News Round UP (March 31, 2006)

A new law in Congress against Damascus
From Mideastwire.com

Bahia Mardini reported in Elaph, a pan-Arab website, on March 30 that: “The Syrian opposition denied, yesterday, media reports and interpretations concerning the statements made by Assistant Secretary of State David Welch in which he confirmed that no communication has been made between the American Administration and the former Syrian vice-President, Abed al-Halim Khaddam, but that Khaddam may have something to say that [the US] wants to hear. The [Syrian] Opposition said that America’s goal on this subject is not to dialogue with Khaddam but ‘to merely listen to the information he has against the Syrian regime’. Khaddam also revealed a new law that the Congress is studying called ‘Syria’s freedom’.

Mardini continued: “On this front, the Syrian Reform party, which has its headquarters in the United States of America, clarified in a statement that Elaph received a copy of that the information from similar parties confirmed that Washington has not dialogued with Khaddam for any other reason and it is not prepared to do so. The statement said that some media attempted to interpret Welch’s statements and hint at things that it did not contain. The statement considered that the main reason behind the American policies is that George Bush had said recently that America’s mistakes-that facilitated dictators in the Middle East-will not be repeated and any political support to Khaddam means going back on these apologies to the Syrian people.”

“The Reform party of Syria said that the statements made by the American Foreign [Affairs Deputy] for Middle Eastern affairs can be understood as indicating that the American [State Department] is looking for any new proof or documents against the Syrian regime and that it may find some when it listens to Khaddam. The Party confirmed that America regards Khaddam as an information center that it can utilize to reach real democracy in Syria. Fareed al-Ghadri, head of Reform Party in Syria said that Welch’s statements meant that [America] is aiming at finding additional information against the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad following Assad’s last statement to the press that said that [his] internal and external policies will not be changed, which did not please the international community or the American administration. Al-Ghadri hinted at an escalation by Washington against Damascus that will be crystallized with a law called ‘Syria’s freedom’ that the American Congress is! studying now…” - Elaph, United Kingdom

Jumblatt blasts Syria and its 'tool' Nasrallah
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Saturday, April 01, 2006

BEIRUT: The head of the Democratic Gathering, MP Walid Jumblatt, said Friday the "Syrians entered the country with the blood of [Druze leader] Kamal Jumblatt, and left the country with the blood of [former Prime Minister] Rafik Hariri." In an interview with LBC late Thursday, Jumblatt strongly attacked the Syrian regime and its allies in Lebanon and described Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah as a "tool in the hands of the Syrian regime."

Jumblatt also spoke of the presidency and said that the new president should be of the March 14 camp.

He also then referred to MP Michel Aoun as a serious candidate and "one of March 14's leading members."

Jumblatt added that there was a "major division in the country over the relations with Syria and the resistance's arms."

He also said that Syrian President Bashar Assad had "a storehouse of terrorists," asking about the reason why "Arab countries are afraid of him and of his tiny group that monopolizes the country."

Jumblatt added: "Maybe the Arabs don't want to change the Syrian regime; they have their considerations and they respect laws and customs; they don't like democracy a lot and they are unable to change Assad's behavior."

Jumblatt continued: "[U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice talked about changing the behavior and I said during my visit to the U.S. that it is impossible to change the actions of a regime that is used to assassinations and terrorism."

"Consequently, we are in trouble; the March 14 forces and all the Lebanese should know that reinforcing the country against this regime takes a lot of time," he said.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

Jumblatt also directly accused a former official in the Syrian intelligence, Ibrahim Howaiji, of killing his father, Kamal Jumblatt.

"Those who perpetrated the crime were all Syrians; there weren't any Lebanese accomplices," he said.

As for his former close relations with the Syrian regime and his decision to turn against it, Jumblatt said: "When you are attached to this regime in the name of the national and the Palestinian cause, you become brainwashed."

He added that he made the decision to stand up against the Syrian regime following the assassination attempt that targeted Telecommunications Minister Marwan Hamade.

He added that it is "impossible to acquit Syria and the Lebanese security regime from the assassination of Hariri."

Asked about claims of a secret meeting between him and French President Jacques Chirac, Jumblatt said: "I met with Chirac and we agreed not to inform the media about the meeting. We have talked about the situation in Lebanon." He refused to reveal more details.

According to the Druze leader, the influence of Syria is still present in Lebanon due to Hizbullah's support.

Jumblatt said that Nasrallah was a "tool in the hands of the Syrian regime to exert control over Lebanon."

Jumblatt also noted that the "integration of the resistance in the Lebanese Army would lead to the balance of powers." - The Daily Star

Khartoum Conference: Arab leaders expressed their support for Syria’s leadership and rejected US pressure and the threat of sanctions on Damascus at the Arab League summit here yesterday.

Lebanese leaders traded accusations and insults at the Arab summit meeting in Khartoum on Tuesday, and then two days later during a televised cabinet session. At Khartoum PM Siniora provoked criticism from Lahoud and later Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri when Siniora attempt to replace the clause voicing support to the resistance with one that supported "Lebanon's right to liberate its land" as inappropriate. Berri accused Siniora of contradicting the Ministerial statement agreed on by the government. "You are currently ruling due to the confidence you received in parliament over the ministerial statement, and neither you nor the council of ministers have the right to change it," he said.

The ministerial statement states that "the government considers the Lebanese resistance a genuine and natural expression of the Lebanese people's national right to liberate their territories in the face of Israeli aggressions."

"I thought that enthusiasm for the resistance was rooted here in Lebanon more than in other Arab countries, but you proved the opposite at the Arab summit in Khartoum, Mr. Premier, and what you did was close to a sin and I thank you for those words," Berri said and abruptly ended the parliamentary session.

Later, Lahoud went on the offensive against Hamade and Fatfat. Hariri Says Street Protests are Still a Possibility if Dialogue Fails to Remove Lahoud and criticizes Lahoud's 'Cheap Attempt' to discredit Saniora at the summit

The Jerusalem Post asks what happened to the Cedar Revolution? The article concludes:

Nadim Shehadi, from Chatham House, says no one has the stomach for more fighting, which is what would occur if the Lebanese army tried to forcibly shut down Hizbullah or go into the refugee camps.

"In a nutshell, national reconciliation offers two choices: internal confrontation or paralysis," he says. "I think the Lebanese will choose paralysis."

Whatever the hopes of the Cedar Revolutionaries and the intentions of the politicians, Syria and Iran still hold the keys to Lebanon's domestic tranquility. And just as Syria has been ducking the UN investigation into the Hariri murder, it - along with Iran - will continue to make trouble with Hizbullah and the Palestinian rejectionists.

"Nothing good will come of the national reconciliation meetings," says Zisser. "The Lebanese may get rid of Lahoud, but he only has a year left to his term anyway."

President Lahoud blew his top yesterday, claiming he had been insulted by fellow government members who were giving him the cold shoulder.

U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday again accused Syria of interfering in Lebanon's affairs and allowing insurgents to enter Iraq which shares common border with Syria.

"Our message to (Syrian President) Bashar Assad is that we expect -- if they want to be a welcomed country into the world, that they have got to free Lebanon, shut down cross-border infiltration, and stop allowing Hezbollah, PIJ (Palestine Islamic Jihad) and other terrorist groups to meet inside the country," Bush told the Freedom House, an independent pro-democracy group.

Can Turkey bridge the gap between Islam and the West?
By Yigal Schleifer, Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2006

After decades of keeping the Arab and Muslim countries of the Middle East at arm's length, Turkey is trying to strengthen relations with its neighbors while at the same time recasting itself as a mediator in the region.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered a speech at the opening of the Arab League summit in Khartoum, Sudan, where Turkey for the first time was given the status of "permanent guest" by the organization.The prime minister's appearance at the summit - the first time a Turkish leader has done so - is the latest in a string of eyebrow-raising foreign policy moves: In February, a top Hamas official visited the capital, Ankara; soon after, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari made a bridge-building trip; and the Turkish government recently announced that it was planning to host firebrand Shiite Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr for an official visit - since put on hold. [complete article]

Washington endorses the unilateral solution

Sahar Baasiri, of the independent, anti-Syrian An Nahar, commented in her column March 31 on the declaration by the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, that her country is open to Ehud Olmert’s plan to mark Israel’s final borders by 2010. She noted that Rice’s announcement came one day after the conclusion of the Arab summit at Khartoum, which specifically declared the Arab rejection of unilateral Israeli solutions. “In simple terms, this means that Washington no longer insists on a negotiated settlement, and that it now publicly endorses a unilateral Israeli solution.” The writer argued that this is a departure from the declared American policy that supported the peace process.

She argued that Rice justifies such change by two reasons. The first is the success of the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which in the end brought about a Palestinian-Israeli cooperation. The second reason is the fact that Hamas now controls the Palestinian government. The U.S. considers such government as illegitimate, and it has agreed with Israel to sever all contacts with it.

Syria Rescinds Ban on Religious Lessons in Mosques

Ibrahim Hamidi - the man in Sham - just published an article in al-Hayat explaining that Syrian authorities have set aside the recent decision of the Director of Awqaf in Damascus خالد المعتم Khalid al-Ma`tim, which forbid teaching religion lessons in the mosques and required them to close in between prayer times. The law had also restricted Qu'ran classes to two times a week and cancelled the early morning and evening calls to prayer. This was all highly provocative and caused a backlash. ("Syria Comment" reported on this decision before the international press thanks to a guest writer from Syria.)

As a result the military academy invited the religious authorities of Syria, including Muhammad Habash and the Grand Mufti Hassoun, to a conference on religion. According to Ibrahim, this was the first time that the military establishment in Syria has invited religious figures to common dialogue in the academy since the Baath came to power in 1963.

Habash and others used the occasion to call for establishing religious instruction in the military academy, claiming there was no contradiction between Islam and Arab nationalism and that the two sprung from the same values and reinforced each other. Habash criticized the new party law indirectly by stating that there is no reason to forbid the establishment of religiously based parties. He pointed to the success of Hamas and the resistance in Lebanon as well as religiously based parties in Iraq and Egypt. He suggested that Syria should embrace this new religious awakening within Syria as it does in its foreign policy to strengthen Arabism.

This is a very smart line of argumentation on his part. It traps President Bashar in his own contradictory policy of supporting Islamic parties in neighboring countries while suppressing them at home. This is the same thing that Bayanouni and Khaddam are doing in the external opposition and that the Damascus Declaration folks called for within Syria. The religious establishment in Syria will be able to use the growing strength of the religious opposition to fight for more latitude for its activities at home.

Bashar will have to respond positively to Habash if he wants to neutralize, or at least attenuate, the opposition's call for greater religious freedoms in the political arena. This is what we have seen happen in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East. The state has been steadily dragging the edges of the imperial tent outward in the direction of religious authorities to keep them working within the system rather than joining the opposition. It places the Syrian state in a very awkward position. The military authorities in Syria have always had an inimical relationship to political Islam, as the attempt to ban Islamic instruction demonstrated. Syria can no longer fight Islamism through suppression alone. It must find a way to tame it and bring it over to the state's side. This will be very difficult. The only real way to do this is to inculcate "liberalism" and change the fundamentalist underpinnings of much of the Islamic revival. Liberalism is something that the Baath Party doesn't know much about for it contradicts the very nature of a one party state. If the Baathists adopt real liberalism it will undermine their own raison d'etre.

Asad Interview with Charlie Rose (Aired March 27, 2006)

The full transcript of President Asad's interview with Charlie Rose, which was shown Monday on PBS is now up at SANA.

Addendum: It can be viewed in its entirety here.

The President did fairly well. I did not see the show, which does not allow me to read his body language, which is often as important as the actual words.

He criticized US policy in Iraq severely, claiming America was sinking into the Iraqi swamp. This is no longer shocking to an American audience that has become accustomed to the notion that the US is failing in Iraq. He did the right thing in insisting that Syria wants better relations with the US, the most technically advanced and powerful country in the world. And tried to explain Syrian support for Hizbullah and Hamas, organizations Washington considers terrorist.

The low point of the interview was Asad's response to Rose's questions about the Holocaust. Asad was evasive. Here is the exchange.

President Assad: If you ask many people in the region they would say to you that the West exaggerated the Holocaust. People say there was a Holocaust but they exaggerated it.

Journalist: You don’t believe that though, do you?

President Assad: It’s not a matter of how many were killed, half a million, six million or one person. Killing is killing. For example, eight million Soviets were killed, so why don’t we talk about them? The problem is not the number of those killed but rather how they use the Holocaust. What do the Palestinians have to do with the Holocaust to pay the price?

Journalist: Even people that I know in Iran say they don’t believe what the President is saying. There are people who believe it…

President Assad: In my country you’d see two opinions as well.

Journalist: I want to make sure I understand what you believe. You believe there was a Holocaust where the anti-Semite Nazis killed millions…

President Assad: We, Arabs, are Semitic too. Definitely there were massacres that happened against the Jews during the Second World War, but I’m talking about the concept and how they use it. But I don’t have any clue how many were killed or how they were killed, by gas, by shooting... we don’t know. Journalist: Part of the Nazi policy was to exterminate the Jews. This is not just a massacre.

When Asad said, "I don’t have any clue how many were killed or how they were killed," he enrages an American audience. He should have found out how many were killed by now. He has been asked this many times. There is no excuse or need to obfuscate on this. It doesn't detract from the Palestinian issue to admit the size and extent of the holocaust. By making the Holocaust a perennial sticking point between West and East, the Palestinian issue is diminished. It takes Asad off message and undermines his credibility.

US commentary about the interview will turn into a debate over the holocaust and not the issues Asad hoped to address, such as terrorism, US policy in the region, and how to improve relations between Syria and the US.

New Evidence in Hariri Murder

Asharq al-Awsat reports that a new phone call transcript has been given to the UN Hariri investigation team by British intelligence. The phone call was held between a high-ranking Lebanese official and his Syrian counterpart in which the former confirmed to the latter that the assassination had taken place and Al-Hariri had in fact been killed."

Shocking New Evidence in Hariri Murder Inquest
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat
28/03/2006
By Youssef Diab

Informed sources have revealed told Asharq al-Awsat that the international commission investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri received the transcript of a phone call conversation between a Lebanese official and his Syrian counterpart in which the former confirmed to the latter that the assassination had taken place.

The sources alluded to what was mentioned in commission chief Judge Serge Brammertz's report on achieving a major breakthrough, and cited sources in the international commission that "the breakthrough came about by finding solid proof that periodic meetings were held between Lebanese and Syrian security officials and officials in a Lebanese group known for its allegiance to Syria, in addition to analyzing scores of phone calls held between security officials in that group, the Syrian intelligence center in Beirut, and an important official head office which German Judge Detlev Mehlis referred to in his first report.

The sources confirmed that "analysis of the phone calls, which began on the evening of Sunday 13 February 2005 and continued until 4 pm the following day--in other words, four hours after the crime took place--showed that most of the conversation revolved around the crime. In addition, the commission received the text of a very important phone call held between a high-ranking Lebanese official and his Syrian counterpart in which the former confirmed to the latter that the assassination had taken place and Al-Hariri had in fact been killed."

The same sources pointed out that the international commission received the transcript of the phone call held between the two high-ranking officials from the British intelligence and that the content was the reason behind British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's statements one week after the crime that he believed Syrian sides are involved in Al-Hariri's assassination. The Lebanese sources noted that the commission stepped up its activities upon the return of its chief Brammertz from New York after he presented his report to the Security Council.

They explained that Brammertz is trying to complete the biggest part of the investigations on the Lebanese level before setting a date for his meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Vice President Farooq al-Shara in Damascus.

The sources foresaw difficulties in Brammertz's ability to complete the investigation before mid-June. The sources cited members of the international investigations commission saying that Brammertz does not want to extend his mission. The sources did not rule out the return of former commission chief Judge Detlev Mehlis to resume the investigations, particularly since the latter praised Brammertz's report, describing it as professional and noting that it was on the same track and did not ignore any of the existing evidence in the file.

Is a Grand Alliance Forming against Asad?

Khaddam planned defection since 2003, Bayanouni reports.

Khaddam told Bayanouni in 2003 that he was preparing to join the opposition; "he would join the opposition and announce this position when circumstances permitted." This was well before the Lahoud extension and Hariri killing, events that many believed drove Khaddam to defect. Khaddam has said that he was against Bashar succeeding Hafiz al-Asad in 2000, but was unable to stop it at the time for fear of destabilizing Syria. The big question is whether Khaddam began discussing ways to take power for himself in Syria with Jumblatt and Rafiq al-Hariri when Hafiz's health began failing in 1999.

Bashar al-Asad feared Khaddam was doing just that, which is why he determined to overturn the power structure in Lebanon and push Jumblatt and Hariri from power. It is also why he tried to sideline the Khaddam, Shihabi, and Kanaan triumvirate in Lebanon even before becoming President in 2000. Asad believed the triumvirate had turned against him and joined the Lebanese in a plan to block his efforts to succeed his father.

Khaddam will meet with Saad Hariri and Jumblatt in Paris later this month to find common ground between the new Khaddam-Muslim Brotherhood alliance and Lebanon's leading anti-Syrian politicians. This is powerful stuff. It sheds new light on Bayanouni's eagerness to attach Khaddam to the Brotherhood. It seems that Khaddam could promise the Muslim Brotherhood to bring in Hariri's Future Movement behind their efforts. If Hariri and Jumblatt endorse Bayanouni's opposition coalition, it will be hard for the US not to endorse it as well. Jumblatt met with Khaddam before and after traveling to Washington last month. Everyone speculated that he was acting as a messenger and advocate for Khaddam. It seems that Jumblatt's efforts are paying off. For Bayanouni and Khaddam, the road to Damascus may be through Beirut and then Washington. Word is that Western leaders have been invited to attend the meeting. We will have to see who turns up.

This explains why Bashar is cracking down on the Syrian opposition that has traveled to the West and why he is going after the entire Khaddam family. He is frightened that Washington is preparing a grand alliance. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are trying to slow down this polarization of the region, but their warnings may fall on deaf ears. If Hariri and Washington decide to back Bayanouni, Saudi and Egypt will be forced to choose sides, something they will find very difficult to do.

SYRIA: DISSIDENTS TO MEET WITH LEBANESE POLITICIANS

Leading Syrian dissidents belonging to the Rally for Syria group will hold talks with prominent anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians, including Saad Hariri, the son of assassinated former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri, in Paris later this month. Other high profile figures attending the talks include former Syrian deputy president Abdel Halim Khaddam - who has been living in Paris since falling out with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad - and Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt.

"Jumblatt, Hariri and Khaddam head the list of those invited," Rally for Syria co-ordinator, Fahd al-Agha al-Misri told Adnkronos International (AKI). Misri said that a number of Western political leaders have also been invited to participate in the discussions.

Can Lebanon fight Syria?

Arab foreign ministers to discuss resolution supporting Syria at Khartoum
25 March 2006: (DPA)

DAMASCUS - Syria’s foreign minister said on Saturday that the Arab ministerial preparatory meeting in Khartoum is to discuss a draft resolution to be adopted by the Arab League Summit which would ”condemn” sanctions against Syria and call on Washington to lift them, Syria’s official news agency SANA reported.

Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told SANA in Khartoum, where he was attending the ministerial preparatory meeting ahead of the Arab Summit beginning March 28, that the ministers will send the summit a draft resolution which “condemns the unilateral sanctions imposed by the US administration and asks it (Washington) for constructive dialogue (with Syria) and to lift these sanctions.”

The resolution stresses “full Arab solidarity with Syria,” Moallem said.

Naharnet is less sanguine about the Khartoum Summit. It writes that, "While the tension between Lebanon and Syria is on the summit agenda, it appears that the leaders will avoid any statement which could be seen as taking sides in the dispute." Here is a bit of the article:

The situation is very dangerous and sensitive," Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa told reporters Friday while speaking of the overall agenda. "But we in the Arab world have enough awareness to behave and react to face all the big and dangerous problems."

The foreign ministers of 21 Arab states and the Palestinian Authority begin a two-day meeting Saturday that is supposed to do the bulk of the hard work for the summit -- reach consensus positions on Iraq, Iran, Israel-Palestine as well as the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region and the tension between Syria and Lebanon.

Five heads of state -- those of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia -- have given notice they will not be attending the summit that starts Monday and is due to end Tuesday, diplomats said.

"We are facing very crucial weeks in the history of the region because of several issues," the United Nations' envoy for the Middle East, Terje Roed Larsen, said earlier this week, referring to Iraq, Iran's nuclear program, Lebanese-Syrian relations and the Palestinian territories.

Most Arabs worry that Iraq is drifting toward civil war.

It is not only the Arabs that worry about Iraq slipping into civil war. The Europeans clearly expect things to get worse in Iraq as well. Volker Pertes, who often comments on Syrian matters, writes in Qantara: "Three Years after the Fall of Saddam Hussein: The Federal Republic of Iraq." His article begins, "After the departure of the USA, Iraq could develop into a federation – with the aid of Europe." But this cheerful first line is followed by more disconcerting analysis. Volker continues:

The USA, the self-appointed engineer of the Iraqi situation, finds itself caught in a dangerous dilemma, which poses difficulties for Europe as well. Should what is effectively an occupation force remain, then resistance and terror will continue. If the Americans and coalition troops decide to leave, then civil war and division would be imminent.

The longer violence and insecurity prevail in central Iraq, the greater the tendency for the Shiites in the south to build up their own structures and the Kurds in the north to push for independence. Separation and civil war will further increase the readiness of neighboring countries to interfere in Iraqi affairs.

"By constructing its policy in the Middle East on Iraq and Lebanon, the US is building on quicksand." This conclusion was repeated to me by a number of highly placed Syrians and become a nostrum of Syrian politics. The political elite used this notion to reassure itself and others that it knew what it was doing; Syria would be OK if it just held firm to its anti-American policy and stuck with Arabism. America’s two allies, Iraq and Lebanon, were unstable. The Syrians believed they were weak reeds on which to build a policy. "They are not nations," I was told. "The American project will collapse on its own. Give it time." Syrians were little convinced of the long-term viability of US policy. By unleashing the forces of sectarianism and, even worse, by counting on religious communalism to form the foundation stone of democratic consensus and resurgent national strength in the region, the US was setting out on a fool’s errand, I was assured.

Today, as both the Iraqi and Lebanese governments remain mired in crisis, neither of which has much prospect of ending soon, Syrian smugness seems less like whistling past the graveyard. Iraq has a president and designated Prime Minister, but cannot settle on a government for fear of ceding the Shiites and Iran too much power. Lebanon has a government and Prime Minister but cannot decide on how to replace its president, Emile Lahoud, for fear of ceding the Shiites and Syria too much power. The Shiites have said they will accept General Aoun as a replacement for Lahoud, but Hariri's people refuse Aoun, considering him too close to Syria and the Shiites. Many would prefer a weak Lahoud to a strong Aoun. They have yet to put forward a candidate of their own. There is no point in entering such a divisive battle until Hariri's people can ensure they will have the two-thirds majority necessary to impeach Lahoud. How they will get that is anyone's guess.

In the meantime, Hariri is accusing the Hizbullah and Aoun's movement of wanting to prolong Lahoud's presidency. U.N. envoy to Lebanon Terje Roed-Larsen tried to help Hariri by insisting on Sunday that Lebanon must try to merge Hizbullah's military wing into its army. A top Hizbullah official, however, was having none of it. He said Roed-Larsen is wasting his time. The US also took another step to weaken Hizbullah. The Treasury Department decided on Thursday to act against al-Manar, a satellite TV operator, al-Nour Radio and their parent company, the Lebanese Media Group. Any assets found in the United States belonging to these three outlets will be frozen and Americans are forbidden from doing business with them. The department alleges that al-Manar and al-Nour Radio are the "media arms" of Hizbullah that the United States has designated as a terrorist organization. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy took credit for the Treasury Department action. The next step will be to freeze the assets of top Hizbullah members. The US State Department also warned Syria to worry more about the Hariri investigation. "If I were sitting in Damascus and looking at the course of this investigation, I would be worried about where it would head in the future," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch said. There is no let up in American pressure on Syria in sight. Italy, Greece and Spain, however, are making noises about signing the EU trade agreement with Syria, which cannot please Washington.

The Syrian government is continuing its crackdown on and harassment of opposition leaders who have traveled to the West. Samir Nashar, leader of the Free National Party, was arrested yesterday, IRIN news reports:

Agents of the military secret service detained Samir Nashar, 60, at his office at 9 pm local time without giving reasons for the arrest, a spokesperson for the Syrian Human Rights Organisation (SHRO) said.

"We're calling for the immediate release of Mr. Samir Nashar, who has a serious heart condition," said Bassam Ishaik of the SHRO. "We're also demanding that the campaign of pressuring opposition figures stop."

The government gave no comment on the reported arrest.

Nashar, the spokesman of the Syrian Free National Party, a small opposition party established a year ago, recently returned from a meeting of exiled opposition figures in Washington, DC.

Sami Moubayed gives his read of the "Brammertz Report". It is also worth reading his article "What the future holds for Syria" to get a sense of how Syrians are thinking about their country's future. Sami explains how much Syria is counting on Egypt and Saudi assistance.

Speaking of which, Prince al-Walid Ben Talal has given Syria a vote of confidence and the Lebanese opponents of Syria a dressing down. He was quoted by L'oreint-Le jour as saying that the Saudis support Syria: « les Syriens constituent la force des Libanais et nous les soutenons ». "Those who are working to sanction the Syrians will fail," he added. Here is the article:

À partir de Damas, l’émir al-Walid ben Talal critique la majorité

L’émir al-Walid ben Talal s’en est vivement pris, à partir de Damas, aux membres de la majorité au Liban, les apostrophant en ces termes : « Vous qui retournez vos vestes, vous serez les seuls à partir (quitter le pouvoir). » « Ceux qui œuvrent à sanctionner la Syrie ne parviendront pas à leurs fins car ils ne peuvent pas aller à l’encontre de l’histoire, de la géographie et des valeurs culturelles », a-t-il affirmé, soulignant que « les Syriens constituent la force des Libanais et nous les soutenons ».
L’émir al-Walid ben Talal a également affirmé que « les relations syro-saoudiennes sont intouchables et constituent une ligne rouge ». S’adressant au président syrien Bachar el-Assad, il a indiqué que « le roi Abdallah ben Abdel Aziz était et restera avec vous car il est un homme de principe ».

What is the Government's Religion Policy?

Is the Syrian Government trying to provoke sectarianism?
by an Anonymous Syrian, living in Syria
March 20, 2006

One of the central policies of the Baath Party from its inception has been to build “true” national consciousness and to treat all Syrians, regardless of their religious background, as equals. This is a laudable goal. It is why the Baath Party won many supporters among Syria’s minorities and even among the Sunni majority. Every Syrian with the slightest notion of our land’s painful history, knows the price Syria has paid for its religious divisions. Indeed, the main factor legitimizing the present Baathist government is its promise to protect Syria from the run-away sectarianism that has been the cause of such suffering and weakness in Lebanon and more recently in Iraq. But is the Baath party serving the cause of unity?

There have been a series of events which make one question the sincerity of the government's policy. First, the government’s lopsided foreign policy, which has lead up into such a close alliance with Iran is worrying. Many Syrians do not believe this is in the national interest. It deepens sectarian apprehensions in the country because one must wonder what concessions are being made to Iran.

Over the last 2-3 weeks, the Ministry of Islamic Trusts (Wazarat el-Awqaf) has banned religious lessons from being conducted in Mosques in Damascus. Mosques are now required to kick everyone out and close their doors after prayers. This is not the first time the government has done this. In reaction to the bitter experience with the Muslim Brotherhood during the early eighties, the government banned all educational activities conducted in mosques. This draconian policy did not end the desire of Muslims to study their religion, nor did it end the practice; it merely displaced it. Within a few years, religious classes were being held in homes around the large cities. As a result, the government reversed its policy, banning the lessons in private homes and reopening mosques to Qu’ran lessons. This way an undercover Mukhabarat agent could sit in and report back all activities. This has been the established routine for almost 20 years. The late Hafez Al-Assad even encouraged the establishment of Qu’ranic lessons in every mosque under the name of the Assad Institute for Teaching the Qu’ran. This policy made Syria a center of moderate Islam. Extremism was not taught in mosques. Syria’s native brand of Islam (moderate Sufism) was given a chance to flourish while other, more intolerant, varieties of Sunni Islam, such that of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Wahhabism, were discouraged. Exceptions were rare.

About 20 days ago, the Minister of Awqaf re-imposed a ban on lessons in Mosques. Reportedly, Muhammad Habash, a sheikh and MP who is closely affiliated with the government, was expelled from a mosque for remaining inside it after prayers were finished. He was there to film a biography.

So far, this law has not included Aleppo, where Qu’ran lessons continue to be conducted in mosques, but people in Damascus are complaining bitterly about this new situation. This policy will be self-defeating, as it was twenty years ago. By halting the instruction of moderate Islam under the surveillance of the mukhabarat, the government will open the door for more radical versions of Islam.

Another event sure to kindle the flames of sectarianism has taken place in Raqqa. The Iranians have funded the construction of a huge Shiite shrine there. It was inaugurated a few days ago with a huge celebration called The Memory of the Battle of Siffin. It was at the battle of Siffin, near Raqqa, that Imam Ali was tricked by Mu’awiyya into suing for peace. Mu’awiyya’s troops raised Qu’rans on the ends of their spears to bring a halt to the fighting and demand mediation. Ali, who preferred conciliation, stopped the battle even though many claim he was winning. This pacifism let to infighting among his supporters. The Khawarij, or dissenters, who believed Ali had sinned by not letting God decide the outcome on the battlefield, denounced Ali and abandoned him. This left Ali’s forces weakened and vulnerable to the Umayyads claimed the Caliphate and established a new dynasty in Damascus, which was to ensure that Sunni Islam predominated throughout the Middle East.

Ever since, the Shi’at Ali, or partisans of Ali, have been persecuted underdogs in the Arab world. Celebrating the battle of Siffin in Syria is sure to exacerbate sectarian sensibilities at this time. The Iranian backed celebrants will criticize the Sunnis and praise Shiites. The government’s yielding to Itan in its desire to promote their version of Islam at this time does not seem to be the best thing to do to promote national unity.

This event along with the closure of mosques to lesson is putting the advocates of modernity into a real difficult position with their supporters. The average Sunni is wondering whether there is a systematic plan to erase him out. Radicals can now come in with a convincing argument.

Considering the current situation in Iraq and the surge of sectarianism in the region, this would seem the least wise thing to do at this time. The event is being done at a time when Sunnis in Damascus are prevented from enjoying the kind of freedom enjoyed for the past 20 years.

Meanwhile, Aleppo is celebrating its status as Capital of Islamic Culture, but the emphasis of the celebrations are largely on Aleppo, the city, and not on it’s Islamic Culture. There has been some grumbling in the city about this.

These events raise a few questions: Is the government trying to suffocate moderate Sunnis? It is hard not to believe that by driving Islamic lessons underground, Takfiri groups will sprout up in ever greater abundance. Would such a rise in radicalism (indirectly instigated by the government) give the government reasons to stop the current demand for greater political freedom? Is the government trying to play the Sunni - Alawi game to divide the country once more along sectarian lines? Has Syria leaned so far toward Iran that it must appease it on the religious question? These are a few of the questions that Syrians are asking themselves.

The Siddiq Saga continues... (by t_desco)

Zouheir Siddik nie s’être jamais rétracté sur son témoignage

Zouheir Siddik, un des « témoins-clés » dans l’affaire de l’attentat contre Rafic Hariri, a nié hier s’être « jamais rétracté sur le témoignage » qu’il avait fourni à la commission d’enquête internationale en charge de ce dossier.
Dans un communiqué publié à Paris, M. Siddik affirme que « toute information contraire relève de l’erreur et de la malveillance ».
Il assure en outre n’avoir jamais été poursuivi pour « faux témoignage » et que ni la commission d’enquête, ni les autorités françaises ni libanaises « n’ont mis (sa) parole en doute ».
Enfin, M. Siddik affirme rester à la disposition des enquêteurs et « de toute juridiction internationale amenée à juger » de l’affaire Hariri et indique avoir très récemment rencontré des membres de la commission d’enquête à qui il a réitéré son précédent témoignage.
Élie Masboungi, L'Orient-Le Jour

The latest UN report confirms that Brammertz is still evaluating the credibility of Siddiq's testimony:

29. ... It was stated that further investigation was required into an allegation that a Mitsubishi truck was seen in a camp in Zabadane (Syria) shortly before the explosion This allegation needs to be further corroborated and remains an on going line of enquiry in the context of the evaluation of the information provider.

It was Siddiq who mentioned the Zabadane camp (§110, first Mehlis Report).

The new statement by Siddiq is contradicted by several earlier statements:

Syria's UN Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad told the Security Council on December 13, 2005:

The Syrian Embassy in Paris received a handwritten letter from him (Zuheir Siddiq) stating that he had been kidnapped and coerced to give his previous testimony, upon which the Commission continues to rely in its new report.(PDF)

The second Mehlis Report stated that DNA evidence contradicted parts of Siddiq's testimony (§107, first Mehlis Report):

28. In order to further investigate Mr. Saddik’s statements about the planning and execution of the crime, the Commission obtained DNA samples from Mr. Saddik, as well as from his wife, children and brothers-in-law. Those samples were analysed to determine whether there was a match with either evidence from an apartment in Al-Dahiyye, Beirut, in which Mr. Saddik stated he attended planning meetings, or evidence retrieved from the crime scene. The results of those comparisons were negative.(PDF)

Therefore, Siddiq's claim that "ni la commission d’enquête, ni les autorités françaises ni libanaises « n’ont mis (sa) parole en doute" is simply not true.

A member of Saad Hariri's entourage told French journalist Georges Malbrunot that Siddiq was probably used to convey information "gathered elsewhere". Malbrunot also reported that the CIA as well as the French intelligence services had come to the conclusion that Siddiq was unreliable ("l'homme est un affabulateur").

Le clan Hariri aurait manipulé un témoin clé de l'enquête
(Le Figaro, mercredi 30 novembre 2005, p. 3, quoted here)

Pour l'équipe Hariri, même douteux, l'homme est utile. « On s'en est probablement servi pour lui faire endosser des informations recueillies par ailleurs », reconnaît un membre de l'entourage de Saad Hariri. En échange vraisemblablement d'une importante somme d'argent, Sadiq accepte de recycler des renseignements qui, espère-t-on, pourraient faire avancer l'enquête.

The Silent Treatment

Harvard to remove official seal from anti-AIPAC 'working paper'

Harvard University has decided to remove its logo from a study that denounces the pro-Israel lobby's impact on American foreign policy, in order to distance itself from the study's conclusions.

The university also appended a more strongly worded disclaimer to the study, stating that it reflects the views of its authors only. The former disclaimer said merely that the study "does not necessarily" reflect the university's views.

The controversial study, published this week, was authored by Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. It charged that American foreign policy has been subordinated to Israeli interests and accused the pro-Israel lobby of responsibility for America's invasion of Iraq.

The study's many critics claim that its academic quality is poor, and that it is essentially a political polemic rather than genuine academic research. Well-known researchers such as Marvin Kalb, also of Harvard's Kennedy School, said this week that the study fails to meet minimal academic standards.

Congressman Eliot Engel of New York, in an interview with Haaretz this week, termed the study itself a form of anti-Semitism and said that it deserved the American public's contempt.

According to the New York Sun, Robert Belfer - who gave the Kennedy School $7.5 million in 1997 in order, among other things, to endow the chair that Walt now occupies - called the university and asked that Walt be forbidden to use his title in publicity for the study.

Israeli officials have been concerned over the study, saying it is liable to be used to delegitimize Israel among the American intelligentsia. As of yesterday, however, it did not seem to have won much support among academics specializing in American foreign policy. According to one such academic, who asked to remain anonymous, "the study obviously contains many correct facts, but their presentation is skewed and the conclusions [the authors] derive from them are unfit for publication. For instance, it completely ignores the enormous influence of the Arab oil lobby on American policy, and presents a one-sided and utterly politically biased picture of the world."
-end-

The Forward's Ori Nir explains that the Scholars' Attack on Pro-Israel Lobby Met With Silence (March 24, 2006). He writes:

WASHINGTON — In the face of one of the harshest reports on the pro-Israel lobby to emerge from academia, Jewish organizations are holding fire in order to avoid generating publicity for their critics.

Officials at Jewish organizations are furious over "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." Despite their anger, Jewish organizations are avoiding a frontal debate with the two scholars, while at the same time seeking indirect ways to rebut and discredit the scholars' arguments. Officials with pro-Israel organizations say that given the limited public attention generated by the new study — as of Tuesday most major print outlets had ignored it — they prefer not to draw attention to the paper by taking issue with it head on. As of Wednesday morning, none of the largest Jewish organizations had issued a press release on the report.

"The key here is to not do what they probably want, which is to have this become a battle between us and them, or for them to say that they are being silenced," said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. "It's much better to let others respond."

Pro-Israel activists were planning a briefing for congressional staffers to be held Thursday. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are considering releasing a letter in response to the new paper, congressional staffers said.

Actually, there has been an op-ed about the article in the Wall Street Journal. War in Context has this quote: "an op-ed appearing in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (Israel Lobby by Ruth Wisse). She writes:"

...it would be a mistake to treat this article on the "Israel Lobby" as an attack on Israel alone, or on its Jewish defenders, or on the organizations and individuals it singles out for condemnation. Its true target is the American public, which now supports Israel with higher levels of confidence than ever before. When the authors imply that the bipartisan support of Israel in Congress is a result of Jewish influence, they function as classic conspiracy theorists who attribute decisions to nefarious alliances rather than to the choices of a democratic electorate. Their contempt for fellow citizens dictates their claims of a gullible and stupid America. Their insistence that American support for Israel is bought and paid for by the Lobby heaps scorn on American judgment and values.

Philip Weiss, writing in the Nation about how the play "My Name Is Rachel Corrie," composed from the journal entries and e-mails of the 23-year-old from Washington State who was crushed to death in Gaza three years ago under a bulldozer operated by the Israeli army, has not been able to show in New York. The article's title is "Too Hot for New York." This is interesting in light of the flap over the Lobby article by Walt and Mearsheimer.

"The Israeli Lobby," discussed in Haaretz

Sasa at Syria News Wire asks: "Has Khaddam lost his mind - Khaddam accuses Palestinian MP of spying for Israel." Khaddam is accusing Israeli MP, Azme Bashara of having spied on Syria.

Sami Moubayed explains why the appointment of Najah al-Attar as Syria's first woman Vice President, may or may not be important. She is from a notable, non-Bathist family. Her brother, Issam al-Attar, now exiled in Europe, was the leader of the Muslim Brothers. Sami provides a number of interesting statistics about the advancement of women in various sectors of the Syrian work force.

Haaretz must be congratulated. Akiva Eldar proves that the Israeli press is bolder than the US press. In an article entitled, "A 'lite' plan for the enlightened voter" of (21/03/2006), Eldar includes the following section about "the Lobby in the crosshairs," which addresses the hard hitting and controversial article entitled, "The Israel Lobby" by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard in the "London Review of Books." The article has yet to be discussed in the US press.

Lobby in the crosshairs

The combination of an initiative aimed against Hamas - a party that is officially defined as a "terror organization" - and a Congressional election year should have insured that for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), passing a law limiting the aid to the Hamas government and associated bodies would be as easy as cutting through butter with a knife. And now, to the great surprise of the heads of the strongest pro-Israel lobby in Washington, nearly two months after they planted the proposal for the law with their obedient servants in both the House and the Senate, and two weeks after they sent out 2,000 activists to assault Capitol Hill, the proposal is still stuck deep in the pipeline.

Thus far about 150 members the House of Representatives have signed the proposal, about 70 short of the required number. On the weekend, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that AIPAC had distributed to its activists a panicked bulletin warning them that if the missing votes are not recruited by next Wednesday, the initiative will be lost.

An aide to a member of Congress told the Jewish weekly Forward that apparently the penny has finally dropped for the elected representatives of the American public. They have started to realize that the constant harassment of Arabs is liable to damage American interests in the Middle East, especially in Iraq.

It is possible that he, like many of his colleagues in the power centers of Washington, has read a new study on the pro-Israel lobby published by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Two professors, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, dared to put in writing things that are often heard in closed rooms now that the U.S. has sunk into the Iraqi swamp. The group of neo-conservatives that pushed President George W. Bush into this swamp has become the punching bag of U.S. academia and media, and it was only a question of time before it became Israel's turn to pay the price of the battle waged by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and their colleagues in the pro-Israel lobby and its allies on the Christian right.

The start of the trial of the two AIPAC men accused of handing secret information over to Israel looks like the perfect timing for the publication of one of the most critical documents ever written at a first-rank academic institution about U.S. policy toward Israel (the main points of the article appear on The London Review of Books' Web site). The authors argue that the American support for Israel was one of the main reasons for the Al-Qaida terror attacks on September 11, 2001.

"There is no question," they write, "that many Al-Qaida leaders, including Bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians."

They note that American public opinion polls and research institutes show that the one-sided policy toward Israel is attracting fire against the United States on the Arab street and helping fanatics like Bin Laden to recruit activists. The researchers argue that Israel is detrimentally dragging the United States into a struggle against Iran. Moreover, they state that the nuclear weaponry in Israel's hands is one of the reasons that Iran, like other countries in the region, also wants to equip itself with a bomb. In their opinion, the American threat to depose the governments of those states increases nuclear appetites.

The two do not refrain from mentioning that Israel consistently bites the American hand that feeds it - usually, contrary to U.S. interests. With its one hand, Israel is establishing settlements, contrary to the wishes of the Untied States, and with the other it is smiting the Palestinians and tearing up American peace plans one after the other.

Once the pictures of American soldiers dying in Baghdad and of hungry Palestinian children in Gaza schools obliterate the pictures of the Israeli children killed in buses in Jerusalem and the Qassams in Sderot, the new government in Israel may well discover a different America.

Mearsheimer and Walt's article begins:

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’.

Did the Anti-US demonstration Really turn Anti-Regime? A Second Witness

A second observer of the demonstration outside of the Communist Party in Damascus gives us a different point of view of what happened. Anyone who took interest in the story about how a "Anti-US demonstration became anti-regime" should read it.

Khaled Yacoub Oweis has a good analysis article published by Reuters called, "Syria confident of surviving U.S. pressure" (21 Mar 2006). It is worth a read. His central argument is that the Iraq disaster has blown new life into and served to relegitimized the Asad regime in Syria. This is an observation that has been made on Syria Comment for some time. From all accounts the Asad regime is likely to be around for some time to come. As one foreign diplomat is quoted as saying:

"The United States has no appetite for military action against Syria. There is no chance of popular revolt and a coup is unlikely, although the Syrians are not off the hook completely over the Hariri killing," one diplomat said.

Hugh Macleod who lives in Damascus and is editor of Syria Today has a good article on the Syrian oppoition. SYRIA: Domestic opposition gaining strength, but still facing pressures

“Khaddam preparing a ‘political [surprise]’ Thanks to Mideastwire.com

In its March 22 edition, Al Rai Al Aam, an independent daily reported that: “A source in the Syrian opposition told Al Rai Al Aam yesterday in Paris, that the former Syrian vice-president, Abdel Halim Khaddam, has prepared a ‘political bomb’ that will be launched soon, following his successful meeting with the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, Ali Sadreddine Al Bayanouni. The source that is very close to Khaddam, confirmed that delegations from the opposition in the US and Germany, have visited Paris in the last few days and met with Khaddam who had just returned from Brussels, where he met with Al Bayanouni. The two have established the ‘National Salvation Front’, a name that was suggested by Khaddam himself, ‘in reference to the similar front that was established in Lebanon during the first years of the civil war’ and that Khaddam himself orchestrated…

“In a statement sent by ‘Rally for Syria’ to the offices of Al Rai Al Aam in Paris, Fahed Al Agha Al Masri, the general coordinator of the Rally stated that: ‘We support the call of MP Walid Jumblatt, the head of the Lebanese Progressive Socialist Party, for a meeting between the forces of the national Syrian and Lebanese opposition. These meetings are the fundamental pillars of reform and help restore the Lebanese-Syrian relations that were undermined by the terrorist and oppressive regime in Damascus. The Rally for Syria will try to hold the first meeting between the Syrian and the Lebanese opposition forces at the end of next month…’

“Lately, Khaddam had increased his calls with Lebanese officials, amongst which [include] MP Saad Al Hariri and Mrs. Nazik Al Hariri, and had received a while ago, MP Akram Shehayeb who was delegated by Jumblatt. While Khaddam avoided giving further details regarding the upcoming political initiative, that is referred to by those who are close to him as ‘the bomb’, sources in the opposition indicated that calls have been made between Khaddam… and many personalities inside and outside [of Syria], to agree on forming a government in exile.

“Even though many sources that are close to Khaddam and Al Bayanouni have denied the fact that contacts have been made with the US, France or Western countries that are concerned with the Syrian-Lebanese dossier, sources in the opposition have pointed out the necessity of ‘using the international atmosphere’ that wishes to change the regime, to push the Syrian forces forward. This indirectly means that they are willing to accept American and European help… In the meantime, Paris wished that Khaddam would stop making statements on French territories…

“On the other hand, Khaddam is telling his visitors, that his testimony before the International Investigation Commission has dotted the i’s, and that the Syrian regime is still undergoing a serious and tormented situation despite its attempts to show otherwise. He also indicated that neither the US nor France have changed their opinions about it, assured that many Syrian political and military figures will soon express their opposition to the regime and [he] stressed that is was necessary to dismiss the idea of overthrowing the regime through a military coup…” - Newspaper - Middle East, Middle East

"Women's rights activists face resistance"

The nationality law is problem that everyone in Syria seems to recognize needs to be fixed, as the following article suggests. Being married to a Syrian woman, I have run into many problems trying to get my son and even my marriage registered in Syria. Everyone told me that there is a law before parliament that would amend the law to allow women to confer nationality on their children, but it has gone nowhere. The Kurdish nationality law must be settled first, some say. This is because many of the nationless Kurds in Syria would gain Syrian citizenship if their Arab mothers could grant them nationality. No doubt, security worries about giving citizenship to people like my son, who would be considered undtrustworthy citizens. They would definately be hard to control.

SYRIA: Women's rights activists face resistance
21 Mar 2006 11:01:43 GMT
Source: IRIN

DAMASCUS, 21 March (IRIN) - When Sabah's husband left her in Syria and returned to his native Saudi Arabia, he didn't just leave his teenage daughter without a father. He also left her without a nationality.

"The problem in Syria is that a law that is more than 50 years old prevents a Syrian woman from passing her nationality on to her children, while the man can do so directly," said the 46-year-old mother, whose Saudi husband divorced her 12 years ago.

"It affects the children a lot. They are born here and they study here but once they graduate from the university they start to face difficulties," she said. "Only Syrians have the right to work in the government. Non-Syrians have to find a job in the private sector."

In a country where statistics show one in five young people struggling to find work, that loss of potential employment is significant.

Worse still, say activists, efforts to reform discriminatory Syrian laws are met with obstruction from a rising conservative clerical establishment.

Women's rights activists were recently verbally attacked by clerics during Friday prayers at several mosques across Damascus after they distributed questionnaires canvassing public opinion on changing laws that they say unnecessarily restrict the rights of Syria's Muslim women.

"They accused us of being atheists, betrayers, infiltrators and of violating religious rules," said Nada al-Ali, a women's rights activist.

Women in Syria, according to activists, are by no means the most restricted in the Arab world. They enjoy relatively high rates of employment, political involvement and access to higher education. Fifteen percent of Syria's employers are female, while 12 percent of parliamentary seats are held by women.

Yet they continue to face discrimination in the personal sphere, particularly in matters relating to marriage and divorce.

Foremost among these is the personal status law which governs not only nationality, but also child custody after divorce and polygamy, and which, conservative clerics claim, is founded on Islamic law, or shari'a.

Abdelaziz al-Khatib, a conservative cleric at the al-Darwisheya mosque in central Damascus who led the verbal attacks against the women's rights activists, said the activists were "imitating the West" in their demands for reform. As the personal status law came from Islamic law it could not be debated because "it came from the God who created all of us", he said.

"We called for the banning of the groups that were asking for changes to the law," added al-Khatib.

The public questioning of both the law and the status quo in a country that has been controlled by what human rights groups say is a security-orientated, authoritarian ruling party for over four decades is a rare occurrence.

Syria is officially a secular state but has witnessed an Islamic revival over the past few years, with an increasing number of women wearing Islamic headscarves to cover their hair as a sign of religious piety.

"The clerics said we have no right to ask people questions that relate to the Quran," said Nada al-Ali, whose activist group collected 15,000 signatures over the past few years from both men and women seeking to lobby the government to introduce more equal custody rights for divorcees.

In response, the government reformed the personal status law in 2003 to allow divorced mothers four years' extra custody of their children, up to the age of 15 for girls and 13 for boys, before the right automatically passes to a father. "The extended custody was not enough and we were not very satisfied with it," noted al-Ali.

Under Syrian law a husband can divorce his wife simply by telling her, "you are divorced," three times, while women seeking separation must navigate a multitude of legal hurdles that usually take two years to complete.

Syria's personal status law, which is administered by Islamic courts, was first issued in 1953 and reformed by the People's Assembly – the country's legislature which is dominated by the ruling Ba'ath party - in 1975 and again in 2003.

In 2003, Syria ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, with a number of reservations. These preclude the state from being legally obliged to observe the equal rights of women in relation to provisions that are said to conflict with Islamic law, including: the granting of a woman's nationality to her children; freedom of movement and of residence; equal rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution with regard to guardianship; and the right to choose a family name.

Activists argue that comprehensive reforms of both the personal status law and the criminal justice system law are essential to safeguard women's rights.

Though such cases are greatly underreported, Da'ad Mousa, a prominent Damascus lawyer and women's rights advocate, said that more than 100 cases of so-called "honour killings" were reported in Syrian newspapers between 2000 and 2003. The majority of the men involved, who killed a female relative suspected of an illicit sexual affair in the belief that the liaison tarnished the family's "honour", went unpunished.

In September 2005, a young Druze bride was killed by her brother because she had married a man from another religion. Her death triggered a public outcry, including a campaign entitled "Stop Honour Killings," which lobbied Syria's parliament and justice ministry to change the criminal law code.

"Honour crimes contradict Islam," noted Mohammad Habash, a leading liberal MP and head of the Islamic Studies Centre in Damascus. Yet efforts to see reform of Islamic laws meet with stern resistance, he added.

"We did not expect the government's attitude to be so negative. There must be a clear decision about whether we are with extremism or with enlightenment," he noted.

Badr Eddine Hassoun, Syria's Grand Mufti, who is appointed by the Syrian president, added: "There are some Islamic leaders in Syria who refuse dialogue. But they are the ones swimming against the tide."

Despite the sporadic campaigns and talk of legal reforms, Sabah, whose daughter is now 22-years-old, says little is changing. "In 2004, we sent a petition to the parliament asking them to change the law, so that a mother could pass on her nationality to her child," she said. "But…the government delayed it for what they said were 'political reasons'."

"It is really sad. I raised my daughter alone and did everything to try and make her happy," she added.

Authorities Forbid Syrians from Meeting US Officials or US-Based Opposition

Radio Sawa is reporting that Syrian authorities have banned meetings by unauthorized Syrians with American officials. This is an attempt to stop the growing coordination between the opposition inside Syria with the exile groups as well as to hinder their growing relationships with US offialdom. This news comes from Ammar al-Qaroubi, the spokesman of the Arab Organization for Human Rights, who was recently detained for several days after his return from Paris, where he participated in the meeting organized by the Aspen Institute.

وجهت السلطات السورية رسائل إلى كافة نشطاء حقوق الانسان والمعارضين السوريين مفادها أن الاتصال بالولايات المتحدة يعد خطاً أحمر.
أعلن ذلك عمّار القربي المتحدث باسم المنظمة العربية لحقوق الانسان في سوريا عقب إطلاق السلطات السورية سراحه الاربعاء الماضي بعد مشاركته في إجتماعين للمعارضة السورية في واشنطن وباريس:

Also read Amarji on the March 9 and 10 meeting of Ghadry and Somer al-Asad, Rifaat's son. He writes:

Another meeting was taking place organized by the Aspen Institute and attended by other, if not downright rival, opposition figures [to Khaddam], including Farid Ghadri, Sumer al-Assad (son of the infamous Rifa’at al-Assad – the perennial contender to the presidential throne and uncle of the current President) and a number of internal opposition figures, who seemed to have been dismayed by the presence of Sumer al-Assad and forced his withdrawal from the meeting. The internal opposition figures seem to have been angered by the lack of transparency by the organizers of the meeting who refused to divulge beforehand the names of the external opposition figures who will be attending.

The RPS describes the Aspen meeting as follows:

RPS participated in an event in Paris on March 9 and 10 hosted by Aspen institute in which Aspen invited Obeida Nahas, a Muslim Brotherhood member to participate and express his opinion. During the two day meeting, not one word was uttered by Nahas as to the meeting in Brussels a week later or to invite any other of the participants to enlarge the circle as if the intent was to exclude rather than include. For a Muslim Brotherhood follower to exclude other people, when he was included amongst many others in other meetings, is a very dangerous matter. It shows exactly why the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be trusted. It is not what you say, it is what you do.

"Was Syria right to hail Hamas' victory?" by Ibrahim Hamidi

Ibrahim Hamidi has written an interesting think piece in which he imagines what the world will be like for Damascus now that "Syria is surrounded by Islamic regimes or groups that have used elections to gain power."

Was Syria right to hail Hamas' victory?

By Ibrahim Hamidi
Commentary by
Monday, March 20, 2006

Syria might be heralding it as a victory, but Hamas' success in the recent Palestinian legislative elections holds out a number of long-term challenges to the Baath regime with regards to Syrian domestic politics. The Syrian regime was emboldened by the Hamas victory for several reasons. Hamas is a longtime ally and a major regional "political card" for Syria that it has repeatedly refused to surrender in the face of American pressure. When U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Syria in May 2003, a key demand he presented to President Bashar Assad was expulsion of the leaders of the 10 Damascus-based Palestinian organizations, particularly Khaled Meshaal, chairman of Hamas' Politburo.

In the run-up to that meeting, Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa (recently named vice-president) met with Palestinian officials. While they "agreed" to voluntarily close their official offices in Damascus, the Syrian regime allowed "some refugees playing a political and informational role" to remain. This helped the regime keep all its options open, since supporting the Palestinian cause is a pillar of its legitimacy.

As the United States faced growing difficulties in Iraq in late 2005, Damascus went on the offensive to deflect American pressures following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. This process began in September, when Assad received the leaders of the Damascus-based Palestinian groups at the presidential palace. Then, last January 17, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met the same leaders on the margins of talks he held in Damascus with Assad. Central to those discussions was the formation of an alliance between Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. Hamas' upset win in the Palestinian elections on January 26 transformed the party from what had been described a "terrorist organization harbored by Damascus" to a legitimate movement.

In a news conference in Damascus on January 28, Meshaal declared his party's victory as the first step toward "dismantling the wall of isolation" surrounding Syria. Iran, meanwhile, pledged to finance the Palestinian Authority (PA) as soon as Hamas formed a government. Syria has also promised to assist the PA, and the issue will be debated at the upcoming Arab League summit in Khartoum, Sudan.

So, as the West focuses on how to deal with a Hamas-controlled government and Parliament, as well as a nuclear Iran, the fate of Syria seems to have moved down the international agenda. While it is too early to tell, there is considerable speculation that the Bush administration, as well as a number of European and Arab countries, are now beginning to understand that increased external pressure seems to be strengthening Islamist hard-liners throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

The Syrian line to Western envoys is that Islamists will win free elections in the Middle East and that current U.S. policy only enhances extremist forces, while Israeli policies weaken PA President Mahmoud Abbas. This prediction proved correct in Iraq, and to a lesser degree in Egypt and the Palestinian territories. The Syrian leadership believes that the Hamas victory will cause Washington to reassess its "democracy agenda" vis-a-vis Syria, where deep Islamic currents flow under a fragile secular crust.

However, all these developments pose a number of long-term challenges for the Syrian regime. First, Hamas' victory has indeed confused the Bush administration, whether in its dealings with the PA or with regard to its broader democratic ambitions in the region. However, Washington has not shown any intention of revising its methods. Some in the administration do not object to Islamists coming to power through democratic processes. There is a belief that one way to "subdue" Islamist parties is to allow them to come to power, which may lead to the failure of their programs and will force them to moderate their hard-line policies in the long run.
Many questions remain about Hamas' future as a ruling party. It will face difficult choices that are likely to lead to stalemate. To be in power while simultaneously sticking to the political platform it developed as a militant movement will mean disagreement with Abbas, international isolation and, very likely, a reduction in financial resources. This will affect Hamas' capacity to finance civil institutions, schools and the families of dead militants. The movement, by accepting the PA platform and dealing with Palestinian affairs in a pragmatic way, would show a willingness to become a political party. This would alter its relationship with Syria and Iran

The experience of the Iraqi parties harbored by Damascus before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is still fresh in Syrian minds. As soon as they came to power in Baghdad, they turned a cold shoulder to Syria and forgot their onetime "strategic alliance" with it. Of course, there are differences between the Israeli occupation and that of the coalition forces in Iraq, but the question remains, Will Hamas do the same thing?

Syria is now surrounded by Islamic regimes or groups that have used elections to gain power. To the north, Turkey's Justice and Development Party rules democratically on the basis of a moderate Islamic platform endorsing liberal economic policy. To the east, the Shiite coalition in Iraq has come to power through elections supported by American and British forces fighting Sunni groups. Further east, Iran is ruled by Islamists who came to power during the 1979 revolution. To the west, in Lebanon, Hizbullah has proven its legitimacy in elections, and by fighting Israel and providing social programs for its followers. To the south, in the Palestinian territories, Hamas has a parliamentary majority. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood scored well in parliamentary elections last year - an experience Jordan may replicate in elections tentatively scheduled for next year.

Syria, which is ruled by secular socialist and nationalist party, therefore looks increasingly isolated in an "Islamized" environment. This has significant implications for Syria's political future, especially in light of the country's formidable economic problems. The Hamas victory will inspire Syrians to become more involved in Islamic political movements. The recent demonstrations against the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad showed what an Islamic genie might look like if it were to get out of its

bottle. And lest we forget, Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Syrian branch is banned. Hamas' victory could tempt Palestinians in Syria (with a refugee population of some 450,000) to join Islamist groups, violating the gentlemen's agreement with the Syrian regime that Palestinian Islamists not induct new members on Syrian territory.

Finally, one of the reasons behind Hamas' victory was strong anti-establishment sentiment, due to rampant corruption in the PA. The free elections allowed people to say no to the ruling party and yes to change.

While Fatah has been in power for around a decade, Syria's Baath has been in power for 43 years. Next year, Syria is scheduled to hold municipal and parliamentary elections. How will voters respond to slogans calling for combating corruption and cutting the public bureaucracy? How will Islamic forces that have maintained civil and domestic social support networks fare? For the Syrian regime, Hamas' success may be a double-edged sword.

Ibrahim Hamidi is a journalist living in Damascus and an expert on Syrian affairs. He wrote this article for THE DAILY STAR .

Damascus Declaration Leaders Confused by MB - Khaddam Front

Hassan Abdal Azim, a founding member of and spokesperson for the Damascus Declaration, the umbrella organization for the internal Syrian opposition, has distanced his organization from the new Khaddam-Bayanouni alliance which was formed in Brussels a few days ago. They announced the formation of a transitional government.

Azim said the internal opposition knew nothing of the new Front. It had taken them by total surprise, he says. This article in al-Ra'i, or as it transliterates its name, Arraee, quotes Azim to this effect. He says the internal opposition should lead, not follow the external opposition.

نفى حسن عبد العظيم الناطق الرسمي باسم التجمع الديمقراطي المعارض في سورية امس –أحد أعمدة إعلان دمشق- وجود أي تنسيق بين قوى "إعلان دمشق" الذي يضم معارضي الداخل ومؤتمر المعارضة السورية الذي عقد أمس الاول في بروكسل مشيرا إلى أن المؤتمر لم يحظ بموافقة المعارضة في الداخل.

وقال عبد العظيم في اتصال مع وكالة الانباء الالمانية إن المؤتمر عقد "خارج إعلان دمشق تماما لأنه لم يطرح على إعلان دمشق أي موضوع من هذا القبيل ولم يتم أي تشاور أو اتصال مع هيئة إعلان دمشق أو اللجنة الموقتة لإعلان دمشق".

But not all Damascus Declaration leaders are so put out by the new alliance.

The "Syrian Report" in a recent interview with Samir Nashar, head of Syria’s Liberal Party, member of the transitional council of the Damascus Declaration, and leading business and figure in Aleppo, asks him directly about the new front as follows:

Why did the Damascus Declaration not denounce the meeting between Abdel Halim Khaddam and Ali Bayanouni?
On February 18 the Damascus Declaration said it wanted to denounce the meeting between Khaddam and Bayanouni but I and other figures played a role in stopping this statement. Instead we just stood back from the meeting. I see Khaddam meeting Bayanouni as a political necessity to build a political framework that is an alternative to the regime. If the regime collapses what is the alternative? Change in Syria should be by stages, to reduce the damage.

Anti-US Demonstration Turns Anti-Regime

This report of a demonstration in down town Damascus was sent to me by a friend, who didn't want his name used. He included good photos, but I cannot upload them, alas.

A Glimpse Beneath the Surface:
An Anti-US Gathering Displays an Anti-Regime Flavor

A peaceful anti-American protest organized by the Syrian Communist Party turned messy on Saturday, February 18, as the crowd turned against government forces and shouted against the Bath Party. Some 200 day laborers and farmers from the city as well as the country’s interior, school-aged children, and even Muslim women gathered at 3:00 PM in front of the Communist headquarters near the upscale Shahbandar Square neighborhood in central Damascus, repeating slogans aimed at the US occupation of Iraq and displaying signs in support of the “glorious” Iraqi insurgency. A heavy uniformed police and plainclothes secret police presence watched quietly and approvingly along the sidelines for some two hours of protesting.

At 5:00, the situation changed abruptly with the lightning quick arrest of a small group of participants, who were shoved into the back of the Syrian intelligence forces' trademark white Peugeots. Immediately, some older women (perhaps relatives of the arrested) began weeping and confronted the uniformed policemen, shouting at them. Minutes later, more Peugeots rushed onto the scene as plainclothes men with machine guns rushed out to try and disperse the angry crowd. Some time between the two waves of car arrivals, police fired a round into the air and some of the assembled screamed in shock.

The situation quickly escalated as two separate groups of young- and middle-aged men and women began fist-fighting with policemen. Perhaps most shockingly for those accustomed to the carefully-choreographed nature of political protest in Damascus, the crowd then began jumping and shouting in unison for 10 minutes until they were physically stopped: “It’s our party [the Communists]! It’s our party! We want jobs! We dare you to stop us!” Within moments, neighborhood onlookers and protest participants were text messaging others on their cellular phones; nervous plainclothes agents confiscated some phones and took this narrator's digital camera memory card.

By 5:20 the city block was sealed off by dozens of red transit police cars and even more police and intelligence officers who would not let anybody in or out of the neighborhood. By coincidence or design, electricity for the block went off for a half an hour henceforth. Until approximately 10:00 that evening there remained scores of heavily armed plainclothes forces crawling around the residential neighborhood – behind bushes, in apartment complex stairwells, and in the middle of the street. By 10:30 things were back to normal and the only sign that a struggle had occurred was a solitary damaged storefront.

The incident sheds light on the regime’s ability to rapidly capture key “troublemakers,” calm the scene (although perhaps with mixed success on this occasion), and, most importantly, contain the situation from spreading. People as close as a block away would not have been able to know what occurred – all they would have been able to see was a cordon of police vehicles, not an uncommon sight in the city. The incident will never be reported in the media outlets from which ordinary Syrians receive their news. The stealth of the government's response to a small-scale expression of outrage at arbitrary arrests will likely have a severe chilling effect on the word-of-mouth that might normally help spread news of such an occurrence.

Gatherings with an anti-regime flavor are not unheard of in the interior regions of the country, especially the restive, Kurdish-dominated northeast, and the Iraqi-leaning eastern border, where most of the Syrian contribution to the Iraqi insurgency are reputed to have hailed from. Such overt acts of resistance in the face of regime forces are far rarer in the ritzy heart of the capital. The only political activity the neighborhood had witnessed in the past six months was a carefully-managed anti-US/UN rally in October and the recent burning of the Danish embassy not far away. The Communist Party, originally founded by a Kurd, is one of a handful of parties that are allowed to exist in a system that is constitutionally-dominated by the Ba’th Party. Because it draws most of its support from the workers and farmers, the presence of dozens of covered Muslim women active in the crowd was surprising.

Ghadry's RPS Critical of New Opposition Front

Farid Ghadry's Reform Party of Syria is critical of the new opposition front that was formed in Brussels between the Muslim Brother leader Sadraddin al-Bayanouni and ex-vice president Abdul Halim Khaddam. He writes that many secular leaders and Islamists are unhappy with the new alliance.

Kaddam, Muslim Brotherhood Meet in Brussels

Kaddam is distributing positions in his government-in-exile after he has chosen himself its leader.

Washington DC, March 18, 2006/RPS/ -- Seventeen men led by the Muslim Brotherhood and Kaddam, the ex-vice president of Syria and a staunch Ba'athist, met in Brussels in the last two days to form a new "Front for Rescue" for Syria and a government-in-exile. Unlike what the news reported, the meeting was composed of 17 men, no women, and no minority representation.

Kaddam who dissented from the Assad regime for losing his job, served as a vice president under the rule of Hafez al-Assad and witnessed during his tenure some of the most outrageous atrocities against the Syrian people. While this was happening, Kaddam enjoyed the protection of the regime and the Syrian people consider him an active participant in their oppression and economic misery. Even Riad al-Turk, a seasoned dissident, issued a press release condemning the alliance with Kaddam as "a cause for more problems to the opposition than its worth".

The Muslim Brotherhood was represented by Sadr Eddine al-Bayanouni who, because of his association with Kaddam, lost important following in the last few months to new elements in the Muslim Brotherhood. The split has brought forth a new leadership in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, which is in contact with the other opposition groups not allied with Kaddam.

Kaddam, who has talked about helping the Syrian opposition ever since his dissention, is now attempting to lead it. Some in the Syrian opposition believe that it is an insult against the Syrian people if some in the Syrian opposition cannot find a leader whose past is not mired in corruption, tyranny, and oppression. The government-in-exile he is proposing is a distribution system of positions