LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 18/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.december18.19.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006

Bible Quotations For today
For if those who are nothing think they are something, they deceive themselves.If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit.
Letter to the Galatians 06/01-10/:’My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ. For if those who are nothing think they are something, they deceive themselves. All must test their own work; then that work, rather than their neighbour’s work, will become a cause for pride. For all must carry their own loads. Those who are taught the word must share in all good things with their teacher. Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on December 17-18/2019
Kubis Warns Lebanon Leaders that 'Blocking Solution' Will Stoke Unrest, Tensions
Tenenti Says Aircraft Flew for 'Maintenance' to UNIFIL Headquarters
Report: Postponement of Talks on PM ‘Surprised’ Diplomats in Beirut
Lebanon’s Berri, Hariri call for calm after night of violence
Berri and Hariri Urge Fast Govt. Formation, Say Security Forces Must Play Their Role
Hezbollah supporters attack several protest camps in Lebanon
Analyst: Monday Unrest May Have Been an Attempt to Undermine Protests
Bassil Bodyguard Seizes Prominent Journalist Phone at U.N. Forum
Bassil Warns World of 'Hundreds of Thousands of Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian Refugees'
Bassil Flies to Geneva for Conference on Refugees
Report: AMAL Supporter who Shared Sectarian Video to be Questioned
DR Congo Freezes Assets of Lebanese 'Bread King' over U.S. Sancti
Protesters Storm Commerce Chamber during Meeting Attended by Choucair
Dozens of Protesters Rally near Hariri's Residence
Lebanon: Mustaqbal Says Premiership Cannot Be Held Hostage to Any Party
Lebanon FM Gebran Bassil on protests, corruption and reforms
Beirut left reeling after online video sparks violent clashes
3rd Night of Unrest, Hizbullah, AMAL Supporters Clash with Security Forces
Protesters in Arab World's Newest Uprisings Face a Long Haul

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 17-18/2019
U.S. Is Open to Dialogue With Iran, Special Envoy Hook Says/Simone Foxman
Kuwait announces new government
Hundreds of American troops added to targeted Iraq base as US threatens reprisal for Iraqi militias’ rocket attacks
UK Navy Chief Says Iran Remains Threat to Marine Navigation in Gulf
UK Royal Navy chief warns ‘aggressive’ Iranian threat persists
Regime bombardment kills 14 civilians in northwest Syria: Monitor
Israeli army says strike hits Palestinian in southern Gaza
Erdogan urges resettling of 1 mln refugees in northern Syria ‘peace zone’
Russia and Turkey to discuss Libya military support in January: Kremlin
Iraqi lawmaker gets six years for corruption
Egypt’s El Sisi stresses that Qatar must meet 13 demands to resolve crisis
HRW: Iraqi State Forces Complicit in Khilani Square Massacre
Pakistan's death sentence for Musharraf is rare challenge to army's influence

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 17-18/2019
The idea that Lebanon's armed forces represent a solution to the current crisis is an illusion/Michael Young/The National/December 17/2019
Hezbollah: Renewed Concerns of Power-sharing and Democracy/ظSam Menassa/Asharq Al Awsat/December 17/2019
Analysis/Lebanon’s Protest Have Only One Solution, and It’s Nowhere in Sight/Zvi Bar'el/Haaretz/December 17/2019
Lebanon must find a way to escape Hezbollah’s clutches/Khaled Abou Zahr/Arab News/December 17/2019
*U.S. Is Open to Dialogue With Iran, Special Envoy Hook Says/Simone Foxman/Bloomberg/December 17/2019
Hundreds of American troops added to targeted Iraq base as US threatens reprisal for Iraqi militias’ rocket attacks/DebkaFile/December 17/2019
The Big Hole in the China Trade Agreement/Gordon G. Chang/Gatestone Institute/December 17/2019
National Security Threat? Should the US Be Doing Business with China at All?/Benjamin Weingarten/Gatestone Institute/December 17/2019
An Arab Man’s Sufferings in the British Elections/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/December 17/2019
US Bets Old Ideas in a New Package Can Deter China/Hal Brands/Bloomberg/December 17/2019
Round Three in Israel: Domestic Dynamics and Foreign Policy Implications/David Makovsky/ The Washington Institute/December 17/2019
Sudan, Algeria offer region’s protesters a glimmer of hope/Osama Al-Sharif /Arab News/December 17/2019
Iran’s President Submits a Budget of Fantasies/Saeed Ghasseminejad/FDD/December 17/2019

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on December 17-18/2019
Kubis Warns Lebanon Leaders that 'Blocking Solution' Will Stoke Unrest, Tensions
Naharnet/December 17/2019
U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jan Kubis on Tuesday warned Lebanon’s political leaders that “blocking a sustainable political solution” will only lead to further violence and sectarian “provocations.”
In a series of tweets, Kubis said he was “alarmed to hear about the increasingly complex & dangerous security situation around the protests” from caretaker Interior Minister Raya al-Hassan, Army chief General Joseph Aoun and Internal Security Forces chief Maj. Gen. Imad Othman. He said the army and the ISF deserve “respect & appreciation for their professional & largely responsible way.” He also lauded them for “the dedication with which they protect peaceful protests & law & order against politically motivated instigators of violence at a high personal & moral risk.”“When will the politicians finally understand that blocking a sustainable political solution puts Lebanon increasingly on fire?” Kubis wondered.“Manipulation and growing infiltration of protests by political activists, radicalization of parts of the protests movement, relentless attacks on the security forces by stones, incendiary devices and fuel, acts of vandalism, provocations with the aim to unleash sectarian strife -- is this what you want, political leaders, for the people of Lebanon? Because this is what you have given them, so far,” the U.N. official lamented.His warnings come after assailants coming from a stronghold of the AMAL Movement and its ally Hizbullah clashed with security forces in Beirut and carried out riot acts in the capital and the country’s south and east following a social media video deemed offensive to the country's Shiites. It was the third consecutive night of violence in Lebanon, coming after President Michel Aoun on Monday postponed talks on naming a new prime minister, further prolonging the unrest in the protest-hit country. Supporters of Hizbullah and Berri’s AMAL, angered by protesters' criticism and insults against their leaders, have tried to attack a downtown Beirut protest camps for days. They clashed for hours with security forces guarding the camp on Monday, hurling stones and firecrackers and setting fire to several cars, trees and a building under construction overlooking the square. Police responded with tear gas and water cannons.

Tenenti Says Aircraft Flew for 'Maintenance' to UNIFIL Headquarters
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 17/2019
After reports that a UNIFIL aircraft conducted an overflight over Lebanon’s hydrocarbons Block 9 south of Lebanon, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti explained that it landed at the Naqoura headquarters for “non-routine maintenance.” Tenenti was quoted as saying that the chopper that landed at the UNIFIL headquarters in southern Lebanon was a Brazilian helicopter belonging to the International Force navy and that it came from one of its naval ships with the purpose of carrying out non-routine maintenance.Tenenti said the chopper flew right back to the ship after completing maintenance. Media reports said that a British chopper had flown over Block 9 in south Lebanon to later land at the UNIFIL center in Naqoura. Lebanon is set to start drilling in block 4 in December, and in block 9 disputed by neighboring Israel in 2020. Last year, Lebanon signed its first contract to drill for oil and gas in its waters. A consortium comprising energy giants Total, ENI and Novatek took the first two of its 10 blocks, including block 9 disputed by Israel with which Lebanon has fought several wars.

Report: Postponement of Talks on PM ‘Surprised’ Diplomats in Beirut
Naharnet/December 17/2019
Diplomats in Beirut were surprised when outgoing Prime Minister Saad Hariri requested that President Michel Aoun postpone the consultations on a new PM “in order to garner bigger backing,” for his nomination, the Saudi Asharq al-Awsat reported on Tuesday. “The majority of ambassadors were astonished mainly that Hariri’s position was taken at a glance at the Center House. Shortly before, he was getting prepared to head to the Presidential Palace leading his parliamentary bloc to meet Aoun and name a Premier,” a source following up on the parliamentary consultations told the daily on condition of anonymity. The source told Asharq al-Awsat that he “understands the stance of Hariri,” who refuses to assume the prime minister post without the backing of the Lebanese Forces party. But added that “Hariri must be aware and so must the influential political parties, that every delay will reflect negatively on the internal political situation and the exchange rate of the dollar, adding to the lingering political and security crisis."An ambassador of a European country in Beirut who declined to be named, rejected the delay saying “it deprives the new government from confidence that will eventually negatively affect the projects that donors will provide to Lebanon, whether in infrastructure, implementation of CEDRE and projects to float liquidity in order to secure the regularity of banking system, which is getting worse.”He said “we are waiting for the foreign ministers to meet and take a decision to urge a speedy formation of a government of independent specialists to start rebuilding before the economic and financial deterioration takes an irreversible turn.”

Lebanon’s Berri, Hariri call for calm after night of violence
Reuters, Beirut Wednesday, 18 December 2019
Lebanon’s parliament speaker and caretaker prime minister warned against strife on Tuesday after clashes between supporters of Shia groups and security forces overnight stirred fears of further political and economic turmoil. Lebanon has been gripped by protests since October 17, leading to the resignation of Saad Hariri as prime minister, amid anger at the government’s failure to address the country’s worst economic crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war. Security forces lobbed tear gas overnight in central Beirut to disperse supporters of the Shia Amal party of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and its ally, the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement. Hundreds of men on motorcycles waving their party flags chanted “Shia, Shia”. They set tires on fire, hurled stones at security forces, and torched cars, witnesses said. They said they were furious at a video that circulated online in which a man curses their party and religious leaders, including Berri and Imam Ali, using language that could be inflammatory in a country with deep sectarian divisions. The men tried to break a security cordon around a square where tents have been set up as part of the wave of protests against the ruling elite which erupted two months ago.
In a statement after meeting on Tuesday, Berri and Hariri, two of the country’s top leaders, urged the Lebanese “not to get dragged towards strife” and to maintain civil peace. “The national need has become more than pressing to speed up forming the government,” the statement added.
Lebanon’s main parties have feuded over how to agree on a new government since Hariri - the leading Sunni politician - resigned under pressure from the protests. He has stayed on as caretaker prime minister. The job of premier is reserved for a Sunni, according to the country’s sectarian power-sharing system. The Internal Security Forces said on Tuesday that 65 police were injured in the violence overnight and three people were detained. In the mainly Sunni city of Sidon and the mainly Shia city of Nabatieh in the south, groups of men also attacked protest tents overnight, local TV stations said. Angry at chants against their politicians, Amal and Hezbollah supporters have at times attacked protesters who are seeking to remove a political class that has dominated Lebanon since the civil war.The unrest took a violent turn at the weekend when security forces fired tear gas in Beirut at protesters and dozens of people were wounded in the clashes.

Berri and Hariri Urge Fast Govt. Formation, Say Security Forces Must Play Their Role
Naharnet/December 17/2019
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Tuesday discussed the latest political developments in a meeting that lasted for more than an hour and a half in Ain el-Tineh, a joint statement said.“The two leaders urged all Lebanese to show awareness and vigilance during this period and not to be dragged into strife,” the statement said, warning that some parties are exerting “strenuous efforts to drag the country into the inferno of strife.”The threat of strife “can only be confronted through preserving civil peace and national unity and shunning incitement, and mainly through allowing security forces and the Lebanese Army to carry out their roles and perform their mission of safeguarding security and protecting people’s safety and public and private property,” the statement added. As for the designation of a new premier and the formation of a new government, Berri and Hariri emphasized that there is “a dire national need to form a government,” calling for “approaching this juncture in a calm atmosphere away from political tensions” and urging the parties to “put the country’s interest before any other interest.”The statement comes after assailants coming from a stronghold of Berri’s AMAL Movement and its ally Hizbullah clashed with security forces in Beirut and carried out riot acts in the capital and the country’s south and east following a social media video deemed offensive to the country's Shiites. It was the third consecutive night of violence in Lebanon, coming after President Michel Aoun on Monday postponed talks on naming a new prime minister, further prolonging the unrest in the protest-hit country.The violence was fueled by an undated video circulating online of a man, said to be living somewhere in Europe but otherwise from Lebanon's majority Sunni city of Tripoli, railing against Shiite politicians, religious figures and others. It was unclear what the link was between the video and the attacks on protest camps. Supporters of Hizbullah and Berri’s AMAL, angered by protesters' criticism and insults against their leaders, have tried to attack the protest camps for days. They clashed for hours with security forces guarding a central Beirut protest camp on Monday, hurling stones and firecrackers and setting fire to several cars, trees and a building under construction overlooking the square. Police responded with tear gas and water cannons.

Hezbollah supporters attack several protest camps in Lebanon
The Associated Press, Beirut /Tuesday, 17 December 2019
Assailants attacked several protest camps in north and south Lebanon early on Tuesday, according to state-run media, demolishing tents and burning down others as anger boiled over in the capital following a video deemed offensive to the country’s Shia. The violence — some of it apparently carried out by Lebanese Hezbollah supporters and their allies — threatened to plunge Lebanon further into chaos amid two months of anti-government protests and a spiraling financial crisis. In Beirut, charred remains of several torched cars were scattered on a main highway while faint smoke smoldered from a fire set in a building overlooking the epicenter of two-month-old protests after a night of rage by supporters of Lebanon’s two main Shia groups, Hezbollah and Amal. It was the third consecutive night of violence in Lebanon, coming after the Lebanese president on Monday postponed talks on naming a new prime minister, further prolonging the unrest in the Mediterranean country. The violence was fueled by an undated video circulating online of a man, said to be living somewhere in Europe but otherwise from Lebanon’s majority Sunni city of Tripoli, railing against Shia politicians, religious figures and others. It was unclear what the link was between the video and the attacks on the protest camps. Supporters of Lebanese Hezbollah group and the Amal movement, angered by protesters’ criticism of their leaders, have tried to attack the protest camps for days. Late on Monday, hundreds of angry men — apparently supporters of Hezbollah and Amal, which is led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri — descended on the camp in central Beirut. They clashed for hours with security forces guarding the camp, hurling stones and firecrackers and setting fire to several cars, trees and a building under construction overlooking the square. Police responded with tear gas and water cannons. Meanwhile, reports emerged of assailants attacking protest tents in northern Lebanon’s Hermel district, in the southern city of Sidon and the town of Nabatiyeh, where the protesters are also Shia. The assailants set fires to the tents in Sidon, and destroyed the ones in Nabatiyeh, according to the National News Agency. In the district of Hermel, fires raged in tents set up by protesters in the village of Fakeha after assailants lobbed a bomb into it, the agency said. The anti-government protests, which erupted in mid-October, have spared no Lebanese politician, accusing the ruling elite of corruption and mismanagement, and calling for a government of independents. They have largely been peaceful, sparked by an intensifying economic crisis. While initially spontaneous and unifying, supporters of the Shi’a groups later grew intolerant of criticism of their leaders and sought to quell the rallies.

Analyst: Monday Unrest May Have Been an Attempt to Undermine Protests
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 17/2019
Lebanese academic Imad Salamey has said that the Monday night clashes could have been an attempt to undermine the anti-establishment protests. "Stirring sectarian strife is one of the ways used by those in power to divide Lebanese and weaken the street movement," he said. But "I don't think it will work this time," added the professor at the Lebanese American University. Salamey said solidarity between Lebanese has only increased "after people started losing their jobs and companies and being unable to withdraw money from the banks." "The economic crisis has broken the barrier of fear, or at least the barriers between different religious sects," he said. Dozens of people were wounded in overnight clashes between security forces and supporters of Lebanon's two main Shiite political parties, Hizbullah and the AMAL Movement. It was the latest incident of violence in what have been largely peaceful protests since October 17 against a political class deemed inept and corrupt. Shortly before midnight on Monday, young supporters of Hizbullah and AMAL tried to attack the main anti-government protest camp in central Beirut. They arrived on foot and scooters, apparently fired up by a video of a Lebanese man living abroad in which he insults the sacred symbols of Shiites. They lobbed stones and fireworks toward the anti-riot police trying to prevent them from entering the largely empty main square. The counterdemonstrators also torched several cars. The security forces responded with teargas and a water cannon. In the southern city of Sidon, young assailants also attacked a protest camp during the night, destroying several tents. The two-month-old protest movement has been mostly peaceful -- with the exception of some unprecedented clashes between anti-government demonstrators and security forces at the weekend.

Bassil Bodyguard Seizes Prominent Journalist Phone at U.N. Forum
Naharnet/December 17/2019
A bodyguard of caretaker Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil on Tuesday snatched the cellphone of a prominent journalist during a U.N. forum in Geneva, the journalist said. “Lebanese FM Gebran Bassil had his security confiscate my phone and erase the video when I was trying to interview him at UN Refugees forum in Geneva,” Lebanese-German journalist Jaafar Abdul Karim tweeted. “UN Security is investigating the incident,” he added. Abdul Karim is an award winning journalist and the host of a popular Arabic-language talk show on Germany’s Deutsche Welle television. Sources close to Bassil meanwhile told LBCI TV that the journalist “did not ask for an interview with the minister but rather repeatedly filmed his movements with his phone and tried to take a statement from him as he was walking in the lobby of the U.N. headquarters.”“This provoked Swiss and Lebanese security guards tasked with protecting the minister,” the sources added.

Bassil Warns World of 'Hundreds of Thousands of Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian Refugees'
Naharnet/December 17/2019
Caretaker Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil on Tuesday warned the international community, especially European countries, that “hundreds of thousands of Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians” might flee to Europe should Lebanon turn into another “Syria.”Speaking at an international conference for refugees at the U.N. headquarters in Geneva, Bassil urged the world to stand by Lebanon and “prevent its collapse.”“Do not allow the economic wars to aggravate its plight, which might push its people and guests to jump on the first boat in search of a new land in your countries, in which they would find their needs and dignity,” Bassil warned. Cautioning that the refugees in Lebanon might turn into “fuel for the war of others on our soil,” the foreign minister said “plots” against Lebanon might push “hundreds of thousands of Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians” to flee the country. “The situation is not good and what happened in Syria might be repeated in our country,” Bassil warned.

Bassil Flies to Geneva for Conference on Refugees
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 17/2019
Caretaker Minister of Foreign Affairs Jebran Bassil led a Lebanese delegation to the first Global Refugee Forum in Geneva where heads of state, government ministers, and business and civil society leaders are gathered to discuss ways to support refugees and host communities. The National News Agency said Bassil's visit is expected to last for a few hours, as he will be returning to Lebanon after delivering Lebanon's speech. The forum, which officially opens Tuesday, is the first follow-up meeting after countries last December adopted the so-called Global Compact on Refugees. At the end of 2018, nearly 26 million people were living outside their home countries as refugees. Lebanon hosts around 1.5 million Syrian refugees who fled their war-torn country to Lebanon.

Report: AMAL Supporter who Shared Sectarian Video to be Questioned
Naharnet/December 17/2019
The Central Criminal Investigations Bureau will interrogate AMAL Movement supporter Abbas al-Shami, who has received and shared a video deemed insulting to Shiites following a Facebook feud with a Lebanese man who lives in Europe. LBCI television said the interrogation will take place under the supervision of the public prosecution. Earlier in the day, five Lebanese lawyers filed a lawsuit against the man who appears in the video, Samer al-Sidawi, accusing him of “jeopardizing civil peace” and demanding his arrest and interrogation.The video sparked riots by AMAL and Hizbullah supporters in central Beirut and attacks on protest sites in Sidon, Nabatieh and Hermel. The assailants demolished tents and burned down three cars as anger boiled over the video. In the video, Sidawi, said to be living somewhere in Europe but otherwise from Lebanon's majority Sunni city of Tripoli, rails against Shiite politicians, religious figures and others. It was unclear what the link was between the video and the attacks on the protest camps but Shami is suspected of having played a role in incitement. Sidawi later released another video apologizing for his words, stating that he "takes medicine and is sick," and that his insults were the result of a personal feud with Shami and that he did not intend to distribute the video to the public. Screenshots published online, apparently of the Facebook chat between Sidawi and Shami, show that the online feud took place on Sunday night, during fierce confrontations between anti-corruption protesters and security forces in downtown Beirut. Supporters of AMAL and Hizbullah intervened in the clashes and attempted to storm the protest site. Shami himself had appeared in a live Facebook video filmed at the protest, in which he said that the protesters would soon be assaulted.
Ali Merhi, an electrician from Khandaq al-Ghamiq, the Beirut neighborhood where the Monday night assailants appear to hail from, said in response to the violence: "The people of this area are all against what happened yesterday, and things have calmed down ... but some are still holding a grudge." Shiite cleric Sheikh Mohammed Qassem Ayyad from Khandaq al-Ghamiq told LBCI TV Monday night: "If the attackers really loved (revered Shiite imam) Hussein, let them evacuate the streets. These are not the ethics of the Shiites."Another protester from the northeastern region of Baalbek, Abbas Huwada, 34, said in Beirut that he is opposed to the violence, adding: "It doesn't matter if I am Shiite or Sunni. We are all Lebanese living under one flag. We need to be wiser. Someone comes out, makes a statement, and turns the country upside down."
The anti-government protests, which erupted in mid-October, have spared no Lebanese politician, accusing the ruling elite of corruption and mismanagement, and calling for a government of independents. They have largely been peaceful, sparked by an intensifying economic crisis. Speaker Nabih Berri and outgoing Prime Minister Saad Hariri met on Tuesday and urged the Lebanese to be aware from being "drawn toward strife" saying that some sides that they did not name are working to incite violence in the country. Both leaders called on the army and police to protect public and private property.

DR Congo Freezes Assets of Lebanese 'Bread King' over U.S. Sanctions
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 17/2019
DR Congo said Tuesday it had frozen the assets of a Lebanese businessman dubbed the Bread King after Washington accused him of financing Hizbullah. But fearing disruption of bread supplies, the government will allow his businesses to open new bank accounts under supervision, government spokesman Jolino Makelele told a press briefing. The U.S. sanctions target Saleh Assi, who is based in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and a compatriot, Nazem Said Ahmad, a Lebanon-based diamond dealer and art collector. In a statement last Friday, the U.S. Treasury Department accused the pair of being "money launderers" who had generated "tens of millions of dollars for Hizbullah, its financiers, and their malign activities."Assi's assets and those of "all of his businesses" will be frozen, along with "all transactions from these accounts," Makelele said after a special cabinet meeting. The businesses will be placed under "an independent administrator until a lasting solution is reached, in line with the requirements of the U.S. Treasury Department's decision," he added. The companies will have a special dispensation to open new bank accounts, but under government supervision. This is to "avoid damaging effects... on the economy and public," Makelele said, referring to the supply of bread by Assi's mega-bakery to the 10 million residents of the capital Kinshasa. The United States considers Hizbullah a "terrorist" organization. The group is a key political player in Lebanon. Washington has targeted the Iran-backed party with tough sanctions, ramped up under the administration of President Donald Trump. Early last year authorities in the DRC forced Assi to abandon a plan to hike prices, which they said would destabilize the country.

Protesters Storm Commerce Chamber during Meeting Attended by Choucair
Naharnet/December 17/2019
Anti-corruption protesters on Tuesday stormed the headquarters of the Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Agriculture in Sanayeh during a meeting attended by caretaker Telecom Minister Mohammed Choucair.
The protesters expressed their rejection of any privatization of the mobile telecom sector and the costs of telecom services in Lebanon. The debate that ensued between the two sides did not involve any violent incident according to a widely shared video.

Dozens of Protesters Rally near Hariri's Residence
Agence France Presse//Naharnet/December 17/2019
Dozens of protesters rallied near caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri's residence in downtown Beirut on Monday evening, refusing his return as prime minister -- a scenario put forward in the past week. "We're protesting here until they form the government people want," said activist Claude Jabre, referring to demands for a cabinet entirely formed of independent experts. Nearby, 27-year-old Youssef said he utterly rejected Hariri as he represented the old political system protesters want to replace. "The parliamentary consultations should reflect what the people want, not what the parliament and the ruling authority want," said the bearded protester, a red and white checkered scarf around his neck. Cabinet formation can drag on for months in the multi-confessional country, with Hariri taking almost nine months to reach an agreement with all political sides for the last one. Consensus on the name of a new prime minister is frequently reached before parliamentary consultations begin. The names of various potential candidates to replace Hariri have been circulated in recent weeks, but bitterly divided political parties have failed to agree on a new premier. Earlier this month, the Sunni Muslim establishment threw its support behind Hariri returning. The powerful Shiite movement Hizbullah, a key political player with ministers in the outgoing government, has also supported the outgoing premier or someone nominated by him. But it has repeatedly dismissed the idea of an exclusively technocratic cabinet.

Lebanon: Mustaqbal Says Premiership Cannot Be Held Hostage to Any Party
Beirut- Asharq Al-Awsat/Tuesday, 17 December, 2019
Mustaqbal Movement issued a strongly-worded statement, in which it attacked the Lebanese Forces party and the Free Patriotic Movement.
“The country stands at a critical crossroads that threatens to bring the direst consequences as a result of the race to score political points in one direction or another,” the statement said, after the two parties refused to nominate caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri to head the new government. There is an “intersection of interests” between the two parties, Mustqabal noted. It added that some parties “have sought, throughout two months, to discredit the post-October 17 events before eventually announcing that they were an inseparable part of the protest movement and revolution.” The movement condemned attempts to “besiege the prime minister’s post and breach the constitutional norms in the designation of premiers.” “Mustaqbal Movement is clearly not awaiting any nomination for PM Hariri from the FPM or the LF, and it does not accept that the premiership post be turned into a ball thrown around by some movements and parties,” the statement said. “The premiership post is bigger than all these heresies and it will not be a hostage held to anyone no matter how influential they might be,” it added. In response, Baabda’s Presidential Office on Monday said that President Michel Aoun did not need constitutional “lessons” from anyone. “Claims that the Free Patriotic Movement bloc intended to cede its votes to the President are mere fabrications and a prejudgment that preceded the binding parliamentary consultations that the president intended to conduct today,” the Presidency’s press office said in a statement. “The president, who is entrusted with the constitution, does not need lessons from anyone in this regard,” the statement noted. The FPM, on the other hand, called for a swift formation of a rescue government and urged Hariri to choose a reliable name for the premiership.

Lebanon FM Gebran Bassil on protests, corruption and reforms
Al Jazeera News/December 17/2019
Lebanon's foreign minister discusses corruption, his role in government and how to address protesters' demands.
Lebanon has been engulfed by nationwide anti-government protests which began in October.People are demanding an end to corruption, a change in the political system and better management of the economy. As a result, Prime Minister Saad Hariri handed in his resignation in late October. But protesters say that is not enough and have been calling for a complete overhaul of Lebanon's political system - and its sect-based power-sharing agreement. And as people chant in the streets against politicians, the one name that seems to be singled out often is Gebran Bassil, Lebanon's foreign minister. Bassil is President Michel Aoun's son-in-law and has previously held other ministerial positions without being an elected member of parliament. Many consider him to be one of the most divisive figures in their country. But Bassil says protesters are wrong to single him out and stresses that "the priority is to save the country".
"We are paying the price of 30 years of wrong policies and corruption ... The country is at the verge of collapsing ... Our economy has all the ingredients to rise up again. This is the priority right now. And later on, justice will prevail, truth will be apparent to everybody," he says.
"Lebanon is a country that is worth to survive. It is a model of diversity, pluralism and tolerance that is worth to preserve. We need Lebanon to be on its feet again to be that model of co-existence. If Lebanon vanishes it can only see extremism and terrorism in our region. So it's worth fighting for."Bassil believes that the one thing Lebanon needs is an efficient government. "We have a failed system but we don't want to have a failed state. The only salvation for Lebanon is a civil state. We are not there yet unfortunately, but we will fight for this first." He explains that they are working on a series of anti-corruption laws and believes that "with the people rising we have an exceptional opportunity to pass these laws". "This (the fight against corruption) is what's uniting us despite our political and religious differences. So we should seize the opportunity and unite all together," says Bassil.
"The republic is in danger," he warns. "Lebanon is a country that is paying for the mistakes of everybody around us. And we are paying a lot, but I think Lebanon should be saved by its friends. And the first thing to do is to stop the external interventions in our country, and not to allow the Lebanese to intervene in others' affairs." At the 2019 Doha Forum, Lebanon's Foreign Minister, Gebran Bassil, talks to Al Jazeera about the uprising, the challenges facing Lebanon, his role in government, corruption and the best way to address the protesters' demands.

Beirut left reeling after online video sparks violent clashes
Arab News/Agencies/December 17/2019
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s capital was rocked by a third night of violence after an online video containing sectarian insults sent hundreds of protesters onto the streets to vent their anger at police and security forces. The protesters, supporters of the Hezbollah and Amal movements, set cars ablaze, and threw stones and fireworks at police, who used tear gas and water cannon to disperse them. Angered by the video, protesters from Beirut’s southern suburb of Khandak El Ghamik used social media platforms late on Monday to issue calls to gather in the capital’s squares, where they again targeted anti-government demonstrators.
It was the third consecutive night of violence in the capital following clashes between anti-government protesters and police on Saturday and Sunday. Riot police and army personnel responded to the attacks by firing dozens of tear gas canisters, wounding several people, including security personnel. More than 20 people were rushed to hospital after the clashes.Appeals for calm by Amal and Hezbollah leaders failed to stop supporters from confronting police and security forces. A local religious leader, Sheikh Mohammed Kazem Ayyad, appeared on television from the Khandak El Ghamik mosque urging protesters to “leave the street.” Youssef Khayat, manager of the Central Monroe Hotel close to the site of the clashes, told Arab News: “Our occupancy rate has fallen to zero. In order to survive, we have to reduce salaries and cut the number of employees. When the confrontations begin in the evening, we lock the doors and stay inside.”Anger over the incident spread to the cities of Sidon and Nabatieh, where young men destroyed protesters’ tents in Elia Square and attacked a number of people. Safety fears forced most schools in Sidon to close on Tuesday while the army carried out patrols throughout the city.
Hezbollah and Amal supporters also destroyed anti-government protesters’ tents in Nabatieh. Nora Farhat, who runs a women’s beauty salon, said the attacks were expected. “Targeting Hezbollah and Amal leaders all the time is bound to cause an explosion on the street. The protesters should accommodate other people, not provoke them. It is true that the protesters are not responsible for the inflammatory video, but everybody is tense.”In an attempt to calm the political situation, caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri visited Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri — the first meeting between the two since the deadlock over forming a replacement government. A statement issued after the meeting said that “it is imperative that the Lebanese demonstrate awareness and vigilance at this stage, preserve civil peace and national unity, and not be drawn into the strife that some are working hard to promote.”Berri and Hariri said that “the need to accelerate the formation of the government has become more than urgent.”Meanwhile, the Imam of Al-Basta mosque, Sheikh Ali Bitar, visited the Khandak El Ghamik mosque to meet Sheikh Ayyad. “We came to assure all Lebanese and the Muslim world that we are one body. We condemn the provocative video,” Sheikh Bitar said. Beirut’s Public Prosecution Department planned to take action against the man who posted the online video but it later emerged he is living in Greece. The man’s uncle said on television: “The family has nothing to do with the words of my nephew.”
Later the man posted a second video apologizing for his actions.

3rd Night of Unrest, Hizbullah, AMAL Supporters Clash with Security Forces
Associated Press/Naharnet/December 17/2019
Supporters of Lebanon's two main Shiite groups Hizbulah and AMAL clashed with security forces and set fires to cars in the capital early Tuesday, apparently angered by a video circulating online that showed a man insulting Shiite figures. Police used tear gas and water cannons trying to disperse them. It was the third consecutive night of violence, and came hours after Lebanon's president postponed talks on naming a new prime minister, further prolonging the turmoil and unrest in the Mediterranean country. President Michel Aoun postponed the binding consultations with leaders of parliamentary blocs after the only candidate — caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri — failed to win the backing of the country's largest Christian groups amid a worsening economic and financial crisis.
The postponement followed a violent weekend in the small nation that saw the toughest crackdown on demonstrations in two months. Lebanese security forces repeatedly fired tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons to disperse hundreds of protesters in downtown Beirut in the worst violence since demonstrations against the political elite erupted in mid-October. On Monday night, a group of young men clashed with security forces in downtown Beirut after a video began circulating online in which a man insulted Shiite political and religious figures, heightening sectarian tensions. The group, apparently supporters of Hizbullah and the Amal Movement led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, set at least three cars on fire and hurled stones and firecrackers at riot police. Police responded with tear gas and water cannons. Aoun had been scheduled to meet with the heads of parliamentary blocs to discuss the naming of the new prime minister. Those consultations are binding, according to the constitution, and Hariri, who resigned under pressure Oct. 29, was widely expected to be renamed. The presidential palace said the consultations would be held instead on Thursday, based on a request from Hariri. The U.N. special coordinator for Lebanon, Jan Kubis, had warned that because of the collapsing economy, such postponements are "a risky hazard both for the politicians but even more so" for the people.
Lebanon is enduring its worst economic and financial crisis in decades with a massive debt, widespread layoffs and unprecedented capital controls imposed by local banks amid a shortage in liquidity.
Hariri resigned after protests began earlier in October over widespread corruption and mismanagement. The palace said Hariri had asked Aoun to allow for more time for discussions among political groups before official consultations. Earlier, the country's main Christian groups said they refused to back Hariri, who has served as premier three times.
His office said in a statement that he is keen for national accord, adding that had he been named to the post, it would have been "without the participation of any of the large Christian blocs." Under Lebanon's power-sharing system, the prime minister has to be a Sunni Muslim, the president a Maronite Christian and the parliament speaker from the Shiite community. Hariri has emerged as the only candidate with enough backing for the job, but he is rejected by protesters who demand a Cabinet of independent technocrats and an independent head of government not affiliated with existing parties.
Although the protests had united all sectarian and ethnic groups against the ruling elite, tensions had surfaced from the start between protesters and supporters of the Shiite groups Hizbullah and Amal, after the latter rejected criticism of its leaders. Hariri had asked the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for help developing a reform plan to address the economic crisis. Moody's Investors Service said that without technical support from the IMF, World Bank and international donors, it was increasingly likely that Lebanon could see "a scenario of extreme macroeconomic instability in which a debt restructuring occurs with an abrupt destabilization of the currency peg resulting in very large losses for private investors." Its currency has been pegged at 1,507 Lebanese pounds to the dollar since 1997, but in recent weeks it has reached more than 2,000 in the black market. Lebanon's debt stands at $87 billion or 150 percent of GDP.

Protesters in Arab World's Newest Uprisings Face a Long Haul
Associated Press/Naharnet/December 17/2019
Abbas Ali spends most of his free time camped out in Tahrir Square — the epicenter of Iraq's anti-government protests — going home only at 3 a.m. to catch few hours of sleep, change his clothes and check on his family. He is determined to stay in the square until the end, whatever that may be. Ali was only 13 when the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein. He only vaguely remembers life under the dictator. What he knows clearly is that life in post-Saddam Iraq is a daily, often humiliating struggle for survival. The 29-year-old considers himself lucky to have a job, although the pay barely covers medical bills for his ailing father and elderly mother. His two brothers and sister are unemployed. So are most of his friends. He says marriage is the furthest thing from his mind since he couldn't possibly afford to start a family.
Angry at factional, sectarian politicians and clerics he blames for stealing Iraq's wealth, Ali embodies the young Iraqis in Baghdad who for more than two months have waged a revolt calling for the downfall of a hated political class. A similar scene is taking place in tiny Lebanon, where for 62 days now, young people have protested the political elite in charge since the 1975-90 civil war, blaming them for pillaging the country to the point of bankruptcy. The sustained, leaderless protests are unprecedented and have managed to bring down the governments of both countries. But they have been unable to topple their ruling systems: The same politicians have kept their hold, wrangling and stalling over forming new governments and ignoring the broader calls for radical reform.
The standoff gets more dangerous as it draws out, posing the most serious existential threat in years — in Iraq since Saddam's 2003 ouster and in Lebanon since the civil war's end. Iraq has been plunged into yet another cycle of violence with more than 450 protesters killed by security forces. Lebanon is on the verge of chaos, with a looming economic disaster.
The protests reflect a broader malaise playing out across much of the Arab world. As the Middle East ushers in 2020, experts say a new kind of uprising is unfolding. While the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings that took place in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria were directed at long-ruling autocrats, the current economically driven uprisings are directed at an entire class of politicians and a system they say is broken and has failed to provide a decent life. In Iran, economic discontent has worsened since President Donald Trump imposed crushing sanctions last year. The U.N. says more than 200 people were killed by security forces shooting at protesters in recent weeks after the government raised gasoline prices. In Egypt, there have been scattered outbursts of street protests despite draconian measures imposed under President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. Jordan, Algeria and Sudan are all witnessing similar protests.
DYSFUNCTIONAL STATES
"The politicians' corruption has stolen and ruined the future of our youth," reads a huge banner in Baghdad's Tahrir Square. It's a sentiment that sums up the feeling across Iraq and Lebanon. Both countries have a power-sharing agreement that allocates top posts according to religious sect and has turned former warlords into a permanent political class that trades favors for votes. The level of dysfunction and failing services in both countries is staggering, with garbage left uncollected, chronic cuts in electricity and systemic corruption and nepotism. The two countries are also perpetually trapped in and paralyzed by the regional push-pull between Iran and the U.S. and their respective local pawns. Meanwhile, poverty and joblessness continues to rise — in the case of Iraq, despite its great oil wealth. Ali, the Baghdad protester, says he feels like a stranger in his own country, floating between jobs and unemployment. He says he feels sick every time he turns on the TV and sees Iraqi leaders speak."Mako watan," he said, a colloquial expression for "this is not a country."Samar Maalouly, a 32-year-old Lebanese protester, calls her country's politicians "monsters.""What I'd like to know is, don't they ever have enough?" she said during a recent demonstration in downtown Beirut. Paul Salem, president of the Washington-based Middle East Institute, summed up the painful standoff. "On the one hand stands a young generation demanding good governance, an end to corruption, and socio-economic progress and justice; on the other sits a corrupt and sectarian political class — backed in key ways by Iran — that doesn't want to give up any of its positions or riches," he wrote in an analysis last week.
SEEDS OF CHANGE
The protests in Iraq and Lebanon are unique in that for the first time, people from all sects and social classes are transcending divisions to hold their leaders to account. They are desperate to hang on to this gain. Graffiti in Baghdad and Beirut urges an end to the sectarian power-sharing system. In conservative Iraq, women are for the first time openly taking part in the protests. Politicians are betting on the passage of time and internal disputes to destroy the protest movement. In Iraq, a series of attacks by unknown assailants including stabbings, assassinations and kidnappings have fostered fear among demonstrators. Lebanon's largely peaceful rallies are degenerating into violence. Protesters face a conundrum: By persisting with street action, they risk angering those in the wider populace eager for stability and a return to normal life. Some say the demands are simply too radical to be implemented. But if they stop, they risk losing this moment of unity against their rulers. Protesters insist what they're planting now are the long-awaited seeds of change. But analysts say it's a long haul. "Corruption is ingrained at every level, and it's something that if you wanted to fix, you basically have to take the entire elite class and throw it out of the country. And while people may want to do that, how do you do that without just incredible violence?" said Trenton Schoenborn, an author with the International Review, an online publication dedicated to global analysis. Ali, the Iraqi protester, says he and his comrades have come too far to stop now. "This is a one-way street," he said. "It's either us or them. If they win this time, it's over."

The idea that Lebanon's armed forces represent a solution to the current crisis is an illusion
Michael Young/The National/December 17/2019
The military reflects a society divided by sectarianism, with all the paradoxes that entails
There have been two broad interpretations of how the Lebanese armed forces have behaved in the ongoing protests in Lebanon. Both are inaccurate and both fail to understand what really drives the country’s military. One interpretation – that held by many protesters – is that the army has protected demonstrators and, within the limits imposed by the sectarian political system, has supported their demands. The second, advanced by politicians and pundits on the political right in the US who support Israel, is that the armed forces are a facade for Hezbollah. Even a cursory look at what has taken place in Lebanon in the past six weeks disproves both narratives. While the army has defended demonstrators in many places, it has also done more than that. Protesters have been detained and even mistreated in some locations. Earlier this week, for example, soldiers forcibly removed demonstrators blocking a main coastal road. At other times, the army has stood by while thugs associated with Hezbollah and the Amal Movement attacked protesters and destroyed their camps. This surely does not suggest that the military is explicitly on the side of the uprising.
On the other hand, the armed forces have definitely not been taking orders from Hezbollah. Where the political class had expected troops to break up protests using force, in fact the military strenuously avoided taking such a radical step. This earned it criticism from the two main Shiite parties, Hezbollah and Amal, underlining how the armed forces pursue their own agenda.
The reality is much simpler. Lebanon’s armed forces are a reflection of the country's sectarian society, with all its disagreements. To reduce the pressures this might place on the organisation, it has long adopted a corporate identity over and above sectarian divisions. This identity has been focused on preserving the institution and managing its underlying contradictions from within.
What has this meant in terms of Hezbollah? While the party has allies in the army, Hezbollah is not in a position to compel the military to act in a certain way, nor are any of its branches fully under its sway. Rather, the armed forces are made up of myriad interest groups that seek to preserve the status quo from which they benefit, by avoiding a clash among themselves for the greater benefit of the organisation. Some might engage with Hezbollah, others might not. But the different sides will not threaten military unity by turning this into a matter of internal discord.
The principal motives explaining the military’s behaviour in the Lebanon protests have been threefold – to avoid being drawn into the political divisions that the uprising has exacerbated, to retain popular support while portraying the military as a supranational institution free from corruption, and to protect public institutions but without doing so in a way that threatens public support.
In many regards, the model to which the armed forces continue to adhere is that put in place by independent Lebanon’s first armed forces commander, Fouad Chehab. In 1952, there was a political crisis when then president Bishara Al Khoury resigned under pressure from his political foes. At the time, Chehab had shielded the military from the political disputes, agreeing only to head an interim government until a successor to Al Khoury could be elected. In 1958 another political crisis came about when Camille Chamoun sought to use manipulated elections to extend his presidential term. What ensued was a shortlived civil war in which Chehab again kept the army on the sidelines while it actively prevented any one side from gaining a decisive advantage. By playing the role of arbitrator, Chehab not only safeguarded the military institution, he also gained enough trust to be elected president to succeed Chamoun.
The paradox is that while army commanders will strenuously avoid politicising the armed forces, many have had the ambition to become president. In the past two decades, three former armed forces commanders have been president. The current commander Joseph Aoun might well have a similar ambition.
That could partly explain why he has been so keen to preserve the neutrality of the armed forces and avoid alienating the public. Mr Aoun does not want to engage in repression of the population, particularly as its demands are entirely justified. Moreover, he certainly does not want to do so on behalf of a discredited political class, whose number includes the controversial figure Gebran Bassil, the son-in-law of Lebanese President Michel Aoun and a presidential hopeful.
People assist a wounded protester during clashes in central Beirut, Lebanon, 14 December 2019. The sit-in continues its nightly movements in front of the parliament entrance as they refuse to assign Saad Hariri to head the government. Next 16 December parliamentary consultations will begin to choose a prime minister. Nabil Mounzer/ EPA
There is an illusion among some Lebanese that the armed forces represent a solution to the current political crisis. With politicians’ reputations in tatters because of the way they have plundered the state, the notion that the military can successfully take over power is dangerous. Not only would it undermine everything the military has tried to do since the protests began, it would go against the balancing game that has long allowed it to overcome its paradoxes. That’s why it is a mistake for opponents of the protests to try to enrol the military in the suppression of demonstrators, and it is why trying to punish the military for being an alleged Hezbollah cat's paw is reckless. Lebanon’s military, like most national institutions embodying unity in otherwise divided states, is a reflection of Lebanon itself. Its survival often means embracing uneasy inconsistencies.
*Michael Young is editor of Diwan, the blog of the Carnegie Middle East programme, in Beirut

Hezbollah: Renewed Concerns of Power-sharing and Democracy
Sam Menassa/Asharq Al Awsat/December 17/2019
The night before the binding parliamentary consultations for the formation of a Lebanese government, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, appeared once again to draw the blueprint of the formation. He delineated what was acceptable and what was not, affirming the saying, “One man rules the country.” Speaking before Nasrallah’s statement, the caretaker Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gebran Bassil, asserted his party’s determination to refrain from taking part in a government headed by Saad Hariri, adopting the popular demand for a technocratic government from head to toe. On the other hand, he stated that he insisted that the government formation reflect the balance of powers that were produced by the last parliamentary elections, reaffirming his arrogant formula: Either Hariri and I are both in the government, or both of us are outside of it. Bassil’s statement was free of outdated catch phrases concerning the course of the government formation since Michel Aoun became president, such as power-sharing, according to a parliamentary majority and minority in a government of technocrats playing proxy for politicians.
Nasrallah did not deviate from his usual dismissal of the Lebanese uprising as a conspiracy and putting it in the context of an open confrontation between Iran and the United States or rewinding the clock to before the uprising, and then forming a government that reflects the one that resigned in terms of balances of power, with him taking control over it, such as in parliament where he has a majority.
What’s new in his speech is the calm tone that he used and the democratic spirit that dominated the part of his speech addressing the Lebanese government. Nasrallah stated that “just as we rejected a one-sided government when they had a majority we are today rejecting a one-sided government while we have a majority because it is not in Lebanon’s interest.” He demanded a national unity government with the broadest possible representation able to overcome the economic and social crisis in the country.
Also new is his denial of Hezbollah’s insistence on Hariri as the next prime minister while affirming that they will respect that the others will choose the strongest in his sect. Only in passing did he address Bassil’s position, without naming him, asserting that Hezbollah is determined to share power with the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) in the new government.
Putting aside Hezbollah’s concern with Lebanon’s interest, many questions are revolving around his insistence on a power-sharing government with parties whom he one time calls ‘conspirators’ and another ‘corrupt.’ Reason dictates that if Hariri refuses to head the new government and the Progressive Socialist Party, Kataeb Party, and the Lebanese Forces all announce not wanting to be a part of it, Hezbollah will have the chance to form a government that will serve their interests. So why don’t they?
There are questions about the fate of the popular uprising, accusing it of treason on the one hand, and neglecting its demands on the other, especially those related to the formation of an independent technocratic government from outside the political groups in power for thirty years. How will Hezbollah deal with it? Will they deal with it the same way they dealt with the revolution in Iraq, as a by-product of the battle between Iran and the US?
What about Hezbollah’s relationship with its Christian ally and the Secretary-General’s marginalization of Bassil’s most recent statements? Has this relationship been shaken? Or is it just maneuvering behind which something we do not know of is cooking?
In reality, contrary to what they are both trying to imply, Iran and Hezbollah are in an unfortunate position, both regionally and internationally, especially after the popular uprisings in Lebanon and Iraq have proven that the Islamic Republic has failed to appeal to the local Shiite communities. Lebanon is witnessing an unprecedented popular uprising and tensions between the protesters, and Hezbollah and Amal supporters. Iraq is also witnessing a popular Shiite uprising with a primary demand that Iran stops intervening in Iraq’s internal affairs, an uprising that has been very violently repressed with arbitrary killings, persecutions, and assassinations of national activists, for which pro-Iran militias are the prime suspects.
Internationally, the closing statement of the international conference, formed by European initiative to help Lebanon, suggested that Lebanon distance itself from regional conflicts so that aid can reach it. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on the Lebanese people, explicitly, to end the danger that Hezbollah poses as a first step towards escaping the crisis. At the same time, he announced new sanctions on Tehran. He also called for limiting the dangerous Iranian influence in the region after what it did in Yemen and Syria, where Iran now shares power with Russia and Turkey after it was the sole decision-maker. From that, we understand Hezbollah’s insistence on sharing the government with Hariri and the FPM, as more than ever, it needs a Christian and Sunni cover.
As for the popular uprising, it is likely that the tensions between the protesters and the supporters of the Shiite duo will persist without an intervention from Hezbollah similar to that of May 7, 2008. Instead they will continue to instruct the armed forces to be firmer with the protesters, which has recently manifested.
As for the relationship between Hezbollah and the FPM, the constant is that Hezbollah will not risk the Christian cover that it received like a gift from the heavens with the FPM. The most likely scenario is that their most recent positions are only a maneuver meant to proceed with appointing Hariri as prime minister while sizing him down by granting him a tiny majority. Later, they may hinder the formation of the government in order to extend the term of the caretaker government and allow it to continue to serve the interests of all the parties that are part of it. Also, the state will have to take unpopular and perhaps painful measures to address the economic and financial crisis, and there is no harm in the caretaker cabinet as it is to do so.
The possibility of forming an independent technocratic government is out of the question for Hezbollah, which will not compromise its influence in Lebanon at a time where the party and its Iranian patrons are in desperate need to hold onto their influence. Hezbollah will not risk all of these achievements, which it has worked hard to introduce to political life from the consensus to the agreement and power-sharing, all of which granted it the strongest hand with regards to drawing the country’s political map.
Another scenario is possible, where Hariri throws the ball into Aoun and Hezbollah’s court and refuses being appointed. Either he will accept or will turn the table on everyone, taking advantage of everyone, from his sect to his opponents, who insists on him being appointed, announcing to everyone, mainly the protesters, the formation of an independent technocratic government that meets the people and the international community’s demands. This would help alleviate the difficult economic situation in the country which may lead to a social explosion that would be difficult to contain. Only then would the white become distinguishable from the black. This hypothetical scenario is unrealistic in a country deluded into believing it is a nation, and it appears that darkness is looming over the country.

Analysis/Lebanon’s Protest Have Only One Solution, and It’s Nowhere in Sight
Zvi Bar'el/Haaretz/December 17/2019
With long and tiresome negotiations expected over the country's next government, the question is how long the public can wait while avoiding violent clashes.
In a letter sent by the managers of the twelve clubs in Lebanon’s premiere soccer league to the country’s Football Association, they warn that the dire economic conditions, mainly the limits banks have set on releasing foreign currency, could harm the ability of these clubs to hire foreign players.
The practical meaning of this letter is that these teams will be unable to maintain their professional standards, losing their best players, with the entire season going to waste unless a quick solution is found. Legally, explain jurists whose expertise is in these matters, every contract with a foreign player contains a clause which permits one side to abrogate the contract due to “force majeure” such as war, a strike or civil unrest, without paying compensation. This clause offers no solution for someone whose team absolutely depends on foreign players.
In the absence of attractive and suspenseful games, revenues will decline, as will the prestige of the league’s teams. The problem is that no one can tell soccer teams when “unusual circumstances” that constitute a “force majeure” end.
On Monday, 128 Lebanese parliamentarians were scheduled to convene at the presidential palace in Baabda to discuss the selection of a new prime minister. Everyone was ready to set out in their convoys to meet President Michel Aoun, but at the request of outgoing Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, the meeting was postponed until Thursday. In the meantime, demonstrators continue to fill city squares in downtown Beirut, clashing with security forces, as well as occasionally with supporters of Hezbollah and of the Amal movement, movements that oppose the anti-government protests.
The demands of the protesters focus on one central issue: “Remove the government and change the system.” This is the same cry heard in the streets of Baghdad, where party leaders have likewise failed to agree on a person to replace the resigning prime minister, Adil Abdul Mahdi.
The “system” in the two countries is similar. In Iraq, it was the American occupation that created the manner in which portfolios and senior positions are distribution among the larger communities, the Shi’ites, Sunnis, Kurds and other minorities. In Lebanon it was the Taif Agreement that was signed in 1989. This agreement determined the political structure in which every community was allotted a predetermined and agreed-upon number of members of parliament, with senior positions divided between a Christian president, a Sunni prime minister, a Shi’ite speaker of parliament and a Druze army commander. Each community is allotted a consensual number of cabinet members.
The Taif Agreement, which put an end to the 15 year-long civil war, was an exceptional political and civil achievement. Following it, a national army was established, one which, at least formally, is not based on sectarian divisions, in which Shi’ite officers commanded only Shi’ite units, with Sunni soldiers serving only in Sunni units, as was the situation previously. The distribution of seats in parliament created a situation in which no community could form a government on its own, without a coalition with other communities.
For example, the agreement determines that out of 128 members of parliament, 54 are Muslim, 27 of them Shi’ite and 27 Sunni; 54 are Christian, distributed according to different sects, with the rest distributed between Druze and other communities. The result is that the Shi’ites, although constituting a majority in Lebanon, cannot form a coalition without the Sunnis, and vice versa. This division was intended to break down the communitarian politics which had engendered the civil war, while building a balanced administration which can manage the country through communitarian cooperation, with the entire structure precluding any deterioration into a new civil war.
However, 30 years after the signing of this agreement, it turns out that this political balance has created a diplomatic and economic standstill, while building strong political elites and enriching the political leaders of the larger communities. The agreement laid down the infrastructure for the deep corruption which is dragging the government and its institutions, as well as the entire country, into an economic abyss. Every community and its leader stood on guard lest another community obtain more bids or budgets.
Government corporations made sure that jobs were distributed according to a communitarian key. For university graduates, top marks were only a necessary but insufficient condition for getting a government job. They were required to obtain the “sponsorship” of the “right” community or party, or to be part of that community. The army was meticulous in maintaining a balance between different communities in its ranks, but in doing so it pushed away people who wanted to enlist but encountered a military demographic wall. Bids were put together specifically for crony contractors, many of whom received millions of dollars without doing the work. This is how cabinet decisions were made as well.
According to Lebanon’s constitution, cardinal decisions such as ratifying budgets, setting foreign policy or launching national projects, require approval by two thirds of the 30 members of cabinet. It was enough for any block to enlist 11 ministers for a decision to be foiled. This is where Hezbollah’s political power lies.
Even though there are only three ministers representing that group, the bloc that supports it includes 18 ministers which include a Sunni minister who is part of a list of ministers the president can appoint. The organization has thereby assured itself control over any government decision, and it will not relinquish such power at this point. When Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri resigned at the end of October, he left an escape hatch when he demanded the setting up of a government of experts that does not depend on a communitarian distribution of portfolios.
Last week, when his name came up again as a candidate for heading the new government, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah declared that the new government must give appropriate representation to all sectors in Lebanon. In other words, a government of experts which would deprive him of his political clout would be formed only over his dead body.
In the streets of Beirut, they are unwilling to accept the return of Hariri as prime minister. Only a government of experts will assuage the protesters. But the protest movement has only spokesmen so far, not leaders who could dictate to President Aoun how to proceed. Aoun himself has economic and political interests in maintaining the current arrangement, which gives him and his party, the Free Patriotic Movement, which is linked to Hezbollah, its enormous political power. The realistic solution that seems to be shaping up is the appointment of Hariri as prime minister and professional ministers according to a communitarian key, namely, a minster of finance or health with a professional record but also with a particular political identity.
Long and tiresome negotiations are expected, which could take weeks or months. Following the last election in 2018, it took eight months until the sides reached an agreement and formed the current government. The ominous question mark hovering above is to what extent will the public be willing to wait for the results of these negotiations while abstaining from violent clashes, which could deteriorate into street battles, if not worse.

Lebanon must find a way to escape Hezbollah’s clutches
Khaled Abou Zahr/Arab News/December 17/2019
It is now clear that Lebanon is heading for complete financial meltdown. As Saad Hariri, the caretaker prime minister, reaches out to international institutions for help, the best way to describe the situation is not the bailout of a country but a full-on hostage being held for ransom situation.
Hezbollah has been holding Lebanon hostage for too long. The Iranian proxy’s leader Hassan Nasrallah, who proudly admits he is serving under the orders of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Quds Force boss Qassem Soleimani, is the true decision-maker in the country. He is the regime, nobody else. President Michel Aoun, Hariri and their ilk are nothing but pragmatic puppets or useful idiots.
The ongoing protests, which are now in their third month, have taken all the Lebanese politicians by surprise. And, as the people’s resolve is not withering, Hezbollah is pushing the Lebanese security forces and the armed forces to do its dirty work by hitting back at the peaceful protesters. People are now left between a rock and hard place, as Hezbollah’s thugs are being unleashed and the sovereign institutions arrest the protesters rather than those who are attacking them. It has been a constant aim of Hezbollah to weaken the state institutions. Hezbollah threatens all those who dare go after its main interest, which is full military and security control of the territory. The Iranian proxy — it should not be referred to as a Lebanese party — has been controlling all security points in the state to achieve its own objectives. Its mission is clear and simple: To maintain the Iranian balance of power in negotiations with the US and other international powers. Airports, ports, roads, communications, and networks (including electricity) are controlled by Hezbollah. It does not care about the people; it only cares about its mission. It is willing to resort to extreme violence to achieve what it wants, as it has done in Syria.
So where does this leave the protests? Unfortunately, it seems they have little hope of success. On a local level, without the support of the army to force change, nothing will happen and the risks to the lives and well-being of the protesters increase with time. On an international level, it seems the Europeans are keen on maintaining the regional status quo with Iran and not destabilizing Hezbollah in Lebanon in order to continue efforts to re-establish trade deals with Iran through INSTEX. As for the US, most voices are staying silent as the presidential election race is about to begin, and there is no clarity in any of the candidates’ future policies toward Iran and thus Lebanon.
Hezbollah is willing to resort to extreme violence to achieve what it wants, as it has done in Syria. This is also reflected in the low international interest in the protests taking place in Iraq, which have been much more violent, as well as in Iran itself. Yet what is happening in Lebanon is not only a protest against the mullahs’ interference in the country’s policies, but a stand for true state sovereignty. It is also beyond corruption, which is a symptom of a flawed and weak state. As the situation worsens economically, and without any aid forthcoming, the people and public servants alike will no longer receive their salaries and there will be a shortage of imports. This situation can only be blamed on Hezbollah, Hariri, Aoun and all the political leaders, not the people. Another bailout and more debt will not solve the situation, but rather make the hostage-taker dictate the rules once again. It is time to force change and find a way to re-establish the country’s full sovereignty. This can only start with a single army and an end to Lebanese political forces offering international coverage for the mullahs’ nefarious interference. It may be wishful thinking, but — as a Lebanese — I choose this over reality and pragmatism.
*Khaled Abou Zahr is CEO of Eurabia, a media and tech company. He is also the editor of Al Watan Al Arabi.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 17-18/2019'
U.S. Is Open to Dialogue With Iran, Special Envoy Hook Says
Simone Foxman/Bloomberg/December 17/2019
The U.S. is open to dialogue with Iran even as Washington enforces sanctions against the Islamic Republic, Brian Hook, the U.S. special representative for Iran, said in a Bloomberg TV interview. Iran remains a threat to international peace and security, Hook said in Doha. It’s widely known that Iran was behind the attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities in September, and the Saudi government at some point will present evidence of Iran’s complicity to the United Nations Security Council, he said. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is also in the Qatari capital, though he has no permission from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to talk with Americans, Hook said. U.S. Open to Dialogue With Iran: Hook. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Iran for what it considers the Persian Gulf country’s aggressive and destabilizing policies in the region, such as the proxy war with U.S. ally Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Iran denies responsibility for the Sept. 14 aerial strikes on Saudi installations. Widespread protests in Iran in recent weeks are “anti-regime” in nature even if they aren’t evidence of pro-U.S. sentiment, Hook said. U.S. sanctions do not restrict imports of medical supplies into Iran and are not causing a humanitarian crisis there, he said. Hook said he sees a positive trend among Arab nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council over the healing of a rift over Qatar. The U.S. is hopeful of a reconciliation between Qatar and three of its neighbors -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain -- which severed diplomatic and economic ties with Doha over its alleged support for pro-Iranian terrorism. Qatar has denied the accusation. A decision to end the dispute lies with leaders in the GCC, but the U.S. has made it clear that it’s easier to confront Iran if the six-member regional group -- which includes Kuwait and Oman -- is unified, Hook said.— With assistance by Fiona MacDonald, and Giovanni Prati

Kuwait announces new government
Arab News/Reuters/December 17/2019
DUBAI: Kuwait formed a new government on Tuesday that replaced the son of the emir as defense minister and named an interior minister from outside the ruling family, a month after the former cabinet quit. The oil minister of the OPEC producer retained his post, while new foreign and finance ministers were named, the state news agency KUNA said. Kuwait's Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah last month tapped then foreign minister Sheikh Sabah Al-Khalid Al-Sabah to take over as premier and form a cabinet. The prime minister traditionally helps navigate relationships between parliament and government. The emir has final say in state matters.He addressed the new ministers after the oath ceremony and encouraged them to “address problems of citizens in ministries and government departments, and facilitate administrative measures within the laws and regulations.” The key post of oil minister remained occupied by Khaled Al-Fadhel, but Ahmad Mansour Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah was appointed defense minister, Anas Khaled Nasser Al-Saleh became interior minister, and Ahmad Nasser Al-Mohammad Al-Sabah became foreign affairs minister. Mariam Aqeel Al-Aqeel had previously been acting minister of finance and was confirmed to that position. The new government also includes two other women; Rana Abdullah Al-Fares as minister of public works and minister of state for housing affairs and Ghadeer Mohammed Aseeri as minister of social affairs.(With Reuters)

Hundreds of American troops added to targeted Iraq base as US threatens reprisal for Iraqi militias’ rocket attacks
DebkaFile/December 17/2019
Hundreds of US troops landed at the US Al-Assad airbase in western Iraq on Monday, Dec. 16 after an American threat of reprisal against pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiite militias for their rocket attacks on US bases in that country. That threat sparked an Iraqi militia exit from Iranian Al Qods bases and command centers in Iraq and Syria – among them, DEBKAfile’s military sources report, the big Iranian military complex near the Syrian-Iraqi border town of Abu Kamal. The Iraqi militiamen crossed into Iraq and scattered in the desert and dry river areas of the western Iraqi province of Anbar. The new American military personnel were transferred by nearly 500 military vehicles from Jordan to the Al Assad air base, which is the largest US military installation in the region. It has come under repeated rocket attack and shelling. The American threat of reprisal was greeted by those militias with a promise of more attacks. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper held conversations with Iraq’s caretaker prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi in the last few days. They warned him that US patience was running out after constant rocket harassment by the local pro-Iranian militias. Since early November, American military and civilian locations, including also the US embassy compound in Baghdad, have taken at least 10 strikes by rockets, mortar shells or Katyusha fire. Esper stressed when he talked to the Iraqi prime minister on Dec. 16, that the US has the right to self-defense. After their conversation, which was described as “tough,” Adel Mahdi called on all parties to exercise restraint and warned the US against taking action. The statement issued in Baghdad said: “Unilateral decisions will trigger negative reactions that will make it more difficult to control the situation and will threaten Iraq’s security, sovereignty and independence.”This was taken is indicating that the Iraqi prime minister had received information that the pro-Iranian Shiite militias were ready to take American punishment but had also completed their preparations to retaliate with more attacks on American bases in Iraq. Those bases house some 5,000 US troops and also serve as the logistic infrastructure for American forces operating in Syria.

UK Navy Chief Says Iran Remains Threat to Marine Navigation in Gulf
Asharq Al-Awsat/Tuesday, 17 December, 2019
Iran's threat to British shipping in the Gulf "hasn't gone away", said head of the Royal Navy Admiral Tony Radakin. Speaking to the BBC on Tuesday, he described the Iran Revolutionary Guards’ capture of the British-flagged tanker the Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz in July as "aggressive" and "outrageous". He stressed that London was working on de-escalating tension with Iran following the incident. At the same time, however, the navy would maintain a heightened military presence in the Gulf, he said. Radakin also made clear that the UK would continue to work with a US-led coalition, known as "Operation Sentinel", to provide maritime security in the Gulf, rather than join a rival European operation being set up by France. While he welcomed the French initiative, he said there were "very simple practical reasons" for the UK to remain part of the US-led operation, including existing strong military ties.He added that the UK had "been very clear" it did not support the Trump administration's policy of maximum pressure on Iran, said the BBC.

UK Royal Navy chief warns ‘aggressive’ Iranian threat persists
The National/December 17/2019
Iranian attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz remain a threat, Britain’s most senior naval officer warned, announcing Britain will retain a heightened military presence in the Arabian Gulf. Adm Tony Radakin, who became Britain’s First Sea Lord this year, told the BBC the Iranian threat, which he called aggressive and outrageous, had “not gone away”. Adm Radakin said it was his hope that Britain could ease tension with Tehran after the release of the British-flagged Stena Impero, which was seized by Iran in July. But he said the Royal Navy would retain its high military presence in the region for now. "We have to react to when a nation is as aggressive as Iran was,” Adm Radakin said. "It was an outrageous act that happened on the high seas and that's why we have responded the way that we have."British government and military officials have been deeply critical of the UK’s readiness at the time of the Stena Impero’s seizure. Adm Radakin’s predecessor, Adm Lord West, said the British response had been poor. Former defence secretary Penny Mordaunt, who was in post at the time, said her attempts to have the Iranian threat to shipping in the Gulf addressed by her government were ignored.
The seizure of the ship was largely interpreted as a retaliatory measure by Iran in response to British forces’ detention of the Adrian Darya-1, previously called Grace 1, which was held on suspicion of breaking EU sanctions on Syria earlier in July. Despite the likelihood of a response from Tehran, the UK had only one vessel, the HMS Montrose, stationed near by when the seizure took place. The frigate has since been replaced by the destroyer HMS Defender. Adm Radakin has also addressed UK strategy in the Gulf. He said Britain would continue to support the US-led coalition, known as Operation Sentinel, around the Strait of Hormuz and would not join a rival operation being formed by France. Adm Radakin welcomed the French initiative but praised the effective partnership between the US and the UK in the Arabian Gulf, saying there were "very simple, practical reasons" to remain part of the US-led initiative.

Regime bombardment kills 14 civilians in northwest Syria: Monitor
AFP, Beirut/Tuesday, 17 December 2019
Syrian regime air strikes and artillery fire on Tuesday killed 14 civilians in the last major opposition bastion in the northwest of the country, a war monitor said. The extremist-held region of Idlib is supposed to be protected by a months-old ceasefire deal to prevent a broad regime offensive, but deadly bombardment has continued. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said regime artillery fire killed six civilians from the same family -- including a mother and her three children -- in the village of Badama. In the village of Maasaran, regime air strikes killed a further four civilians.
Pro-government bombardment also led to four other civilians losing their lives in other parts of the bastion, the Observatory said. The Idlib region, which is home to some three million people including many displaced by Syria’s civil war, is controlled by the country’s former Al-Qaeda affiliate. The Damascus regime has repeatedly vowed to take back control of it. Pro-government forces launched a blistering offensive against the region in April, killing around 1,000 civilians and displacing more than 400,000 people from their homes. Moscow announced a ceasefire in late August, but the Observatory says deadly bombardment and skirmishes have persisted. It says more than 200 civilians have been killed in the region since the deal. Syria’s war has killed over 370,000 people and displaced millions from their homes since beginning in 2011 with the brutal repression of anti-government protests.

Israeli army says strike hits Palestinian in southern Gaza
AFP, Jerusalem/Tuesday, 17 December 2019
An Israeli aircraft on Tuesday hit what the military said was an armed Palestinian seen approaching the Israeli border fence in Gaza. “A short while ago, troops spotted an armed terrorist approaching the security fence in the southern Gaza Strip,” an army statement said.
An Israeli military “aircraft targeted him. A hit was identified,” it added. The statement did not confirm whether the man had been killed and the Palestinian health ministry in the Hamas-controlled strip had no immediate comment. Hamas has controlled Gaza since 2007, and Israel holds the movement responsible for all hostile activity coming from the territory, although it has also hit other militant groups there. Last month, Israeli forces assassinated a senior Islamic Jihad leader in the Gaza Strip, sparking a two-day flare-up which killed 36 Palestinians. Islamic Jihad fired around 450 rockets at Israel, many of which were intercepted by its Iron Dome defense system.Israel has fought three wars with Hamas and allied armed groups in Gaza since 2008.

Erdogan urges resettling of 1 mln refugees in northern Syria ‘peace zone’
Reuters, Geneva/Tuesday, 17 December 2019
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called on Tuesday for the resettlement of 1 million Syrian refugees in a “peace zone” in the northern part of their homeland, on a voluntary basis but in “a very short period of time.”“We need to find formula to allow refugees... who travelled to Turkey to be resettled in their motherland,” Erdogan, whose country hosts 3.7 million Syrian refugees, told the Global Forum on Refugees, being held in Geneva. Housing and schools could be set up in the zone, where some 371,000 Syrian refugees have already returned since Turkish military operations to clear the area of “terrorist organisations”, he said, naming ISIS and the Kurdish YPG and PKK.

Russia and Turkey to discuss Libya military support in January: Kremlin
Reuters, Moscow/Tuesday, 17 December 2019
President Vladimir Putin will next month discuss with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan a plan by Turkey to provide military support to Libya's UN-recognized Government of National Accord, the Kremlin said on Tuesday."Russia … supports any efforts and individual countries in terms of finding solutions to the [Libyan] crisis," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Iraqi lawmaker gets six years for corruption
AFP, Baghdad/Wednesday, 18 December 2019
An Iraqi lawmaker was Tuesday sentenced to six years jail time for graft after being caught in a sting operation, in a rare trial in a country wracked by government corruption. Mahmud Mullah Talal was arrested in late November, just as he himself was trying to bring down the industry minister by exposing him for allegedly lining his own pockets via government contracts. Mullah Talal was about to tell the minister that he had “found out that a private group linked to the minister had been winning all the ministry’s contracts,” a government source told AFP. But in a deft move, an official close to the targeted minister, Saleh al-Juburi, said he wanted to make a deal and proposed paying Mullah Talal $250,000 to buy his silence. What Mullah Talal didn’t know was that a team from the anti-fraud committee was on his tail. As soon as the deal was done, the anti-corruption squad moved in and opened the trunk of his car to reveal $150,000 in cash – a first installment of the pay-off. Mullah Talal was promptly arrested, “caught red-handed,” the government source said. A member of the al-Hikma party, a minority Shia group, Mullah Talal was “sentenced on Tuesday to six years in prison by a Baghdad court,” a legal source told AFP. Iraq has been rocked by weeks of mass protests, with tens of thousands taking to the streets to demonstrate against government corruption, unemployment, and poverty. Around 460 people have died and 25,000 have been wounded. Sentences in corruption cases are rare in Iraq, as officials and businessmen often manage to flee the country before charges can be laid against them.Two former trade ministers, for example, have been sentenced in absentia for pocketing millions of dollars in public funds. According to official figures, oil revenues have raised some $800 billion for public coffers since 2003 – about 90 percent of the country’s budget.But more than half, some $450 billion, is believed to have disappeared in the hands of corrupt officials and businessmen.

Egypt’s El Sisi stresses that Qatar must meet 13 demands to resolve crisis
The National/December 17/2019
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi on Tuesday stressed that Qatar must meet the 13 demands tabled by four Arab nations to resolve the diplomatic crisis. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain severed relations with fellow GCC member Qatar in June 2017 because of Doha's interference in their internal affairs and its support for terrorist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt also joined the boycott."There are ongoing efforts that we hope will succeed,” Mr El Sisi said at the World Youth Forum in Sharm El Sheikh. "Doha’s position has not changed and there are 13 conditions that have not been met. Acting as a mediator, Kuwait presented Qatar with a list of demands from the four Arab nations in 2017. They include closing broadcaster Al Jazeera, drastically scaling back co-operation with Iran, removing Turkish troops from Qatari soil, ending contact with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and submitting to monthly compliance checks. The four Arab countries said compliance would "protect their national security from terrorism". Qatar's Foreign Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, said talks with Saudi Arabia had broken the stalemate and that Doha would "study the demands". But Sheikh Mohammed said Doha would not alter relations with Ankara to resolve the dispute. After the GCC's 40th annual summit last week, the UAE's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Dr Anwar Gargash, said Gulf leaders agree that “long-term, genuine grievances” must be addressed to resolve the crisis.There was some speculation before the summit that Sheikh Tamim, Emir of Qatar, would attend, possibly indicating a breakthrough in resolving the dispute. But instead, Doha sent its Prime Minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Nasser Al Thani. “We are not there yet. That is the view from the Riyadh summit,” Dr Gargash said on Twitter. In the past couple of years, Doha often sent lower-ranking officials to GCC meetings. The new Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, said Kuwaiti mediation would continue away from the media and public eye. Officials in the Gulf and Egypt have long said that relations could be restored if Qatar took serious steps to address the concerns. The White House said US President Donald Trump spoke with Sheikh Tamim on Monday and expressed hope that discussions “would lead to resolution of the Gulf dispute".

HRW: Iraqi State Forces Complicit in Khilani Square Massacre
Baghdad- Asharq Al-Awsat/Tuesday, 17 December, 2019
Unidentified armed forces, in cooperation with Iraqi national and local security forces, carried out brutal killings in Baghdad’s main protest area on December 6, 2019, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW).
The organization issued a report estimating around 29 to 80 protesters to have been killed, and 137 injured. It noted that the electricity was cut during the attack, making it harder for protesters to identify the killers and flee to safety. “Police and military forces withdrew as the unidentified militia, some in uniforms, began shooting.”HRW quoted five witnesses to the killings as saying that on December 6 about 1,000 protesters were present in Baghdad’s al-Senak Garage, a five-story parking garage just off al-Khilani Square they had been occupying since November 16. They said they saw seven pickup trucks speed into the Square, then they started driving through the square slowly as gunmen in plain black uniforms and civilian dress opened fire with AK-47s and PK machine guns above the protesters, before firing directly at them.The witnesses said the protesters were gathering peacefully and did not threaten with any acts of violence. They said they saw about two dozen Federal Police and Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), in two checkpoints in the square, leave by car as the gunmen arrived. On the morning of December 07, the armed men left, they said, and within a few minutes security forces returned. After shooting people in the square, the men in the pickup trucks drove to Senak garage, the witnesses said. A protester said he was on the first floor of the garage with about 150 other protesters when he first heard shots ring out. Then he saw about 30 men in civilian dress carrying machetes and sticks storm the building. A few minutes later he saw five pickup trucks pull up outside, and men in black uniforms enter carrying guns, and they then opened fire on protesters inside the building and stabbed others. He saw at least seven protesters wounded. A protester on the second floor said he heard screams from the first floor, and saw the armed men appear and stab protesters who tried to stand in their way. When the protester from the first floor exited, he hid behind a concrete block, he said; when he looked back, he saw an armed man throw a protester off the third floor and saw others set fire to tires to block emergency exits.
Other witnesses said they saw fire coming from the garage. “The Iraqi government bears the leading responsibility to protect Iraqis’ right to life. It should urgently identify and make public the groups and security forces that engaged in or coordinated these killings and hold perpetrators to account. It should compensate victims of all unlawful killings,” concluded HRW.

Pakistan's death sentence for Musharraf is rare challenge to army's influence
The National/December 17/2019
In a country where the military is considered the most powerful institution and largely immune from prosecution, the conviction of former army chief Pervez Musharraf for treason is remarkable. Pakistan's military has ruled the country directly for half of its life through coups, and has been accused of meddling in politics by promoting its own favourites for much of the rest. While the generals deny political scheming and say they acknowledge civilian rule, opposition politicians and rights groups warn that behind the scenes the military has a growing grip on power. In such a climate, for a former chief of the army staff to be sentenced to death for suspending the constitution is an unprecedented challenge. That the military considered it provocative was evident in its response after the verdict. It left no doubt that the generals were angry and a clash with the judiciary is now likely. “The decision given by the special court about Gen Pervez Musharraf has been received with a lot of pain and anguish by the rank and file of Pakistan armed forces,” the military's information wing said. The armed forces accused the court of ignoring legal due process and denying Musharraf his right to defend himself. Pakistan's forces “expect that justice will be dispensed in line with the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan", they warned. With Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government considered to be closely aligned to the military, his ministers may also come out against the verdict. The court's ruling is the second time in less than a month that judges have issued a rebuff to the military. Late last month, the Supreme Court briefly blocked a three-year extension for the chief of army staff, Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, before passing the decision to Parliament to rule on. Musharraf has the right to an appeal against his conviction and if he loses that, there is still the possibility of a presidential pardon. Farzana Shaikh, an associate fellow at the Chatham House think tank in London, said she was sceptical the sentence could ever be implemented. Musharraf is in Dubai in self-imposed exile. “Obviously this decision is unprecedented and in that way clearly historical," Ms Shaikh said. "But I think it's also important to bear in mind that it's very likely to remain a symbolic decision.” A bigger question is whether it will deter military power plays in the future, she said. It could be significant that the ruling had found him guilty of suspending the constitution in 2007, not of originally overthrowing the civilian government in 1999. “That still leaves people thinking that if things don't go the military's way, it would still be free to mount a coup,” Ms Shaikh said. No one has heard yet from the man at the centre of the drama, Musharraf. But 11 years after he left power, his legacy continues to divide the country.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 17-18/2019
The Big Hole in the China Trade Agreement
Gordon G. Chang/Gatestone Institute/December 17/2019
Moreover, China's officials, once they have encryption keys and access to the China network of a foreign firm, will be in a good position to penetrate the networks of that firm outside China. Therefore, Beijing will soon steal data stored on foreign networks and put companies, like Nortel Networks, out of business or ruin them to the point where Chinese entities can buy them up at reduced prices. Do we really want the Fortune 500 to be owned by China?
There is, of course, no point in including in the trade deal forced taking and intellectual property protections if they do not cover the cybersecurity rules.
Washington will have to do something fast to protect American businesses in China — and the American economy — because the Phase One deal is clearly inadequate. There is, after all, a big hole in the center of it.
China's officials, once they have encryption keys and access to the China network of a foreign firm, will be in a good position to penetrate the networks of that firm outside China. (Image source: iStock)
There's something missing from the "Phase One" trade agreement with China, announced Friday. And it's something critically important. Yet, Larry Kudlow, President Trump's director of the National Economic Council, appeared not to know about it afterwards.
"We will see," said Kudlow in response to Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures," her Fox News Channel show, as she asked him about Beijing's new "cybersecurity" rules. "There's a large IP chapter in this deal and there's also a large forced technology transfer chapter in this deal. I don't think we know enough about these new Chinese rules and we'll have to look at that and by the way if they do violate them of course we will take action."
Bartiromo was referring to two sets of Chinese rules. On December 1, Beijing implemented the Multi-Level Protection Scheme 2.0, issued pursuant to the 2016 Cybersecurity Law. On January 1, China's Cryptography Law becomes effective.
These measures prohibit foreign companies from encrypting data so that it cannot be read by the Chinese central government and the Communist Party of China. Businesses will be required to turn over encryption keys. Companies will not be able to employ virtual private networks to keep data secret, and some believe they will no longer be allowed to use private servers.
Together, these measures allow Beijing to take all the data and communications of foreign companies.
Beijing's complete visibility into the networks of foreign companies will have extremely disadvantages consequences. For instance, Chinese officials will be permitted, under Chinese law, to share seized information with state enterprises. This sharing means the enterprises will weaponize the information against their foreign competitors.
Moreover, China's officials, once they have encryption keys and access to the China network of a foreign firm, will be in a good position to penetrate the networks of that firm outside China. Therefore, Beijing will soon steal data stored on foreign networks and put companies, like Nortel Networks, out of business or ruin them to the point where Chinese entities can buy them up at reduced prices. Do we really want the Fortune 500 to be owned by China?
The U.S. Trade Representative's skimpy Fact Sheet for the Phase One deal does not address the December 1 and January 1 rules. There is, of course, no point in including in the trade deal forced taking and intellectual property protections if they do not cover the cybersecurity rules.
Judging from Kudlow's nonspecific response to Bartiromo and his admission of not knowing much about "these new Chinese rules," the administration apparently has not considered the linkages between them and the trade deal. If that is indeed the case, the Phase One deal will be pointless. Anything — information, data, communications, trade secrets, or technology — protected under its terms will nonetheless be available to Chinese authorities pursuant to the December 1 and January 1 rules.
The remedy? President Trump can pull out of the Phase One deal — something he should do anyway — or use his considerable powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to prohibit American companies from complying with the new cybersecurity rules or from storing data in China. On August 23, Trump threatened to use the act to force companies out of that country.
Washington will have to do something fast to protect American businesses in China — and the American economy — because the Phase One deal is clearly inadequate. There is, after all, a big hole in the center of it.
*Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China and a Gatestone Institute Distinguished Senior Fellow.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

National Security Threat? Should the US Be Doing Business with China at All?
Benjamin Weingarten/Gatestone Institute/December 17/2019
"What I really want to know about is the intellectual property [IP] part of this.... isn't it true that they've [China] just instituted their own new cyber security rules that are in place that say that no foreign company may encrypt data so it can't be read by the Chinese central government and the communist party of China? In other words, businesses are required to turn over the encryption keys. Are these new rules that China just put in place basically negating any opportunity for the U.S. to protect its IP?" — Maria Bartiromo, Sunday Morning Futures, Fox News Channel, Real Clear Politics, December 15, 2019.
China's 2015 National Security Law... says that all citizens, firms and organizations have "the responsibility and obligation to maintain state security." Its 2017 National Intelligence Law obligates such individuals and entities to "support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work..." It is not hard to see how China could apply rules even beyond the Encryption Law to justify violations of a deal with the U.S. under the guise of "national security concerns," and the "rule of law."
"[T]heir own track record, as well as the practices of the Chinese government, demonstrate that Huawei and ZTE cannot be trusted." — US Attorney General William Barr; letter to the Federal Communications Commission, November 13, 2019.
How can the U.S. transact with China in any strategically significant area given the communist regime's aims, and its power over every Chinese entity? Is the US ultimately trading away its freedom?
According to U.S. Attorney General William Barr, "an untrusted provider could facilitate espionage (including economic espionage) and disruption of our critical infrastructure at the whim of a foreign power. In sum, their own track record, as well as the practices of the Chinese government, demonstrate that Huawei and ZTE cannot be trusted."
As the world awaits the details of the Trump Administration's reported "phase one" trade deal with China -- U.S. officials expect it to be executed in January 2020 -- a more fundamental question arises: Should America be doing business with China in strategically significant areas, or even beyond?
In a December 15th interview with Director of the United States National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo indirectly touched on this question. Bartiromo asked Kudlow if the proposed deal accounted for new Chinese regulations that would seemingly threaten the intellectual property (IP) of American firms transacting with Chinese ones. She was likely alluding to China's new Encryption Law, set to take effect on January 1, 2020. Some have suggested that the law would enable the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to collect all information that traffics on Chinese networks. To the extent the trade deal does not account for this law, the implication is that its provisions relating to IP protections could be rendered moot. Here is the relevant portion of the exchange:
MARIA BARTIROMO: What I really want to know about is the intellectual property [IP] part of this. You say that you've got some promises from the Chinese to actually protect intellectual promises -- property, rather, but isn't it true that they've just instituted their own new cyber security rules that are in place that say that no foreign company may encrypt data so it can't be read by the Chinese central government and the communist party of China? In other words, businesses are required to turn over the encryption keys. Are these new rules that China just put in place basically negating any opportunity for the U.S. to protect its IP?
LARRY KUDLOW: Well, look. We will see. There's a large IP chapter in this deal and there's also a large forced technology transfer chapter in this deal. I don't think we know enough about these new Chinese rules and we'll have to look at that and by the way if they do violate then of course we will take action.
Bartiromo's concern is well-founded, not only given the CCP's historical cheating on such deals, but because of the nature of its rule. Consider, for example, China's 2015 National Security Law, which says that all citizens, firms and organizations have "the responsibility and obligation to maintain state security." Its 2017 National Intelligence Law also obligates such individuals and entities to "support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work..." It is not hard to see how China could apply rules even beyond the Encryption Law to justify violations of a deal with the U.S. under the guise of "national security concerns," and the "rule of law."
That Trump Administration officials have emphasized the enforcement mechanism associated with the trade deal; put the burden on the CCP to abide by it, and emphasized that "phase one" is a small step in a years-long process. This approach indicates an acknowledgment of the perils of any such pact, as well as the dangerous nature of transacting with CCP-tied concerns in sensitive industries.
Consider, for instance, the recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to designate leading Chinese telecommunications companies Huawei and ZTE as "national security threat[s]."
According to Federal Communications Commission [FCC] Chairman Ajit Pai, the policy will "prohibit the use of Universal Service Fund [USF] dollars to purchase equipment or services from any company—like Huawei—that poses a national security threat." The FCC is also "initiat[ing] a process to remove and replace such equipment from USF-funded communications networks." Long distance carriers tap the $8.5 billion USF to subsidize their communications services in low-income and high-cost areas, such as remote rural ones.
Attorney General William Barr voiced his support for prohibiting engagement with such companies. The Department of Justice has litigated against both Huawei and ZTE and implicated such companies cumulatively of having engaged in attempts to evade US sanctions on Iran, intellectual property theft, and a raft of additional related crimes, including obstruction of justice -- along with the more fundamental national security concerns. Barr argued that "a willingness to break U.S. law combined with a determination to avoid the consequences by obstructing justice argues against the reliability of a provider." He added:
"... an untrusted provider could facilitate espionage (including economic espionage) and disruption of our critical infrastructure at the whim of a foreign power. In sum, their own track record, as well as the practices of the Chinese government, demonstrate that Huawei and ZTE cannot be trusted."
As Chairman Pai put it:
The concern is that hostile foreign actors could use hidden 'backdoors' to our networks to spy on us, steal from us, harm us with malware and viruses, or otherwise exploit our networks. As a brand-new report on 5G security put it, 'the most severe threats [are] posed by compromised confidentiality, availability and integrity associated with a State or State-backed actor.' And there are mounting reasons to believe that the Chinese firms Huawei and ZTE pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security."
Chairman Pai and AG Barr's shared concerns echo those expressed broadly across the intelligence community.
Jack Keane, for instance, a retired four-star general and chairman of the Institute for the Study of War, has called China "the number one stealer of data in the world."
Former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton stated in June 2019, that "China is continuing cyberattacks against government and private sector networks aimed at obtaining intellectual property to support China's military buildup and economic modernization."
His successor, National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien recently suggested an additional threat to the homeland: "What if, for democracies, China knew every single personal, private piece of information about any of us...?"
Until recently, at least, the Trump Administration, with the support of Congress, has been engaged in an underappreciated effort to keep products made by these Chinese companies out of the federal government as well as out of the vital infrastructure of allied countries.
On the domestic front, the executive and legislative branches have also engaged in mutually reinforcing actions. These have included: adding Huawei and dozens of its affiliates to the Commerce Department's Entity List -- reinforced by the forthcoming National Defense Authorization Act -- restricting exports from U.S. concerns to these entities; threatening an executive order that would ban Chinese telecommunications equipment from U.S. wireless networks; an administrative review that ultimately led to the collapse of the Broadcom-Qualcomm merger; Congress's passing of legislation that restricts Huawei-related purchases by executive agencies, and myriad additional drafts of legislation or requests of the Trump Administration to protect the U.S. from Chinese telecommunications companies, including barring Huawei from the US electrical grid.
On the foreign side, America has engaged in a global campaign to dissuade countries from allowing Huawei to build fifth-generation (5G) infrastructure. Sadly, results of this exercise have been decidedly mixed, exposing the dangerous reach of Chinese telecommunications companies, but also of China's grand strategy for global hegemony.
Huawei is not only a microcosm of, but a linchpin in China's overall strategy aimed at -- as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently defined it -- "international domination." Essential to that strategy has also been the attempt to dominate strategically significant industries, and using that dominance to gain global footholds through commerce that ultimately serves the CCP's aims, whether in its own national security or its ability further to project its power.
Like many Chinese companies, Huawei might best be thought of as a "dual-use" entity -- as a firm that sells products to civilians, but that can also have military applications for governmental purposes.
Huawei, the world's largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer, is the West's chief competitor in the race for the vital area of 5G technology -- a race that Western companies are currently losing. The consequences are potentially cataclysmic, as Gordon Chang wrote recently for the Gatestone Institute:
With speeds 2,000 times faster than existing 4G networks, 5G will permit near-universal connectivity to homes, vehicles, machines, robots, and everything plugged into the Internet of Things (IoT).
Moreover, with just about everything connected to everything else, China will filch the world's information. [Emphasis added.]
Huawei is not, by any Western definition, a private, free market enterprise.
Its founder, Ren Zhengfei, was a member of the Engineering Corps of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) -- the Communist Party's military -- from 1974 to 1983, where he worked in telecommunications research. He is and has been a longtime outspoken member of the ruling Chinese Communist Party.
Also, according to a 2009 report commissioned by the Congress's US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), Huawei was among several Chinese technology firms that "originated as state research institutes," allegedly with substantial seed funding from a state-backed bank.
At every turn, Huawei has been showered by the Chinese Communist Party with Chinese People's Liberation Army state support and "sweetheart deals"; being labelled a "national champion" by the Chinese government, under which the state conferred on it a slew of protectionist and other preferential measures designed to ensure its dominance and growth; or its receipt of billions of dollars in loans from Chinese state banks that enabled it to undercut global competitors and dominate market share.
As Ren Zhengfei put it, "If there had been no government policy to protect [Huawei], Huawei would no longer exist."
Most importantly, while Huawei has grown into a $100 billion a year behemoth with 180,000 employees in 170 countries who serve three billion end users, it has done so while strengthening deep ties to China's security apparatus.
A 2005 RAND study asserted that Huawei "maintains deep ties with the Chinese military, which serves... as an important customer... political patron and research and development partner." Most alarmingly, there is evidence Huawei has provided so-called "special network services" to a PLA "elite cyber-warfare unit."
Huawei has also been tied to China's Ministry of State Security (MSS), Beijing's equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Finally, according to Chinese law, a Communist Party cell must operate within Huawei. When asked by U.S. investigators what role its Party Committee plays, Huawei dodged the question. Further, as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence noted in 2012, in a claim only bolstered subsequently by the China's 2014 Counter-Espionage Law, and previously referenced 2017 National Intelligence Law:
China may seek cooperation from the leadership of a company like Huawei... Even if the company's leadership refused such a request, Chinese intelligence services need only recruit working-level technicians or managers... Further, it appears that under Chinese law... Huawei would be obligated to cooperate with any request by the Chinese government to use their systems or access them for malicious purposes under the guise of state security.
The fact is that no Chinese company can be assumed to operate without the explicit blessing of the Chinese Communist Party -- especially a company so essential to its broader aims. Indeed, Huawei was identified as a national champion and remains perhaps the most significant company of all to China's global efforts.
In March 2015, for example, China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) released a report on its so-called Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Its stated intent was to
...promote the economic prosperity of the countries along the Belt and Road and regional economic cooperation... and promote world peace and development... [through] cooperation [that] features mutual respect and trust, mutual benefit and win-win cooperation...
Included in this vision was a call for an "Information Silk Road" or "Digital Silk Road." Here is how the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission describes it in its 2018 USCC annual report:
The "Digital Silk Road" — China's plans for integrating digital sectors like telecommunications, Internet of Things, and e-commerce into its vision for regional connectivity—is a... critically important component of BRI. According to... China's vice minister of industry and information technology, the Digital Silk Road will help "construct a community of common destiny in cyberspace" — a phrase mirroring language China uses to describe its preferred vision for global order aligned to Beijing's liking... As Chinese companies lay fiber optic cable, supply smart city projects, and expand e-commerce offerings, they are expanding China's influence over the global digital economy to align more closely with Beijing's vision of internet governance. [Emphasis added.]
Although China presents the BRI as benign, its official "Blue Book of Non-Traditional Security" should be cause for concern. According to analyst John Lee, the
... annual volume produced by state-sanctioned academics and researchers, states that two of the purposes of the BRI [Belt and Road Initiative] are to mitigate American-led geopolitical machinations and ideas, and... promote a new international discourse and order that enhances China's national power and soft power.
Lee adds that the BRI is meant to cultivate "strategic support states." Such states, per one analysis, are intended to ensure "China has the ability and resources to guide the actions of the country so that they fit into [China's] strategic needs."
The Trump Administration, which has spearheaded bipartisan efforts in Congress, should be commended for recognizing the threat of Chinese aggression, including telecommunications companies, and addressing the long overdue problems posed to U.S. national security. The Trump Administration, after decades of US willful blindness, has indeed engaged in a dogged effort to execute on a whole-of-government strategy to begin to counter Communist China's expansion.
That a single company, however, such as Huawei can present such grave problems necessitating such a broad response illustrates a deeper problem that America is only beginning to acknowledge: How can the U.S. transact with China in any strategically significant area given the communist regime's aims, and its power over every Chinese entity? Might the best answer be simply to decouple? Is the US ultimately trading away its freedom?
*Ben Weingarten is a fellow at the Claremont Institute and Senior Contributor to The Federalist. He was selected as a 2019 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow of The Fund for American Studies, under which he is currently working on a book on U.S.-China policy
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

An Arab Man’s Sufferings in the British Elections
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/December 17/2019
He woke up early. It is an exceptional day of his life. He will vote in the British elections. He heard his colleagues at work say that exercising the right to vote was a duty that cannot be waived and an opportunity to correct. He heard them say that achievements are not an excuse for an open-ended tenure and that the great Churchill was punished through ballot boxes. He heard them also say that Margaret Thatcher, who broke the arrogance of the Argentine generals and returned the British flag to the Falklands, also bowed to the will of a ballot box.
Democracy is merciless. Despite his shining past, Charles de Gaulle was let down by the French in a referendum. So he retired in his village.
The man read in the newspapers that it was a decisive election. It is also important for Britain’s relationship with Europe and perhaps for the United Kingdom’s internal unity. If Britain has the right to jump off the European train, then why don’t the Scots have the right to jump off the British train?
It is indeed a decisive election. But there was no smell of impending civil war in the streets of London, despite the depth of the division. He smiled. Those people have fought, learned and drew conclusions. They ditched all ideas of civil war. Civil war is our specialty.
He remembers the conflicting feelings that engulfed him when he was granted British citizenship. He was haunted by memories of his ancient rural culture.
Does a person betray his homeland when he takes a foreign passport as a refuge to prevent the embassy of his country of origin from the satisfaction of humiliating and punishing him for his ideas, attitudes or impartiality?
Does the new passport mean cutting ties with your roots? Is it true what your new colleagues say that the bones of your grandparents are not more important than the future of your grandchildren?
He loves his country, but there, he always had to fear, flatter and hide his opinion and feelings. He had to publish titles similar to those of other newspapers on the basis of “mindful freedom”. He was afraid of the party representative in the neighborhood because he was also the intelligence representative. A small word from him pushes you to the gates of hell. Who knows, they may confiscate some of your teeth and nails, and they may force you under torture to confess to a conspiracy that you have never heard about!
He smiles. In Britain, you may not know the name of the intelligence director. Here, he can never be called “the strong man”, “the president-maker” or “the election architect”. He knows the story of the elections in his country. They are mere referendums. The police is stationed at the entrance of every polling station, while intelligence agents gaze at the voter with sharp looks to remind him that any mistake is costly. The elections were not exciting. The director of intelligence determines its results in advance, in agreement with the minister of interior. He also specifies the turnout and number of blank ballots to mislead the western public opinion.
It is an exceptional day of his life… an exceptional day in the life of Britain, but, in fact, it is an ordinary business day. He puts on a suit and a new tie for the occasion, and heads to the polling station.
He has some difficulties finding the polling center. There are no banners with the photos of leaders. He does not see policemen or security observers. He enters a quiet hall, where some people are waiting in a queue for their turn.
The employee asks him about his house address, and when she finds him on the list, she repeats his name, and he confirms. She does not ask him for identification papers. She gives him a paper with the names of the candidates and the parties to which they belonged, and asks him to go to a corner and put a sign near the name he chose. He follows the instructions, and drops the paper into the box. He realizes that his vote is equally important to that of Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn. His voice in his country had no value.
He leaves the place and begins to think. Iraqis headed to polls several times after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but this did not produce stability, nor did it open the door to prosperity. Hundreds of billions of dollars evaporated. When people protested, “death squads” confronted them in the squares. Some of those, who danced with joy around Saddam’s body, suddenly emerged as an exact copy of the late leader.
Some of those who celebrated the colonel’s corpse, later proved to be worse than Gaddafi himself.
But what is the size of the human and economic losses suffered by Iraq in the post-Saddam era? Why did the blood flow after the death of the leader of Al-Fateh Revolution?
Institutions, institutions, institutions. Here, businesses operate regardless of the identity of the resident of 10 Downing Street.
He also thinks about Lebanon. A country that has prematurely embraced democracy, but staggered with the intersection of internal and external poisons. A state that waited for its “savior”, but then walked in its funeral.
The Lebanese go to elections, then spend months searching for a government, in which the corrupt always find comfortable seats. Politicians deal with the State as if they were sharing a golden cow.
They pushed the state into bankruptcy at all levels. They destroyed its economy, assassinated its role, and offered the citizens fear, hunger and anxiety, accompanied by tear gas. It is the season of decay and decline.
The British elections coincided with the presidential elections in Algeria. Abdelaziz Bouteflika tried to cling to the palace, awaiting his meeting with death. But he was unsuccessful.
The cohesion of the army saved Algeria from a Libyan fate. The youth took to the streets with remarkable peace. Algeria elected a president under the supervision of the army. If only it would open a window that would prevent collapses and explosions.
British election results were announced at night. Brexit is an unavoidable fact. Britain will jump off the European train. Johnson celebrated. Corbyn admitted defeat. The Arab man rubbed his eyes. He went to bed, with many dreams in his head.

US Bets Old Ideas in a New Package Can Deter China
Hal Brands/Bloomberg/December 17/2019
Through nearly three years in office, the Donald Trump administration has made a lot of noise about competing with China geopolitically but has often struggled to lay out, coherently, what America seeks to achieve. So it is encouraging that the State Department is beginning to articulate a sharper idea of what the US is against in the Indo-Pacific – and, more importantly, what it is for.
The guiding concept: “Pluralism.” That may not sound very sexy, but it captures the essential difference in US and Chinese visions for the region. And, significantly, it taps into three of the richest historical traditions of American grand strategy.
David Stillwell, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, explained this strategy of pluralism in a speech in Washington last week. The basic idea is that the US doesn't need to dominate the Indo-Pacific or force the region to conform to any single model, so long as no one else can dominate the region or make it conform to a single model, either. A pluralistic region is one in which countries are free to make their own security, economic and political choices — where “they are secure in their sovereign autonomy” and “no hegemonic power dominates or coerces them.” Pluralism is about preserving the freedom and openness in which diversity can flourish.
In practice, this means that the US will help the countries of the Indo-Pacific balance against a rising China that is increasingly trying to narrow the range of choices available to them through the use of political influence campaigns, economic pressures and geopolitical coercion. Beijing’s efforts to weaken US alliances, its financing of pro-China politicians in countries throughout the region, its creeping expansion of naval influence in the South China Sea, its ongoing military buildup, and its use of loans and investments — as well as economic punishments such as selective embargoes — are all part of this project.
For Washington, maintaining the balance will require individualized relationships with a diverse set of partners: Democratic treaty allies such as Japan and Australia, emerging democratic partners such as India, and authoritarian regimes — Vietnam, Singapore — that do not share America’s preference for liberal politics at home but do want to preserve their freedom of action in a crowded region.
Pluralism also entails rejecting any notion that the US will require allies and partners to sever their ties with Beijing. The US, rather, should help its partners take the precautionary steps necessary to ensure that Beijing does not exploit those ties to undermine their economic, technological or political sovereignty.
There are, admittedly, some problems here. To some extent Stillwell's speech conflated pluralism, which is about respect for free choice, with multipolarity, which is about having several, roughly balanced centers of power. The latter is closer to China's preferred world than America's, simply because the US needs superior hard power if it is to protect pluralism in regions that are thousands of miles away. But in general, pluralism offers a useful distillation of what the US aims to prevent China from doing in the Indo-Pacific and around the world, and it should appeal to the broad array of countries in the region that are nervous about Chinese power but are also nervous that Washington may ask them to make a harder break with Beijing than they feel prudent. Not least, the concept is noteworthy because it draws together three venerable traditions from America's diplomatic past.
The first is hegemonic denial, or the idea that America's core geopolitical interest lies in preventing any hostile country from controlling the resources of crucial overseas regions - particularly Europe, East Asia and the Middle East. This idea traces back to the writings of the naval officer and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan in the late 19th century, who understood the importance of the Pacific to US national security. It motivated America's participation in two hot wars and a cold one during the 20th century. It is again relevant today. China is not threatening to physically invade the countries of the Indo-Pacific, but it is seeking to draw them into its diplomatic, economic and political orbit, and to deprive the US of its ability to balance Beijing’s power by weakening America's geopolitical relationships in the region. Pluralism, in this sense, reflects a long tradition of using America's great power to maintain a balance of power in key regions.
The second tradition is self-determination, or the ability of independent countries to work out their destinies free from coercion or intimidation. That idea originated with Woodrow Wilson, and it became a key tenet of American grand strategy during and after World War II. It reflected the belief that the denial of self-determination tore at the fabric of international peace, by threatening to take the world back to the might-makes-right ethos of earlier eras. And it served American foreign policy well, because it allowed the US (usually, if not in all cases) to pursue its own interests by supporting the ambitions of other independent states around the world.
The third tradition might be thought of as the “free world” model of American statecraft. During the Cold War, the US did not confine itself to working with any single type of partner. The free world, rather, was a diverse — critics might have said motley — collection of states that included the liberal democracies of Western Europe as well as some relatively despicable authoritarian states in the Third World. The US was not indifferent to the fate of democratic values in the world, and it became more forceful in promoting those values over time. But officials understood that the primary criterion for membership in the free world was simply a commitment to opposing those countries — the Soviet Union and its allies — that sought to snuff out political freedom and real freedom of choice in global affairs. That remains a good mental model for thinking about the Indo-Pacific today, given the breadth of countries and governments with which the US will have to work.
Translating these ideas into effective policies will require that the US do a variety of things far better than the Trump administration has done to date: creating better free-world trading and technological partnerships; developing the innovative capabilities and concepts needed to prevent Chinese military power from overawing the region; simply showing up at key regional meetings. But at the very least, the US is building a better conceptual framework for its policies in the Indo-Pacific, one that earlier generations of American strategists would recognize quite well.

Round Three in Israel: Domestic Dynamics and Foreign Policy Implications
David Makovsky/ The Washington Institute/December 17/2019
The top contenders from round two were unwilling to compromise, but new primary challengers, shifts in voting patterns, and potential plea bargains may make their inflexibility a moot point by March.
With the Knesset dissolving itself last week and declaring a third election within a year, Israel seems paralyzed and polarized. The country has been stuck in a transitional government since December 2018, and the new vote will not take place till March 2, making for an immensely durable impasse. During this time of stalemate, the government has avoided major military operations and been unable to approve the military budget, among other high-priority fiscal issues.
THE ROAD TO THE RE-REDO
The September redo election led to a split of 57 seats to 55 between the center-left and right blocs, with 8 seats going to a third swing bloc, meaning neither side reached the necessary majority of 61 in the 120-seat Knesset. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not budge when presented with various compromise options, not even after being indicted for bribery and other charges on November 21. Rather, he demanded that his allied ultraorthodox and settler parties be included in any national unity government with his centrist rivals, led by former military chief Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz of the Blue and White Party. He also insisted that he serve the first leg in a rotating premiership.
For his part, Gantz demanded that Netanyahu forswear seeking immunity through parliament on the corruption charges. To break the impasse, President Reuven Rivlin asked Netanyahu to declare himself incapacitated upon indictment, but the prime minister eviscerated that option by proffering a drastically minimalist redefinition of the term “incapacitation.”
The holder of the eight swing seats, Avigdor Liberman of the Yisrael Beitenu Party, stuck to his guns as well. While expressing more exasperation with Netanyahu than with Gantz, he insisted he would only join a unity government, not a right-wing or center-left government. Indeed, his party has gradually rebranded itself from a Russian immigrant faction—an identity that was losing steam due to generational shifts and assimilation—to one intent on curbing the influence of the ultraorthodox. This message proved very successful for Liberman at the ballot box, where he gained 137,000 more votes from April to September. But it did not help break the impasse.
SAAR’S CHALLENGE
The fact that Netanyahu’s Likud faction allowed him to declare a third election in a row is a powerful testament to his control over the party. Yet a major crack has appeared since the indictments. On December 26, Gideon Saar will challenge Netanyahu in a vote for party leadership, the first serious primary challenge he has faced since 2006.
Saar became a rising star in the Likud after serving as cabinet secretary to Ariel Sharon, but his ascent was stopped short by Netanyahu in 2014 amid talk that he might succeed the prime minister. Saar does not have Netanyahu’s connections to world leaders, but he also does not carry the baggage of indictments. As such, a unity government between Gantz and Saar could be reached rather easily. Saar is younger than Netanyahu, but he represents a throwback to an older Likud ethos that emphasized commitment to democratic procedure. Accordingly, he hopes he can appeal to some Blue White moderate voters if he runs in the next election, not merely the Likud base.
In light of this challenge, the prime minister has suddenly begun visiting Likud chapters across the country. Although Netanyahu is still the favorite, he knows that Saar does not have to win in order to create a new party dynamic of preparing for inevitable succession. The prime minister is counting on the fact that many other Likud figures would like to succeed him, giving him potential allies to contain Saar in the near term (e.g., Foreign Minister Israel Katz, Police Minister Gilad Erdan, former Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat).
So far, the entire cabinet has backed Netanyahu, and Saar has only six parliamentary supporters among the party’s leadership. Yet if he can convince a few cabinet ministers to say they are neutral (e.g., Erdan) and woo a few Likud mayors to his base, he may create a sense of momentum that leads to further parliamentary defections and a sufficiently dignified showing to position himself as the inevitable successor even if he falls short on December 26.
The best break for Saar would be any evidence that Netanyahu is seeking a plea bargain with the attorney-general—that is, agreeing to exit the political stage and admit wrongdoing in return for all charges being dropped. One indication Netanyahu might be headed in this direction is that he has never explained why he was so insistent on taking the first rotation as prime minister during the failed coalition negotiations. Talks fell apart after he refused to budge on serving an initial six-month rotation, since Blue White wanted ironclad guarantees on any such deal. Perhaps Netanyahu sees a plea bargain as a potential parachute if the coming election campaign goes poorly for him, reasoning that he will have more bargaining leverage with the attorney-general while still prime minister.
GANTZ’S GAINS
Recent polling data looks up for Gantz, with Blue White already projected to win an all-time high of 37 seats. This boost could stem from several factors.
First, the public has seemingly singled Netanyahu out as the main culprit behind the distasteful prospect of a third election. Gantz can also be expected to hammer on the idea that Israel should not be led by someone facing three indictments during the upcoming campaign.
Second, senior Blue White official Yair Lapid has ended his insistence that he rotate leadership with Gantz, thereby precluding an electoral liability. Blue White officials had been concerned that the former talk show host would not have the same gravitas as Gantz, a retired general.
Third, the extraordinary nature of a third election may create a funnel effect in which more people give their votes to the two largest parties in the hope of breaking the impasse. Leadership shakeups and consolidation among smaller parties on the left and right produced virtually no electoral gains ahead of the September vote, though this may be attributable to the huge gains registered by Arab parties (see below) and Liberman.
NETANYAHU’S UPHILL CLIMB: POTENTIAL POLICY IMPACT?
One of the many challenges Netanyahu will face in the coming campaign is an invigorated Arab vote, which was indifferent in April but stirred against him in September. This shift was largely spurred by two factors: reconstitution of the Joint List coalition for Arab parties, and Netanyahu’s bid to station Likud representatives with recording devices at polling stations in Arab areas. While the latter proposal was roundly condemned in Israel at the time and ultimately failed in the Knesset, it galvanized Arabs—their parties gained three seats in September, and they constituted nearly half of the total increase in votes compared to April (133,000 out of 271,000).
Netanyahu should be also concerned that turnout among Likud supporters dipped by 25,000 votes in September despite the overall increase in national turnout. This was startling for three reasons. First, he had added Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon’s right-wing faction to his bloc, presuming that would net him the 150,000 votes the party won in April. But Likud’s votes did not increase in round two; instead, the Sephardic ultraorthodox party Shas seemed to gain many of Kahlon’s votes. Second, the number of ballots cast for small right-wing parties that did not meet the electoral threshold for entering parliament decreased between April and September, from 250,000 votes to 83,000. Yet Netanyahu did not gain from this shift either. Third, voting patterns in individual cities show that Liberman’s boost in round two came more from the right than the center, suggesting that many voters prioritized his platform of curbing the ultraorthodox over Netanyahu’s right-wing agenda.
Will these grim September returns push Netanyahu to double down on his mainstay campaign approach of appealing for votes on the right? If so—and assuming he wins the primary this month—he can be expected to press even harder on issues such as annexation of the West Bank. Alternatively, if he decides that the hard right approach will alienate more centrists, he may instead focus on less controversial policies such as forging a defense treaty with the United States (an idea that Gantz opposes because he believes it would tie Israel’s hands militarily). There has even been talk of Netanyahu seeking non-belligerency agreements with Arab states, including Morocco (perhaps as a way of wooing voters of Sephardic Moroccan origin). Yet there is no sign that any of these states are interested at this time.
So far, Washington has largely avoided weighing in on these issues. Although the Trump administration had hoped to put forward its long-awaited peace vision if a unity government was formed, this now seems to be on hold again.
CONCLUSION
The biggest rival for Netanyahu and Gantz may not be each other, but turnout. In September, turnout increased despite predictions of election fatigue and proximity to the summer vacation period, suggesting that the public understood the high stakes of the re-vote. Yet at what point does voter fatigue become voting fatigue?
*David Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute and creator of the new podcast Decision Points: The U.S.-Israel Relationship.

Sudan, Algeria offer region’s protesters a glimmer of hope
Osama Al-Sharif /Arab News/December 17/2019
In the midst of grim news emanating from the region — Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Yemen being a case in point — two extraordinary events should have received more attention both regionally and globally. In Khartoum on Saturday, a Sudanese court reportedly sentenced deposed president and strongman Omar Al-Bashir to 10 years for corruption and possession of illicit foreign currency. However, the sentence was reduced to two years to be served at a reform facility. Bashir, 75, was deposed by the military in April following months of nationwide public protests against his rule.
And, in Algeria last week, two former prime ministers were convicted of corruption-related charges and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Ahmed Ouyahia was sentenced to 15 years in prison, while Abdelmalek Sellal was handed a 12-year sentence. Both had served under former President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who was also forced to step down in April following mass protests that erupted in February as he sought a fifth term in office. Four other former ministers were sentenced to prison for terms ranging between five and 10 years.
In September, a military court had sentenced Bouteflika’s brother, Said, to 15 years in prison for plotting against the state and undermining the army. He was considered to be Algeria’s strongman following his brother’s stroke in 2013.
While Bashir’s sentence is symbolic — considering the serious allegations of abuse of power, corruption, torture of opponents and genocide during his long reign — it is seen as an indictment of a dark chapter of Sudan’s modern history. He may still face fresh charges and the Sudanese government, run by both civilian and military authorities, will have to address warrants issued against him in 2009 by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Darfur region.
In May, Bashir was also charged with incitement and involvement in the killing of protesters between last December and his removal, and prosecutors want to investigate his role in the 1989 military coup that brought him to power. His National Congress Party is likely to be dissolved. There is also public pressure to bring former Bashir aides and officials to justice.
The long prison sentences handed down to former Algerian officials have partially placated the street, but protesters still want more. The country, which remains under the rule of the military, is going through a crucial phase following last week’s presidential election. On Friday, former Prime Minister Abdelmadjid Tebboune was declared the winner with more than 58 percent of the votes. But protesters, who had vowed to boycott the election, rejected the results.
Tebboune, 74, appealed to the protesters, vowing to amend the constitution and approve a new election law. It remains to be seen if his conciliatory gesture will be embraced. In both Sudan and Algeria, the military remains a major player whose influence on the political scene is formidable.
Bringing corrupt officials to justice is a common denominator for demonstrators from Iraq to Lebanon and Algeria to Sudan. A peaceful transition is today the biggest challenge in all of these countries. But what has taken place in Sudan and Algeria is a major step toward national reconciliation and is a far cry from the more dismal and bloody fate that befell Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh.
Former President Hosni Mubarak and most of his aides were either acquitted or received light sentences following the Jan. 25, 2011, revolt in Egypt. The country remains polarized as it searches for national reconciliation following decades of authoritarian rule.
What has taken place in Sudan and Algeria is a major step toward national reconciliation.
The popular uprisings in Iraq and Lebanon have cast a shadow over the prospects of arriving at a peaceful political transition. In Iraq, hundreds of protesters have been gunned down since the eruption of protests two months ago. And, in recent days, a number of activists have been kidnapped or killed by unknown forces. Pressure on the government to protect the demonstrators and bring those involved in unlawful killings to justice is mounting. There is little doubt that pro-Iran militias are involved in the summary killing of protesters. One major public demand is to put corrupt officials on trial. That is yet to take place. In Lebanon, the protesters appear united in their rejection of the entire ruling class. They also want to see officials, who are accused of pilfering billions of dollars over past decades, brought to justice. Infiltrators, whom the protesters accuse of belonging to Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, are now trying to disrupt the largely peaceful rallies. Like Iraq, Lebanon is politically fragmented, making it almost impossible to arrive at a political formula that will appease the protesters.
In all of these countries, one thing is clear: The utter failure of regimes to provide social justice and meet the basic needs of their people. Such needs have transcended sectarian, ethnic and political divides. People want accountability and the rule of law. And they will not disperse until they get what they want.
*Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. Twitter: @plato010

Iran’s President Submits a Budget of Fantasies
Saeed Ghasseminejad/FDD/December 17/2019
President Hassan Rouhani submitted his 2020-2021 budget to the Iranian parliament this week, in which he proposes irresponsible levels of spending based on optimistic projections of revenue from taxes and crude oil exports. The proposal shows that Rouhani is not prepared to admit, at least in public, that his government must dramatically curtail spending amidst the deep recession triggered by the return of U.S. sanctions.
Rouhani’s budget calls for spending 4,840 trillion rials, which is one-fourth more than parliament appropriated for the current fiscal year; yet given Iran’s double-digit inflation rate, the real value of the budget has still declined. Regardless, the government cannot afford what Rouhani proposes.
The budget projects that revenue from Iran’s oil exports will cover 16 percent of expenditures, assuming exports of 1 million barrels per day at a price of $50 per barrel. Independent estimates now place Iran’s exports at 250,000 to 600,000 barrels per day, although these estimates include exports to Syria for which Iran may receive no compensation. Thus, Tehran will likely collect only half to one-quarter or less of the amount it hopes.
Rouhani’s budget also envisions a 26 percent increase in tax revenue despite Iran’s two consecutive years of sharp economic contraction. The country’s GDP shrank 4.8 percent in 2018 and an estimated 9.5 percent this year, according to the IMF. Together with tariff revenue, taxes provide 40 percent of the state’s income. A substantial portion of that revenue is unlikely to materialize due to the current recession, although inflation is likely to offset some of the potentially lost tax revenue.
Two additional sources of projected revenue are the issuance of bonds and a major sell-off of state assets, both capital and financial. The budget projects bond sales will cover 17 percent of spending, yet in the middle of a recession combined with high inflation, it is not clear if there will be enough appetite in the market for this debt. An assumed eleven-fold increase in the sale of capital assets is supposed to cover an additional 10 percent of Rouhani’s proposed spending. The budget forecasts that a sharp increase in revenue from the privatization of state-owned firms will cover 3 percent more. Both of these assumptions are optimistic in light of Iran’s two consecutive years of recession and the grim prospects for the coming year.
In light of the government’s financial distress, Rouhani’s proposed funding for institutions propagating state ideology is especially egregrious. This category includes seminaries, religious and cultural entities and foundations, and military-connected ideological institutions, none of which generates prosperity for the Iranian people. Specifically, Rouhani requested a 50 percent increase in the budget for Al-Mostafa Univerity, a 29 percent increase for the Council for Coordination of Islamic Propaganda, a 35 percent increase for the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, and a 47 percent increase for the Policymaking Council of Friday Prayer Imams.
The government could print money to cover its expenses, yet this could set off hyperinflation. It could also run massive deficits while cutting funds for various programs and entities, which could alienate additional parts of Iranian society. Unless Tehran pursues a deal with the Trump administration and accepts Washington’s demands, it will face economic challenges that may further threaten the regime’s stability.
*Saeed Ghasseminejad is a senior Iran and financial economics advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he also contributes to FDD’s Center on Economic and Financial Power (CEFP). To receive more analysis by Saeed and CEFP, subscribe HERE. Follow him on Twitter @SGhasseminejad. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD and @FDD_CEFP. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.