30 July 2010
No Comment
Contents
As Safir: “Beirut’s tripartite: “An Arab concern [to preserve] Lebanon’s stability, security and consensus government … Abdullah and Assad: Breaking the Gaza blockade and forming an Iraqi government as soon as possible… “An Israeli bomb” targets summit: Nasrallah to be accused of assassinating Hariri!”
Al-Masry Al Yawm: “Direct talks with Israel to be left up to PA”
Today’s Zaman: “EU: Turkey, Brazil may join Iranian nuclear talks”
The Washington Post: “Afghan war spending faces new scrutiny”
The Lebanese daily As Safir led its front page with the following news report today: “Beirut’s tripartite: “An Arab concern [to preserve] Lebanon’s stability, security and consensus government … Abdullah and Assad: Breaking the Gaza blockade and forming an Iraqi government as soon as possible… “An Israeli bomb” targets summit: Nasrallah to be accused of assassinating Hariri!”
“Washington, on the one hand, and Israel on the other hand tried, and louder, to impose on the unique tripartite summit, hosted by Beirut today, between President Michel Suleiman, Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz and Syria President Bashar Assad, a different agenda than the goals over which the two Arab leaders are coming together to strengthen political and security stability in Lebanon.
While Washington decided what the Saudi king should inform the Syrian president, and what the latter should accept without any discussion, Tel Aviv went much further, by stepping over the international tribunal and issuing an indictment on behalf of general prosecutor Daniel Bellemare, the contents of which appeared one hundred percent Israeli-American. This was apparent through the use of poisoned information and selected names saying that it was impossible for senior Hezbollah members cannot carry out the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri without the knowledge of party Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
And if Washington’s “instructions” undermine King Abdullah, who was its visitor a month ago, and turns him into a mere messenger to some of his Arab brothers, then Tel Aviv’s “information” target what is much more dangerous. It is igniting the fire of strife in Lebanon, completing by that what chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi started when he appointed himself spokesman for the tribunal and specifying the date it will accuse the people of the resistance with the heinous crime.
The Israeli Channel One television channel opened its main news bulletin last night with what it called “revealing news on an international case related to the international investigation committee in the Hariri assassination case”. Arab affairs commentator at the channel, Oded Granot, who is known for his connections with some Arab sources in countries that have tie with Israel, that the issue involves the name of the committee’s main suspect. He pointed that Lebanon is living on a powder keg which will explode when the international tribunal points to the main suspect, Mustafa Badreddin.
Channel One said that Mustafa Badreddin, known as Elias Saab, was “the right hand of martyr Imad Moghniyeh,” who it described as “Hezbollah chief of staff” and who was assassinated on February 12, 2008… He said the Lebanese understand that accusing Mustafa Badreddin means an “earthquake”.
Asked on the possibility that Badreddin can operate without the knowledge of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Granot replied: “That is impossible in Hezbollah.”
… Israeli intelligence sources predicted the possibility of the outbreak of civil war in Lebanon in case the Lebanese government or UNIFIL attempted to “carry out the orders of the prosecutor general to arrest those wanted in Hezbollah and hand them over to the tribunal”…
To the tunes of the Israeli indictment, Lebanon welcomes today three Arab leaders, confirming their interest in the worrisome situation which has seen a great level of tension over the last period. Observers saw in the crisis tension in Arab-Arab relations due to public and extensive American pressures the direct headlines of which is the international tribunal and of which the long term goal is to besiege Iran with a hostile environment. Israel reached to the point of waving with war by considering Lebanon a target by focusing on its resistance, attacking its immunity and turning it from a hero to being accused of committing murder and assassination crimes to finally demand its disarmament.
Despite the domestic tense atmosphere, the mere announcement of the visit of both the Saudi king and the Syrian president to Lebanon, following their summit in Damascus, caused sighs of relief…”
http://www.assafir.com/Article.aspx?EditionId=1607&articleId=3333&ChannelId=37547
The Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al Yawm carried the following news report on its website’s front page: “Direct talks with Israel to be left up to PA”
“Arab Foreign Ministers decided on Thursday to refer a decision on launching direct peace negotiations with Israel to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who earlier rejected the move until Israel agreed to a complete halt in settlement construction and accepted a Palestinian state located in territories seized in the 1967 war.
Qatari Prime Minister and chairman of the Arab Peace Initiative Committee Hamad bin Jassim told reporters in Cairo that “direct talks have to have a time frame.” He added that the committee “didn’t address when and how to launch direct talks.”
Bin Jassim said that he briefed US Ambassador in Cairo Margaret Scobey on the decision and asked her to convey it in a message to US President Barack Obama.
“The message contains a clear explanation of the Arab stance on the conditions for direct negotiations and the principles that must be met regarding the entire peace process,” he explained.
Abbas had earlier said that direct peace talks were conditional on Israel imposing a complete halt to settlement construction and abiding by 1967 borders.
“Only if I receive written guarantees directly from the Israeli prime minister, or indirectly from [Egyptian] President Hosni Mubarak, [Jordanian] King Abdullah II, or the US administration that Israel will abide by 1967 borders and freeze settlement construction, I shall then move immediately to direct talks,” Abbas told journalists late Wednesday.
Abbas also proposed that NATO troops be deployed in the Palestinian territories to monitor any possible agreement.
“I’m ready to agree to a third party that can act as a post-solution monitor, like NATO forces,” Abbas explained, warning, however, that he would “not accept Jewish soldiers among NATO troops.”
“I’m under pressure of a kind that I’ve never experienced,” Abbas said, for which he blamed the US and EU in particular.
The US media reported this week that US peace envoy George Mitchell had warned Abbas that if he did not agree to direct talks, Obama would be unable to help Palestinians achieve a state of their own.
But the PA president said he first wanted to see progress in indirect talks, which have been taking place since May with US mediation. Specifically, he wants to see movement on the issue of borders of the future Palestinian state.
… On settlements, Israel has instituted a ten-month moratorium on construction in areas the Palestinians want for a future state. That is due to expire in September, and Netanyahu this week indicated it would not be extended.
Abbas also said that a permanent peace agreement with Israel was only attainable after reconciliation with the rival Hamas movement, which controls Gaza Strip.
Abbas hinted that he was ready to step down as president should negotiations fail. “If things don’t go well, I will take off. What binds me to authority? I announce that I will not run for president in any future elections,” Abbas declared.
The PA president also dismissed the possibility of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state if talks proved unsuccessful.
“We never said before that we would unilaterally declare the establishment of our Palestinian state,” he said. “Rather, we announced that if peace efforts fail, we will move to the Arab League.”…
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/direct-talks-israel-be-left-pa
The Turkish Today’s Zaman daily carried the following news report on its website’s front page: “EU: Turkey, Brazil may join Iranian nuclear talks”
“The European Union will discuss with the P5+1 — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany — the inclusion of Turkey and Brazil in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, the spokesperson for EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton has said. Ashton’s spokesperson stated on Wednesday that a final decision would be made after consulting with all parties involved, Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported.
Turkish diplomatic sources approached by Today’s Zaman on Thursday said Ankara has not yet received an official request for their involvement, while reiterating that the Turkish capital has often emphasized that Turkey would take part in Iranian nuclear talks only if all parties in the dispute requested their involvement. In early July, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Manouchehr Mottaki said that Tehran believes the P5+1 should expand. “There have to be changes in the structure of the P5+1 group. New countries must join this group,” Mottaki asserted at the time, without naming the countries he thought should be included.
Over the weekend in İstanbul, following a meeting between Mottaki, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, the Turkish minister underlined that there are two tracks regarding Iran’s nuclear issue: one being the nuclear swap deal agreed on by Iran, Brazil and Turkey on May 17, and the other, the negotiation process between Iran and the P5+1. Davutoğlu more than once stressed that Brazil and Turkey could play an important role in facilitating talks.
Regarding the two countries’ possible involvement in both tracks in the future, Davutoğlu stated that Turkey would be pleased to help facilitate only if all parties in the dispute requested their involvement…”
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-217587-eu-turkey-brazil-may-join-iranian-nuclear-talks.html
The Washington Post carried the following news report on its front page today: “Afghan war spending faces new scrutiny”
“As part of its attempt to boost Afghanistan’s economic and political development, the United States is paying thousands of Afghan contractors and subcontractors to perform much of the work that supports U.S. efforts there. But the “Afghan First” program could be achieving just the opposite of its intended effect, according to officials trying to figure out where the money is going.
Initial assessments by newly organized military task forces and government investigators indicate that instead of promoting new small and medium-size businesses, building trust and spreading the wealth, many of the contracts appear to have enriched Afghanistan’s traditional power brokers and created new ones.
“We have the best of intentions,” said Rear Adm. Kathleen Dussault, head of a new team of forensic auditors sent to examine military contracts in Afghanistan. But “we need to look at how we’re doing business,” she added.
Dussault’s Joint Task Force 2010 is one of several new initiatives after widespread reports that U.S. spending in Afghanistan, in amounts far exceeding the country’s own income, may have exacerbated some of the problems it set out to solve and is a major contributor to the corruption that has hobbled U.S. efforts. The reports have led House appropriators to hold up approval of some of the administration’s new spending requests for Afghan reconstruction.
After eight years in Afghanistan and more than $50 billion spent, the United States still has “no comprehensive database on reconstruction contracts” and no integrated system to track projects that are “completed, ongoing and planned,” Special Inspector General Arnold Field told Congress in mid-July. President Obama has asked for an additional $20 billion in fiscal 2011.
“It is not enough to simply conduct audits of contracts and program management after money has been spent,” Field said.
In addition to Dussault’s task force, the military’s Criminal Investigative Division is conducting inquiries into contracts, and investigations are underway in at least three congressional committees and by the special inspector general for Afghanistan.
A separate military task force is looking at security subcontractors — 93 percent of them Afghans — who provide protection for U.S. installations and for military supply convoys. As the size of the U.S. military in Afghanistan approaches 100,000 troops, triple what it was when Obama took office, the number of private defense contracts — about 40,000 this year — has grown even faster. Those numbers do not include non-military contracts for personnel working with a commensurate expansion of U.S. civilian efforts.
Unlike in Iraq, where U.S. companies won most logistic, construction and security contracts, hiring Afghans is an integral part of U.S. counterinsurgency strategy. “COIN doctrine,” Dussault said, using the military’s shorthand for counterinsurgency, “says that when you do things in a battle space, you need to consider the hearts and minds of the people as much as the military kinetic aspects of what you’re doing.”
“Afghan First” is based on lessons learned in Iraq and predates the Obama administration by several years. But the recent spike in U.S. spending has exposed glaring flaws and contradictions.
… In Kandahar, where 10,000 U.S. troops are in the early stages of an anti-Taliban offensive, vast sums are being spent on economic and governance development. But an internal military analysis last spring found “a significant risk . . . that the flood of additional aid dollars will fuel corruption that undermines, rather than creates, stability.”
The analysis cited studies and surveys indicating that much of the money ended up under the control of local power brokers who doled out contracts, including for construction and security, to favored businesses in return for kickbacks.
“We understand that there are second- and third-order effects to picking a strategy purely because of the efficiency of it,” Dussault said. The task force, she said, wants “to look much more closely at the effect of our contracting as opposed to just the efficiency” of it.
The “overarching mentality” in Afghanistan, she said, has been “to leverage the marketplace to allow the vendor to perform the contract with an outcome in mind, and we, the government, shouldn’t tell them how to do their job.”
In the case of the trucking contract, that mentality has allowed Afghan prime contractors to build a security component into their bids without having to include information on who will provide it…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072905729.html?hpid=topnews
No related posts.