani accused foreign media of being behind popular
discontent over the deteriorating economic situation. Speaking during a
meeting with a number of Iranian media officials, Rouhani highlighted
Iranian citizens’ distancing from the local media and their preference for
foreign information. Rouhani admitted that the internal media was no longer
a source of information for the Iranians, and said: “There are few countries
whose people are interested in foreign media, such as Iran.” “The media has
a heavier responsibility today and I hope that this meeting serves as a good
start for collective cooperation in consolidation of national interests,” he
stated during the meeting. The Iranian presidency website quoted Rouhani as
saying: “The fundamental problem of the regime in Iran is not the economic,
cultural and security problems, but the problem of psychological
warfare.”The president defended the nuclear agreement and played down the US
withdrawal. He noted that the JCPOA has removed Iran from Chapter VII
without facing a war.He also emphasized that the United Nations acknowledged
Iran’s right to enrich uranium.
Netanyahu Accuses Iran of Stoking Sectarianism in Syria
Asharq Al-Awsat/5 June, 2018/Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
accused Iranian-backed militias in Syria of fueling sectarian tensions and
divisions in the war-torn country. Netanyahu accused Iran of bringing in
80,000 Shiite fighters from countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan to mount
attacks against Israel and “convert” Syria’s Sunni majority. “That is a
recipe for a re-inflammation of another civil war - I should say a
theological war, a religious war - and the sparks of that could be millions
more that go into Europe and so on ... And that would cause endless upheaval
and terrorism in many, many countries,” Netanyahu told an international
security forum. “Obviously we are not going to let them do it. We’ll fight
them. By preventing that - and we have bombed the bases of this, these
Shiite militias - by preventing that, we are also offering, helping the
security of your countries, the security of the world.” he stated without
elaborating. About half Syria’s pre-war 22 million population has been
displaced by the fighting, with hundreds of thousands of refugees making it
to Europe. Syria’s population is mostly Sunni Muslim. Regime leader Bashar
Assad is from the Alawite religious minority, often considered an offshoot
of Shiite Islam. Under recent deals between Assad’s regime and mainly Sunni
rebels, insurgents have left long-besieged areas sometimes in exchange for
Shiite residents moving from villages surrounded by insurgents. The
political opposition to Assad says the deals amount to forced demographic
change and deliberate displacement of his enemies away from the main cities
of western Syria. The regime says the deals allow it to take back control
and to restore services in the wrecked towns. Last week, Netanyahu warned
that Iran’s meddling in the Middle East could lead to a new massive wave of
refugees headed to Europe. Netanyahu charged that Tehran has been able to
bankroll a growing military presence in countries such as Syria and Yemen
because sanctions had been lifted in exchange for its halt in nuclear
enrichment activities. Iran wants to "basically conduct a religious campaign
in largely Sunni Syria but try to convert Sunnis," he said after holding
talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Israeli Intelligence: Trump's Actions Will Cause
Significant Damage to Iran
Tel Aviv – Nazir Majali/Asharq Al-Awsat/5 June, 2018/ The Israeli military
intelligence services issued a confidential report on the repercussions of
US President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Submitted to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, the report said
that "the serial and cumulative reaction on Trump's decision to withdraw
from the nuclear deal has gained more importance than expected in Iran in
many fields, mainly due to its extensive economic and social damage.”Trump
withdrew from the deal in May, threatening at the same time to reinstate
harsh sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and foreign firms that
trade with it. “These steps are supposed to go into full effect at the
beginning of November. Some American companies, among them airplane
manufacturer Boeing and General Electric, which signed contracts to supply
equipment to Iran’s outdated oil industry, are already preparing to halt
their investments in the country,” the report said. Sports equipment maker
Nike canceled at the last minute a delivery of football cleats to the
Iranian national squad, which is participating in the World Cup starting
Thursday in Russia. In Europe, British Petroleum announced that it would end
its investment partnership with the Iranian oil company in deep-sea drilling
off the Scottish coast. In a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron
last week, Netanyahu said that he did not ask France to withdraw from Iran
deal because he thinks “it will be dissolved by the weight of economic
forces.”“This is the right time to exert maximum pressure on Iran” in order
for the latter to leave Syria, said Netanyahu. In this context, ministers
from Britain, France, Germany and the European Union sent a letter at the
beginning of June to Trump administration cabinet members, in which they
asked the United States to exempt energy, aviation and health companies from
the secondary American sanctions – which target European companies trading
with Iran. European giant Airbus signed contracts worth one billion dollars
with Iran after the nuclear deal was signed in 2015. Another large European
company liable to be hurt by the sanctions is French energy company Total.
According to Israeli intelligence, Iran had hoped to reap sizable profits
from deals with European and American companies during the coming period.
Now, however, the Tehran regime faces abandonment by companies that already
signed contracts, in addition to the negotiations with other companies,
because of the American move. Internal pressure on the regime, in the form
of frequent demonstrations by the opposition in cities across the country,
is also coming into play. Most of the demonstrations focus on the cost of
living, the Israeli report noted. Israeli intelligence officials have the
impression that doubled economic pressure, domestically and from abroad, is
accelerating divisions at the top of the Iranian regime between the
conservative camp and the more moderate one. Part of the dispute involves
the question of Iranian foreign aid to terrorist organizations across the
Middle East. According to various assessments, Tehran disburses nearly one
billion dollars annually to these clients, including “Hezbollah”, Shiite
militias fighting on its behalf for the Assad regime in Syria, Houthi rebels
in Yemen and two Palestinian organizations in the Gaza Strip, Hamas and
Jihad.
Assad: We Need Iran,
‘Hezbollah’ for a Long Time
Beirut - London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 15 June, 2018/The head of the
Syrian regime, Bashar al-Assad, has said that the need for Iran and
“Hezbollah” will continue for a long time as gunmen assassinated a member of
a committee charged with negotiating with Syria's regime the fate of Daraa.
"At dawn, armed assailants killed a doctor who is part of the Daraa
reconciliation committee," said on Thursday the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights, adding the attack took place in a rebel village in the northwest of
the province. Another 11 committee members have been killed by unidentified
assailants since the end of May, said Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman.
The killings come as regime ally Russia holds talks with regional powers to
sort out the future of the region bordering Jordan and the Israeli-annexed
Golan Heights, and attempt to avoid a regime military operation. "We are
giving the political process a chance. If that doesn't succeed, we have no
other option but to liberate it by force," Assad said in an interview with
Iranian channel al-Alam News. In response to a question whether he had asked
“Hezbollah” to leave Syria, Assad said the group would remain until
"Hezbollah, Iran, or others believe that terrorism has been eliminated".
"Hezbollah is a basic element in this war - the battle is long, and the need
for these military forces will continue for a long time," he added.
Assad in Rare
Appearance outside Capital
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/June 15/18/ Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
attended a mosque in the country's west on Friday for prayers marking the
end of Ramadan, in a rare appearance outside Damascus, images on his social
media showed. "President Assad performs the Eid al-Fitr prayer at the
Sayyida Khadija mosque in the city of Tartus," a caption read, referring to
the feast marking the close of the Islamic holy month. In one picture, he
was seen praying alongside the country's top Muslim cleric and its Islamic
endowments minister. Another image showed him surrounded by dozens of
worshipers who appeared to be offering him Eid greetings. Assad has rarely
appeared in public outside Damascus since Syria's conflict broke out more
than six years ago. He led Eid al-Fitr prayers in the central city of Hama
last year, his first public appearance in Syria outside the capital since
the same festival in 2016. The coastal city of Tartus is the site of a naval
base belonging to Assad's key backer Russia, which has helped his forces
retake swathes of opposition-held territory. Like neighboring Latakia
province, from which Assad's clan hails, Tartus is a stronghold of his
Alawite sect. The region has largely escaped the destruction that has
blighted other areas of Syria but it has suffered a heavy human toll from
military service in the conflict that has killed 350,000 people since 2011.
The war began with anti-government protests that were violently repressed by
security forces. Russian and Iranian-backed regime forces now control around
60 percent of Syrian territory.
EU's Top Court Upholds Asset Freeze for Makhlouf
Luxembourg - London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 15 June, 2018/The European
Union's top court has upheld an asset freeze for a cousin of the head of the
Syrian regime, Bashar al-Assad, saying the European Union had shown him to
be linked to the regime. In 2011, the EU included businessman Rami Makhlouf,
a cousin of Assad, on a list of people to be hit with asset freezes and a
travel ban because of the regime's actions in the country's civil war.
Makhlouf had fought the asset freeze for the period of May 29, 2016 to May
31, 2017 at the EU's General Court, which rejected his claim. He later
appealed that decision. "The Court dismisses Mr. Makhlouf's appeal and thus
confirms that the restrictive measures against him must be maintained for
the period 2016-2017," the European Court of Justice said Thursday. It added
the EU had shown him to be associated with and providing support for the
Syrian regime.
Afghanistan Says US Drone Kills Pakistan Taliban Chief
Kabul- Asharq Al Awsat/Friday, 15 June, 2018/The Afghan Defense Ministry
said on Friday that Pakistani Taliban leader Mullah Fazlullah has been
killed in a US-Afghan air strike in Afghanistan, a killing likely to ease
tension between the United States and Pakistan. An official at the NATO-led
Resolute Support mission confirmed Fazlullah was killed on Thursday. The US
military said earlier in Washington it had carried out a strike aimed at a
senior militant figure in the eastern Afghan province of Kunar, which is on
the Pakistani border, and one US official said the target was believed to
have been Fazlullah.
Fazlullah was Pakistan's most-wanted militant, notorious for attacks
including a 2014 school massacre that killed 132 children and the 2012
shooting of schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai, who was later awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. "I confirm that Mullah Fazlullah, leader of the Pakistani
Taliban, has been killed in a joint air operation in the border area of
Marawera district of Kunar province," Mohammad Radmanish, spokesman for
Afghan defense ministry, told Reuters, adding the air strike was carried out
at about 9 a.m. on Thursday. US Forces-Afghanistan spokesman
Lieutenant-Colonel Martin O'Donnell said US forces conducted a
"counterterrorism strike" which targeted "a senior leader of a designated
terrorist organization". "US Forces-Afghanistan and NATO-led Resolute
Support forces continue to adhere to ... Afghanistan's unilateral ceasefire
with the Afghan Taliban," O'Donnell said. The government announced the
ceasefire last week and it took effect this week. "...as previously stated,
the ceasefire does not include US counterterrorism efforts against (ISIS and
al Qaeda) and other regional and international terrorist groups, or the
inherent right of US and international forces to defend ourselves if
attacked. "We hope this pause leads to dialogue and progress on
reconciliation and a lasting end to hostilities." Afghan President Ashraf
Ghani announced a ceasefire lasting until June 20 but on Friday suggested it
could be extended. Fazlullah's death could ease strained ties between
Islamabad and Washington even as Afghanistan observes an unprecedented
three-day ceasefire with the larger Afghan Taliban. Pakistan is considered
key to persuading Afghan Taliban leaders, who Washington believes shelter on
Pakistani soil, to open negotiations to end the 17-year-old war in
Afghanistan. In March, the United States offered a $5 million reward for
information on Fazlullah. Fazlullah emerged as an extremist leader in the
Swat Valley, northwest of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, more than a
decade ago. He was known as "Mullah Radio" for his fiery sermons broadcast
over a radio channel. Mullah Radio was designated a global terrorist by the
United States and carried a bounty of $5 million. He had been on the run
since his loyalists were routed in a major military operation in Swat
district of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in 2009. He was reviled in Pakistan for the
2014 assault on an army-run school in the city of Peshawar in which
Pakistani Taliban gunmen killed at least 132 children. He is also believed
to have ordered the 2012 shooting of then-15-year-old Malala Yousafzai over
her advocacy of girls' education. The Pakistani Taliban have waged a
decade-long insurgency seeking to establish a harsh interpretation of
Islamic rule but most of their fighters have now fled to Afghanistan. They
are separate from the Afghan Taliban who ruled Afghanistan for five years
before being ousted in a 2001 US-led military action. Washington and Kabul
accuse Pakistan of harbouring Afghan Taliban and the allied Haqqani network,
which Islamabad denies. Islamabad says the Pakistani Taliban maintain
sanctuaries in Afghanistan.
Jordan withdraws ambassador from Iran: Source tells Al Arabiya English
Faisal Al-Shammeri Special to Al Arabiya English/Friday, 15 June 2018/A
high-ranking Jordanian source told Al Arabiya.net on Friday that Jordan
transferred its ambassador Abdullah Abu Rumman from Iran to the Jordanian
Foreign Ministry headquarters in Amman based on a decision by the Jordanian
cabinet. “There is no intention to name another Jordanian envoy in Tehran at
the time,” the source told Al Arabiya.net. Commenting on the decision’s
circumstances, the source reiterated: “Jordan’s fixed position from Iranian
policies which include interfering in the affairs of the region’s
countries,” and voiced Jordan’s concern over “the security of the region’s
countries particularly of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council
countries.”“Saudi Arabia’s security is (part) of our security,” he said,
adding: “We are concerned over our Arab and Gulf depth.”In response to a
question from al-Arabiya.net Jordan’s minister of foreign affairs and
Jordanian expatriate affairs, stressed that “the security and stability of
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is part of the security and stability of the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.”The Jordanian foreign minister said that
“Jordan’s position is consistent with the rejection of Iranian interference
in the affairs of the countries in the region.”
Interference in Arab affairs
The source explained that Jordan’s envoy in Iran returned to Amman on Friday
morning after he was summoned to consult on the background of “Iran’s
interferences in Arab affairs.”He noted that a series of Iranian policies
“lead to deepening instability in the region.”“We reject (Iran’s policies)
that interfere in the internal affairs of brotherly Arab countries and that
harm the principle of good neighborliness which we respect when dealing with
countries neighboring Arab states,” he added. Diplomats said Jordan’s
decision comes according to Jordan’s orientation “to evaluate its relations
with Iran during this phase in the light of the givens and developments
related to interferences in the security of the region’s countries.”
PA Suppresses Peaceful Demonstrators in Ramallah
Ramallah - Kifah Ziboun/Asharq Al-Awsat/5
June, 2018/Palestinian security forces forcibly dispersed demonstrators in
central Ramallah to demand a lifting of financial sanctions imposed by the
Palestinian Authority on the Gaza Strip. PA security forces fired tear gas,
used pepper spray and beat a lot of participants, including women. Officers
in civilian clothes intervened and attacked demonstrators, provoking angry
reactions. The presidency decided to prevent the demonstrations, after a
movement called “lifting of sanctions”, supported by factions, activists,
former prisoners, lawyers and journalists, carried out two previous
demonstrations demanding the cancellation of punitive measures by the PA on
Gaza. The authorities arrested around 60 demonstrators and released them
hours later. Demonstrators told Asharq Al-Awsat that members of the security
forces in civilian clothes took part in the arrest operations. Palestinian
officials, factions and human rights organizations condemned the excessive
use of force against demonstrators. The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate
announced the boycott of news by the Palestinian government and security
services, strongly protesting the attacks on journalists during the
demonstration. Hanan Ashrawi, member of the Executive Committee of the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), said: “This unjustified behavior
constitutes a flagrant violation of the right to freedom of expression and
peaceful demonstration and is in complete contravention of the principles
enshrined in Palestinian Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, which the State of Palestine has signed in April
2014.”The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) held the Palestinian
government fully responsible for the recent developments. It called for the
formation of an impartial commission of inquiry to determine those who gave
orders to suppress the demonstrators. Hamas accused the PA of imposing a
policy of repression, while the Popular Front described the developments as
a crime. The “Islamic Jihad” condemned in the strongest terms the assault
against the unarmed, while other factions defended the right for peaceful
demonstrations.
Egypt: Key Cabinet Posts Reshuffled,
Including Defense and Interior
Cairo - Waleed Abdul Rahman/Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 15 June, 2018/Key
cabinet posts were reshuffled in Egypt Thursday with the appointment of a
number of new ministers in the government of Prime Minister Mustafa Madbouli.
The changes that included a total of 12 ministerial posts, saw the
appointment of head of the elite Republic Guard Mohamed Ahmed Zaki as
defense minister and Mahmoud Tawfik, who served as chief of the domestic
National Security Service, as interior minister. Other cabinet changes
include Amr Adl Bayoumi, appointed minister of trade, and Ezz el-Din Abu-Steit
as minister of agriculture. Younis el-Masry, the commander of the Air Force,
will be the civil aviation minister in the new government. The reshuffle
came as President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is working to introduce economic
reforms and tighter security measures. Two new female ministers, Hala Zayed
who will head the ministry of health and Yasmine Fouad who was tasked with
the environment portfolios, were added to the six existing female ministers
in the outgoing cabinet. On Thursday, the new 33-member cabinet took the
oath of office before Sisi at the presidential palace in east Cairo. Later,
the president held meetings with former Defense Minister and Chief of Staff
of the Armed Forces Sedky Sobhy; newly appointed Defense Minister Mohamed
Zaky; former Interior Minister Magdy abdel Ghaffar, and newly appointed
Interior Minister Mahmoud Tawfik. Ambassador Bassam Radi, spokesman for the
Egyptian presidency said that during the meeting, the president praised the
coordination and cooperation between the two ministries to confront
terrorism, and boost security and stability in Egypt. In a press release,
Radi said Sisi expressed respect and appreciation to the armed forces,
adding that the Egyptian people appreciate their precious sacrifices to
spread security and peace throughout the country. In his first statement
after the appointment Thursday, the new finance minister said his ministry
will work on providing the needed financing to speed up the completion of
all pending projects, especially those in the health, education and housing
sectors.
Coalition Forces Near
Hodeidah Airport as Houthis Suffer Losses
Sanaa - Aden - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 15 June, 2018/The Yemeni Army backed
by Arab Coalition forces supporting Yemen's legitimate government made
further advances Thursday to liberate the strategic port city of Hodeidah
amid collapses in the ranks of Houthi militias.
Field sources confirmed that a day after launching their military operation
“Golden Victory” to liberate Hodeidah and its port, coalition forces
infiltrated the center of al-Dureihimi directorate and moved closer to
capturing the airport. The Information Center of the Giants Brigades of the
armed forces said the army has drawn closer to Hodeidah seaport amid
retreats by Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Houthi militias admitted Thursday
that one of their top commanders. Brigadier General Ibrahim Mohammed al-Moutawkel,
was killed on the west coast front.
Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi traveled to the interim capital Aden
Thursday only hours after a similar trip by Prime Minister Ahmed Obeid Bin
Dagher and a number of cabinet ministers to the city. In Aden, the Yemeni
leaders would supervise combat military operations carried out by government
troops along with local resistance backed by Arab Coalition forces to wrest
back Hodeidah province from the Houthis. Hadi highly praised supportive
stances of brethren in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates
and their backing to the Yemeni people in the battles against Houthis and
the Iranian expansion policy in Yemen and the region, Saba news agency
reported. Governor Al Hassan Taher told Asharq Al-Awsat that the legitimate
government was currently studying several options for the liberation of
Hodeidah and the means to implement them, including the air and naval
landing of trained fighters, who will be tasked to target sensitive Houthi
positions inside the port city. “Those operations will be quick and swift,”
he said.
The governor also emphasized that the liberation plan would respect all
humanitarian conditions and take precautionary measures to ensure foremost
the protection of civilians.
Arab Commitment to Back Yemen, as League Condemns
Houthis
Cairo - Sawsan Abu Husain/Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 15 June,
2018/The Arab League has stressed its continued support to Yemen’s
legitimate government and President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi. During an
emergency meeting held on Thursday at the level of representatives in Cairo
at Yemen’s request, the League supported the Arab Coalition especially in
the Yemeni port city of Hodeidah. The Gulf initiative, national dialogue and
UN Security Council decisions are the basis for a political settlement, it
said after the meeting that was chaired by the Sultanate of Oman. The
Council condemned all human rights violations committed by Houthi
insurgents, including killings, kidnappings and enforced disappearances. It
also condemned the Houthis’ siege of Yemeni cities and called on them to
withdraw from Hodeidah to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid to Yemen.
The statement called on all political parties and powers in Yemen to set
their differences aside and work on resolving their problems through
dialogue under the leadership of the legitimate government. It also advised
them to avoid political disputes to alleviate the suffering of Yemenis,
which has reached difficult stages.
U.N.: Parts of Yemen Missiles Fired at KSA were
Iranian-Made
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/June 15/18/Some components from five missiles
fired at Saudi Arabia by Yemen's Huthi rebels were manufactured in Iran but
U.N. officials are unable to determine when they were sent to Yemen,
according to a confidential U.N. report seen by AFP. U.N. Secretary-General
Antonio Guterres told the Security Council in the 14-page report that debris
from the missiles fired since July 2017 "share key design features with a
known type of missile manufactured" by Iran. The report, sent to the council
on Tuesday, added that "some component parts of the debris were manufactured
in the Islamic Republic of Iran" but it remained unclear whether the
transfer was in violation of U.N. restrictions. U.N. officials were "unable
to determine when such missiles, parts thereof or related technology may
have been transferred from" Iran, it said. The findings were less conclusive
that those of a separate U.N. panel of experts that reported in January that
Iran was in violation of the arms embargo on Yemen for failing to block the
missile supplies. The report could deal a setback to the United States which
has repeatedly called on the Security Council to take action against Iran
over illegal arms transfers to Yemen and elsewhere in the region. Iran has
strongly denied arming the Huthis despite accusations from the United States
and Saudi Arabia that missiles fired at Riyadh and other Saudi cities were
Iranian-made. Earlier this year, Russia questioned the findings of the panel
and in February vetoed a resolution that would have pressured Iran over the
supply of missiles to the Huthis. Moscow argues that Yemen is awash in
weapons and that many of them were delivered at a time when neither Iran or
Yemen were under an arms embargo. Guterres said that U.N. officials had
examine explosives seized by Bahrain from a vessel in 2016 and were
"confident" that some of the material was Iranian-made. But again they found
no indication about when the items were shipped and were unable to make a
determination of a violation. The findings were contained in a report on the
implementation of a 2015 resolution that endorsed the Iran nuclear deal, now
in danger of collapse after President Donald Trump's announcement of a U.S.
withdrawal from the agreement. The Security Council is scheduled to discuss
the report on June 27.
U.N. Calls for Yemen Port to be Kept Open despite
Offensive
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/June 15/18/ The U.N. Security Council has
called for a key port in war-ravaged Yemen to be kept open to deliveries of
vital food and humanitarian supplies after the Saudi-led coalition launched
an offensive to seize Hodeida. But the council brushed aside a call by
Sweden, a non-permanent member, for a freeze to the military operation to
allow time for talks on a rebel withdrawal from the Red Sea port. The
council met behind closed doors at Britain's request following U.N. warnings
of a looming humanitarian disaster from an all-out assault on Hodeida.
Following a two-hour closed-door meeting, Russian Ambassador Vassily
Nebenzia, who holds the council presidency, said council members were
"united in their deep concern about the risks to the humanitarian
situation." Council members "reiterated their call for the ports of Hodeida
and Saleef to be kept open," said Nebenzia. The United Nations has warned
that the military operation could cripple deliveries of commercial goods and
humanitarian aid to millions of people in Yemen who are on the brink of
famine. The Red Sea port, controlled by the Iran-backed Huthi rebels, serves
as the entry point for 70 percent of the impoverished country's imports, but
the coalition maintains that the rebels use it to smuggle weapons. "It is
time for the Security Council to call for an immediate freeze of the
military attack on Hodeida," said Swedish Deputy Ambassador Carl Skau in a
statement ahead of the meeting. "This is needed to give the special envoy
and United Nations-led efforts a chance to avert disaster and find a
sustainable political solution to the conflict." It was the second time this
week that the council has met to try to address the crisis in Yemen. On
Monday, the Security Council said it supported U.N. envoy Martin Griffiths,
who is leading diplomatic efforts to convince the Huthi rebels to hand over
control of the port. The council did not call on Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates, whose troops are backing Yemeni forces, to refrain from
attacking Hodeida. More than 22 million people in Yemen are in need of aid,
including 8.4 million who are at risk of starvation, according to the United
Nations, which considers Yemen to be the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
Israel Ministry Report Shows Concern over Trump's N. Korea Summit
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/June 15/18/ An internal report has revealed
Israeli foreign ministry officials' reservations over the summit between
U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, despite the
government's public endorsement. The paper, written by the ministry's
research department and sent to Israeli diplomats worldwide, said Tuesday's
summit raised "questions" on North Korea's commitment to nuclear
disarmament, according to private Channel 10 television. The channel on
Thursday night quoted the report as saying there were "substantive gaps
between the American statements prior to the summit on the need for 'full,
irreversible and verifiable' denuclearization and the formulation of the
joint statement, which only referred to North Korea's 'complete
denuclearization'."A spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry confirmed
the veracity of the document to AFP on Friday, but refused to add further
details. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had on Tuesday commended
Trump on the "historic summit," calling it "an important step in the effort
to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons."But the Israeli foreign
ministry document also pointed to doubts in Japan, South Korea, the media
and U.S. Congress as to North Korea's sincerity. "Despite Trump's
declarations about quick changes expected in North Korea's policy, the way
to substantive change -- if that ever comes -- is still long and slow,"
Channel 10 quoted the report as saying. Trump has sounded a triumphant tone
since the summit in Singapore, where he and Kim signed a joint statement in
which the North Korean leader committed "to work toward complete
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." Critics have pointed to the vague
wording of the non-binding document, which Trump described as a "deal", and
to concerns among allies about the decision to stop U.S.-South Korean "war
games."
Trump Announces
Tariffs on $50 Billion in Chinese Imports
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/June 15/18/U.S. President Donald Trump on
Friday announced tariffs of 25 percent targeting $50 billion in Chinese
imports, making good on a pledge to punish the alleged theft of American
intellectual property. The announcement was sure to spark countermeasures by
Beijing, which has vowed to retaliate, bringing the world's two largest
economies to the brink of an all-out trade war long feared by markets and
industry. However in a statement, Trump also warned of "additional tariffs"
should China hit back with tit-for-tat duties on American goods and services
exports. "The United States can no longer tolerate losing our technology and
intellectual property through unfair economic practices," Trump said in the
statement. "These tariffs are essential to preventing further unfair
transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China, which
will protect American jobs." The announcement caps months of sometimes
fraught shuttle diplomacy between Washington and Beijing, in which Chinese
offers failed to assuage Trump's grievances over the soaring US-China trade
imbalance. But Trump's China trade offensive is only one side of his
multi-front trade confrontation with all major US economic partners. Trump
outraged Canadian, Mexican and European leaders last month by imposing
punishing tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum to protect American
producers from allegedly unfair competition. The Trump administration on
Friday was also due to release a finalized list of Chinese goods that will
face the tariffs. U.S. officials say Beijing has sought industrial dominance
in the emerging technologies through the theft of American know-how through
forced technology transfers, hacking and other forms industrial espionage.
Migrant Crisis on the Menu as Macron Meets Italian
Leader
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/June 15/18/ French President Emmanuel Macron
will meet Italy's new premier Giuseppe Conte Friday to try patch up
relations, after sparks flew between the two countries over Rome's rejection
of a migrant rescue ship. Despite efforts by both sides to play down their
testy exchanges, the clash underscores the deep divisions in Europe over how
to handle the massive influx of migrants from across the Mediterranean in
recent years. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel is embroiled in a
showdown with the right wing of her governing coalition, which is demanding
that she immediately ditch her liberal migration policy and tighten border
controls. Merkel has pleaded for more time to negotiate with her European
partners on a common response ahead of an EU summit on June 28-29. But there
are few signs that European leaders are anywhere near being ready to
coordinate their policies despite a looming end-of-June deadline to change
the EU's current asylum rules. In a telephone call Wednesday to turn the
page on days of bickering, Macron and Conte called for "new initiatives" to
ease the pressure on Italy, Greece and Spain -- the three countries on the
frontline of the migrant crisis. "It's time for collective action," Macron
said afterwards.
Ship on way to Spain
The Aquarius rescue vessel at the center of this week's row was on Friday
continuing to make its way across the Mediterranean to Spain, which agreed
to take the 629 migrants aboard after Italy and Malta refused the ship
permission to dock. Spain's foreign minister Josep Borrell said he hoped the
spectacle of the migrants -- mostly Africans, including pregnant women and
scores of children -- would "move" other European states into showing more
solidarity. Under the EU's Dublin Agreement, which is currently up for
review, migrants hoping to apply for asylum must do so in the first country
they enter, a policy which has placed a huge burden on Italy in particular.
The influx has encouraged the rise of far-right and populist parties --
leading most recently to an anti-migrant coalition government taking power
in Italy. "We need to work on reform of the Dublin Agreement," Conte
stressed ahead of his Paris visit. Earlier this week his interior minister
joined forces with his German and Austrian counterparts in an "axis of the
willing" to combat illegal immigration. Other countries meanwhile, such as
Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, have either refused
outright or resisted taking in refugees under a contested EU quota system.
Hypocritical lessons
The spat between France and Italy erupted this week after Macron accused
Rome of "cynicism and irresponsibility" for refusing to let the Aquarius
dock. Italy's new government hit back, accusing Paris of giving
"hypocritical lessons" and threatening to pull out of the meeting with
Macron on Friday.
Rome also summoned the French ambassador over the dispute -- the second time
it has done so over the migrant crisis in two months. Macron's critics said
he was hardly in a position to lecture, noting that France had taken in far
fewer migrants since the start of the crisis than the likes of Germany and
Sweden, and has sealed off its border to most migrants trying to cross into
the country from Italy. The French leader, who has taken a hard line on
migration from African countries that are not at war, said Thursday that
"none of his comments were intended to offend Italy and the Italian people".
In a further gesture of reconciliation the French foreign ministry said it
was ready to welcome migrants aboard Aquarius who "meet the criteria for
asylum" after they arrive in Spain. Italy itself has appeared eager to avoid
too harsh a response. After turning the Aquarius away, it allowed a coast
guard ship carrying over 900 migrants land on Sicily on Wednesday. And on
Thursday, the Italian coast guard brought fresh supplies to the Aquarius as
it made its way past Sardinia. It is due to arrive in Spain at the weekend.
Poll: In Merkel Migrant Row, Germans Back Tough Policies
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/June 15/18/ As Chancellor Angela Merkel fights
to save her government in a heated battle over immigration, an opinion poll
Friday showed most Germans support the tougher line of her rebel interior
minister. The survey found that 62 percent of respondents were in favour of
turning back undocumented asylum seekers at the border, in line with the
stance of Interior Minister Horst Seehofer who is openly challenging Merkel.
And 86 percent want faster deportations of rejected asylum seekers, a
process now often held up by bureaucratic hurdles, according to the
Infratest dimap poll. The survey heightens pressure on Merkel, who has faced
a backlash for allowing into Germany more than one million people fleeing
war and misery in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere since 2015. The mass influx
sparked the rise of the far-right and anti-Islam AfD party, which entered
parliament last September. Merkel's welcome to refugees also infuriated
Seehofer and his CSU, the sister party of her Christian Democrats in the
southern state of Bavaria, the main entry point for most arrivals. In an
unprecedented split between the CDU and CSU, Seehofer has openly defied
Merkel with a demand to allow border police to turn back migrants who lack
valid identity papers or are already registered in another EU country.
Merkel argues that Germany must not take the sudden and unilateral step of
rejecting most asylum seekers at the border, which would heighten the burden
for frontline countries like Italy, Greece and Spain. She has pledged
instead to seek bilateral agreements with these countries and a wider
solution by the EU, which holds its next summit on June 28-29.
Not 'Game of Thrones
The CSU -- which faces an election threat from the AfD in October state
polls -- has refused to budge and set Merkel an effective ultimatum of next
Monday. Seehofer will on that day seek CSU party backing to use his
ministerial authority to order border police to turn back the asylum
seekers.
The feuding parties have reportedly asked parliamentary Speaker Wolfgang
Schaeuble, the 75-year-old former finance minister, to mediate in the bitter
dispute. For Merkel, in power for over 12 years, the stakes couldn't be
higher as she leads an uneasy coalition government with a narrow majority
that took half a year to cobble together. If Seehofer decides to go it
alone, Merkel would have to fire him, sparking an unprecedented CDU-CSU
split, political scientist Heinrich Oberreuter told business daily
Handelsblatt. In that scenario, Merkel could lead a minority government with
the third party in the coalition, the Social Democrats (SPD), or call fresh
elections that would likely benefit only the AfD, he said.Amid the chaos,
the SPD's Finance Minister Olaf Scholz called for cool heads to prevail,
tweeting that "the task of governing our country is serious and not an
episode of Game of Thrones".
Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on June 15-16/18
Interview with Daniel Pipes: U.S.
Embassy Move May Bring Regrets
Canadian Jewish News/June 15, 2018
http://www.danielpipes.org/18394/interview-us-embassy-move-may-bring-regrets
Daniel Pipes is a historian, commentator and writer who sounded early
warnings about the danger of "militant" or "radical" Islam.
He is the founder and president of Middle East Forum, a think-tank that
branched out into Campus Watch, which critiques Middle East studies;
Islamist Watch, which opposes non-violent jihadis; the Legal Project, which
protects those who discuss Islamism; and the Washington Project, which
provides information to the U.S. administration and Congress.
The author of 16 books on Islam, the Middle East and other subjects, Pipes
was in Toronto recently for private meetings with supporters. This
interview, conducted by Paul Lungen, was edited and condensed for style and
clarity.
What was the strategic thinking behind the U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem?
There are two different interpretations. The common one is that this is
Donald Trump fulfilling his campaign promise. It fits in with a positive
understanding of Israel's value, building the U.S.-Israel relationship. I
disagree. I see it in the context of a larger effort, little to do with
campaign promises and a lot to do with hostility towards Iran.
If you wish to build up an anti-Iran alliance, then you need to take several
steps. The first is to lavish attention and arms on the Saudis, so that you
bring them over as an ally in a way they have never been before. Step two is
solidify and warm up relations with Jerusalem – such as moving the embassy.
Step three is warm up and solidify relations with the Palestinians. That
hasn't happened – quite the reverse. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has
engaged for half a year of a boycott of American officialdom.
I see this as transitory. At a certain point, either Mahmoud Abbas or his
successor will say, "OK, Trump, you've talked to us about some benefit we're
going to get. What is it?" And we know pretty well what it is. The U.S.
government will recognize Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital and, in
return, the Palestinians are supposed to give up the right of return.
So, in Trump's thinking, you take care of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
by giving each side what it wants, and then the Saudis will accept Israel as
a full-fledged partner and you have a real alliance against Iran. The
problem with this is that the Palestinians are not going to fulfill their
role, and will not change their hostility towards Israel. This will once
again leave the U.S. government annoyed with Israel for not resolving things
with the Palestinians. I see Israel being in the hot seat, once again, as
the Palestinians misbehave.
Although I was thrilled at the time the embassy move was declared, I think I
will eventually wish that the U.S. embassy were still in Tel Aviv.
Preparing for the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.
What do you see as the way to end the conflict?
I call it Israel victory. It will be achieved by the U.S. government in
particular, but other governments as well, saying to the Israelis, "Do what
you need to do to convince the Palestinians that the gig is up and they have
lost." The trouble now is the Palestinians don't think they've lost. They
think they have a shot of eliminating the Jewish state and, thus, they give
up their children and much else in pursuit of this goal of eliminating
Israel.
I want the Israelis, supported by their allies, to engage in policies that
will convince the Palestinians that there's no hope for this goal.
Getting back to the embassy move, it seemed the reaction in Arab capitals
was muted compared to what it might have been in previous years?
It was extraordinary. Not a single Arab capital, including Damascus and
Baghdad, said more than a perfunctory word or two about this. Instead, it
was Ankara and Tehran that were exercised about it, and, to some extent, the
Europeans as well.
The Arab states used the conflict with Israel, for some decades, as a way of
mobilizing opinion and distracting opinion away from the current local
problems. It's a tiger they want to get off of.
What's really interesting is that you see major cracks in Muslim hostility
towards Israel, spectacularly in Saudi Arabia. But on the left, the
hostility against Israel is growing and growing.
Was Israel hurt by the recent Gaza conflict beyond the PR black eye? Did
Hamas gain anything from it?
Hamas and the PA both know that if Palestinians die, Israel looks bad. It
doesn't matter what the circumstances are. I don't know how deep and
important that PR black eye is. There's so much else going on in the world
that I think this is not the most important development of late.
But there is this bizarre transformation where the Palestinian leadership
wants Palestinians dead and the Israeli leadership wants them alive. It's
not the way war was traditionally conducted.
Note the contrasting role of baby carriages for Palestinians (L) and
Israelis.
Iran sent an armed drone into Israel in February. Israel has bombed Iranian
assets in Syria. Where do you see this going from here? Are we looking at a
wider war eventually?
I'm skeptical that the Iranians are ready for a wider war with Israel; they
have enough problems. Their situation in Syria is not yet established. There
are major tensions with Russia. Their economy has significant weaknesses.
There are internecine problems in the Iranian leadership. As we saw at the
turn of the year, the Iranian population is not happy. So I don't think a
large-scale war with Israel is in the offing. Also, as the recent incidents
show, Israel is far stronger when it comes to conventional warfare.
However, the Iranians have other means of making life miserable for the
Israelis. They have attacked Israelis and Jewish institutions around the
world. Think of Argentina, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, India. They support Hamas
in Gaza but, most importantly, they have something like 150,000 rockets and
missiles in southern Lebanon that can be called upon to attack Israel. So
the Iranians have major cards up their sleeves – but not in conventional
warfare.
How have American strategic goals vis-a-vis Iran changed under President
Trump?
The U.S. government has had problems for 40 years with the Islamic Republic
of Iran but, until now, there never has been an effort to change the regime.
Under Obama, there was the attempt to bring in the Iranians, to be friendly
towards them, to see if that would change them. Before that, it was sticks,
not carrots. Under Trump, while it's not a declared regime-change policy,
it's awfully close to that. There is an unprecedented willingness to take on
the Iranian regime, whether it be economically, through sanctions or in
other ways, by fighting them, if need be. So this is a new era in U.S.-Iran
relations.
If 1979 to 2009 was one era, and under Obama from 2009 to 2016 was a second
era, we're now in a third era.
Some Arab countries have been moving closer to Israel because of the Iranian
threat. Is that a temporary thing that will change to a more traditional
hostility to Israel if there's a regime change in Iran?
I don't think it will go back to where it was, but it certainly won't
continue the way it is now. Yes, this is temporary, this is ephemeral, this
is tactical. But in the course of something being tactical for a while, it
changes minds. There are now Saudi leaders who travel to Israel. There are
plenty of interactions. I don't think it will go back to where it was, but
it won't continue to warm up, short of a resolution of the Palestinian
issue. It can't go very far.
As the demographics change in western European countries, do you expect more
hostility to Israel?
I don't think it's the demographics that are key. It's not the Muslim
population of Europe that has turned Europeans against Israel. It goes to
them being leftists and the left is hostile to Israel. [British Labour party
leader] Jeremy Corbyn is a symbol of that, but there are so many others as
well. But I'm not sure it's going to continue in that direction, because
there is a countervailing force that rejects the current establishment.
These new parties generally have a sympathy towards Israel, and as these
parties come to the fore, which one can see all across Europe, with some
exceptions, Israel is likely to do better because these parties are worried
about Islam, Islamization, Shariah and the like. They naturally look at
Israel as an ally in their concerns. I think we're entering a new era in
European politics that will be far more unsettled. The old verities are not
working anymore. I think there will be more violence, more disputation, more
troubles ahead. Things are changing in Europe.
The Turkish Race
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/18
As the Turkish election campaign reaches its final phase, a consensus is
emerging that it should be regarded as a referendum on Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
the man who has dominated the nation's politics for almost two decades.
Erdogan has often boasted that he has never lost an election and, as polls
indicate, he is unlikely to lose this time either. Since 2002, he and his AK
(Justice and development) Party have won five parliamentary elections, three
local elections, three referendums and one presidential election. But what
if the victory he expects next week turns out to be a tactical win and a
strategic loss? Erdogan won his first victory in a national election at a
time that Turkish politics had hit an impasse and needed radical changes of
direction and method. Erdogan provided that change and, at least during his
first decade as the captain of the Turkish ship of state, succeeded in
steadying the wayward vessel and pointing it towards what looked like peace
and prosperity. Now, however, observers of the Turkish experience are almost
unanimous in thinking that not only those promised golden shores may be
receding but that Erdogan's leadership may have led to five new impasses.
The first impasse is political.
By concentrating power in the presidency, which means in his own hands,
something that, after Ataturk's death, took Turkey almost half a century to
modify, Erdogan has upset the institutional balance and the pluralism of the
political scene developed since the latest of the military juntas in the
1980s.
Two decades ago, Erdogan was the bearer of a new message of pluralism,
power-sharing and give-and-take. Today, he himself is the message. In voting
for Erdogan you are no longer voting for a program, a philosophy, or even a
new governing elite. You vote for Erdogan.
Paradoxically, the Turkish voter today knows less about who really Erdogan
is, or wants to be, than two decades ago. Uncertainty regarding the future
of Turkish institutions is more acute than it was in the post Turgot Ozal
sunset phase of rule by corrupt and incompetent parties.
The second impasse created under Erdogan concerns the vexed issue of
identity, most dramatically underlined by the four-decade long failure of
successive governments in Ankara to forge a modus vivendi with the ethnic
Kurds who account for at least 15 per cent of the population. Ataturk had
decided to solve the problem by denying it existed. He jettisoned the
Ottoman system of “unity in diversity” by inventing an ideal “Turkish
identity” that ignored ethnic, religious and cultural differences in a
society rich in its diversity. Ataturk’s policy led to an impasse which
produced a civil war that has claimed more than 40,000 lives.
Initially, Erdogan realized the wisdom of the Ottoman policy of managing
ethnic prejudices by regarding diversity as an asset. His government was
initially successful in defusing the Kurdish time-bomb with a series of
accommodating policies. Later, however, Erdogan tried to “drown the fish” by
dividing the nation into numerous ethnic identities of which Kurds would be
one among many, a trick that ensured the failure of his initially promising
policies. To be sure, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) helped that
failure by sticking to its dogmatic, violent and Stalinist methods. Today,
the Kurdish question is more acute than ever. The third impasse concerns
Turkish aspirations after full membership of the European Union, a goal
shared by almost all political parties, even if only in a pro-forma manner,
since the 1960s. May be “Destination Europe” was never more than an
empty slogan as powerful voices in the European Union oppose Turkish
membership for a variety of reasons, including racism and concerns about
Islam. Nevertheless, the slogan provided a strong narrative in favor of
democratic reforms and economic liberalization that cut across parochial and
partisan interests and narrow concerns.
Today, however, as far as “joining Europe” is concerned, Turkey is farther
than ever from its pronounced goal. Almost all parties contesting next
week’s elections at both presidential and parliamentary levels agree that
the road to Europe is blocked, at least for the foreseeable future.
Erdogan has also created a fourth impasse in Turkey’s relations with the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its leader the United States.
That led to a surrealistic situation in which Turkish forces invading Syria
at some point feared a direct clash with US troops helping Syrian Kurds
consolidate their hold on a chunk of territory.
Erdogan’s involvement in Syria obliged him to try to be sweet to the
Russians who were emerging as a major player there. That, in turn, widened
the distance with both the US and the European Union at a time they had
their own issues with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Too late, Erdogan realized
that Turkey, de-coupled from NATO, would not be as valuable to Russia and
thus denied the influence that Ankara might have dreamed of. Finally,
Erdogan has created a fifth economic impasse by casting a shadow of doubt
over policy options he might contemplate once reconfirmed in his position.
Four years ago, Turkey seemed to have definitely converted to a model of
economic liberalism that emphasized private enterprise, limited the public
sector to a few key areas, and respected international norms and practices
especially as far as transparency and the rule of law are concerned.
Today, however, Turkish economy seems to be prone to interventionist
temptations, corrupt practices and shenanigans prevalent in so-called
“developing nations” with petty autocratic governments. Not
surprisingly, direct foreign investment has fallen to its lowest level since
2010 while the Turkish currency, lira, has lost almost a third of its value
compared to a basket of world currencies. Turkish annual growth rate
forecast by the World Bank is the lowest since 2008 with recession a growing
concern. Paradoxically, in this election campaign, none of those impasses
featured as prominently as they deserved, with all parties, and their
presidential candidates, falling for the personalization of the exercise
that Erdogan wanted. In that sense, Erdogan may have already won. At a time
of uncertainty many voters may decide that it is better to stick with the
devil they know rather than risk courting an unknown one.
However, Erdogan’s win could also turn out to be his loss, especially if, as
many expect, voter-turnout and his share of the votes take a downward turn.
Like it or Not, Singapore Summit was a Success
Joseph Detran/Cipher/June 15/18
The historic June 12th summit in Singapore between President Donald Trump
and Chairman Kim Jung Un has moved us closer to a peaceful resolution of
issues with North Korea. Compared to where we were eight months ago, when
the possibility of stumbling into kinetic conflict on the Korean Peninsula
was real, we are now in a much better place. The June 12th Joint Statement
captured the progress we’ve made with North Korea, especially on issues
dealing with the eventual dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear programs
and a process to establish a new U.S. – North Korea relationship, all with
the potential to lead to peace on the Korean Peninsula. Some have criticized
the language used in this Joint Statement regarding North Korea’s nuclear
program: “The DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula.” The criticism was that this language was too vague.
Interestingly though, we used similar language in the September 2005 Joint
Statement: “Verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
During the 2003-2005 negotiations that resulted in the Joint Statement, we
made it clear that denuclearization meant the Complete, Verifiable and
Irreversible Dismantlement (CVID) of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and
nuclear weapons facilities. Although we attempted to use CVID in the Joint
Statement, we were repeatedly told by North Korean negotiators that the term
CVID was offensive and its use in any official document would be a
show-stopper. Thus, the Joint Statement of September 2005 did not use the
term CVID.
If you understand that, it’s not so hard to understand that CVID was not
used in the June 12th Joint Statement. What’s important is that Kim Jung Un
and the leadership in Pyongyang know, from meetings with President Donald
Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, that the U.S. definition of
denuclearization was, and is Complete, Verifiable, Irreversible
Denuclearization and anything short of that remains a show-stopper for the
U.S.
The June 12th Joint Statement memorialized a critically important issue that
we’ve been pursuing for years: “Recovering POW/MIA remains, including the
immediate repatriation of those already identified.” Making this a stated
deliverable from this summit will provide the policy focus needed to finally
resolve this issue. The Joint Statement also designated Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo as the lead for follow-on negotiations, to ensure implementation
of the Joint Statement. No one knows North Korea better than Pompeo, given
his work at CIA and his trips to Pyongyang and meetings with Chairman Kim
Jung Un and Vice Chairman Kim Yong Chol.
One of the first actions now will be for North Korea to provide a
comprehensive declaration of the number and location of nuclear weapons as
well as a listing of all nuclear weapons facilities and personnel. They
should also be required to sign a verification protocol that will permit
international nuclear monitors to visit and inspect declared nuclear weapons
sites, and personnel, and have access to non-declared, suspect, nuclear
weapons sites. (The unraveling of the Six Party Talks and the September 2005
Joint Statement was due to North Korea’s refusal to sign a verification
agreement that permitted monitors to visit non-declared suspect nuclear
weapons sites.) With a signed statement, we can commence with the removal of
fissile material (Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium) and the
dismantlement of facilities producing fissile material, concurrent with the
disablement and/or removal of nuclear weapons. The Department of Energy has
rich experience doing this work, as does the IAEA.
As we focus on ensuring that all nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons
facilities are dismantled in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner,
there also needs to be movement on deliverables for North Korea, to include
a peace treaty to end the Korean War, security assurances stating that the
U.S. has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea, and a process to
normalize relations, possibly with the initial establishment of liaison
offices in our respective capitals. The President’s announcement that joint
military exercises with South Korea will be suspended, assuming North
Korea’s compliance on denuclearization, is another security assurance to a
North Korea that views these military exercises as an existential threat.
The bottom line is that we’re now at a better place with North Korea than we
were just a few months ago. Biting sanctions and intimidating joint military
exercises, and North Korea’s success in acquiring a so-called nuclear
deterrent, all contributed to Kim Jung Un’s decision to reach out to
President Trump. What also contributed to this outreach to the U.S. and
South Korea was, in my view, Kim’s strategic decision to seek a normal
relationship with the U.S., so as to focus on improving North Korea’s ailing
economy. To do that, Kim knew that this goal was obtainable only if he gave
up his nuclear weapons. I believe he’s prepared to do this, but only if he
receives security assurances that regime change is not our policy. His
meetings with President Trump no doubt allayed many of Kim’s concerns about
his and his government’s security.
The Singapore Summit was an historic success. But it’s only the beginning of
a process that will require lots of work, patience and persistence.
**The author was the former Special Envoy for Negotiations with North Korea.
The views are the author’s views and not any government department or
agency.
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/singapore-summit-success?utm_source=Join+the+Community+Subscribers&utm_campaign=b35a408d08-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_06_15_12_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_02cbee778d-b35a408d08-122525481&mc_cid=b35a408d08&mc_eid=4c40c5cef9
Refugees and the Arab States - Part Three
Denis MacEoin/Gatestone Institute/June 15/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12334/refugees-arab-states
Whereas refugees arriving under the UNHCR are entitled to be granted asylum
and eventually citizenship, the UAE is clear from the start that it wants to
send its refugees back home. Back home to what? To a half-ruined country
still ruled by one of history's most brutal dictators hand-in-hand with
Iran, Russia, and Hizbullah?
As the years pass, as more and more countries struggle with poverty,
conflict, religious extremism, terrorism, ethnic divisions, governmental
incapacity, corruption, and declining levels of education, huge sections of
the world's rapidly growing population will look in vain for safe places...
The Western states who support the UNHCR cannot possibly handle this without
suffering internal decline.
In the first part of this series, as many surveys have shown, we saw how
difficult it has been, and apparently remains, for many Muslims to be
assimilated into non-Muslim societies.
In Part Two, we examined how difficult it remains to allow Syrian and other
refugees even to settle into other Muslim and Arab countries, including
places such as Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan, which have taken in
millions.
In this final part, we shall look at the remaining Muslim countries, which
have taken in few or no refugees from the Syrian civil war. These are the
richest countries in the Arab world, and the least troubled by
disintegration. Many are generous in their funding for humanitarian aid, but
that money is donated on the understanding that the refugees are looked
after by the UNHCR and the countries they have already reached. Seeing why
may be a help.
In 2014, Amnesty International published a short article, "Facts and
Figures: Syria refugee crisis & international resettlement", in which it
stated that "The six Gulf countries - Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain - have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian
refugees".
This conclusion was echoed Deutsche Welle, the BBC, Time magazine, CNN, the
Washington Post , the Huffington Post, the Jerusalem Post and other media.
The most detailed report, however, came from the Brookings Institution in a
September 2015 article by Luay Al-Khateeb, a prominent Arab expert on the
geopolitics and economics of the GCC. Al-Khateeb noted that:
"condemnation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) stance on the region's
refugee crisis has reached a crescendo... they have countered criticism by
asking the world to do more.
"The GCC, it is pointed out, has nonetheless given more money for refugees
than any other [country]."[1]
As early as 2013, this amounted to $40 billion. Despite this generosity, the
bulk of GCC aid money goes to other Muslim states, notably Egypt and
Morocco, which, as noted in Part Two, have taken almost no refugees.
At this point, things become murkier. In 2015, Alex Nowrasteh, writing for
Newsweek, argued that there are more Arabs and Muslims living in Arab and
Muslim lands than ever before:
Many more Syrians are living in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States than at the
beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011.
The World Bank reports that 1,000,000 Syrians resided in Saudi Arabia in
2013, a whopping 795% increase over 2010. There were 1,375,064 Syrian
migrants living in the Gulf States in 2013, a 470% increase over 2010.
Excluding Oman, the 2013 Syrian population in every Gulf State has increased
dramatically since right before the beginning of the Syrian civil war.
Others have also taken up cudgels on behalf of the GCC countries. Open
Source Investigations, writing in December 2015, argued that the story about
GCC failure to receive refugees is "a myth". Just before that, the Guardian
opined that Saudi Arabia had said criticism of their refugee response was
"false and misleading". The humanitarian organization HumanRefuge(e)
published an article entitled "How Many Syrians Let in by the Gulf States?"
The HumanRefuge(e) post even features a map that purports to show high
numbers of Syrian refugees who have been settled in Saudi Arabia.[2]
Why is there such a discrepancy between these two accounts: on the one hand,
that the Gulf states have taken in no refugees and, on the other, that they
have taken large numbers?
The explanation given by HumanRefuge(e), Open Source Investigations, the
Saudi government and others hinges (or appears to hinge) on the fact that:
The UNHCR counts refugees using the 1951 Refugee Convention, among other
protocols. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE did not
sign any UN protocols on refugees, so most refugees residing in these areas
aren't counted by agencies like the UNHCR.
A clearer explanation is given by Chaker Khazaal, commenting on a 2014
report by Amnesty International:
The reason it's difficult to establish just how many refugees are being
hosted by countries in the GCC is because they do not officially recognize
incoming asylum-seekers as refugees. Since the GCC is not a signatory of the
United Nations' 1951 Refugee Convention, they are not bound by law to
provide these people with the standard treatment and rights typically
afforded those seeking refuge in a new country.
Admittedly, while the Arab states of the GCC might not have officially
resettled any of the Syrian refugees, it would be incorrect to say that Arab
states have not received any of the millions of Syrians who have been
displaced since the civil war began.
The problem is that being an official refugee and being a guest of a GCC
work-sponsorship program are not one and the same. The most significant
difference is that official refugees in countries that have agreed to the
1951 Refugee Convention are eligible to become citizens after a certain
period of time.
There are (or have been) a lot of Syrians in some of the countries in
question. But these are migrant workers, not people fleeing from the civil
war. Instead of treating these workers as asylum seekers entitled to the
rights of resettlement and citizenship, the Gulf states are trying hard to
expel them.
Saudi Arabia, for example, has experienced physical and social decline from
its migrant population. Dr Khalid Mandeli (PhD from Newcastle University), a
lecturer at Jeddah's King AbdulAziz University, has published a number of
articles that show concerns about the impact of migrant workers living in
slum areas.[3] Their presence goes back to the 1970s, when the country
brought in cheap foreign labour after the oil boom and religious awakening
of the period.
By 2013, the Saudi government had embarked on a "Saudization" campaign that
aims to remove foreign workers in order to put more Saudis to work. The
result has been alarming:
Until recently, of the kingdom's 30 million residents, more than nine
million were non-Saudis. Since the labour crackdown started in March, one
million Bangladeshis, Indians, Filipinos, Nepalis, Pakistanis and Yemenis
have left. And the campaign has moved into higher gear after the final
deadline expired on 4 November, with dozens of repatriation flights now
taking place every day. By next year, two million migrants will have gone.
In 2015, Human Rights Watch published a short report on the issue:
"Detained, Beaten, Deported: Saudi Abuses against Migrants during Mass
Expulsions". The report noted that:
None of the workers interviewed were allowed to challenge their deportations
or apply for asylum. Saudi Arabia has not established an asylum system under
which migrants could prevent their forced return to places where their lives
or freedom would be threatened.
Is it plausible, however, that a country that sees foreigners as a problem
and has no asylum system in place has brought in as many as two million
Syrian refugees to add to their woes?
The same problem apparently lies behind the rejection of refugees in the
rest of the region. Khazaal notes that:
The mass deportation of workers is considered to be a result of the region's
reported attempts to prioritize giving employment opportunities to their
local citizens. There is also widespread perception that Syrians wishing to
seek refuge in the Gulf states are unlikely to be granted a visa in the
first place. This was confirmed by the BBC:
Although those fleeing the Syrian crisis have for several years been
crossing into Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey in huge numbers, entering other
Arab states - especially in the Gulf - is far less straightforward.
Officially, Syrians can apply for a tourist visa or work permit in order to
enter a Gulf state.
But the process is costly, and there is a widespread perception that many
Gulf states have unwritten restrictions in place that make it hard for
Syrians to be granted a visa in practice.
In 2017, UNHCR reported on a "landmark agreement" between themselves and
Kuwait to aid Syrian refugees. Good news, but it is important to read the
small print. The agreement is worth $10 million and is aimed "to improve the
living conditions of Syrian refugees in northern Iraq". But, given that
Kurdistan is linguistically and culturally different from Syria, those
refugees will find it hard, almost impossible, to settle there. Kuwait's
money will only ease refugees living in camps.
Bahrain fits the same narrative. In March 2018 Bahrain pledged a mere $2
million "to build schools in the Zaatari Refugee Camp in Jordan". That is
small help for a country already highly pressurized by the numbers of
refugees it has taken. This too is not a solution.
In March 2018, the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain pledged a mere $2 million "to
build schools" in the Zaatari Refugee Camp in Jordan (pictured above). Photo
by Jeff Mitchell/Getty Images.
The UAE boasted in 2016 that is planning to take in 15,000 refugees over the
following five years -- three thousand a year. But the long-term prospects
of those refugees are not encouraging. Reem Al Hashemi, the UAE's minister
of state for international cooperation explained that:
Ultimately, we must offer a source of hope for displaced persons that allows
them to maintain dignity, return home, reintegrate themselves into their
societies, and rebuild their countries and their lives. [Emphasis in
original.]
Whereas refugees arriving under the UNHCR are entitled to be granted asylum
and eventually citizenship, the UAE is clear from the start that it wants to
send its refugees back home. Back home to what? To a half-ruined country
still ruled by one of history's most brutal dictators hand-in-hand with
Iran, Russia, and Hizbullah? To Eastern Ghouta? To Aleppo, Homs, Hama,
Lattakia, Deir al-Zur, al-Raqqa, Tartus, Daraa, al-Hasakeh, al-Qamishli? In
order to "maintain their dignity... reintegrate themselves... and rebuild
their countries and their lives"?
This is the response from the sixth richest country in the world (taking the
Emirates together)? The second richest in the Arab world (after Saudi
Arabia)? Where Abu Dhabi has been described as "the richest city in the
world"?
What of Qatar, ranked by Fortune magazine in 2017 as the richest country in
the world per capita? Qatar houses a large number of migrant workers, mainly
Pakistani and Indian, with three out of four residents male. The migrants
make up 94% of the country's workforce and 70% of its total population. In
January 2017, Qatar offered to house Salvadorans who may be expelled from
the United States. But they would be admitted on a temporary basis only. The
treatment of migrant workers by the state, however, has been strongly
condemned by the European Parliament and others. A report by the BBC in 2015
gives some details.
Conclusion
As the years pass, as more and more countries struggle with poverty,
conflict, religious extremism, terrorism, ethnic divisions, governmental
incapacity, corruption, and declining levels of education, huge sections of
the world's rapidly growing population will look in vain for safe places in
which to live, work, and raise their families. The Western states who
support the UNHCR cannot possibly handle this without suffering internal
decline.
This decline in many parts of the world will accelerate the growth of
refugee and migrant populations, creating a downward spiral that will drag
down even the more affluent countries. According to Paul Ehrlich, "Collapse
of Civilization is a near certainty within decades". The failure of so many
Islamic states and the refusal of some of the richest countries in the world
to do much to help, alongside their expenditure of billions of dollars over
many years to spread the radicalization of Islam and finance Islamic
terrorism, is one of the greatest problems facing the modern world and
challenging the democracies.
This situation theoretically calls for major intervention by the United
Nations, but the UN is effectively controlled by the very countries that are
causing or contributing to the problem. With the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation adding to the pressures on the democracies by working in the
interest of Muslim states, it is time for a response. But so far, the
Western nations have shown no willingness to create one.
Denis MacEoin taught Arabic and Islamic Studies in England and is currently
a Distinguished Senior Fellow at New York's Gatestone Institute.
[1] Saudi Arabia and Qatar have provided some $900 million in humanitarian
aid to Syrians. The United Arab Emirates have donated $530 million in aid
since 2012. Problematically, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' Syria
Regional Response Plan has requested another $4.5 billion, to ensure basic
dietary and sanitation conditions in the refugee camps.
[2] Saudi Arabia (500,00 to 2.5 m.), Kuwait (120,000), Bahrain (1,750),
Qatar (19,000 to 25,000), and the United Arab Emirates (242,000).
[3] E.g. Khalid Nasralden Mandeli, "The realities of integrating physical
planning and local management into urban development: A case study of
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia", Habitat International 32 (2008) 512–533
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone
Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be
reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of
Gatestone Institute.
Who Sanctions Russia? Not Germany.
Shoshana Bryen and Stephen Bryen/Gatestone Institute/June 15/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12512/germany-russia-sanctions
While claiming to be appalled by Russia's behavior in Syria, Germany
continues to push trade not only with Russia, but with Russia's partner in
the Syrian genocide, Iran.
A 2018 German intelligence report confirms that Iran is currently seeking
nuclear technology in Germany.
Perhaps it would be better to leave the hypocritical Germany out in the
hallway.
President Trump is taking flak for having introduced a subject to the G-7
meeting that our European friends wanted to keep under the table. Russia.
The allies expressed horror when Mr. Trump said, "Why are we having a
meeting without Russia? We have a world to run... We should have Russia at
the negotiating table."
Aside from the hyperbole over who actually runs the world, his comment and
the allied response are only shocking if one thinks the Europeans have been
boycotting Russia. There are sanctions on Moscow since it illegally invaded
and seized Ukraine and Crimea, but sanctions are one thing and trade is
another. Germany leads the pack in trade with Russia.
This may have something to do with the fact that Germany, in particular but
not only, stays warm in the winter with Russian natural gas meeting about
40% of its requirements.
This is an old story. The Reagan administration objected to Russian-European
plans to build the natural gas Yamal Pipeline from Siberia to Germany from
which gas would be distributed to much of Western Europe. The American
position was that, In the middle of the Cold War, having the USSR control a
majority of the supply of natural gas to Germany's industrial heartland
would make it difficult for Germany to resist Russian political and military
demands. But the Europeans wanted to sell Russia the machinery for the
pipeline, making money as they mortgaged their energy future to Moscow.
After a bitter fight, the Yamal pipeline was partially blocked and only one
strand of two was built. Post-Soviet, the Russians were able, with European
support, to build the second strand. In the early 2000's Europe bought into
yet another Russian-originated pipeline -- an undersea project called Nord
Stream -- again providing manufacturing jobs and pipeline work for Europe as
well as gas.
Early in 2018, Bloomberg reported, "Russia, which shipped some $38 billion
of gas to its most lucrative markets in Europe last year, has diminished
thoughts that other suppliers could ensure supplies in Europe anytime soon."
Nord Stream, and its successor Nord Stream 2, will give Russia the same
influence its predecessor, the USSR, would have had.
Russia is now a fine partner for Europe. The Vice President of the Bundestag
Thomas Opperman said, "Nord Stream 2 is an important economic project, which
we support and it should not be threatened by sanctions from third
countries." Mrs. Merkel would agree, no doubt, not only for the warmth, but
because the pipeline will enter Germany at Greifswald in the old East
Germany, part of her constituency.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel greets Russian President Vladimir Putin at
the G20 economic summit on July 7, 2017 in Hamburg, Germany. (Photo by
Morris MacMatzen/Getty Images)
The underwater Nord Stream 2 will reduce the price of natural gas by about
40% compared to overland pipelines, benefitting Germany, the UK, France,
Belgium, and the Netherlands -- among the countries most outspoken about the
invasion of Ukraine. But to make Nord Stream 2 work, Gazprom has to get out
of old contracts with Ukraine and Poland. Gazprom is presently suing Ukraine
in the international arbitration court in Stockholm to cancel both its gas
supply and transit contracts, stiffing Kiev. Ukraine won the first round,
but Russia appealed. In the wake of the Ukrainian victory, the EU offered to
"mediate" between the two.
Mediate away a favorable judgment for Ukraine? Isn't this whole
Russia-boycott project about Putin's interference in Ukraine's march to
democracy? Talk about collusion.
So, now that we are clear on Germany and the EU's interest in maintaining
economic ties with Russia, consider why they are pretending to keep Putin
out in the hallway. Russia, they say, is out because of its horrendous
behavior in Ukraine, but -- while no additional sanctions have been imposed
for Russian support for the Syrian war criminal regime of Bashar Assad
(which may make Moscow complicit in war crimes) -- Syria is on European
minds.
Germany, in particular, has had harsh words for Russia over its veto of 12
UN Security Council Resolutions on Syria. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
told reporters, "We can't go on like this... So, we're keeping up the
political pressure on Russia and we'd like to increase it further. Getting
Russia to change its behavior is a condition for solving the Syria
conflict." Germany has backed allied air strikes on Syria as "necessary and
appropriate."
While claiming to be appalled by Russia's behavior in Syria, however,
Germany continues to push trade not only with Russia, but with Russia's
partner in the Syrian genocide, Iran.
European firms raced to enter Iran under the terms of the 2015 JCPOA;
American firms were less aggressive. But since the U.S. has withdrawn from
the never-signed deal, major European companies have been winding down or
winding up operations in Iran. At the same time, though, the EU has begun to
update its " blocking statute," the most powerful response it has to prevent
European companies from complying with impending Iran sanctions.
In what Mrs. Merkel has said is a bid to "protect European companies" in
Iran, the statute will nullify in Europe punishment the U.S. imposes for
sanctions violations and allows EU companies to sue for damages caused by
leaving Iran for fear of U.S. sanctions.
So, the EU will use its leverage to keep companies in a country, Iran, that
hangs gay people from cranes in the street, holds American hostages,
threatens democratic Israel with annihilation, participates fully in the
Syrian genocide, and actively seeks nuclear weapons and ballistic missile
technology.
And as Iran seeks military technology, Germany obliges.
In 2016, with government permission, the German company Krempel sold
electronic press boards to Iranian companies. The German newspaper Bild
reported that Krempel parts were discovered at the site of a Syrian
government chemical attack on its civilian population. The Jerusalem Post
said the technology was used in the rockets that delivered the chemicals.
Krempel didn't deny it, telling Bild the company was "shocked" to find its
product in Syria.
A 2018 German intelligence report confirms that Iran is currently seeking
nuclear technology in Germany.
Since the 2015 JCPOA, Germany, has been Iran's largest European trading
partner: 2.9 billion euros in 2016 according to the German government and
3.6 billion euros in 2017. Interestingly, the trade goes only one way: in
2016, Germany exported 2.6 billion euros worth to Iran and took back only
300 million euros. According to Deutsche Welle, Germany imports dried
fruits, pistachios, rugs and industrial raw materials from Iran and sends
machinery and equipment, cars, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and medical
products, and takes back
Chemicals, machinery, industrial raw materials for Iran's mullahs. What
could go wrong?
In sum, then, President Trump's faux pas appears to be having the temerity
to suggest that Russia -- a key German trading partner -- have a place at
the table for international trade talks. Perhaps it would be better to leave
the hypocritical Germany out in the hallway.
Stephen Bryen is President of SDB Partners, LLC. Shoshana Bryen is Senior
Director of The Jewish Policy Center.
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone
Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be
reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of
Gatestone Institute.
Sweden: "It's Fun to Build a Mosque"
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/June 15/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12495/sweden-mosques-islam
The desire of Swedish authorities that the content of the Muslim call to
prayer, also known as the Adhan, can be ignored and that the issue is only
of noise levels is symptomatic of the way Swedish authorities in general
approach the increasing Islamization of Sweden: that is continually to deny
or ignore the scope of the problem.
In 1993, when the Catholic Church wanted to build a tower for ringing church
bells in Växjö, the municipality advised the church to refrain, as the
neighbors had complained that they would be bothered by church bells.
Rinkeby subway station was recently categorized as a place too dangerous to
work unless escorted by the police, due to the security risk created by
stone-throwing and hostile gangs.
Some Muslims in Sweden want to be able to broadcast public calls to prayer
throughout the country. They have already succeeded in obtaining permission
for this in three cities -- Botkyrka, Karlskrona and Växjö. "We want to have
calls to prayer in more places. There are many Muslims who are Swedish
citizens, who have the same rights as everyone else" said Avdi Islami, Press
Officer of the Växjö Muslim Foundation, after the police recently gave
permission for the Växjö mosque to make a roughly 4-minute-long prayer call
every Friday around noon.
A March poll of 1,000 Swedes showed that a majority of Swedes -- 60 percent
-- are against public Muslim calls to prayer.
"We do not consider the contents of the loudspeaker broadcast, but [only]
the potential noise that it makes," said Magnus Rothoff, unit commander of
the southern Swedish police region, in explaining the decision-making
process of the police.
"Therefore, we chose to refer it to the municipality's environmental
management, where there is expertise on the [noise] level that should apply.
Then we came to the conclusion that we are not disturbed to the extent that
one can make a different decision than to approve."
The municipality also did not consider the content of the call to prayer.
The desire of Swedish authorities that the content of the Muslim call to
prayer, also known as the Adhan, can be ignored and that the issue is only
of noise levels is symptomatic of the way Swedish authorities in general
approach the increasing Islamization of Sweden: that is continually to deny
or ignore the scope of the problem.
The content of the Adhan prayer, from a Western point of view, is deeply
problematic. Its purpose is not only a neutral call to prayer -- such as
church bells, which consist only of musical notes. Here is the translation
of the prayer:
"Allah is the greatest (Allahu akbar). I testify that there is no God but
Allah (Ashhadu anna la ila ill Allah). I testify that Mohammed is Allah's
Prophet (Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah). Come to prayer (Hayya alas
salah). Come to security/salvation. Allah is the greatest (Allahu akbar).
There is no God but Allah (La ilah ill Allah)".
"Allahu akbar" means "Allah is greatest" or "Allah is greater " --
presumably meaning than other deities.
In 1993, when the Catholic Church wanted to build a tower for ringing church
bells in Växjö, the municipality advised the church to refrain, as the
neighbors had complained that they would be bothered by church bells.
As recent decisions by Swedish authorities in Växjö and Karlskrona have
undoubtedly created a legal precedent, however, Avdi Islami's wish to have
calls to prayer from mosques all over Sweden is likely to succeed. The
Swedish authorities, therefore, are themselves creating the conditions for
further Islamization.
Apart from wanting to spread the call to prayer to mosques all over Sweden,
new mosques continue to be planned and built. In Rinkeby, a suburb of
Stockholm, the construction of the Rinkeby Mosque is about to begin. With 18
domes and at an estimated 5,000 square meters --1500 of which are dedicated
to the mosque, and the rest to a restaurant, classrooms and a library -- the
mosque will be among Scandinavia's largest, comparable to the Malmö mega
mosque, which opened in April 2017. The Rinkeby mosque, designed by the
Swedish architect Johan Celsing, will be constructed by NCC, a major
construction company in Sweden. The firm estimates that the complex should
be ready in 2020 at a cost of around 100 million Swedish kroner ($11.4
million). "It's going to be fun to build a mosque, from a construction point
of view," said Fredrik Anheim, Head of Division at NCC Building.
"For eight years, we have been trying to get funding, but now we are as
close as you can get," said Ibrahim Bouraleh, Vice President of the Rinkeby
Mosque Collection Foundation, who refutes claims that the mosque is being
funded by foreign donors. The foundation, however, has only collected 3
million out of the 100 million Swedish kroner needed, so the question
arises, who indeed is funding the project?
The organization behind the mosque is the Islamic Association of Järva (Islamiska
förbundet i Järva), part of the Islamic Association in Sweden (Islamiska
Förbundet i Sverige, IFSI), considered an organizational front for the
Muslim Brotherhood. As IFSI clearly states (at the bottom of the linked page
and in its statutes), it is a member of the Federation of Islamic
Organisations in Europe (FIOE), which is generally acknowledged as an
umbrella organization for local Muslim Brotherhood groups from all over
Europe.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2005, then-president of FIOE,
Ahmet al-Rawi, said, when asked about ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, "We
are interlinked with them with a common point of view. We have a good close
relationship."
The area of the future mega mosque, Rinkeby, is considered an "especially
vulnerable area" -- known as a no-go zone -- defined by the police as an
area "characterized by a social problem and criminal presence that leads to
a widespread unwillingness to participate in the judicial process and
difficulties for the police to fulfill its mission. The situation is
considered acute".
Rinkeby subway station was recently categorized as a place too dangerous to
work unless escorted by the police, due to the security risk created by
stone-throwing and hostile gangs.
Rinkeby subway station, in Stockholm, Sweden, was recently categorized as as
a place too dangerous to work unless escorted by the police, due to the
security risk created by stone-throwing and hostile gangs. (Image source:
Tricia Wang/Flickr)
In December 2017, Lise Tamm, Head of the National Unit against International
and Organized Crime, said, "Rinkeby is almost like a war zone. When the
police work there, they work as the military defense would".
Sweden's Islamization of itself barrels on.
*Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone
Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be
reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of
Gatestone Institute.
Does the World Need Another Megadeal?
Brooke Sutherland/Bloomberg View/June, 15/18
Three years and more than $3 trillion worth of megadeals later, investors
may well wonder if bigger is better.
Shares of Boston Scientific Corp. spiked 7.4 percent on Monday after the
Wall Street Journal reported that fellow medical-device maker Stryker Corp.
had offered to acquire it. It's unclear how Boston Scientific feels about a
deal, if in fact there's one on offer. Following the report, shares of both
companies were halted for "news" that ended up being a Boston Scientific
statement acknowledging the story and saying it doesn't comment on
speculation. Cool.
On average, analysts estimate Boston Scientific could command $39 a share in
a takeover, implying an almost $60 billion deal including debt. Amazingly,
that would be only the third-biggest acquisition announced this year,
trailing Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.'s $80 billion bid for Shire Plc and Cigna
Corp.'s nearly $70 billion purchase of Express Scripts Holding Co. All in,
there have been 20 megadeals ($10 billion-plus) in 2018.
This flurry of outsize dealmaking has generally been predicated on the idea
that scale is needed to offset shrinking margins as business models are
upended by new entrants and digital strategies. A Boston Scientific-Stryker
tie-up would be a prime example. It's essentially a bet that bigger
medical-device makers have more negotiating power with hospitals and are
better positioned for a consolidating health-care environment. AT&T Inc.'s
$109 billion purchase of Time Warner Inc. rests on similar logic.
The weaknesses these deals are trying to shield are real, but megamergers
aren't always the fix they're designed to be. Bigness can stifle innovation.
In the medical-device industry, Medtronic Plc's $53 billion takeover of
Covidien in 2015 should be flashing even bigger warning signs for Stryker.
The deal was a tax inversion, but those benefits have faded in the wake of
the new US legislation. In fact, it’s kind of been a dud. Medtronic has
noted that a broad bundling of products for hospitals isn't really a thing
yet, while Stryker and Boston Scientific have actually talked up the
importance of focusing on fast-growing niches rather than sheer size, says
Jefferies analyst Raj Denhoy.
What's most interesting to me is that people like Denhoy are willing to be
skeptical about the merits of a megacombination. That was rarely the case in
the heyday of 2015. You also see this from investors. Stryker shares fell
about 5 percent on Monday and continued their decline Tuesday. Comcast Corp.
has taken a beating amid speculation that it could try to disrupt Walt
Disney Co.'s $66 billion acquisition of 21st Century Fox assets. As my
colleague Tara Lachapelle notes, it doesn’t really matter what Comcast
shareholders think, but elsewhere, investors may start forcing companies to
come up with a more creative solution than a megamerger for their weak
spots.
Why Economists Avoid Discussing Inequality
Noah Smith/Bloomberg View/June, 15/18
Why would economists rather talk about efficiency than inequality? Having
lived among them for a while, I don’t think the reason is what many people
think. The common narrative on the political left is that economists are
shilling for the rich, focusing on growth in order to draw attention away
from how a few are gaining enormous wealth. But a more likely explanation is
that economists are trying to avoid getting entangled in politics. In
economics parlance, a Pareto improvement — named for Italian economist
Vilfredo Pareto — happens when the economy changes in a way that makes life
better for some people without leaving anyone worse off than before.
Economists typically concentrate on looking for these win-win situations,
because Pareto improvements would theoretically be able to please everyone
at once — theoretically avoiding the need for them to take one side or the
other in political battles. Contrary to the old adage about free lunches,
economists are always on the lookout for them.
But Pareto improvements are hard to find. In particular, one thing that
makes win-win situations very rare is the existence of social preferences —
i.e., when people care about not just what they have, but what their
neighbors have.
Here’s an example. Suppose two neighbors, Pete and Charlie, each only care
about the size of their own TV. In that case, giving Pete a bigger TV, but
leaving Charlie’s the same, is a Pareto improvement — it makes Pete better
off without hurting Charlie. But now suppose that Pete and Charlie each
would resent it if the other had a bigger TV. Now, giving Pete a bigger one
will arouse Charlie’s resentment, meaning that someone has been hurt —
thanks to social preferences, it’s harder to find a Pareto improvement. In
the extreme worst-case scenario, where Pete and Charlie each only care about
the relative size of their TVs, no Pareto improvement is ever possible,
because one person’s gain is always equal to someone else’s loss.
In reality, people probably aren’t that purely motivated by competitiveness
and envy — people really do want bigger TVs not just to make their neighbors
jealous, but because bigger screens are nice. But social preferences are
almost certainly real, and they complicate economists’ efforts to find
win-win situations for society. A recent paper by economists Sumit Agarwal,
Vyacheslav Mikhed and Barry Scholnick shows just how pervasive these
competitive instincts are. They looked at what happened to Canadian
households’ financial outcomes when their neighbors won the lottery.
Obviously, neighborhoods with lots of households that play the lottery in
the first place are different from other neighborhoods, so Agarwal et al.
compare households that won big prizes with households that won small
prizes. They then looked at neighboring households, to ascertain whether
envy of the winners’ newfound riches motivated them to spend beyond their
means. The authors find that when someone wins a bigger prize, their
neighbors start to borrow more, and tend to declare bankruptcy more,
compared to people whose neighbors won the smaller prizes. That’s strong
evidence that when people’s neighbors start to spend more money, people are
motivated to try and spend more to keep up with them, even if doing so comes
at the cost of unsustainable borrowing. When they see their lottery-winning
neighbors flaunting new cars, home improvements or other conspicuous
consumption, the feelings of competitiveness and envy are so strong that
they can even overwhelm financial good sense.
Agarwal et al.’s research tends to agree with earlier findings. A 2011 paper
by economists Peter Kuhn, Peter Kooreman, Adriaan Soetevent and Arie Kapteyn,
for example, found that the neighbors of Dutch lottery winners buy more
cars.
This obviously has implications for financial bubbles and the theory of
business cycles. If housing bubbles like the one the US had in the mid-2000s
act like lotteries — if people who manage to flip their house for a huge
gain are like lottery winners, and their neighbors borrow to keep up
appearances — then this might be another link between bubbles and debt
crises. It’s also another reason to worry about inequality. In the US and
many other nations, inequality has risen in recent decades.
A Source of Financial Folly?
This inequality could be motivating Americans to spend more and save less,
which increases the risk of debt crises, and also reduces investment and
therefore makes future generations poorer. But social preferences also
complicate efforts to reduce inequality. The same competitive instinct that
applies to lottery winnings may also apply to government transfers. A 2008
paper by economists Manuela Angelucci and Giacomo De Giorgi found that
government cash transfers in Mexico increased borrowing and reduced saving
among households that didn’t receive the transfers. So the existence of
social preferences means that governments should try to design welfare
programs that either flow to everyone equally — like universal basic income
— or seem fair in some way, such as disability or age-based programs.
Otherwise, well-intended redistribution may end up arousing envy among those
who don’t receive the checks. In a world of social preferences, everything
becomes more complicated. But that appears to be the world we live in, and
we must deal with it accordingly.
Iran continues to reap benefits of opportunism and division
Sir John Jenkins/Arab News/June 15/18
A headline on a prominent news site suggested that US President Donald Trump
was wrong to make overtures to North Korea about denuclearization because it
is a murderous regime that persecutes its people at home and abroad, and has
a profoundly destabilizing influence in its region.
I thought the author had a good point. But I wondered why no one had made
the same point when Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama made such overtures
toward Iran, which behaves similarly to North Korea, and reportedly sought
and received Pyongyang’s assistance with its nuclear programs.
I was then
amused to see news from Iraq that Muqtada Al-Sadr had announced a political
alliance with the Fatah movement of Hadi Ameri, the powerful militia leader
and commander of the Badr Organization, which fought alongside Iranian
forces during the Iran-Iraq war. This alliance may well form the core of a
new Iraqi government.
The problem is that many people interpreted Al-Sadr’s recent election
victory as a shift in Iraqi politics away from sectarian and communal power
distribution and dependence on Iran, toward more effective national politics
— certainly one less subordinate to Iranian interests — that many Iraqis
have been seeking for at least a decade.
Anyone who has followed Iraqi
politics with any attention would have known that that was a forlorn hope.
Iran knows what it wants there, and what it wants — that does not include
sharing the region with anyone — it gets, helped by the delusion of some
commentators and senior officials that the tide is about to turn, and when
it does on their watch they will get the credit.
Meanwhile, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi, whom some diplomats were
touting before the elections as yet another savior figure (in a long line
starting with the late Ahmad Chalabi), is left waiting for a call from the
true power brokers. In Iraq, as in Iran, the people may vote, but they do
not get to choose who governs them.
Meanwhile, in Syria there is growing suspicion that US-Turkish maneuvers
over the town of Manbij, American support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF),
and threatening Turkish moves against alleged Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)
positions in northern Iraq, are becoming part of a bigger deal involving
Russia and southwest Syria, where Israel has made clear it will not tolerate
an Iranian or Hezbollah presence.
Russia may be trying to stage-manage a situation in which Turkey is allowed
to act against PKK-aligned forces along its border, in return for tolerating
increased Iranian influence in the same area — where Tehran also has Kurdish
concerns — as compensation to the latter for withdrawing (at least for show)
from the Suweida area, and therefore lessening the chance of an immediate
confrontation with Israel.
There is a common theme in all these stories: Iran gains and the US loses.
But assuming all this is accurate, it may be equally true that Iran is being
far too clever for its own good, as it was in 1982 when it refused to accept
the liberation of the city of Khorramshahr as a signal for the end of the
war with Iraq. However, given that all strategy in the Middle East is
opportunism, this looks — at least for now — like the sort of hand one would
like to be dealt.
Add to the mix Hezbollah’s political entrenchment in Lebanon after the
recent elections there, the outmaneuvering of Iranian reformists in the
campaign for the speakership of Parliament, and claims that renewed US
hostility is creating a nationalist backlash in Iran.
Iran is adept at playing off its enemies against each other: Turkey against
the US, Russia against the US and Turkey, the EU against the US, parts of
the EU with Russia against the US, others against Turkey, and so on.
Given all this, if you are sitting where Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
sits, you might be congratulating yourself on yet another great escape. Yet
there is a problem of cognitive diplomatic dissonance. Many commentators and
politicians still think North Korea is bad, but Iran just badly treated.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent speech setting out 12 US
requirements for Iran was impressive and hard-hitting, and went some way to
making the case for the long-term and widely supported strategy of sustained
containment and deterrence that we have needed for a decade or more. So did
the less-well-reported speech on June 5 by Undersecretary of the Treasury
Sigal Mandelker, setting out in detail Iran’s malign financial activities
worldwide.
But we still do not have such a strategy, partly because Iran is so adept at
playing off its enemies against each other: Turkey against the US, Russia
against the US and Turkey, the EU against the US, parts of the EU with
Russia against the US, others against Turkey, and so on. It may also be
connected to the way the US government’s attention keeps shifting from one
thing to another, and to the growing stresses within the EU.
I made these points recently at an academic seminar, and was accused by a
fellow European of seeking to exclude Iran from the region. After I
recovered from my shock at such a bizarre misrepresentation, I pointed out
the difference between containment/deterrence and exclusion. But it made me
wonder about the determination some people have, particularly on the
European left, to see Tehran as a partner of choice in the region, against
all the evidence of the structural hostility toward them from key parts of
Iran’s government and security and intelligence forces.
In any case, we have not seen such a policy pursued with sufficient,
sustained international backing since around 2011, when the achievement of
the nuclear deal became the major — if not the sole — goal of the US and the
EU in their approach to Iran.
So that leaves us with the task of continuing publicly to explain why such
an approach is reasonable. I do not believe we should abandon the nuclear
deal. Nor do I think we should shout from the rooftops that we want to see
regime-change in Iran, or list in public the steps we are about to take to
increase pressure on Tehran.
We should instead use the time that the deal bought us to coordinate more
targeted political pressure, physical pushback where international law
allows, sustained and targeted measures to prevent global financial systems
being corrupted or used to finance terror, and construct effective
partnerships within and outside the region to constrain Iran, punish its
malign actions and reward its constructive ones.
Whatever the EU may like to claim, it still needs US leadership. You can
only work with what you have got. As always, there is work to be done in
Washington.
• Sir John Jenkins is a senior fellow at Policy Exchange. Until December
2017, he was Corresponding Director (Middle East) at the International
Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), based in Manama, Bahrain, and was a
Senior Fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. He
was the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia until January 2015.
Can Turkish-Iranian cooperation work against PKK?
Sinem Cengiz//Arab News/June 15/18
Turkish officials recently stated that they were talking with their Iranian
counterparts about a military offensive against the outlawed Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK). Militants from the group are dispersed across the
northern Iraqi region of Qandil. The offer of cooperation received a
positive response from Tehran. “We are in contact with Iran,” Turkish
Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on June 13. “PKK is a threat to them
as well. Qandil is a very close to the Iranian border…we will improve
cooperation with Iran.”
Two days earlier, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that Turkey had
launched military operations to eliminate PKK, targeting its headquarters in
the Qandil mountain region and in the Sinjar province of Iraq, and that 20
fighter jets had destroyed 14 PKK targets in the region. Ankara began
preparations in early March for a large-scale operation against the
terrorists scattered across the region, with special forces and scores of
troops deployed on the difficult terrain to set up regional bases. Turkey
now has 11 bases and more than 2,000 troops in Kurdish-controlled northern
Iraq to carry out an assault against the terrorist group.
Turkey is mired in a bloody war domestically against the PKK and its
Syrian offshoots, the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its armed wing, the
People’s Protection Forces (YPG). Last year, meanwhile, the Kurdistan Free
Life Party (PJAK), an offshoot of PKK in northwest Iran, attacked Iranian
border guards near the city of Urmiya, killing two and wounding seven. Iran
is concerned that PJAK is a threat not only to the territorial integrity and
national security of Iran, in the same way that PKK poses a threat to
Turkey, but also to Iraq and Syria. Both Turkey and Iran are aware that
separatist campaigns have been ramped up in these volatile times. They are
rightly concerned that the extraordinary regional turmoil could fuel Kurdish
fantasies of independence.
The Turkish-Iranian relationship is best described as “bitter frenemies,”
based on temporary cooperation and tacit tensions.
Ankara and Tehran even cooperated in building a 144 km wall, with towers
and iron fences, along the Turkey-Iran border to block the movement of PKK
militants based in Iraq’s Qandil mountains bordering Iran and Turkey, and to
prevent PKK and PJAK from smuggling arms to one another. In addition,
Turkish and Iranian intelligence agents, along with Iraqi counterparts, took
joint action against PKK in November 2017, targeting positions in northern
Iraq.
Ankara hinted that both Iraq and Iran have given a green light to Turkish
operations and are ready to throw their support behind the country’s forces.
The Iranian support is highly significant, moreso than that from Iraq,
especially in terms of intelligence. Iran is one of the main countries in
the Middle East involved in proxy wars and intelligence gathering to aid its
regional aspirations. It is no secret that Iranian military advisers have
played a vital role in challenging the Syrian groups fighting against the
regime of Bashar Assad in Syria, and in supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon,
proving that Iran could extend its support to its regional allies and engage
in regional conflicts.
However, what kind of a support Iran will give to Turkey is yet to become
clear. Historically, although threatened by PJAK, Iran did not hesitate to
support PKK’s aggression against Turkey to curb Ankara’s influence in the
region.
As Robert Kaplan, an American author specializing in politics, foreign
affairs and travel, said: “The Turkish-Iranian relationship is among the
most complex of civilizational rivalries.” They are neither allies nor open
enemies. In recent decades, the Turkish-Iranian relationship is best
described as “bitter frenemies,” based on temporary cooperation and tacit
tensions.
However, it would not be wrong to say that we are witnessing an era in
which Turkish-Iranian cooperation in the region is greater than ever before.
Ankara and Tehran have been strengthening relations at a growing pace in
Syria. Both countries have been part of the Astana peace process, with
Russia, since early 2017, and the Syrian National Dialogue Congress. The
presidents of the two countries meet more than once in a year, as a sign of
the increasing cooperation.
While Iran and Russia are working with Turkey in the Astana process to
find a solution to the problems in Syria, particularly humanitarian issues
and the formation of de-escalation zones, PKK has demonstrated its position
by closely allying itself with Iran’s enemies, namely the US and Israel.
Both Ankara and Tehran are angered by the US arming of the PYD, which
Washington considers a partner in Syria. PYD has also drawn Iranian Kurds to
its ranks, which is something closely monitored by Tehran with some concern.
Aware of all the balances in the region, Ankara implied that Iran should
do more to support Turkey since the PKK and its wings are an existential
threat to them both.
Needless to say, Turkey’s regional geopolitics and its cooperation with Iran
will have a significant effect on Kurdish separatism. Both Turkey and Iran
need collective security cooperation to defeat terrorism in the region. This
would only be possible if Iran takes sincere steps as a neighbor not only
when it is threatened, but for the sake of the stability and security of its
neighbors — Iraq, Turkey and Syria — and the wider region.
• Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkey’s
relations with the Middle East.
Twitter: @SinemCngz
Senior Iraqi legislators turn against the parliament
Adnan Hussein/Al Arabiya/June 15/18
In an unprecedented move, senior, and not junior, Iraqi parliamentarians
have objected, appealed and protested against the results of Iraqi
parliamentary elections. These senior figures are the highly influential
members of the Iraqi Parliament and of the entire political process.
They come from a cross-section of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political
parties and groups chosen by the United States and Britain before the
overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 to rule Iraq on the grounds
that they represent the basic constituents of the society, Shiites, Sunnis
and Kurds.
As for junior parliamentarians, they come from political parties and groups
that came into existence after the fall of Saddam's regime but stayed
outside political dynamics. Their role was defined as being a complementary
adjunct to the political process that was described as democratic, but was
not so in reality.
What happened in the Iraqi Parliament is an attempted coup plotted by the
seniors who have been toppled by the recent elections. It is a coup that has
not completed yet
Vestiges of a flawed system
Since the first elections of the post-Saddam era in early 2006, electoral
laws, the law of the High Electoral Commission and provisions of the
constitution have been violated. There has also been an increase in cases of
fraud. In fact some of the officials of the Commission have testified in
this regard. The seniors have been behind most of this as they were the only
ones who had the power to influence and garner money. They divided state
positions among themselves under the system of sectarian and national
quotas, which sustained the biggest administrative and financial corruption
system in the region and one of the largest in the entire world.
International organizations such as Transparency International were not the
only ones who conceded this fact. In fact, senior political figures have
repeatedly acknowledged the existence of corruption in state and society.
The heads of Iraqi governments appointed by the senior parliamentarians have
emphasized that they will work hard to fight corruption in their governments
and make it a priority but this never happened.
From a constitutional point of view, the Commission was described as
“independent” along with ten other bodies but this wasn’t really the case
since the seniors held very firm to dividing posts in these commissions and
their supreme councils in the same way state positions and functions have
been divided. Specific parties controlled these commissions from the very
beginning, and dividing posts and jobs mainly happened through the
Parliament which is dominated by these seniors; as such commissions were
under its supervision and control, and had no independence at all.
Opposition to reforms
The juniors of the political process, those who succeeded in having their
representatives in the Parliament or failed, have maintained the need to
respect the impartiality of these "independent" bodies, especially the
Electoral Commission, as it is the most important body that guarantees that
the electoral process is not manipulated. This demand has been at the center
of the protest movements witnessed by Iraq since February 2011. But the
seniors were not interested in this so they have always opposed amending the
electoral and the commission laws to guarantee fair and transparent
elections run by an independent commission. As a matter of fact, an MP
representing of one of these senior parties (an influential Shiite party)
told the media once that the quota system “was built to stay and had become
a reality.”
Before the elections last month, demands to form an independent commission
and amend the electoral law were made again. However, the seniors turned
down these demands and they formed the current Commission themselves and
under the same quota system. They even refused to grant the judiciary
partial representation in the Commission to supervise the elections. They
also refused to postpone elections for some time especially since the
country has just emerged out of its devastating war against ISIS. Many
cities and towns were destroyed and people have been displaced. Hundreds of
thousands are in camps and many of them thus had no chance to finish the
paperwork required to vote.
The election brought shocking results for the senior politicians, even
though such an outcome was expected outside their close circles. Following
the results, they made a volte face of 180 degrees and have started working
on annulling election results and overthrowing the commission. Earlier in
June, 170 MPs, who mostly lost in the recent elections, quickly met to
change the election law and annul the announced results of the electronic
system - the same electronic system that these members were once
enthusiastic about! They decided on manual recount of the votes along with
annulment of the results of overseas voting in camps and the exceptional
voting in Kurdistan region.
Disillusioned electorate
This is happening while the Parliament is in recess and is about to finish
its term because powerful forces have suffered a decline in their
representation in the new Parliament. Some of the big figures failed to
secure a seat in Parliament, and this is mainly because Iraqi voters have
lost confidence in them.
This was expected as these forces were not able to keep their position when
they are responsible for the real disaster that Iraq witnessed four years
ago, which is the ISIS occupation of a third of Iraq's territory. Almost all
Iraqi families were tragically affected by this event either during the
invasion or in the nearly three-year war to vanquish this terrorist
organization and expel its elements from Iraq. These powers couldn’t have
enjoyed the respect of Iraqis while administrative and financial corruption
are at its peak along with poverty, unemployment and the fall of public
service system, which led to a new wave of protests in recent days in many
provinces. What happened in the Iraqi Parliament is an attempted coup
plotted by the seniors who have been toppled by the recent elections. It is
a coup that has not completed yet. There are also those who refused,
objected and filed complaints at the electoral legal body and the Federal
Court, objecting to the legality and constitutionality of what the
Parliament did. Whatever the fate of the objections and appeals, the final
result will only make Iraqis less confident in the political process. The
recent elections reflect this collapse, with the poor voter turnout at a
mere 55 per cent, and the toppling of many known figures from the elections.
BLURB: Senior politicians have always opposed amending the electoral and the
Commission laws to guarantee fair and transparent elections run by an
independent commission.
Is it a case of now or never for Pakistan’s Imran Khan?
Syed Jawaid Iqbal/Al Arabiya/June 15/18
Much against expectations, Imran Khan or his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)
are not yet making a big bang. It seems everyone in the PTI camp is
complacent and no one is bothering about the tactics and strategies that
could be adopted in the next elections.
Does that mean Imran Khan as the next prime minister of the country is a
foregone conclusion? If that is so, how will Imran and the PTI achieve this
objective? For all intents and purposes not even an outline of a “shadow
government” has been seen so far. Many important developments have taken
place in the country. Most importantly, the outgoing government announced a
federal budget which would impact Pakistan’s financial future for the coming
years but the PTI has so far only made the usual noises about it and has not
come forward with concrete financial proposals of its own.
PTI and Imran Khan himself have made claims that they have everything sorted
out and when they come to power, they will have a competent team handling
the country’s affairs. None of that has come to the fore as of now. Even
decision-making in the party, as was evident in PTI suggesting names for
appointment of Punjab’s interim chief minister, is not on firm grounds.
Then, where is the party manifesto? For a party that claims to have a
capable think-tank, they should have worked on it much in advance and
released it now or even earlier. Perhaps Imran Khan’s talk of what PTI plans
to do in the first 100 days after it comes into power, based on the issues
and problems that the country faces, is its manifesto.
It is through its performance in its first 100 days of power that the PTI
plans to take Pakistan forward. Even then, there is a lack of confidence
evident in the body language of Imran Khan and his team. Their convictions
are somehow not coming through. They are also faced with serious challenges
on many fronts. There is the challenge of non-delivery of promises that were
in 2013 elections, most of whom were not met.
Good work has been done in the health and police sectors in the Khaibar
Pakhtoon Khwa (KPK), the province where his party is in power, but other
subjects remain ignored. In fact, Pervez Khattak, a PTI die-hard who served
as Chief Minister of KPK, has been charged with corruption and nepotism and
has many things to answer for. Imran Khan must be given credit that he has
continued to raise a voice for the rule of justice in Pakistan and has also
succeeded in putting Nawaz Sharif on the mat
Wife attack
Imran’s second former wife Reham Khan plans to publish her so-called
autography very soon. If she does so and even if the book talks about the
personal relations that existed between the couple while they were married,
the material would again negatively impact Imran Khan’s political
objectives. It seems while Reham is disillusioned with Imran’s political
views and plans to talk about these in her book. Recently, the PTI issued
election tickets and it transpired that many old workers of the party, some
even founders, were left out and new faces were chosen to contest elections.
Whether this was because of lack of confidence about their winning
capability or electability of the new entrants is still unclear. Does this
represent the slogan of “tabdeeli” (change) that Imran Khan and his party
have touted all along? If his purpose is to get into the parliament on the
back of electable candidates and it does not really matter to him if these
people subscribe to any change in Pakistan then perhaps it would be correct
to say that the champion of change has deviated from his original approach
just to get power. Imran Khan must be given credit that he has continued to
raise a voice for the rule of justice in Pakistan and has also succeeded in
putting Nawaz Sharif on the mat. It is hoped that Imran’s stance on the rule
of law will continue and his approach will not change even when he comes to
power. This was not evident in the KPK when PTI was running the government
but this fact should not be treated as an indication of the future.
There are signs that this time around, the PTI will not have such a clean
sailing in the KPK as it did in 2013 and other contenders, mainly the
religious parties, would also give a strong showing. In Punjab province, PML
(N) is likely to emerge as a prominent player even though Nawaz Sharif would
not be in the fray. PTI here would only succeed in making partial inroads.
The PTI’s main battleground would be Punjab and the KPK to some extent.
Imran Khan’s effective weapon in all provinces will be youth who still
believe in him and are confident he will deliver. Imran is expected to get
good support from the youth since more than 20 million young individuals
have crossed the age of 18 and have become eligible voters. They are
unlikely to vote for the old tried and tested politicians. In the final
analysis, Imran’s PTI may not win a clear majority in the National Assembly
and will probably settle for a coalition. This will create a weak government
and perhaps it will be in the future interest of Pakistan since the powers
that be will then be able to formulate a long-term agenda.
Israel, Jordan fear escalation as Russia seeks
provincial division in Syria
Shehab Al-Makahleh/Al Arabiya/June 15/18
The recent trouble in Jordan would pave the way for the Syrian army and its
allies to move South West of Syria to regain control over the provinces of
Dera’a, Suwaida and Qunaitra. The three governorates are on the triangle of
Jordan, Syria and Israel.
But the question is why would Syria, Russia and Iran push to restore these
areas in the coming period? Benefitting from the ramifications of the
economic hardships in Jordan, the Syrian army would direct the forces to
regain control of these provinces and to impose a de facto policy on Jordan.
The target is not Jordan but rather the Golan Heights which Israel has
planned to create a buffer zone in the Syrian territories guarded by Syrian
opposition (Free Syrian Army) since the United Nations Disengagement
Observer Force (UNDOF), which was established by on May 31, 1974 to execute
Resolution 338 of 1973, calls for immediate ceasefire between Israel and
Syria. When the Syrian war started in 2011, the buffer zone between Syria
and Israel became a bloody scene due to clashes in Qunaitra province between
the Syrian army and the armed opposition. This prompted the UN to reconsider
the safety of its mission by pulling them out. Thus, Israel has benefited
from this withdrawal and created the buffer zone with Syria.
The opposition troops in this triangle are considered by many countries as
moderate and adequate. However, since the Syrian troops are pushing South
West to pave the way for opening borders with Jordan, this move would be
risky to Jordan at this time as Jordan is passing through economic
challenges.
Netanyahu’s success in convincing US administration to tear the nuclear deal
has not been without a cost because this has driven Israeli army to develop
a strategy to counter Iranian military presence near its borders
Russia’s call
When the Russian government announced the need for foreign troops to pull
out of South West of Syria, this of course includes Iranian and American
troops as well. Yet, some have interpreted this statement as a tactic by
Russia to help jettison other foreign forces except Russian which has two
bases in Syria: A maritime base in Tartous and an airbase in Lattakia.
Russia is trying to divide the south into two parts based on a regional
agreement with countries such as Jordan and Israel, where the Free Syrian
Army in Dera’a has recently moved from neighboring villages.
A Russian plan to remove Free Syrian Army fighters from the province of
Dera’a and the borders of Naseeb-Jaber (the crossing point with Jordan) in
full is on in order to reopen the crossing in the coming weeks after
reconstruction of the major buildings in Naseeb, which will be under the
supervision of the Syrian army and the government’s security.
If this is achieved in the coming few weeks, the Jordanian talk about a
40-kilometer-long safe zone from the Golan Heights to the city of Nawa in
Dera’a may have been viable and conducive to rehabilitate crossing points on
the Syrian side.
Recent visits of Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman and other
security officials to Moscow reflect that Tel Aviv is considering three
measures in Syria: a grand strategy, a scenario and a tactic.
The grand strategy started already with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu’s call for ripping off the nuclear deal between the G-5 and Iran.
He succeeded to convince the American President Donald Trump to pull out of
the deal and impose further sanctions on Iran to weaken Iranian presence in
Syria.
Netanyahu’s success in convincing the American administration to tear the
nuclear deal has not been without a cost because this has driven the Israeli
army to develop an offensive strategy to counter Iranian military presence
near its borders, as Tel Aviv considers Iranian troops a strategic
challenge.
According to Israeli intelligence sources, the war in Syria is far from over
and since Israelis believe that Iran has emerged as the big winner in this
war, the atmosphere will not be easy for Israelis.
As generals of the Israeli army acknowledge that it is the first time since
70 years that the State of Israel faces an existential threat which would
lead to a war because Iran would speed up the pace to assemble the atomic
bomb and produce it to be among the big five in Asia along with North Korea,
Pakistan, Israel, India and China.
Israel and NATO
This leads to the scenario, which is forming an Israeli alliance with the
NATO. This has been clear when Israeli troops have recently joined the NATO
forces in military drills in Poland and the Baltic States, near Russian
borders.
Israel which is a non-NATO member is taking part in these drills for the
first time with hundreds of Israeli paratroopers. This is a message from
Israel to Russia to exercise pressure on Iran to pull out its troops if not
from all Syria, from South West of the country, which borders Israel and
Jordan.
Such a scenario is not easy to forecast because of the many objectives each
NATO country has in terms of military drills near Russia at a time the
country is hosting the World Cup 2018. Is the message directed to Russia’s
leadership not to interfere in Europe? It is a message for Moscow to contain
Iran and its expansionist policies in Syria? Is it both?
As per the tactical dimension, the ramifications for Israel to go into
direct war with Iran is unexpected at the time being though there would be
skirmishes by the borders to start an attrition war against the Israeli
army.
The tactical part is also by the Russian and Syrian troops on Jordan to
drive Amman to interfere because the kingdom has good relations with the
opposition in Dera’a and Suwaida. In other words, the Russian-Syrian
pressure will also be on Jordan to convince the Syrian armed opposition in
the three provinces to hand over their arms and surrender to the Syrian army
or to face death.
Of course, Jordan would favor the first option in order to avoid any clashes
that would lead to the influx of thousands of Syrian refugees to cross the
border to the Jordanian territory. This will add salt to its economic pains.
Syrian army has mobilized more than 40,000 troops to the war in Dera’a
province. Thus, Jordan’s woes and afflictions have become apparent at a time
the country is undergoing serious economic crisis.
The same applies to Israel, which fears the progress of Syrian troops toward
Qunaitra with Russian surveillance since this would force the Free Syrian
Army fighters to retreat to Israeli borders.
Using soft power to isolate Iran supporters
Mohammed Al Shaikh/Al Arabiya/June 15/18
It is expected that there will be celebrations, such as music concerts, to
mark Eid El Fitr. These celebrations might even extend throughout the whole
summer vacation in different places in Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain.
Lebanon is now occupied and controlled by the abhorrent Persian enemy
through Hezbollah which about 50% of the Lebanese people voted for or for
its supporters in the recent elections. Thus we have to use our soft power
to confront it and those who supported it on all levels. I am certain that
if we had made our soft power effective much earlier, this evil terrorist
group would not have been this powerful. I’ve noticed that there are some
artists who work in the entertainment industry in Lebanon who publicly
support this Persian group. They shamelessly support it then prepare to hold
concerts and events in the Gulf region, specifically in Saudi Arabia after
it has opened up as well as in the UAE and Bahrain to make plenty of money
that’s much more than what they make in their country that has low financial
capabilities.
We must also note that our satellite channels today are almost dominating
the Arab media, and every artist is seeking our content because they know
that being famous and a star comes with the use of these channels
Opportunists and the entertainment business
Most of these artists seek popularity so if they feel that they will be
boycotted if they support Iran or its affiliates, they will change their
position drastically. Such a firm and important approach is called soft
power in international relations and it’s used cleverly by developed
countries and sometimes it achieves much more than what hard power can
achieve. Let these opportunists hold their parties in Tehran, so that they
would know that almost no one would attend their concerts. The question is
why do we allow these opportunists to gain a lot of money from us during
their concerts at night so they can transfer them to our existential enemy
Iran during the day? Doesn’t this reflect our naivety in dealing with them?
We must also note that our satellite channels today are almost dominating
the Arab media, and every artist is seeking our content because they know
that being famous and a star comes with the use of these channels. We are in
fierce war with the Persian enemy and its supporters, and it would be our
loss if we do not use the soft power in our fateful war against it.
We are in a real need to activate our artistic superiority to serve our
causes. There is no doubt coordination between Saudi Arabia, the UAE and
Bahrain in this regard will make us more powerful and more capable of
increasing pressure. We would see the result of this quickly in a way that
would make these artists compete to satisfy us and abandon Hezbollah
affiliates out of fear of being blacklisted, which they would escape from as
if they are running from a lion.