Sarkozy visit to Damascus signals thaw in relationsIan ...



[pic]

Wed. 12 Oct. 2011

PRAVDA

➢ Syrian Kurds want Bashar Assad to stay…………………....1

KOREA TIMES

➢ Syria saved, for now ………………………………………...3

STRAIGHT GOODS

➢ War propaganda over Syria………………………………….6

GUARDIAN

➢ At home with the Assads: Syria's ruthless ruling family……7

➢ Syria's opposition must face the regime alone……………..13

IPS NEWS

➢ U.S. Arms Bahrain While Decrying Russian Weapons in Syria………………………………………………………..15

TODAY’S ZAMAN

➢ The ‘erratic state’ raises the stakes ………………………...19

KHALEEJ TIMES

➢ Failing the Syria test …..By Javier Solana…………………21

➢ Deconstructing Arab uprisings……………………………..24

THE HINDU

➢ From Arab Spring to post-Islamist summer…………….….27

DAILY TELEGRAPH

➢ Islam's war on the Cross………………………………...….32

AP

➢ Va. Man Allegedly Worked for Syrian Intelligence….……36

NEW REPUBLIC

➢ What Europe Isn’t Doing to Stop Syria and Iran…………..37

HOME PAGE

Syrian Kurds want Bashar Assad to stay

Pravda,

12.10.2011

The supporters of Kurdish independence announced the beginning of the armed rebellion against Bashar Assad's regime. The story began on October 7 with the murder of one of the leaders of Syrian Kurds, Meshaal al-Tamo, in the north-east of Syria.

Tamo was killed near his house. The circumstances of his murder remain unclear. However, Western and Israeli media made Meshaal al-Tamo yet another victim of "Assad's bloody regime."

The champions of this version say that the victim was an ardent critic of the Syrian authorities. However, from the point of view of common sense, this does not meet the interests of the Syrian authorities. Syria wants the Kurds to be actively involved in the life of the country.

It is worthy of note that the inactivity of the Kurds became one of the discoveries of the so-called Syrian revolution. This became a surprise indeed, because everyone thought that the Kurds would struggle against the Syrian regime violently.

However, The Kurds showed no reaction at all. The Kurdish protests of 2011 pale in comparison with the football riots in 2004. The riots sparked after seven Kurdish football fans were killed in a brawl with Arab fans. Security services arrested over 2,000 people during those events.

Nowadays, the number of the "victims of the revolution" in the Kurdish territories of Syria is considerably lower than that in other parts of the country. One has to bear in mind the fact that the Kurds are one of the largest ethnic minorities of Syria: from 1.5 to 2 million people.

Many Kurds claim that Assad's regime suppresses their culture. The people particularly say that they are not allowed to teach the Kurdish language at schools, nor can they establish a Kurdish-language radio station. Others claim that Assad had taken away their lands in the border areas between Turkey and Iraq.

The inaction of the Kurdish population can be explained with the actions, which the Syrian authorities have taken recently. They realize how important the Kurdish issue can be for the country during the crucial moment of the national history.

Bashar Assad granted the Syrian citizenship to 300,000 Kurds in the very beginning of the riots in the country. There were no large-scale riots in the Kurdish areas of the country. This can be definitely referred to as one of the achievements of Bashar Assad's regime.

As a result, the Kurds find it hard to decide how they are supposed to react to the events in the country. The majority of the Kurdish leaders acknowledged that they did not have the program, which they could use in case of the collapse of the Ba'ath regime.

Many Kurds believe that the fall of Bashar Assad's regime will seriously complicate their lives. The fact that Turkey is taking an active part in the events in Syria also raises concerns with the Kurds. Turkey openly supports the Arab opposition. One can be certain that Turkey will not leave things to take their own course in the Syrian Kurdistan in case Assad's regime in the country falls. Ankara may simply occupy those lands.

Nevertheless, the quiet situation in Syria's Kurdish areas is a problem for many. The Syrian opposition does not have many achievements to boast of. The Syrian military suppressed all riots with relatively small losses. To put it in a nutshell, there is no point for the opposition to protest without the support from the Kurds.

HOME PAGE

Syria saved, for now

John J. Metzler

Korea Times,

12 Oct. 2011,

UNITED NATIONS ? In a rare use of a double veto, both China and Russia, shot down a weak Western-backed draft resolution urging human rights in Syria. By failing to adopt a resolution condemning “grave and systematic human rights abuses” by the Damascus rulers, the U.N. Security Council again stumbled on the road to Damascus.

A day after the vote, political aftershocks were still being felt in the U.N. as representatives from the four European countries who drafted the resolution; France, Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom, were in damage control mode, saying as the French Ambassador Gerard Araud stressed, “This veto will not stop us … No veto can give carte blanche to the Syrian authorities.”

The political demonstrations and violence which have rocked Syria since March have taken nearly 3,000 lives prompting the U.N. to again to demand that the regime immediately “halt its violent offensive” against civilians and allow freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, release of political prisoners, and national dialogue.

Originally European states, especially France, pushed for sanctions on its former Levantine colony; Paris in a demarche withdrew the sanctions stick as a way to make the text more acceptable to the 15-member council. It did not help.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice conceded that the U.S. was “outraged” that the council had failed to address serious human rights violations, adding that two members had vetoed a “vastly watered-down text that didn’t even mention sanctions.” Surprise, surprise!

Through the political lens of Beijing and Moscow the veto against even a weak resolution was perfectly logical. Russia’s cozy and once comradely links to Syria date to the former Soviet era and have remained close to this day. For China, the Syrian situation holds uncomfortable domestic political parallels for Beijing which has held suffocating political control on the Mainland as do the Assad family rulers in Damascus.

Though the European-sponsored draft resolution also gained the support of the needed nine votes, including the United States, four countries also abstained, namely Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa.

The abstentions are crucial as all the countries view the evolving Syrian situation as a new case of Libya, where the debatable doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” may soon be invoked.

Though the resolution had absolutely nothing to hint of intervention, Russia presented a case behind closed doors that the Libyan precedent is clear. And even though, Russia abstained on the March 17 resolution which led to NATO’s intervention to unseat Colonel Moammar Gadhdafi, for now Moscow was steadfastly supporting its old friend in Damascus.

While the European text clearly stated “Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Syria,” and the need to “resolve the current crisis in Syria peacefully,” some council members seem not to have read the text or were convinced it was a pretext for a Libya-style intervention.

While Brazil made an honorable point saying that there should “have been more efforts to master broader support before the text had been tabled … more time could have allowed for the differences to be bridged.” Yes, but this would not have likely changed the two vetoes.

Interestingly having used its veto, now Moscow has called on the Damascus rulers to either change their ways or step down. President Dimitri Medvedev stated, “If the Syrian leadership is incapable of conducting such reforms, it will have to go.”

This very point was well addressed by Germany’s Ambassador Peter Wittig who conceded, “The European sponsors of the current text had worked toward a compromise and had made substantial concessions.” Ambassador Wittig admonished, “We do not want to stand idly by while atrocities are being committed.” He added that the Syrian regime would be held accountable. “Germany would push for sanctions,” he stressed.

In fact, the European Union has already enacted a wide swath of tough economic sanctions which embargo Syrian petroleum exports.

Feathers continued to fly. Syria’s delegate called the debate “unprecedented, aggressive language” against his government.

So what is to be done in Syria? Pressing a left-wing authoritarian regime for an end to the violence and allowing human rights are well and good but fail to confront the core of Syrian power: the Assad regime, the empowered Alawite Muslim minority, and the support from the Islamic Republic of Iran, not to mention China and Russia.

The road to Damascus is strewn with good intentions but hard political realities await those trying to help the embattled Syrian people.

John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues.

HOME PAGE

War propaganda over Syria

Hollywood stars "Horn" into Africa, Wall Street Occupied.

Phil Taylor, the Taylor Report for CIUT

Straight Goods (Canadian)

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

"We want to believe that the mainstream media gets it right, but they play a propaganda role often." The same unchecked reporting that happened in Libya is now occurring in Syria. A lurid story about the Syrian government beheading an opposition activist was paraded by newspapers and major human rights organizations, until the activist resurfaced — alive. Phil warns about the Iraq wool being pulled over our eyes.

We hear similar complaints from Eritrean commentator Thomas Mountain, who takes issue with the manner in which Hollywood movie stars are busy "helping" refugees in Africa. Angelina Jolie, a goodwill ambassador who called for the bombing of Sudan, this time held a press conference to bring attention to the plight of 750,000 refugees in Somalia.

"I think something has started that I don't see stopping."

In fact, the refugees in question had fled war, not starvation. Now, Angelina Jolie is focusing on Syrian refugees in Turkey, at a time when Turkey is threatening to attack Syria. When the Hollywood celebrities start surrounding your country, watch out!

Next up is "Ray" from Occupy Wall Street, who has "been in it since the beginning." Ray is an environmentalist who organizes against energy companies. The first group in New York was motivated by the uncertainty of what could occur next. Ray describes the dynamics of the protest, and the disconnect between the electoral process and the citizenry. "I think something has started that I don't see stopping."

Lawyer Chris Black rounds out the program, with a follow-up to last week's unprecedented interview with Dr. Theogene Rutasingwa, whose recent confession builds upon previous accounts.

The Taylor Report, heard Mondays from 5:00-6:00 pm, is one of CIUT's flagship spoken word programs. Show host and producer Phil Taylor has a long and fascinating history as a social activist and journalist. He grew up in California, but has lived in Canada for the past 30 years. He's been a US Marine, a newspaper journalist, and a television producer.

Taylor currently works as an investigator for prominent human rights lawyers including former US Attorney-General and civil rights advocate Ramsey Clark, and Toronto-based Charles Roach. Roach's work as a defense lawyer involved in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has given Taylor the opportunity to work in Africa.

HOME PAGE

At home with the Assads: Syria's ruthless ruling family

The dynasty founded on Hafez al-Assad's rise from poverty and obscurity is maintained by some uncompromising characters

Nour Ali and Esther Addley,

Guardian,

11 Oct. 2011,

It is evening, and in a large house in a leafy, upmarket district of Damascus, a trio of siblings have gathered in the home of their mother, Anisa Makhlouf al-Assad, the reclusive former first lady of Syria. Along with her son Bashar, the country's current president, his younger brother Maher, commander of the brutal Fourth Division, and their formidable older sister, Bushra, she pores over the latest reports from officials across the country, as Bushra's husband, Asef Shawkat, the president's chief of staff and former military intelligence chief, looks on.

How many people came out on the protests? What did they chant? How many were killed? The family debate, perhaps, over what more can be done to put down the protests, and argue over what reforms to offer, or where next to direct the extensive security forces at their disposal. The subtext to the gathering is clear: under no circumstances will they release their grasp on the country they have ruled for more than four decades.

Only whispered reports have emerged of how the country's ruling family are co-ordinating their response to the wave of popular uprisings in Syria that have reportedly left nearly 3,000 people dead. Most journalists, of course, have been banned from Syria since the protests began – but the many rumours of these family meetings chime with the image, long-established, of a tightknit and power-hungry cabal that rules in secret, presided over by the steely matriarch.

"It's a mafia; the family rules as a family," says someone who was formerly allowed glimpses into the Assad regime's inner sanctum. "No one knows the exact workings, but they are closing ranks more and more."

Despite the family's obsessive secrecy, tantalising clues to their relationships and often dysfunctional workings can be gleaned from talking to former associates, embassy officials, biographers and diplomatic correspondence, including cables released by WikiLeaks. They paint a picture of a once-humble family that rose, ruthlessly, to rule Syria with a combination of megalomania and arrogance, corrupted by power and paranoia.

It was not always this way. Hafez al-Assad, the former president and father of the current incumbent Bashar, was born in 1930 to a poor family, and into the minority Alawite sect, in the remote coastal village of Qardaha in western Syria. No one in the family had been educated even to secondary school level, and the village, at that time, did not have a road connecting it to the city.

But the smart, ambitious young man joined the Ba'ath party at 16 and the Syrian air force at 22, where he rose, eventually, to the post of commander-in-chief. In 1970 he seized the presidency in a coup, a position that the family have shown no inclination to relinquish, even after Hafez's death in 2000.

"Hafez was tough and shrewd, and attained power by working for it, while Bashar inherited it," said one Damascus-based analyst who, like most observers commenting these days on the Assad regime, asked for anonymity. "We can tell a lot about the family from that – today they have forgotten where they came from." The family and their entourage are now very much an urban elite, their spiritual home the wealthy Damascus suburbs of swish coffee shops and fast cars rather than the rural poverty from which they rose, and in which many Syrians now languish.

Hafez al-Assad's intentions to turn his presidency into the family business became clear, but the family's dynastic ambitions did not go according to plan. It was always Basel, the oldest, flamboyant son, who was being groomed, via a military career, to inherit the presidential mantle. A handsome, competitive jockey with a love of fast cars, he was killed in 1994, aged 31, after crashing his Mercedes on a Damascus motorway.

It is rumoured that for a time there was a debate over which brother should take Basel's place in the succession, with some, including, it was rumoured, the first lady, Anisa, favouring Maher, a military hardman in the mould of his father.

Instead it was Bashar, Maher's older brother by three years, who was recalled from London where he was training as an opthalmologist and pushed into the military. He was 34 when he became president.

The early years of Bashar's rule were marked by a brief opening of civil society that many hoped might herald a more liberal presidency. Any sense of Bashar, now 46, as a reformer has long since disappeared, however.

"[Bashar] changed over time from a well-intentioned man into someone who believed the propaganda and praise of the sycophants surrounding him," said David Lesch, an American academic and Assad's official biographer. Associates portray him as pleasant and gregarious, taking pains to act modestly – the family live in a house in Damascus's Malki neighbourhood, where Bashar has been known to surprise visitors by answering the door himself.

But critics are scathing of the president's leadership qualities. A guest who attended several dinners with him described him thus: "He has no charisma. You don't feel the urge to lean across the table to hear what he has to say."

A 2009 cable from the US embassy in Damascus, released as part of the WikiLeaks hoard, is even less flattering, describing the president as vain and not as shrewd as his father, and yet to grow into his role after the loss of the head of the family.

In December 2000, five months after inheriting the presidency from his father, Bashar married Asma Akhras, a 25-year-old British-Syrian banker who had been born and educated in London, where her father, a consultant cardiologist, was a prominent member of the expat Syrian community.

Though the sophisticated and always beautifully dressed first lady attended a private London girls' school and speaks with the accent of the expensively educated, the family home is a modest, pebbledashed terrace in an anonymous street in Acton, west London.

Asma is smart and cosmopolitan and, in Damascus, her views are avidly discussed and speculated upon. How can she, an outsider to the family from a liberal western home, tolerate their brutality? "Some say she is upset and is isolating herself, others that she knew she married a dictator and is as bad as the rest of them," says the regime insider.

She is certainly an enigma, attending a Church of England school in west London (her family are secular Sunni Muslims) before sixth form at the private Queen's College, where her Syrian identity was almost hidden, and she called herself Emma.

"I don't remember her being referred to as Asma; she was definitely just Emma," recalls one schoolfriend. "She didn't stand out as a Muslim at all, not like some girls who wore more traditional dress. You wouldn't have thought she was anything but English, I guess. And I'm not sure I would have singled her out for great things."

She remembers her friend as funny, kind and "very friendly" – as one who did not take school that seriously, but did not cause a lot of trouble. There was, however, "a sharp side to her, and she didn't like being told off by the teachers", says the friend, recalling her walking out of more than one lesson, and on one occasion getting involved in a "huge catfight" with another girl – "proper scratching and knocking over lockers".

Whatever her private views, to many Syrians, Asma will always be an outsider. "She is his wife and has power over him, but ultimately she's seen as a foreigner and excluded from the core decisions," says Ayman Abdel Nour, a schoolfriend of and former adviser to the president, who now lives in exile. The same is not true of the couple's three children, a girl and two boys, who appear on posters and fridge magnets of the Assad family sold widely in Damascus markets. The oldest, called Hafez and aged just nine, is already being spoken of by some hardened regime loyalists as his father's successor.

Having been passed over for the presidency, Maher has pursued his military career with vigour. As a commander of the elite Republican Guard and the Fourth Division, he has been central to the violence. Despised by the protesters, he is, accordingly, lionised by some sections of the military who see his brother the president as weak, and posters of him adorn some neighbourhoods in Homs. Abdel Nour calls him "a military guy, the tough sort".

Maher reportedly shot and wounded his brother-in-law, Asef Shawkat, in 1999, though the two men were named together in a report into the death of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri as possibly having been responsible.

Shawkat's relationship with the family is complex. Basel reportedly blocked his marriage to Bushra because he had been married before, was older and had children,. The wedding was delayed until Bashar, to whom he is close, took power. But in another 2005 WikiLeaks cable, Shawkat was portrayed as isolated, with the president willing to sacrifice him if necessary to protect his brother Maher.

Bushra, a pharmacist, is described as smart and steely, a reclusive figure who nonetheless wields great influence behind the scenes. Her children are named Bushra, Maher, Basel and Anisa after other members of the family. "It shows her power hunger," the insider said. "People who know her say Bushra is a nightmare, stroppy and ruthless."

Despite their strong, uncompromising characters, the family are seen as close, presided over by Anisa as "head of the family council", according to Abdel Nour. "They all dine together on a Friday night – at least until the uprising," says Lesch. "I got the impression that relations were good."

Assailed in Syria, however, and increasingly isolated internationally, the family have become more insular, paranoid and out of touch with reality, say observers. "1982 is informing the regime," says Lesch, referring to the year the former president brutally quashed an armed Islamist uprising, killing thousands of civilians. Assad's speeches in which he said he has "felt the love" of his people suggests either delusion or vociferous self-denial, given the scale of dissent. It is this hubris, and this focus on its more secure past, that may be the family's downfall.

"The protests will not go away and the regime is finished," says one Damascus resident who has taken to the streets in protest. "But the family's gradual detachment from the people and its arrogance means they will be the last to realise it."

• Nour Ali is the pseudonym of a journalist based in Damascus

HOME PAGE

Syria's opposition must face the regime alone

Assad's government has warned countries not to recognise the National Council, but this revolution is by and for Syrians alone

Fadwa al-Hatem (this is the pen-name of a Syrian citizen who currently lives in Britain),

Guardian,

11 Oct. 2011,

Syria's foreign minister, Walid Mouallem, has been warning of stern measures against any country that recognises the newly formed opposition National Council. The fact that the foreign minister is now directly referring to "this illegitimate council" (as he calls it) shows how seriously the Syrian regime is starting to take the opposition. While the regime's official narrative, ridiculous as it is, could at first afford to ignore the reality on the ground, this is no longer the case.

On 2 October, the Syrian opposition managed to unify under a National Council that it said represented both the internal and the external opposition. Reactions have generally been quite positive among Syrians opposed to the regime, but any optimism was quickly dashed as both Russia and China vetoed a proposed (and heavily watered down) UN security council resolution condemning Syria for its oppression of protesters.

In spite of this setback, the collapse of the Syrian regime is now quietly being referred to in terms of when, rather than if, it will happen. Turkey is said to be planning military exercises at its borders with Syria and planning to push ahead with its own sanctions and measures regardless of the security council. Meanwhile, Iran has quietly warned Turkey to stop meddling with Syria and, along with Iraq, reiterated its support for its president, Bashar al-Assad.

This does not bode well, as a bloc of countries from Lebanon to Iran could do a lot to destabilise Turkey's border, the Middle East and even the world economy. Assad himself allegedly warned that if any Nato planes flew over Damascus, then Syria would rain fire on Tel Aviv. Domestically, it seems that prominent opposition figures are being targeted much more aggressively, with one prominent Kurdish human rights activist killed and another beaten up savagely last Friday. For the regime, it appears that this is a battle on many fronts.

All this means that Assad will see the region burn before he gives up power, and he has allies who are prepared to do the same in order to ensure that he stays. The loss of Syria from Iran's sphere of influence would severely weaken her, and would be a major blow for Hezbollah, which relies on supplies coming in through Syria, rather than by sea. So Assad must stay at all costs, otherwise the whole necklace will come apart.

Perhaps this is why the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, recently told Assad's regime to step aside if it was unable to implement reforms. The Russians may have given the west a slap on the wrist at the UN after what happened in Libya, but that doesn't mean they will support a faltering regime, especially one that could wreak so much havoc in such a critical part of the world.

And this is why the gloves are finally off for Syria and her regional allies. This does not mean that the region is doomed to a war, but it seems that if there is even a hint of a Nato intervention against Syria, then somebody, somewhere, is likely to start pushing a lot of buttons, and many more people will die.

Interestingly, Medvedev also hinted that Russia would not interfere if the Syrian people chose to remove Assad. He is right, as there is not a lot that he, or any of Assad's allies, can do if crowds waving Syrian flags start storming the president's residence. At the same time, there is nothing – apart from unilateral sanctions and condemnation – that anybody can do to help the protesters. But this is not a bad thing. The nascent Syrian opposition is trying to step up to its responsibilities and the internal dialogue still mostly favours a peaceful revolution – for the time being. This is a revolution that is by Syrians, for Syrians, and the Syrian people must now face their president and his regime alone.

HOME PAGE

U.S. Arms Bahrain While Decrying Russian Weapons in Syria

Thalif Deen

IPS News (international communication institution with a global news agency at its core, raising the voices of the South)

11 Oct. 2011,

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 11, 2011 (IPS) - Peeved at Russia's Security Council veto derailing a Western- sponsored resolution against Syria last week, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice implicitly accused the Russians of protecting the beleaguered government of President Bashar al-Assad primarily to safeguard their lucrative arms market in the Middle Eastern country.

But around the same time, the United States was evaluating a 53- million-dollar weapons contract with Bahrain, where political unrest has claimed the lives of 34 people, mostly civilians, at least 1,400 others have been arrested, and more than 3,600 dismissed from their jobs for participating in street demonstrations demanding a democratic government.

"The U.S. government appears hypocritical when it condemns the use of force against Syrian protestors but condones similar behaviour in Bahrain," Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Center for Peace and Security Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS.

Sadly, she said, the administration of President Barack Obama is on shaky ground when it lectures other countries about their arms transfers.

"Its recent announcement of proposed weapons sales to Bahrain signals business as usual, at a time when we should be doing the opposite," she said.

The proposed arms contract, which has triggered strong protests from human rights groups, includes 44 armoured high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs), wire-guided and other missiles and launchers, along with related equipment and training.

Maria McFarland, deputy Washington director at Human Rights Watch, said, "It will be hard for people to take U.S. statements about democracy and human rights in the Middle East seriously when, rather than hold its ally Bahrain to account, it appears to reward repression with new weapons."

Goldring pointed out that Ambassador Rice said the opponents of the U.N. resolution would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.

"Transferring weapons to Bahrain leaves the U.S. government vulnerable to the same accusation that we would rather sell arms to the Bahrain regime than to stand with the people of Bahrain." she added.

The Obama administration would be in a much stronger position to influence other countries behaviour if it stopped selling weapons to countries that abuse their citizens' human rights, Goldring said.

Although a majority of the Security Council members - nine out of 15 - voted in favour of last week's resolution, qualifying it to be adopted, the two vetoes by Russia and China negated the positive result.

The draft resolution, which strongly condemned the continued grave and systematic human rights violations by Syrian authorities, drew positive votes from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, France, Gabon, Germany, Nigeria, Portugal, the UK and the United States.

The countries abstaining were India, Brazil, South Africa (collectively known as IBSA) and Lebanon.

The resolution, which was co-sponsored by France, Germany, Portugal and the UK, also called on Syria to immediately cease the use of force against civilians.

If Syria failed to do so within 30 days, the Security Council would consider "other options", a euphemism for economic and military sanctions.

Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher in the Arms Transfers Programme of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS Russia is Syria's most important arms supplier.

In the past five years, he said, Russia delivered an estimated 36 Pantsyr-S1 mobile air defence systems and a quantity of Igla-S man portable surface-to-air missiles.

All indications are that more is on order and to be delivered, including reportedly 24 MiG-29SMT combat aircraft, a Bastion coast defence system with Yakhont missiles, several Buk longer range surface-to-air missile systems and an unknown number of YAK-130 combat trainer aircraft.

"Altogether the Syrian orders make up a significant amount in revenues for the Russian arms industry," Wezeman said.

After losing the Iranian and Libyan markets, he said, they would not be keen to lose this market too, and this is likely to be one reason, amongst others, for Russia to resist arms-related sanctions on Syria.

Goldring told IPS that Syria is a key Russian political and military ally in the Middle East. But Russia also has strong economic motivations to maintain this relationship.

According to a recently released Congressional Research Service report, Syrian arms sales accounted for nearly a quarter of Russia's global arms sales agreements reached between 2007 and 2010.

"While China has also had an active arms transfer relationship with Syria, Russia has dominated the Syrian market, accounting for nearly 90 percent of all arms sales agreements with Syria between 2007 and 2010," Goldring said.

After China and Russia vetoed the Security Council resolution, Ambassador Rice said, "Those who oppose this resolution...will have to answer to the Syrian people and, indeed, to people across the region who are pursuing the same universal aspirations."

She didn't refer to China and Russia by name, although they were the only countries that voted against the resolution.

"Russia and China seem to have united against a common adversary. Together, they're acting as a counterweight to U.S. diplomatic and military activity in the Middle East," said Goldring.

After the vote, Rice told reporters: "No, I don't think diplomacy or pressure has reached a dead end."

"I mean, the fact of the matter is, despite the vote that we saw today in the Council, the majority of members supported the resolution," she said.

"This is not, as some would like to pretend, a Western issue. We had countries all over the world supporting this resolution, and we have countries throughout the region who have been very clear that the brutality of the Assad regime has to end and that the behaviour of the regime is absolutely intolerable."

HOME PAGE

The ‘erratic state’ raises the stakes

Yavuz Baydar,

Today's Zaman,

11 Oct. 2011,

There will remain, it seems, no stone unturned. Such is the spirit of the times that even the most self-confident powers today tremble before the unknown while observing the tremors in the Arab world. Without the slightest doubt, Syria is the most likely candidate for the next mother-of-all troubles. The longer its internal conflict is extended, the easier it will be to pull in the two major external players in its turmoil: Iran and Turkey.

“Together we are passing a crucial test,” said Ahmet Davuto?lu at a meeting with a small group of journalists some days ago as he shared the results of an in-depth analysis of expected developments regarding the al-Assad regime. His lengthy answers barely concealed the concerns in Ankara over the spread of this contagion to Turkish soil should the bloodshed in Syria turn to civil war.

The Kurdish element is already visible in the conflict with the murder of Meshaal Temo, a respected Kurdish member of the Syrian opposition. His murder sent the first serious signal to the Kurds across the Turkish border to engage one way or another with the Syrian struggle as the al-Assad regime approaches a collapse.

But there is also another element on this part of the border. The reports from reliable sources in Turkey’s Kurdish provinces tell us that the more the so-called “KCK operations” spread, the more consolidated Kurds’s pro-PKK stand becomes. This happens as the PKK’s “military command” warms up to Damascus. Also, Assad’s latest, rather threatful remarks against Turkey raises concerns about this. Because all the bridges between Ankara and Damascus are irreparably damaged, the options have also changed.

Al-Assad and his inner circle seem to have chosen to ignore their predicted future, despite persistent efforts by President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu. We now know that all went wrong, but how did it happen? A recap given by Davuto?lu clearly showed how quickly the dialogue faded in the course of their four phases of talks. He had held a 60-percent belief that al-Assad would be capable of leading the change towards democratization when they met in January this year. During their second meeting in April, which lasted three hours, al-Assad had promised he would be quick to bring about dialogue and reforms, but did nothing.

When the killings intensified in July, Ankara’s trust in al-Assad to change “faded to 20 percent.” The six-hour meeting in early August between Davuto?lu and al-Assad basically ended in Ankara expressing deep concern that al-Assad was, despite all of Davuto?lu’s advise, “choosing the path of Causescu or Milosevic,” who both fell after shooting their own people. Al-Assad failed to fulfill his duty to pull his tanks out of Hama and instead played games to dupe those who called out against him. He refused to grant freedom of the press and had no intention of declaring a date for free elections to be held in 2012. At that stage, all faith in him was lost. By early September, Syria was defined as a “failed” or “erratic state” that was doomed to be demolished along with the blind clique that ran it.

What concerns government sources in Ankara is the possible result of a Russian-Chinese veto of a draft resolution before UN Security Council against Syria, condemning its regime and threatening it with punitive measures. Sources in the Foreign Ministry point out that the al-Assad regime can barely conceal its joy that it – in a reminder of what took place with the Saddam regime – managed to divide the international community. It may now effect even more dangerous policies based on that feeling.

Ankara fears that this international disagreement, which justifiably outraged the US, will lead to even more ruthless bloodshed by civilians, just like in Bosnia and Kosovo. The worst is when oppressive regimes get ahead by using the weaknesses of democratic powers.

The show staged by French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Libya and the increasing self-confidence that “we can go it alone, no matter what” felt by the French-UK axis might have caused the negative reflex of both China and Russia, sources tell.

An analyst argued that “Russia suffers from the obsessions of its own past, from its archaic mentality to read into today’s quick and multi-faceted developments,” pointing out that Syria is the only country over which Moscow feels it has an influence in the region, a leverage it may want to keep.

Erdo?an’s visit to Hatay province, which borders Syria and currently hosts some 8,000 Syrian refugees, has been postponed due to his mother’s passing. It is expected to be rescheduled soon. Is war in the list of concerns No; however, the major priority is one to which Russia, Israel and Iran should pay attention: All will be done to prevent Turkey’s stability from being affected by its erratic neighbor and Turkey’s rogue friends.

HOME PAGE

Failing the Syria test

Javier Solana

Khaleej Times,

12 October 2011,

On October 2nd in Istanbul, Syria’s disparate opposition movements gave the go-ahead for the formation of a “Syrian National Council.”

This is the most important step yet taken by the fragmented forces that have been trying since May to lead a peaceful uprising against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The Council’s formation boosted the morale of those who have been demanding stronger and more unified representation.

But a mere two days after its creation, the embryonic Council suffered its first big setback. France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Portugal, in collaboration with the United States, presented a draft resolution before the United Nations Security Council seeking to condemn repression in Syria and put an end to the use of force against civilians.

The draft was a sugarcoated version of a previous text, proposed last June. This one contained nebulous terms such as “specific measures” or “other options.” It stressed the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Syria, and emphasised the need to resolve the current crisis peacefully, by means of an inclusive political process – and called for a national dialogue led from within the country. The draft called for a 30-day period to study the options, up from 15 days in the earlier draft.

The object was plain: to gain a Russian, and consequently, a Chinese abstention. But Russia and China vetoed the proposal anyway, and only nine members of the Security Council voted in favour, with Brazil, India, South Africa, and Lebanon abstaining.

There are three key implications of the Security Council’s vote:

First, violence will increase. Since the protests erupted last March, there have been an estimated 2,700 deaths, more than 10,000 people displaced to Turkey, and thousands more arrested. The Assad government does not hesitate to fire on civilians, lay siege to cities, or shut off their electricity and water. And a few days ago, it was reported that some 10,000 Syrian soldiers had defected, with several hundred joining rival movements such as the Free Syrian Army and the Free Officers Movement. Unless some international protection arrives, a movement that began peacefully risks entering a new and dangerous phase.

Second, there will be grave consequences for regional security. Syria is a strategic hinge in the Middle East. It has been one of the countries most hostile toward Israel, mainly through its support of Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah. Chaos in Syria would threaten Lebanon’s stability and alter Iran’s geopolitical influence in the region. Iraq, governed by Shia political forces, also keeps close tabs on Syria’s evolution, as does Turkey, which, until fairly recently, considered Syria a keystone of its regional policy.

Finally, the Security Council vote exposed a clear division within the international community. Among the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, all of which happen to be on the Security Council currently – two vetoed and the rest abstained (along with Lebanon, for obvious reasons). In the case of the resolution on military intervention in Libya, the BRICS decided “to let” Col. Muammar Gaddafi be overthrown. Not so with Syria, where none aligned itself with the positions supported by the European Union and the US.

The Security Council’s composition wouldn’t be substantially different if an “ideal” distribution of seats were to be achieved. So the fact that no agreement has been reached on Syria forces us to reflect on the future difficulties that we will face in managing global security. Of course, there is no “one size fits all” model for intervention, but that does not justify evading our “responsibility to protect” – a fine concept promoted by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and adopted by all UN member states in 2005.

Support for the resolution would have weakened Assad’s position, as it would have revealed him as isolated from his traditional allies, Russia and China. It would also have shown the international community to be unanimous in its rejection of repression and committed to protecting the Syrian people (though the draft made no mention of military intervention).

The sanctions adopted by the EU and the US against Assad’s regime are not enough. But, unless further measures are channeled through – and thus legitimised by – the Security Council, other alternatives are limited.

In recent years, with countries such as China, India, and Brazil taking their rightful place on the international scene, the G-7 has given way to the G-20. Likewise, an ambitious reform of the International Monetary Fund was adopted in 2010 to reflect changes in the global distribution of power.

But this change in global governance must not be limited to economic policymaking. After all, globalisation has brought many overall benefits, but also less friendly aspects, such as the ones dealing with global security. Despite our growing interconnectedness, the UN Security Council has not yet been able to achieve sufficient consensus to resolve pressing matters such as Syria.

Nobody ever said that the road to stronger global governance would be straight or simple to navigate. But there are no detours: without effective structures of power and a genuine commitment from all players, the future does not look promising for global stability and prosperity.

HOME PAGE

Deconstructing Arab uprisings

Kristian Alexander

Khaleej Times,

12 October 2011, 6:55 PMWhere are the Arabs?” was a question frequently posed in the pre-January 2011 days.

The ongoing ‘Arab Spring’, as it has been heralded by many in the press and the academia has reached a stage at which a preliminary evaluation would be in place. We can start by pointing to the often-repeated mantra that the events that unfolded in Tunisia and spread to surrounding countries were in essence unpredictable since nobody could have foreseen the magnitude of their development. We can also set aside the repeated adage that things are far from over and that this process is yet to unfold in its various twists and turns. After all, Syria’s Assad and Yemen’s Saleh are still in power – though their eventual downfall is highly probable.Surely there have been regime changes and even revolutions, but an Arab Spring? To speak of an ‘Arab Spring’, some argue, would be a misnomer. The label was not chosen by any of the demonstrators or participants on the ground in Tunis, Cairo or Tripoli. The ‘spring’ label has been thrust upon them by Westerners imbued with ideological biases and wishful thoughts of how they perceive and desire the world to be.

Many have lost their jobs, are struggling to survive and have yet to reap any of the benefits that they were promised. Things may even be subject to reversal, meaning that things could potentially return to some modified version of status quo in which they could look very much like they once used to be.

And yet, the Arab uprisings have also provided another corrective to the broad generalisations commonly perpetuated about the Middle East and its people. Up until January 2011, the commonly accepted knowledge was that the Middle East was exceptional in a sense that it was averse to democratic change. This pattern could not, however, have been solely blamed on a sense of defeatism and cultural predetermination. There have historically been many individuals, groups and organisations that have fought for their rights and freedoms over endless years but were not successful in their quest as they were brutally crushed, often leading to long prison sentences and forced exile. At times the Western powers – as in the case of Egypt, were happy accomplices of such suppressions, especially when involving alleged Islamists and leftists.

The outright persistency, wittiness and stamina that exhibited the popular uprisings was nothing exceptional. It showed to the world that Arabs could mobilise and organise where determined to achieve dignity, pride and freedom from their rulers. These Arab protestors were and are from diverse backgrounds, including all ideological predispositions and colors. They are also leaderless, which was partially by design and due to circumstances cast upon the protestors. They were void of charismatic figures that could galvanise the masses. They managed to stage a concerted effort by bringing down entrenched dictators without any external assistance, funding or aid. If anything, these courageous individuals were inspired by their opposition to the tacit support that western countries had been granting these despots for many years. The empty promises and rhetoric of US policymakers, for example, which for decades had aided and abetted dictatorial rule and in the post-911 era sent suspected Islamists to Egyptian and even Libyan torture chambers and gallows, and by January 2011 suddenly sided with justice and democratic reform, has long become a farce or smoke and mirror in the eyes of the Arab public.

A‘google revolution’? While social network sites and other new media tools were heralded as the launching pad of these uprisings, we need to adamantly state that this sort of technological determinism undermines the significance that social activism and severe grievances play in the process. Cleary, social networking sites were imperative at the outset of the various demonstrations but only in the initial stages and only to a limited degree before they were hampered by government clampdown. Last but not least, this wave of popular uprisings has cast aside the goals and aspirations that the transnational Jihadi movement has been trying to impose on its Muslim Brethren. There is little desire for an Islamic caliphate ruled by AlQaeda representatives. The Jihadists ideology has faded, showing that a transnational socio-revolutionary agenda that thrives on killing thousands of fellow Muslims and innocent civilians is not the goal of the new Arab generation, many of whom find nonviolent, peaceful strategies and protests as their weapon of choice.

In terms of regional politics, it is ironic that two non-Arab countries have served as inspiration to the ordinary Arabs. For some time, Iran’s President Ahmedinejad had enthralled the Arab street with his populist anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans, but also his promotion of conspiracy theories, including the one related to September 11, 2001 attacks on America. But a revolution a la the Islamic Republic is not what the Arab uprisings are all about.

And it is becoming increasingly clear that if there is a foreign model, it is Istanbul and not Tehran that the Arabs find more appealing. That is not to say that Turkey is intent on exporting its system but the synthesis and allure of principled neutrality, independence, moderate Islam and democratic principles all in one appealing package is hard to resist. The spring may not have fully sprung, but revolutionary fervour and social and political change are to continue.

Kristian Alexander is Assistant Professor in the College of Arts & Sciences at Zayed University, Abu Dhabi

HOME PAGE

From Arab Spring to post-Islamist summer

Atul Aneja

The Hindu,

October 12, 2011

Regional observers increasingly feel the real contest for power in the Arab world will take place within political Islam.

Having blown away three odious dictators — Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar Qadhafi of Libya — pro-democracy campaigners are now seeking a new set of leaders, hopefully on the basis of free and fair elections.

Even as Tunisia awaits its election later this month and Egypt in November, and as Libya's fractious amalgamation of political groups deliberates on a transition road map, new formations are entering the political arena in the hope of making an impression on their country's destiny. In the heat of political activism, not confined in the region to Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, political formations of a wide variety, with Islamic roots, appear taking the lead in preparing for victory in the polls whose conduct is soon likely to become the focus of intense debate. As people in large parts of West Asia and North Africa (WANA) wade through the political flux, many of them seem drawn to two fascinating trends within political Islam — one which supports co-existence of democracy and religion, and the other which eventually wants to establish a theocracy, after cleverly bottling up the effervescent forces for change that continue to rock the Muslim world.

Many astute observers of the region are beginning to conclude that the post-Arab Spring battle of the ballot would be held, not primarily between Islamists and secularists. Rather, the battle for political space will be fought among Islamists themselves: between those who take their cue from Turkey and Malaysia that separate politics from new-age Islam, and others which want governments to abide strictly by their interpretation of a pristine Koranic code. Some of the most creative Islamic scholars, well attuned to the historic changes taking place in WANA, are asserting that it is misleading and dangerous to stereotype, as violent and intolerant, their religion which, they say, is infused with a mind-boggling variety of ideological currents.

In a recent debate with a secular challenger, Tunisia's Islamist politician and theoretician, Rachid Ghannouchi said: “If the Islamic spectrum goes from Bin Laden to (Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip) Erdogan, which of them is Islam?” He added: “Why are we put in the same place as a model that is far from our thought, like the Taliban or the Saudi model, while there are other successful Islamic models that are close to us, like the Turkish, the Malaysian and the Indonesian models; models that combine Islam and modernity?” His Ennahda party is expected to do well in Tunisia.

Mr. Ghannouchi is not the only one who accepts secular state principles, while welcoming Islamic values and practices as a positive force within the cultural and social domains. In Libya, Ali Sallabi has emerged as a leading Islamist, who claims that relations between Islamists and secularists are “strong.” Al Jazeera quoted him as saying: “We support pluralism and justice. Libyans have the right to build a democratic state and political parties.” Mr. Sallabi, who established himself as a powerful orator, has on many occasions vowed to support ideological inclusiveness. Critics, however, warn against gullibility, saying Mr. Sallabi may show his true colours only after he has scaled current obstacles and assumed a position of power.

Many of the region's Islamists, trying to strike a balance between religious conservativeness and demands of liberal democracy, are taking their cue from Turkey, which, under Mr. Erdogan's leadership has ignited hopes for a better future among millions in the predominantly Muslim-populated region. The premier has arguably demonstrated that it is possible to have a winning combination of Islam, democracy and secularism that will yield a society which, at the same time, is prosperous, sophisticated, tolerant and extrovert. The reasons for Turkey's popularity in WANA are not difficult to gauge. Despite their limited resources, the Turks have struck a chord among vast multitudes, demonstrating self-confidence and assertiveness in taking up the cause of the Palestinians — a move that has deeply and positively resonated among the region's masses. Turkey's decisiveness has in turn, imparted credibility to its vision of modernising the region to a level that is at par with the best in the world.

In an interview with The New York Times, Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's cerebral Foreign Minister, who, many believe is the architect of his country's imaginative foreign policy, talks about the prospects of regional integration. He recognises that Turkey, not alone but in collaboration with the Arabs and the Iranians, can steer the former enclaves of the Ottoman Empire to prosperity and peace. An advocate of “regional ownership,” Mr. Davutoglu appears engaged in framing a model of regional cooperation, which resembles the European Union in its incipient stages. His vision is strong on economic integration and political alignment, and leaves open-ended the possibility of military cooperation in the future.

Sensing his electrifying influence, especially among youth, Mr. Erdogan last month, made a strategic visit to Egypt, Libya and Tunisia — the crucible of the Arab Spring. In all three countries, he was accorded a welcome befitting a rockstar. Mr. Erdogan's charismatic presence in Cairo caused one admiring television talk show presenter to gush that the Prime Minister is “a man who is admired not only by a large sector of Turkey but also by a large sector of Arabs and Muslims.”

The “Turkish model” has found a wide following among youthful Islamists, many of whom have been associated in the past with the Muslim Brotherhood, a well-entrenched party which was long suppressed by Egypt's authoritarian and military-oriented secularists, including the deposed President Hosni Mubarak. Abdel Moneim Aboul-Fotouh, a former Muslim Brotherhood heavyweight, has been expelled from the party after he unilaterally declared his intention to run for presidency, post-Arab Spring. He has advocated that the State distance itself from the interpretation or enforcement of Islamic law. It should also not be involved in regulating religious taxes. Gender or religion, he asserts, must not be the yardstick for barring an individual from running for presidency.

The Al-Wasat Party, also known as the New Center Party, which earlier splintered from the Muslim Brotherhood, has been significantly influenced by Mr. Erdogan's Justice and Development Party. It has two Coptic Christians and three women as part of its top 24-member leadership. It also advocates that women be allowed to stand for presidency, which, in any case, should not be the preserve of any religion. The Al-Wasat has been accorded formal recognition after Mr. Mubarak's exit

So powerful is Turkey's appeal, that it has antagonised many in the conservative ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is, therefore, not surprising that when Mr. Erdogan, during his Cairo visit, said Egyptians should aspire for a “secular state,” Muslim Brotherhood leaders roundly rebuked him.

While Mr. Erdogan's appeal rooted in post-Islamism — a movement which reconciles liberal democracy and Islam — has spread rapidly in the region, it has also been received with deep animosity by hardliners belonging to some of the traditional Islamic parties. With the growing influence of the “Turkish model,” Salafi groups rooted in the belief of restoring pristine Islam in the modern era are emerging as Mr. Erdogan's fiercest critics. These groups are also reorganising themselves rapidly throughout WANA. In Egypt, the Salafists have announced their intention to run for parliamentary elections under the banner of the Al-Nour, which acquired legitimacy after Egyptian authorities officially registered it as a political party. It may not be surprising if, in the coming days, Turkey is targeted by its detractors as a country which has imperial ambitions of establishing Pax Turkana, inspired by the 400-year reign of the Ottoman Empire in the region.

The Turkish leadership is also facing an uphill task in Syria, where President Bashar Al-Assad's regime has rejected its call for military restraint and reform. Its inability to force Mr. Assad to budge from his authoritarian ways can also be attributed to Turkey's insufficient engagement with Iran. So far, Iran, Syria and the Lebanese Hizbollah are united in defence of Mr. Assad's regime. It may, therefore, be possible to move the pieces on the Syrian chessboard, only if Turkey, instead of confrontation alone, engages this trio meaningfully, in line with its larger vision of inclusive regional integration. Achieving ideological success across the region would be vital for, failure to do so would leave open the political space for radical rejectionists, whose long espoused disdain for democracy and liberty has been well established.

HOME PAGE

Islam's war on the Cross

Egypt's move to democracy under threat after latest attack on Coptic community

Christians in Egypt are used to persecution, but this week's deadly attacks on a Copt demonstration threaten the country’s move from military rule to democracy.

Con Coughlin,

Daily Telegraph,

11 Oct. 2011,

In the 19 or so centuries since Christianity first took root in Egypt, the ritual of mourning has become an all-too-familiar experience for the majority of the country’s Coptic community. Egypt’s eight million Copts may claim to be their nation’s oldest surviving indigenous faith, but that has not spared them from prolonged periods of persecution, most recently at the hands of Islamist militants.

In many respects, the tone was set for nearly two millennia of oppression of the Copts, one of the world’s oldest Christian sects, by the martyrdom of St Mark the Evangelist, the disciple who established the Christian faith in Alexandria just a few years after the ascension of Christ.

The establishment of a new religion was bitterly resented by the city’s pagan population, who feared it would turn Alexandrians away from the worship of their traditional gods. They exacted their revenge on Easter Monday in 68?AD when Roman soldiers put a rope around St Mark’s neck and dragged him through the streets of Alexandria until he was dead.

These days the methods used to persecute Egypt’s Copts might not be so primitive, but their overall effect is no less barbaric. During the latest outbreak of Coptic-related violence in Cairo on Sunday night, several Copts are reported to have been crushed to death by the tracks of an armoured military vehicle that ploughed into a group of protesters as they sang hymns and held aloft the Cross.

The roots of the current wave of anti-Coptic violence are murky. At first it was assumed that Islamist militants, who have waged a vicious campaign of intimidation, sparked the unrest by burning down a church in the southern province of Aswan. This attack was the latest in a series of clashes between Muslims and Christians, which began when 21 worshippers were killed as they left mass at a Coptic church in Alexandria on New Year’s Eve.

Thousands of Copts descended on the state TV building in Cairo on Sunday to protest against what many Christians regard as the growing strength of ultra-conservative Islamists since the overthrow of former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak in February. But the uncompromising response of the Egyptian authorities, which resulted in government forces firing live rounds at stone-throwing protesters, has prompted accusations that the army, which has interim control of the country, is deliberately fostering sectarian hatred in order to disguise its own plans to maintain control of the country.

Following the high-profile protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square earlier this year – during which Muslim and Coptic protesters joined forces to demand the overthrow of President Mubarak – the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces assumed responsibility for creating a modern, pluralistic democratic state following decades of authoritarian rule.

But the delays that have hindered plans to hold fresh parliamentary and presidential elections – they are now due to start at the end of next month – have led many to conclude that the military, which effectively ran the country during the Mubarak era, has no real interest in establishing democratic institutions. And what better way to abort the transition from military to democratic rule than to instigate nationwide sectarian violence?

As one Coptic protester commented in Cairo yesterday: “This is not about Muslim-Christian hatred. It is about the army trying to start a civil conflict for its own reasons, and we all know what those reasons are.”

Certainly the vitriolic language used by state-controlled broadcasters during coverage of the protests undermined the interim government’s claim to represent the interests of all Egyptians, Christians and Muslims alike.Newsreaders appealed for “honest Egyptians” to protect their soldiers against Christian “mobs”, while the Copts were denounced as “sons of dogs”, despite the fact many moderate Muslims, who want Egypt to be free of sectarian divisions, supported the protesters.

But then Egypt’s Copts are used to state-sponsored persecution. Tens of thousands of Copts fled the country in the 1950s after Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser nationalised Egypt’s private businesses, most of which were owned by Christians. Today it is estimated that two out of three Egyptians living in Britain are from Christian families. Egyptian communities in northern Europe, North America and Australia are also disproportionately Christian.

Nor is the persecution of religious minorities in the Middle East confined to Egypt’s Copts. One of the more alarming trends of recent years has been the violent persecution of Christians throughout the region.

In Iraq, for example, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 was supposed to herald a new era of sectarian harmony. Instead a wave of al-Qaeda-related attacks has had a devastating impact on Iraq’s once-thriving Christian community, which numbered around 1.4 million 10 years ago, but has now declined to around 400,000.

As in Egypt, the exodus was hastened by a series of grotesque attacks on Iraqi churches, the worst of which was the suicide bomb attack on the Church of our Salvation in Baghdad at the end of last year, which killed 58 people. To mark their contempt for the Christian faith, the al-Qaeda bombers blew themselves up on the altar, together with a child hostage.

Not all the persecution of Christian minorities is as violent as that experienced in Iraq, but the refusal of even pro-Western countries such as Saudi Arabia to tolerate any expression of Christianity has forced believers to practise their faith in private. There are an estimated one million Catholics in Saudi Arabia, most of them guest-workers from the Philippines, but they risk immediate expulsion if they are found observing their religion.

In Iran, meanwhile, the persecution of Christians that began with the 1979 Islamic revolution resulted in a Christian pastor being sentenced to death in the provincial town of Rasht earlier this month for refusing to renounce his faith. The ayatollahs’ refusal to countenance any other faith has also resulted in an upsurge in the persecution of the country’s Baha’i sect, the world’s youngest monotheistic faith.

Much of the blame for the deterioration in relations between Islam and Christianity in the region can be laid at the door of the growing legions of Islamist militants who refuse to acknowledge the other main monotheistic faiths. They point to the comment made by the Prophet himself on his deathbed, when he instructed his followers that only one faith – Islam – could be tolerated in Arabia.

This interpretation is disputed by moderate Muslims – such as those who joined the Copts for Sunday night’s protest in Cairo – who argue that Islam is a tolerant faith, which allows for peaceful co-existence with other religions.

Unfortunately for Christians in the Middle East, this is increasingly the minority view among the region’s ruling elites, which are no longer prepared to recognise basic rights of their citizens, such as freedom of worship.

Arguably the most extreme example of this intolerance has been seen in Sudan, where decades of mistreatment of non-Muslims by the conservative Islamic government in Khartoum resulted earlier this year in the secession of the country’s Christian population to form South Sudan. The new state, which is the size of France but has just 38 miles of paved roads, is the world’s poorest, but simply to be free of the tyranny of their former Islamic rulers is reward enough for the new country’s four million Christian inhabitants.

The break-up of neighbouring Sudan will serve as a warning to the military authorities in Cairo, who should be mindful of St Mark’s remark that “Every affliction tests our will”. The current wave of persecution directed at Egypt’s Coptic community constitutes not only a major test of the interim government’s ability to maintain order, but also of its desire to establish a government that represents the interests of all Egyptians, irrespective of their creed.

HOME PAGE

Va. Man Allegedly Worked for Syrian Intelligence

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

12 Oct. 2011,

McLEAN, Va. (AP) — A Syrian-born, naturalized U.S. citizen has been indicted on charges of spying on U.S. activists opposed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and providing intelligence to that country's intelligence agents.

According to an indictment unsealed Wednesday, Mohamad Soueid (SWAYD) of Leesburg, Va., was arrested Tuesday and charged with conspiring to act in the U.S. as an agent of a foreign government. Soueid was scheduled to make an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on Wednesday afternoon.

According to the indictment, Soueid sent 20 audio and video recordings between April and June to Syrian's intelligence agency. They depict protests in this country against the Syrian regime, which has cracked down ruthlessly on anti-government protesters there.

The indictment also states that Soueid traveled to Syria in June to meet with al-Assad personally.

Soueid also tried to recruit others to monitor anti-Assad rallies and protests in the U.S., according to the indictment.

Soueid is also charged with making false statements for allegedly lying about his activities for the Mukhabarat, Syria's intelligence agency, when interviewed in August by the FBI.

"The ability to assemble and protest is a cherished right in the United States, and it's troubling that a U.S. citizen from Leesburg is accused of working with the Syrian government to identify and intimidate those who exercise that right," said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Neil MacBride, whose office is prosecuting the case. "Spying for another country is a serious threat to our national security, especially when it threatens the ability of U.S. citizens to engage in political speech within our own borders."

HOME PAGE

What Europe Isn’t Doing to Stop Syria and Iran

Benjamin Weinthal

The New Republic,

October 12, 2011

As the world witnesses the Syrian and Iranian regimes commit countless human rights abuses and, in Iran’s case, move ever closer to perfecting its nuclear capabilities, there’s a common belief that, short of military intervention, there’s nothing that can be done. As it turns out, however, that’s far from the truth—but the majority of the initiative must come from Europe. The European Union has thus far failed to confront the Iranian and Syrian regimes to the full extent of its ability. Though they are loath to admit it, European countries are Iran’s and Syria’s best customers, providing the EU with significant leverage. Meaningful energy sanctions could deliver a one-two punch to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and Syrian president Bashar Al Assad’s ongoing campaign to snuff out his country’s democratic reformers.

To its credit, the EU imposed oil sanctions on the Syrian regime in September, barring its 27 members from purchasing Syrian oil. Given that the EU consumes 95 percent of Syria’s oil exports, the embargo could potentially cripple the country’s economy. But there are loopholes in the EU sanctions that allow European energy firms to maintain their investments in Syrian oil fields, continue producing oil from them, and continue delivering it to their EU customers until mid-November. As a result, major European energy companies continue to operate there, including the United Kingdom’s Gulfsands Petreoleum and Petrofac, Hungary’s MOL, France’s Total, Croatia’s INA Industrija Nafte d.d, and the joint Dutch-British enterprise Royal Dutch Shell.

And when it comes to Iran, the EU remains the country’s most important global trade partner. Just last year, the total trade volume between the EU and Iran exceeded €25 billion. Almost 90 percent of Europe’s imports from Iran are energy, making the Islamic Republic the sixth-largest energy provider to the EU. While U.S. companies are prohibited from purchasing Iranian gas, and the Obama administration pushed the EU to ban the export of energy technology to Iran, Europe continues to buy Iranian gas. In addition, Iran joined Syria and Iraq in July as a signatory to a $10 billion natural gas pipeline agreement, under which Syria would eventually buy between 20 and 25 million cubic meters of Iranian gas per day, and run an extended transportation operation—the so-called “Islamic Gas Pipeline”—to Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea, through which it would pipe gas into Europe.

If the EU decided to reduce its Iranian gas imports, the measures could jolt Iran’s fragile energy market, prompting secondary pain to the cash-strapped Syrian regime that Iran is aiding. Iran’s highly vulnerable energy sector has long been considered its Achilles’ heel. The country finances its nuclear program with invaluable revenue from its energy sector. A staggering 70 percent of Iran’s governmental revenues derive from its petroleum business, which makes up 80 percent of the country’s export activities.

Instead, however, the EU—and especially Germany, which is Iran’s number one EU trading partner—continues to have a soft spot for the Iranian regime when it comes to trade. Despite the new EU sanctions, German exports to the Islamic Republic increased by 2.6 percent between 2009 and 2010, reaching a total of €3.8 billion. German exports then dropped from approximately €2.22 billion for the first half of 2010 to roughly €1.76 billion for the first half of 2011, but German imports of Iranian goods increased from to €382 million to €453 million during the same time period. The Federal Republic’s consumption of Iranian gas and oil rose during the first six months of 2011 to €280 million, up from €197 million in the first half of 2010.

Moreover, Germany continues to lend political legitimacy to Iran’s leaders. Last October, a cross-section of German parliamentarians ranging from the Greens to Merkel’s Christian Democrats visited Iran and met with Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, the head of Iran’s parliamentary cultural committee, who supported Iran’s fatwa against British novelist Salman Rushdie. The delegation also chatted with then-Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who delivered a key speech at Tehran’s 2006 Holocaust denial conference, and Mohammad Javad Larijani, who heads the Iranian human rights council and famously called for Israel’s destruction at a German foreign ministry-sponsored event in Berlin in 2008. During their almost one-week stay in Iran, the German deputies uttered not a word of criticism of Iran’s nuclear and human rights violations.

The United States has deployed every measure in its power short of military force to persuade the Iranian and Syrian regimes to change their policies. For all its humanitarian sentiment, however, Europe has done nothing of the kind. And until it truly gets serious with its trading partners, don’t expect their behavior to change.

Benjamin Weinthal is a Berlin-based investigative journalist and fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

HOME PAGE

➢ HOME PAGE

Guardian: 'The Assad family tree - interactive'..

Catholic Culture: 'Syria: patriarch [Patriarch Ignatius Joseph III Younan] fears descent into civil war‎'..

Catholic Leader: 'Deep fears held for Christians in Syria'..

Weekly Standard: 'Erdogan’s Meddling in the Balkans'..

Ahram Online: 'Syria uses $4 billion of its international reserves: sources'..

Guardian: 'America's permanent robot war'..

BBC: 'Huge Damascus rally backs President Bashar al-Assad'..

ABC: 'Syria's Assad bolstered by huge show of support'..

Fox News: 'Tens of Thousands in Syria Stage Pro-Assad Rally‎'..

Reuters: 'Tens of thousands rally to support Assad in Damascus'..

MSNBC: ''God, Syria and Bashar': Thousands take part in pro-regime demonstration in Damascus'..

USA Today: 'thousands hold pro-Assad rally in Syria‎'..

Haaretz: 'Tens of thousands rally in support of Assad in Syria capital'..

➢ HOME PAGE

-----------------------

1

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download