My father-in-law was a highly decorated corpsman in WW 2 - D Day plus 4 I believe - silver star, two bronze stars, two purple hearts and theatre ribbons. You would hope the president of the United States could pronounce 'corpsman' but then I guess Obama can blame it all on GW who had trouble tripping over words as well. God help us!
Someone close to this matter and me warned several months ago Toyota had, more or less, not been forthcoming with safety evidence and now it is coming out in the public arena. Toyota will provide the American Bar with enough law suits to carry them through the next 5 years.(See 1 and 1a below.)
I have suggested that we would soon be facing the backside of the hurricane as we moved out of the 'eye.' Last week was probably the beginning and today is a continuance. I still see lower markets in the weeks ahead because:
a) The U.S. budget is out of control.
b) Voters have begun to sense that Obama, in fact, does not measure up to the challenge.
c) I further believe investors are beginning to sniff that a Middle East confrontation could be looming ahead.
d) Corporate profits should begin easier comparisons but far too many companies are not showing top line growth which suggests consumer demand is just not there and may not be for quite some time.
e) The rally had extended beyond what investors, earnings and backdrop news could support.
f) Would not be surprised if this reaction eventually settles around 9000 on the Dow and even somewhat lower.
g) Cash remains king for the moment. (See 1b below.)
Syria misinterprets Israel. (See 2 and 2a below.)
C'mon China co-operate even though you own us. Russia does not own us but they took Obama's measure and don't fear him either. Leverage goes poof with our indebtedness.(See 3 below.)
IDC Herzliya is the best private University in Israel and each year they hold a conference that brings prominent people from all walks of life to the campus. This is what Netanyahu had to say. (See 4 below.)
Amazing how a rogue nation regains the spotlight. What does this say about Western leadership? (See 5 below.)
Obama should have been a prize fighter considering how many fights he has started.
According to Obama he is just a garden variety politician.(See6 and 6a below.)
An insulting budget? A revolting development. Obama spends money faster than David Copperfield makes people disappear. All in a days work.(See 7 below.)
"How to Tame the Deficit" - Jeffrey Sachs, Time Magazine. Too long to priint but Sachs is a bright person.
Dick
1)By Ken Bensinger and Ralph Vetabedian
Fen. 4, 2010
As Toyota scrambles to contain its sudden acceleration crisis, another potential blow to the automaker's credibility is lurking in the form of a former staff attorney who is accusing the Japanese automaker of concealing safety issues from the public.
Dimitrios Biller of Pacific Palisades, Calif., who defended Toyota in product-liability cases until 2008, alleges in a federal lawsuit that the automaker has a long history of hiding and destroying evidence as part of a strategy orchestrated from company headquarters in Toyota City, Japan.
Toyota and its ex-employee have been involved in a tangle of litigation in state and federal courts for months, centered on 6,000 internal documents obtained by Biller. He said the documents show a pattern of illegal behavior in which Toyota fraudulently withheld evidence in product-liability claims.
At Toyota's urging, the documents have been kept confidential by court order since last summer. But now a California arbitrator is considering whether they can be made public. Attorneys for Toyota and Biller made their final filings in the matter last week, and a decision is expected soon.
If the arbitrator rules in Biller's favor, a legion of plaintiff's attorneys is waiting to reopen long-closed cases against Toyota.
Although the allegations don't directly concern Toyota's growing sudden-acceleration headache, the Biller case is another assault on the automaker's credibility, which has taken a hit in the current crisis.
"Toyota is a very secretive corporation," Biller, 47, said in an interview. "It doesn't believe anybody outside the corporation deserves to know what is going on inside, even if it kills somebody."
Toyota denies Biller's allegations and contends that any attempts on his part to reveal documents would be a violation of a $3.9-million severance agreement he signed with the company.
"Mr. Biller is legally bound not to reveal documentation he acquired when he was in our employ," said Celeste Migliore, a Toyota spokeswoman.
But attorneys who have been involved in litigation with Toyota are watching every move.
"If this is as widespread as suggested (by Biller), then you're going to have lawyers all over the country wondering what was hidden from them in their cases and deciding what that means for their clients," said Jeff Embry, a Tyler, Texas, attorney working on a Toyota rollover case.
Biller first came to Toyota in 2003 after years working at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw & Pittman handling product-liability cases for Ford, maritime law and class actions. Brought on to manage Toyota's defense of rollover and crushed-roof lawsuits, he took multiple cases to trial, reversing a corporate strategy to settle such cases.
According to Biller, he began noticing problems after two years with the automaker. When preparing to litigate a rollover case, he said he visited various Toyota offices and discovered troves of documents that hadn't been provided to him.
"I was distraught because I knew there probably was stuff in there that the company did not produce," said Biller.
Normally companies gather all relevant documentation, including e-mails, engineering documents, memos and regulatory filings, in anticipation that plaintiff's attorneys may request them as part of the legal discovery process.
"Lawyers have obligations to their clients and to the court," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who specializes in product-liability issues. "Right now, people are wondering what the company knew and when they knew it."
According to Biller, he uncovered a conspiracy to keep potentially damaging internal information such as vehicle test reports away from outside attorneys in as many as 300 cases.
"Toyota does not believe it has to follow orders or turn over documents," Biller said. "They just don't think the rules apply to them."
Frustrated by what he described as resistance from his supervisors to resolve the matter, Biller left the automaker in June 2007 and signed a severance agreement in August of that year.
He acknowledges that he has been in treatment for mental health issues since late 2005, which he attributes to the stress he was placed under by Toyota.
"I never saw a shrink in my life before working for Toyota," he said.
1a)The war on Toyota: The United States is turning Toyota’s recall into a massive national industrial advantage
By Terence Corcoran
There can be little doubt that Toyota, the world’s greatest automaker in recent years, has become the victim of much more than another typical out-of-control All-American media frenzy. When top-line political gamesman such as U.S. Transport Secretary Ray LaHood, Congressional pit bull Henry Waxman, and conniving United Auto Workers executives start piling on, this is clearly much bigger sport that the usual ritual public lynching of auto executives, a routine occurrence in Washington. The attack on Toyota, at this time of U.S. economic weakness and populist excess, is fast turning into a great American nationalist assault on a foreign corporation, an economic war.
The White House has denied any such motivation on the part of the United States. But that denial lacks credibility. While it may be technically true that President Obama’s team didn’t explicitly reach a decision to target Toyota, nobody in this crowd needs a presidential order to turn the Japanese auto giant’s Sudden Unintended Acceleration (SUA) problem into a national industrial advantage for the United States. The owners of union-dominated Government Motors can spot a strategic economic opportunity without waiting for the memo from head office.
California Congressman Henry Waxman swung into action, using recent anecdotal reports of sudden acceleration as a pretext for extended assaults on Toyota and its management. The UAW has joined the project as part of its campaign against Toyota’s closure of a unionized California plant.
Yesterday you could practically see the calculating wheels spinning under the hood of Mr. LaHood’s cranium when the transportation secretary told a committee that Toyota owners should simply “stop driving” their Toyotas. He later claimed to have misspoken, but then said much the same thing. If Toyota drivers are worried, they can take their vehicles to a dealer where, as Mr. LaHood knows, there was nothing the dealer could do since it is expected to take weeks if not months for Toyota to “fix” the alleged cause of Toyota’s alleged sudden acceleration problem.
Toyota shares continued their SUA plunge yesterday, ending just below $74, down from recent highs of $92. The company has lost $23-billion in market capitalization since the crisis began.
At this stage, there is little hard data on whether Toyota actually has a sudden acceleration problem. The company is not helping matters with its apparent scrambling to come up with an explanation and a “fix” for a phenomenon that has been cropping up in auto industry lore for decades. No maker is immune, but Toyota seems to have been caught in the latest run of reports. All of the reports are anecdotal accounts of out-of-control vehicles for reasons that nobody can ever adequately explain. The latest stories, including one of a Tennessee man who says his 2003 Camry suddenly jolted into a parking space, become instant media legends.
Of the millions of cars on the road, only a few hundred anecdotal reports exist, making it far more likely that other things are happening, including driver mistakes and even fluke occurrences that no amount of corporate fixing can avoid. Usually the stories fade and the auto companies move on, although Audi famously became victim of a SUA craze a couple of decades ago, losing massive market share even though no problem was ever identified beyond driver error.
Toyota’s experience looks like it could become even worse that Audi’s, mainly because bashing Toyota serves the national economic interest of the United States, U.S. auto makers, union leaders and others whose economic ideas tend toward nationalism. U.S. jobs for U.S. workers employed by U.S. companies.
Is the media involved? The extent of exaggeration surrounding Toyota’s problem may be just a little larger than the usual media frenzy. In a typical over-the-top anti-Toyota item, famed author James B. Stewart yesterday told Wall Street Journal readers to “avoid — or sell — Toyota Motor shares.” His reason is that Toyota may have misrepresented the cause of a now notorious crash of a Toyota Lexus ES-350 in San Diego last August. Toyota said the Lexus crash, in which four occupants were killed following a frantic 911 call, was due to a faulty floor mat.
The official accident report by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration makes clear that the floor mat is the likely culprit and Toyota may not quite be responsible. The mat in the Lexus was “not secured” properly, and it was also the wrong mat for that Lexus model. There also appeared to be no notable issues with the accelerator pedal itself. (See excerpt of the report below).
Another newspaper treatment of the Lexus event, in The New York Times, also treated the San Diego crash as a function of a Toyota acceleration problem that has more causes than a poorly maintained and wrongly installed floor mat. So far, however, nobody has proven this to be true. Even less clear is how the fix Toyota has announced — involving a new part for the accelerator pedel — is even related to the problem. Was Toyota panicked into doing something — anything — when faced with a looming full-bore economic attack from the United States Economic Marines, with the media imbedded as part of the crusade?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report on the crash and site inspection of a Toyota Lexus on Aug. 28, 2009, near San Diego, California.
Report: Vehicle and Crash Site Inspection of 2009 Lexus ES-350, VINJTHBJ46G792282025
From: Bill Collins, Investigator and Interviewer, Engineer, Vehicle Research and Test Center
Date of Inspection: 09/03/2009
Vehicle condition at time of inspection: Catastrophic damage caused by severe frontal impact, roof impact, side impact, & fire damage. The driver’s seat buckle was observed in a closed, connection condition.
Narrative: All four occupants were killed at 6:38PM on August 28th, 2009 at the T-intersection of Highway 125 and Mission Gorge Road in Santee, California. The vehicle was a loaned Lexus ES-350 traveling at a very high rate of speed that failed to stop at the end of Highway 125...
Cause of crash: Very excessive speed. According to the 911 call made by the brother-in-law sitting in the back seat of the Lexus, the accelerator pedal was depressed in a full power condition and attempts by the driver to release the pedal were unsuccessful.
Other significant factors:
Accelerator Pedal — The pedal is made from a composite plastic that forms a rigid, one-piece lever. Beyond the main pivot, the lever is not hinged and has no means for relieving forces caused by interferences. Upon removing the pedal from the vehicle, the rotating motion of the pedal assembly was confirmed to still be operational. The return spring action was smooth and unencumbered.
Upon inspection of the crashed vehicle, it was found that an all-weather floor mat bearing the Lexus insignia was present in the driver’s foot well vehicle with very minor fire damage. The mat was not secured by either of the two retaining clips. The right clip was installed into the grommet of the carpeting but not installed into the mat. The left clip was found under the middle of mat but was not clipped to either the carpet or the rubber mat. Removal of the mat was difficult because the bottom edge of the accelerator pedal had melted to the upper right corner of the mat. Further inspection of the mat revealed that while it was a Lexus brand mat, it was not the correct application for the vehicle ...
1b)Markets Fall Sharply Amid Fears on Debt and Jobs
By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ and JACK EWING
Just as America’s recession begins to ebb, trouble is brewing in Europe that may prolong a downturn on the Continent and ricochet through the global economy as it struggles toward a recovery.
A rout in stock markets that began in Europe spread to Wall Street on Thursday, amid fears that Europe may be the world’s next financial flashpoint. Pressure has been mounting across the Atlantic as Greece, Portugal and a handful of struggling countries that use the euro scramble to pay off mountains of debt accumulated from years of profligate spending.
The Dow Jones industrial average slid 2.61 percent, to 10,002.18 Thursday, after briefly falling below 10,000 for the first time since November, as American investors grew more uncertain about Europe’s economy. Stock markets across Europe slumped as much as 6 percent, and worries that the troubles might push even big European nations like Spain into a financial crisis drove the euro to $1.37, a seven-month low against the dollar.
“The question now is, how big is this fire going to be?” said Uri D. Landesman, head of global growth at ING. “What is panic, and what is legitimate? We don’t know at this point.”
Like the United States, Europe has been slow to exit recession. France, Germany and the Netherlands — the biggest of 16 countries that use the euro as their currency — have tried to put their financial houses back in order quickly. But countries on the fringe, including Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland, are having trouble paying for years of debt-driven expansion.
Now the bill is coming due. In the worst case, they could default on their debts sending investors fleeing and prolonging the economic downturn. While the tension simmering in Europe has gone largely unnoticed by most Americans, the mounting pressure on these countries to discipline their finances has raised questions about whether the historic currency union that has peacefully bound Europe’s economies for more than a decade risks unwinding.
Adding to the anxiety among investors Thursday was a bleaker-than-expected report on the United States labor market. Investors are watching unemployment closely as they try to gauge the strength of the recovery and determine whether it will be severely constrained by tepid consumer spending.
On Thursday, the eve of the release of the Labor Department’s monthly employment snapshot, the government said the number of people filing first-time claims for unemployment increased to 480,000 last week, above Wall Street’s estimates of
455,000. Analysts expect Friday’s employment report to show that the jobless rate remained at 10 percent in January, and that 15,000 jobs were created.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index plunged 3.11 percent on Thursday, to 1,063.11, and the Nasdaq composite index fell 2.99 percent, to 2,125.43.
How Europe decides to deal with its problems will shape its future political landscape — and the future of the euro itself.
Fearful investors have started asking whether France, Germany and other rich countries should be forced to bail out their poorer cousins, or simply allow them to default — an outcome that would have major repercussions for Europe and financial markets worldwide.
The crisis in these areas “is reaching new proportions and the contagion effect is getting more serious,” two Royal Bank of Scotland officials, Jacques Cailloux and Harvinder Sian, wrote in a note to investors.
The current troubles began in Greece, which qualified for membership in the euro club in 2001. But the government never curbed shortfalls in its budget when times were good, and drastically expanded employment by adding to government rolls, even as an inefficient tax collection system reduced tax receipts.
While investors initially brushed off these problems, their worries resurfaced in October when the government admitted it had again buffed up its statistics to suggest a bright fiscal picture. Now, Greece has admitted its budget deficit stands at nearly 13 percent of gross domestic product, while debt levels are among the highest in the European Union — well beyond what the rules of euro membership allow.
Greek officials are now trying to manage the country’s deficit by partially freezing the pay of civil servants and increasing the fuel tax.
The European Union endorsed those measures on Wednesday, but the proposals have met resistance from other quarters. Greek customs and tax officials began a 48-hour walkout on Thursday, choking the flow of imports, and there were threats of more strikes.
Meanwhile, the dispute has put Greece’s credit rating under renewed threat, and stoked worries that Greek government bonds might soon no longer be accepted as collateral by the European Central Bank.
The president of the bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, sought to temper the doubts about Greece on Thursday. He cautioned, however, that large deficits could be a problem for other euro-zone countries, unsettling investors.
“When you share a common currency,” Mr. Trichet warned, “the counterpart is that you have to behave properly.”
Nonetheless, Europe’s politicians, and global investors, have become deeply unsettled about other European countries with huge debt and deficits, including Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Investors have been demanding bigger premiums to hold the debt of these countries, and this week drove the cost of insuring their debt to new highs.
These worries deepened Thursday as Spain, saddled with 19 percent unemployment and huge debt from an American-style housing bust, downplayed fears of a budget deficit that has ballooned to 11.4 percent of its gross domestic product.
Portugal, whose deficits have also spooked investors, suddenly had trouble raising as much short-term credit as it wanted.
There have been whispers that Europe’s better-off neighbors — France, Germany, and the Netherlands among them — may come to the rescue with a bailout. If they do not, economists worry about the ripple effects of a default.
“There is a realization that the economy is still on very fragile footing globally,” said David Riedel, founder of Riedel Research, which provides market analysis. “There are definitely another couple of shoes to drop here with the European crisis.”
Amid the tumult in European markets, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England left their benchmark interest rates unchanged at record lows of 1 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively.
But in an illustration of the ragged nature of Europe’s recovery, the British central bank took steps to freeze measures to stimulate the economy. The bank, reacting to rising inflation and evidence that Britain has finally emerged from recession, announced that it would not extend its large purchases of government bonds.
In the United States, interest rates were lower. The Treasury’s benchmark 10-year note jumped 25/32, to 98 3/32 and the yield fell to 3.61 percent from 3.70 percent late Wednesday.
2)Syria is blowing off steam, not rattling sabers
By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel
It's hard to find a rational explanation for the recent escalation of the war of words between Damascus and Jerusalem, with the possible exception of ignorance and the absence of a communications channel between the parties. While at first glance it appears that the winds of war are blowing in Syria, the hot air stems mainly from a misinterpretation of comments by Defense Minister Ehud Barak to the effect that an Israeli failure to reach an agreement with Syria could lead to an all-out war in the region. Barak intended to voice support for talks with Syria, but Damascus interpreted it as an attempt to force it to agree to negotiations with no preconditions. That led to a pointless declaration from Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, warning Israel against drawing Syria into war, and an equally unnecessary counter-warning from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
But in the real world, international figures who have been to Syria recently believe that Damascus wants to reach an agreement with Israel - albeit one that restores all of the Golan Heights to it. Despite Lieberman's claims that Syria will not leave the "axis of evil" even after getting its territory back, there is near consensus in the Israeli intelligence community that Syria's link to Iran is a temporary, strategic alliance and not a permanent blood covenant.
But there is cause for concern regarding Israeli-Syrian relations. The leadership in Damascus does not trust its Jerusalem counterpart, and doubts the willingness of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and of Lieberman to agree to a historic compromise on the Golan. Syria has been burned in the past over negotiations that lasted years and bore no fruit. In addition, President Bashar Assad's government is more stable than ever, and its international status is steadily improving. At the same press conference in which he threatened Israel, Moallem announced that the United States had asked Damascus to approve its choice of ambassador to the country, Robert Ford. Perhaps encouraged by the Obama administration's impotence in the Middle East, the Syrians said they were considering the proposal.
Advertisement
In the absence of an American "stick," there is no obvious candidate for urging Syria to initiate unconditional talks with Israel.
Even Syria's bitter rivals in the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia and Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, son of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated in 2005, apparently on Syrian orders, recognize they must reconcile with Damascus for the sake of Lebanon's stability. Perhaps it is Syria's new, brighter situation that led Assad to declare that it will not stand idly by if Israel carries out another aerial assault on Syrian targets or if there is another mysterious assassination on Syrian soil.
2a)Iranian missile airlift stiffens Syrian war talk, tops up Hizballah, Hamas
Iranian and military sources report the war threats from Damascus this week were backed by massive Iranian airlifts for boosting Syria's missile arsenal. Fresh supplies also reached the Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas in Gaza. Wednesday, Feb. 3, Syrian president Bashar Assad accused Israel of seeking war, while his foreign minister Walid Moallem boasted: "You know that war at this time will come to your cities." They spoke after taking delivery of 100 new medium-range surface-to-surface missiles from Iran in January.
Moallem's threat was comprehensive: “….Syria calls on Israel to halt directing threats once against Gaza, another against South Lebanon, then Iran and now Syria.”
His message that all four extremist allies had formed a mutual defense pact against Israel raised temperatures to a dangerous level in the region. Syria will not stand by idly next time round if Israel goes to war against Iran's nuclear program or an aggressive Hizballah or Hamas, but go for Israel's cities.
This was public confirmation for the first time that on Dec. 17, Iranian defense minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi signed a secret military pact with his Syrian opposite number Gen. Ali Habib in Damascus, with Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah appending his signature later.
Within days, Iran began shipping missile supplies by air to Damascus, Syria stepped up the pace of its smuggled rocket supplies to Hizballah in South Lebanon and both pumped hardware to Hamas by serpentine routes.
Syrian leaders used the visit to Damascus of Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos as the stage for their heightened stridency. US Middle East envoy George Mitchell heard a similar harsh threatening tone against Israel when he called on Bashar Assad in Damascus on Jan. 20. Neither Washington nor Jerusalem were caught by surprise.
Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu commented nonchalantly that he does not understand what the Bashar Assad wants, confiding to his aides that his goal is to gain international goodwill before Israel decides to attack Iran. Next day, Feb. 4, hardline foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman was more outspoken: "Assad must be told bluntly," he said, "that in the next war, not only will Syria be beaten but he and his family will lose power. You will not remain in power, and neither will your family."
While his words were widely reported, the doves of the Labor party, the opposition Kadima and the left found his tone outrageous and called on the prime minister fire him.
3)U.S.: Nuclear Iran is not in China's best interest
A Nuclear Iran would not be in China's interest, the White House said on Thursday, adding that the United States expected continued Chinese cooperation in talks over Tehran's controversial nuclear program.
Asked about China's reported reluctance to impose further sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the United States expected China to work with it on the "next steps" on Iran.
"It was not in China's interests to have a nuclear Iran," he told a briefing.
Gibbs' comments came as tensions between Beijing and Washington had reached new heights over a reported massive U.S. arms deal with Taiwan, which China refuses to recognize as an independent state.
The new clash between two of the world's most powerful superpowers caused some in the international community to doubt whether the U.S. could sway permanent United Nations Security Council members Russia and China to take new steps against Iran.
Russia, France and the United States, the other parties to the plan under which Iran would swap potential atom bomb material for fuel for nuclear medicine.
Also on Thursday, Iran's envoy to the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said that the willingness of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to enrich uranium outside the country, as stipulated in the UN-drafted deal, was a signal of Tehran's wish to cooperate with the West.
Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told Reuters he had not notified the International Atomic Energy Agency of any new Iranian position on the IAEA-brokered proposal, stalled for months by disputes over where and how to carry it out.
Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday Iran was now prepared to send low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad before getting reactor fuel back. Before, Tehran insisted on small swaps on its own soil.
That would defeat the draft plan's purpose of reducing Iran's total LEU reserve below the quantity required to set off an atomic bomb, if it were refined to high purity.
"What my president said in fact shows that Iran has the political will to facilitate ... cooperation rather than confrontation, and now its up to the others to use this opportunity," Soltanieh said.
"His message is, in fact, a very positive, constructive message, testing the political and goodwill of others to shift gears from confrontation to cooperation."
Soltanieh said he had not conveyed Ahmadinejad's gesture to IAEA chief Yukiya Amano. Asked whether this would raise doubts whether Tehran had really shifted position, he said: "Please don't make a judgment." He declined to be specific.
Iran: Russia to deliver long-range aerial defense
The Iranian ambassador in Moscow said Thursday that Russia has assured Iran that it still intends to deliver long-range air-defense missiles.
Russian news agencies cite Seyyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi as saying on Thursday "our Russian colleagues have assured us that they will meet their obligations." A Kremlin spokesman declined to comment.
Russia signed a 2007 contract to sell the S-300 missile complex, but so far has not delivered. The delay has not been explained, but Israel and the United States strongly objected to Iran obtaining the missiles, which would significantly boost the country's defense capability.
The ambassador was quoted as saying Iran is ready to receive the weapons.
A top Russian arms trade official recently signaled the delivery may go ahead.
The statement by the Iranian envoy came after Iran accused the United States Tuesday of launching a "psychological war" in the Gulf region by presenting Tehran as a threat to Gulf Arab states to convince them they needed U.S. protection.
On Sunday U.S. officials said the United States had expanded land-and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf - a waterway crucial for global oil supplies - to counter what it sees as Iran's growing missile threat.
The U.S. deployments include expanded land-based Patriot defensive missile installations in Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
"They don't want to see good and growing relations between Iran and its neighbors in the Persian Gulf and thus started a psychological war," Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, was quoted as saying on semi-official news agency ILNA.
Iran's top military official also played down the threat to the Islamic republic from Patriot missiles. "It is not new for us ... we were informed when they were installed, including about their exact locations ... Patriot missile could be easily deactivated by using simple tactics."
A foreign ministry official said earlier this week Washington was trying to stoke "Iran phobia" in the Middle East and said Tehran enjoyed friendly ties with neighboring states .
3a) Iran: Moscow gave missile reassurance
"Our Russian colleagues have assured us they'll meet their obligations," says Iranian envoy.
Russia has assured Iran that it still intends to deliver long-range air-defense missiles, the Iranian ambassador in Moscow said Thursday.
Russian news agencies cited Seyyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi as saying, "Our Russian colleagues have assured us that they will meet their obligations." A Kremlin spokesman declined to comment.
Russia signed a 2007 contract to sell the S-300 missile complex, but so far has not delivered.
The delay has not been explained, but Israel and the United States strongly objected to Iran obtaining the missiles, which would significantly boost the country's defense capability.
The ambassador was quoted as saying Iran is ready to receive the weapons.
A top Russian arms trade official recently
4)PM Netanyahu's Speech at the Herzliya Conference
Thank you Professor Reichman, for that introduction. You are a visionary
and practical man. You established an amazing organization. When Ron
Lauder told me about your plans, he told me to wait and see how you would
mobilize to create a national and international forum every year that would
shape patterns of thinking and refresh them. My friend Uzi Arad joined you
and worked alongside you to help do this, and our friend Professor
Rubenstein is doing so now. I think you have proven over the years that one
can think better and dream realistically. That is actually what Herzl was
saying in that quote you just mentioned.
We share a common dream - to reach peace with our neighbors. There is good
reason for me to hope, realistically, that in the next several weeks we will
renew the peace process with the Palestinians without any preconditions.
For some time, I have said that the international community has learned to
recognize that Israel wants and is ready to renew the peace process. Since
the moment that recognition was internalized, central players in the
international arena have begun to accept the practical feasibility of such a
step.
There is a saying: it takes two to tango. In the Middle East, sometimes it
takes three to tango, or at least to start to tango. Later, I suppose, we
will be able to continue on as two.
I hope there is a willingness on the Palestinian side - not only to build up
the Palestinian economy and Palestinian institutions, but to begin to build
the peace itself. The only way to achieve a peace agreement is to begin
conducting negotiations towards a peace agreement. If this willingness
really does exist now, we will see a renewal of the process in the next
several weeks.
I know that one of my predecessors, Ariel Sharon, spoke from this podium
about disengagement. Today I would like to speak not of disengagement, but
rather of engagement: engagement with our heritage, with Zionism, with our
past and with our future here in the land of our forefathers, which is also
the land of our children and our grandchildren.
You are dealing with our people's fate because it is clear today that the
fate of the Jewish people is the fate of the Jewish state. There is no
demographic or practical existence for the Jewish people without a Jewish
state. This doesn't mean that the Jewish state does not face tremendous
challenges, but our existence, our future, is here. The greatest change
that came with the establishment of the Jewish state was that Jews became
more than just a collection of individuals, communities and fragments of
communities. They became a sovereign collective in their own territory.
Our ability as a collective to determine our own destiny is what grants us
the tools to shape our future - no longer as a ruled people, defeated and
persecuted, but as a proud people with a magnificent country and one which
always aspires to serve as "a light unto the nations."
In order to continue ruling our own destiny, we must establish our
collective ability in three main fields - in security, the economy and
education. I do not intend to expand on the security field today, other
than to say that we must continue nurturing and strengthening our military
force. The weak do not survive in the geographically difficult space we
live in, nor is peace made with the weak. The State of Israel is strong and
can guarantee both our existence and peace with our neighbors. However, I
want to be clear: our security needs can and will increase over the next
decade, and even over the next two decades.
We are entering another world, one in which the aggressor has certain
advantages. He can launch projectiles - not even missiles, just pieces of
metal with a primitive engine, fuel and explosives - and for us to strike
down this flying ball of metal, we have to make a huge investment.
Sometimes, under such conditions, the aggressor has an advantage and we must
work hard in order to negate that advantage. It is in our power to do so,
but it will cost a great deal.
Security demands a strong economy. A strong economy provides strong
security. Without a strong economy, we cannot meet the State of Israel's
security needs in the next decade, or our education needs, or our health
needs or our need to fight crime and drugs and the plague of alcohol. All
this demands money. Where will the money come from? It will only come from
economic growth. There is no other source to fund these needs, and it will
take billions.
Increased taxation is not the solution: it will only shrink our tax
revenues. There is no better way than growing our GNP by 4% or 5% per annum
over many years, as we experienced over the past decade. There is no better
way to finance our security needs.
Can an economy that approaches a per capita income of $30,000 continue to
grow year after year at the rate of 5% per annum? I believe it can. The
way to ensure this is to constantly free up the economy. As long as there
are limitations and competition in the economy, as long as our taxation
levels are not the lowest or among the lowest in the world, we will have
engines for growth. By freeing up the economy and reducing our tax rates,
we are constantly growing and will receive tax revenues that will allow us
to finance our existential needs, as well as our future ones.
In the coming weeks, we will present the government with a number of
initiatives. First: a national transportation plan that will connect the
entire country through a network of trains and roads and help people be
mobile. Second: a revolutionary reform in planning and construction that
will allow entrepreneurs to build in the north, the south, the center of the
country, here in Herzliya - everywhere. It will no longer take years; it
may take months. Plans won't have to go through clerks or nerve-wracking
procedures; a great proportion of the process will be done on the internet.
Then the approvals will arrive, some automatically, and one just needs to
report them.
We have already begun the planning and construction reform, the national
transportation network and the freeing up of land, and have laid the
groundwork to them. All these plans encourage growth, as will other plans I
will detail in the next year. Strengthening the economy is an integral part
of these plans. I want to clarify that the State of Israel is already
considered a regional economic powerhouse, and in my vision, we will
establish and fortify our position as a global technological powerhouse.
This is a necessary condition, but it is not enough, because a strong army
and a strong economy are not enough of a guarantee for our existence here if
we are not committed to being here from the outset. This, distinguished
guests, can only be created through one thing - through education.
Education is the melting pot in which our national strength is forged. It
has two parts: acquiring the tools and knowledge to deepen our children's
capabilities; and excellence - getting the most from each child and giving
him the ability to learn math, to learn English, to learn computers, to
learn science, to know how to compose a sentence, to put words together,
express himself. All these abilities are essential, and they are what the
Minister of Education is working so hard for. I spoke about this with Dov
Lautman many times, as well as with many others. This is a central issue,
but it is not the main thrust of my comments here tonight.
Tonight, I refer to something even more basic. I am talking about educating
children about the values connected to our identity and heritage, teaching
children to know our people's history, educating young people and adults to
deepen our ties to one another and to this place.
I believe that this education starts, first and foremost, in the Book of
Books - in the Bible - a subject that is close to my heart these days. It
starts there. It moves through the history of our people: the Second
Temple, the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, leaving the ghettos, the rise of
Zionism, the modern era, the wars fought for Israel's existence - the
history of Zionism and of Israel. A people must know its past in order to
ensure its future.
There is a well-known story about Napoleon. One day, he passed by a
synagogue on Tisha B'Av and he heard the weeping of the worshippers. He
asked what they were crying about, and the Jews told him: "We are weeping
because our Temple was destroyed." He asked: "How can it be that I heard
nothing about this?" He liked knowing what was going on. He wasn't really
interested, but he would have received a report. So the worshippers told
him: "Sir, it happened more than 1,700 years ago." And he told them: "A
people capable of remembering its past so clearly has a guaranteed future."
But the opposite is also true. Yigal Alon said so. He said that a people
that doesn't remember its past, its present is uncertain and its future is
unclear.
In other words, our existence depends not only on a weapons system, our
military strength, the strength of our economy, our innovation, our exports,
or on all these forces that are indeed essential. It depends, first and
foremost, on the knowledge and national sentiment we as parents bestow on
our children, and as a state to its education system. It depends on our
culture; it depends on our cultural heroes; it depends on our ability to
explain the justness of our path and demonstrate our affinity for our land -
first to ourselves and then to others.
We must remind ourselves that if our feeling of serving a higher purpose
dissipates, if our sources of spiritual strength grow weak, then - as Yigal
Alon said - our future will also be unclear. It will happen if our young
generation is not committed to our people and our country; if they do not
love the pioneering spirit, if they do not travel our country, if they do
not want to mobilize and sacrifice - then our future is truly unclear.
Every year at this Conference, we exchange thoughts and ideas about our
vision, and we are accustomed to aspiring to obtain all the "luxuries". We
want economic abundance and social justice and cultural richness and a
groundbreaking spirit of excellence in the sciences, in medicine, in
technology, in the business sector. But this culture, the culture of
opulence - we have in great measure achieved it. But alongside this is a
great challenge of which I would like to speak today.
That challenge is to not get carried away by the illusion that we - each and
every one of us - is allowed to become preoccupied solely with
self-development. There are a great many talented young people here, and
they are being taught to think, quite justifiably, that they are
cosmopolitans. But they cannot be just cosmopolitans. A great many of them
are taught in surroundings of cultural shallowness, of diluted knowledge and
spirituality - and this dilutes and weakens the national strength we have
spoken of here today. We have guests here from overseas. I know you know
that this problem is not unique to Israel. It affects many other peoples and
nations. But nowhere is it more critical than in the State of Israel,
because no other country faces the challenges and the threats that we face.
Therefore, we must find the balance between integrating into the world at
large and maintaining our identity and our uniqueness.
I travel the country and I meet students who have chosen to leave their
comfortable urban lives. Like the pioneers of our past, they establish
communities in the Negev and the Galilee. They are part of all sorts of
very exciting projects and initiatives. I meet teenagers who, right before
they begin their military service, decide to contribute an extra year of
their lives to assist underprivileged communities or to strengthen youth
movements. We are going to expand this program so that it will include all
sectors of Israeli society and allow everyone - from the ultra-orthodox
public to the Arab public - to contribute to their communities. I see
wonderful, even exciting, young people in the pre-army preparation
academies. They are caring and sensitive, wrestling with the question, "how
can we be Zionists in 2010?" But I honestly must tell you that this is a
very small group of young people, and we must - we simply must - get a much
broader group of young people interested in our Zionist heritage and
continually encourage them to identify with the people of Israel and the
Land of Israel. I want to tell you that the simplest and most original way
of doing so is to connect these young people to our homeland through their
feet - through becoming familiar with the country, travelling the country.
But it is not certain that if one travels the country, one becomes attached
to our heritage.
Several months ago, I visited the Lachish Region. I saw a large mound. In
this case, the mound was one of the few I had not already seen during my
army service. I told the motorcade to turn around. We made a u-turn, and
they said to me: "Mr. Prime Minister, you cannot climb that hill. We didn't
make security arrangements there." I answered: "But there's no problem.
You know why? Because there's no one here!" It was Tel Lachish, one of the
most dramatic places in the history of the Jewish people. Carvings of it
were found in Iraq and this mound was subject to the siege of Lachish that
is described in the Bible - and there was no one there. After some time, a
group of Russian tour guides arrived. I was there for almost an hour, and
not one veteran Israeli came.
Several years before that I was a chaperone on a trip for one of my
children, on the way to the Atlit detention camp at night. At night, they
do field exercises on the path to the detention camp. We were on a gravel
path along the shoreline, and suddenly I saw a house, a structure, near the
water. I left the group and walked over there, and I saw a house - a single
structure, a single room near the water - about to crumble. I asked what it
was. I was told: "That is the house where Aaron Aaronson and the NILI
underground signaled the British." I always thought they signaled them from
the Carmel, but clearly they couldn't because the Turks would have seen the
signals from the shore. However, from the water line they could signal to
them and they did. This is a part of our magnificent history, without which
we would never have freed our country. It helped the British take control
and free the Land of Israel. It opened up the way to Zionism.
Here are examples from both our ancient and our recent past, two sites that
one would simply pass by, not see, not know about. No one visits them. We
are going to change that. At the end of next month, on Tel Hai Day, I
intend to present the government with a work plan that will reverse the
neglect of heritage sites. We initiated a national plan to rehabilitate and
strengthen infrastructure at heritage sites. I call it the "Heritage Plan."
We are going to preserve tourist sites, archaeological sites, historic
buildings and museums. We will also preserve less physical and tangible
infrastructure, such as archives, photographs, films, books, songs and
music. We will make all these available to the general public. We will
utilize new technologies and free up these works so that they are accessible
to every boy and girl in Israel, every house, every family, every citizen.
I want you to think about a family outing with your children or
grandchildren at one of these sites. I am not telling you not to go to the
movies or to a bar. That's alright; you can do those things, but add in
this layer and understand the deeper meaning behind it. I speak from
experience. Think about a father and son visiting a Jewish historic site,
about the profound significance of transmitting the legacy exactly as
commanded in the Bible: "And tell your son." The plan of which I speak will
be financed with government funds and will be spread out over five years.
It will encompass a broad range of activities, projects, organizations,
authorities and the education and information system - and it is only the
first stage. Our commitment is to breathing new life into the Israeli
experience. I am talking about rehabilitating those same assets that tell
the story of the people of Israel and the Land of Israel; the story of the
Jewish settlement; our artistic assets; our nostalgic spirit and memory. A
significant portion of those assets are being destroyed or disappearing, and
we will take them and preserve them, and fortify them and we will explain
them in a way that is accessible to an audience, in simple and clear
language. And all this will be integrated into the education system that
serves the children of Israel.
We recently learned in a study that the teenagers who are highly motivated
to serve in the military are those who have travelled the country
extensively. The example I like to give, which is a highly successful one,
is the Israel Trail. It has been a tremendous success. Within a decade,
the project's founders have succeeded in transforming this trail into a
desirable destination, one that attracts a huge number of young people and
not-so-young people. By travelling the Trail, they become familiar with the
country and connect to it. According to the plan I will present to the
government, we will, within five years, inaugurate two additional trails
alongside the Israel Trail. One is the historic Land of Israel trail, which
will connect between dozens of ancient archaeological sites. Within our
tiny piece of land, there are 30,000 ancient sites, 800 of which have clear
national importance. Sadly, only 50 of those sites are open to the public,
and even they are not in great shape. That is going to change on a huge
scale. The second trail will be the "Israel Experience" trail. This trail
will include the treasures of our country, and will serve as a living Land
of Israel museum. It will connect between dozens of stops celebrating the
history of the Jewish Yishuv [the Jewish population before the establishment
of the State of Israel]. It will include historic buildings, settlement
sites, small museums, memorial sites and personal stories - all of which are
part of our Zionist heritage.
I know people will ask: "This is the topic you chose to speak of here, at a
discussion about our national strength?" My answer is yes. Sometimes small
steps lead to great things. I want to give you an example of two steps
similar to what I have just described that changed our people's history. I
was recently in London. I visited the basement of the Palestine Exploration
Fund. It was established in 1860 by Queen Victoria in order to map and
scientifically explore the Land of Israel. Queen Victoria sent two men
here. One was named Claude R. Conder, who was the head of the expedition.
The second was a 21-year-old second lieutenant named Kitchener, who would in
time become the 1st Earl Kitchener. Together, they began to map the
country, including this place. They made wonderful, accurate topographical
maps, and found all the ancient places and reinstated their names. They
came armed with all the most advanced measuring tools of the 19th century
and with the Bible. The PEF is responsible for some of what we now know.
For example, they brought Warren here, and he found Warren's Shaft and many
other ancient sites in Jerusalem and across the Land of Israel.
This fired up the imaginations of the both the aristocracy and common people
in Britain. You have no idea what an effect it had. It made them think
that perhaps the Land of Israel wasn't an abstract place. This land is
concrete, and maybe it could be revived, be brought back to life, if the
original people who lived there could return to it. That started people
talking. It took several decades to happen.
The second project, also a modest project, was one that fired the
imaginations of young Jews. It was Baron Rothschild's project. He
established villages at several sites after the PEF had been here, from Rosh
Pina to Petah Tikva. These new communities revived the ancient land though
not on a huge scale; there were only several thousand people living there.
However, this action ignited a blaze. One of the people who was carried
away by this blaze was a young Jew who came here in 1898 - Benjamin Zeev
Herzl. He visited, using - by the way - the PEF maps. He visited all these
places and understood what was here, and much more. He dared to dream about
what could be. These two blazes are what ignited the greatest empire to
rule the world and the new prophet of the Jewish people and many other young
Jews - these two blazes merged together and became Zionism.
I won't tell you that we don't have tremendous tasks to undertake in all the
important fields. We do have them, and we will undertake them. But we will
do so only if we are committed to our past in order to ensure our future.
Therefore, in light of the plans I laid out today, I hope you will invite me
back here in five more years; invite Tzvi Hauser - he is in charge of
implementing all this. Our purpose today is to reignite the flame, to
introduce a new spirit into the blaze of our lives and reconnect with this
land - our land - the unique and singular Land of Israel.
Thank you.
5)Syria Regains Pivotal Regional, Int'l Role – The Triumph of the 'Course of Resistance'
By: N. Mozes
In a December 29, 2009 speech to the Syrian parliament, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem summed up the achievements of his country's political policy in 2009 by saying, "For Syria, 2009 was a year of political success in every sense of the term, and on all fronts..."[1] Indeed, the past year has seen a significant improvement in Syria's regional and international standing; it managed to extricate itself from its isolation internationally and in the Arab world, and to position itself as an influential regional force. By the end of 2009, the Syrian regime had become self-confident and certain of the effectiveness of its "path of resistance" policy, and was challenging the regional order and the world order and acting powerfully to change both.
The following is a review of Syria's current world view and policy, as reflected in statements by Syrian officials and articles in the Syrian government press.
Syria – From Isolation to Key Player in the International Arena
Until 2008, President Bashar Al-Assad's Syria seemed to be a pariah state. Syria had been isolated by the West and by some of the Arab countries, and was under international pressure that spiked following the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri; in the wake of the assassination, it was forced to withdraw its military from Lebanon.
The aggressive anti-Syria line was led by the Bush administration, which saw Syria as part of an "axis of evil" together with Iran and North Korea, and accused it of involvement in terrorism in Iraq. In 2004, the U.S. intensified its anti-Syrian sanctions, and worked in the U.N. Security Council for the passage of Resolution 1559 calling for Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. In October 2008, the U.S. even bombed insurgents on Syrian territory who were suspected of operating from there against Iraq.
The assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri was a watershed in Syria's relationship with many countries in the West and in the Arab world, particularly France and Saudi Arabia, who had until then been its close allies. This change was evidently due to the close relationship that Al-Hariri had maintained with then-French president Jacques Chirac, and with the Saudi royal family. Evidence of the severing of relations and of the anger that the assassination evoked in Chirac was clear in an interview he gave in 2007 to the French daily Le Monde. He said: "There were times I used to speak with Bashar Al-Assad. I used to talk with his father [Hafez Al-Assad]. But to be honest, [Bashar and I] do not talk any more. It is he who caused [this halt to the dialogue]. I realized that there was no point [in dialogue]. It is hard to reconcile Bashar Al-Assad's regime with security and peace."[2]
In the Arab world, it was Saudi Arabia and Egypt that led the aggressive line against Syria, and there were even reports that it was they who were behind the establishment of the international tribunal to investigate the assassination.
Syria Tightens Its Alliances with Anti-Western Forces
Syria, for its part, grew closer to elements that were, and still largely are, considered to be internationally isolated – Iran and Venezuela.
Iran
Syria has maintained very close relations with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, even though the former country is ruled by the secular Ba'th party and the latter is a theocracy. In certain instances, Syria's relations with Iran have taken precedence over its relations with other Arab countries, as happened during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
Since Bashar Al-Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed leadership, there has been increased closeness between the two countries, as expressed by the signing of a joint defense agreement in December 2009, and by the agreement to drop the visa requirement between them. The two presidents have similar views on many issues, such as resistance to what they call "the forces of hegemony," that is, the U.S. and Britain; viewing the current situation a victory for the resistance and a defeat for the "forces of hegemony"; and a vision of a new regional and world order and of their own prominent roles in them.
Evidence of this can be found in the words of Bashar Al-Assad on the eve of his January 13, 2010 visit to Saudi Arabia, when he called Syria-Iran relations "strategic and ideological" and said that Syria and Iran saw eye to eye on all issues.[3] The two leaders even use the same terminology, as reflected in their statements during Ahmadinejad's May 2009 visit to Damascus. In addition, Syria advocates for Iran among the Arab countries, with the aim of reducing Arab fears regarding the Iranian regime and bringing them to see it as their ally.[4]
Venezuela
Syria-Venezuela relations became closer after Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998. As part of his anti-American policy, Chavez tightened relations with countries such as Syria and Iran. In 2006, at the height of Syria's isolation, Chavez paid an historic visit to Syria, during which both he and Bashar Al-Assad stressed their resistance to American imperialism.[5]
Nasser Qandil, a former Lebanese MP who is close to the Syrian regime, explained in his column in the Syrian government daily Teshreen the essence of the alliance between Assad, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez. He said it was like "a declaration of a new world [alliance] awaited and needed by all humanity, [one] that declares that the peoples are again managing their own affairs and that resistance is not just a romantic slogan but also a living fact..."[6]
The Armed Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine
In the recent years, Syria stepped up its support of Hamas and Hizbullah, as representatives of the resistance in Palestine and in Lebanon respectively. It also continued its mostly covert support of the insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.[7]
France, U.S. Turn Towards Syria
This strategy won Syria much support in the Arab street, but brought it into an almost unprecedented conflict – to the brink of a cold war[8] – with many Arab regimes, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as with the U.S. Even though this policy led to its isolation by some Arab regimes and by the West, and seemed to place the Syrian regime in danger of collapse, it has as of late 2009 proven to be wise. In contrast to the Bush administration and to Chirac's government, which saw Syria as an obstacle and as posing a risk to their attainment of their goals in the Middle East, the governments of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and of U.S. President Barack Obama, and, following them, also the Saudi regime, see Syria as a means for achieving broader goals, and they are attempting to get it on their side. With Syria stubbornly clinging to its positions, these governments are moving away from the policies of their predecessors and are abandoning the approach of clashing with Syria and isolating it. Instead, they have begun treating it as a key regional country capable of mediating between the West and Iran and of influencing the level of violence in the Palestinian territories, in Lebanon, and in Iraq.
The major change started with Sarkozy's presidency. Sarkozy abandoned his predecessor's policy and sought to embrace Syria and to bring it back into the French fold, apparently with the view that it was through the door of Syria that France would be able to expand its influence in the Middle East. One expression of this was Sarkozy's statements to the Syrian daily Al-Watan during his first visit to the country in September 2008: "...Since my election, I have wanted France to regain its place on the international chessboard, and I am interested in my country bearing the responsibility for peace in the Middle East. In order to do this, it is necessary to gain the trust of all sides, and therefore I have made several changes in France's policy in the region..."[9]
France also led the change in EU policy towards Syria, as expressed in an interview that then-president of the European parliament Hans Gert Pöttering gave to Al-Watan in August 2008. He said that during the past three years, the EU had adopted a policy of passivity towards Syria, and that now the winds of change were blowing. He noted that the EU no longer thought that the way to solving the problems was isolation, but rather dialogue among partners.[10]
It should be noted that as of now, it appears that France's efforts have yet to bear fruit, and that Syria is assigning France only a secondary role as mediator in the peace process, and is insisting that Turkey and the U.S. be the main mediators in its negotiations with Israel. Nevertheless, Syria is reaping economic dividends from the rapprochement with France, including France's readiness to break the U.S. embargo so that it can sell Airbuses to Syria.
As for the change in U.S. policy, it began at the end of the Bush administration. Evidence of this can be seen in an interview that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave to the London daily Al-Hayat in August 2008, in which she denied that the U.S. was implementing a policy of isolating Syria. She said: "...There is a continuous relationship with Syria... and we have diplomatic relations with Syria... I have met with [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid Al-Mu'allem when we were in Sharm Al-Sheikh. Our relations with Syria are correct."[11]
This trend grew stronger when U.S. President Barack Obama took office, and it became part of a comprehensive policy vis-Ã -vis the region that Obama laid out in his Cairo speech on June 4, 2009. His approach might have emanated from his perception that Syria was essential to stabilizing the situation in Iraq when U.S. forces withdrew.[12]
The American openness was expressed by the start of a dialogue with Syria; by the appointment of an American ambassador to Damascus, after the Bush administration recalled the Ambassador in 2005 in protest over the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri; by visits by senior American politicians, such as Senate Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Sen. John Kerry; and by visits by U.S. military delegations. At the same time, it should be noted that the Obama administration set conditions for improving America's relations with Syria,[13] and even renewed the sanctions on Syria; moreover, as of this writing, the U.S. ambassador to Syria has not returned to Damascus.
The U.S.'s policy of openness towards Syria contributed greatly to the improvement of Syria's status in the region and internationally – from an untouchable and isolated country to a country courted by several of its main rivals though it is apparently giving nothing in return.
Saudi Reactions to the West's Change of Policy
This new approach on the part of the West was perceived at first by some of the Arab media as rewarding extremist elements and abandoning moderate allies. 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, director-general of the Saudi Al-Arabiya TV and former editor-in-chief of the London Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, called Syria's policy "genius" for successfully misleading the West: "...Damascus has created crises [and then] proposed solutions... Syria's partner Hizbullah occupied western Beirut so that Damascus would intervene and stop it; Syria's friends in the Lebanese opposition refused to elect Michel Suleiman [as president] even though he was the agreed-upon candidate, so that Damascus would intervene, [and then] it would be agreed [that Suleiman would be president]... Syria's friend Hamas ratcheted up the level of violence against Israel so that [Damascus would intervene] and order it to stop. [Damascus] finished up by again ordering its allies in the Lebanese opposition to stop thwarting the formation of the Lebanese government, and thus, just two days before [Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad] left for Paris... Syria convinced [the world] that it had changed, when [in fact] it had changed nothing..."[14]
Saudi Arabia, a backbone of the "moderate Arab axis" which has vehemently opposed Syria's policy in recent years, and which was at first displeased with the French openness towards Syria, has adapted to the shift in the international climate vis-Ã -vis Syria, and changed its position accordingly. The first sign of this change was Saudi King 'Abdallah's reconciliation with Syria at the Kuwait summit in January 2009. During the Doha Summit, in late March 2009, it appeared that Saudi Arabia was withdrawing nearly completely from its positions towards Syria and the Syria-Iran axis, or at least accepting with silence the fact that the Syrian discourse was taking over the summit.[15] The height of the change came with the monarch's historic visit to Syria on October 7 and 8, 2009, and with the understandings regarding Lebanon, which in effect legitimized Syria's return to Lebanon.[16]
Several days after King 'Abdallah's visit, the editor of the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, Turki Al-Sudairi wrote an op-ed stating that the solution to Lebanon's chronic instability was for Syria to again control Lebanon. "Why shouldn't Lebanon return to Syria?", he asked.[17] Other official Saudi newspapers hastened to reassure that the article was not representative of the official Saudi position and to reiterate that the Saudi-Syrian rapprochement was not at Lebanon's expense.[18] However, today it appears that Al-Sudairi's op-ed heralded what was to come.
Currently, Egypt is the only country in the moderate Arab axis that has not backed down from its position vis-Ã -vis Syria, and is consequently subject to repeated attacks by the Syrian media.[19] Likewise, Syria-Iraq relations are very tense, although it seemed that they were improving, as reflected by the two countries' August 18, 2009 decision to establish a joint strategic council, during Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's visit to Damascus. The day after this decision was reached, a series of grisly bombings aimed at government ministries rocked Baghdad. Following the bombings, Al-Maliki claimed that the perpetrators had links to Iraqi Ba'th members backed by Syrian government figures. Syria denied the accusation, and in response to Syria's denials, Al-Maliki called for an international tribunal or investigative committee to be established, to determine who was behind the bombings; he sent a letter on the matter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the matter. Both Turkey and Iran attempted to mediate between Syria and Iraq, but to no avail.
It should be noted that none of the Arab countries stood with Iraq, and the U.S. response was both cool and slow in coming. The lukewarm international response to Al-Maliki's call may be another reflection of the shift in attitude towards Syria.
Syria: The Era of the West Is Over; Anti-West Forces Have Triumphed
Syria, for its part, sees the shift in the Western and Arab attitude towards it as a sign that its opponents are weak, and as vindication of its course over the years. Syria also draws confidence from the situation in the region; it sees the U.S. as sinking into a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, and perceives the resistance forces – Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006, and Hamas in Gaza in 2009 – as having triumphed over Israel and the forces behind it (that is, the U.S.). This has led it to conclude that now is no time to soften its positions and to abandon the principles which, it believes, produced the shift in attitude towards it – that is, its support of the resistance forces and its alliance with Iran. Thus, the West's new openness is actually encouraging Syria to cling to its positions, and even to toughen its stance.
Syria is not shy about discussing this approach publicly and in the presence of Western leaders. Thus, when Assad was asked at a joint press conference with Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann whether the shift in attitude towards Syria was due to a change in Syria's positions, he replied: "What has changed is the [Western] perception of Syria's position... Syria is an important country and no one can prevent it from playing such a role. The difference [from the past] is that there are countries that think that cooperating with Syria will make us change our policy in certain directions. After a while, they discovered that the problems of the [Middle] East cannot be resolved without Syria's cooperation..."[20]
Syria's sense of triumph over the new situation was also evident in Assad's statements during his visit to Iran following the reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "...The general circumstances in the region serve the front of resistance and steadfastness. The countries of the West, particularly the U.S., are facing many problems, both domestic and in the [Middle East]. So far, they have achieved nothing in the region, not even in Lebanon..." According to Assad, the Western response to Ahmadinejad's reelection was due to "concern that the serial victories of Iran and Syria will continue for another four years."
During the same visit, the two leaders agreed that "the global situation is an historic opportunity for the peoples of the region," and stressed the need to make the most of it. Also during the visit, Assad predicted that "from now on, the doors of the international community will be open for Iran and Syria more than they have been in the past."[21]
At the Conference of Arab Parties, held November 2009 in Damascus, President Bashar Al-Assad stated: "We have studied history well, prepared the present and determined the future... In the last three years, we have defined our goals with precision: the adversary is the U.S., and the enemy is Israel. In the past, the American administration itself was the enemy, [but] now this equation has changed... We have reached a stage where we believe their proposals are to our benefit... We have succeeded, and [today] we are ruled by a sense of challenge, not of fear..."[22]
Former Lebanese MP Nasser Qandil, who is close to the Syrian regime, summarized the situation in his weekly column in the Syrian daily Teshreen, using less diplomatic terms: "In the [present] world war, aimed at breaking the strategic Syrian-Iranian alliance, it is the spear of the strategic American-Israeli alliance that has broken. [Now] a new era has begun that will completely reorganize our region, as reflected in the new American [policy] of turning to dialogue with Syria and Iran... The Syrian and Iranian leadership have a profound understanding of the new starting point, which promises a transition from [a situation on which these countries] are leading the resistance to [a situation in which they are] leading a new regional order..."[23]
Syrian columnist Salim 'Aboud wrote in the daily Al-Thawra: "...Damascus has become a meeting point for leaders and statesmen from all over the world. It has proven that its policy, which is based upon rights and upon a refusal to relinquish [these rights], is the one that can set events [in motion] and place it in an honorable position. This is the policy which has turned [Syria], and continues to turn it, into a pivotal country whose decisions and desires cannot be overlooked."[24]
'Imad Fawzi Shu'eibi, head of the Data and Strategic Studies Center in Damascus, wrote an article in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat in which he outlined Syria's foreign policy and its perception of its role in the region: "...Syria has regained its regional position, and has consolidated [this position] by means of [Hizbullah's] 2006 victory [over Israel] and through a policy of biding its time. Syria has plenty of patience... and this enables it to be a country that assigns roles [to others] and withholds them [from others]. It can say 'yes' and 'no' in its own way. Its 'no' is one that does not [completely] shut the door on regional and international relations, and its 'yes' [is one that] does not open the door to its enemies. This is a policy of half-open doors..."[25]
Syria is Pursuing a New Regional and International World Order
Based on this sense of self-worth, Syria is now working, along with its allies Iran and Venezuela, to create a new world order involving several blocs of countries, each with equal weight, as an alternative to what it sees as a unipolar order with America as the sole superpower. At the April 2, 2009 Doha Summit, President Al-Assad said: "...The world is currently in a state of crisis which may, despite the difficulty it entails, present us with an opportunity to seek, along with others, a foundation for a new world order... The comprehensive change taking place today is reminiscent of the global reshuffle [of power] that occurred in the middle of the previous century..."[26]
After an April 2009 meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, in a similar vein, "Iran and Syria must assist one another in creating a new world order...," to which Al-Mu'allem replied, "Syria calls for developing the relations [between the two countries] and for comprehensive cooperation with Iran in all domains."[27] A few days later, Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is willing to play a significant role in running the world..."[28] At a press conference with Assad at the end of his May 2009 visit to Damascus, the Iranian president said: "Alongside the resistance and steadfastness, we must also strive to create a new world order; otherwise new oppressive regimes will emerge..."[29] He added, "The philosophy and order that emerged after World War II have come to the end of their road, and [the West] is unable to offer solutions for the world's problems, since its thinking is based on discrimination and on [undermining] security."[30]
As part of these efforts to establish a new world order, Syria is operating on several levels:
1. The Effort to Implement the "Four Seas Strategy":
This strategy is based on an alliance between Syria, Iran and Turkey, which, these countries hope, will also be joined by Iraq and by the Caucasus countries, so as to form a geographic continuum between four seas: the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. As part of the efforts to expand this alliance, and perhaps also as a sign of Syria's mounting confidence, Syria offered to mediate in the crisis between Armenia and Azerbaijan and between Armenia and Turkey.[31]
Explaining the rationale behind this alliance, Assad said: "Syria and Turkey are strategically important countries. They have a significant political role, and they enjoy stability on the security and social [levels]... [Our region] is an important junction for transport, [including the] transport of energy... In addition, there is cooperation between Turkey and Iraq, and beginnings of relations between Turkey and Iran. Good relations are forming between Syria and Iraq, while Iran and Syria [already] have good relations... We are important not [only] in the Middle East. We are at the center of the world, and are bound to become a crucial link for the whole world in terms of investments, transport and the like..."[32]
During his visit to Iran, Assad presented the idea of the "four seas strategy" to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and received his blessing.[33]
It should be noted that Assad's statements regarding the good Syria-Iraq relations predated the outbreak of the crisis between Syria and Iraq following the series of Baghdad bombings in August 2009. However, despite the present tension between the two countries, Syrian, Iranian and Turkish officials continue to regard Iraq as part of the alliance. During his visit to Syria for the first meeting of the Turkey-Syria High Level Strategic Cooperation Council, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said: "The Turkey-Syria High Level Strategic Cooperation Council is not just between Turkey and Syria. [Similar councils exist for cooperation] between Syria and Iraq, Jordan and Turkey, and Turkey and Lebanon. When this activity increases, I think this region will become a region of peace..."[34]
A similar hope was expressed by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem in a speech to the parliament in which he reviewed Syria's diplomatic achievements in 2009: "...These strategic ties [between Syria and Turkey] are to be a nucleus that will soon be augmented by Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq..."[35]
The creation of the Syria-Iran-Turkey-Iraq alliance is perceived as an expression of Syria's defiance vis-Ã -vis the current world order, as columnist Muhammad Zarouf wrote in the government daily Al-Ba'th: "...The region needs a strategic force that will put an end to the collapse and the disintegration that is spreading everywhere [in the region]. These allow the international forces to interfere in everything and to subjugate the region to their political will – which is not necessarily compatible with the interests and will of the region's countries and peoples... The aim is to establish a new regional force that will be able to take part in restoring balance to the world order, which suffers from unilateralism and from imbalance, due to the 'unipolar' control [i.e. by the U.S.] over the running of its affairs..."[36]
Turkey
Syria's rapport with Turkey is a fairly recent development compared to its good relations with Iran. In the past, Syria-Turkey relations were rocky due to Syria's support of the PKK, Turkey's relations with Israel, and conflicts over the distribution of the waters of the Euphrates river and over the Alexandretta region. Tensions mounted to the point that, in 1998, Turkey deployed forces along its border with Syria, with the aim of forcing the latter to expel PKK leader 'Abdallah Ocalan, who had received political asylum and assistance from Damascus.
In 2003, Syria-Turkish relations began to thaw, as evidenced by Assad's historic visit to Turkey in 2004, which was the first visit to this country by a Syrian president since the end of World War I.
Assad attributed the strategic change in Syria's policy towards Turkey to the U.S. troops' 2003 invasion of Iraq. He said: "Following the war on Iraq in 2003, we saw that the fire was coming closer to us. Thus, we tightened relations [with Turkey] in order to protect ourselves..."[37]
Recent far-reaching developments in Syria-Turkey relations have led to the establishment of the Turkey-Syria High Level Strategic Cooperation Council, the mutual abolition of visas, joint military maneuvers, and the signing of cooperation agreements in a number of areas, including the military one.
Close relations are in the interests of both countries. Turkey, controlled by Erdogan's Justice and Development (AKP) party, seeks to become closer to the Arab and Islamic world, and to develop into a prominent regional power. Evidence that Turkey sees itself as a regional power comes from statements by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who said that Turkey is no longer a country that follows others, but has now become a leading country, and that the other Middle East countries respect it for the role that it plays.[38] Turkey's self-perception as a regional leader is also reflected in its readiness to volunteer to mediate in inter-Arab crises – between Syria and Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and Fatah and Hamas – as well as in international conflicts such as Iran's nuclear crisis and the Syria-Israel negotiations.
Likewise, since the AKP, headed by Erdogan, came to power, Turkey has in some instances adopted a policy incompatible with the interests of its former allies, the U.S., and the EU; these include its refusal to permit its territory to be used for launching the attack on Iraq in 2003, and its recognition of the Hamas government in Gaza. It should be noted that within Turkey itself there are critics of this policy, which is perceived as "neo-Ottoman."[39] Erdogan himself has denied pursuing this policy.[40]
For Syria, allying with Turkey gives it numerous advantages: It helps diffuse Syria's sense of being under siege because of Turkey's alliance with Israel and the presence of U.S. troops in Turkey and Iraq. Syria, for its part, has stopped supporting the Kurds, and, according to various reports, has dropped its demand for the Alexandretta region, which has been a focus of dispute between the two countries for the past five decades. Also, Syria insists that Turkey will mediate in its negotiations with Israel, thus contributing to Turkey's international status.
The Arab Countries
Syria seeks to reassure the Arab countries regarding its intentions, emphasizing that its relations with Turkey and Iran do not come at the expense of its relations with the Arab world, and that no harm to Arab interests will result – on the contrary, these relations will actually strengthen them. However, while senior Syrian officials stress the Arab countries' special status, Syria does not seem to be assigning them a leading role in the regional bloc that it is working to consolidate. Apparently, the Arab countries are meant to join the regional alliance, when it materializes, but will not be part of its founding nucleus.
At the annual Ba'th party conference, in December 2009, Syrian presidential aide 'Imad Hassan Turkmani clarified the Syrian perception, saying: "Syria is acting to establish a regional bloc, to include Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, and to connect the continents... Syria wants a regional alliance that will first of all serve all the Arabs and will support the matters that concern them. [This alliance] will complete the Arab alliance on which Syria relies as a main support... In policy, there is no room for dreams; there are [only] interests that [Syria sees] as the basis [of its policy]..."[41]
Syria's striving to consolidate a regional alliance along these lines may reflect its understanding, based on the experience of recent years, that it cannot trust the Arab countries to support it in time of need, and that it must pull together an axis that currently bypasses the Arab countries, and will later be joined by them after they realize its strength and the advantages it offers. This policy has already borne fruit: One example of this is Saudi Arabia, which did a complete about-face in its position towards Syria once it saw Syria's steadfastness in the face of regional and international pressures.
At the same time, Syria is trying to label itself as a leader of the campaign for reconciliation in the Arab world, and it apparently seeks to lead this world, as evidenced by statements made to Syrian state television by presidential political and information advisor Buthayna Sha'ban: "Syria is a central player in the region, and no one can ignore that. It aspires to be the central player in obtaining the Arab rights, not only in the Golan Heights, but also in Palestine..."[42]
Syria's Rejection of the Partnership Agreement with the EU
As part of its aspiration to create a new world order, in which it would have a position of influence as a member of the regional alliance, Syria seeks to free itself from the European bear hug, which is led by France. This was expressed in the shift in Syria's attitude towards the Syria-EU partnership agreement.
For years, Syria worked towards signing a partnership agreement with the EU, its main trade partner. A draft of the agreement was drawn up, but was not signed due to European reservations regarding Syria's domestic and foreign policy; the issue fell off the map. Only in 2008, and as part of Europe's change in policy towards Syria, was it raised again, and an agreement was initialed. The agreement was approved by the EU in October 2009.
The agreement's approval was received coolly in Syria. Assad said that it needed to be re-examined in accordance with Syria's national interest, and that the partnership must be between two parties of equal status and economic soundness, and must not include either side's intervention in the other's domestic affairs.[43]
Syrian officials stressed their fear of the agreement's impact on production and on the domestic economy, although when it was initialed in 2008, senior Syrian economists emphasized that it would benefit Syria's economy, and noted that fears of its impact were unwarranted.[44] However, Assad's statement quoted above seems to confirm the reports that Syria's opposition to the agreement was due mainly to the conditions it included regarding human rights in Syria, and regarding Syrian foreign policy.[45] Furthermore, it seems that Syria is apprehensive about signing an agreement with a powerful political bloc like the EU, and prefers to focus on bilateral ties with each individual EU country, as expressed in late December 2009 by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem.[46]
It seems that another motivation for Syria's coolness towards the EU in the present circumstances is this country's confidence in the realization of the "four seas strategy" described above, aimed primarily at creating an economic-political bloc equivalent in its weight and influence to the EU itself. This is evident from Assad's statements at a joint press conference with Finnish President Tarja Halonen, in which he clarified that "Syria's top priority is tightening its relations with the countries in [its own] region, especially with the Arab countries and with its neighbors, such as Turkey... We must start with the countries of the region. This does not mean that we reject other countries... [but] we cannot talk of good relations with Europe and America when we have problems with the neighboring countries. That's natural. [Good relations with the neighbors] are not a substitute [for good relations with countries outside the region], but they do take priority over them..."[47]
Statements by Syrian officials and articles in the Syrian press took a more belligerent tack. For example, Syrian Prime Minister Naji Al-'Otri stressed that his country was interested in a partnership of equals with Europe, and that it had gained a position of power that allowed it to negotiate these matters in a different way than in the past.[48]
Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem said at a press conference with Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero that the EU's approval of the agreement had taken Syria by surprise, and that Syria now had to reexamine the agreement, a process that could take until the end of Spain's presidency of the EU in June 2010.[49]
Two days after the EU's approval of the agreement, and ahead of Assad's visit to Croatia, the editor of the government daily Al-Thawra, As'ad 'Aboud, downplayed the importance of Europe's five leading countries, namely France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain. He said that Europe also includes other countries, each of which can be a gateway for Syria into the EU, and that Syria is extending its hand to all the European countries. He added: "We want excellent relations with any European country [willing to treat us] as a partner. We approach our partnership with the EU from this broad basis of bilateral relations that are effective and influential..."[50]
The daily Al-Watan, which is close to the Syrian regime, went so far as to argue that Syria does not need the EU to develop its economy, and wondered whether Syria should sign the agreement at all in the present circumstances.[51]
2. Challenging the Legitimacy of the International Institutions
As part of its bid for a new world order, Syria is challenging the legitimacy of the international institutions, especially the U.N. and its Security Council, which it regards, in their present form, as tools of the American hegemony and hence as requiring structural reform.[52] In this approach, Syria is aligned with Iran, Libya, Venezuela and Hizbullah, all of which challenge the existing world order and are working to change it.
President Assad himself challenged the legitimacy of the U.N. institutions at a joint press conference with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez: "...I did not speak [with Chavez] about the 'international community,' because today this term refers to a very small group of powers that are striving to control the world, the international policy and the global economy. [Instead,] we spoke of an international movement consisting of countries that can take a just approach to these issues.
"When we speak of the 'international community' in the prevailing sense of the word, we speak of the hegemony of [certain] international organizations. Syria and Venezuela call to reform these organizations, so as to pass from a phase of global anarchy to a phase of global order. We say that [today], what we have is not order but anarchy. We all want global order, but [we want it to be] an order in which all countries take part... We all know that the international organizations [represent] only some countries, [and the same goes for] the world order and the international community...
The international organizations, the U.N. institutions, and all the bodies subordinate to them are controlled by a small group of countries, and their resolutions are subordinate and connected to the interests of these countries. [So] obviously, [these resolutions] cannot be in our favor as well..."[53]
Similar claims were made in the Syrian government press. Faisal Sa'd, a lecturer at Tishreen University, wrote: "...The U.N. actually became obsolete in 1991, when the cold war was officially declared at an end... Today, some two decades after [this organization] became obsolete, and nothing was left of it except its name, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a crucial need to reform [the U.N.] or to reestablish it in light of the new circumstances, which form a solid foundation for a new, alternative world order. To this end, there is a need to change or amend the rationale and the operating mechanisms of many [U.N. institutions], especially the Security Council... The 'surgical' procedure required [to correct] the workings of [this body] will not be complete until its functions and authorities are transferred to the U.N. General Assembly, [which will then serve as] a true international parliament with the full authority to formulate and pass binding international resolutions, without anybody having a power of veto...
"A reform of the U.N. and its institutions cannot be carried out under [the hegemony] of the capitalist globalization, which was based and is [still] based upon principles of tyranny and dictatorship, and which operates through exploitation, coercion, oppression and deception. From a logical and objective point of view, the reform must be carried out through a different globalization [process] – a grassroots one – that will impose a new world order with [its own] international institutions, anchored in principles of pluralistic justice and democracy..."[54]
Syria: The Change in the West's Attitude Towards Us Was a Result of Our Support of the Resistance
Syria has placed itself firmly at the head of the "resistance camp," whose other main members are Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah, as well as Qatar and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Syrian spokesmen, headed by President Assad himself, have declared that resistance is the ultimate way to confront the West and Israel. At the Conference of Arab Parties, Assad made clear the importance he ascribes to the resistance: "...We have now begun to build a new Middle East, whose essence is resistance. Resistance in the cultural and military sense, and in every other sense, was and is the essence of our policy, and it will continue to be so in the future. It is the essence of our [very] existence..."[55]
Syrian spokesmen clarify that "resistance" is not just military action, but also means uncompromising insistence on principles in the face of what they see as Western attempts to impose dictates that contravene the Arab or Muslim interests. This is one of the motivations behind the strategic alliance with Turkey and Iran, as explained by 'Imad Fawzi Shu'eibi, head of the Data and Strategic Studies Center in Damascus: "...Resistance is not just military. It also means building a geostrategic future for this region that is different from [the future that others] wish [to create] for it. This is the basis of President Assad's perception of the 'four seas [alliance]' and of the strategic relations with Turkey as a form of strategic resistance..."[56]
Syria presents its insistence on its principles and its firm support of the resistance as the main reasons for the improvement in its status and for the change in the West's policy towards it. Assad's political and media advisor Buthayna Sha'ban said, "The wisdom of President Assad, and his perception, which is based on resistance, steadfastness and dynamic policy... have strengthened Syria's pivotal role in the region and enabled us to stand firm and steady in the face of all the pressures and challenges of the last few years."[57]
Nabil Fawzat Nawfal wrote in a similar vein in his column in the government daily Al-Thawra: "...If there has been any change in the course of the American administration, it is [only] thanks to the resistance forces and their victory, which was supported by the forces of resistance and steadfastness in Syria and Iran. Syria, the [emblem] of Arabism, and the heroic resistance forces have come to be the shapers of events [in the region] and the main players. If in the past the equation was that there could be no peace without Syria, today the equation is that there is no peace without Syria and also no war without Syria. Nobody can impose [upon us] a peace [agreement] that contravenes the inclinations of our Arab people, nor can anybody impose [upon us] a war that we do not want. This is proof that the path of resistance, which President Assad has chosen and which he has steered with wisdom and competence, is the right path. [Assad] has brought Syria [to a position of] strategic superiority, where it holds the reigns of political and military initiative in the region..."[58]
Columnist Salim 'Aboud made far-reaching claims regarding the success of Syria's policy: "...Syria's policy has managed to shape the [power-]balance of the Middle East conflict, and to disrupt [the plans] of the American occupier in Iraq, bringing about his defeat. It shattered the dreams of the [Bush] administration, and was one of the reasons for Republicans' defeat in the U.S. elections. It caused the whole world to reject the policy of the Bush administration and to welcome the arrival of a new administration, in hope that the world would [now] know some calm after the storms generated by Bush's insane Zionist policy..."[59]
Resistance and the Peace Process
Syria sees no contradiction between adhering to the course of resistance and striving for peace. According to its spokesmen, resistance and negotiations are both means to "restore the usurped rights," and both can be employed, either simultaneously or separately, according to the circumstances. On the eve of his November 13, 2009 visit to France, Assad said: "...The essence of peace is not just negotiations but also resistance. It is a mistake to think that peace will be achieved [only] through negotiations, [for] it will also be achieved through resistance. That is why we must support the resistance, because thereby we support the peace process. Resistance and negotiations are [two parts of] a single [course], whose aim is to restore our legitimate rights, which we will never relinquish."[60]
Resistance is presented as Syria's strategic option, which has proved its effectiveness in Lebanon and Gaza – as opposed to the option of negotiations, which has failed because of Israel's policy. Al-Thawra editor As'ad 'Aboud explained: "...All the documents that have been signed, from the Camp David [Accords] to the Oslo [Accords], created [only] the illusion of peace. We are living [a reality of] war, not peace... We want peace, but [we refuse to enter] the corridors of futile negotiation that we already know will lead nowhere... If [Israel] does not intend to reach a peace [agreement] and rejects the demands [for peace], what is the way to security and stability? We [Syrians] have the answer to this question: resistance. A Middle East [that embraces] resistance is a Middle East that puts an end to occupation and strengthens security and stability."[61]
* N. Mozes is a Research Fellow at MEMRI.
Endnotes:
[1] SANA (Syria), December 29, 2009.
[2] Le Monde (France), July 26, 2006.
[3] IRNA (Iran), January 12, 2010.
[4] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 517, "Ahmadinejad and Assad: Iran and Syria Are Leading a New World Order; The Time of America and the West Is Over, May 26, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3334.htm.
[5] Al-Thawra (Syria), August 30, 2009.
[6] Teshreen (Syria), September 6, 2009.
[7] Syria is permitting the Iraqi TV channel Al-Rai, which supports and encourages armed action against the U.S. forces in Iraq, to broadcast from its territory.
[8] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 492, "An Escalating Regional Cold War - Part I: The 2009 Gaza War," by: Y. Carmon, Y. Yehoshua, A. Savyon, and H. Migron, February 2, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3281.htm.
[9] Al-Watan (Syria), September 3, 2008.
[10] Al-Watan (Syria), August 10, 2008.
[11] Al-Hayat (London), August 26, 2008.
[12] It should be noted that the 2006 Baker-Hamilton report stated that Iraq's neighbors had a significant influence on its stability and prosperity, and called on the U.S. administration to act diplomatically in order to create an international consensus for the stability of Iraq and of the region. The report assumed that Syria, like Iran, had an interest in preventing chaos in Iraq.
[13] Al-Hayat (London), Al-Watan (Syria), February 19, 2009.
[14] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 13, 2008.
[15] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 510, "The Doha Summit – A Defeat for the Saudi-Egyptian Camp," April 8, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3243.htm.
[16] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 565, "The March 14 Forces after the Formation of the New Lebanese Government: From Electoral Victory to Political Defeat and Disintegration Within Five Months," November 22, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3804.htm.
[17] See MEMRI Special Dispatch 2595, "Al-Riyadh Editor: 'Why Shouldn't Lebanon Return to Syria?,'" October 14, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3705.htm.
[18] See Special Dispatch No. 2598, "Al-Riyadh' Editor Retracts Call to Return Lebanon to Syria," October 15, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3708.htm.
[19] In the course of January 2010, the Syrian daily Al-Watan published a number of anti-Egyptian articles, which claimed that Egypt had adopted the American policy and was party to Israel's siege on Gaza, and that it was the only Arab country undermining the atmosphere of reconciliation in the Arab world. Egypt was also accused of sabotaging the inter-Palestinian reconciliation out of pride. Al-Watan (Syria), January 12, 18, 21, 2010.
[20] Al-Thawra (Syria), December 24, 2009.
[21] Al-Hayat (London), August 20, 2009.
[22] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), November 15, 2009.
[23] Teshreen (Syria), May 10, 2009.
[24] Al-Thawra (Syria), September 30, 2009.
[25] Al-Hayat (London), December 3, 2009.
[26] SANA (Syria), April 2, 2009.
[27] SANA (Syria), April 9, 2009.
[28] Khorasan (Iran), April 19, 2009. See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 521, "Ahmadinejad: Iran Is a Nuclear Power Ready to Participate in Running the World", June 8, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3335.htm.
[29] ISNA (Iran), May 6, 2009.
[30] Fars (Iran), May 5, 2009. See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 517, "Ahmadinejad and Assad: Iran and Syria Are Leading a New World Order; The Time of America and the West Is Over," June 8, 2009, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3334.htm.
[31] Teshreen (Syria), June 18, 2009.
[32] Al-Thawra (Syria), May 17, 2009.
[33] IRNA (Iran), August 19, 2009.
[34] Al-Thawra (Syria), December 24, 2009.
[35] http://sns.sy, December 29, 2009.
[36] Al-Ba'th (Syria), October 28, 2009.
[37] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 4, 2010.
[38] Yeni Safak (Turkey), May 25, 2009.
[39] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1114, "Hamas Visit to Turkey Deepens Secular-Islamist Rift," March 14, 2006, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1635.htm.
[40] Habervaktim (Turkey), December 8, 2009.
[41] Al-Ba'th (Syria), December 31, 2009.
[42] Teshreen (Syria), December 8, 2009.
[43] Al-Thawra (Syria), November 2, 2009.
[44] Al-Thawra (Syria), August 26, 2008; Teshreen (Syria), December 16, 2008.
[45] Al-Hayat (London), October 11, 2009.
[46] http://sns.sy, December 29, 2009.
[47] Al-Thawra (Syria), October 23, 2009.
[48] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), December 9, 2009.
[49] Al-Watan (Syria), October 15, 2009.
[50] Al-Thawra (Syria), October 28, 2009.
[51] Al-Watan (Syria), November 3, 2009.
[52] Apparently, Syria's challenge of the U.N. is also aimed at delegitimizing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which is investigating the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri.
[53] Al-Thawra (Syria), September 4, 2009.
[54] Al-Watan (Syria), September 17, 2009.
[55] SANA (Syria), November 12, 2009.
[56] Al-Hayat (London), December 3, 2009.
[57] Al-Hayat (London), August 18, 2009.
[58] Al-Thawra (Syria), September 13, 2009.
[59] Al-Thawra (Syria), September 30, 2009.
[60] SANA (Syria), November 12, 2009.
[61] Al-Thawra (Syria), November 23, 2009.
© 1998-2010, The Middle East Media Research Institute All Rights Reserved. Materials may only be cited with proper attribution.
6)ExclusivesCategoriesContributors How Many Fights Will Obama Pick With America?
By Thomas Del Beccaro
Politics is a game of addition – successful politics anyway. Great leaders, when faced with a divided electorate, not to mention difficult economic times, use a limited agenda to forge consensus out of broken paradigms. Once they achieve an initial success, they seek a broader consensus. In the 1980’s Reagan faced a divided Republican Party and a fractured and dispirited nation. Concentrating on the prosperity issue and our national prestige, Reagan first brought Republicans together and then independents and even many Democrats. Indeed, so successful was Reagan at bringing people together, that in time he could rely on a group of Reagan Democrats. Few other Presidents have had such success at building consensus let alone are able to claim a voting block from the other party in their name.
There is little doubt that Obama faced a divided electorate when he first took office and a difficult economic climate. Rather than start with a limited agenda designed to build consensus, Obama did the opposite. Obama chased too many rabbits at once and preferred ideological fights over practical solutions. As a result, the Country is more divided than ever – not less.
The most recent manifestation of that divisive M.O. is the White House’s amazing decision to insist on a terror trial in New York. Of course, it remains a jarring ideological decision to treat KSM as a “criminal” versus the warring “terrorist” that he is. As I wrote, in my article Internment, CSI and Eric Holder’s Disarming of America, that decision will have profound negative consequences for decades to come. To the point of this article, Obama is compounding his initial divisive decision (treating him as a criminal) by fighting with New York over the place of the trial. It is a political fight which he cannot win regardless of the outcome of the trial.
In addition to that fight, Obama’s first year featured a huge and controversial agenda that has not served his Party or his Presidency well. Keep in mind that successful Presidents achieve but two, maybe three, lasting achievements during their terms – many less than that; hence the need for a targeted and consensus building agenda – not a controversial far-reaching agenda.
Out of the gate, this President chose controversy over consensus. His massive, $800 billion spending/stimulus bill divided Americans. To be sure, there is not a majority in this country for uncontrolled deficit spending. Indeed, the deficit is at the height of American worries and more Americans than not think the bill has not worked.
Next, Obama took on Cap and Trade. While it is unsurprising that those on the Left – who arrogantly think they can socially engineer the lives of free people also think they can engineer the climate of a 4.7 billion year old planet – there is little doubt that pushing that major agenda was not a consensus building maneuver. Witness the fate of that bill and the cries of moderate Democrats if you think otherwise.
From there, Obama pushed a massive ideological takeover of 17% of the US economy in the form of the Health Care bill. It has been anything but a consensus builder for the Democrats – ask Scott Brown if you are uncertain of that – not to mention the meteoric rise of the Tea Party.
As you can see, on the heels of a massive spending bill, Obama chased at least 3 major ideological rabbits, cap and trade, health care and redefining the war on terror– all within one year. Obama failed to build a consensus on any of those three let alone passed legislation establishing one of them – leaving Obama without a signature achievement at the outset of his Presidency – the time in which most Presidents achieve their success if at all.
Of course, Obama blames the problems he inherited for his troubles. Rather than looking to the economy he inherited, however, Obama should look at the divisive political climate he fostered for his failing polling numbers – much like Johnson did in 1966 and Clinton in 1994.
Although, after the first of the year, Obama promised to focus on jobs, his ridiculous fight with New York over terror trials, and his promise to continue pushing his health care take and cap and trade, demonstrates he is not up to the job of bringing this country together. It will be up to the Republicans to fill that leadership void in the 2010 elections.
6a) The Electorate vs. Obama's Agenda
By Charles Krauthammer
"I am not an ideologue," protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.
Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society -- health care, education and energy.
A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."
This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?
Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.
Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.'"
A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."
Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.
Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.
That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.
It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.
This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.
By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush -- from Iraq to Social Security reform -- constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."
No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. "They made a decision," explained David Axelrod, "they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed" -- a perfect expression of liberals' conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country's, that their idea of the public good is the public's, that their failure is therefore the nation's.
Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.
For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.
The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It re-centers. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.
7)A Federal Budget That Insults All Budgets
By Bill Flax
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville
Condolences. If your faith in politicians as stewards of tax dollars isn't yet dead, it should be. Washington's conduct ridicules anyone who trusted that the stimulus bills and other "temporary" spending increases were designed for economic recovery. Washington's record breaking outlays have had far more to do with rewarding interest groups that contributed to victory in the prior election.
Now that the 2011 budget has arrived in mockery of the word ‘budget', it is clear Washington's addiction to spending is unremitting. Even though the president assumes robust growth, projected spending grows faster still. In 2011, he forecasts outlays of $3.834 trillion. Even if the promised growth arrives, the deficit will total almost $1.3 trillion.
If the economy is fully recovered we no longer need stimulus even according to the denizens of stimuli. But politicians love to spend. It's not their money so quite frankly, they don't care. They have one overriding purpose: getting re-elected. Given our crushing debt burden, dilapidated dollar and surging entitlement disaster, discretionary spending of $1.4 trillion defies reason. That's a lot of vote-buying even by debauched Washington standards.
The projected spending levels conjure frequent analogies to WWII, but spending in wartime was a matter of survival and had a finite horizon. Now politicians spend taxpayers' money to bribe a complicit electorate too shortsighted to comprehend it's their own property being wasted. And this horizon is infinite under the current political arrangement. It's not just the programmatic increases incident to Social Security, Medicare et al. The whole fiscal culture has been corrupted.
The last time federal spending actually lessened year over year was a slight $300 million decline in 1965. This includes every available combination of presidents and congresses, although the slowest growth generally occurs during periods of gridlock. Political paralysis is a blessed thing.
Politicians used to be hamstrung by the rule of law, but our Constitution has been consistently ignored for most of the last century. Now it serves but a quaint remainder from where the fortunes we now waste sprang. We've endured these trends for decades thanks to the colossal accumulation of capital bequeathed to us by more prudent ancestors.
Since LBJ declared War on Poverty to no apparent benefit to the poor, expenditures have risen annually. Now Washington doles out more than $2 trillion on entitlements alone. Soaring healthcare costs, the destruction of the family in poor areas, crime, drug epidemics, etc. are all exacerbated by the Welfare State. Social problems grow in proportion to the funding we exhaust chasing them. This then prompts "caring" politicians to dispense even more resources sustaining the unproductive.
The government has no resources. Everything it spends was created by private individuals and still belongs to taxpayers. All government can do is take from the industrious, the inventive, the hard-working and the frugal to dispense on the inefficient, the lazy, or the irresponsible. Government spending bites the very hand that feeds it.
And these resources no longer exist. We're now over $12 trillion in debt. Including future unfunded liabilities and those Washington assumed as a result of assorted bailouts and other mischief, the average family owes $471K and counting courtesy of government. The resources are gone.
Democrats wasted them on silly, self-defeating welfare programs and Republicans wasted them on silly, self-defeating foreign policies. Sometimes in fits of bipartisanship, they combined to waste them on even greater concepts. Government has no remaining resources, but to our peril it does have a printing press.
No matter what grandiose terms our elected leaders couch it under, there are only three ways to pay for this largesse. Certainly they can deprive productive enterprise of the resources necessary to generate economic growth via confiscatory taxes. But the disincentives ensconced in progressive taxation render it self-defeating. Washington can borrow, thus diverting capital from those endeavors actually prospering society. Another economic retardant. Or, they can inflate their way out of the mess by debasing our currency.
Bet on the latter. Fiat currency has proven throughout history to be as pernicious as any evil yet devised in its consequences for free society. Inflation is how they steal from us. Taxes take your money. Inflation leaves the money, but takes its value.
None of these options are economically sound. Each aggrandizes government at the expense of the free market. The more control we retain over our time, resources and abilities the more closely our efforts will be aligned to beneficial economic activity. The more dominion we yield to Washington, the more our efforts degenerate into politically charged madness.
Complementing government expansion, other corollary trends have developed. More people economically dependant on the political establishment and fewer still paying income taxes. At all levels, government now employs over 20 million workers. We have tens of millions more dependent on entitlements, subsidies and other property redistribution. Meanwhile, almost half of us pay no income taxes.
A society where one group can vote the belongings of another into its coffers is unsustainable. Plurality doesn't convey license to override property rights, but the polity has devolved into demagoguery. The obvious solution, to cut spending and wean people off the public dole is not politically tenable. We all have relatives nearing retirement and no one wants to tell grandma to get back to work.
The two political parties birthed in arrogance play a game of chicken. Neither will risk political suicide to undertake the necessary hard choices. As long as politicians can buy votes with your money they will and they'll win.
No comments:
Post a Comment