Posted on 02/26/2007 4:18:14 PM PST by DAVEY CROCKETT
No one to counter Chavez In a region where the leading ideology is Bolivarianism, there is not one leader positioned to offer a better idea for a brighter future.
Commentary by Sam Logan for ISN Security Watch (23/02/2007)
For over two decades, the prevailing ideology in Latin America was neo-liberalism, a Washington-born idea that claimed the power of open markets would lift the region’s poor from misery. It did not, and corruption ran rampant.
While democracy still remains strong, resentful voters ushered in a new generation of neo-populist leaders touting a new idea: a form of socialism, called Bolivarianism, that has slowly but surely become the loudest and most prevalent ideology.
Bolivarianism is anti-capitalist, supports nationalization, regional trade with like-minded countries and above all, suggests that a country should rely on itself or fellow socialist states, not imperialist powers, as a source of the economic growth that will lift all from poverty. It is a sort of refurbished socialism that is not a guiding light for the future.
Latin America cannot readily absorb the economic shock of open markets, nor can it get bogged down in the trappings of old socialist ideas. A blended ideology must be promoted, but the problem is that no one is strong enough to counter Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the leader of Bolivarianism.
Chavez calls it Socialism for the 21st Century. Cuba's Fidel Castro passed him the torch. Leaders around the region pay homage to their own past as socialist upstarts through hugging and laughing with Chavez on the international stage while taking care of often pro-capitalist, neo-liberal business at home.
Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva is a perfect example. He has the leftist background and eye for fiscal conservatism to become a great ideological counterweight to Chavez. His politics represent an ideal blend for the region. But his politically weak position at home and strong voices from his own left deter any would be shouting match with Chavez.
Within a week after winning his second term in office, Lula visited Chavez for a photo opportunity on a bridge linking both countries. That was in November, and it looks like Lula’s administration will remain bogged down until March as he struggles to get past his party’s sordid past and form a working cabinet willing to share the same table.
Argentina of the past could have been a counter weight to the Bolivarian ideology. But since Nestor Kirchner has come to power, Argentina has become a Venezuelan puppet.
Chavez has literally bought the support of his southern neighbor with over US$3 billion in purchases of Argentine debt. The most recent purchase occurred on 16 February, when Venezuela dumped another US$750 million into Argentine government coffers.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has the politics to promote an ideological battle with Chavez. Colombia has been a model of economic growth through a mixture of neo-liberal policies and social programs. But Uribe has serious problems.
Political allies are falling like dominos due to links with former paramilitary leaders. And if Uribe took the time to speak out for neo-liberalism and against Chavez, he would be dismissed as another of Washington's puppets. Colombia is a top recipient of US aid.
The only other leader who could take up an ideological fight with Chavez is Mexican President Felipe Calderon. He has the right politics and his country has a history of not blindly supporting the US. Voting against the US invasion of Iraq at the UN is a clear indication. But Calderon won on the thinnest possible mandate. His opposition controls enough seats in the Mexican Congress to block any unwanted initiative, and his focus is on Mexican organized crime, not on verbal sword play with Chavez.
Finally, the US has launched a diplomatic offensive in the region. This is to be a year of engagement, but the US president is clearly obsessed with the war in Iraq, not with putting a muzzle on Venezuela’s leader for the sake of the region’s future. Washington is doubly discredited, first for promoting an ideology that clearly did not work, and second for doing nothing about it.
Latin America needs an independent leader willing to stand up to Chavez, but that leader does not exist on the region’s geopolitical map. Bolivarianism will continue to seep into the minds and hearts of millions across Latin America. Chavez and his pool of allies will control the headlines until the next round of presidential elections tell the world how the region has embraced this new ideology.
As Chavez puts it, Socialism for the 21st Century is just getting started. If that is true, then he will continue to trumpet his ideology until Latin Americans learn, the hard way, that Bolivarianism did not carry them much farther from poverty than neo-liberalism. Disillusionment with reality may then spread faster than hope for the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Logan is an investigative journalist who has reported on security, energy, politics, economics, organized crime, terrorism and black markets in Latin America since 1999. He is a senior writer for ISN Security Watch based in Brazil.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).
Hudson Institute: Jihadists on the US-Iran Standoff
Jihadists on the US-Iran Standoff
By Daniel Kimmage
April 3rd, 2007
The current debate raging on Sunni jihadist Internet forums about the standoff between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran highlights basic disagreements within the radical Sunni movement over how to understand contemporary political affairs. It also shows how these disagreements have prevented jihadists from forging a unified position on this issue.
One of the core tenets of jihadist ideology is the idea of a clash between the forces of faith and unbelief. The Islamic faith fields an army of holy warriors inspired, if not actually led, by Usama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda among others. Unbelief has deployed the Crusaders and Jews — America and Israel, principally — and their agents in the Muslim world to subjugate the lands of Islam and obliterate Islamic identity. Everything that is taking place in the world today is a reflection of this struggle, and everyone must choose sides.
An issue however arises for the Sunni jihadists when they seek to make sense of how Iran fits in to the titanic conflict between Islam and unbelief. That is because both Iran and the United States are the jihadists’ declared enemies, yet the two countries are clearly different, and evidently also at conflict with each other.
For some jihadists, Iran is arrayed with the forces of unbelief. Jihadists espouse a vision of Islam that is not only fanatically rigid but rigidly ahistorical. They strive to return today’s diverse Muslim world, which they see as polluted by centuries of malign influences and innovations, to the uniform purity that held sway in the early seventh century when the Prophet led the community. Jihadists consider Shiites, a group that splintered from the Muslim mainstream shortly after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, to be heretics and renegades, and they decry the Shiite theocracy of Iran as a bastion of unbelief.
Adding further confusion, some of Iran’s positions come perilously close to those of the jihadists, such as official Tehran’s implacable enmity for Israel. This has led jihadists to ask whether the hostility between Iran and the United States and Israel is actually real, or whether in fact it is a sham masking a conspiracy among the forces of unbelief.
The question is a natural one for the jihadists. Their worldview is deeply conspiratorial, which stems less from the much-ballyhooed fascination with conspiracies in the Middle East than from the experience of movements that have functioned for decades in a shadowy underworld. More importantly, jihadist ideology’s stark division of the world into two bitterly opposed camps leads naturally to the assumption that the jihadists’ enemies are in league with each other.
Jihadist ideology does not provide a ready answer to the question of whether the standoff between the United States and Iran is real, in part because the movement’s cheerleaders have so thoroughly demonized the players — America, Iran, and Israel — that they loom primarily as centers of malevolence, and not as actors amenable to analysis. But the jihadists’ analytical difficulties run deeper, as a review of their statements and debates on the U.S.-Iran issue shows.
Few jihadist luminaries have directly addressed the U.S.-Iran issue. One exception is Hamid al-Ali, a Kuwait-based scholar whose statements are increasingly popular on the jihadist internet. In a January 29 essay entitled Clash of the Devils, Battle of Myths, al-Ali portrays Shiites and “crusaders” as parallel proponents of unbelief. Shiite rituals of blood and suffering to commemorate the martyrdom of Husain mirror the Christian fascination with the crucifixion. Both sides are obsessive myth-makers, al-Ali argues, adding that “the most dangerous thing is that myth serves as the basis for the fateful political decisions that are bringing the world to the edge of the abyss.”
In the current standoff, millenarian delusions are driving decision-makers in Washington and Tehran. Al-Ali writes, “The myth of Armageddon has crept into the minds of the most important politicians in the White House.” In Iran, President Ahmadinejad is seen as “paving the way for the appearance of the Mahdi,” the hoped-for redeemer of Islam. According to al-Ali, “Bush considers Iran the army of the false Messiah, [Iranian President] Nejad considers America the army of the antichrist.” He concludes, “This connection [between Iran and the United States] will bring forth a mad war between them with no noble aim, and it will cause great corruption, terrible schisms, and upheaval. The only one who knows its extent is He who has decreed it by his wisdom. After this, God willing, will follow release and mercy on the people of Islam.”
Al-Ali gives no rational reason for the hostility between Iran and the United States. In a subsequent essay on March 18, he goes into great detail on the balance of forces in the Middle East in the event of a war between Iran and the United States, but sticks to his quasi-mystical view of American motivations. America, he writes, “will bring new destruction in a new war, for it is a culture that knows nothing but destruction — the destruction of human values and morals, and the destruction of prosperity and human life.”
Mirror images of unbelief, America and Iran are simply on the path to a “mad war.” Al-Ali’s reading of events might be termed a literal projection of the Arabic term “dar al-harb” (”house of war”), a traditional designation for the realm beyond Muslim rule. In the end, al-Ali does not explain why Iran and the United States will fight each other. He takes it as a given that they will, and hopes that God will ensure that the outcome is favorable to the believers.
An analysis in the latest issue of Sawt al-Jihad, an al-Qaeda online magazine that reappeared in February after a lengthy hiatus, takes a sharply different approach. A one-page article attributed to Abu Ali al-Shimali argues that the United States will attack Iran because they no longer have common interests in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Al-Shimali writes, “The time of mutual assistance between the two sides and the division of influence and resources has come to an end. America feels that the time has come to take sole control of influence and resources, whether in the Gulf or in Iraq.” Echoing al-Ali, he closes, “The countries of the Gulf will find themselves a party in this war, which will ravage the land. We pray to God that He will ward off the schemes of the schemers, destroy the oppressors with the oppressors, and lead the Muslims out safe and sound, for this is within His power.”
In theory, jihadists do not recognize any meaningful distinction between the religious and the political — they insist that the answers to all questions, including those that secular thinkers would term “political,” can be found in the Koran, recorded utterances of the Prophet, and divinely inspired actions of the Prophet and his companions. But as Hamid al-Ali’s essay and the short article in Sawt al-Jihad illustrate, jihadist thought in practice picks and chooses freely between religious and political explanations in its treatment of concrete events. And this, in turn, leads quite often to some concrete differences of opinion.
For instance, al-Ali’s analysis of the standoff between Iran and the United States is religious and essentialist. It treats relations between the two countries as a function of the unbelief that determines their essence. For al-Ali, the false “myths” that hold sway over the two countries’ leaders are the forces driving them toward war.
Al-Baghdadi’s analysis, on the other hand, is political and materialist. It treats relations between the two countries as a function of the power they can marshal in a fight over material resources. For Al-Baghdadi, the “interests” of the two countries, once in concert but now in conflict, are the forces driving them toward war.
Debates over Iranian-U.S. relations on jihadist forums in general underscore the division within the jihadist movement between at least two distinct schools of analysis—the religious-essentialist and the political-materialist. In a typical exchange in early February, forum participants grappled with the question, “Do you believe the hostility between America and Iran?” A “political-materialist” participant responded negatively, citing a confluence of “interests”: “They’re making a show of hostility, but in secret they’re dividing up Iraq and the Arab nation — you get this, and we get that. America wants oil from the Gulf and nothing but oil. Iran wants to rule the Gulf. They agree on this and don’t interfere with each other’s interests.”
Another participant disputed this position, advancing an essentialist argument: “America wants the Gulf’s oil, but that’s not at the root of this. The root of it is the war against Islam and Muslims. How else do we explain American’s interference in Somalia?” A third participant shot back on materialist grounds, “There is a clear and obvious contradiction between their interests in regional hegemony. It’s all about interests. My respected brother, it’s all about interests, when interests come into conflict, there’s a confrontation.” A fourth participant returned the debate to essentialist positions, citing a Koranic verse to show that the unbelievers are each other’s allies.
What is striking about the debate on forums is that both the essentialist and materialist wings of jihadist political thought appear capable of supporting diametrically opposed conclusions. These break down as follows:
1.
Iran and America are both bastions of unbelief, and therefore they will clash;
2.
Iran and America are both bastions of unbelief, and therefore they are each other’s allies;
3.
Iran and America have divergent material interests, and therefore they will clash;
4.
Iran and America have convergent material interests, and therefore they will cooperate.
On the first count, Hamid al-Ali’s essay is representative. Yet the essentialist argument lends itself just as easily to the opposite conclusion, as the above-noted forum post citing a Koranic verse — “The Unbelievers are protectors, one of another” (8:73) — suggests. Another post on January 17 made the same point, arguing that America will not strike Iran because “unbelief forms a single community in its war against Islam and Muslims.”
A response to the previous post made the case for divergent material interests, arguing, “Striking Iran is an imperative for America because Iran’s influence in the region has begun to get out of control, and America and the West will not let Iran gain control over the oil of the Persian Gulf no matter how many common interests they have.” But the materialist argument can also be turned on its head, as the above-noted forum post about a secret Iranian-U.S. division of “Iraq and the Arab nation” showed. A post from an early January debate on another forum also argued that common interests are fueling Iranian-U.S. cooperation, for the two are “dividing up Iraq’s oil. ...Iraq’s oil is meant to belong to America and Iran.”
What the debate on jihadist forums clearly shows is the degree to which often opposing religious and political concerns shape the internal dynamics of jihadist ideology and influence jihadist positions on specific issues. While it is not entirely clear where this dynamic will drive radical Sunnis in their views on the United States and Shiite Iran, it is likely to prevent them from arriving at a unified stance. The tension between religious and political concerns is also likely to play an important role in the future course of jihadist thought and the development of the movement it inspires and guides.
Daniel Kimmage is a regional analyst at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The views expressed here are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer.
To obtain citations and source information for this piece and others in the “Jihad Dispatches” series, contact Hudson’s Center on Islam at islamistideology@hudson.org.
EU’s Frattini Urges Measures Against Islamic ‘Preaching of Hatred’
EU’s Frattini Urges Measures Against Islamic ‘Preaching of Hatred’ in Europe
Interview with EC Deputy Chairman Franco Frattini by Gian Maria De Francesco in Rome; date not given: “’They Exploit Democracy: Violent Preachers Out of Europe’”
Originally published on 4/2/2007 by Il Giornale (Internet Version-WWW) in Italian
Rome — [De Francesco] Deputy Chairman Frattini, how has the EU Commission dealt with the problem of the integration of Islamists?
[Frattini] Over one year ago I sponsored the adoption of a communication from the Commission aimed at indicating a number of directions in which to work against the indoctrination of young people in violence. The preaching of hatred is widespread in countries such as Italy, France, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Extremist associations and imams take advantage of the democracy in Europe in order to teach young people hatred. This requires action by the member States, which cannot be individual action.
[De Francesco] What does your program consist in?
[Frattini] The directions which I proposed are several in number. On the positive side, young Muslims can be educated in respect for the fundamental values of Europe, and a campaign can be commenced against polygamy and forced marriages, and against the concept that women have to be subservient. This is positive help for those who want to become integrated. This means funding projects for young Muslims involving civic education in abidance by the law. The results of the pilot project in The Netherlands are positive. The young people are taught to speak in the language of the country where they live.
[De Francesco] Are there other proposals?
[Frattini] In addition, there are training programs for imams. I take the opinion that it is dangerous to place a mosque, or a place of worship, in the hands of an imam who comes directly from a certain country, especially if he is of Wahabite background, without the slightest ability to integrate. I believe that it is necessary to train European imams in spreading, among young Muslims who live in Europe, not hatred of infidels but the value of coexistence. In Italy these experiences do not yet exist, and it would be time to get them under way. An imam who speaks in Arabic because he does not know Italian is clear proof of a refusal to integrate.
[De Francesco] Are there also repressive measures?
[Frattini] I have proposed a European directive which allows for deportation, and a ban on repatriation, throughout the European Union, in the case of those people who constitute a danger to national security. I believe that this must be confirmed, now that we have seen that shocking video. Deportation must not be the only thing which is applied in the case of those who say that there can be no dialogue with non-Muslims, and who incite people to violence. If we want to construct a European dimension of solidarity and the rejection of violence, we cannot allow a situation in which people who have been judged to be dangerous by the Italian authorities can reappear in France or in Belgium.
[De Francesco] In Italy immigration is a recent phenomenon.
[Frattini] This is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. On the one hand, we have perhaps more opportunities to deal with the issue before it is too late. In other countries we have seen what has happened with unlimited multiculturalism. The Dutch model and the British model have unfortunately failed because unless rigorous lines in the sand are set out, if the spreaders of hatred are allowed to preach undisturbed, the end result is the London attacks. On the other hand, so far we have not set ourselves the problem of integration because we have not had the French suburbs, and we have not had the tragedy of the murder of Theo Van Gogh. This could be a danger, because influence could be gained over people who feel less integrated because they were not born in Italy. What has happened in Turin should have led to a rebellion on the part of Italy’s Islamic organizations.
[De Francesco] And the problem of citizenship?
[Frattini] A superficial test in knowledge of the Italian language is not enough, a thorough knowledge of civic education is needed. Proof is needed that a person wants to become integrated, not simply for them to state that they want to become an Italian citizen. Italian law fully complies with European regulations.
: Milan Il Giornale (Internet Version-WWW) in Italian — right-of-center daily owned by the Berlusconi family
Ban Ki-moon Thanks Ahmadinejad For Marines’ Release
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in English
[Computer selected and disseminated without OSC Editorial intervention]
Tehran, April 5, IRNA
Ki Moon-Ahmadinejad-Thank
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon Wednesday in a phone call thanked IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for pardoning 15 British naval troopers arrested for illegal entry to Iranian waters.
President Ahmadinejad, too, congratulated the UN Sec Gen for his appointment at the post, pointing out that there are serious challenges at the international scene currently with which the nations are entangled.
He added, “Your role, as the Secretary General of the United Nations, is quite sensitive and decisive under the current world conditions and keeping in mind that you are from the vast ancient continent of Asia.”
Ahmadinejad also wished Ban Ki-moon success at the sensitive post he shoulders in performing his tough missions.
The IRI President considered observing the rules of justice and kindness towards human beings as the best way for crisis solving, arguing, “In the case of the British marines, if that country’s officials had acted more wisely and properly the matter would have been solved much earlier and we hope through paying respect to international laws and treaties, we would not witness the occurrence of such matters in the future.”
The UN Secretary General thanked the president and expressed hope that such matters would not occur in the future, and reiterated, “In order to perform my duties and succeed in my missions I
enthusiastically look for the assistance of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the UN Permanent representative, and your support.” 2329/1771
: Tehran IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in English — official state-run news agency
1920 Revolution Brigades Splinter Group Reclaims Name
Originally published on 4/3/2007 by Jihadist Websites — OSC Summary in Arabic
Terrorism: 1920 Revolution Brigades Splinter Group Reclaims Name
On 29 March, a participant posted to a jihadist website a statement issued by The 1920 Revolution Brigades in which one of its splinter groups, The Islamic Jihad Corps, announced that it was reclaiming The 1920 Revolution Brigades name. The group emphasized that it was one of the first “to carry the banner of jihad in the face of the transgressing occupier.” It indicated that The 1920 Revolution Brigades had split into two groups due to growing differences, and it was agreed that “the Brigades’ official name, The Islamic Resistance Movement, would not be used by either of the formations and that it was the right of each group to choose a new name if it did not join or ally itself with another group. Based on The Islamic Conquest Corps brothers’ abandonment of the Brigades’ name, and their selection of a new name, Hamas-Iraq, The 1920 Revolution Brigades Command (The Islamic Jihad Corps) announce the removal of the Corps’ name and adoption of The 1920 Revolution Brigades as its official name as of the date this statement was published.”
FYI — Terrorism: Al-Sahab Reportedly To Release New Bin Ladin Message
Corrected version: refiling to remove name of website
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by Jihadist Websites — OSC Summary in Arabic
Terrorism: Al-Sahab Reportedly To Release New Bin Ladin Video Message
On 4 April, a jihadist website had the following posting:
“After long absence by the shaykh of mujahidin whom we have missed as well as his speeches, some news is being leaked indicating that Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, God protect and preserve him and make him a thorn in the throat of the enemies, will make an appearance. The news indicates that Al-Sahab Media Establishment, which is specialized in publishing Al-Qa’ida leaders’ speeches, has recently finished producing a video featuring Bin Ladin’s speech to the entire Islamic nation. “
Furthermore, the poster of this note maintains that the speech includes several messages to the “mujahidin” in Iraq, the Palestinian People on “ the capitulation choice which HAMAS gave in to”, the Riyadh Arab summit, the “fears” of America and its allies from the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate state in Iraq, and the “good tidings of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
OSC/JN Bureau plans no further processing.
Pan-Arab TVs Treatment of Pelosi’s Syria Visit 3-4 Apr
Pan-Arab TVs Treatment of Nancy Pelosi’s Syria Visit 3-4 Apr
Originally published on 4/3/2007 by Syria — OSC Summary in English
Doha Al-Jazirah Satellite Channel Television in Arabic, independent television station financed by the Qatari Government, and Dubai Al-Arabiyah Television in Arabic, independent television station financed by Arab businessmen, on 3-4 April have been observed to report on the visit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Syria as follows:
3 April:
Al-Jazirah:
Al-Jazirah leads its newscasts between 1300 and 2000 GMT on 3 April with news of Pelosi’s visit.
At 1300 GMT, Al-Jazirah reports that “Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the US House of Representatives, will arrive in Damascus shortly coming from Ramallah where she met with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas after visiting Lebanon. Pelosi is scheduled to meet with Syrian officials, headed by President Bashar al-Asad. While in Beirut, Pelosi described her upcoming visit to Syria as important to launch a dialogue with Damascus on issues of the region, especially the Iraqi issue. The visit is taking place despite strong criticism by the White House.” Then, Al-Jazirah carries a video report prepared by its correspondent in Damascus Abd-al-Hamid Taefiq on the significance of the visit (Report filed as GMP20070403635001) Imediately afterward, Al-Jazirah conducts a satellite interview with a Syrian journalist on the visit (Report on the interview filed as GMP20070403635002)
At 1400 GMT, Al-Jazirah opens its newscast with the following report: “Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the US House of Representatives, has arrived in Damascus on the first visit by a US official of this level to Syria in years.” This is followed by the same short background information aired at 1300 GMT about Pelosi’s visits to other countries in the region. This is followed by a repeat of the video report by Abd-al-Hamid Tawfiq.
At 1600 GMT, Al-Jazirah devotes the first eight minutes of its evening news program to Pelosi’s visit. The coverage includes a video report and an interview with Al-Jazirah’s correspondent in Damascus. (Report filed as GMP20070403635003)
Al-Arabiyah:
Al-Arabiyah carries as the second item of its 1300 GMT newscast a report on the visit of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the US House of Representatives, to Syria. Al-Arabiyah’s report says: “Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the US House of Representatives, will start a two-day visit to Syria, during which she will meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad. During the visit, which is considered the first of its kind to be paid by a US official at this level to Damascus over the past few years, Pelosi will discuss a host of issues, topped by the international tribunal that will try those accused of assassinating late Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, in addition to the Syrian role in supporting Hizballah and the HAMAS Movement.
Pelosi’s visit will also address the role that Syria can play in Iraq as Washington accuses Damascus of overlooking the passage of non-Iraqi fighters via its borders with Iraq. Pelosi will also address the issue of combating terrorism.”
Al-Arabiyah then carries a video report in which a number of Syrian citizens are seen commenting on Pelosi’s visit. While carrying this report, an urgent caption appears on the screen saying that “Pelosi arrived in Damascus on a two-day visit.” In the report, an unidentified young man says: “Nancy Pelosi’s visit represents the US people’s will to hold talks with Syria. Syria is the key to peace. There is no peace without Syria.” An unidentified woman is seen saying: “We welcome this visit, hoping that it will be fruitful, God willing, and yield good results for the Arabs, who are required to seize this opportunity. We also hope that the West will pay more attention to Arab causes.”
Another woman says: “There will be nothing new — decisions without implementation as usual.” The report also shows a man saying: “I believe that they are trying to hold negotiations with Syria as attempts to put pressure on Syria were unsuccessful. Reaching an understanding is the best solution.”
Following this, Al-Arabiyah carries a video report on the history of US-Syrian ties.
Within the same newscast, Al-Arabiyah at 1331 GMT conducts a live telephone interview with Mahdi Dakhlallah, former Syrian information minister, on Pelosi’s visit. (Report on the interview filed as GMP20070403641001)
Al-Arabiyah continues to report on Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Syria as the second item in its 1400 and 1500 GMT newscasts.
At 1523 GMT, Al-Arabiyah carries a live four-minute satellite interview with Dr Muhammad Habash, member of the Syrian People’s Assembly, on Nancy Pelosi’s visit. (Report on the interview filed as GMP20070403641002)
As of 1600 GMT, Al-Arabiyah TV Channel was observed to open its evening newscasts with reports on Pelosi’s visit to Syria and statements by President George Bush critical of this visit.
At 1802 GMT, Al-Arabiyah interviews via satellite from London Adam Ereli, adviser for public diplomacy at the US State Department. He reiterates the US Administration’s rejection of Pelosi’s visit, noting that such visit will not change US foreign policy vis-à-vis Syria. Following this, Al-Arabiyah carries a live interview with Abd-al-Fattah Awad, chief editor of Syrian Al-Thawrah newspaper, to comment on Ereli’s statements on Pelosi visit. (Report filed as GMP20070403641003)
4 April:
Al-Jazirah:
Al-Jazirah highlights Pelosi’s visit at the start of its morning newscasts, noting that it was “severely criticized by President George Bush, who said that the visit sends mixed US signals to the region and helps lift what he termed the international isolation on Syria.”
In all its morning newscasts, the channel carries a video report by its correspondent Nasr-al-Din al-Luti, who notes that Pelosi comes to Damascus carrying “no illusions, as she said, or promises” but carrying “US and Israeli convictions,” and adds that Pelosi’s visit brings back to the spotlight the Baker-Hamilton recommendation that dialogue be resumed with Syria, and “moves, through the diplomacy of handshakes, democrat-republic differences from Congress to the Syrian scene.” The report speaks of a “great extent of mutual satisfaction between the democrats, who want to return balance to US foreign policy and strip President Bush’s diplomacy of the last of its arguments, and the Syrians, who want to highlight international recognition of Syria’s role in the region, even if this recognition is mixed with the usual flood of criticism.”
The report shows President Bush expressing his dissatisfaction with the visit, and maintains that “President Bush’s proclaimed fears of the collapse of the isolation imposed on Syria and its reintroduction into the US foreign policy equation concealed a greater contempt for the democrat party’s march on republican turf” following the president’s defeat in Congress and the belief that he will eventually be isolated.
At 0506 GMT, the channel interviewed Dr Najib al-Ghadban of the opposition Syrian Salvation Front, who feels that the visit, although “not of much importance,” will be successful because “the Syrian regime is extremely keen on showing that it is not isolated and that Syria still plays a pivotal role in the region, and as for Pelosi, she wants to show the American people, especially the families of American soldiers, that she is trying to do something about Iraq.” The interview was filed as GMP20070404647001.
As of 0900 GMT, Al-Jazirah opened its newscasts with an announcer-read report on Pelosi’s talks with the Syrian president and foreign minister on bilateral ties and regional affairs. The channel cites Syria media sources as saying that “Syrian officials stressed to Pelosi the importance of maintaining dialogue between the two sides and formulating a common vision on the region’s issues.”
At 1003 GMT, Al-Jazirah interviewed Imad Fawzi al-Shu’aybi, director of the Center for Strategic Information and Studies, who argues that Pelosi’s visit indicates that “the Baker-Hamilton report is being implemented in the rear corridors of the declared US policy,” and says that “the Americans are in a predicament in Iraq and realize that the three regional files — Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon — are pivoted on Damascus.” He doubts Syria will make any promises regarding Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, but says that Syria is aware of its pivotal role in the region. Processed as GMP20070404647002.
At 1325 GMT, Al-Jazirah carries the following announcer-read report: “The speaker of the US House of Representatives has said that she conveyed to Syria a message from Israel in which the latter expressed willingness to hold peace talks. The AFP quoted Pelosi as saying that she received similar Syrian willingness to be engaged in the peace process.”
This is followed by a report by Al-Jazirah correspondent Abd-al-Hamid Tawfiq in which he says that “despite the uproar that accompanied her visit and the scathing criticism she faced from the White House, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the US House of Representatives, seemed determined during her meetings with Syrian officials regarding the need to open the door of dialogue with Damascus. This determination was welcomed by the Syrians, who have always called for dialogue as an approach to bring Syrian-US views closer, whether concerning complicated issues in the region or bilateral relations.”
The report later shows journalist Mustafah al-Aqqad as saying that “considerable doubts surround such relations. Bush’s stand toward Syria is doctrine-based, and is not based on recognized international political concepts.”
The report then shows Syrian citizens speaking. A citizen says that US-Syrian relations can improve if the United States adopts a “balanced policy” toward the region and stops “full support for and bias toward Israel.”
Another citizen says that the US delegations’ visit is “an excellent step”, adding that there will be a big change in the US policy toward Syria.
This report was repeated in subsequent newscasts.
Al-Jazirah Satellite Channel Television in Arabic at 2017 GMT on 4 April carries a live four-minute satellite interview with Syrian Information Minister Muhsin Bilal, from Damascus, to comment on the visit of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Syria. [Report on the interview was filed as [GMP20070404640003]
Al-Arabiyah:
The first item of Al-Arabiyah’s 0400 GMT, 0500 GMT and 0600 GMT newscasts was a repeat of a report carried the evening before on US Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria and President Bush’s criticism of the visit.
In the 0700 GMT Newscast, a repeat of the the same report was carried as the second item of the news, followed by a three-minute interview with the station’s correspondent in Damascus Zuhayr Ibrahim, who spoke about Pelosi’s scheduled meeting with President Bashar al-Asad and Vice President Faruq al-Shar’a. He also listed the US demands forwarded by Pelosi during her talks with the Syrian officials. The correspondent concluded his report saying “Damascus considers the visit a recognition that solving the Middle East problems passes through Damascus; a fact Nancy Pelosi admitted even before arriving to Damascus.” (Filed as GMP20070404643001)
The 1000 GMT newscast is led by a factual report on Speaker Pelosi’s meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad. The factual report is followed by a three- minute telephone interview with Damascus correspondent Zuhayr Ibrahim to talk about this meeting. The correspondent repeats what he said in his earlier report carried at 0700 GMT newscast, saying that he has no information on what went on in the meeting. He adds that he was told by unnamed officials that Al-Asad-Pelosi meeting was frank and friendly.
The same report is repeated at the outset of the 1100 GMT newscast, followed by another video report showing Pelosi touring historic and tourist places in Damascus. Al-Arabiyah then carries five-minute telephone interview with political analyst Ahmad Sawan from Damascus via phone to talk about the impact of this visit on the Syrian-US relations. Sawan says that this visit is not enough to restore normal relations between the two countries, but it is “an appropriate and good beginning and step toward explaining the Syrian stands to the Congress.” The analyst says that countries have different views over political issues, but dialogue can settle all differences.
Al-Arabiyah carries a report on Pelosi’s visit to Syria as the second item of its 1500 GMT newscast. The report says: “At the conclusion of a visit that angered the White House, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the US House of Representatives, stressed that Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is ready for peace negotiations with Israel. She said that she delivered an Israeli message in this regard to the Syria leadership.”
This is followed by a video report on Pelosi’s visit and meetings with the Syrian president and other officials. The report notes that “it seems that a common vision regarding the Iraqi file was reached during the Pelosi-Al-Asad meeting as the two parties stressed the importance of US forces’ withdrawal from Iraq. As for the Lebanese file, it seems that the meeting did not achieve much as the two parties still have differences over a lot of issues.” The report adds that “some observers believe that Pelosi’s Damascus visit is more important than the issues she discussed there.”
Al-Arabiyah at 1505 GMT carries a live five-minute satellite interview with Syrian Information Minister Muhsin Bilal to comment on the visit of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Syria, the talks she held with the Syrian president, and the Israeli message on peace she delivered to the Syrian leadership. (Report on the interview filed as GMP20070404641001)
Within its 1700 GMT and 1800 GMT newscasts, Al-Arabiyah cites Speaker Pelosi as saying that Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is ready to resume the peace talks with Israel. This is followed by a video report showing Pelosi making statements to this effect.
OSC/JN Bureau plans no further processing.
Ahmadinejad Slams West’s ‘So-called Liberalism’
President: Man-made Schools Of Thought Unable To Guide Man Toward Peace
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in English
[Computer selected and disseminated without OSC Editorial intervention]
Tehran, April 4, IRNA
Iran-Ahmadinejad-Peace
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday referred to collapse of communism and said that man-made schools of thought have failed to advance man towards peace, tranquility, friendship and justice.
The remark was made by the chief executive at his first press conference in the New Iranian Year (started March 21).
“The West’s so-called liberalism has failed in itself, given that it deprives the humanity of ethics, spirituality, dedication, devotion, love and affection,” he added.
Turning to the upcoming birthday anniversary of the holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), the president said, “Divine prophets, including Mohammad (PBUH) wished to teach their followers to worship God, give importance to ethics, spirituality, justice and love.
Ahmadinejad regretted that big powers and the media affiliated to the Zionist networks do not let divine prophets, including Muslim Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), be introduced to the world as their savior.
: Tehran IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in English — official state-run news agency
Syrian Papers, Ambassador to US View Pelosi’s Visit, Stress Need for Dialogue
Originally published on 4/3/2007 by Syria — OSC Report in Arabic
Syrian newspapers on 3 April welcome US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria today as a “step in the right direction” and stress the importance of Syrian-US dialogue to find solutions to the problems of the region.
Damascus Al-Thawrah in Arabic, a government-owned newspaper, cites Syrian Ambassador in Washington Imad Mustafa describing Pelosi’s visit as a “positive step”. He notes in a statement to the paper that the leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties “made many public statements on the need for public engagement in a dialogue with Syria.”
Mustafa says: “According to media reports, the US Administration was shocked by the visit. I read in The New York Times that President Bush personally intervened to prevent the visit, but Pelosi said she came based on the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton committee.”
The ambassador says the visit is “part of the calm dialogue and a reminder of the basic fact that we might have different policies but we must remain diplomatically engaged in a dialogue to reach some understandings.”
Damascus Tishrin in Arabic, another government-owned newspaper, says Pelosi will find out in Damascus that “Syria reaches out to a serious and sincere dialogue with the American officials and that Syria’s true image is different from the one that entails unfairness and preconceptions.” It says the US House speaker will personally see “the truth of Syria’s position and the extent of its seriousness in solving all the pending problems, whether to establish balance and security in the region or to build fruitful and constructive relations with the United States.”
In a 500-word editorial by Umar Jaftali, the paper says Pelosi knows that “Syria has an important and constructive role based on the criteria of justice and the resolutions of the international legitimacy, and that it is not possible to do without Syria in any serious attempt to correct the accumulating mistakes, from the problem of the Israeli occupation of the Arab land to Israel’s failure to comply with the UN resolutions, which upsets the balance in the region, to the situation in Iraq.”
The paper points out that “Syria has always stressed that dialogue, not estrangement, is the way to reach understanding and establish correct and balanced relations.”
It concludes by saying: “We have great hopes in the results of the visits and dialogues. Pelosi, who is welcome in Syria, might help, through her visit, correct the situation and restore balance to the Syrian-American relations.”
In a 500-word article in Al-Thawrah, Ahmad Dawwa says Pelosi’s visit to Syria shows that “the American officials are convinced of the importance of dialogue with Syria and of Syria’s key role in the region.” Also, the writer says, the visit reflects “an explicit admission that Bush’s policy of isolating Syria has failed.”
The writer says: “Statements by Pelosi and the Democrats in general about Syria and the problems of the region, which substantially disagree with Bush’s policy, open the door for a serious and constructive dialogue between Syria and the United States to find acceptable common denominators about the sensitive issues in the region and, consequently, prevent the deterioration in the region’s security and stability.”
The writer adds: “Syria welcomes Pelosi’s visit and any visit by any American official who opts for dialogue and cooperation to solve the problems of the region. Those who believe Syria will offer concessions or bargain over its rights are wrong. All that Syria wants is to spare the region further damage as a result of the US Administration’s policy and to safeguard Arab rights. If any party should make concessions, then it is this US Administration, which believed that pressure could force Syria to change its positions.”
The writer stresses that the issues of the region are connected and says Pelosi’s visit to Syria acquires its importance from the “delicate and sensitive situation in the region” and from the position that she occupies at the helm of the US House of Representatives.
The writer concludes by saying: “Yes, Pelosi is in Damascus not because she loves this beloved city but because she realizes the fact that it is impossible to ignore Syria’s role. The others, who also realize this fact, need to wake up.”
In a 500-word article in Tishrin, Muhyi-al-Din al-Muhammad says Pelosi’s visit to Damascus is “an important step in the right direction” because it is part of Syria’s dialogue with the United States and the rest of the world and because the US House of Representatives speaker strongly opposes the war in Iraq and knows that the problems of the region are connected and that Syria can play an important role in finding solutions.
“It can, therefore, be said that the importance of the visit lies in the visit itself, regardless of the results it will produce. This is because this visit by the House of Representatives speaker represents return to the Syrian-American dialogue over the issues of the region. It is also consistent with Syria’s desire to push the political process in Iraq forward, help Lebanon overcome its problem, and revive the Middle East peace process based on the terms of reference of the Madrid conference and the relevant UN resolutions, especially Resolutions 242, 338, and 194, while taking into consideration what was accomplished before the suspension of the negotiations between Syria and Israel.”
The writer concludes by saying: “Syria today receives Nancy Pelosi with an open heart and mind and with deep realization that it is difficult, if not impossible, to have identical views on all the issues that might be raised on the discussion table. But we trust that the continuation and deepening of the dialogue is a demand by Syria and the countries of the region, and that if the dialogue does not help attain all the desired results, it at least revives hope for reduced tension and for better results in the next dialogue rounds, no matter how long it takes.”
OSC Jordan Bureau plans no further processing.
Transcript: British Sailors Meet Ahmadinejad for ‘Informal Chat’
Iran: British Sailors Meet Ahmadinezhad for ‘Informal Chat’
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 in Persian
[Presenter] We have asked our colleague Shahsavan, who went to report on the story at the location where the British sailors were being held, to join us in the studio today. Tell us, you were in the middle of things today, in the middle of all that happened, could you tell our viewers what happened?
[Shahsavan] In the name of God, greetings to you and your viewers. Allow me first to say that we had gone to where the sailors were being held to do a news story. This was in a room that was next to the hall where the president was having his press conference. They [the sailors] were totally consumed by what was going on in the press conference. There was a translator who was listening to the Persian and translating it into English. As I said earlier, they were completely consumed by the press conference and they were not paying much attention to what was going on around them. As you saw, after the president announced that they would be released, at first they were a bit stunned, as though they could not believe that the president had made such an announcement. Their only reaction was to clap and as soon as the president gave the news of their release there was pandemonium and the rest of the press conference fell by the wayside. They got up and started embracing each other. The initial shock was gone and they were hugging and congratulating each other. I interviewed some of them, and in the short time that I had [before this programme] I prepared a few interviews and if you agree we could have a look.
[Presenter] Yes, of course. How wonderful. We can have a look together with the viewers.
[Unidentified British marine in English] Since we’ve been captured, we’ve been treated with a great deal of respect and dignity. All our needs have been catered for. We’ve been given ...
[Voice over in Persian] The Iranians have treated us with respect and dignity during our detention. They have given us whatever we needed. I would like to thank the people of Iran on behalf of the group of British sailors. I understand the reaction of the Iranians in detaining us when we were in Iranian territorial waters and I would also like to thank the Islamic president of Iran.
[Leading Seaman Faye Turney in English] What I feel just relieved [as heard], thankful to go home. I mean the treatment has been great.
[Voice over in Persian] What the Iranian president has done in releasing the detained British servicemen is a worthy act and I am very happy to be able to return to my family. I also apologize to the Iranian people for entering Iranian territorial waters and I am thankful to the Iranians for their treatment.
[British marine in English] They’ve treated us very well with respect for all our rights. They took care ...
[Voice over in Persian] The Iranians have treated us with a great deal of respect and have tried their best for us to have no problems. They did not harm us in any way during our detention. I want to stress that the rumours about harm being done to us are completely false and we are all in good health.
[British marine in English] Everyone is in good health and in good spirits now that we’ve been freed.
[Sound of applause]
[Presenter] We’ve seen your report and it seems after this the British sailors went to the airport in order to leave for London. Is that correct? What time did they go?
[Shahsavan] It was around 1955 [1625 gmt] and there was this situation: when the sailors were leaving the presidential office the president and his entourage happen to be leaving the building at the same time. They bumped into each other and this provided an opportunity for the sailors to have an informal chat and be humorous with the president. The president asked them how they were and most of them were very grateful for the kindness the president had done them in releasing them. They said they were shocked by it and it was unexpected that such a statement be made. I think we might have some images.
[Presenter] If we do, yes indeed we do, we are seeing them together right now. This is the lady sailor who is speaking to our president right now.
[British marines talking to Ahamdinezhad. There is a crowd and voices can be heard.]
[British marine shaking hands with Ahmadinezhad speaking in English] I just want to thank you very much. Thank you for letting us go. [passage indistinct]
[Translator in Persian] I want to thank you. [passage indistinct]
[British marine speaking to Ahmadinezhad in English] Thank you very much for our release.
[Translator in Persian] Thank you very much for our release.
[Ahmadinezhad in Persian] How old are you?
[Translator in English] How old are you?
[British marine in English] Twenty.
[Ahmadinezhad, followed by translator in English] Too young.
[British marine in English] In some places, yes.
[Ahmadinezhad in Persian] Do you want to stay in the military?
[Translator in English] Do you want to stay a military man?
[British marine in English] At the moment, yes.
[Translator] At the moment, yes.
[Ahmadinezhad in Persian] I wish God may grant you success.
[Translator in English] I hope you’re successful, good luck.
[British marine in English] Ok. Thank you very much.
[Presenter] That was the meeting of the freed British sailors with President Ahmadinezhad. So what happened finally. When did the sailors leave?
[Shahsavan] I have to add that it seems that after this meeting between the 15 British sailors and the president, these 15 people were set to be handed over to the British embassy and according to released statements they will leave for London tomorrow.
[Presenter] I want to thank you very much, Mr Shahsavan, for coming here to tell us what you saw when you were there.
: Tehran Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 in Persian — state-run television
Highlights: Syrian Press 04 Apr 07
Highlights: Syrian Press 04 Apr 07
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by Syria — OSC Summary in Arabic
The following are highlights of the Syrian press on the internet on 4 April 2007.
Pelosi’s Visit
The papers report US House of Representative Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s arrival in Damascus yesterday where she was received by Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu’allim. They also cite comments on the visit by some foreign newspapers.
Al-Ba’th says that Pelosi’s visit to Syria will help bring the views of the two countries closer. In a 500-word editorial, the paper says Pelosi’s visit and talks “place once again the rules of political action within their proper context that is based on dialogue and serious search for solutions to all the problems encountered in the relationship between Damascus and Washington on one side and discussion of the issues of the region on the other.” [Description of source: Damascus Al-Ba’th (Internet Version-WWW) in Arabic — Newspaper of the ruling Ba’th Party; URL: http://www.albaath.news.sy/] (OSC filed this editorial)
Tishrin welcomes Pelosi’s visit and says in a 900-word editorial by its Chief Editor Isam Dari: “With all realism, we acknowledge that Mrs Pilosi’s visit, important as it is, will not be able to remove all the obstacles blocking the restoration of Syrian-US relations to normalcy or overcome the phase of misunderstanding or dissipate the heavy dark clouds that hover in the sky of these relations and prevent mutual understanding and dialogue. However, this does not mean that the visit will not achieve any positive results. Although we do not consider the mere visit as a positive development irrespective of the results that it will produce, we believe that the dialogue which she will hold in Damascus will be of great importance.” [Description of source: Damascus Tishrin (Internet Version-WWW) in Arabic — Government-owned newspaper; URL: http://www.tishreen.info/] (OSC filed this editorial)
In a 400-word article in Al-Thawrah, Khalid al-Ashhab says Pelosi’s visit to Damascus is “the first cloud of the white smoke that began to appear and clear the air of the Syrian-American relations.” The writer adds: “If President Bush’s administration, through the policies of injustice, occupation, and repression, failed to answer the historic American question (why do they hate us?) that was asked after the 11 September bombings, then Mrs Pelosi and her team, who are willing to uphold and translate the true American values, are able, if they want, to make the world once again yearn to America’s culture and high ethical values.” [Description of source: Damascus Al-Thawrah (Internet Version-WWW) in Arabic — Government-owned newspaper. URL: http://thawra.alwehda.gov.sy]
In a 400-word article in the English-language Syria Times, R. Zein notes that “repeated visits by US officials have been paid to Damascus with the objective of conducting dialogue with the Syrian leadership aimed, among other things, to help settle problematic issues of the Middle East, eliminate misunderstanding between Damascus and Washington, stabilize the agitated region and achieve peace.” The writer adds: “Hopes are pinned on Pelosi’s visit to set things in the right course in the interest of the Americans and peoples of the Middle East.” [Description of source: Damascus Syria Times (Internet Version-WWW) in English — Government-owned newspaper; http://www.syriatimes.tishreen.info/] (OSC filed this article)
Other Issues
In a 600-word article in Tishrin, former Information Minister Mahdi Dakhlallah discusses the scenarios in the region after the Arab summit and Syria’s position. The writer says one scenario is the establishment of normal relations between Israel and some Arab countries, and perhaps the resumption of the Syria-Israeli negotiations “to distract” Syria with the negotiations without a serious Israeli willingness to leave the occupied Golan. He stresses that Syria “cannot fall in such a trap.” Another scenario, he says, is a war against Iran in an attempt by the United States to evade its Iraq crisis. He stresses that the two possibilities are very harmful to the Arabs.
Umar Jaftali says in a 400-word article in Tishrin that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s call for meetings with Arab leaders is a “maneuver to evade the Arab peace plan.” The writer says Israel must understand that peace requires an end to its “repressive practices and violations” against the Palestinians, compliance with the UN resolutions, and removal of the occupation.
Al-Watan says the criminal court judge in Damascus adjourned the trail of activist Anwar al-Bunni until 24 April, when he will pass the verdict. Al-Bunni was detained against the background of his signing of the Damascus-Beirut Declaration. [Description of source: Damascus Al-Watan (Internet Version-WWW) in Arabic — Independent daily; URL: http://www.alwatan.sy/] (OSC plans to process this item)
Syria Times reports that The foundation of Syria International Islamic Bank was officially announced Tuesday at a meeting of the bank’s shareholders, held by the Founding General Commission at the Noble Palace. (OSC plans to process this item)
Al-Quds Al-Arabi: Pelosi Visit ‘Powerful Blow’ To Bush, ME Policy
Arabic Daily Calls Pelosi’s Syria Visit ‘Powerful Blow’ To Bush, Mideast Policy
Editorial: “Syria’s Isolation Eroding”
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by Al-Quds al-Arabi (Internet Version-WWW) in Arabic
US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the Syrian capital Damascus represents a powerful blow to US President George Bush and his Middle East policy aimed at isolating Syria on the ground that it represents a component of the axis of evil, as he puts it. The visit reflects the clear intention of the opposition Democratic Party which Pelosi represents to bring about radical changes in this policy if its candidate wins the presidential elections scheduled to be held after one year and a half.
President George W. Bush’s criticism of this visit on the ground that it sends conflicting messages that undermine the efforts to isolate Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is the most noticeable evidence of the ruling US administration’s weakness and the Senate majority’s rejection of its policy because of its shortsightedness and noticeable confusion.
It has to be admitted that the Syrian officials’ management of the crisis has scored major success in creating large gaps in the US-imposed wall of isolation that was backed by some official Arab parties. This management was characterized by constancy and firmness within the framework of a clever diplomacy that moved in two parallel directions, one Arab and the other international.
At the Arab level, this diplomacy resulted in an active Syrian participation in the recent Arab summit in Riyadh and a Syrian-Saudi reconciliation represented by the closed meeting between the Saudi king and President Al-Asad that preceded the summit and then the tripartite one between them and Egyptian President Husni Mubarak which touched on most issues before the Arab summit.
At the international level, the Syrian diplomatic move focused on the means of bolstering contacts and ties with the European countries, with the exception of France. This demonstrated Syria’s desire for a fruitful cooperation in fighting the so-called terror by offering the well-established Syrian expertise in this matter.
The glaring mistakes committed by the US administration in the Arab region helped break the isolation imposed on Syria, especially in Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan. These mistakes led to the isolation of the United States itself and increased the hatred for it in the Arab street and most of the Muslim and Third World countries.
The recent US strategy for imposing security in Iraq by sending 30,000 more soldiers failed to achieve its aims and the acts of violence sweeping Iraq became more disastrous after its implementation while the sectarian civil war escalated and the Iraqi mass emigration to neighboring countries to seek safety increased.
The Syrian authorities have started to recoup their strength and emerge from their Arab and international isolation without making essential concessions in all the region’s hot dossiers, especially the Lebanese and Palestinian one. The Arabs and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that led the blockade were the ones that went back to Syria seeking to woo it and hoping to coordinate with it, even if at the lowest level, and not the other way around.
When Saudi King Abdallah Bin-Abd-al-Aziz calls what is happening in Iraq an illegal American occupation, then this means that he came to the Syrian stand and adopted its media discourse and political convictions. The Syrian media is the only one among its counterparts in the east which describes what is happening in Iraq occupation and supports the Iraqi resistance that is acting to defeat it and liberate its country from it.
It is the mentality of the experienced Syrian merchant who knows how to use his cards carefully and at the right time and come out in the end with the biggest possible profit.
: London Al-Quds al-Arabi (Internet Version-WWW) in Arabic — London-based independent Arab nationalist daily with an anti-US and anti-Saudi editorial line; generally pro-Palestinian, pro-Iraqi regime, tends to be sympathetic to Bin Ladin. URL: http://www.alquds.co.uk/
IRNA: Consular Access To Be Allowed for Iranians Held in Iraq
Iran: News Agency Says Consular Access To Be Allowed for Diplomats Held in Iraq
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in Persian
Tehran, 4 April: After the release of Jalal Sharafi, the Iranian diplomat abducted in Iraq, it was announced today that the Iranian embassy in Iraq is trying very hard to obtain information about the five Iranian diplomats detained by American forces and to see them [the detained diplomats].
A reliable source told IRNA’s reporter in Baghdad on Wednesday [4 April]: Following continuous efforts by the Iranian embassy in Iraq and the cooperation of Iraqi officials and the help of the UN representative, a representative from our country’s embassy is to see our country’s diplomats [seized in Arbil].
About two months ago American forces entered the Islamic Republic of Iran’s consulate in Arbil in an illegal way and without the permission of the regional government in Iraqi Kurdistan, detained five members of staff and took them to an unknown location.
The American forces have not provided any information since then about where the Iranian diplomats are being held and their condition.
The Iranian embassy has followed up the issue via the Iraqi government and officials and Ashraf Qazi, the UN representative in Iraq, and reports suggest that the American forces have recently succumbed to all the pressure.
The source remarked that the opposition of the American forces over the past two months to consular access to the Iranian diplomats is a contravention of international regulations.
He said: Based on the Vienna Convention of 1963, any consular representative has a right to see nationals detained in the host country and to learn about their condition.
The reliable source said that the aggression against the Iranian diplomats in Iraq and their illegal detention had political roots and lacked legal bases.
It is being said that the recent American political and military moves in Iraq have had an impact on the opening on the situation of the Iranian diplomats.
: Tehran IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in Persian — official state-run news agency
Jihadists Urged to Form Cells, Overthrow Gulf Governments
Forum Participant Calls on ‘Jihadists’ to Form Cells, Overthrow Gulf Governments
Originally published on 4/3/2007 by Jihadist Websites — OSC Summary in Arabic
Terrorism: Forum Participant Calls on ‘Jihadists’ to Form Cells, Overthrow Gulf Governments
On 3 April, a participant posted to a jihadist website a message in which he said there were rumors about the Kuwaiti army being put on alert for Wednesday, 4 April 2007, and called for the formation of cells and the overthrowing of Persian Gulf governments.
A translation of the message follows:
“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
“I was informed by a large group from among those who work for the Kuwaiti army (Al-Ratib Army) that orders were issued to put the entire army on alert next Wednesday, at the beginning of April. This coincides with a lot of talk about the strike [against] Iran occurring at the beginning of April.
“Prepare, oh brothers, and get ready to form cells with your jihadist brothers, each in his country, so that it will be a chance for the jihadists to form cells to overthrow the [Persian] Gulf governments and to become primary support for the mujahidin in Al-Qa’ida Organization in the Arabian Peninsula.
“’And Allah hath full power and control over His affairs; but most among mankind know it not’ [Koranic verse; Yusuf 12:21].
“Copied from [someone] we judge as trustworthy, but God is his judge.”
Fini Faults Italian Gov’t Over Mastrogiacomo Release
Italy: Fini Faults Government Over Afghanistan Contingent, Mastrogiacomo Release
Interview with Italian National Alliance Chairman Gianfranco Fini, former foreign minister, by Fabrizio De Feo in Rome on 2 April: “Gianfranco Fini: ‘Center-Right Alive Even Without the UDC’”
Originally published on 4/3/2007 by Il Giornale in Italian
Rome — [Passage omitted on domestic political issues] [De Feo] If you think back to the vote [in the Italian Senate] on [refinancing the Italian contingent in] Afghanistan, which highlighted the split in the CdL [Italian House of Freedoms], do you have any regrets?
[Fini] No, I am totally convinced that that was the right choice. None of us was ever so naive as to believe that we could topple the government. I told Ambassador Spogli that the decree would be approved. We abstained because Afghanistan has become a theater of war, with the Taliban offensive. Even [Foreign Minister Massimo] D’Alema admitted as much, but he offered only words. An amendment in favor of shifting from passive defense to active defense would have been sufficient for us to vote in favor. It is inadmissible that the other countries can count on us only 70 percent of the time. More suitable means are needed, otherwise there is no point in our placing our boys’ lives in jeopardy simply because we cannot tell the radical Left that Afghanistan has become a theater of war.
[De Feo] How would you have behaved in D’Alema’s shoes, if your interlocutor had asked for the release of prisoners in exchange for the hostage?
[Fini] First of all, I would never have called Emergency in on the affair, nor would I have undermined our intelligence services’ credibility. But the thing that is really astonishing is the recognition of the Taliban as interlocutors. Do you know why the negotiations fouled up at the last minute? Because they realized that the list of guerrilla fighters contained a man under arrest who had begun to cooperate. The Taliban were demanding his release so that they could slit his throat. The consequence of that decision is that Westerners have now become moving targets. If The Union thinks that the Taliban can be interlocutors, then that means that it does not recognize the Karzai government’s legitimacy. And if that is the case, then it should say so.
[De Feo] But did you people ever find yourselves having to handle a situation of that nature?
[Fini] Let us put it this way: I challenge anyone to claim that we ever once entertained the possibility of an exchange. [Fini ends] [passage omitted]
: Milan Il Giornale in Italian — right-of-center daily owned by the Berlusconi family
Ahmadinejad: Britain Promised Not To Repeat Its Mistake
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by Iranian Students News Agency (Internet Version-WWW) in English
[Computer selected and disseminated without OSC Editorial intervention]
Ahmadinejad: Britain promised not to repeat its mistake
TEHRAN, Apr. 04 (SINA)-Iran’s President in a held news conference here on Wednesday announced that the detained Briton marines were pardoned and released as a “gift” to the British nation. “On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet Muhammad and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian nation with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial, forgave those 15 Briton marines and ask the Blair government not to punish them because of saying the truth,” Ahmadinejad said. “All must understand that the great nation of Iran will defend its territorial integrity with all its might and power and will never allow the intrusion,” he added. When asked about Iran sudden change of stance regarding the detained marines, Ahmadinejad noted that this decision had been made from long ago and Iran from the beginning did not intend to prolong this issue or use the marines as an axel to create exchange opportunities, but the British government acted wrong. “What is most surprising is that the British government has even lied to its own citizens regarding this issue. Does the British nation have no right to know why their soldiers are fighting in Iraq and in Iranian waters? We leave the judgment on this issue to the British nation and the world,” Iran’s President noted. When asked if this decision had been made in return to the release of Iran’s second embassy secretary, Jalal Sharafi, Ahmadinejad stated that no connection between these two issues existed. “As I noted the 15 detained Briton marines were released in an act of generosity carried out by the nation of Iran; we are not after profiting from this issue; we did it because of human issues,” he said. In answer to what the British government was to give to Iran in return of its gift, the President noted that Iran did not expect any thing in return. “Of course the British government has sent a letter to the foreign ministry, which in it has stated that such issues would not happen again,” he siad. When asked about Iran’s nuclear program, he emphasized that Iran was determined in its path. “Some courtiers do not want us to progress and they pressure this demand upon us through hiding behind self made organizations. The only solution to Iran peaceful nuclear issue is that they accept our inalienable right to possess nuclear technology,” he emphasized. “They keep on issuing and forwarding papers and resolutions against us. They do not understand that we will continue our path and because we are doing everything according to the law and regulations, they can do nothing about it,” Ahmadinejad added. President Ahmadinejad while referring to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s membership in the Non-Proliferation Treaty stated that Iran had never acted against any of this treaty’s regulations and all the IAEA’s reports showed that Iran was on the path of applying this technology for peaceful applications. “The UN Security Council’s action clearly illustrate that this organization is being pressured by world powers. Our question is that for how long and much does this organization intend to kneel in front of such pressures? Till when do the members of this organization want to abuse their authorities?” he questioned. “All know that the UN Security Council was established after World War II and it is currently a tool in the hands of world powers such as the U.K. and the U.S., but this must change and the UN Security Council should be founded on justice instead of favoritisms,” he added. When asked when Iran was ready to initiate negotiations with the U.S., President Ahmadinejad stated that Iran had many times before this announced that it welcomed relations with all governments, except for the Zionist Regime which was basically not approved by the Islamic Republic of Iran. “Regarding the U.S. government we must refer to history and who first decided to end relations between Iran and the U.S.; the U.S. thought that if it breaks it relations with us, we would no longer be able to survive, but we proved that this was wrong and we reached the peaks of technology,” he explained. “Today we are not rejecting negotiations with the U.S.; what counts is the U.S. government’s behavior, because no free country would accept to establish relations with a country that is behaving like the U.S.; therefore if the U.S. reconsiders its ways and methods then we will review relations with the U.S.,” said Iran’s President.
: Tehran Iranian Students News Agency (Internet Version-WWW) in English — university student press agency; produces politically moderate reporting with emphasis on student activities; promotes political awareness of seminary and university students; headed by ‘Ali Yusefpur, managing director of conservative daily Siyasat-e Ruz; partially government-funded with a student editorial staff; licensed to the government-created University Jihad institution
Ahmadinejad: Resumption Of Iran-US Relations Possible
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by Fars News Agency (Internet Version-WWW) in English
[Computer selected and disseminated without OSC Editorial intervention]
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here on Wednesday said if Washington revises its attitude, resumption of ties between Iran and the US will be possible, stressing that his country seeks friendly and extensive ties with all the world nations, except for Israel.
Speaking during his first press conference in the new Iranian year (i.e. from March 21,2007 to March 20, 2008), the Iranian president said in response to a Fox News question about possibility of the resumption of ties between Iran and the US that these were the Americans themselves who cut relations with Iran.
“They thought that if they cut the ties, our nation would have to go under much pressure, but this did not come true,” he said, and continued, “With the present kind of attitude shown by the US, no world nation is willing to establish ties with the US.”
Meantime, Ahmadinejad said his country does not rule out resumption of ties with the US, and mentioned that Washington intends to impose its aspirations on the Islamic Republic, adding, “But if they revise their behavior, there is a possibility for making revisions on our side.”
Elsewhere, the Iranian president pointed to the issue of the 15 British troops, and called on Blair’s administration not to punish the 8 sailors and 7 marines for the confessions they have made about trespassing on Iran’s territorial waters.
Earlier in the same conference, Ahmadinejad pardoned the 15 British troops who had been arrested on March 23rd after trespassing on Iran’s territorial waters.
Ahmadinejad criticized the militaristic policies of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and said all the 15 troops, including 8 sailors and 7 British marines, will be released in a bid to show the Iranians’ Islamic kindness.
He said he has issued the order on the occasion of the birthday anniversary of the Prophet of Islam.
Also during the same press conference, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad awarded a third degree medal of courage to the commander of Iran’s southwest coast guards, Captain Abol-Ghassem Amangah.
“Everyone should know that the great Iranian nation has defended its rights and land with full authority and power,” Ahmadinejad underscored.
He further expressed regret over the dispatch of the British youths to Iraq and their arrest in Iranian waters, and asked, “Why should the most cumbersome missions, such as sea patrolling, be assigned to a mother, why does the western civilization not care for family values?”
The president also stated, “Unfortunately, Mr. Blair’s administration took the ploy and started hues and cries about the issue and took the case to the UN Security Council.”
He lashed out at the UN Security Council, the European Union (EU) and western governments, specially France for making statements in support of London without launching any investigation on the issue.
Ahmadinejad asked what action the western governments and the EU member states would take if anyone trespassed on their own territories.
He further blamed the improper performance of the British government for the prolongation of the issue.
“We did not intend to produce continued conflicts out of the issue. Releasing the sailors was procrastinated because the British government acted badly,” the president underlined.
He further ruled out that Iran intended to swap the British troops with its kidnapped diplomats in Iraq, and stressed that the Islamic Republic has released the sailors as a gift to the British people.
Ahmadinejad said that the British government has undertaken not to repeat trespassing on Iran’s territorial waters.
“But this decision (releasing the British troops) was not adopted as a result of the said pledge, rather this decision was Iran’s gift to the British people,” he continued.
: Tehran Fars News Agency (Internet Version-WWW) in English — Privately-owned news agency. It began operating in mid November 2002. Its managing editor is Mehdi Faza’eli, the editor in chief of the Javan daily and a member of the managerial board of the Association of Muslim Journalists. The other members of the board of directors of the news agency, are Alizera Shemirani, of Farda newspaper, Abdollah Moqaddam and Akbar Nabavi of Resalat newspaper, the former director of Farabi Foundation Hasan Eslami-Mehr, and university professor Abolhoseyn Ruholamin.
Reporter Asks Gov’t To Bar Amanpour From Visiting Iran
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in English
[Computer selected and disseminated without OSC Editorial intervention]
Tehran, April 4, IRNA
Iran-Amanpour-Visit
An Iranian reporter on Wednesday called on the government, especially Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi, to bar CNN correspondent Christian Amanpour from visiting Iran.
The Iranian reporter, criticizing Amanpour for offending Iranian reporters, made the request during President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s press conference.
: Tehran IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in English — official state-run news agency
Ahmadinejad Calls For Closer Supervision Of Foreign Reporters
President Calls For Closer Supervision Of Foreign Reporters
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in English
[Computer selected and disseminated without OSC Editorial intervention]
Tehran, April 4, IRNA
Iran-Ahmadinejad-Reporters
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called on the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to supervise the activities of foreign reporters and media more closely to prevent them from insulting the Iranian nation.
Speaking at his first press conference in the New Iranian Year (started on March 21), the chief executive said that if the foreign reporters misuse their freedom in Iran, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance is bound to supervise their performance within the framework of laws and regulations.
Concerning the call of some Iranian reporters and journalists complaining about authorization of the chief CNN international correspondent Christine Amanpour to file reports in Tehran and the distinction between the Iranian reporters and foreign ones visiting Iran, he said, “Iranian reporters in West and some other countries face problems. But their correspondents in Iran give coverage to news and write reports in full freedom, given that we aim to provide them with the opportunity to reflect the truth about our country.” 2326/1412
: Tehran IRNA (Internet Version-WWW) in English — official state-run news agency
FYI — Iranian President’s News Conference (5); Q&A Session After Speech
Originally published on 4/4/2007 by Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN) in Persian
Tehran Islamic Republic of Iran News Network (IRINN) in Persian at 1310 GMT continues to carry live the news conference given by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad, which reverts to a question and answer session with domestic and foreign correspondents after the president’s opening statement ends (see referent item).
A Reuters correspondent asks when the British naval personnel would be released. Ahmadinezhad responds by saying they could leave for the airport right after this news conference.
An Iranian correspondent urges the president to stop foreign reporters who insult Iranians from coming to Iran, and criticizes CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour.
A US correspondent then welcomes the president’s pardon on the occasions of Easter and Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, and asks a “diplomatic question” as she put it. She asks about a bridge to build ties with the US. Ahmadinezhad says Iran was willing to build friendly ties with all countries of the world, apart from Israel because Iran did not believe that Israel was a legitimate country. He says it was the US which severed its relations with Iran and that no freedom-loving nation would accept such US behaviour. Ahmadinezhad says if Mr Bush and his administration reformed their policies Iran would also review its ties with the US.
An Iranian newspaper reporter then asks a question about fuel consumption. Ahmadinezhad responds by saying the cabinet was dealing with such measures.
Moreover, Ahmadinezhad rejects the idea that a secret “deal” had been done for the release of the British sailors. Ahmadinezhad says the release of the British sailors was “a gift from the Iranian nation.”
Ahmadinezhad then says the only way out of the current nuclear problem was for the big powers to stop issuing resolutions and return to the rule of law, respect the law and accept the right of Iran to develop its peaceful nuclear energy.
Answering a question by an Al-Jazirah TV correspondent, Ahmadinezhad said that a senior Iranian nuclear official, Gholamreza Aqazadeh, would soon announce “good news” on the country’s nuclear issue.
The BBC’s Frances Harrison then asks about “the change of heart on the part of the Iranian government” reagrding the release of the British marines.
Ahmadinezhad says his nation wishes peace and security for the entire world, devoid of aggression and bullying. Ahmadinezhad says Iran wishes such “aggressions” would stop.
Answering a question by an Independent newspaper correspondent, on whether Iran believed that Britain and the US were supporting “attacks” inside Iran, Ahmadinezhad says there were many cases of British and US involvement in anti-Iranian activities. He says Iran had told Britain about some of these cases. Ahmadinezhad adds on the nuclear issue, both Britain and the US are working together.
A Japanese correspondent asks if Ahmadinezhad was going to visit Japan in the near future, to which the president says Iran is willing to expand its relations with Japan.
An ISNA correspondent then asks about Iran’s foreign policy; Ahmadinezhad says Iran gives priority to its ties with neighboring countries.
Answering a question by a British ITN correspondent, Ahmadinezhad says the British government sent a letter promising that such acts would not be repeated. Ahmadinezhad says Iran invites all countries of the world to come to the path of religion, peace, kindness and love.
Finally, an Italian correspondent asks if relations with Europe were going to improve. Ahmadinezhad responds by saying the big powers must understand that bullying tactics cannot work and if they reformed their policies toward Iran, his nation would also develop its ties with them.
The president’s news conference ends at 1400 GMT.
OSC London Bureau will advise on processing plans.
: Tehran Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN) in Persian — State-run 24-hour news channel in Persian, Arabic and English; presenting up to the minute domestic and international news. It offers exclusive interviews on a variety of topics, as well as information on universities, labor, and economic developments from the capital and the provinces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.