Diplomats in Geneva this week should pay more attention to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines’ long record than to the political sensitivities.

By: Claudia Rosett

5 November 2013

The Wall Street Journal

Smooth Talking

The Case for Easing Sanctions on Iran

By: Kimberly Ann Elliott

4 November 2013

Foreign Affairs

Syria says will not hand over power in Geneva

5 November 2013

Diplomats Try to Push Syria Peace Conference

By: NICK CUMMING-BRUCE and ALAN COWELL

4 November 2013

The New York Times

Exclusive: Syria chemical weapons mission funded only through this month

5 November 2013

Reuters

Dramatic increase in number of Syrians in need of humanitarian aid

Around 9.3 million people in Syria now in need of assistance, up from 6.8 million in June, according to UN humanitarian chief

5 November 2013

Egypt Central Bank returns $500m deposit to Qatar

5 November 2013

Reuters

Editorial: Mr. Kerry’s diplomatic games in Egypt

4 November 2013

The Washington Post

East Libya movement launches government, challenges Tripoli

4 November 2013

Reuters

Modest Mission?

The U.S. Plan to Build a Libyan Army

By: Frederic Wehrey

4 November 2013

Foreign Affairs

Editorial: Kerry’s futile Middle East tour

America will have no credibility in the region and beyond until it reins in its ally Israel

5 November 2013

Gulf News

No Exit: Why the US Can’t Leave the Middle East

By: Michael J. Totten

5 November 2013

World Affairs Journal

FNC debates commercial fraud bill

By: Ola Salem

4 November 2013

The National

A bill to fight commercial fraud is under debate by an FNC sub-committee.

The council’s finance committee said commercial fraud affected the country’s economy indirectly as tracking down fraudulent and counterfeit products was consuming a sum of the country’s budget.

The committee met yesterday to discuss the 24-article bill.

They found that commercial fraud was one of the biggest challenges threatening the stability of the regional market – including the UAE – and carries a number of threats on consumers’ health and safety.

The Government has witnessed major strides in passing legislation in this field and has established a number of entities on the local and federal level to fight these crimes.

A former 1979 law on fraud will be replaced by the new bill. The Ministry of Economy said the 1979 law is no longer applicable and a new law is required that would also comply with international standards.

After debating the first article, the committee decided to continue discussions at their meeting next week.

Editorial: A shift in attitude is required in the GCC

4 November 2013

The National

The GCC countries have experienced rapid development in recent years, investing heavily in infrastructure projects, a sector that provides plenty of jobs, especially for expatriates. International Monetary Fund reports show that about seven million new jobs have been created during the past decade across the GCC, but 70 per cent of these jobs went to expatriates. By 2015, it estimates six million more jobs will need be created. Again, more than two-thirds of these will be filled by expatriates. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to rise among UAE nationals.

As The National reported yesterday, experts warned during a Nato conference in Dubai last week that the GCC nations need to create many millions more jobs by 2020 to quell rising unemployment.

This is a serious problem. Regional oil reserves are decreasing, but much of the GCC has done little to wean itself off its dependence on the riches these natural resources bring. A huge gap still exists between the private and the public sectors in several GCC countries. The latter continues to attract young people because of the wide range of benefits it offers, from higher wages to longer holidays and more job security.

There is a need to move towards “high value-added services and manufacturing”, as Dr Hatem Al Shanfari, a professor in economics and finance and a member of the board of governors at the Central Bank of Oman, said.

Further focus on manufacturing would help to diversify the GCC economies and create jobs. The UAE has invested heavily in the manufacturing and industrial sectors, including glass and aluminium production, aviation, building materials and pharmaceuticals. Manufacturing made a contribution of about 14 per cent of non-oil GDP between 2001 and 2012, according to a study by Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

But any move towards manufacturing also requires a shift in attitudes – not only from government or the corporate sector, but within society itself – if rising unemployment is to be successfully tackled. There must be greater recognition that there are rewarding careers to be had away from traditional areas of employment.

In other words, career satisfaction can be found away from the corner office and somewhere closer to the factory gates. Manufacturing may sound unglamorous, but it is in this sector where innovators the world over have often provided real engines for economic growth.
Back to Top

Expo 2020 would boost media industry

Emirate has become an ideal location for companies to set up a regional base

By: Alexander Cornwell

5 November 2013

Gulf News

Dubai’s media free zones are set to handle an increase in demand for operating licenses and services if the emirates Expo 2020 bid is successful, an executive from Media Cluster said.

The host of Expo 2020 will be unveiled this month and whilst Dubai is competing against four other cities the emirate has being preparing itself on what the event will mean for Dubai.

Over recent weeks several business leaders from across the United Arab Emirates have expressed their desire for Dubai to host the international event and discussed how the economy would grow in the lead up to 2020.

Mohammad Abdullah, Managing Director of Media Cluster, said Dubai’s media zones were able to “cater for different companies” and “different segments.”

Media Cluster is responsible for Dubai Media City, Dubai Studio City, and International Media Production Zone.

The Media Cluster, most notably Dubai Media City, is currently home to some of the largest global news agencies and other media production companies. But in light of a successful Expo 2020 bid it’s likely that the demand for companies to be present Dubai will burgeon.

“Talking about Media Clusters its (Expo 2020) an opportunity for us having all these new comers from different parts of the world [and] they will definitely need services and we will benefit from that in terms of business opportunities,” Abdullah said.

Historically, Dubai has not been shy to companies setting up shop. The emirate has become an ideal location for many companies – media and otherwise – to establish a regional base and into Europe and Asia.

Abdullah said Dubai Expo 2020 would act as an “opportunity” and “invitation” for international media who were looking at establishing operations in Dubai. He also said there would be ample opportunity for the companies already operating in the media zones.

“The benefit is mutual for the city itself for Dubai and Dubai Media Cluster,” he said.

Chamber of commerce chief pulls off personal coup to bring World Islamic Economic Forum to Dubai

By: Frank Kane

5 November 2013

The National

Hamad Buamim had reason to be pleased with himself in London last week.

Amid the bustle of the World Islamic Economic Forum (WIEF) the director general of the Dubai Chamber of Commerce had just pulled off a coup by winning the right to stage the next forum of the “Islamic Davos” in Dubai.

It is quite an achievement.

Next November, the eyes of the Islamic world will be on Dubai as thousands of Muslim leaders and business people gather in the emirate.

It will be a huge boost for Dubai’s ambitions to be the capital of the global Islamic economy, on a three-year schedule announced by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai.

It is also a big personal achievement for Mr Buamim, who is regarded as one of the stars of the Dubai establishment, and the culmination of many months’ work.

“We’ve been having a dialogue with the WIEF for the past six months, ever since His Highness announced the initiative. It’s the tenth forum, and I think they wanted to celebrate that occasion in Kuala Lumpur, where it began. They [the WIEF organisers] were really considering us for the 11th, so we had to convince them Dubai was the best place to have it next year, for the greater good of the global Islamic economy,” he says.

The forum is a big event. Some 2,500 delegates, ranging from presidents and prime ministers, top executives and all-round movers and shakers, were in the East End of London last week, the first time the event has been held outside the Islamic world.

“We argued that bringing it to Dubai would win them an even bigger audience. We told them of our ambitions, and of course they were aware of Sheikh Mohammed’s initiative. Eventually we were able to convince them that Dubai was the place,” he says.

The clinching arguments, he says, were Dubai’s central location as a business hub, with its proximity to Asia, the Middle East and Africa, and its ability to put on an event of this size and stature.

“We have an excellent track record of delivering these kind of events, and the best facilities in the Middle East,” says Mr Buamim.

Backed by the full weight of the emirate’s Government, he was also able to persuade WIEF’s decision makers that Dubai could broaden the appeal of the event.

It was noticeable in London last week that two of the biggest players in the Islamic world – Saudi Arabia and Iran – were distinctly under-represented at the forum. Mr Buamim believes that would be different in Dubai.

“I don’t believe it was a political decision by either of them. I just think there is room for this event to grow. Our aim is to bring it to the whole Islamic world,” he says.

Iran, perhaps affected by United States-led economic sanctions, was absent in any official capacity in London, but Mr Buamim believes that will change. “Of course they will be invited to Dubai next year. They are our friends, and we have a long history with them. And I am very optimistic with political developments in the Arabian Gulf,” he says.

Staging the WIEF will put Dubai right up there with Kuala Lumpur and London as a global Islamic financial centre, but Mr Buamim believes the emirate’s appeal is broader than just sukuk and other Sharia-compliant financial engineering.

“It’s not just about finance, but also other crucial aspects of the Islamic economy, like food, tourism, leisure, education, standardisation and certification. We have learnt a lot from the Malaysians, who began the whole thing, but we believe we can make it more international.”

Dubai will also seek the attendance of American Muslims, who have so far been slow to appreciate the opportunities of the global Islamic economy, estimated by Dubai to be worth some US$8 trillion.

“The awareness and knowledge is not there yet in the USA, but there is no reason it should not happen. Perhaps there is room for another Islamic hub, apart from Malaysia, Dubai and London,” he says.

Mr Buamim thinks there is plenty of potential for expanding the event beyond the traditional Muslim world.

“We think we can take it to the next level by addressing the issue of the globalisation of the Islamic economy, especially in terms of addressing non-Muslims in terms of participation. It is in everybody’s interests that this happens.”

The event will probably be centred on Dubai’s World Trade Centre, but could expand beyond that, given the emirate’s rapidly growing expertise in staging such events. It could even be seen as a practice run for the Expo 2020 event, if Dubai wins the right later this month to stage the world’s most prestigious business exhibition in seven years’ time.

Mr Buamim and the Dubai Chamber of Commerce have also been closely involved in the negotiations and lobbying over Expo.

“There is a great awareness of the importance of this. Whether we win or not, it has done us good. And who knows, even if we don’t win [the right to stage Expo], maybe we will put on our own show for the rest of the world anyway.”

Suwaidi Says U.A.E. to Eye Credit Growth Amid Growth

By: Dana El Baltaji

5 November 2013

Bloomberg

The United Arab Emirates is studying macro-prudential policies to regulate credit growth as the Arab world’s second-biggest economy is set to expand at the fastest rate since 2006.

One of the things “we are looking at is the ratio of credit growth versus GDP growth,” central bank Governor Sultan bin Nasser Al-Suwaidi said at a news conference in Abu Dhabi today. “This has been discussed for a long time, and is being discussed” with the International Monetary Fund.

The central bank is imposing borrowing curbs and tightening rules on loan-to-value ratios for mortgages to avoid a repeat of the 2008 credit bubble that helped cause the biggest economic slump in about two decades. The economy of the U.A.E., which holds about 6 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves, may grow 4.5 percent this year Economy Minister Sultan Al Mansoori said in September, the most in seven years.

The country’s currency peg to the U.S. dollar limits the central bank from using interest rates to target loan growth. The central bank hasn’t changed interest rates since February 2009, when it cut the repurchasing rate by 50 basis points to 1 percent.

The central bank will release revised limits for lenders’ exposure to government-related debt within a week in the official gazette, and the changes will take effect a month after publication, Suwaidi said. Banks will have five years to adjust at a rate of 20 percent per annum, he said.

Mortgage Rules

“I think the rated bonds and sukuk will be excluded from the large exposure loan limits,” he said.

Commercial, standalone government-related entities will also be excluded from the loan exposure limit, Suwaidi said.

The central bank in April 2012 said that banks must not lend more than 100 percent of their capital to local governments and the same amount to government-related entities to help reduce risk. There was no limit under previous rules.

The central bank is also working with banks to impose mortgage lending rules, setting a maximum length of a mortgage at 25 years. The value of a mortgage shouldn’t exceed eight years annual salary for an expatriate borrower and seven years for a U.A.E. national, according to the regulations.

While Suwaidi didn’t specify when the rules will be enforced, U.A.E. Banks Federation head Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair told reporters yesterday “it should be before the end of the year.”

Property prices in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, which account for more than 85 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, are surging. High-end villa prices in Dubai climbed about 32 percent so far this year, and those in Abu Dhabi 66 percent during the same period, according to Cluttons LLC data compiled by Bloomberg. Dubai and Abu Dhabi’s stock markets are among the world’s top 10 fastest-growing indexes this year.

“I don’t think its possible that there will be a bubble in the real estate sector,” Suwaidi said. “The mortgage law will balance the whole issue; it won’t permit banks to over extend themselves. We can sleep at night.”

UAE to impose watered-down exposure rules on banks

5 November 2013

Reuters

The central bank of the United Arab Emirates has eased planned curbs on commercial banks’ exposure to state-linked debt, giving them five years to comply after the banks complained that the rules could hurt their business.

As part of efforts to reduce risk for banks and prevent any repeat of Dubai’s 2009-2010 corporate debt crisis, the central bank announced early last year that banks would have until the end of September 2012 to restrict their lending to the government and state-linked entities.

Each bank would have to cap such lending at 100 percent of its capital base, with lending to a single borrower limited to 25 percent.

The rules were suspended after lobbying by the banks, however, and central bank governor Sultan Nasser al-Suweidi on Tuesday outlined substitute rules that were much less harsh.

Banks will have five years to comply fully with the rules, Suweidi said; they will have to cut their excess lending by 20 percent every year until they reach the ceiling for exposure.

“We think that is a reasonable time frame. Most banks will be compliant,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a financial conference.

Bonds that are rated by credit rating agencies will not be counted as exposure for the purposes of the rules, Suweidi said – a provision that will remove pressure on banks to cut their holdings of bonds, and could prompt Dubai, which lacks a rating, to seek one.

Also, the debt of “commercial” state entities which can stand on their own will not be counted, Suweidi added. He did not elaborate on whether this meant banks could, for example, lend without restriction to real estate developers in which the governments of emirates in the UAE own major stakes.

The new rules will come out within one week and will then be published in the official gazette, taking effect thereafter, Suweidi said.

Taken together, the new rules appear to be much less disruptive to banks’ earnings and the growth of the UAE economy than the original ones could have been.

In a report in September, analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch calculated the UAE’s domestic banking sector had extended a whopping $42 billion in credit to the government and related entities since 2008, bringing its exposure to the state and non-financial public enterprises to 104 percent of capital – the highest ratio since the late 1970s.

For some major UAE banks, the ratios are believed to be considerably higher, so a sudden cut to the 100 percent level could have saddled them with losses while making it difficult for the emirates to finance ambitious development plans.

The International Monetary Fund has warned that the concentration of loans to the government at Emirates NBD , Dubai’s top bank, is high, raising corporate governance and risk management concerns.

ENBD has said it is managing its loan book prudently, and Suweidi said on Tuesday that Dubai, where property prices have been rebounding strongly this year, did not risk another boom-bust cycle.

“There is no possibility of a new bubble in the real estate sector. Banks have gone through the experience of 2006, 2007 and the first half of 2008. They know that things cannot go up forever,” he said.

“Most loans in the UAE are in the form of mortgage loans. That will balance the issue and it will not permit banks to overextend themselves.”

Last week, the UAE central bank issued restrictions on mortgage loans in order to limit speculation in the real estate market; the caps were not as stringent as initially planned because of lobbying by the banking industry.

Suweidi also said he did not expect UAE inflation to rise beyond a normal rate of around 2 percent. “We are not seeing anything beyond normal credit growth, inflation and general expansion of real estate loans.”

The UAE’s annual consumer price inflation was at 1.3 percent in September for the fourth month in a row, but rising rents in Dubai and upward pressure on prices in Abu Dhabi have raised the possibility of higher inflation nationally.

Editorial: Faster, higher, stronger

5 November 2013

The National

The tallest tower, the largest mall, the biggest solar power station, the heaviest gold ring, the highest sword toss, the most expensive cocktail, the most nationalities represented in a crowd of people washing their hands simultaneously – let’s face it, some of the UAE’s accomplishments mean more than others.

The UAE’s citizens and expatriates alike love their superlatives: as The National reported this week, the Guinness Book of World Records has 147 UAE entries, compared to only 380 for the rest of the Middle East; in proportion to population, this in itself may well be a record.

But the whole world can play this game, and does. The book has become the font of authenticity for thousands of quantifiable records for all sorts of feats, major and minor. It has artfully established itself as a focal point for the natural human desire to excel.

Humans are restless and competitive and imaginative: from the Olympic motto “faster, higher, stronger” to the Guinness record for balancing spoons on a person’s face (17), no other species has the intelligence to compete is such stylised ways, and to seek acclaim for success. In that sense there are no silly records; the impulse that pushes people to excel is not limited to practical matters alone.

UAE’s October private sector orders post sharp increase

Output growth slows marginally in UAE and Saudi Arabia

By: Babu Das Augustine

5 November 2013

Gulf News

The UAE’s purchasing managers’ index (PMI) for October showed a marginal slowdown in output growth of non-oil private sector, while new order intakes rose sharply and new export orders increased at the quickest pace in the survey history.

The index, compiled by HSBC Holdings and Markit Economics – a composite indicator of the performance of the non-oil private sector – signalled a further solid improvement in operating conditions in the UAE non-oil producing private sector, with the headline index inching down fractionally from September’s 56.6 to 56.3 in October.

“The headline number may be down on the September high, but the underlying data remains strong. Production and new orders are continuing to gain, employment is up and inflation still looks benign. I remain confident that the economy will perform well into the year-end,” said Simon Williams, Chief Economist for Middle East & North Africa at HSBC.

The latest survey results signaled a further increase in output, with survey respondents linking growth to higher new business. The UAE’s private sector companies reported a solid rise in order intakes during October, with the rate of growth in new work the second-highest recorded in the survey history.

Good sales efforts, improving economic conditions and higher construction activity all contributed to the sharp rise, according to panel members. Meanwhile, new export orders rose at the quickest pace since data collection began in August 2009.

“October PMI data show that the UAE’s non-oil private sector continued to enjoy robust growth, albeit at a slightly slower pace than September.. The data is particularly encouraging considering the Eid holidays in October. Export orders growth also accelerated in October with the sub-index reaching 58.9, the highest since the series began, reflecting improving external conditions,” said Khatija Haque, Senior Economist at Emirates NBD.

Inflationary pressures persisted into October, but the rate of overall input price inflation eased slightly from September. Driven by increased market demand, general inflationary pressures and increased raw material costs, purchase prices rose at a slightly higher pace, while average staff costs increased at a weaker rate.

The seasonally adjusted Overall Input Prices Index posted above the no-change mark of 50 in October, pointing to ongoing cost pressures in the UAE’s private sector. Despite rising input costs, private sector firms lowered their selling prices for the first time in five months. Survey respondents largely attributed price discounting to competitive market conditions.

Employment levels continued to increase during October as companies faced higher workloads. The rate of job creation was down slightly compared to September. Average staff costs at the UAE’s non-oil producing private sector companies continued to increase in October, extending the current sequence of rising salaries to 21 months. The latest increase in average wages was modest, with the vast majority of survey respondents indicating unchanged staff costs.

The seasonally adjusted export orders index registered above the no-change mark of 50 in October, pointing to a strengthening of client demand from foreign markets. Companies linked the latest increase to competitive pricing and good market conditions. The pace of expansion accelerated from the previous month and was the quickest recorded in the series history.

Saudi Arabia’s PMI reading also showed a slowdown in the pace of growth in the non-oil private sector last month, with the headline PMI falling to 56.7 from 58.7 previously. New order growth (64.7) and business activity (58.2) both slowed in October but remain firmly in expansionary territory. Export orders rose at their fastest pace on record (63.2), reflecting stronger external demand. Input prices (55.7) continued to rise much faster than output prices (50.4) in October, further squeezing margins.

ADTCA boosts tourism

By: Silvia Radan

4 November 2013

Khaleej Times

They were hosted by the Abu Dhabi Tourism and Culture Authority (ADTCA), which is looking to build next year’s hotel guest arrivals to over the 2.8 million mark – up from this year’s expected 2.5 million.

“These are powerful decision makers within the travel and tourism sector and we want them to fully understand the sheer breadth of our expanded destination offering, which has grown exponentially over the past 18 months and is now a vibrant leisure proposition for a diverse target market,” said Jasem Al Darmaki, deputy director general of ADTCA.

Among them were Naar and Idee per Viaggiare of Italy, General Tours and Travel Holdings of the USA, Planet Veo and Directour of France, British Airways Holidays of the UK, Uniway and Wuzhouxing of China, TEZ Tour and Sodis of Russia, Al Tayyar Group and Fursan Leisure of Saudi Arabia, Trust Travels and Cutting Edge Events of India and Sportsnet Holidays and Sun Island Tours of Australia. For five days they toured the hot spots of Abu Dhabi, ending their sightseeing with top seats at the 2013 Formula One Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix on November 3.

“We are leveraging the emirate’s headline event to demonstrate clearly to the tour operators the destination’s assets and attractions and major events credentials,” mentioned Al Darmaki.

“We want to encourage positive word-of-mouth recommendation among these key influencers and build strong relationships going forward,” he added.

The tour operators’ visit was timed to coincide with the capital’s busiest time of the year. Due to the F1, the Abu Dhabi Film Festival and the start of the season, most hotels in Abu Dhabi were fully booked with rates at all time high, reaching Dh1,700 per night for a standard room, more than double than the rates in mid October.

“We’ve been fully booked for the past six days largely because of Formula One. We also had government delegations staying with us and next week we’ll be fully booked again for Adipec, the petrol conference,” Yves Tarabout, deputy general manager of Sheraton Abu Dhabi, told Khaleej Times.

Abu Dhabi airport passenger traffic up 10.1%

More than 1.3m passenger travelled through the airport in September

5 November 2013

Emirates News Agency-WAM

Abu Dhabi Airports on Tuesday released Abu Dhabi International Airport’s (AUH) traffic report for the month of September 2013.

Over 1.3 million passengers travelled through the airport last month, demonstrating growth of 10.1 per cent compared to the same period in 2012.

The report also revealed that the airport registered 12.1 per cent growth in passenger traffic in the first nine months of 2013 compared with the same period last year (Jan-Sept 2012), with 12,249,300 passengers handled this year.

Aircraft movement reached 11,379 in September 2013, representing a 13.1 per cent increase, while cargo traffic also grew, marking a 27.6 per cent increase with more than 61,913 tonnes of cargo moved last month.

The top five destinations for outbound passengers in September 2013 were Bangkok, London, Doha, Manila, and Sydney.

Commenting on the traffic report, Ahmad Al Haddabi, Chief Operations Officer at Abu Dhabi Airports, said, “Efforts to attract new airline partners and new routes, alongside strategic investments in infrastructure, will enable Abu Dhabi International Airport to further accommodate the increase in passenger traffic whilst providing them with a wider choice for efficient travel solutions. The capital’s airport has established itself as a regional hub for air transport and will continueto firmly hold this position as Abu Dhabi Airports delivers the Midfield Terminal Building in 2017.”

The Capacity Enhancement Programme currently in progress will enable Abu Dhabi International Airport to accommodate more than 17 million passengers annually, through strategic enhancements to its existing facilities, the most recent of these being the new Arrivals Hall, which opened earlier this year.

Travellers are now able to access parking, taxis and limousines just 20 metres away from the customs lounge through a new tunnel connecting the customs area with the new Arrivals Hall.

Dubai new hub for cruise tourism

City to welcome 300,000 tourists in new season: DTCM

5 November 2013

Emirates News Agency-WAM

The burgeoning reputation of Dubai as an international hub for cruise tourism is set to be bolstered by an eventful 2013-14 season, with more than 20 leading global cruise lines anticipated to bring in as many as 300,000 tourists to the Emirate, according to Dubai Cruise Tourism (DCT), an entity of Dubai’s Department of Tourism and Commerce Marketing (DTCM).

From tours of the Arabian Gulf taking in the region’s most majestic cities to longer voyages to the Far East, India and the Mediterranean, cruises from Dubai will continue to offer a diverse selection of destinations for holidaymakers seeking adventure and relaxation over the coming season.

By selecting the Emirate as a home port, tourists will be able to take advantage of its spectacular attractions, from world-renowned skyscrapers and shopping malls to beaches and leisure venues, at both the beginning and end of their expedition.

Among the upcoming cruises with Dubai as its home port are cruise ships Costa Fortuna and Costa NeoRiviera travelling to two of Oman’s major cities, Muscat and Khasab, as well as Abu Dhabi.

Others include the Aida Diva, which visits Muscat, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, and the MSC Lirica – stopping at Abu Dhabi, Khor Fakkan, Muscat and Khasab.

To celebrate the success of the 2012-2013 season, DCT held an appreciation ceremony on October 28 to thank its partners and stakeholders for their crucial role in Dubai’s emergence as one of the world’s most attractive cruise destinations.

Helal Saeed Almarri, Director-General of Dubai’s Department of Tourism and Commerce Marketing (DTCM), said, “The 2012-13 cruise season reached new heights. We are proud to announce 93 confirmed ship calls this season, and we are also delighted to welcome seven maiden ship calls, a reflection of Dubai’s burgeoning appeal as a cruise hub.”

More than twenty of the world’s leading cruise lines have Dubai as a port of call in their itineraries.

This is testament to the initiatives and tireless efforts of DTCM and its partners, as well as continued investment in Dubai Cruise Terminal’s state-of-the-art facilities and services, including the largest cruise facility in the Middle East, 20,000 square meters, on a 1,900 meter pier stretch.

A planned expansion, which will endow Dubai Cruise Terminals with an additional facility spanning over 27,000 square meters to cater to cruise lines and visitors from 2014, is currently underway. Consequently, Dubai Cruise Terminals will be able to comfortably handle completepassenger turnaround of five cruise ships simultaneously.

Etisalat targets Morocco in deal worth more than Dh20 billion

By: John Everington

4 November 2013

The National

Etisalat has signed a share purchase agreement to acquire a 53 per cent stake in Maroc Telecom from France’s Vivendi in a €4.2 billion (Dh20.81bn) deal.

It brings to a close several months of negotiations between the two parties.

The UAE-based operator announced today it had signed a share purchase agreeement to acquire Vivendi’s stake in the Moroccan operator for a total consideration of €3.9bn, equivalent to 92.6 Moroccan dirhams per share. The agreement between the two parties was signed on Monday.

The consideration to be paid does not include a dividend received by Vivendi from Maroc Telecom in respect of the 2012 financial year.

Etisalat will pay Vivendi the cash value of the 2012 dividend of €300 million at the closing of the deal.

The deal is still subject to conditions, which include securing competition and regulatory approval for the transaction in Morocco, and the execution of a shareholders’ agreement with the Moroccan state, which owns a 30 per cent stake in the operator.

Etisalat has been in exclusive talks with Vivendi over the acquisition of its stake in Maroc Telecom since Qatar’s Ooredoo withdrew from discussions in June.

The Moroccan operator reported revenues of €1.3bn for the first six months of this year. The company also has operations in Burkina Faso, Gabon, Mali and Mauritania.

Occidental Petroleum partners with Emirates Foundation to Support UAE Youth Development

5 November 2013

Emirates News Agency-WAM
The Emirates Foundation for Youth Development and Occidental Petroleum Corporation (Oxy) has announced the signing of a partnership agreement whereby Oxy will provide financial and non-financial support to help the Emirates Foundation achieve its strategic objective of inspiring, empowering and guiding youth in the U.A.E.. The agreement will also allow for the two entities to exchange knowledge and expertise around youth development, and scale up the Foundation’s six core programmes.

As part of the partnership, and in line with its global social responsibility programme, Oxy will provide the Emirates Foundation with a financial contribution of five million dollars over a six year period, as well as technical and logistical support with the youth development programmes managed by the Foundation.

Commenting on the partnership agreement with Oxy, Sheikh Sultan bin Tahnoon Al Nahyan, the Foundation’s Managing Director, said, “Partnering with a world renowned company that is known for its continuous support for social development programmes across the globe is hugely beneficial for the Foundation. We rely on support from the private sector in order to be able to deliver social value and in this case, create opportunities for young people in the U.A.E.” Sheikh Sultan continued, “We have always appreciated Oxy’s support which is not just financial in nature but also brings a high level of engagement. This renewed commitment to our work is an indication of how we have successfully worked together in the past to create sustained social value.” Emirates Foundation has to date impacted the lives of over 34,000 young people in the U.A.E., positively and permanently.” According to the agreement, Oxy will provide support across the Foundation’s work with a specific focus on Kafa’at, a pre-employment programme that aims to equip young people for work in the private sector, and the Think Science programme which aims to identify scientific talent in the U.A.E. and encourage young people to pursue study and a career in the science and technology sector.

“Oxy is honoured to support Emirates Foundation in its quest to enhance the lives and future of young people in the U.A.E.,” said Stephen I. Chazen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Oxy. “Throughout our worldwide operations, we support professional development, mentoring and educational programmes with the goal of preparing future generations of leaders. In this regard, Oxy’s philosophy is very much in keeping with the mission and focus of the Emirates Foundation.” Oxy’s new commitment to the Foundation builds on earlier financial contributions and technical support whereby the company partnered with Emirates Foundation to develop research on youth and employment and was involved in developing training programmes for civil society organisations.

Clare Woodcraft, Chief Executive Officer, Emirates Foundation for Youth Development, expressed the Foundation’s appreciation of Oxy’s commitment to growing young Emirati talent and to investing in a dynamic and engaged relationship with the Foundation throughout the organisation’s transition. In 2012, Emirates Foundation underwent a transition from being a grant making institution into an operational one using the model of venture philanthropy to deliver sustainable social impact.

Saadiyat museum contracts to be awarded by Q2 2014

5 November 2013

Arabian Business

Abu Dhabi’s Tourism, Development and Investment Company(TDIC) has said that it is likely to award the main contracts for the two remaining museums at Saadiyat Island by the middle of next year.

In an interview which appears in Construction Week, TDIC development chief Carlos Antonio-Wakim said that it was aiming to award the contract for the Zayed National Museum by Q1 2014.

“At the same time, we are in the pre-qualification phase of tendering the Guggenheim,” he said.

“We are finalising the design now, we have a number of contractors under pre-qualification and we are aiming also to award the Guggenheim by Q2 2014,” he added.

He added that work at the Louvre is “right on track”, with construction set to complete in December 2015, followed by the Zayed National Museum in December 2016 and the Guggenheim in December 2017.

TDIC recently unveiled a new masterplan for Saadiyat Island at Cityscape, with the mall being developed as a joint venture with the property arm of French luxury goods firm LVMH serving as a new centrepiece.

Wakim explained that the mall, which will be on a site next to the Zayed National Museum, will house the parking for all three museums underneath, and have space for up to 1,500 cars.

Each of the museums will be directly linked to the mall via new feature bridges designed by the museum’s architects.

Zayed Future Energy Prize announces finalists for 2014

5 November 2013

Emirates News Agency-WAM

The Zayed Future Energy Prize has announced a shortlist of twenty-three finalists for its 2014 edition, which will be presented to the Prize Jury for the final evaluation later this month.

The Prize’s Selection Committee met to discuss and evaluate over 40 candidates that had earlier been shortlisted by the Review Committee in five categories: Large Corporation, Small Medium Enterprise, Non-Governmental Organisation, Lifetime Achievement and Global High Schools.

The finalists included innovators, thought leaders, organisations and schools working in energy efficiency, solar PV and biomass among other sectors. Each finalist was evaluated based on the prize criteria of innovation, impact, leadership and long-term vision.

Dr. Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, Director General of the Zayed Future Energy Prize, said, “Year after year, as the Future Energy Prize grows in reputation and gains international recognition, we find ourselves receiving exciting and diverse entries, both in terms of geography as well as cutting-edge technology.

“The Selection Committee has a challenging task – to deliberate and select the most innovative and impactful solutions that define the renewable energy industry. These are the solutions that will take us one step closer to solving the energy challenges of our time – be it energy access in the developing world, funding research in biofuels and clean technologies, and of course strengthening sustainability practice in schools across the globe,” continued Dr. Al Jaber.

“We are closer to choosing the winners of the Zayed Future Energy Prize, and with that comes the knowledge that as we encourage and award more recipients, we honour a legacy left to us by our late founding father, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan and take forward the vision of our leadership today,” he added.

Bader Al Lamki, Director of Masdar Clean Energy and Chairman of the Zayed Future Energy Prize Selection Committee, said, “The future of energy relies heavily on our ability to inspire and award innovation – through the Zayed Future Energy Prize, we are doing just that.

“Carrying the namesake of our founding father, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, and taking his vision forward through tangible steps, the Prize has truly created a platform for excellence and innovation in renewable energy, and provided a much need impetus to this critical industry.” “It is an honour and a challenge to be tasked with identifying the most innovative renewable energy and sustainability solutions for 2014. The shortlist is extremely competitive and I would like to wish the finalists the very best for the next and final round,” added Al Lamki.

The finalists are next set to be presented to the Prize Jury on 17th November for final evaluation. Winners of the sixth edition will be announced at the Zayed Future Energy Prize awards ceremony scheduled for 20th January, 2014 as part of the annual Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week.

The Zayed Future Energy Prize is the world’s foremost award for innovation in renewable energy and sustainability.

EIAST moves DubaiSat 2 to Russia ahead of its launch

4 November 2013

Emirates News Agency-WAM

The Emirates Institution for Advanced Science and Technology (EIAST) has moved the DubaiSat-2 satellite under supervision of its top engineers from South Korea to Russia in preparation for its launch soon.

DubaiSat-2 will be launched on a Dnepr Rocket through the Moscow-based International Space Company Kosmotras, from Yasny Launch Base.

As part of its initiative to support the UAE’s World Expo 2020 bid, the logo of Expo 2020 will be displayed on the DubaiSat-2 launcher rocket. This move comes in line with the institution’s commitment to contribute effectively to overall development in the UAE through extended support for the landmark global event.

The Dubai Expo bid represents a real embodiment of the leadership’s wise vision to create channels of cultural, humanitarian, scientific and economic communication and encourage intellectual and cultural understanding among all peoples of the world.

Yousuf Al Shaibani, director general, EIAST, said: “DubaiSat-2 project complements the second stage of the plan set by EIAST to build an integrated team of Emirati engineers through the development of our human resources to ultimately promote the UAE’s leading position as an international destination for space technology. Over the past five years, our team of engineers at the institution has developed DubaiSat-2 under the supervision of our strategic partner Satrec Initiative. This alliance offers the opportunity to leverage expertise in space technology and boost national competencies in the hope of manufacturing satellites within the homeland soon.” “Over 150 years, the World Expo continues to serve as a premier platform to share technical and scientific innovations and prompt communication among various cultures while promoting economic and business cooperation between nations. It truly is a driving force of the economic, cultural and social transformation happening worldwide. The UAE’s chances of winning the bid are strong, supported by a solid economy, a multi-cultural social fabric and strategic location, as well as a state-of-the-art infrastructure, remarkable logistics capabilities, and extensive expertise in organizing world-class events,” added Al Shaibani.

“Should we host Expo 2020, which will be held under theme ‘Connecting Minds, Creating the Future,’ it would be a milestone in the efforts to reach higher levels of excellence and leadership. The event offers an ideal opportunity to advance economic diversity and develop national competencies in the fields of technology and sciences. It also promotes the transformation into a knowledge-based economy that relies on human capital to shape the future of the nation while complying with the genuine values and heritage of our ancestors,” he concluded.

EIAST was established by the Dubai Government in 2006 with the goal of promoting a culture of advanced scientific research and technology innovation in Dubai and the UAE, and enhancing technology innovation and scientific skills among UAE Nationals. It is mainly involved in outer space research and development; satellite manufacturing and systems development; space imaging; and ground station services and support for other satellites.

FedEx Express appoints new EMEA region president

5 November 2013

Arabian Supply Chain

FedEx Express announced the appointment of David Binks as regional president, FedEx Express, Europe, Middle East, Indian Subcontinent and Africa (EMEA), effective January 1, 2014.

Binks will succeed Gerald P. Leary, who is retiring from FedEx Express after 39 years of distinguished service.

In his new role, Binks will be responsible for the broader leadership and strategic direction of FedEx Express across the entire EMEA region. He will be based at the company’s EMEA headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

Binks has been with FedEx since 1983, most recently serving as senior vice president of European Operations. Previously, he served as president of FedEx Canada. He has also held a number of other key management roles in EMEA and Canada throughout his FedEx career.

“David has been very instrumental in the strategic expansion of our European network over the past few years,” said David J. Bronczek, president and chief executive officer of FedEx Express. “He has helped significantly enhance our capabilities in Europe, and his appointment provides a continuity of leadership that will be extremely valuable as we build on our presence in the region and serve even more customers in the years to come.”

Michael Holt, currently CEO of FedEx UK and Vice President of Operational Integration Europe, will assume Binks’ current role. According to Bronczek, “FedEx UK has become one of our most successful operating units under Michael’s leadership, and we know he will bring that same success to his new position.”

Regarding Leary’s retirement, Bronczek added, “Jerry has been a valuable member of our leadership team, and has set very high standards with his tremendous work in EMEA. He leaves the team on a clearly defined path for a great future, and we wish him all the best.”

New aluminum downstream plant opens in Dubai

Al Ghurair Group’s facility to boost production beyond 1.3m parts for automotive industry

5 November 2013

Gulf News

Royal Engineering Fabrication Company (Refco), a fully-owned subsidiary of the Al Ghurair Group supplying fabricated components to the automotive, non-automotive and architectural sectors, opened its new aluminum downstream plant at Jebel Ali Industrial Area in Dubai on Tuesday.

The UAE’s largest aluminum producers including Dubal, Emal and Gulf Extrusions will be the chief suppliers for the state-of-the-art facility.

The opening was attended by Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, CEO and MD of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority, Majid Al Ghurair, CEO of Al Ghurair Group, Modar Al Mekdad, General Manager of Gulf Extrusions, Matthew Webb, General Manager of Refco and representatives of Emal and Dubal. The ceremony was followed by a tour of Refco’s outfit.

Additionally, the plant inauguration was also officially announced on the same day at the 17th Arab International Aluminum Conference (ARrabal), the premier trade event of the Middle East’s aluminium industry. Several delegates from this event, ongoing until November 7, 2013, also took the time out to visit the plant.

Majid Al Ghurair said: “The opening is a reflection of Al Ghurair Group’s commitment to building a truly world class downstream supplier within the UAE to support its long-term industrial strategy. The new plant, while adopting the latest advanced technologies and the highest standards in sustainability and environmental conservation, will propel our country’s economy by boosting its aluminum products export, particularly for the automotive sector.”

“This is a major step towards enhancing our footprint and reputation within the Tier 1, Automotive, Non Automotive, Aerospace and Architectural business portfolios. With increased production capacity, we are now better positioned to capitalise on the region’s abundant supply of aluminum to ensure customer advantages on three key aspects, namely Quality, Cost and Delivery. It will improve not just REFCO’s competitive advantage, but the UAE’s as well in the global market,” added Matthew Webb.

In 2013, Refco will produce over 1.3 million parts for premium vehicle manufactures, while its growth forecast for next year is 1.9 million parts. Besides, creating value within the downstream aluminium sector, the company will also play a big role in encouraging local industries to generate 100 per cent UAE-made products.

US car giant to restructure ops to drive MidEast growth

By: Andy Sambidge

5 November 2013

Arabian Business

US car giant Ford said on Tuesday that it is to restructure its global operations to try to drive growth in the Middle East.

The company is planning to set up its fifth global business unit – for the Middle East and Africa – with headquarters in Dubai.

The move, effective from January 1 2014, aims to “take advantage of profitable growth opportunities”, Ford said in a statement.

Stephen Odell, president, Ford of Europe, Middle East and Africa, said: “The Middle East and Africa region is comprised of very diverse markets with different political, cultural and economic environments.

“Building a robust and profitable operation in this region requires a dedicated focus and clear understanding of how to support the unique conditions and customer needs in these markets.”

Ford Motor Company also said it plans to launch 17 new or refreshed Ford and Lincoln vehicles in the next 24 months to accelerate growth in the Middle East and Africa.

“The Middle East and Africa is poised to become one of the next big automotive growth markets and we want to be there for these customers with great new cars and trucks,” added Odell on day one of the Dubai International Motor Show.

“Ford and Lincoln sales have grown 60 percent in the Middle East over the past four years, and we expect total industry sales in the combined Middle East and Africa region to increase nearly 40 percent to around 5.5 million units by 2020.”

Leading the new Ford Middle East and Africa region will be Jim Benintende, a 36-year Ford veteran who will oversee operations in all 47 regional markets.

Benintende has significant experience in the Middle East and Africa region, most recently as director, Ford Export Operations and Global Growth Initiatives. He also previously served in the Ford Middle East and North Africa region in various roles from 1994-2006.

“Our intention is to grow the Ford business while staying true to our principles of being active and supportive members of the community in the Middle East and Africa,” said Benintende.

In the first three quarters of this year, Ford Middle East has recorded strong sales with a nearly 20 percent increase compared to the same period in 2012.

In total, there are more than 60 new Ford and Lincoln sales and service facilities serving customers in the region.

Middle East primed for natural gas growth – study

By: Beatrice Thomas

5 November 2013

Arabian Business

The Middle East, China and Africa are primed for significant growth in the natural gas market with the fuel source set to account for almost a quarter of the world’s energy demand by 2035, a new report shows.

Ernst & Young, in its Business Pulse Oil and Gas report, said increasing demand in emerging markets, including some countries in the Middle East, was one of the top 10 opportunities in the MENA oil and gas sector.

“Natural gas is seen as a potentially cleaner replacement for coal and also as a ready replacement for nuclear power in countries which have phased out nuclear power due to public concerns,” Thorsten Ploss, EY’s Middle East and North Africa Oil & Gas Leader, said.

“Countries needing to increase power capacity quickly are particularly likely to turn to natural gas, as the construction time for natural gas generating plants is just two to three years.”

Ploss said the foundations for a world in which gas would play an increasingly important role could be laid soon if governments put the necessary regulatory conditions in place.

The report found oil majors would find accessing oil reserves progressively more difficult, shifting reserves and production further towards gas.

However, many national oil companies (NOCs) still had access to large oil reserves, so the pressure to shift towards gas was lower.

“The abundance of gas and the commensurate interest from non-OECD countries to exploit these resources has resulted in many companies developing significant Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) portfolios,” Ploss said.

“Learning to operate in LNG is, therefore, essential for companies wanting to thrive in this area and expand the market opportunities for their gas. Over the next few years, natural gas will rise up the list of priorities for companies.”

The continued rise of the population and the increasing demographic urbanization in RGMs would also be significant drivers for a sustained increase in energy demand. It said much of the projected growth in energy generation and consumption in RGMs would come from fossil fuels, especially natural gas, despite the increasing attractiveness of renewable energy.

“With the continued economic expansion of the world’s RGMs, energy demand will also rise rapidly,” Ploss said. “The opportunity for RGMs has never been greater in the oil and gas sector. The need to have a clear view of the risks and opportunities across the oil and gas sector is critical to future success.”

Opinion: GCC states have all the tools to create jobs for the young

By: Khalid Al Ameri

5 November 2013

The National

According to the latest IMF research, millions of jobs will need to be created across the Arabian Peninsula by 2020, if we are to avoid a steep rise in unemployment.

With a quarter of Arab youth currently without jobs, leaders, governments and businesses across the Arab world have to find the optimal balance between two vital and related goals: creating growth and opportunities for the current generation while building infrastructure for generations to come.

It is somewhat worrying that despite the abundance of resources at our disposal, unemployment is still a significant issue. In fact the 25 per cent youth unemployment rate across the Arabian Peninsula is far higher than the global average, 15 per cent.

And yet I remain optimistic that the GCC countries have pretty much everything they need to build a thriving, human-driven economy.

The first of these assets is the leadership: with guidance from the top, almost every GCC country has devised a long-term nationwide development plan that takes into account everything from government and business initiatives to social progress, education and infrastructure development.

Within the context of this long-term vision, each country has remained flexible and agile in response to the ever-changing economic environment, updating its strategy as needed.

These initiatives would not have been possible without clear guidance and absolute support from leaders, who continue to monitor progress very closely. So, given the magnitude of the employment issues we face, at least we can say that we are in good hands.

Next come the institutions: from Mubadala Development Company in the UAE, to Mumtalakat Holding Company in Bahrain, each Gulf country has built institutions that are reshaping the economic landscapes of these countries.

Developing new industries and welcoming world-class companies within their borders gives young professionals access to new opportunities and development, making them just as competitive as their global counterparts.

In parallel with the new industries, new universities, such as Paris Sorbonne in the UAE and Carnegie Mellon in Qatar, will develop the human capital that our countries will need. Certainly this is a sound business opportunity for the universities, but in this case these partnerships are win-win situations, good for everyone.

Next come the young people themselves: probably one of the most important factors in dealing with unemployment is the young-adult population. Across the Arab world, today’s students and young adults are more driven and motivated than at any stage in history. And the resources, tools, and technology at their disposal have given them a strong sense of belief that their success lies in their hands.

Now merge that sense of individual belief with a strong government to nurture that energy, and you have a formula for true prosperity and sustainable success, in which our young people depend on themselves first for employment, then on the Government.

Perfection is beyond the reach of everyone. Although we have in place the building blocks to battle growing unemployment, there are several fundamental elements that need to change or to be put in place so as not to hinder or distract us on the journey to develop sustainable economies across the GCC.

First is creating a strong sense of meritocracy across the board; people must be recognised and promoted based on their capabilities and achievements. Every other consideration should be secondary. There can be no shortcuts.

Second is setting out, in each country, the policies and procedures for its people to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities freely. The process for starting a business must be as streamlined as possible, so that new employers can focus on creating value, rather than on filling in paperwork.

Lastly, and this is a longer-term issue but should be addressed soon, is the “cradle-to-the-grave” welfare system to which Gulf nationals have grown so accustomed.

In the pursuit of economic sustainability a country must rely on its people to be a significant source of value. A top-down process of constant giving could be a hindrance to achieving that in the long run, when financial and natural resources wear thin.

I am not calling for an end to Government support, but I am exploring the possibility that a long-term balance will need to be found, for the good of our countries, and for the generations of tomorrow.

Ultimately, as the GCC countries focus on building things that are the largest, tallest or richest, we need to shift our goal to building things that will take us as a people the furthest. Additionally we require a mind shift to stop looking out for the quick cash wins and focus on long-term economic sustainability, even if it does cause short terms pains.

As GCC nationals we have so much work to do. We are at a stage where every move we make has to consider the position of the next generation. Eventually our oil reserves will no longer be the driving force behind prosperity. Rather, what will matter is the value that we have created and left behind for future generations to carry forward. They are counting on us, and we can’t let them down.

Khalid Al Ameri is an MBA candidate at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. On Twitter: @KhalidAlAmeri

U.S. Treasury’s Brainard to Step Down Nov. 8, Official Says

By: Ian Katz

5 November 2013

Bloomberg

Lael Brainard, the U.S. Treasury Department’s top international official, is stepping down on Nov. 8, according to a Treasury aide who requested anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

Brainard is likely to be nominated to the Federal Reserve Board along with the renomination of Fed Governor Jerome Powell, according to a person familiar with the decision who requested anonymity. President Barack Obama has three governor vacancies to fill on the Fed board.

As undersecretary for international affairs since 2010, Brainard has been the department’s point person pushing Europe and China to accelerate changes in their economies, from more flexible exchange rates to fiscal policies that stimulate growth. At the Group of 20 and other meetings of global finance ministers, Brainard was the highest-ranking U.S. official after the Treasury secretary.

Brainard and Janet Yellen, the Obama administration’s nominee for Fed chairman to replace Ben S. Bernanke after his term expires Jan. 31, both worked as economic advisers in the late 1990s under President Bill Clinton. In the past three years, they have represented the U.S. at meetings of global finance officials.

Before a meeting of the Group of 20 economies in mid-July, Brainard said the U.S. was coming to the talks at its strongest position in four years and urged countries to take action to spur growth.

Boosting Demand

“If you look across the global landscape, there are reasons to be concerned that some parts of the world aren’t doing enough to bolster domestic demand,” Brainard said, naming Europe as one of the laggards.

She was a deputy director of the National Economic Council under Clinton and involved in the U.S. response to the Mexican and Asian financial crises of the 1990s and China’s access to the World Trade Organization. She was a top adviser at Group of Eight summit meetings during the Clinton administration.

Brainard, 51, was a senior fellow and then a vice president at the Brookings Institution in Washington from 2001 to 2009. She taught applied economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the early 1990s and was a business analyst at McKinsey and Co. in her first years out of college in the early 1980s.

Brainard was chosen as undersecretary by Obama in March 2009 and wasn’t confirmed by the Senate for more than a year after that because of questions about her taxes.

Tax Questions

She was approved by a 78-19 vote after revising documents she submitted to the Senate Finance Committee to reflect late payments of property taxes, according to a report by the committee’s staff.

The staff also took issue with how Brainard deducted her home office expenses and completed paperwork for household employees.

Brainard, who has masters and doctoral degrees in economics from Harvard University, is married to Kurt Campbell, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs.

Brainard was born in Hamburg, Germany. Her father was a Cold War-era U.S. diplomat, and she spent much of her childhood in Communist Poland and Germany, an experience she has said “did profoundly influence my view about how America leads in the world.”

Labor and Culture Collide in the Gulf

By: Asa Fitch

5 November 2013

The Wall Street Journal

Arab Gulf cities are spending billions of dollars building new universities and museums, part of a long-term move to put themselves on the map as cultural hubs. With this bid for prominence, however, has come a wave of protest from abroad over labor rightsthat threatens to dent the value of these investments.

Gulf Labor, a group of artists formed two years ago to highlight what they see as exploitative labor practices on Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi, launched a year-long protest last month. Artists are to submit works that explore “the coercive recruitment and deplorable living and working conditions of migrant laborers in Abu Dhabi” who are building branches of the Guggenheim and Louvre museums on Saadiyat, a $26 billion mega-development with museums, universities, resorts, housing and golf courses.

Outrage over Gulf labor practices is nothing new. Gulf Labor’s artists did another boycott of the Frank Gehry-designed Guggenheim in 2011, promising not to sell their work to the museum unless conditions improved. Human Rights Watch raised the alarm about labor on Saadiyat in 2009, and said last year that while things had improved, developers “need to do more to curtail the abuses.” A report in The Guardian newspaper this September about workers building infrastructure for the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar brought a new round of scrutiny to labor in the region.

The underlying issue is that the GCC’s construction workforces consist largely of low-wage workers imported from Asia and the Subcontinent. This is, on one hand, globalization in action: an example of labor gravitating toward where it is cheapest. On the other hand, Gulf countries have been roundly criticized by rights groups over reports of mistreatment of these workers and their lack of basic labor rights.

Workers aren’t allowed to form unions to bargain for higher wages, for one thing. Many of them arrive only to have their passports confiscated, effectively putting their freedom to quit and return home at the whim of their employers. Plenty are recruited by agents at home and pay fees that take years to pay back, resigning them to staying and working even if they’d rather not.

Gulf countries have fought back by outlawing the practice of confiscating passports and taking other measures to show the outside world that their laborers are treated humanely and live in well-kept quarters. Labor unrest, however, has continued to break out sporadically, including strikes early this summer by workers for Arabtec, the GCC’s biggest construction firm by market value, demanding higher wages. A brawl broke out in May among workers on Saadiyat. The usual response to such strikes is the deportation of the people leading them.

The labor issue may present a particularly confounding challenge for the region’s cultural investments, like the museums and schools on Saadiyat, which include a branch of New York University. While it might be hard to convince holidaymakers not to come to the region’s beaches or hotels, such appeals may more readily hit home with the world’s cultural elite. As former New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff pointed out in 2011, many of the people protesting the Guggenheim are prominent Middle Eastern artists that the museum would probably like to court, given that a major focus of its collection is contemporary art from the region.

In this sense, the labor question could be another obstacle in the way of Gulf cities trying to put down roots as cultural hubs. While some commentators say the Gulf cities are already beginning to encroach on traditional Arab centers like Cairo, Beirut and Damascus, others question their viability, arguing that investment in cultural infrastructure does not equate to endemic cultural development. If protests over labor practices intensify, they only add another layer of risk to these investments, which are supposed to lay the foundations of the region’s bid for cultural preeminence.

Editorial: Kerry will hear from frustrated American allies

5 November 2013

The National

Middle Eastern diplomacy is thorny and intricate, but even by those standards, John Kerry faces a difficult few days. First in Cairo, then in Riyadh, and during an expected stop in Jerusalem tonight, the US secretary of state must adjust and explain US positions that have frustrated long-time allies. He also plans talks in the UAE, Jordan, Algeria and Morocco.

If there is a theme to be detected in America’s efforts to adapt to changing regional realities, it is that of a search for stability. Abrupt change in Egypt, tumult and chaos in Syria and Israel’s determination to change the West Bank’s demography are all real challenges for Washington.

In Egypt, the army’s dismissal of the Muslim Brotherhood regime was congenial to US interests, but on the other hand America is committed to electoral democracy. Now Mr Kerry must finesse that commitment as he patches up relations, so as to restore the relative tranquillity of Cairo-Washington relations in Hosni Mubarak’s time.

With the Saudis the challenge is even greater. The government in Riyadh remains angry that the UN has failed to act in Syria, where Iran continues to prop up Bashar Al Assad. There is even greater Saudi disappointment that Barack Obama is seen to have meekly erased his own “red line” about the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons. Riyadh is also perplexed by the US president’s favourable response to Hassan Rouhani’s smile diplomacy.

As the fate of a “Geneva 2” meeting on Syria remains unresolved, it seems possible that the US may even be prepared to tolerate Mr Al Assad’s continued control of the Syrian government, if that is the price of stability. That this result would betray Syria’s people would not, it appears, be much of a factor in US calculations.

But the problems of Egypt and Syria are simple compared with Palestinian-Israeli relations. Mr Kerry’s determined quest for new talks has indeed led to some, but it is hard to imagine this dialogue leading to anything at all. Reports that top Palestinian negotiators have resigned have been denied, but clearly the talks are not going well.

And just as Mr Kerry arrived in the region, Israel delivered a calculated slap to him, by announcing new steps towards more homes on Palestinian land. By launching new Palestinian-Israeli talks, Mr Kerry raised expectations. There, as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the tide of frustration with America is high and rising. These are tough times to be secretary of state.

Federal Supreme Court adjourns Brotherhood group trial until 12th November

5 November 2013

Emirates News Agency-WAM

The State Security Court of the Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi has adjourned the hearing in the trial of the Muslim Brotherhood group until 12th November at the request of the defence lawyer of the suspects, to hear witnesses for the prosecution.

The State Security Court, presided over by Judge Mohammed al-Jarrah al-Tunaiji, took the decision at the first session of the trial of the group.

The court also decided to delegate a three-member medical committee to examine some of the suspects.

Twenty four suspects went on trial in today’s session in the presence of representatives of the media and civil society organisations and relatives of the suspects.

Hearing in UAE Brotherhood suspects’ trial adjourned

20 Egyptians and 10 Emiratis charged with belonging to organisation

By: Abdulla Rasheed and Mariam M. Al Serkal

5 November 2013

Gulf News

The State Security Court at the Federal Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned hearing in the trial of the clandestine Emirati-Egyptian group accused of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood’s international organisation.

The hearing has been adjourned to November 12.

The group, comprising 20 Egyptians and 10 Emiratis, went to trial at around 10am on Tuesday in the same courtroom which heard the case of the 94 Emiratis who were on trial earlier this year for belonging to the Brotherhood.

The court earlier said it has concluded the investigation. The rulings of the Federal Supreme Court are final and binding.

Attendance in the courtroom were limited to some relatives and family members of the accused, journalists and representatives from State Security Prosecution (SSP), as well as representatives from civil society organisations such as the Emirates Human Rights Association.

Sources told Gulf News that six Egyptian suspects have fled the country and were reported to Interpol to be brought for trial.

Sources explained that the SSP will charge the suspects with forming and managing an international branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The suspects will also be charged with aiming to gather confidential information on various Emirati entities, and share the information with the Brotherhood in Egypt and other countries.

The 30 suspects will also be accused of attempting to entice new members to the Brotherhood and in maintaining the loyalty of members that are based in the UAE, according to statements made by Advocate General Rashid Ahmad Al Dhanhani.

The Public Prosecution also charged the suspects with collecting donations without permits and obtaining financial support from the Brotherhood.

The defendants are further accused of forming a media commission within the branch’s organisational structure under the supervision of what they called the General Administrative Office. The commission, according to a previous statement made by the prosecution, is the body that collects, prints and distributes news from the country of its mother organisation to sub-commissions formed to educate the branch’s units.

The National Security Department says it has gathered all the evidence and taken the necessary requirements in investigating the suspects, which included documenting the suspects’ testimonies and confessions. A number of police recordings, videos, correspondence and conversations among the members themselves both within the UAE and other Brotherhood members in Egypt were also obtained.

According to an official, some of the confiscated evidence includes documents, pictures and maps of a major government department in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, in addition to a flash disk that was stolen from the department.

The Federal Supreme Court assigned Judge Mohammad Abdul Rahman Al Tunaiji to preside over Tuesday’s session.

UAE opens trial of 30 suspected Muslim Brotherhood ‘plotters’ as crackdown on group widens

5 November 2013

A court in Abu Dhabi has opened the trial of 30 suspects charged with having links to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood amid a widening crackdown on Islamists ‘plotters’ in the United Arab Emirates.

The suspects – 20 Egyptians and 10 Emiratis – deny the charges, which include trying to obtain security data. Six of the Egyptians are tried in absentia

Tuesday’s case comes four months after UAE convicted 69 people on charges of plotting an Islamist-inspired coup.

It reflects growing pressures on alleged Islamist opposition in Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE – strong backers of Egypt’s military-supported leadership following the July ouster of the Brotherhood-led government.

UAE media say the next hearing is due Nov. 12 to allow probes of the suspects’ claims of abuses in prison.

Iran, Israel take part in Middle East nuclear meeting: diplomats

5 November 2013

Reuters

Iran, Israel and Arab states took part in a secret meeting about prospects for an international conference on banning nuclear weapons in the Middle East, diplomats said on Tuesday, a rare such gathering of regional adversaries.

They gave no details about the November 2 meeting in a hotel in the Swiss village of Glion near Montreux. An Israeli official said various envoys set out their national positions but Israel had no direct communication with Iranian and Arab delegates.

But an Arab diplomat told Reuters: “That they were there, the Israelis and Iran, is the main thing.” A new meeting would be held before the end of the year, the diplomat said.

It was not clear who chaired the session but a senior Finnish diplomat, Under-Secretary of State Jaakko Laajava, is charged with organising the Middle East conference. There was no immediate comment from his office on Tuesday, or from Iran.

The discussions were also attended by representatives of the United States and some Arab states, the Arab diplomat added, without naming them.

Israel is widely believed to possess the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, drawing frequent condemnation by Arab countries and Iran, which say it threatens peace and security.

U.S. and Israeli officials see Iran’s atomic activity as the main proliferation threat and say a nuclear arms-free zone in the Middle East is not feasible without a broad Arab-Israeli peace and verifiable limits on the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran says it is enriching uranium only for civilian energy, not for potential nuclear weapons fuel as the West suspects.

An Egyptian-proposed plan for an international conference to lay the groundwork for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction was agreed in 2010, co-sponsored by Russia, the United States and Britain.

But Washington said it would be delayed just before it was due to be held late last year, and no new date has been announced. Britain, another sponsor, has said it hopes it can still take place in 2013.

The June election of Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist who has pledged to try to resolve the decade-old dispute over Tehran’s atomic activities, as new Iranian president has raised hopes of a peaceful settlement with world powers.

Iran and the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia are to hold a new round of negotiations in Geneva on Thursday and Friday.

Israel has warned against what it calls an Iranian “charm offensive” and accuses Tehran of diplomatic stalling while it builds up the capability to produce nuclear weaponry.

The Israeli official, speaking in Jerusalem on Monday, described the November 2 meeting as a “preparatory session, of sorts”, ahead of the planned Middle East conference.

“There were no contacts between our representative and Arab or Iranian representatives, not direct nor indirect. The meeting was mainly technical,” the Israeli official said.

“The conference itself has not yet been scheduled. As far as we are concerned, it is important to uphold the principle that any resolution be accepted with full consensus.”

President His Highness Shaikh Khalifa receives Saudi Foreign Minister

Fraternal relations between UAE and Saudi Arabia discussed

5 November 2013

Emirates News Agency-WAM

President His Highness Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan yesterday (Tuesday) received at Al Rawda Palace Prince Saud Al Faisal, Saudi Arabian Minister for Foreign Affairs.

General Shaikh Mohammad Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, attended the meeting.

Shaikh Khalifa and Prince Saud discussed fraternal ties and ways to boost them in order to attain more achievements for UAE and Saudi Arabia. The meeting comes within the joint communication and coordination among the GCC States in all avenues, in addition to the latest regional and international developments and issues of common interest.

Prince Saud conveyed the greetings of King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, wishing Shaikh Khalifa good health.

Shaikh Khalifa asked Prince Saud to convey his greetings to King Abdullah, wishing him good health and progress and prosperity for the Saudi people.

Present at the meeting were Shaikh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Presidential Affairs, Shaikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Foreign Minister, Shaikh Tahnoun Bin Mohammad Al Nahyan, Ruler’s Representative in the Eastern Region, Ebrahim Bin Sa’ad Al Ebrahim, Saudi Ambassador to the UAE, and other officials.

Adviser to Bahrain king: GCC basis of balance in region

4 November 2013

Al-Monitor

Adviser to the king of Bahrain for diplomatic affairs, Mohammed Abdul-Ghaffar, confirmed that “the most important challenge facing the Gulf region is the growing role of Islamic groups at the regional level,” pointing out to Al-Hayat that “Iran’s success in developing the technology necessary for weapons of mass destruction raises the concerns in the Gulf.”

Abdul-Ghaffar, who is also the chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Bahrain Center for Strategic, International and Energy Studies, added, “There is an intent to disrupt the regional balance of power and impose a new equation on the Gulf states, especially those having differences with Iran.”

Abdul-Ghaffar asserted that Iran’s interference in Bahrain and GCC affairs, especially after 2011, was an attempt to shift attention from the Iranian nuclear crisis. He also called for properly interpreting Washington’s position.

In response to US President Barack Obama’s statements that the events in Bahrain are a result of sectarian tensions, Abdul-Ghaffar said that “despite the multi-layered nature of the US-Bahrain strategic relations, Bahrain always confirmed that the reform project initiated by King of Bahrain Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa was a political reform movement launched before the breakout of the global problems that shook the strategic balances, especially the events of Sept. 11, 2001.” He added, “since the start of the reform, Bahrain has always reviewed and developed the political process. The first National Consensus Dialogue led to constitutional amendments that would consecrate political reforms.”

On a different note, Abdul-Ghaffar said, “There was divergence of opinions between Bahrain and the US regarding some of the organizations, including clandestine ones whose networks are spread in some GCC countries, all the way to Iran, Lebanon and Iraq. According to Bahrain, these organizations are theocratic movements with sectarian inclinations that exploit openness, freedom of expression and freedom of demonstration to implement their own agendas rather than to develop and strengthen the political, economic and social reform movement.”

A Sykes-Picot agreement for the Gulf region?

Abdul-Ghaffar dismissed the importance of the Western assessments on the division of some Gulf countries, and the possibility of the implementation of a new Sykes-Picot agreement. “This is not the real situation. The real challenges for Arab countries are how to draw up a political vision to deal with ethnic, sectarian and identity-related problems, and how to build a national identity embracing the entire components of the Arab countries,” he said. Within this context, Abdul-Ghaffar called for a serious examination of the growing sectarian and regional affiliations, in particular since they started to threaten the unity and sovereignty of the Arab countries.

Regarding the lingering regional instability, he said, “The growing role of subnational groups and the attempts by some regional parties to exploit the developments in the Arab world in order to promote the policies of hegemony over the Arab region in general, and the GCC in particular, are among the most important challenges facing the Arabian Gulf region. The ongoing crisis of the Iranian nuclear program is also a challenge. The GCC worries about the possibility of Iran succeeding in developing the necessary technology for weapons of mass destruction, which is only a matter of time. This would consecrate the imbalance in the regional balance of power and impose a new regional equation on GCC countries that still have contentious issues with Iran. Therefore, it is somewhat important to call for making the Middle East region a WMD-free zone.”

Iran and the shuffling of cards

Abdul-Ghaffar asserted that Iran was deliberately pursuing a policy of card-shuffling. “The GCC described the Iranian proposal to discuss the Bahrain unrest during the nuclear talks between the P5+1 and Tehran as interference in Bahrain’s domestic affairs and a circumvention of talks regarding Tehran’s nuclear program,” continued Abdul-Ghaffar. “Iran demanded the involvement of Bahrain in its two nuclear negotiations rounds in Moscow and Kazakhstan as non-nuclear regional issues. This is a clear violation of all laws and customs of state sovereignty and independence. It was regionally and internationally condemned.”

When asked about the necessity of the GCC countries’ participation in the talks taking place every now and then between the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear file, Abdul-Ghaffar said, “The GCC is one of the components of the strategic balance in the Gulf region. Although not directly involved in these talks, the GCC is nevertheless highly concerned: outcomes of these negotiations would undoubtedly impact the security of its states. Arab Gulf nations have suffered the ravages of three wars that claimed thousands of lives and drained the region’s resources.”

“GCC countries ought to be aware of the course of the nuclear talks between Iran and the Western countries. It has been noted that the GCC position toward these negotiations was initially negative. There was no serious attention to participate in these negotiations. However, as negotiations evolved and both sides failed to reach a tangible result, GCC countries, being a major component of regional security, started demanding a role in those negotiations.”

On Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s confirmation that his country is keen on Bahrain’s security and stability, during his speech before the United Nations on Sept. 25, 2013, Abdul-Ghaffar said, “The kingdom of Bahrain has been suffering for a long time from the Iranian interference in its internal affairs. There are multiple TV channels that are under Iranian influence, along with a number of radio stations, newspapers and media institutions that are affiliated with Iran. The problem with Iran generally lies in the fact that it does not want to get along, albeit to varying degrees, with the political facts and requirements in the regional and international environment, based on the Iranian regime’s perspective on the world.”

Abdul-Ghaffar highlighted the need to “read what’s going on in Washington well to be able to know whether US positions stem from temporary developments or from the new US policies toward the region.”

“I think there are three options that should be adopted in order to overcome the negative aspects of the strained relations concerning Bahrain. The first one is supporting the domestic front in order to preserve the fabric of the unified nation. The second is continuing to support the GCC proposal in order to balance the emerging regional roles. The third is diversifying international relations.”

Security system

Abdul-Ghaffar called on Gulf states to create a Gulf-Arab security system “with converging visions,” adding that “this has become a crucial need for GCC and other Arab countries that share the same visions.”

Asked whether there is real Gulf-Arab security coordination and cooperation, he said that “it is no longer a matter of usual coordination. Fragmentation forces in some Arab societies, especially those that cooperate with foreign powers, started to strike in these countries whenever possible. The security system is no longer an option; it is rather a necessity to protect the gains of past decades.”

“The kingdom of Bahrain has taken a lot of measures, both at the local level or in coordination with the GCC, to maintain its security and stability. Those efforts led to the detection of many sleeper cells that were designed to carry out terrorist operations in the country.”

“Gulf societies are Muslim and conservative communities that are proud of their religion. Most of them are not happy about the exploitation of the Islamic religion for personal or factional reasons,” he added.

“Bahrain is an Arabian Gulf country that was and still is an arena of regional and international conflict and competition. The risk lies in some regional powers’ attempt to use sectarianism in Bahrain, which is a major obstacle to any modernization and change efforts.”

Abdul-Ghaffar warned of the danger of the “political duplicity” adopted by regional capitals toward Arab issues, and their support for extremist groups in some Arab countries, including Bahrain. “Both factors have an impact, but some regional capitals’ support for extremist groups that resort to violence and terrorism infers a desire to shake the stability and unity of these countries, including Bahrain. The danger of those groups lies in that they are not confined to one country, and they are linked to regional countries and similar groups based on ideological grounds. Moreover, they do not recognize the foundations of the modern state and the national interests.”

Abdul-Ghaffar indicated that King Hamad bin Isa stressed in his speech before the National Assembly that he was proceeding with the reform approach, and that Bahrain would not look for any foreign sources as inspiration for its reforms. He explained that Hamad knew that Bahrain, ever since it started building the civil state in the 1920s, had never needed to clone Thomas Jefferson’s experiments or a theocracy that was unaccepted by the current era, especially considering that the Bahraini political system was characterized by openness and tolerance when it came to evolve. He pointed out that the first National Consensus Dialogue in 2011 agreed on recommendations to develop the role of the legislative authority, and this was what actually happened.

Remarks with Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal

5 November 2013

Office of Spokesperson

U.S. Department of State

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. It’s my pleasure to welcome Secretary John Kerry and his delegation in Saudi Arabia. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques received Secretary Kerry this afternoon. In the meeting, they discussed bilateral relations and the developments in the region.

I’d like to take this opportunity to address the recent media reports about Saudi-U.S. relations, which went so far as to describe them as dramatically deteriorating. The fact of the matter is that the historic relationship between the two countries has always been based on independence, mutual respect, common interest, and constructive cooperation on regional and international issues to serve global peace and security.

A true relationship between friends is based on sincerity, candor, and frankness rather than mere courtesy. Within this perspective, it’s only natural that our policies and views might see agreement in some areas and disagreement in others. That’s perfectly normal in any serious relationship that spans a wide range of issues.

I’d also like to point out that the Kingdom’s declination of membership in the Security Council in no way, shape, or form amounts to withdrawing from the United Nations. The Kingdom appreciates the efforts of the UN’s various humanitarian, developmental, economic and health organizations, among others.

The problem, however, lies in the UN’s failure to deal with political issues, crises, especially those in the Middle East. The reason is the Security Council’s apparent inability to handle them. It should be remembered that the Security Council wasn’t established just to manage international crises, but to solve them once and for all, and thus to maintain international peace and security. This failure is obvious in the Palestinian issue, which went nowhere in more than 60 years. Also, reducing the Syrian crisis to merely destroying chemical weapons – which is but a small aspect of it – won’t help put an end to one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in our times. And then there’s the international community’s failure to be decisive in making the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, which kept the region living in fear of this ticking bomb that could go off at any time. This time bomb cannot be defused by only dealing with its ramifications or maneuvering around it.

These and many other issues and unrest in the region and its various countries are and always have been of utmost concern to the Kingdom and the focus of its efforts. They have always been a point of discussion with the U.S. and all other international players, at both bilateral and multilateral levels. International legitimacy, agreements, treaties, and international law should help put an end to these crises without having to resort to political maneuvers and bargaining, which is exactly the reason why many of these issues left the UN’s realm to seek solutions elsewhere.

The Kingdom fully realizes the importance of negotiations in resolving any given crisis. Yet, negotiations shouldn’t just go on indefinitely, taking into account that we are facing some grave crises for which partial solutions just won’t do. These grave issues desperately need decisive and resolute intervention that should put an end to the human tragedies they produced. Nowhere is this clearer than the international community’s failure to stop the war against the Syrian people, even though the moral choice between war and peace is clear-cut, with no room to second-guess a choice between stopping the bloodshed and looking the other way.

Finally, I’d like to underline the fact that our two friendly countries are extremely busy in dealing with these issues in all seriousness and transparency. There is no room for emotion or anger here, but rather, for policies of common sense and levelheadedness based on mutual trust. That is how we solve any problem.

Again, I welcome Secretary Kerry, and he now has the floor.

SECRETARY KERRY: Your Royal Highness, thank you very much. (Inaudible.) I’m very honored to be here and I’m very grateful to you and to His Majesty particularly for the very generous, very warm welcome, but also importantly, for the very candid and friendly discussion that we have had regarding issues of enormous importance to our countries, to the region, and even to the world. It’s a privilege for me to be here again in Saudi Arabia and particularly to be with my good friend Prince Saud al-Faisal. We have gotten to know each other better and better, and we’ve spent a lot of time talking in these last weeks, and I am always impressed by his judgment and his wisdom about the region and the good counsel that he shares with me and with President Obama.

The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is many things, and I am particularly grateful for the comments that His Royal Highness has just made about some media speculation versus the reality of the friendship that we share. Our relationship is strategic, it is enduring, and it covers a wide range of bilateral and regional issues. I want to remind everyone of President Obama’s statement at the United Nations. The President said that he will use all elements of U.S. power, including force, to secure the core interests of the United States in the Middle East. He said the United States will confront external aggression against our partners, as we did for Kuwait in the Gulf War. We will ensure the free flow of energy from this region to the world. We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. We will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. These are core U.S. interests, and we share these interests with Saudi Arabia, and we intend to work on these with Saudi Arabia.

We also pursue together – Saudi Arabia and the United States have an incredible deep relationship. It goes way beyond one or two countries and one or two efforts. We do joint work in military planning; in enhancing renewable energy supplies; in energy stability and security; in counterterrorism; in critical infrastructure protection; in trade and investment; in science and technology; in enhancing and dealing with and addressing the medical attention to health pandemics; in agriculture and food security; in education and student exchanges. This is a deep relationship and it has endured now for more than 70 years and it will endure well into the future.

Time and again, Saudi Arabia has proven to be an indispensable partner, but an indispensable partner that obviously has independent and important views of its own, and we respect that. We look forward to continuing this collaboration to advance our shared security and our shared prosperity.

Today, in addition to our bilateral agenda, His Royal Highness and I discussed a number of these regional concerns, and I have just heard the views of His Majesty King Abdullah, who was very clear to me about the importance of many of these issues – Syria, Egypt, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Middle East peace process.

First, on Syria, the United States appreciates Saudi Arabia’s leadership supporting the Syrian Opposition Coalition and its strong commitment to achieving a political solution to the crisis, which, as we have always said, really has only one solution, and that is a negotiated political solution. This crisis will not end through military force, in our judgment. A negotiated political settlement as laid out in the Geneva communique, we believe is the best way to end the bloodshed, respond to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, to counter the violent extremist groups that we both agree are growing in their threat to all of us and which must be stopped, and also to recognize the full challenge of the humanitarian disaster that we all see. Together, we believe we must avert further instability. That’s why it is imperative that we hold the Geneva 2 conference as soon as possible so the representatives of the people of Syria can work towards a transition to a new Syria.

We also believe very strongly that we must continue to consult with Saudi Arabia as well as with the Syrian coalition leadership and our international partners, including Special Representative Brahimi and the Government of Russia in order to prepare for the Geneva conference. But I will make it clear: We will continue to support the opposition in the meantime and we will not stand idly by while Assad continues to use weapons enormously disproportionate to those in the possession of the opposition in order to kill innocent men, women, and children.

We appreciate the strong Arab League communique that was issued last night, encouraging the Syrian Opposition Coalition to go to Geneva to negotiate. And I want to underscore the importance that we, and all of our regional partners, feel about continuing our very close coordination on our common objectives in Syria. There is no difference about our mutually agreed upon objective in Syria. As I have said many times before, Assad has lost all legitimacy and Assad must go. There must be a new transitional governing body in Syria in order to permit the possibility of peace and an end to the human suffering, and we do not believe that there is a way or see how that war can end or that suffering will be ended as long as Assad is there.

I’ve come to Riyadh from Cairo. Yesterday, I met with Egypt’s interim leaders and importantly with other leaders, too, of the civil society. The United States is committed to supporting Egypt as it moves forward with its democratic transition. We encourage credible progress on Egypt’s political roadmap as set forth and efforts to address the Egyptian people’s political aspirations to establish the conditions for a stronger and more prosperous economy in Egypt. The Egyptian people desperately need economic transformation, and we have agreed, with our friends in Saudi Arabia and with others, to work as hard as we can to help effect this economic transformation so that a difference in the quality of life can quickly, hopefully come to the people of Egypt. We want to see Egypt pursue a transition to a stable, inclusive, and democratic civilian-led government that respects and protects the rights and freedoms of all Egyptians.

Regarding Yemen, we discussed the importance of concluding the national dialogue now, and to moving the constitutional drafting process where regional issues can be addressed. On Lebanon, we also discussed the importance of our strong support for responsible moderates who will still work for government formation without Hezbollah intimidation, and we think it’s important that Hezbollah not be allowed to define that future.

In addition, we talked about Iraq and the increased violence in Iraq, and the absolute imperative with Prime Minister Maliki, whom we just met with in Washington, that he reach out to all people in Iraq and help to end the sectarian violence and provide opportunity for all Iraqis.

Finally, on Iran, let me reiterate the position that President Obama has made clear many times: The United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. That policy has not changed. President Obama has stated again and again that our preference is to resolve this challenge peacefully, through diplomacy, and we are committed to giving diplomacy a real chance to succeed. And while this window is open, while we are testing whether Iran is willing to take the steps required to satisfy the international community’s concerns, the burden remains squarely on Iran to demonstrate through credible and verifiable action that its nuclear program is indeed, in fact, peaceful and only peaceful.

We state clearly: Words will not satisfy this. It’s only actions that will speak to our concerns. We believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. That won’t change. And I want to emphasize, President Obama will not take any option off the table in this process, but we do seek to put to test the reality of the possibility of a diplomatic solution.

So again, I believe on the issues of most importance to Saudi Arabia and the United States in this region and elsewhere that we are in close agreement. I believe that we have the ability to cooperate together; we have for many, many years. And when we may differ once or twice on a tactic here or there, the bonds of our friends are much stronger than any of those differences at that moment in time.

I want to thank His Majesty King Abdullah for the significant amount of time that he gave to this discussion today, for the strength of the and quality of the conversation that we had. I will relate to President Obama that he can count on the fact that he has a strong and supportive and candid friend in King Abdullah, and that we, as two countries, have the ability to accomplish a lot in the days ahead together and we look forward to continuing to work in a cooperative way.

And finally, my profound gratitude to His Royal Highness Prince Saud al-Faisal for his continued friendship and for his wonderful hospitality. Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.

QUESTION: I have a question for the Foreign Minister and for Secretary Kerry. For the Foreign Minister: Yesterday in Cairo, Secretary Kerry acknowledged, as he did today, that there are tactical differences, as he put it, between the Obama Administration and Saudi Arabia on how to end the war in Syria and bring about a transitional government without Bashar al-Assad, and how to negotiate with Iran, and how best to respond to events in Egypt.

Sir, how would you explain – since you think the media has been exaggerating these issues, how would you explain to us the nature of these differences on Syria, Iran, and Egypt? And what progress, if any, have you made in resolving these differences today?

And to Secretary Kerry: In Cairo yesterday, you made the point that the United States is deeply engaged in the Middle East peace process. There have been reports in the Israeli and Palestinian press that the United States has informed both sides that if progress is not made in the next two months, the United States will present its own plan in January on how to deal with the core issues. Is the Obama Administration prepared to present its own plan for advancing the talks if no progress is made? And when would you do that? And since you said that violence in Syria is unacceptable – and clearly, the framework agreement and the chemical weapons initiative hasn’t stopped that – what specific steps are you now proposing to end the violence and reduce it there beyond the peace conference?

Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: I would answer that these differences have two different kind of differences – differences in objective and differences in tactic. Some of these differences are in objective, very few. Most of the differences are in tactics. On Syria, for instance, we both agree that the Geneva 2 has the sole purpose of implementing Geneva 1. That’s a clear agreement on objective. We both agree that Bashar al-Assad has no role to play. That’s a key decision. We agree that the representative of the Syrian people are the coalition. That’s a clear objective.

Now, the tactic we had differences on, but differences that don’t go beyond what they are – tactical differences. The United States thinks it’s best to do that through the strengthening the coalition and working for their success in Syria. So the differences you mentioned are mostly differences in tactics, I would say. We don’t have any differences in objective.

In Iran, we both want a region free of atomic weapons. In the Middle East, unfortunately, every time a weapon has been introduced to it, it has been used, and that is a threat that it exists under. So we both agree that this region, important as it is to the world economy, if we can have it free of atomic weapons, it would be good. And we accept the assurance of the Secretary that they will not allow the development of weapons – of atomic weapons in Iran.

SECRETARY KERRY: Michael, with respect to the question of whatever rumor or whatever speculation this article has been written off, let me categorically dispel any notion that there is anything other than the track that is formally engaged in between Israel and the Palestinians. And the only plan we have at this point in time is to pursue that discussion and the discussion track that we’ve always talked about, which is the leaders track, which is the discussions between President Obama, myself, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Abbas. So it’s just incorrect. There is no other plan at this point in time.

With respect to the violence in Syria, we believe that the sooner we can get to Geneva and engage the international community in the possibilities of peace, the sooner we try to get nations coming together around the common goal of implementing Geneva 1. The Geneva 1 communique sets out a transition government requirement with full executive authority by mutual consent of the parties.

That means both parties actually have a veto, which makes it complicated. It means both parties are going to have to find people respected by all who will protect the rights of Syrians while they transition to an election to choose their future leadership. And that is the way you can most rapidly, most effectively end the violence. Absent a negotiated solution, we don’t see a lot of ways to end the violence, certainly, that are implementable or palatable to us because we don’t have the legal authority or the justification or the desire at this point to get in the middle of a civil war. And I think that’s been made very clear.

So our hope is that we can bring the parties together. It won’t be the first very complicated conflict where very emotional, highly separated entities are brought together by the international community and ultimately find a way forward. Obviously, the Balkans – Kosovo is an example. Serbia, the Dayton Accords. There are other examples through history, and that’s what international multilateral organizations are meant to do. I share Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal’s and Saudi Arabia’s frustration sometimes that the efforts to get an entity like the Security Council of the United Nations that is supposed to be non-ideological and separated from global politics and urge solution to these things has been stymied over the last few years by more – by a kind of polarization that has entered into that entity.

And so our hope is that we can find and summon the will at the international level to try to make peace here. And I think there is among a lot of parties a readiness for it and a willingness for it. And what will happen in Geneva, if we get there, is that will will be put to the test of good faith under the international spotlight for all to see. And it will quickly become evident who is serious about seeking a solution and who isn’t, and that in itself can create its own dynamic that can begin to change the order of things.

So that is our plan, that’s our strategy, that’s what we’re pursuing. We know it’s not easy. We have no illusions about the complications in the road ahead of us, which is why we will continue to support the moderate opposition in the meantime in its efforts to be able to defend the interests of the vast majority of the people of Syria.

MODERATOR: Mr. Talay.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Hassan Talay, Al Arabiya. My first question is to Mr. Kerry. During your visit, did you give any reassurances to Saudi Arabia concerning what’s going on between EU and Iran, whether openly or behind closed doors?

The other question is for both sides concerning Iran’s intervention in the region. Does it include the 5+1? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t understand the question about intervention. Does it include the 5+1? Oh, you’re talking – I understand what you mean. Does the 5+1 refer to or involve any of Iran’s other activities? Is that the question?

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, first question – did I give some assurances with respect to Iran? Yes, absolutely. Of course I did. We talked about Iran, and I shared with His Majesty King Abdullah, as well as with Prince Saud al-Faisal on a number of occasions, precisely what the American view is with respect to the P5+1 approach. And it is a shared view.

Nothing that we are doing with respect to this negotiation will alter or upset or get in the way the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and the relationship in this region, which is why President Obama asked me to reaffirm, while I am here, the statement that he made at the United Nations regarding his willingness, and the United States’, to defend our friends in this region from any external attack and to continue to work with Saudi Arabia and others in the way that we have in our military-to-military and intelligence cooperation. So nothing will interfere with that, number one.

Number two: We made it clear that we enter this negotiation in the P5+1 with very open eyes, with a strong understanding – as I said in my opening comments a few minutes ago – that words will not satisfy us. It is only specific actions on which countries will be able to measure an outcome, and the outcome must be one that allows all of us to know that every day that we wake up we know that what is happening in Iran is a peaceful program and not one where they can be secretly moving towards a weapon that could threaten the stability of this region.

Now, Iran has insisted that its program is peaceful, and we will work closely in the process of negotiations to make certain that that can be done, laid out, and proven in a transparent, accountable manner. We have said publicly – and I reassured the – His Majesty and Prince Faisal – that no deal is better than a bad deal. A bad deal could allow you to have hidden efforts go on. A good deal lets you know what’s happening. And so we will continue to cooperate. We made it clear we will consult and we will reach out and engage in ongoing deliberation and discussion. And we will very much brief our friends here on a regular basis so that there are no surprises and there is a clarity to the road ahead. And I think that, hopefully, is a welcome process.

With respect to the question of Iran’s interests in the region, et cetera, the first topic is nuclear. We are well aware of Iran’s activities in the region. Obviously, we Americans have never forgotten what happened with Khobar Towers. We know that there were plots involving the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States. We are well aware of other activities, and they concern us. It concerns us that Iran has personnel on the ground in Syria. It concerns us that Hezbollah is active in conjunction with Iran’s support. But the first step is the nuclear step, which we hope will open the door to the possibility to be able to deal with those. And that can happen over the next months, because none of this is going to happen, obviously, very quickly. But one of the things we’ve made clear to our friends in the region is we’re not going to do this in a vacuum. We’re going to do this in cooperation with our friends in ways that everybody has an understanding of exactly what is being discussed and so people have confidence that the outcome will not have negative impacts in ways that are unanticipated or are surprising. And we think that’s a very important part of our relationship.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) Actually, it’s an important question because it ties into the negotiations, the 5+1 negotiations. It points to intentions, and the 5+1 negotiations are based on good intentions, and they – good will is that – it means that you are doing things that are positive for the negotiations. I believe that it will bolster the proposal of the 5+1 towards Iran. If it includes Iran’s presence in Syria, that’s conclusive proof of the intentions of Iran’s neighboring countries.

I consider Syria an occupied land. Iran’s forces did not come in to protect Syria from an external occupation. They went there to help the regime hurt the Syrian people. How can a neighboring country that’s supposed to uphold good relationships, to go – to get involved into a civil war and help one side over the other? That’s – if there is no law to – it’s necessary to have – to have law against that in the international laws. Iran’s good intentions are being tested right now, and right now the most important step it can take to prove its good intentions is to get out of Syria and get its ally, its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, out of there too.

MS. PSAKI: Lesley Wroughton from Reuters.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. This is a question for His Highness. I was wondering: Saudi – you’ve spoken about your frustration with regard to the Security Council actions on Syria. You’ve heard Secretary Kerry say that the U.S. does not have a desire to get in the middle of the civil war, wants peaceful – unless it’s through peace talks. What is it that you are doing and that you are – or there have been reports that you’re increasing your support for the opposition militarily. Is that true? And how much further are you prepared to go to ensure that the civil war is ended? Also, what is the redline with regard to Iraq’s participation in the peace talks?

And for Secretary Kerry, on Pakistan: Pakistan believes, while recognizing that you won’t discuss the CIA drone strikes, that the killing recently of the Taliban leader Mehsud was an attempt to thwart the peace talks. And again, they’re threatening to close the supply routes into Afghanistan. I was wondering what you can say to Pakistan’s government to convince them that this was not an attempt to get in the middle of those peace talks with the Taliban. And just a follow-up: I was wondering what your take is on women driving in Saudi Arabia.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: Why didn’t you ask me that question? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead.

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: The – what the Iranians can do and cannot do in Syria is a very intriguing question. Syria has now more than 140,000 casualties, more than two million refugees. It is the largest calamity that has befallen the world in the present millennium. If that isn’t reason enough to intervene, to stop the bloodshed, I don’t know what is. If one is choosing a moral choice between – to intervene or not to intervene, what is that choice going to be? Do I let this fighting continue, or do I help if I can? And the people are not dying only of weapons, all kind of weapons – weapons of mass destruction like the chemical weapons and weapons of high destructive capability like the ballistic missiles that have been used against cities of Syria.

Aside from the human loss and the tragedy of the human loss, Syria is part of the cultural history of the world. It has been a city it has (inaudible) the city, Damascus. For longer than any other city in the world, it has been considered a city, and resided by people of culture, by people of education. It is being destroyed by carpet bombing. If that isn’t a disregard of human values, I don’t know what is.

Now the United Nations is supposed to be an organization established after the destructiveness of the Second World War to prevent such destructiveness to happen again. Three years now, almost three years, they have been looking at this tragedy with apparent unconcern. How can this be? Is this the role of the Security Council? It is not that this is happening in Syria, which is an Arab country. If it is happening anywhere in the world, it would be a great tragedy. If we can’t face tragedy of this sort, how can we say that we want to be – to establish a civilization based on social equality and justice? We can’t assume these high moral values if we don’t do something about Syria. We can’t really say that we are taking the high road and establishing our humanity if we let this tragedy continue unabated.

SECRETARY KERRY: You didn’t ask me, but let me just – I want to associate myself with the strong comments of Prince Saud al-Faisal regarding the tragedy and the level of devastation in Syria, and the need for the international community to respond, which is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard now to get to the table, but also why the United States has brought this issue to the Security Council on several occasions, only to be stymied in deadlock. So we certainly agree that we need to respond to it.

Now with respect to Hakimullah Mehsud in Pakistan, without commenting on what may or may not have happened, obviously he has been reported to have been killed. And I will just say very clearly that this is a man who absolutely is known to have targeted and killed many Americans, many Afghans, and many Pakistanis. A huge number of Pakistanis have died at the hands of Hakimullah Mehsud and his terrorist organization. And the Tehrik-e Taliban has been devastating Pakistan in terms of its stability and opportunities to be able to respond to many needs of its people.

Obviously, the relationship between us and Pakistan is a very important one. We just had Nawaz Sharif in Washington for a period of time. We work very, very closely. We’re closely engaged with the government in Pakistan. We have a strong ongoing dialogue with them regarding all aspects of our bilateral relationship, and we have very important shared interests, and we intend to continue to work together with them through the Strategic Dialogue that we have established, in order to work through these kinds of challenges.

But I think it’s very, very clear that Pakistan has been deeply threatened by this insurgency in Pakistan. I think somewhere upwards of 50,000 troops and civilians have died in the last few years at the hands of the insurgency in Pakistan, and this man is one of those insurgents. So while we will welcome any discussions, we are sensitive to the concerns of the country, and we look forward to working very closely with the Government of Pakistan.

With respect to the issue of women driving here in Saudi Arabia, it’s no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody, regardless of gender, race, or any other qualification. But it’s up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure choices and timing for whatever events. I know there’s a debate. We actually talked about this at lunch. There’s a healthy debate in Saudi Arabia about this issue, but I think that debate is best left to Saudi Arabia, the people engaged in it, all of whom know exactly where we in the United States of America stand on this issue.

QUESTION: I am Hamad from Herat newspaper. Your Highness, now that we know that there is enthusiasm for having – holding Geneva 2, and yet there’s a refusal by the fighting forces in Syria to hold a Geneva 2, how can you – how can the conference be held when the fighters on the ground refuse to hold it?

FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) It’s not as clear-cut as you said. There is talk and there are people talking about this. One is saying we have to go, the other is saying we shouldn’t go. And yet there – and really, there is a dialogue going on among Syrians over the benefit of attending Geneva 2. The fact of the matter is that the decision at the end is going to be – for these people, the coalition, because they are the ones who represent Syria, and they are the ones who will decide whether or not to attend.

If they don’t attend, it’s not going to go anywhere. But I think they will accurately evaluate the situation because their presence in Geneva 2 will reinforce that they are – the fact that they are the representatives of the Syrian people, and will make the world understand that they are the ones who have given a chance to peace. And they will make the world understand that they did not refuse at any time to hold a hand of peace in negotiations. So in the end, they are the ones who will decide, and their desire is – whether to attend or not – is what will decide. I don’t think the Geneva 2 will happen without their presence.

We thank you for your attendance. The Secretary is going to go to Poland, and I’m going to go home and have dinner. (Laughter.)

Saudi Foreign Minister, Kerry Patch Over Relations

By: Matthew Lee

4 November 2013

The United States and Saudi Arabia promised each other and the region Monday that they would continue to work together, with Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal saying “our two friendly countries” are busy dealing jointly with troublesome issues like Syria, Iran and the Mideast peace process.

“There is no room for emotion and anger here, but rather for policies of commonsense and level-headedness,” Saud said at a joint news conference with Kerry.

Nevertheless, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived for his visit to Saudi Arabia as differences between the two countries intensified over the Obama administration’s policy toward war-torn Syria, its movement toward a possible dialogue with Iran, a regional rival of the Saudis, and its stance on Egypt’s military coup.

Saud also expressed his deep frustration with the United Nations, where the Saudis recently rejected a seat on the Security Council because of its inability to achieve progress in the Syria or for the Palestinians.

The prince told Kerry: “A true relationship between friends is based on sincerity, candor and frankness, rather than mere courtesy.” The pair appeared together not long after Kerry, speaking to U.S. employees at the American Embassy here, hailed the kingdom’s role as “the senior player” in the Middle East.

For his part, Kerry said: “this is a deep relationship and it has endured for 75 years and it will endure well into the future.”

Kerry in the past has played down the separate stances as differences in “tactics” rather than in the end goal.

“Right now, we have some very important things to talk about to make certain that the Saudi Arabian-U.S. relationship is on track, moving forward and doing the things that we need to accomplish,” he told the embassy staffers. Kerry listed a number of key areas, including Syria, Egypt and Iran, but also mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the broader effort to tamp down “nihilism” that leads to extremist violence.

The Saudis have complained that the United States did not follow through on its threat to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad with military strikes for his government’s use of chemical weapons. Last month, the Saudis won but turned down an elected seat on the U.N. Security Council, saying the body had proved itself largely meaningless because of its inability over two years to address the crisis in Syria.

“We can’t claim to have these high moral values if we do nothing here,” Saud said in reference to Syria..

The prince said Monday that “the kingdom’s declination of membership in the Security Council in no way shape or form amounts to the withdrawing from the United Nations.”

The Saudis also have watched with increasing nervousness as President Barack Obama has approved a cautious opening with their archrival Iran. Saud also lamented the international organization’s “failure to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone.”

“This time bomb cannot be defused by only dealing with its ramification or maneuvering around it,” Saud said.

At the news conference, Kerry said he shared some of Saudi Arabia’s frustration with the U.N. Security Council, but said he thought it could get better.

On Iran, he said, “The United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. That policy has not changed.” And Kerry repeated that the United States will defend its Arab allies, even as new talks with Iran begin this week in Geneva.

Eager to soothe the frustration, Kerry was effusive in his praise of the Saudis earlier, noting a slow, but steady domestic transformation with new emphases on education and health. On the move for Saudi women to be allowed to drive, Kerry was careful not to appear to take sides. Noting that while the United States embraces gender equality, “it is up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure and choices and the timing of whatever events.”

Kerry, before meeting with Saudi King Abdullah and Saud, reassured the Saudi leaders that the United States considers Saudi Arabia – and not other powers – to be the major force in the region, Kerry said, even above longtime ally Egypt.

“The Saudis are very, very important to all of these things. The Saudis are really the sort of senior player, if you will, in the Arab world, together with Egypt. Egypt is in more of a transition, so Saudi Arabia’s role is that much more important.”

Kerry is in Saudi Arabia on the second leg of a 10-day tour through the Middle East, Europe and North Africa. From Riyadh, he will travel to Poland, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria and Morocco before returning to Washington.

Kerry Reassures Saudis U.S. Shares Their Goals

By: Michael Gordon

5 November 2013

The New York Times

In his first meeting with Saudi Arabia’s ruling monarch since becoming secretary of state, John Kerry sought to reassure the king on Monday that the Obama administration and the Saudis shared common objectives on Syria, Iran and Egypt.

But the meeting, which lasted more than two hours at the opulent palace of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, was followed by a cordial but blunt statement from the Saudi side signaling that differences remained.

“A true relationship between friends is based on sincerity, candor and frankness,” Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, said in opening remarks at a news conference with Mr. Kerry after the meeting. “It’s only natural that our policies and views might see agreements in some areas and disagreements in others.”

There are two kinds of differences: differences in objectives and differences in tactics, Prince Saud said later in response to a question. “Some of the differences are in objectives, very few,” he added. “Most of the differences are in tactics.”

Mr. Kerry’s intensive day of diplomacy in Riyadh opened a small crack into the highly private realm of American-Saudi diplomacy, and both sides took pains to play down foreign policy disputes and publicly dispel the notion that the relationship was in danger of collapsing. Differences between the Obama administration and the Saudi leadership burst into view last month after Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the head of Saudi intelligence, privately complained to diplomats about the White House’s reluctance to intervene in Syria – concerns that were later echoed publicly by Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former intelligence chief.

At the root of much of the Saudis’ criticism was the perception that President Obama was uncomfortable with exercising power on the world stage, a gnawing worry for Saudi officials who have become increasingly concerned about the role of their nemesis Iran in Syria and elsewhere in the region.

As much as American officials sought to dispel such criticism, the fact that the Obama administration has felt it necessary to offer such assurances has highlighted the strains.

Mr. Kerry said at the news conference that Mr. Obama had told him to make clear to Saudi Arabia that the United States would defend the kingdom from external attack – a public promise that American officials would not have found necessary to make several years ago.

Mr. Kerry also assured the Saudis that he would regularly inform the kingdom about developments in the talks that the United States and other world powers are conducting with Iran on its nuclear program “so there are no surprises” – another public pledge noteworthy mainly for the fact that it needed to be made to a close ally.

Seeking to persuade the Saudis that the Obama administration does not take them for granted, Mr. Kerry, in an appearance at the American Embassy here earlier on Monday, described the kingdom as “the senior player” among Arab nations, a notion he reinforced when, at his news conference, he called Saudi Arabia an “indispensable” partner.

(Wary of inflaming Saudi sensitivities, Mr. Kerry sidestepped a reporter’s question about whether Saudi women should be allowed to drive, casting the debate as one “best left to Saudi Arabia.”)

Even the best efforts by American and Saudi diplomats to frame reports of their disagreements as news media hype, however, could not mask their deep differences over how to bring an end to the civil war in Syria.

Mr. Kerry held out the hope that a Geneva peace conference that has yet to be organized might eventually yield a political settlement that would lead President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to relinquish power.

“Absent a negotiated solution, we don’t see a lot of ways to end the violence, certainly, that are implementable or palatable to us, because we don’t have the legal authority, or the justification, or the desire at this point to get in the middle of a civil war,” Mr. Kerry said. “And I think that has been made very clear.”

Sitting by Mr. Kerry’s side, Prince Saud initially highlighted areas of convergence between Washington and Riyadh.

Both the United States and Saudi Arabia, he said, agreed that there was a need for a Geneva peace conference, that the moderate Syrian opposition coalition should be supported and that Mr. Assad should go.

But in his later comments, the prince rattled off statistics of those killed and displaced by the war and criticized the United Nations Security Council for failing to authorize international intervention to halt the fighting.

“It is the largest calamity that has befallen the world in the present millennium,” he said. “If that isn’t enough to intervene, to stop the bloodshed, I don’t know what is.”

Saudi minister demands Iran leave Syria

4 November 2013

Reuters

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on Monday demanded that Iran leave Syria, saying Tehran was helping President Bashar al-Assad strike his own people.

Speaking at a joint news conference with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Riyadh, Prince Saud said proposed talks to end Syria’s civil war could not happen without the participation of an opposition coalition leading the struggle to oust Assad.

U.N. nuclear chief expected to visit Iran next week: state TV

5 November 2013

Reuters

U.N. nuclear agency chief Yukiya Amano is expected to visit Tehran on November 11, Iranian state television said on Tuesday, a possible sign of progress in a long-stalled investigation into suspected nuclear arms research by Tehran.

After years of worsening confrontation with the West, Iran has switched to a conciliatory mode – entailing diplomacy in search of a peaceful solution to its disputed nuclear activity – since the June election of moderate President Hassan Rouhani.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran have held a series of fruitless meetings since early 2012 to agree ground rules for the IAEA’s inquiry, but hopes for a breakthrough have been lifted by Rouhani’s rise.

The Islamic Republic denies seeking nuclear weapons, saying it wants only civilian atomic energy.

Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organization, said he hoped the two sides would reach an agreement during Amano’s visit, state television said on its web site, without giving details.

There was no immediate comment from the IAEA, which wants access to sites, officials and documents in Iran, including the Parchin military base where it believes nuclear-related explosives tests might have taken place, possibly a decade ago.

The IAEA’s discussions with Iran are separate from broader negotiations between Tehran and six world powers that resumed in Geneva last month and will continue there on November 7 and 8.

But both diplomatic tracks center on suspicions that Iran may be seeking the capability to make nuclear weapons.

If Amano’s trip is confirmed, it would be his first visit to the Iranian capital since May 2012. That time, he returned saying he expected to sign a deal with Iran soon to unblock the agency’s investigation, only to see it fail to materialize.

NEW ERA?

Rouhani has improved the diplomatic atmosphere since then, however, promising to try to resolve a decade-old international stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program and secure an easing of sanctions severely damaging its oil-dependent economy.

Iran says it is refining uranium only to fuel future nuclear power plants and an existing medical research reactor. But its refusal so far to curb sensitive nuclear work and lack of transparency with the IAEA have drawn harsh sanctions.

After talks last week between senior IAEA and Iranian officials in Vienna, described by both sides as “very productive”, a new round was set for November 11 in Tehran, but without any word on Amano possibly taking part.

Salehi said he had invited Amano to visit on that day and that the IAEA director-general had expressed his “inclination” to do so, state television said.

Salehi said he hoped that “we will reach an agreement in this trip” with the head of the Vienna-based U.N. agency and “issue a joint statement”.

Iran said in last week’s meeting in Vienna, where the IAEA is based, that it had put forward new proposals to the U.N. agency. A diplomatic source described the Iranian ideas as “potential confidence-building” measures but did not elaborate.

Western experts say that Iran will probably only agree to fully cooperate with the IAEA’s investigation as part of a broader settlement with the United States, France, Russia, China, Britain and Germany that wins it sanctions relief.

Iran’s Worrisome Shipping News

Diplomats in Geneva this week should pay more attention to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines’ long record than to the political sensitivities.

By: Claudia Rosett

5 November 2013

The Wall Street Journal

Bravo to the European Union, whose authorities are seeking ways to maintain sanctions on Iran’s national cargo fleet. The EU’s existing sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines were overturned in September by the EU General Court on grounds that the European Council had not provided enough evidence linking IRISL to Iran’s nuclear program, which was the reason given for the EU’s blacklisting the shipping group in 2010. European governments are now exploring new grounds for reimposing sanctions, such as IRISL’s record of arms smuggling.

But Europe’s push to keep pressure on IRISL comes at a delicate moment. The U.S. administration has been trying to deflect tough measures against Tehran for fear of jeopardizing nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 bloc of world powers: the U.S., U.K., China, France, Russia and Germany. Following an initial sit-down last month, P5+1 talks are scheduled for a second round beginning on Thursday in Geneva.

Diplomats would be wise to pay more attention to IRISL’s record than to the political sensitivities. While demanding its day in court under European law, IRISL has racked up a history on a variety of other fronts in which respect for law hardly figures.

When the U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on IRISL and 123 of its ships in 2008, the broad reason Treasury gave in a press release was that IRISL was “providing logistical services to Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.” As an example, Treasury cited a case in 2007 in which IRISL had allegedly transported “a shipment of precursor chemicals destined for use in Iran’s missile program.”

In the same 2008 press release, Stuart Levey, then Treasury’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said that “Not only does IRISL facilitate the transport of cargo for U.N. designated proliferators, it also falsifies documents and uses deceptive schemes to shroud its involvement in illicit commerce.” Mr. Levey also said that “IRISL’s actions are part of a broader pattern of deception and fabrication that Iran uses to advance its nuclear and missile programs.”

As U.S. sanctions began to bite, IRISL embarked on a series of maneuvers that Adam Szubin, the director of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, described in 2011 as “deception, fraud and dangerous activities on behalf of the Government of Iran.” IRISL renamed and reflagged most of its vessels, according to Mr. Szubin, and it shuffled nominal ownership of those ships among shell companies spread around the globe, in places such as Hong Kong, Dubai, Barbados and Malta, according to Treasury documents and shipping registries.

According to an Oct. 2, 2009, U.S. State Department cable marked “secret” and published by WikiLeaks, IRISL was officially privatized in 2008, but the Iranian government “probably still maintains control of a significant number of shares.” The cable noted that, “As a result of its Iranian domestic and government connections, IRISL has long been Iran’s preferred maritime carrier for the import of materials for its ballistic missile programs.”

IRISL has also figured in Iran’s illicit export of weapons. In 2009, the U.N. SecurityCouncil’s committee on Iran sanctions reported three cases that year of Iranian arms smuggling aboard ships. The U.N. report described all three cases as “violations” of a U.N. sanctions resolution passed in 2007 forbidding Iran to sell or transfer abroad, directly or indirectly, “any arms or related materiel.” According to the U.N. committee, “all three violations involved the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL).”

Of these cases, the most notorious is that of the Monchegorsk, a Russian-owned, Cypriot-flagged freighter chartered by IRISL. According to the WikiLeaked 2009 State Department cable, IRISL might have more cheaply used one of its own ships for the shipment. “However, IRISL apparently chartered the Monchegorsk not to save money, but to obscure the Iranian origin of the sensitive shipment.”

The dodge failed. En route from Iran to Syria, the Monchegorsk was inspected at sea by a U.S. Navy boarding party. The ship’s cargo included containers packed, according to the U.N., with ammunition, mortar components and high explosives. The ship was ordered to Cyprus, where Cypriot authorities impounded the cargo and stored it at a naval base. But in 2011 several of the containers self-detonated, killing 13 people and injuring 61.

The second case involved the Hansa India, a German-owned, German-flagged freighter chartered by IRISL. In October 2009, according to Der Spiegel, U.S. warships halted the vessel in the Gulf of Suez, en route to Malta. According to a U.N. sanctions notice, the ship was carrying containers loaded with bullet casings, “apparently for AK rifles.” The contents were in barrels marked with the Farsi name of Iran’s Defense Industries Organization, an entity designated by the U.N. in 2006 as being involved in Iran’s nuclear program.

The third case involved another German-owned ship, the Francop, flagged to Antigua and Barbuda, with an arms cargo that the U.N. report described as “shipped by IRISL.” The Francop was boarded near Cyprus in November 2009 by the Israeli navy. Israeli authorities reported finding 500 tons of weaponry aboard, including rockets, grenades, armor-piercing artillery and more than half a million bullets.

IRISL’s financial maneuvers have also had their troubling aspects. In 2011, the Manhattan district attorney announced a 317-count indictment against IRISL and a number of its affiliates. As summarized in a report by Andrea Stricker of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, the indictment charges them with “conspiracy to circumvent United States sanctions against Iran by illegally accessing New York banking institutions to send and receive more than $60 million in payments.”

Ms. Stricker adds that Iran has rejected the indictment as “unfairly aimed at harming its economy.” According to a spokesperson at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, “The case remains open.”

In March 2011, the U.S. Treasury issued an advisory warning of alleged IRISL abuses meant to hide the group’s involvement in shipping transactions. These included “using container prefixes registered to another carrier” and “naming non-existent ocean vessels in shipping documents.”

In a 2012 advisory, Treasury warned that “IRISL has recently been operating vessels despite their flags having been revoked.” Such practice not only reflects efforts to evade sanctions, but also runs counter to basic maritime safety rules. Also in 2012, a report by the U.N. Security Council’s Panel of Experts on Iran sanctions concluded that although they had received no recent reports of IRISL smuggling, “it is likely that maritime shipments of prohibited items are continuing.” According to a lawyer for IRISL, Maryam Taher of M Taher & Co. Solicitors, “IRISL has always maintained that it has never knowingly been involved in shipping any illegal material.”

For all of IRISL’s wiles, sanctions have had a visible effect on the group’s usefulness to the Iranian regime. IRISL ships in recent years have at considerable cost registered under such flags of convenience as Bolivia’s, Mongolia’s, Tuvalu’s and Tanzania’s. Due largely to the efforts of the U.S. Treasury, they been kicked off all of them.

Among the more than 120 vessels currently blacklisted by Treasury as linked to IRISL, most are now reflagged back to Iran. And while IRISL’s fleet used to sail most of the globe, ship-tracking databases show that IRISL’s shipping routes are now largely confined to the Middle East and Asia, with occasional runs to Africa.

None of this has succeeded in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. But any easing of EU sanctions on IRISL seems unlikely to help, especially when Iran, for all its current charm offensive, has yet to provide any concrete sign that it has kicked the arms-smuggling and proliferation habit-or, for that matter, backed off from its role as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

According to the Iranian press, IRISL’s managing director, Mohammad Hossein Dajmar, celebrated September’s EU court annulment of sanctions as a “big success” that “puts the seal of approval on the rightfulness of IRISL and the baselessness of the accusations.” If the EU’s earlier accusations couldn’t hold up in court, there’s every reason for EU authorities to dip into IRISL’s long record for some charges that just might.

Ms. Rosett is journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and heads its Investigative Reporting Project.

Smooth Talking

The Case for Easing Sanctions on Iran

By: Kimberly Ann Elliott

4 November 2013

Foreign Affairs

As negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program resume in Geneva this week, observers and policymakers are sharply divided on the role of economic sanctions. Those who want to give negotiations a chance, including U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, believe that the United States and its allies should be willing to ease sanctions in exchange for Iranian cooperation. Those who remain suspicious of Iran’s intentions, including many in Congress, maintain that the United States should double down on sanctions to force Iran to comply with its demands.

History suggests that once imposed, the promise to lift sanctions often offers more leverage than efforts to keep them from leaking. To be sure, there is no question that the sting of economic sanctions contributed to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s recent charm offensive. But sanctions were hardly the sole reason he came to the table: The window for negotiations opened only after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a president who Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, no longer trusted, was replaced by someone he does — at least for now. Domestic politics in Iran and the United States will determine whether that window stays open or slams shut once more. To keep it open, Rouhani will have to show his audience at home that he can win some relief. And in the United States, Congress will have to allow Obama sufficient flexibility to use sanctions as the bargaining chip they are.

SANCTIONED SUCCESS

Throughout history, sanctions have rarely caused countries to capitulate outright. Colleagues from the Peterson Institute for International Economics and I analyzed 204 instances of sanctions in the twentieth century (all the cases we could identify). We found that they achieved part of their goals about a third of the time. Indeed, most of the successful examples involved compromise and partial accomplishments. Only in 12 cases did sanctions lead directly to their intended results.

Overall, we concluded, sanctions were most likely to be effective when the sanctioner’s goals were relatively modest, the targeted government was at least somewhat democratic, relations between the sanctioning and target governments were friendly rather than hostile prior to sanctions being imposed, and the economic costs imposed on the target were proportionate to the goal sought. Finally, when sanctions were carried out with ambitious objectives, success depended on international cooperation from allies or international organizations.

Unfortunately for Washington, the Iran case does not meet the first three conditions. The goal, suspension of Iran’s nuclear program, involves a core national security concern for Tehran. Further, Iran is only nominally democratic. Iranians vote — but only for candidates the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council approve. Finally, relations between Iran and the United States, and increasingly between Iran and much of the rest of the world, are hostile.

Balancing against that, though, is the unusual degree of international cooperation that the United States has corralled to impose and enforce economic sanctions. A Congressional Research Service report estimates that sanctions have halved Iranian oil exports, which once accounted for as much as 80 percent of the country’s exports, 50 percent of the government’s revenues, and 20 percent of the economy. By our conservative estimates, the sanctions cost Iran at least 5.5 percent of its GNP once the EU oil boycott was fully implemented. That is a higher toll than in all but 28 of the 204 cases we surveyed. It is also in line with the average cost to targeted countries in cases where the goals were very ambitious and sanctions contributed to positive results, including, for example, the extensive UN sanctions against the former Yugoslavia that led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords and the end of the Bosnian conflict in the 1990s.

High economic costs, however, are no guarantee of political results. The cost of sanctions for Iraq in the 1990s was ten times as high as for Iran today, yet that sanctions regime was inadequate to force Saddam from power, as some had hoped, or coerce his cooperation in the UN-led effort to find and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, the severe humanitarian impact of the sanctions, which were the most globally comprehensive ever, eroded political support for the tough approach and thus undermined the United Nations’ ability to enforce it.

The backlash against the sanctions in Iraq also led the United Nations, the United States, and the European Union to shift focus toward more narrowly defined sanctions, such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and asset freezes, all of which target officials, not regular citizens. This type of sanction, a wealth of evidence shows, is more effective as a signal during later negotiations than as a means to coerce major behavior changes. Sometimes, of course, sanctioners’ goals are ambitious and require just such change. In those cases, sanctioning countries feel pressed to ratchet up the pressure, as in Iran. And then, they must strike a tricky balance between sanctions that get the target’s attention and those that are so harmful to ordinary citizens that they become unsustainable.

TIME TO TALK

Those in Washington who are pushing for tighter sanctions are working against recent trends. They want to cut off Iranian energy exports and thus bring the economy to its knees. Ordinary Iranian citizens could not possibly escape unscathed. And the Iranian government is already trying to build international humanitarian concern by publicizing the impact of sanctions on food prices and access to medicines. As in Iraq, pictures of hungry children and the deathly ill will undermine political support for sanctions, erode enforcement, and increase the pressure to lift sanctions.

A related problem is that U.S. sanctions already cover all trade and financial transactions (with the exception of humanitarian items). In other words, U.S. policymakers can put more pressure on Iran only by coercing third parties to either forgo business with Iran or risk losing access to the U.S. financial market. If Congress continues to push for sanctions against allies and other parties that still import oil from Iran, as is currently permitted by UN Security Council resolutions, it could make the European Union and others simply stop cooperating.

For now, those who continue to oppose pursuing a negotiated solution argue that the talks will allow Iran to buy time and continue developing its nuclear capability. But their alternative, more sanctions, would also take time to work. And with talks moving forward, trying to use them to bring the country to its knees will simply increase the odds that the world will end up having to contain a nuclear Iran. Negotiations with Iran will not be easy, and an acceptable compromise may be out of reach. But the possibility of easing sanctions has to be on the table for there to be any chance of success. Congressional action to deny the president that option or pile on more sanctions will likely make the Iranian regime feel more threatened and more convinced that a nuclear weapon is necessary for its security. The current sanctions against Iran helped open the window for a diplomatic resolution. The question now is whether the United States and its allies will pry the window wider or slam it shut on their own fingers.

Syria says will not hand over power in Geneva

5 November 2013

Syria’s information minister says government officials will not discuss handing over power or forming a transitional government at peace talks planned for later this month in Switzerland.

Omran al-Zoubi’s comments Tuesday come hours before a Syrian envoy is to meet Russian and US officials in Geneva to assess prospects for the peace conference between President Bashar Assad’s government and a united opposition, as the country’s civil war rages into its third year.

Members of the exiled and Western-backed opposition group insist Assad be excluded from Syria’s future leadership for any talks to take place.

In an interview with Syrian state TV late Monday, al-Zoubi said Geneva talks are part of a political process, “and not a handover of power or forming a transitional governing body.”

Diplomats Try to Push Syria Peace Conference

By: NICK CUMMING-BRUCE and ALAN COWELL

4 November 2013

The New York Times

Senior United States, Russian and United Nations diplomats met in Geneva on Tuesday at the start of a series of meetings aimed at building momentum for a second Syria peace conference despite bitter rifts within Syrian opposition groups and other states in the region.

Wendy R. Sherman, the United States undersecretary of state for political affairs, and two deputy Russian foreign ministers, Mikhail Bogdanov and Gennady Gatilov, began Tuesday’s talks by meeting Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. and Arab League special envoy for Syria, who has just completed a tour of Arab capitals that vividly exposed the divisions in Syria and the region that diplomats will have to bridge to bring about the peace talks known as Geneva 2.

In a meeting with President Bashar al-Assad last week, the Syrian leader repeated to Mr. Brahimi that “only the Syrian people are authorized to shape the future of Syria,” a formula that rebuffs Western demands that he should surrender power as part of a peace process.

In Cairo, Arab foreign ministers formally endorsed the proposed meeting and urged Ahmad Jarba, the head of the opposition National Coalition, to participate. But Mr. Jarba, who is backed by Saudi Arabia, said the opposition would not join the Geneva talks if Iran, an ally of President Assad, attended and without a clear timetable for Mr. Assad to step down. The coalition also has little leverage over rebel groups that have warned that anyone participating in Geneva 2 would be considered traitors.

The meeting in Geneva came a day after Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Riyadh to try to assuage mounting Saudi impatience at what it fears may be weakening pressure from Washington for forcing Mr. Assad from office.

In the face of such obstacles, the late November target date for Geneva 2 appears ambitious, but Mr. Brahimi, speaking to reporters after his talks with President Assad, still held out the hope that parties to the conflict could be brought together “in the next few weeks, not next year.”

After the trilateral talks on Tuesday morning, Mr. Brahimi and the American and Russian delegations are to be joined by three permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Britain, China and France. Later in the day, the talks are to widen again to include senior officials from Syria’s neighbors, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey as well as representatives from the Arab League.

The talks in Geneva opened against a backdrop of increasing humanitarian alarm in Syria.

According to the United Nations, the number of Syrians needing help has surged to 9.3 million from 6.8 million in June. The figure represents some 40 percent of the estimated 23 million people in a country that has been seized by conflict since a crackdown on peaceful protest against President Assad began in March 2011.

Since then, more than 110,000 people have died and, while Mr. Assad has agreed to dismantle chemical weapons stockpiles, fighting with conventional munitions still claims a daily toll, forcing many to flee their homes and blocking efforts to deliver humanitarian assistance.

Valerie Amos, the top humanitarian official at the United Nations, told the SecurityCouncil on Monday that the number who have abandoned their homes but remained in Syria stood at 6.5 million compared to 4.25 million in June. Her remarks in a closed briefing to the Security Council were relayed by a spokeswoman, Amanda Pitt.

“The humanitarian situation in Syria continues to deteriorate rapidly and inexorably,” Ms. Amos said.

Her spokeswoman added: “Amos continues to press the council for their help and influence over those parties who can ensure the protection of civilians and civilian facilities; the safe passage of medical personnel and supplies; the safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance; and can facilitate progress in expanding critical, lifesaving relief operations.”

On Monday, Faisal al-Miqdad, a deputy foreign minister, said the Syrian government was doing its best to deliver humanitarian aid and was pressing for the delivery of help to “trapped civilians, especially in hot spots,” the official SANA news agency said.

But Mr. Miqdad accused rebels seeking Mr. Assad’s overthrow and of attacking aid convoys, hindering humanitarian deliveries. In recent days, concern has become particularly acute following fears of a polio epidemic.

In late October, United Nations officials said they were mobilizing to vaccinate 2.5 million young children in Syria and more than eight million others in the region to combat what they fear could be an explosive outbreak of polio.

The officials said that the discovery of a cluster of paralyzed young children in Deir al-Zour, a heavily contested city in eastern Syria, had prompted their alarm and that tests conducted by both the government and rebel sides strongly suggested that the children had been afflicted with polio.

Exclusive: Syria chemical weapons mission funded only through this month

5 November 2013

Reuters

The international body tasked with eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons has raised only enough moneyso far to fund its mission through this month, and more cash will have to be found soon to pay for the destruction of poison gas stocks next year.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which won the Nobel Peace Prizelast month, is overseeing the destruction of Syria’s nerve agent stocks under a U.S.-Russian agreement reached in September.

It has so far raised about 10 million euros ($13.5 million) for the task.

“It is the assessment of the Secretariat that its existing personnel resources are sufficient for operations to be conducted in October and November 2013,” said an October 25 OPCW document seen by Reuters. At the time, its account held just 4 million euros.

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad says the total cost could be $1 billion, although experts say it is likely to be lower, running into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on where and how the chemical arms are destroyed.

The United States has been the biggest contributor so far to the OPCW’s fund for the Syria mission, with Britain, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland also contributing.

Washington has contributed $6 million in equipment, training and cash, split between funds with the OPCW and the United Nations, the OPCW document said.

Under the joint Russian-American proposal, Syria agreed in September to destroy its entire chemical weapons program by mid-2014. The move averted missile strikes threatened by Washington following an August 21 sarin gas attack in the outskirts of Damascus that killed hundreds of people.

RISING COSTS

Until September, Syria was one of a handful of countries that were not party to a global treaty outlawing the stockpiling of chemical arms.

Damascus’s joining of the Chemical Weapons Convention creates the unique problem of safely destroying huge stockpiles of poisons in the middle of a civil war that has killed 100,000 people and driven up to a third of Syrians from their homes.

Personnel costs will be largely covered by the OPCW’s regular budget, less than an annual $100 million, but the Hague-based organisation will need substantial additional resources.

By the end of next week, the OPCW and Syria must agree to a detailed plan of destruction, explaining in detail how and where to destroy the poisons, including mustard gas, sarin and possibly VX.

The OPCW said last week its teams had inspected 21 out of 23 chemical weapons sites across the country, meeting a key November 1 deadline. Two other sites were too dangerous to reach for inspection, but critical equipment had already been moved to other sites that experts had visited, it said.

Syria declared to the OPCW 30 production, filling and storage facilities, eight mobile filling units and three chemical weapons-related facilities.

They contained approximately 1,000 metric tons of chemical weapons, mostly in the form of raw precursors, 290 metric tons of loaded munitions and 1,230 unfilled munitions, OPCW documents showed.

Four other countries have pledged to contribute an additional 2.7 million euros to the OPCW fund, the document said. Germany, Italy and the Netherlands supplied air transport to fly OPCW team members to Syria, while other European countries and the United States provided armored vehicles that were shipped by Canada, the document said.

SHIP TO ALBANIA?

The United Kingdom has pledged to give $3 million, while Russia, France and China said they will donate experts and technical staff, who need to witness the entire, time-consuming destruction process.

A major cost still to come will be the likely shipping of raw chemicals out of Syria for safe destruction away from the war zone. Discussions are ongoing with countries willing to host the facilities to incinerate or chemically neutralize the poisons, including Albania, Belgium and an unspecified Scandinavian country, two sources said.

Companies in the United States, Germany and France are competing for the contract to provide destruction facilities, sources said.

Since being established under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, the OPCW has overseen the destruction of more than 50,000 tons of toxic munitions, or more than 80 percent of the world’s declared stockpile.

The United States and Russia, the largest possessors of chemical weapons, are years behind schedule in destroying their arsenals.

Dramatic increase in number of Syrians in need of humanitarian aid

Around 9.3 million people in Syria now in need of assistance, up from 6.8 million in June, according to UN humanitarian chief

5 November 2013

U.N. humanitarian chief Valerie Amos told the U.N. Security Council that the number of Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance has risen dramatically to 9.3 million people, up from 6.8 million in June.

Spokeswoman Amanda Pitt said Amos also told the council in a closed briefing Monday that those in need include 6.5 million people who have fled their homes but remain in the country, up from 4.25 million displaced people in June.

Syria’s cooperation on the elimination of its chemical weapons is in stark contrast to the obstacles it has erected for humanitarian access and delivery of aid.

Pitt said Amos has been pressing Security Council members to use their influence to ensure the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid.

Egypt Central Bank returns $500m deposit to Qatar

5 November 2013

Reuters

Egypt returned a $500 million deposit to Qatar at the start of November after Qatar refused to renew it upon its maturity, a central bank official told Reuters on Monday.

The central bank expects to return a further $500 million in early December, the official, who declined to be named, added.

Qatar had deposited the funds with the central bank in late 2012.

Relations between the two countries deteriorated after the army ousted Islamist President Mohamed Mursi in July. Qatar had been a firm backer of Mursi’s Muslim Brotherhood and lent or gave Egypt $7.5 billion during the year he was in power.

In September, Egypt returned $2 billion that Qatar had deposited with its central bank, after talks to convert the funds into three-year bonds broke down.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates promised Egypt a combined $12 billion in aid in July.

Editorial: Mr. Kerry’s diplomatic games in Egypt

4 November 2013

The Washington Post

IN CAIRO on Monday, Mohamed Morsi, the elected Egyptian president deposed in a military coup in July, was brought to a court to face charges of incitement to murder. Held incommunicado for the past four months, he has been unable to consult with lawyers or review the evidence against him. An estimated 2,000 other high- and mid-ranking leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood are under arrest, as well as some 6,000 other members. Hundreds are being tried in secret and without due process in military courts.

With the party that won five elections in the past two years thus repressed, a 50-member assembly handpicked by the military is rushing to complete a new constitution. According to widespread reports, it will exempt the armed forces and their budget from civilian oversight and authorize continued military trials of civilians. The state-controlled media are promoting a cult of personality around the army’s leader, Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, and campaigning for him to become president. Meanwhile, Bassem Youssef, the Jon Stewart-like political satirist renowned for his opposition to Mr. Morsi, is back off the air and facing half a dozen criminal complaints because of his gentle lampooning of the Sissi cult in his one and only broadcast since the coup.

Not surprisingly, a Freedom House report released Monday concludes that “there has been virtually no substantive progress toward democracy since the July 3 coup,” despite the military regime’s supposed “road map.” But that’s not how Secretary of State John F. Kerry sees it. “The road map is being carried out to the best of our perception,” he pronounced during a quick trip to Cairo on Sunday. A liberal constitution and elections? “All of that is, in fact, moving down the road map in the direction that everybody has been hoping for.”

What is it that Mr. Kerry doesn’t perceive? To judge that Egypt is headed toward democracy is to ignore the fact that its last elected leader and thousands of his supporters are now political prisoners facing, at best, blatantly unfair trials. It is to overlook the reality that opposition media have been shut down and that those that remain are more tightly controlled by the regime than they have been in decades. It skips over the rigging of the constitution by the military and that leading secular liberal politicians, such as former presidential candidates Mohamed ElBaradei and Ayman Nour, have been driven out of the country.

To be fair, Mr. Kerry is only following the policy set by President Obama, who in September declared that his administration would henceforth defend only a narrow set of “core interests” in the Middle East. The flow of oil is on the list; the defense of democracy is not. The administration felt compelled, following a series of massacres of civilian protesters by Egyptian securityforces, to suspend the delivery of several U.S. weapons systems, including F-16s. As Mr. Kerry helpfully explained in Cairo, that is because U.S. law mandates it: The administration is reluctantly and partially adhering to legislation requiring a cutoff of military aid following a coup, while seeking a congressional waiver.

Mr. Kerry made clear that his aim is to restore full ties to the regime as quickly as possible. Sounding apologetic, he said he “did not spend a lot of time” discussing the “very small” aid issue; his aides said he did not bring up the Morsi trial at all. The administration agreed to an Egyptian proposal to establish a “strategic partnership” even before knowing the outcome of the constitutional drafting or the promised elections. Mr. Kerry said he had “no doubt about our ability to restore the full measure of the relationship that existed previously.”

The message seems clear enough: The Obama administration will accept and do businesswith the new autocracy that Gen. Sissi is constructing. If so, why not be honest about it? Mr. Kerry’s embrace of the regime’s empty promises of democracy only makes him appear foolish – or, perhaps, as cynical as the generals.

East Libya movement launches government, challenges Tripoli

4 November 2013

Reuters

Leaders of an autonomy movement in Libya’s oil-rich east have unilaterally declared a regional government, in a challenge to the weak central government as new violence erupted in the region.

The announcement on Sunday was a symbolic blow to efforts by the Tripoli government to reopen eastern oil ports and fields blocked since the summer by militias and tribes demanding a greater share of power and oil wealth.

It has no practical meaning but is sure to worsen ties between the east and Tripoli, which has rejected the self-rule notion.

Lawlessness has blighted large areas of Libya since the 2011 war that toppled Muammar Qaddafi. The government has been unable to rein in militia groups, armed tribes and radical Islamists.

This is especially true for eastern Libya, known as Cyrenaica, where tribes, activists and militias have been pushing for a federal system for sharing power with the west and southern Fezzan.

Leaders of the movement met in the small town of Ajdabiya, close to the oil port of Brega, to launch an autonomous government, supporters said. They named themselves the Barqa, or Cyrenaica, government.

A pro-federalist television station showed more than 20 ministers taking the oath at a podium decorated with a Cyrenaica flag.

They were joined by tribal militia leader Ibrahim Jathran, the former head of Libya’s Petroleum Protection Force in charge of guarding oil facilities. He defected in the summer and seized the biggest ports Ras Lanuf and Es-Sider with his troops.

Once a rebel combatting Qaddafi troops, he wore a business suit and a tie during the ceremony, standing next to the self-declared prime minister, Abd-Rabbo Al Barassi, a defected air force commander. Tribal leaders joined the ceremony.

The Libyan prime minister Ali Zeidan had been seeking contact with the east in recent days to reopen blocked ports in an area home to 60 per cent of the country’s oil production.

Libya’s National Oil Corp said yesterday that the blockade of the main oil facilities in the east had reduced prodction by 80 per cent.

“Output is estimated to be running at 250,000 barrels a day,” down from 1.5 million bpd before the protests, said NOC official Mohamed Al Harairi.

He said exports from Al Hariga terminal in eastern Libya, which Mr Zeidan had said would resume by Monday, had not gone ahead for logistical reasons.

Mr Jathran, the tribal militia leader, and many others in the east accuse Mr Zeidan as well as Islamists in the General National Congress of corruption and failing to provide security since Qaddafi’s downfall.

In the regional capital Benghazi, where an attack on the US mission in September killed the US ambassador, a soldier was killed and another was wounded when a mine hidden in a rubbish bag exploded near an army checkpoint late on Saturday, a security source said.

In Benghazi’s biggest prison, a group of inmates overwhelmed a guard early on Sunday and started a fire. A security source said 15 prisoners were wounded during clashes with guards trying to restore order. One guard was wounded when gunmen opened fire from outside.

Modest Mission?

The U.S. Plan to Build a Libyan Army

By: Frederic Wehrey

4 November 2013

Foreign Affairs

Last month, discussing the Obama administration’s plans for a more modest Middle East policy, National Security Adviser Susan Rice noted that Washington “can’t just be consumed 24/7 by one region, important as it is.” From now on, she implied, countries in the region, including Libya, would be relegated to second-tier priority.

As she spoke, the U.S. military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) was preparing to step up its assistance in Libya to help the country rebuild its weak security sector. Over the summer, AFRICOM, along with the militaries of Italy, Turkey, and the United Kingdom committed to help train, advise, and equip a new Libyan army — a “general purpose force,” in formal military terms — with the United States responsible for approximately 5,000 to 8,000 soldiers. The plan seems reasonable on paper. Trained at overseas bases outside Libya, the new force will allow the government to project its own authority, protect elected officials and institutions from the militias operating within the country, and compel the militias to demobilize and disarm. Washington sees the effort as a crucial step in Libya’s democratic transition and as a way to halt extremism and prevent the country’s lawlessness from spilling over its borders.

But the force’s composition, the details of its training, the extent to which Libyan civilians will oversee it, and its ability to deal with the range of threats that the country faces are all unclear. And the stakes are enormous. There are signs that some militias within Libya are trying to bloody the new army’s nose before it even enters the fight: a campaign of shadowy assassinations against military officers, particularly in the east, is likely half vendetta against representatives of the old order and half attempt to deter the central government’s monopolization of military force.

The case of a separate and underreported U.S. effort to train a small Libyan counterterrorism unit inside Libya earlier this year is instructive. The unit, set up by U.S. special operations forces, was hardly representative of Libya’s regional makeup: recruitment appeared to be drawn overwhelmingly from westerners to the exclusion of the long-neglected east. In addition, the absence of clear lines of authority — nearly inevitable given Libya’s fragmented security sector — meant that the force’s capabilities could just have easily ended up being used against political enemies as against terrorists.

Things came to a head in August, when a tribal militia launched a pre-dawn raid on the poorly guarded training camp near Tripoli. No U.S. soldiers were there, but the militia did make off with sensitive U.S. military equipment. And that spelled the end of the mission; the effort was aborted and U.S. forces went home. (The Libyan government and U.S. special operations forces are currently searching for a new training site inside Libya to restart it.) Drawing lessons from this fiasco, the United States and its NATO partners have wisely decided that the new training mission for the general purpose force will take place outside Libya — in Bulgaria, Italy, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. But that alone won’t be enough to ensure that the effort doesn’t face more significant hurdles.

First, the exact role of the force needs to be determined. As its name implies, it is meant to be a regular infantry, focused initially on securing government installations and protecting officials. But what Libya really needs is a more specialized, gendarmerie-type service to tackle border security, illicit trafficking in narcotics and weapons, and low-level insurgency. It does not need another bloated, conventional military force that sits in its barracks — a far too common occurrence in the Arab world, where armies’ self-entitlement and insularity have proved unhealthy for democracy. The country also needs an effective, civilian-controlled National Security Council to oversee and de-conflict the functions of all of its security bodies, including border guards, oil facilities protection forces, and the police.

Second, the new force will likely be called on to police and quell intertribal and communal conflicts that have flared up across the country — a role that is currently being played by militia coalitions loosely subordinate to the Ministry of Defense, the so-called Libya Shield Forces. That is why the army’s composition is so crucial: it must be, and be perceived as, nonpartisan and professional. To prevent the general purpose force from becoming a private militia of a particular tribe, region, or political clique, recruits must be integrated into mixed units that draw from a broad swath of Libyan society. And at least some of the new enlisted ranks and junior officer corps must come from the militias. Many senior officers in the Libyan army detest that idea, viewing the militia men as ill-disciplined rabble or excessively politicized. In many cases, though, these young men bring the real-world battlefield experience and small unit leadership that is so desperately needed in the Libyan army, whose junior and midlevel officer ranks former leader Muammar al-Qaddafi had hollowed out.

Teaching recruits to function as cohesive fighting units — rather than focusing solely on imparting individual soldiering skills — is also essential. The training mission cannot just produce soldiers who are better marksmen but who return to Libya and melt into the militias, or who moonlight as militiamen in addition to their day job in the army. To prevent that worst-case scenario, proper vetting for motivation, aptitude, past human rights violations, and criminal history is also vital. Recent failures bear this out: an effort last year to train Libyan police officers in Jordan collapsed when poorly screened recruits mutinied against what they perceived as unduly Spartan living conditions.

Third, and perhaps most important, the training program must be accompanied by a reinvigorated demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration program for those in the militias. These young men must be given economic and social incentives to leave and either enter the work force, pursue schooling, or join the regular police and army. Many of the revolutionary fighters I have spoken with over the past two years do not want to keep fighting. But few real alternatives exist, given the bleak employment scene and the unattractive options of the police and army, which remain tainted by their association with the Qaddafi regime. The Libyan prime minister recently raised the salaries of the regular police and soldiers to exceed those paid to the militias under the auspices of the Ministries of Interior and Defense. But it is unclear whether that alone will entice young men to leave the well-paid safety net of the militias for the privations of military life. What is really needed is a serious rebranding of the military and police that removes the blemishes of the Qaddafi era. A retirement and pension program that would entice some within the bloated senior ranks to retire could be a step in that direction.

In the east, the demobilization effort has encountered its firmest resistance, owing to the region’s historic marginalization under the old regime and the unwillingness of various armed groups, whether Islamists or federalists, to surrender. It is in that region, then, that recruitment into the new army is most important. Islamists in Benghazi told me that they were holding off on demobilizing and joining the army until a constitution was in place that could guarantee that the new army wouldn’t become the palace guard of another dictator.

Public anger over the U.S. raid in which Abu Anas al-Libi, an alleged al Qaeda operative, was captured may further erode the willingness of some Libyans, particularly Islamists, to join a U.S.-trained force. The influential Grand Mufti of Libya recently issued a statement asking whether young Libyans being trained by foreign militaries would acquire kidnapping skills. If and when U.S. special operations forces seize those suspected of last year’s attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, we can expect the Islamist backlash to further erode support for the creation of a U.S.- and NATO-trained army.

Both the Libyan government and outside supporters must recognize that Libya’s security issues are fundamentally political problems. Better training and equipment will not automatically confer legitimacy on the new army, compel militias to surrender their arms, or entice Libyans to join up. That legitimacy will be obtained through a broad political reconciliation under the auspices of the recently announced National Dialogue, a functioning parliament, a constitution, and an equitable judicial system — and by a government that is able to deliver services across the country

Given resource constraints and Washington’s reasonable aversion to putting boots on the ground, the training of the general purpose force might seem like an appropriate level of U.S. engagement in Libya. Still, if the United States doesn’t want to leave the country worse off, it should think very carefully about that force’s composition, mission, and oversight before the program begins. It must also heed those who argue that the mission should be accompanied by broader assistancedesigned to help Libya work through the economic and political challenges that underlie its insecurity.

Editorial: Kerry’s futile Middle East tour

America will have no credibility in the region and beyond until it reins in its ally Israel

5 November 2013

Gulf News

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s fence-mending tour of the Middle East is to be proven futile by its inability to control its closest ally – Israel.

Saudi Arabia, in its rejection of the coveted United Nations Security Council seat, cited the world body’s inability to resolve both the Palestine problem and bring an end to the killings in Syria as reasons for its decision. Kerry has travelled to Saudi Arabia to address those grievances. However, soon after he flies out of Riyadh, he is going to be faced with Israeli plans to build almost 2,000 more Jews-only colonist homes on occupied Palestinian land.

This, however, is not the first time Israel has humiliated the US in this way as the latter tries to revive the stalled peace process. In March 2010, Israel announced the building of 1,600 housing units in colonies while US Vice-President Joe Biden was in the Holy Land to promote the resumption of peace talks. The incident caused him great embarrassment but Israel only got a light scolding as a result.

The Israeli regime insists on challenging America and the Arab states by presenting obstacles to every overture for peace. It continues to publicly defy the US with little or no consequence. America should see this as no less than a slap in the face of Kerry and Arab states that have offered Israel peace. Failure to do so will cement the notion that America cannot and will not ever be an honest broker in this conflict and will further hurt American credibility in the region and beyond.

The US already seems confused about what to do in Syria and is unable to take a stable and consistent position on the situation in Egypt. The Palestine conflict is the only issue in the region on which it has significant influence, but it has time and again refused to use that influence to bring about an end to the conflict.

If the US really wants to mend fences in the Middle East, it should perhaps focus on the longest-running conflict in the region. The US needs to rein-in its out-of-control ally.

No Exit: Why the US Can’t Leave the Middle East

By: Michael J. Totten

5 November 2013

World Affairs Journal

America is in a bad mood.

The overhyped Arab Spring has been cancelled in Egypt. Liberating Libya led to the assassination of our ambassador. Syria is disintegrating into total war with bad guys on both sides and the US dithering on the sidelines, worried more about saving face at this point than having any significant effect on the facts on the ground.

A majority of American voters in both parties have had it. They’re just flat-out not interested in spending any more money or lives to help out. Even many foreign policy professionals are fed up. We get blamed for every one of the Middle East’s problems, including those it inflicts on itself. How gratifying it would be just to walk away, dust off our hands, and say you’re on your own.

But we can’t.

Actually, in Egypt maybe we can. And maybe we should.

Hosni Mubarak was a terrible leader and a lukewarm ally at best, but until the Egyptian army arrested him in 2011, Cairo had been part of the American-backed security architecture in North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean ever since his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, junked Egypt’s alliance with the Soviet Union.

The election of the Muslim Brotherhood regime in the wake of the Arab Spring, though, moved Egypt into the “frenemy” column. It’s still there under the military rule of General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, the new head of state in all but name since the army removed Mohamed Morsi.

Sisi is no less hostile to Washington than Morsi was. As Lee Smith put it shortly after the second coup in three years, Egypt’s new jefe “sees the United States as little more than a prop, a rag with which he burnishes his reputation as a strongman, a village mayor puffing his chest and boasting that he is unafraid to stand up to the Americans.”

Sisi knows his country and what it takes to appeal to the masses. The whole population-left, right, and center-is as hostile toward the United States as it ever was. Never mind that Americans backed the anti-Mubarak uprising. Never mind that Washington sought good relations with Egypt’s first freely elected government in thousands of years. Never mind that the Obama administration refuses to call the army’s coup what it plainly was in order to keep Egypt’s aid money flowing. None of that matters. The United States and its Zionist sidekick remain at the molten center of Egypt’s phantasmagorical demonology.

Bribing Egypt with billions of annual aid dollars to maintain its peace treaty with Israel and to keep a lid on radical Islam makes even less sense today than it did when Morsi and the Brotherhood were in charge. Morsi needed that money to prevent Egyptians from starving to death. He had a major incentive to cooperate-or else.

But now that the Brothers are out of the picture, partly at the behest of the Saudis, Riyadh says it will happily make up the difference if Washington turns off the aid spigot.

Turn it off then, already. Our money buys nothing from Sisi if he can replace it that easily. If he gets the same cash infusion whether or not he listens to the White House, why should he listen to the White House? He isn’t our friend. He’s only one step away from burning an American flag at a rally. He’s plenty motivated for his own reasons to keep radical Islamists in check since they’re out to destroy him. And his army is the one Egyptian institution that’s not at all interested in armed conflict with Israel because it would suffer more egregiously than anything or anyone else.

We’re either paying him out of sheer habit or because Washington thinks it might still get something back from its investment. Maybe it will, but it probably won’t.

Either way, Sisi instantly proved himself more violent and ruthless than Mubarak when he gave the order to gun down hundreds of unarmed civilians. The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood “retaliated” by burning dozens of churches, murdering Christians at random, and shooting policemen does not make what he did okay. He was, for a few days at least, no better than Bashar al-Assad. Giving him money and guns will make us no friends but plenty of enemies, especially when his regime proves itself no more capable of halting Egypt’s freefall than the last one.

Max Boot at the Council on Foreign Relations put it this way in the Los Angeles Times: “It is no coincidence that both Osama bin Laden and [al-Qaeda deputy Ayman al-] Zawahiri hailed from US-allied nations that repressed their own citizens. Both men were drawn to the conclusion that the way to free their homelands was to attack their rulers’ patron. It is reasonable to expect that a new generation of Islamists in Egypt, now being taught that the peaceful path to power is no longer open, will turn to violence and that, as long as Washington is seen on the side of the generals, some of their violence will be directed our way.”

Even if the Egyptian army faces the kind of full-blown Islamist insurgency that ripped through Algeria in the 1990s-which is unlikely, but possible-Cairo will still get all the help it needs from the Gulf, not because the Saudis oppose radical Islam, but because they view the Muslim Brotherhood as the biggest long-term threat to their rule.

The case for walking away from Egypt and dusting our hands off is sound.

Libya, however, is another matter entirely.

Having learned in Iraq that occupying Arab lands is bad for everyone’s health, the US helped free Libya of Muammar el-Qaddafi without suffering even one single casualty. We did it all from the skies. The ground was thick with indigenous rebels, so no American ground troops were required. Qaddafi had no friends to come to his rescue and he stood no chance with his feeble and outdated hardware.

But then we lost Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others during the long Libyan aftermath, when a terrorist group tied to al-Qaeda attacked the US consulate in Benghazi. It happened on the same day-not coincidentally, on September 11th-that mobs of fanatical Salafists waving al-Qaeda flags rioted and set fires all over the region, using a ludicrous anti-Muhammad video uploaded to YouTube by a crackpot Egyptian “filmmaker” no one had ever heard of before as a pretext.

For reasons that still don’t make any sense, American officials falsely claimed the Benghazi incident was the result of yet another protest riot gone out of control. But there was no protest or riot in Benghazi related to that video, contrary to Washington’s initial clumsy and mendacious public statements.

Unlike in Egypt and even Tunisia, nobody in Libya protested against the United States for “allowing” a so-called blasphemous video to be uploaded to YouTube. The only demonstrations in Libya that week were against radical Islamists, against the terrorists that murdered Ambassador Stevens. The citizen groundswell against Benghazi’s Islamist militia was so intense that its members had to flee into the desert.

Libya is a traditional and conservative place, but that does not mean it’s Islamist. Two out of three Egyptians voted for Islamist parties in the post-Mubarak parliamentary elections, but in Libya, the National Forces Alliance, a moderate centrist party, won the most seats in 2012. The Justice and Construction Party-the political vehicle for Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood-only won ten percent of the vote. The Brotherhood isn’t quite as irrelevant in Libya as, say, the Green Party is in the United States, but it’s close.

Libya’s people are not just by and large against the Islamists. They are perhaps friendlier to the West in general and the United States in particular than anyone else in the Arab world.

It makes sense if you think about it. Under no theory can the United States be held responsible for Qaddafi’s crimes and repression. He was a self-declared enemy of America on the day he took power, and he’d still be tormenting his hapless citizens like a sadistic mad scientist if Americans hadn’t provided air support for the rebels. He received no money, no weapons, no training, no diplomatic cover-nothing-from the United States.

Every bad thing Libyans ever heard about Americans came from the internal propaganda organs of the man who kicked them in the face every day for forty-two years. At least some of their geopolitical views resemble those of Eastern Europeans under the communists-if the Americans are the enemies of our tyrannical government, how bad can they be? They are as pro-American as we could ever expect Arab Muslims to be.

Libya under Qaddafi had far too much government. Now it does not have enough. The previous regime was one of the most repressive on earth, and when it went down, most institutions-including the army-went with it. The state and its security forces are therefore too weak. They’re being rebuilt from scratch and won’t be finished for years.

There is no reason in the world for the US not to associate with or help Prime Minister Ali Zeidan and his colleagues. On the contrary, if the government can’t establish a monopoly on the use of force in the lawless parts of the country, Libya could end up an incubator of terrorism like Somalia, Yemen, or Mali, despite the fact that most of its people want nothing to do with it.

Syria is the last country we can afford to ignore right now, even though large numbers in both parties-for perfectly logical reasons-are averse to doing anything more than shuddering at a distance.

But what happens there is our business because it affects us. Syria isn’t Belize. It matters who runs that country, and it matters a lot.

Bashar al-Assad’s regime is the biggest state sponsor of international terrorism in the Arab world, and it’s aligned with the Islamic Republic regime in Iran, the biggest state sponsor of international terrorism in the entire world. Obviously, then, it’s in our interest to see him defeated.

One of his principal enemies on the home front, though, is the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. Obviously it’s not in our interest to see these bin Ladenists replace Assad.

The Free Syrian Army is disgruntled at the lackluster assistance the United States has provided, but that’s partly because it has been fighting against Assad alongside the Nusra Front, and also because many of its own commanders are also Islamists, even if they’re moderate compared with al-Qaeda. The tactical alliance between the two groups is fracturing, and it won’t outlast Assad by even a week, but it’s enough to make Washington reluctant and skeptical.

Americans have always been willing to sacrifice money and lives for allies and friends, but allies and friends who are powerful enough inside Syria to affect outcomes are thin on the ground. Early in the game, the administration could have tried to arm, fund, and train a politically moderate fighting force inside Syria, but that will be a lot more difficult now that the Turks and the Gulf Arabs are backing their own proxies who don’t share our interests or values.

So there are those who say let them kill each other because, as Daniel Pipes argues, it “keeps them focused locally” and “prevents either one from emerging victorious.” It brings to mind Henry Kissinger’s famous quip about the Iran-Iraq war. “It’s too bad they can’t both lose.”

The operative word in Kissinger’s sentence is “can’t.” Opposing sides don’t zero each other out. That’s not how wars work, or end. Wars end when somebody wins.

The worst-case scenario from an American point of view is that they both win. That’s an actual possibility. Syria could fracture into pieces. In a way, it already has. An Alawite rump state backed by Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia existing alongside a Sunnistan ruled by Islamists could very well emerge as a semi-permanent reality of Middle Eastern geography. At the very least, the United States needs a policy that reduces the likelihood of that most horrible outcome.

A few months ago, I asked the Lebanese MP Samy Gemayel what he thought about Washington’s confusion in Syria. “Before you can know what to do,” he said, “you have to know what you want.” One way or another, we should want both Assad and al-Qaeda to lose. But they aren’t going to lose simultaneously. They’ll need to lose consecutively. One of them first has to win.

So fight and defeat Bashar al-Assad, or support someone who will do it instead. Then fight and defeat the Nusra Front, or support someone who will do it instead.

Or face the fact that one or both are going to win. If the Nusra Front wins, we’ll have an Afghanistan on the Mediterranean. And if Assad wins, he could end up under an Iranian nuclear weapons umbrella.

Some parts of the world are like Las Vegas. What happens there, stays there. Sub-Saharan Africa is the primary example. Hardly anyone outside that region has even noticed that the various wars in Congo have killed millions of people since the late 1990s, and even fewer have cared.

The Middle East isn’t like that. Until cars and trucks can be powered by solar, wind, or nuclear energy, the entire world depends on the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf region. That requires American security guarantees, which require our presence. And until radical Islamist organizations utterly lose their local appeal, we’ll have little choice but to intervene periodically for reasons that have nothing to do with economics or resources. For the time being, aggravating though it may be, Americans and Arabs are stuck with each other. We can take a bit of a breather, but retirement is decades away.

Michael J. Totten is a contributing editor at World Affairs and the author of four books, including Where the West Ends and The Road to Fatima Gate.

Share the Post:

US-UAE Daily Media Clips

The National Counsil on US-Arab Relations

Sign-Up to Receive Emails From the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations

Contact The Council

About Us

Our Publications