LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 11/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.march11.18.htm

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

Russia-America rivalry spreads to the oil market
Randa Takieddine/Al Arabiya/March 10/18
A report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) has revealed an increase in US oil production raising questions about the share of OPEC and non-OPEC countries in the global oil market after they decreased their production. The 24 OPEC and non-OPEC countries, headed by the biggest producers Saudi Arabia and Russia, had decided to cut down production by 1.8 million barrels per day until the end of 2018 due to a surplus in oil supply.
US shale oil disrupts price
According to the IEA, the rapid rise of US shale oil and increased production in Brazil and Canada will be able to accommodate growing demand for oil by 2020. The United States under the leadership of George Bush and Barack Obama expedited the process of transforming the country from being the largest oil importer into an important and independent producer. When Trump was elected president, he ordered issuing licenses and removing obstacles that hindered exploring and producing more shale oil. The United States is now exporting not only gas but also oil.
Russian companies are worried that US oil is taking away their share of the market
This situation may compel OPEC members and non-OPEC states to extend reduction in oil production to beyond 2018. Current OPEC president Suhail Al Mazroui said in Houston that the group has not ruled out if it is going to continue implementing this policy even after 2018. Ever since the IEA published its report on US oil production, the price of Brent crude has dropped to below $64 after having reached $71 in January. There is no doubt that all OPEC countries and most of the other non-OPEC countries do not want to see a drop in oil prices because it is not in their interest.
A number of Russian companies are worried that US oil is taking away their share of the market, and they may not want to continue to reduce their share of oil in the market after 2018 in favor of the US. It is premature to predict what the 24 OPEC and non-OPEC countries will decide during their June meeting in Vienna on the sidelines of the OPEC conference because it will have a bearing on the evolution of the price of oil, which can rise and drop for reasons other than market fundamentals, like geopolitical factors or even investor speculation.
Russia-Saudi cooperation
Generally, the US growth factor can pose a challenge for major producers, including Russia and Saudi Arabia. For years, Saudi Arabia has increased its oil exports to countries in the east – such as to China, India and Japan. In order to save its oil for export, Saudi Aramco and Russia's Novatek have signed a memorandum of understanding for future investment in an LNG plant. This will enable Saudi Arabia to acquire Russian natural gas to supply electricity. Saudi Arabia wants to preserve its market share and cultivate policies in this regard as for instance there are Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's plans and projects to diversify the kingdom's economy so that it is not dependent on oil and its prices in the future.
The Russian-Saudi cooperation in oil and gas is in the interest of the two countries. But Russia's current policy as an ally to Iran in Syria and its determination to defend Iran is echoed in Russia’s talks with Western leaders and ministers. This puts a question mark over the prospect of this cooperation. In his meeting with his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov considered Iran a stabilizing factor in Syria, Lebanon and the Middle East. This raises questions about the future of sustaining Russia’s interests with Gulf states if it maintains the same policies.

Saudi Arabia has drawn unjustified ire and unfounded accusations
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/March 10/18
Without dwelling on the political and economic aspect of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s deliberations during his recent trip to Egypt, the United Kingdom and then the United States, let us focus solely on the human and cultural aspects of the tour.
In Egypt, the Saudi Crown Prince had a unique meeting with the highest representative of Egyptian Christians and the Coptic Church, Pope Tawadros II, at St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in the Abbassia District in Cairo. He also met with other Christian figures. The discussions revolved around the situation of Christians and the Copts in Egypt and reaffirmed both parties “common commitment to eradicating extremism and terrorism.” The Saudi leadership is intent on forming a multi-cultural and religious alliance between different religions and cultures to promote peace, harmony and synergy in its war against terrorism and terrorist ideology
Unfounded accusations
In the UK, Prince Mohammed, who held several political, economic and security meetings, scheduled a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, principal leader of the Anglican Church.
I do not understand why those who claim to be secular and civil and those who accuse Saudi Arabia of espousing an ideology that promotes terrorism are furious that the Saudi leadership is intent on forming a multi-cultural and religious alliance between different religions and cultures to promote peace, harmony and synergy in its war against terrorism and terrorist ideology. Is it not necessary for Saudi Arabia to be involved in an ideological war against terrorist groups which promote their beliefs among Muslim youths in Muslim as well as western countries?
Saudi Arabia is the origin of Islam and a destination for all Muslims, so why do these people fight its good efforts, or in the best case scenario, they ignore them or doubt them or underestimate them?
On what premise do they base their judgments?
Following is a quick review of some of the headlines of the BBC in its Arabic version on the Prince’s visit to the United Kingdom:
*British prime minister defends the country‘s relations with Saudi Arabia
*Saudi-British relations: Not everything is alright
*Saudi Arabia is having a public relations’ problem as the world sees it as an unrealistically wealthy country waging war on a poverty-stricken Yemen
*Saudi Arabia imposes embargo on neighboring Qatar
Importance of reforms
This is not a fleeting trend, but a continuous “approach” that only the blind cannot see. I am not surprised that such outlets are attacking Saudi Arabia because that’s become their habit. However, how can they, whether implicitly or explicitly, accuse Saudi Arabia of sponsoring and financing terrorist ideology and then thwart Saudi efforts to fight it? Let’s assume we believe your accusations against Saudi Arabia. Fine! Help it and encourage it to no longer be extremist. Wouldn’t this be the wise thing to do?
What’s good for Saudi Arabia is not only good for the kingdom but for all Muslims. British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Boris Johnson acknowledged this in an article as he called on British citizens not to ignore the achievements of Saudi Arabia. He stressed that the future of Saudi Arabia, the region and the Islamic world as a whole depends on the outcome of Saudi reforms.

Iran: The French soufflé fails to rise
Amir Taheri/Al Arabiya/March 10/18
According to those in the know in Paris, France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian is a smart soft-soaper capable of persuading a mule out of its hind legs.
A provincial politician, Le Drian emerged from relative obscurity towards the end of President Francois Hollande’s much maligned presidency. As Defense Minister in Hollande’s government, Le Drian was quickly established as the star of a moribund administration.
While other ministers turned round vacuous illusions, Le Drian won a reputation as a “doer” (in French faiseur) by winning huge contracts for the sale of the latest French combat aircraft, le Raffale, to a number of countries including Brazil, Egypt and India, thus providing some good news for Hollande’s bad-news tenure. Le Drian was Socialist enough to survive several Cabinet reshuffles but not too Socialist to remain on board as the party’s sinking ship.
Knowing when to abandon ship, Le Drian was the first senior politician to jump on Emanuel Macron’s presidential bandwagon at a time few rated the young aspirant’s chances above that of a snowflake in June.
When Macron won against all odds, Le Drian was upgraded to Foreign Minister with the understanding that, as the new regime’s elder statesman, he would have a say in other aspects of domestic and foreign policies.
So, this week as Le Drian headed for Tehran for what some described as “crucial talks”, the consensus in Paris was that if anyone can persuade the mullahs to temper their ardor it would be the Breton miracle-worker.
According to sources in Paris and Tehran, in talks with Iranian officials, Le Drian used his hitherto successful method of “give-and-take”.
The method is simple.
The Frenchman asks his interlocutors what is it exactly that they want.
Once that has become clear he would raise the question of how much of what they want is achievable, how and when? The trick is to keep the interlocutors focused on real, tangible things rather than chimeras and abstractions. The next step is to link what the interlocutors want to what the French want and show a high measure of compatibility, leading to a deal that gives both sides most, if not all, of what they want.
By all accounts Le Drian’s recipe failed in Tehran.
The soufflé that had risen in so many countries across the globe failed to rise.
Le Drian’s failure is the latest in a string of such forlorn bids by big, medium and small powers trying, in the words of former US President Barack Obama, to “bring Iran into the dance.”There are many reasons for such failures.
The first is the fact that we have two Irans: one is Iran as a nation-state with the normal interests, fears and aspirations of any typical nation-state, and the other is Iran as a revolution with the irrational dreams and ambitions of all revolutions.
This duality means that Iran cannot develop a coherent policy on any issue, domestic or foreign as the interests and aspiration of the two Irans, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, do not always coincide.
Because Iran has a problem with itself it is bound to have problems with everyone else.
When Le Drian asks Tehran officials: What is it that they want, they are unable to provide a clear answer. And because they cannot answer, they behave as if they want everything, rather any identifiable desiderata.
Messianic pretensions
The classical demands of a nation-state behaving as such are not legion.
A nation state wants, respect, security, demarcated borders, trade, access to natural resources, share of markets, economic cooperation, cultural exchanges etc. All those demands can be and in the case of almost all 198 members of the United Nations are routinely fulfilled. The Islamic Republic is one of the few exceptions along with North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe until the fall of Robert Mugabe.
A revolution, however, feeds on its messianic pretensions.
It cannot seek to become part of a grey status quo which would extinguish whatever is left of its embers. It has to remain defiant, clenched fist and all, claiming a purity it never had but always boasted about. The second mistake Le Drian made, as countless others did before him, was to believe that he was negotiating with authentic decision-makers. However, the fact is that in the Islamic Republic the President and his ministers are essentially actors playing such roles in an ever-revised script.
It is clear that in the Khomeinist system Iran is ruled by a “deep state” headed by the “Supreme Guide” and a handful of military and civilian advisers forming a parallel government in “The House of the Leader” (Beit-e-Rahbar).
If you hope for results you ought to talk directly, and exclusively, to Ali Khamenei. This is what Russian President Vladimir Putin did when he flew to Tehran, drove directly from the airport to Khamenei’s house, and spent several hours with him before driving back to the airport for a return flight to Moscow. Putin wasted no time with his nominal counterpart President Hassan Rouhani let alone the actors playing ministers.
If our information is correct Le Drian wanted two things.
The first was a pledge by Iran not to develop long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads- a demand advanced by US President Donald Trump and backed by Macron. The fact is that neither Rouhani nor his Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif know much about the missile project, let alone being in a position to agree to a “freezing phase.”
The puppeteer has ordered them to respond to such demands with a firm “no”. End of discussions. Le Drian’s second demand was for Iran to reduce its footprint in Syria and Yemen. Again, this is something above the pay-grade of either Rouhani or Zarif, who don’t even know how much money Iran is spending on maintaining the Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad in his Damascene hideout. There are no figures for that in the official budget presented by Rouhani. The reason is that funds for “exporting revolution” come from the Special Account of the “House of the Leader”. Money poured into that account comes from a variety of sources including a one percent ring-fenced tariff on all imported cars. The ”House of the Leader” also owns some of the 32 companies that trade in Iranian oil and petroleum products at home and abroad and, being classed as private sector, avoid public scrutiny. Le Drian wanted things from those who don’t have them, ignoring those who could deliver the goods but won’t because of a traditional carpet bazaar scenario in which you start by asking a small discount on a carpet you like but end up buying at twice the price a carpet you don’t want.

The loudness of our cities and the havoc of technology
Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran/Al Arabiya/March 10/18
Every now and then I make sure to pay a visit to a teacher whom I’ve known for a long time. His library is diverse and exhaustive, but the books are in bad condition, as they have been borrowed and read by many people. In fact, the teacher believes that books are “wasted” if nobody lends them to others.
Sitting in these rather Spartan precincts I revert to the past, to old naïve dreams, when one drew puerile plans for bringing about change amid the city’s tranquility, particularly when the day ended after evening prayers.
Technology distorts individuality
It’s very rare for someone to keep oneself away from all the preaching, the chatter on social media to gain attention and cause discord. All these pre-occupations have distorted man’s individuality and existence. One is no longer capable of moulding one’s own personality. This is why all people today look alike. However, there are still some people who reflect upon the triviality of this world. Technology is like a pickaxe that shatters the self. It invades and encroaches upon everything, destroys the sense of amazement and wonder, dehumanizes personality, imprisons the mind and belies ignorance.
Heidegger was one of the few early philosophers to have discussed the effects of technology. He feared that technology will start affecting existence and shall be viewed as the “the era’s metaphysics.” He delved into its complexities and dangers. In his lecture “The Question Concerning Technology,” he noted that “questioning is piety of thought.” He believed in the essence behind the world of technology, which man cannot fully control. Man thus becomes captive to technology and is driven by its own impulses and tools.
Technology encroaches upon everything, destroys the sense of amazement and wonder, dehumanizes personality, imprisons the mind and belies ignorance.
Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran
He discusses how technology has developed since the 1940’s with the introduced of the visual media, then developed nuclear weapons and then paved the way for the invention of the computer. The early technological inventions pointed to how these tools would influence the “existence” of today. It’s been an overwhelming influence to the point where those who have not kept up with technology feel isolated and ignorant. We’ve all fallen captive to this technological prison. However, why don’t we can we not condemn this jailer every now and again? This is what I am doing.
I’ve chosen to cite Heidegger because of his clear thoughts and critique of technology, its developmental stages and because he delved into details of existence and its mysteries. His entire life was an expression of his philosophy as he employed what’s within his reach to shape his concepts. His former student Hans-Georg Gadamer discusses this in his books Heidegger’s Ways and Philosophical Apprenticeships, which are about Heidegger’s philosophy, concepts and contentions.
Heidegger’s retreat
In his book Heidegger’s Ways, Gadamer writes about an instance when Heidegger showed up at a lecture wearing a ski suit. “When stopped and asked ‘Are you going to lecture like that,’ he laughed.
The reason for his laughter was that “he was giving a lecture on skiing that evening, which was to serve as an introduction to a then new course on dry skiing. The way he began the lecture was pure Heidegger. He said: One can learn to ski only on the slopes and for the slopes. The typical knock-out punch, it dealt a heavy blow to fashionable expectations, but simultaneously provided an opening for new expectations,” Gadamer quips.
Later, Heidegger wrote the book Pathmarks, which was distinguished for its use of terms like “rugged slope” and “multiple paths.” These are terms derived from skiing. But what did Heidegger do to confront all this fuss?
In his paper ‘Why do I stay in the provinces?’ which Heidegger wrote from a small ski hut in the southern Black Forest at an elevation of 1,150 meters, he said: “On a deep winter’s night when a wild, pounding snowstorm rages around the cabin and veils and covers everything, that is the perfect time for philosophy. In the public world, one can be made a ‘celebrity’ overnight by the newspapers and journals. That always remains the surest way to have one’s innermost intentions get misinterpreted and quickly and thoroughly forgotten. And this philosophical work does not take its course like the aloof studies of some eccentric. It belongs right in the middle of the peasant’s work. When the young farmboy drags his heavy sled up the slope and guides it, piled high with beech logs, down the dangerous descent to his house… my work is of the same sort. I sit with the peasants by the fire or at the table in the corner, we mostly say nothing at all. We smoke our pipes in silence. Now and again someone might say that the woodcutting in the forest is finishing up, that a marten broke into the hen-house last night and that one of the cows will probably calf in the morning.”
Greater glory
He also narrates a story that reflects an existential stance. “Very often in the past year when I lived alone in the cabin for weeks on end, this peasant woman with her 83 years would still come climbing up the slope to visit me. She wanted to look in from time to time, as she put it, to see whether I was still there or whether ‘someone’ had stolen from me off unawares. She spent the night of her death in conversation with her family. Just an hour and a half before the end, she sent her greetings to the ‘Professor.’ Such a memory is worth incomparably more than the most astute report by any international newspaper about my alleged philosophy.”We recall these experiences to mitigate the consequences of all this fuss around us as it’s impossible to break free from it. One, however, has the right to protest against this evident falsity now and then. Heidegger was one of those philosophers who criticized ‘nosiness’, ‘trivial chatter’, ‘demagoguery’, and ‘vulgarity’ the most.