Saudi succession troubles

The Royal House of Saud - has long been ruled by the "Sudairi Seven" -- seven powerful brothers who control the most of the kingdom.

French say 'non' to Europe

"The French saying 'no' to Europe, is similar to the English saying 'no' to beef, or the Russians 'no' to vodka.

Can Iraq be fixed?

At the start of the Iraq war Colin Powell warned the administration that the Pottery Barn rules would apply: "You break it, you own it."

How important is Zarqawi?

Rumors are flying around Iraq that Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been severely wounded and could possibly be dead.

Clinton: Making friends, not enemies

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told a meeting of Nobel laureates in the historic city of Petra in Jordan to discuss global security and peace that the United States needed to make more friends and fewer enemies."

Gods of Petra give a sign of support

Days before the Petra conference on global security brought Nobel laureates, current and former world leaders archeologists uncovered the remains of an important 1st century monument holding the heads of 22 deities.

Clinton offers hope to Jordan conference

Former President Clinton offered the Petra conference a message of hope.

Shimon Peres, an interview

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres said he was optimistic about the future of the Middle East, but worried about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

Nobel laureates meet for peace in Jordan

Jordan's King Abdullah II hopes to help forge a new process for global peace and security. Not a small order by any means, even for a king. Peace and security -- and the fight against terrorism -- were the underlying themes of the Petra Nobel Laureates conference, in which several Israelis, including Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, took part.

Politics & Policies: Flak vest diplomacy

By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor

Published 5/17/2005 9:47 AM

AMMAN, Jordan, May 17 (UPI) -- Photographs of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, wearing body armor and a combat helmet during a surprise visit to Iraq, appeared on the front pages of many of the world's newspapers this past weekend. While Rice had previously visited Iraq, this was her first visit in her capacity as secretary of State.

This is not exactly gunboat diplomacy, but who really needs gunboats when you have 140,000 armed troops backed up by attack helicopters, thousands of tanks and armored vehicles, the world's most powerful air force on call, and, yes, plenty of gunboats too, floating in the nearby Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.

Having muscle available helps back up your argument when trying to make a point in politics. The question is what is the argument? What would make risking the life of the secretary of State, sending her into a war zone, with or without Kevlar flak vest and helmet?

The answer is to push the Iraqis into decision-making. To convince new Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to speed up the formation of a working government, and to persuade the country's Sunnis they need to participate more actively in the shaping of the new Iraq. All in all, a process that is taking far too long, much to the displeasure of Washington.

"Sunnis must be represented in this constitutional process because this has to be an Iraq that that works for all Iraqis," Rice said. "That's the only way that everyone is going to see the political path as a way to a better future."

Meanwhile, the insurgency is stepping up efforts to destabilize the country, becoming more active and often, more daring. It has been increasing attacks against the United States and Iraqis, too. The number of attacks has reached a staggering 70 per day, up from about 40-50.

"We are fighting a very tough set of terrorists, who are, it seems, determined to stop the progress of the Iraqi people," Rice said.

The Bush administration would like to see Iraqis make more progress and take control of their own destiny, allowing in turn, U.S. forces to take a backseat in the day-to-day running of security matters in Iraq. A lower U.S. profile also means fewer U.S. casualties. And a stronger Iraqi central government could mean U.S. troops returning home sooner.

But none of this is likely to occur so long as the government in Baghdad remains weak, which it will as long as it does not get Sunni participation, and, incomplete with key positions, such as the minister of Defense, staying vacant.

Some Sunni leaders have indicated, however, their interest in participating in the new government and in drafting the constitution.

Iraqi politicians though appear to be taking their time. Washington is cognizant of the time factor, which could explain why the administration would take the risk of dispatching the secretary of State to the region.

What can Rice accomplish with her Kevlar flak vest diplomacy -- besides good public relations? Well, quite a bit actually.

For one, her visit to the field sends a clear and strong message to the Iraqis that the Bush administration remains committed to seeing security and stability established in Iraq. With its poor track record in maintaining focus in foreign policy issues, the United States can ill-afford to be seen reneging on earlier commitments it made in the Middle East.

Pacifying Iraq is taking far longer than the planners of the war initially intended. With three years left before George W. Bush leaves the White House, time for this administration to leave a positive legacy is beginning to run at a premium. If the insurgency continues along its current pace and if political bickering maintains its current course -- and nothing leads us to believe it should change anytime in the near future -- it could take more than three more years to settle Iraq. History is there to remind us that nothing in the Middle East ever moves at a Western pace.

At this point President Bush needs another major victory in Iraq, such as the capture or elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the elusive terror master of Jordanian origin, who is believed to be responsible for much of the killing, mayhem and terror that has been taking place in Iraq.

Zarqawi's capture or death would demoralize the resistance while at the same time give the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq a much-needed boost, and help bring the Sunnis to the negotiating table.

There were hopes the recent U.S. offensive spearheaded by Marines against insurgents along the Syrian border would enable U.S. forces in Iraq to track down Zarqawi. In fact, one source believed the United States had managed to capture or wound him, and reported that U.S. officials had asked neighboring Jordan for blood and DNA samples.

But that was another false lead in what is turning out to be a long struggle against an elusive enemy.

--

(Comments may be sent to Claude@upi.com.)
Copyright © 2001-2005 United Press International

Politics & Policies: Saudi jails reformers

By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor

WASHINGTON, May 15 (UPI) -- A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced three prominent constitutional reformers to prison, handing down sentences ranging from six to nine years. The United States, which has been calling on countries of the Middle East to engage in greater political reform, has remained quiet over the ruling.

The reformers were charged with calling for a constitutional monarchy in Saudi Arabia to replace the existing absolute monarchy. The trial was adjourned several times earlier this year on request of the prosecutor who asked for more time to "collect additional evidence" against the three.

Ali al-Domaini was given nine years; Abdallah al-Hamed seven years and Matrouk al-Falih six years, lawyers and relatives said.

At the conclusion of the trial Sunday, Domaini's wife, Fawzia al-Ouni, described the proceedings as "the trial of reform in Saudi Arabia."

Arrested 14 months ago, the three were convicted of "stirring up sedition and disobeying the ruler," al-Ouni said.

The three, along with dozens of others, were arrested March 2004 for organizing petitions urging the kingdom's absolute monarchy shift toward a constitutional model and begin implementing political reforms.

Al-Domaini received two Freedom to Write awards from Pen USA and Pen New England in April and May.

Other reformers in prison include reformer lawyer Abdulrahman al-Lahim, and Mohna al-Faleh both detained without known charge or trial.

Pro-reform advocates are questioning the Bush administration's silence over the matter, which goes counter to the president's desire to see more freedom and reform implemented in the Middle East.

Part of the charges against the reformers included "introducing "Western terminology," according to the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia.

Ten other reformers, who were also arrested, were released after the Saudi government pressured them into signing affidavits agreeing not to petition or speak publicly about democratic reform, nor to travel outside the country.

The trial of the three accused took on additional significance when they requested court proceedings be open to the media and the public, a right that according to the law should be granted to defendants in the kingdom. However, reports from the kingdom say family members were prevented from attending the court session by order of the judges.

In an earlier statement, the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia described the detention conditions of the activists as "inhumane."

It claims there were "delaying tactics by the prosecution, and verbal acts of intimidation from the judge."

The democratic reformers have so far stood their ground and have refused to crack under intense Saudi government pressure to give up their demands, the group said.

"When we talk about Ali's trial, we shouldn't talk about it singularly," said al-Ouni. She said it was all of Saudi Arabia that was on trial.

Ali Alyami, the center's director, called on the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress to "stop regarding the Saudi royal family as sacrosanct and start holding them accountable for their violations of human rights.

"Defeating terrorism and eradicating religious extremism and intolerance require a genuine overhaul of Saudi political, social, religious, and economic institutions," said Alyami.

Reform advocates call this "troubling evidence and indicative of the Saudi regime's unwillingness to consider and implement much-needed reforms, like the institution of a written constitution and a bill of rights to protect the people's rights."

The court's grounds for the unwarranted conviction included vaguely defined allegations as "challenging the authority of the ruler," and "giving a chance to the nation's enemies to harm it."

A lawyer for the three recently sentenced indicated they would appeal. However, without any judicial transparency, the fate of the appeal and of the three reformers is uncertain.

"The Saudi regime is determined to stifle reasonable and peaceful voices for reform in the country, and the trial and conviction of these democratic reformers is an important part of the government's strategy to strengthen its control over the country and its captive population," the center said in a statement. "These developments reveal all claims that the Saudi regime intends to embark on a path of meaningful reforms as misleading and unfounded, and underline the need for clear and consistent international pressure on the authoritarian regime to respect human rights and accept genuine democratic change."

Alyami said it was time for the United States to act.

"Surely it is time for the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress to stop regarding the Saudi royal family as sacrosanct and start holding them accountable for their violations of human rights," Alyami said.

The center called on the U.S. government, Congress, the media, and all international human and civil rights organizations to publicly condemn the Saudi government for the sentencing of reformers who wanted to save their country from sliding into religious, political, economic and civil chaos, and to demand their immediate and unconditional release.

"More and more Saudis are demanding transparency," wrote Anthony Cordesman and Nawaf Obaid of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in a Feb. 5 report titled "Saudi Counterterrorism Efforts."

Saudi Arabia is trying to bring about change which, one well-informed intelligence official said "must start with the royal family."

--

(Comments may be sent to Claude@upi.com.)
Copyright © 2001-2005 United Press International

Politics & Policies: Stronger axis of evil

By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor

Washington, DC, May. 13 (UPI) -- Remember the "axis of evil?" Of course you do. When the matter was first raised by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address in January 2002, it seemed somewhat disproportioned. Now, the individual "cogs" of the infamous "axis" have taken on a new life.

In his much-publicized speech to the nation and the world, the president singled out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as deserving extra recognition for their evilness and their desire to become nuclear powers. The United States then went to war in Iraq based on the belief that Iraq's then strongman, Saddam Hussein, was harboring weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq, which at the time did not represent a threat to the national security of the United States, was invaded and Saddam was deposed. Not that Saddam deserves tears being shed over his removal from power; power he grossly abused. But subsequently we discovered there were no WMD in Iraq. Just as we were to learn there was no connection between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists.

But now, you can safely bet that links between former Baathists and international terrorists exist in Iraq. The country has turned into a magnet, attracting all ilk of anti-Americanism, from international Islamists to Arab nationalists.

Notwithstanding Saddam's ruthlessness and complete disregard for human life, three years ago Iraq should not have been included in the "axis of evil." Given the intensity and cadence of terror attacks in Iraq, targeting both Iraqis and Americans, the country now represents one of the sturdiest cogs in the evil axis.

Iran is the second cog in the "axis of evil." If the situation in Iran could be color-coded, sort of like the Homeland Security's domestic threat assessment system, it would be turning from amber to a glowing bright red.

Much to the chagrin of the West, Tehran has all but admitted it intends to join the elite nuclear club. It is only a matter of time before the Islamic republic develops nuclear weapons, or in the very least, the capacity to produce them.

Tehran's mullahs are just a few steps away from acquiring those WMD that were being sought ... in Iraq.

Europe's "big three" -- Britain and France and Germany -- have been playing the "good cop" in a joint Euro-U.S. effort aimed at convincing Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions. The Europeans however, are now beginning to realize that negotiations will fail to stop Tehran from enriching its uranium, allowing them to manufacture weapons grade nuclear material.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair hinted it might be time to bring in the "bad cop," the United States. From the start of the crisis, the United States has viewed Iran's nuclear program with suspicion.

Memo to agents who were searching for Saddam's secret weapons stash: there were none in Eye-rack, but there might be some in Eye-ran, soon.

Blair said he would consider U.N. sanctions against Iran if Tehran went ahead with its threat to continue work on its nuclear program. "We certainly will support referral to the U.N. Security Council if Iran breeches its undertakings and obligations," said Blair.

France, Britain and Germany have offered Iran incentives -- both political and economic -- to drop its uranium enrichment program. But now more than a year since the talks have started, the Europeans are frustrated with little or no progress to show for it. Quite to the contrary, Iran last month said it would inform the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency its plans to pursue uranium conversion.

Tehran insists it only aspires to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, not to build a bomb. Blair said diplomacy could still work, and it is premature to consider military options.

Did he say military options? The very fact Blair made reference to "military options" is indication enough the idea is on the table -- or at least lingering somewhere underneath it.

Want to strengthen axis of evil cog number two? Deploy the military option. Think Iraq is bad? See what happens when Iranian nationalism kicks in.

Evil Axis Cog Number Three:

Talk about Evil Empires. The reclusive, megalomaniac Kim Jong-Il, the despotic leader of North Korea who is having a hard time feeding his people, wants to become a nuclear power.

The typically reclusive nation's Foreign Ministry said Wednesday it had successfully removed 8,000 spent fuel rods from a nuclear power station in Yongbyon, in fact admitting it has "been taking steps to increase our nuclear arsenal."

North Koreans might go to bed hungry at night, but at least they can be proud to know their supreme leader can kick off a nuclear war anytime he wants. Talk about prestige.

And three years after the president first made mention of the "axis of evil," each one of the three cogs is now at a higher threatening level than they initially were.

--

(Comments may be sent to Claude@upi.com.)

Aoun opts for peace, dialogue with Syria

By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor

Published 5/9/2005 9:42 AM

WASHINGTON, May 9 (UPI) -- Gen. Michel Aoun, a Maronite Christian whom some Lebanese regard as a renegade, others as a savior and who sees himself as the next president of Lebanon, returned to a hero's welcome Saturday after a 15-year exile in France.

Shortly after his arrival in Beirut, Aoun spoke with United Press International by cellular telephone. He discussed some of his plans for the future of the country.

"Democracy comes first," Aoun told United Press International. The former general and one-time prime minister explained that before Lebanon could become fully democratic, it would have to abandon its corrupt "old ways."

"Changes are important if Lebanon is to change for the better," said Aoun to UPI. "The Lebanese must change their ways; they must move away from the bad old habits."

Aoun said he would focus his energy on building a "new Lebanon."

"Lebanon's archaic, feudal and religious fanaticism as well as rampant corruption that in the past has destroyed the people must be done away with," Aoun said.

Addressing reports that he intends to run for the presidency, the former Lebanese army general said: "One must not aim for a specific post, or position. One must plan for a new society."

Aoun, who many blame for some of the worst fighting and violence of the Lebanese civil war, said he held great love for the Lebanese people. "I felt very emotional upon my return."

A crowd of some 400,000 people, according to Aoun supporters, greeted him Saturday in Freedom Square, previously Martyr's Square and the site where monster anti-Syrian demonstrations were held after the Feb. 14 killing of former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

Aoun, who was ousted by the Syrians in 1990, lobbied Washington for support in his quest to have Damascus remove its forces from Lebanon. He played a primary role in convincing the Bush administration to pass the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act of 2003, meant to impose economic sanctions on Damascus.

His actions brought accusations from the Lebanese pro-Syrian government of trying to foment discord between the two countries and of trying to incite religious discord.

"I have harmed no one. I have good intentions," Aoun told UPI. He indicated he wished peace with Syria.

"There is much Syria and Lebanon can profit from each other," he told UPI.

Aoun said now that Syria has quit Lebanon, his problems with Damascus are over.

"I have already pardoned those who fought me," Aoun told UPI.

The general said however, that his former enemies will not be recompensed unless they prove themselves.

"If they, those who opposed us, want to work with us in rebuilding the country, I am ready to work with them. I have good intentions for Lebanon," he told UPI.

"Peace cannot be waged by one side alone," Aoun said. "War can be waged by one side, but not peace. I hope Syria opts for peace."

--

(Comments may be sent to Claude@upi.com.)

Copyright © 2001-2005 United Press International

Should Iraq be divided

Daily suicide attacks, car bombings and shootings in Iraq.

Lebanon tries peace

Former Lebanese army general Michel Aoun returned to Lebanon to a hero's welcome.

Politics & Policies: Struggles with democracy

By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor

Published 5/6/2005 8:18 AM

WASHINGTON, May 5 (UPI) -- As the Arab world struggles to accept and adopt concepts of democracy, recent action by two U.S. allies -- Tunisia and Saudi Arabia -- worry human rights and democracy advocates. The recent arrest and conviction of a Tunisian lawyer and three Saudi men is seen as a major setback for pro-democracy advocates in the Arab World.

Despite shortcomings, President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali's government seemed to be making progress as Tunisia appeared set on the path to showing greater respect for human rights. Georgie Anne Geyer, a well-respected nationally syndicated columnist who covers international affairs, called the pace of progress in Tunisia a "phenomenon."

"We didn't win over the (Islamist) fundamentalists in the 1980s with machine guns," Tunisian officials told Geyer.

But recently attorney Mohamed Abbou found himself on the wrong side of the legal bar when a Tunis criminal court sentenced him to 3? years imprisonment on April 28. His "crime" was publishing statements "likely to disturb public order" and for "defaming the judicial process."

Unfortunately, such verdicts are catchall phrases under which the judicial system becomes elastic, stretching laws to accommodate the political will and policies of government.

The charges brought against Abbou referred to an article he wrote in August 2004 comparing torture and ill treatment endured by political prisoners in Tunisia with the treatment suffered by U.S. detainees at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq.

"The human rights community in Tunisia has been under sustained pressure from police and other state agents for years, who have thwarted the legitimate activities of judges and lawyers carrying out the duties of their profession and have violently attacked and intimidated these individuals and members of their families," claims Human Rights First, a non-governmental organization working to secure human dignity and respect of the rule of law.

"Mohammed Abbou has been sentenced to a harsh prison term for exercising his right to freedom of expression," Human Rights First said in a release.

But in a memo made available to United Press International, the Tunisian Embassy in Washington, claims there were two cases brought against Abbou.

The first case, the embassy said, "was initiated against Mr. Abbou by one of his female colleagues for severe violence against her. These acts led to the hospitalization of the latter at the emergency room and caused her, according to physicians, 10 percent permanent incapacity."

The second case refers to "defamation of the judicial authorities and spreading false information that may disrupt public order." The government further stated that there have been attempts "by extrazealous (sic) individuals" to disturb the court proceedings.

Neill Hicks, director of International Programs at Human Rights First, told UPI: "The Tunisian government are extremely dirty players in all of this." Hicks said that there was indeed an earlier assault charge, pending from 2002, which the judge added "at a very late date.

"The way the assault charge was introduced was completely unfair," said Hicks, adding Abbou's lawyers were given no time to check the facts of the first charge.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince Abdullah recently walked hand-in-hand with President George W. Bush when the de-facto Saudi ruler visited the Texas ranch in April, charged three Saudi reformers at a hearing held behind closed doors.

The three men -- Ali Al-Domaini, Matrook Al-Faleh, and Abdullah Al-Hamed -- were charged with calling for a constitutional monarchy in Saudi Arabia. The trial was adjourned several times earlier this year on request of the prosecutor who asked for more time to "collect additional evidence" against the three.

The three men were part of a group of 116 who in December 2003 petitioned the Saudi government for comprehensive reforms in the Kingdom, and among 13 people arrested on March 16, 2004, for introducing "Western terminology" in asking for reforms, according to The Center for Democracy & Human Rights in Saudi Arabia.

The other 10 were released after the Saudi government pressured them into signing affidavits agreeing not to petition or speak publicly about democratic reform, nor to travel outside the country.

The trial of the three remaining reformers took on special significance when they demanded their court hearings be open to the media and the public, a right awarded to defendants in Saudi Arabia -- on paper.

The Center for Democracy & Human Rights in Saudi Arabia describes their detention conditions as "inhumane." It claims there have been "delaying tactics by the prosecution, and verbal acts of intimidation from the judge."

The democratic reformers have so far stood their ground and have refused to crack under intense Saudi government pressure to give up their demands, says the Center for Democracy & Human Rights in Saudi Arabia.

"When we talk about Ali's trial, we shouldn't talk about it singularly. It is the trial of reform in Saudi Arabia," says Fawzia al-Ouni, wife of Ali Al-Domaini.

A judgment is expected within the next few weeks. Few observers, however, anticipate the three will be acquitted and released.

Ali Alyami, Director of the Center for Democracy & Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, called on the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress to "stop regarding the Saudi royal family as sacrosanct and start holding them accountable for their violations of human rights.

"Defeating terrorism and eradicating religious extremism and intolerance require a genuine overhaul of Saudi political, social, religious, and economic institutions," said Alyami.

--

(Comments may be sent to Claude@upi.com.)

Copyright © 2001-2005 United Press International

Politics & Policies: French-U.S. ties closer?

Politics & Policies: French-U.S. ties closer?
By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor

Published 5/4/2005 8:57 AM

WASHINGTON, May 4 (UPI) -- The recent crisis in Lebanon has brought Paris and Washington closer than the two capitals have been since the outbreak of the Iraq war in March 2003 widened the gap between the Atlantic partners.

The Feb. 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a close and personal friend of French President Jacques Chirac, and the ensuing crisis, narrowed the trans-Atlantic schism that had previously developed. No one on this side of the ocean is pouring Bordeaux wine or fine champagne into the gutters any more. At the same time, the attitude of the French toward the Bush administration, while far from being a love affair, has greatly improved.

Paris and Washington co-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, calling on Syria to remove its military forces and intelligence units from Lebanon, and for Beirut to reclaim sovereignty over all its territory.

As Jean Francois-Poncet, a French senator and former foreign minister told United Press International at a recent lunch, the time for disputes is over. The French and the Americans had their differences, Poncet said, but that is "all in the past."

The two governments must now work together, stressed the French senator. And working together, Paris and Washington have been doing on a number of hot issues. France and the United States have cooperated on working to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, and they have been working particularly close on the situation in Lebanon.

Yet, despite the renewed rapprochement -- highlighted by the release of a joint French-U.S. statement Monday -- diverging views remain between France and the United States regarding the pace over which the follow-up to the Syrian pullout from Lebanon needs to be implemented.

Being more traditionalists, Europeans are used to slower-moving diplomatic initiatives. They tend to be somewhat more realistic when it comes to long negotiations and time constraints, principally when dealing in the Levant, where Europeans have centuries more experience than their U.S. allies.

"The Americans want to move at a faster pace," said a French diplomatic source, speaking to United Press International, on condition his name not be mentioned.

The joint statement on Lebanon delivered by U.S. Department of State spokesman Richard Boucher demonstrated that Washington and Paris see eye-to-eye, officially at least. In essence, both the French government and the U.S. administration agree, "Lebanon is a sovereign, independent state that aspires to freedom and democracy." Indeed. One rather wonders why this even needs to be stated.

Both countries, together with the "with the rest of the international community," pledged their support for Lebanon by drafting and passing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, calling on Syria to quit Lebanon, where its military and intelligence units have been stationed since 1976.

Complying with international pressures, Syria said it removed all its forces by April 30, and a U.N. team is now in Lebanon to verify the completion of the withdrawal.

The joint U.S.-French statement supports "the extension of the sole and exclusive control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory." It further states the two countries "stand ready to assist in this." The statement did not detail what form this assistance would entail.

What is particularly interesting in the joint statement, however, is what it does not say. The report makes no mention of anything relating to the Lebanese Shiite paramilitary organization, Hezbollah, or of disarming the Palestinian and other militias in Lebanon.

"No one forgot Hezbollah," the French diplomatic source told UPI. "They are just not a priority at the moment. The question of militias is mentioned in the political accords."

Matthew Levitt, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, agrees. "There is no question of not dealing with Hezbollah," he told UPI. The statement makes no mention of the armed militias, because, said Levitt, "It's a recognition that 1559 has to get all (foreign) forces out of Lebanon."

If implementing the first part of 1559 -- calling on Syria to withdraw -- appeared relatively easy, addressing the issue of Hezbollah and its weapons will take much more astute political maneuvering. It is what the British would call a "sticky wicket."

The general consensus is that the issue has to be addressed but needs to be done intelligently and carefully, so as not to re-re-ignite the violence. The issue cannot be forced. A close aide of the former Lebanese prime minister told UPI Tuesday that the situation in Lebanon remained precarious.

"The intent is to have Hezbollah become more of a 'hizb' and less of a militia," said Levitt. (Hezb is Arabic for party, Hezbollah means party of God.)

"It has to be done politically," Levitt said. "No one believes you can disarm Hezbollah," (by force) added the Washington analyst.

France and the United States also expect the establishment of an international commission of inquiry to investigate the assassination of former prime minister Hariri "and the other murdered Lebanese citizens."

"The international community is ready to assist" Lebanon in organizing free elections. "France and the United States stand ready to respond to requests for assistance by a sovereign and democratic Lebanese government formed as a result of the forthcoming elections."

--

(Comments may be sent to Claude@upi.com.)

Copyright © 2001-2005 United Press International

Politics & Policies: Kosovo still disconnected

My idle laptop, unable to connect to the outside world, offered an appropriate analogy to the current political situation in Kosovo. The usual traffic of about 400 e-mails a day were not trickling into my computer, leaving me frustrated -- as many Kosovars I am sure must feel about political stagnation in their region. Both of us were waiting for something to happen. And in both instances, it felt as though the world was passing us by.