llLCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

May 15/16

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletin16/english.may15.16.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006

Click Here to go to the LCCC Daily English/Arabic News Buletins Archieves Since 2006

Bible Quotations For Today

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 12/28-34:"One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The first is, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength."The second is this, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." There is no other commandment greater than these.’Then the scribe said to him, ‘You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that "he is one, and besides him there is no other"; and "to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength", and "to love one’s neighbour as oneself", this is much more important than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices.’ When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’ After that no one dared to ask him any question."

Sleeper, awake! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.’
Letter to the Ephesians 05/08-21:"For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true.Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, ‘Sleeper, awake! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.’ Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise,
making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ."

Pope Francis's Tweet For Today
To communicate with mercy means to help create a healthy, free and fraternal closeness among the children of God

Communiquer avec miséricorde signifie contribuer à la bonne, libre et solide proximité entre les enfants de Dieu et les frères en humanité

التواصل برحمة يعني المساهمة في القُرب الصالح والحرّ والتضامني بين أبناء الله والإخوة في البشريّة.
 

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on May 15/16

Charles Jabour's unacceptable Rhetoric and Unfair Stances/Elias Bejjani/May 14/16/
Who really killed Hezbollah’s Mustafa Badreddine/Brooklyn Middleton/Al Arabiya/May 14/16
Did Israel take advantage of Middle East mahem to take out Hezbollah leader/Jerusalem Post/May 14/16
How to pull the world economy out of its rut/Peter Coy| Bloomberg/ May. 14/16
Prospects of a Coup in Baghdad and the US-Iran Understanding to End the Crisis/Middle East Briefing/May 14/16
Davutoglu’s Departure: Impact on ISIL, Iran, Syria and Middle East/Middle East Briefing/May 14/16
The Battle for Sirte Enters a Decisive Phase/Middle East Briefing/May 14/16
On the Separation of Fighting ISIL and Solving Syria and Iraq/Middle East Briefing/May 14/16
Britain's Muddled Priorities/Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/May 14/16
A water entrepreneur and her quest for rural development/Ehtesham Shahid/Al Arabiya/May 14/16
The true value of journalism and its awards/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/May 14/16
The enemy within: What European and Arab histories tell us about ISIS/Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/May 14/16

Titles Latest Lebanese Related News published on May 15/16

Charles Jabour's unacceptable Rhetoric and Unfair Stances

Lebanese Army urges citizens to abide by security measures on the eve of Mount Lebanon elections
Public Health Minister, Abu Faour: For reopening discussions over needed legislations, AbdelMonem Youssef away on vacation or a fugitive?
Who really killed Hezbollah’s Mustafa Badreddine?
Did Israel take advantage of Middle East mahem to take out Hezbollah leader?
UN envoy: Hezbollah growth threatens Lebanon
Hezbollah Receives More Local & Int’l Condolences over Badreddine’s Martyrdom
Ex-Argentine Leader Tells Court Son Was Killed by Hizbullah
ABL Convenes in Special Meeting over Hizbullah Reactions to U.S. Sanctions
Report: International Delegations in Beirut Later this Month
Hizbullah Holds 'Takfiris' Responsible for Badreddine Assassination
Competition Heats up ahead of Mount Lebanon's Municipal Polls

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on May 15/16

Another Syria Peace Push, but Has U.S. Put Too Much Faith in Russia?
Care about Syrians as much as gay weddings: Erdogan to West
ISIS attacks Syrian hospital, declares state of emergency
25 Palestinian children killed in 3 months: UNICEF
Trump Muslim ban doesn’t include ‘every Muslim’
clashes kill one Turkish soldier, two PKK militants
Gulf states, Pakistan slam Iranian attempt to politicize pilgrimage
Iran says Holocaust cartoon contest is not a denial
Russia Says Yacht Detained by North Korea
Migrants Rescued off Sicily are not Syrians, U.N. Says
 

Links From Jihad Watch Site for May 15/16
Petraeus calls for self-censorship to avoid offending Muslims
Islamic State slaughters 14 Real Madrid fans: soccer is “anti-Muslim”
U.S. stopped blacklisting domestic terror charities under Obama
Worker at LA’s King Fahad Mosque may have been involved in 9/11 jihad attacks
Bangladesh: Muslims hack Buddhist monk to death inside temple
And now, a word from deep inside the Department of Justice
Video: Muslim speaker in Canada calls for “full implementation of Islam,” says migrant influx helps build caliphate
UK Muslim accused of beheading plot had photos of police officers on his phone
White House on damage control after top aide admits manipulating media and lying to public on Iran nuke deal
Assumption that there is a sharp divide between Good Islam and Bad Islam is a comforting but dangerous illusion”
Captured Islamic State jihadi begs for death so he can get to Paradise on time
Navy fires commander of sailors detained by the Iranians
Belgium pays €78,000 to Muslim convicted of plotting jihad attacks in Europe
Turkey: Muslim worker in refugee camp hailed by Merkel raped at least 30 boys
University of London panel: Solve global antisemitism by annihilating Israel
Robert Spencer in Front Page: The Global Outbreak of Mental Illness

Latest Lebanese Related News published on May 15/16

Charles Jabour's unacceptable Rhetoric and Unfair Stances
Elias Bejjani/May 14/16/There are no justifications at all for Journalist, Mr. Charles Jabour's aggressive, accusative, hostile and humiliating rhetoric that targeted MP. Dorry Chamoun and his Municipal choices in Dayer Al Qamar. Personally I like Charles because he is in general, patriotic, honest and transparent, but apparently today he was impulsive, perplexed, confused, lost, and not himself. If you read his almost every 20 minutes notes and comments you will know exactly what I am saying. I failed to tame his prejudice attacks, although I took the time to respond to each one of them in a bid to abort all attempts to defame and slender MP. Chamoun and belittle his true nationalism. By the end tomorrow the Dayer Al Qamar residents will decide who represents them. In conclusion, MP. Dorry Chamoun is a respectable Lebanese Patriotic figure and accordingly no politician, journalist or party have the right to underestimate his loyalty, sincerity and sound judgment.

Lebanese Army urges citizens to abide by security measures on the eve of Mount Lebanon elections
Sat 14 May 2016/NNA - In an issued communiqué on the eve of the 2nd phase of municipal and mukhtar elections to be held in Mount Lebanon on Sunday, Lebanese Army Orientation Directorate urged citizens to "fully respect security measures and procedures adopted for their own safety, enabling them to express their opinions at the ballot box in an atmosphere of freedom, tranquility and democracy."The communiqué encouraged citizens to inform the nearest military center of any security violation or flaw, or contact the Army Command Operations Chamber at Extension 117.The communiqué reiterated that "no attempt to breach security or obstruct the smooth flow of elections shall be tolerated, under penalty of immediately arresting offenders and bringing them to justice."

Public Health Minister, Abu Faour: For reopening discussions over needed legislations, AbdelMonem Youssef away on vacation or a fugitive?
Sat 14 May 2016 /NNA - Public Health Minister, Wael Abu Faour, called on Saturday for "resuming discussions over needed legislations in the aftermath of municipal elections, since tens of vital project laws are still awaiting the State's approval."He then questioned the current status of OGERO Director General, Abdel-Monem Youssef, "whether he is present outside the country on an official vacation or an outlaw...suffering from an illness or a fugitive?"Abu Faour's words came during his patronage of the municipal palace inauguration in the town of Dahr el-Ahmar - Rashaya Province. Abu Faour touched on the municipal elections in the town, indicating that Progressive Socialist Party Head, MP Walid Jumblatt, sponsored consensus initiatives within numerous towns of Rashaya in an effort to avoid familial conflicts and divisions, and not in denial of democracy.
"As we inaugurate this building, we hope to start a new phase between various townsmen, deriving lessons from previous years and past bitter moments of rivalries and divisions," said Abu Faour, praising the joint efforts put together in establishing the new municipal palace in Dahr el-Ahmar.

Who really killed Hezbollah’s Mustafa Badreddine?
Brooklyn Middleton/Al Arabiya/May 14/16
Senior Hezbollah commander Mustafa Badreddine died in a “huge blast” near Damascus, the militant group confirmed via statement published by their media mouthpiece Al Manar on Friday. Badreddine’s death marks a victory for those affected by his involvement in attacks dating back to the 80s, reportedly including the deadly suicide truck bombing attack that left over 200 US soldiers dead in Beirut in 1983 as well as the bombings targeting the French and US embassies in Kuwait the same year, according to the New York Times. Notably, initial reporting by Al-Mayadeen blamed Israel for the fatal attack, claiming that an Israeli Air Force (IAF) strike successfully targeted Badreddine’s position. But, curiously, that article was reportedly erased, raising two key questions: Was it simply factually incorrect and did some other party opposed to Hezbollah manage to kill Badreddine, securing an incredible success, or is Hezbollah attempting to distance itself from blaming Israel so that it is not faced with intense pressure to directly retaliate against the country? The militant group is demonstrating that it remains capable and willing to strike back against whichever party it believes killed Badreddine It is possible that Israel saw a strategic opportunity to hit Badreddine and assessed that the likelihood such an operation would spark broader conflict remained low. Certainly, the losses Hezbollah has suffered in Syria and the bloodshed it has failed to prevent on its own soil in Lebanon has not put it in a favorable position to engage in direct conflict with Israel at this stage. If the militant group formally and publicly blamed Israel, its supporters would likely intensify calls for a more spectacular attack on Israel than planting an IED on the country’s border.

 Remaining quiet
While Israel has predictably remained quiet about its operation or lack thereof, the US formally denied it had any involvement in the attack, with White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirming that there were "no United States or coalition aircraft in the area" during the time of Badreddine’s death. If the Hezbollah commander did not die in an IAF attack and instead was killed by rival fighters on the ground, it would mark a rather humiliating and unremarkable end to a long, murderous career. Hezbollah released a statement in the coming hours indicating that "takfiri groups" were responsible for the explosion which killed the military commander. Through this statement, the militant group is demonstrating that it remains capable and willing to strike back against whichever party it believes killed Badreddine. Interestingly, Hezbollah MP Nawar al-Saheli’s reportedly blamed Israel for the attack, noting that their culpability was certain and vowing that, "The resistance will carry out its duties at the appropriate time.” It would be premature to assess Badreddine’s death – despite his status and the loss it represents to the organization – will provoke broader conflict with Israel in the immediate term. According to the statement released by Hezbollah about Badreddine’s death, he himself recently said, "I won't come back from Syria unless as a martyr or a carrier of the banner of victory." Ultimately now, the banner of victory is being carried not by Badreddine but by the victims of his deadly attacks.

Did Israel take advantage of Middle East mahem to take out Hezbollah leader?
Jerusalem Post/May 14/16
05/14/2016 20:0 It remains unclear who killed the top Hezbollah commander Mustafa Badreddine this week in Syria, but if Israel turns out to be responsible as a Hezbollah MP claimed, it signals an aggressive tactical move by Israel to take advantage of the mayhem in the region to take out its enemies.
Whether Israel is responsible or not, perhaps the killing of such a senior Hezbollah figure is a sign that there is currently a ripe opportunity for Israel to take out terror organization leaders in the region.
Iranian backed Hezbollah has suffered ongoing casualties during the Syrian civil war in its effort to prop up Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.
Israel has reportedly taken periodic action against Hezbollah targets in order to prevent weapons transfers from Syria to Lebanon since the Syrian uprising broke out in 2011.
The question is if Israel should press to assassinate Hezbollah and even Hamas leaders while the tumultuous regional chaos limits Israel’s enemies from uniting against it.
Hamas suffered greatly in the 2014 war and is busy preparing for the next round, including the building of tunnels into Israel.
Shi’ite Hezbollah is busy in a life and death struggle in Syria against Sunni rebels including Islamic State. Hamas is isolated as the Egyptian regime has been destroying smuggling tunnels and cracking down on jihadists in Sinai. The group’s relations with Iran and Hezbollah are strained because of its past stance in favor of the Syrian rebels against Iran ally Assad.
It appears the current regional circumstances allow for the least aggressive retaliation by Hamas and Hezbollah for any action against its interests.
“Hezbollah needs to walk a fine line. On the one hand, it will ultimately retaliate, but while also looking to avoid a major escalation leading to a full-blown war,” Tony Badran, research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told The Jerusalem Post.
Asked who he thinks is behind the attack, he responded that Israel is the most likely candidate, but Hezbollah is being careful in its statements, saying that it is still investigating the matter.
Badran points out that by naming Israel as the responsible party, Hezbollah would be forced to respond, even if not necessarily right away.
A number of Hezbollah commanders have been killed in Syria and Lebanon over the past three years, and, having blamed Israel for their deaths, Hezbollah has retaliated against Israel, if in a limited fashion.
However, Badran adds, especially after the strike in Quneitra that killed senior Hezbollah commanders and Imad Mughniyeh’s son in January of last year, “people don’t realize how close the situation came to escalating into a full blown war.”
Weeks after the strike in Quneitra, a Hezbollah operation killed two Israeli soldiers along the Lebanese border. Badran speculates that if more soldiers were killed, Israel would likely have felt the need to escalate, and a war could have erupted.
At the same time, Hezbollah continues to be mired in the Syrian war. “Badreddine’s death comes at a moment when Hezbollah and the Iranians are taking a lot of casualties in Aleppo in particular,” he said.
“I don’t see Syrian war winding down any time soon, and even when it does, things don’t simply go back exactly to how they were before,” he added.
Asked if now is the time for Israel to launch more assassinations against Hezbollah, Badran replied, “One could make a case, that because of Hezbollah's less than optimal position, as a result of Syria, it would be better to hit them now than wait until they improve their position.”
After the Syrian war winds down and Hezbollah secures its interests in Syria and Iran emerges as an internationally-recognized stakeholder in Syria, the situation could become more complicated for Israel.
“I suspect that from the perspective of Israel’s decision makers, if you have good intelligence and the opportunity presents itself, you take it,” he concluded.

UN envoy: Hezbollah growth threatens Lebanon
The Associated Press, United Nations/Saturday, 14 May 2016
Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflicts in Syria and more recently Iraq risks a spillover of sectarian tensions into Lebanon where ISIS and the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front are reported to be expanding, a UN envoy warned Friday. Terje Roed-Larsen expressed serious concern that not only have Hezbollah and other militias continued their activities since the Security Council ordered them to disband in 2004 “but if anything they have expanded.” He also expressed concern at the reported expansion of extremist groups, mostly in Palestinian refugee camps.He called for the urgent disbanding of all militias in his final briefing to the council before stepping down on May 31 after 12 years, saying “their growing capabilities ... represent a major and dangerous threat to Lebanon’s sovereignty, stability and political independence.”The Associated Press obtained the text of his closed briefing to the Security Council. Lebanon has a national unity government that includes Hezbollah, which has two Cabinet seats. But Hezbollah also has an armed wing that is stronger than the Lebanese national army and is considered a terrorist group by the United States, the European Union, and recently the Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council. The deployment of Hezbollah in Syria, backing President Bashar Assad, has widened the militant Shiite group’s circle of enemies beyond traditional foe Israel to include Sunni extremists and conservative Gulf monarchies. Lebanon also faces serious political and humanitarian challenges.
Its parliament has failed to elect a president since May 2014 because of a lack of quorum amid political disagreements, and parliamentary elections have been postponed for security concerns linked to the conflict in neighboring Syria. Lebanon is currently hosting over one million Syrian refugees and 41,000 Palestinian refugees from Syria. Roed-Larsen, who deals with implementation of the 2004 Security Council resolution that among other things calling for all militias operating in Lebanon to be disarmed and demobilized, urged international support for the country’s armed forces to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. He called on Hezbollah and other parties to implement Lebanon’s 2012 policy of “disassociation” from regional conflicts. He also urged Hezbollah and Israel to refrain from recent “provocative rhetoric” and abide by their obligations.
As for the presidency, Roed-Larsen urged Lebanese leaders “to set aside their partisan differences” and elect a president without further delay.
 

Hezbollah Receives More Local & Int’l Condolences over Badreddine’s Martyrdom
Local Editor/Al Manar/May 14/16/CondolencesHezbollah received on Saturday more local and international condolences in the form of statements, cables and phone calls, and direct attendance, over the martyrdom of senior commander Mustafa Badreddine. Head of the Free Patriotic Movement General Michel Aoun phoned Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah to condole him over the martyrdom of senior commander Mustafa Badreddine. Former Prime Minister Salim Al-Huss also called Sayyed Nasrallah to offer condolences on Badreddine's martyrdom. Meanwhile, Hezbollah continued kept receiving at Mujtaba complex in Beirut's Southern Suburb the political and public delegations that attended to express condolences over Sayyed Badreddine's martyrdom. The Mauritanian party of Al-Rafah also issued a statement in which it hailed the martyr's contributions, offering condolences to Hezbollah on the occasion. Hezbollah further has been receiving condoling cables and phone calls from several local and international parties and figures. Hezbollah announced on Saturday the result of investigations conducted over the martyrdom of Hezbollah martyr leader Sayyed Mustafa Badreddine near Damascus airport. In a statement early on Friday, Hezbollah had said that a huge blast hit one of the resistance centers near Damascus airport.
 

Ex-Argentine Leader Tells Court Son Was Killed by Hizbullah
Associated Press/Naharnet/May 14/16/Former Argentine President Carlos Menem said Friday he believes his son was killed by Hizbullah, which prosecutors also suspect was behind two 1990s bombings in Buenos Aires. In testimony to a judge overseeing the investigation of his son's death 21 years ago, Menem said that then-Foreign Minister Guido Di Tella had told him he heard through foreign embassies of Hizbullah's alleged involvement. But Menem, who was president from 1989-1999 and is currently a senator, did not give further details or any evidence for the claim. Carlos Facundo Menem was 26 when the helicopter he was piloting crashed on March 15, 1995. Menem and his ex-wife have long said they believed their son was slain, but had not previously specified who they thought killed him.Argentine prosecutors believe Hizbullah and Iran were responsible for the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center that killed 85 people in the worst terrorist attack on the nation. Both bombings occurred while Menem was president of Argentina, which has the largest Jewish population of any country in Latin America.Many Argentines believe the bombings were triggered by Menem's decision to bolster the country's relations with the United States while withdrawing support for Iran's ambitions to develop nuclear technology.

ABL Convenes in Special Meeting over Hizbullah Reactions to U.S. Sanctions
Associated Press/Naharnet/May 14/16/The Association of Banks in Lebanon (ABL) is set to hold a special meeting on Saturday to discuss the U.S. law that targets the sources of funding of Hizbullah which triggered dismay among the party's officials. The meeting will be chaired by the ABL chief Joseph Tarabay and comes after Hizbullah's Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc criticized the central bank for saying it would abide by a U.S. law that came into effect last month and which the party's lawmakers said violates Lebanon's sovereignty. The bloc said Thursday that U.S. sanctions on banks that knowingly do business with Hizbullah could threaten Lebanon's financial sector, hinting that supporters may withdraw their money from local banks. The statement came after a cabinet meeting Thursday in which officials discussed a decision by banks to shut down the accounts of at least two Hizbullah lawmakers, reports said. The decision drew concerns of some cabinet members that the law could affect Hizbullah's large network of social, educational and health organizations, which regularly deal with the government and provide services to needy Lebanese, not just supporters. Lebanon's central bank governor Riad Salameh has said that Lebanon will abide by the restrictions in the Hizbullah International Financing Prevention Act, which was signed into law in December. The U.S. regulations say Washington will target those "knowingly facilitating a significant transaction or transactions for" Hizbullah or any individual, business or institution linked to the group.

Report: International Delegations in Beirut Later this Month
Naharnet/May 14/16/Lebanon is set to receive later in May several delegations from Europe, Argentine and the United States, mainly the Assistant Treasury Secretary for Terrorist Financing Daniel Glaser, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Saturday. Glaser is expected to arrive on the 23 of May with a detailed file on the application of the U.S. law that targets the sources of funding of Hizbullah officials and institutions. His arrival coincides with a visit of a U.S. mission specialized in oil and energy affairs lead by Assistant Energy Minister to determine Lebanon's Exclusive Economic Zone, the daily said. There are fears that Lebanon's offshore oil wealth is under threat from Israel, after reports said that Israel had started drilling oil and gas wells near Lebanon's Exclusive Economic Zone by its southern border. In March 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated a mean of 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and a mean of 34.5 trillion cubic meters of recoverable gas in the Levant Basin in the eastern Mediterranean, which includes the territorial waters of Lebanon, Israel, Syria and Cyprus.Argentina's Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra will also arrive for a two-day visit, to be followed by a Belgian delegation. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault arrives on May 25 in preparation for the International Support Group for Lebanon.

Hizbullah Holds 'Takfiris' Responsible for Badreddine Assassination
Naharnet/May 14/16/Hizbullah party stated that takfiri groups were responsible for killing the party's top military commander Mustafa Badreddine in Syria in an artillery attack, the party's al-Manar TV said on Saturday. “An investigation has shown that the blast that targeted one of our positions near the Damascus international airport that led to the martyrdom of the brother commander Mustafa Badreddine was caused by artillery bombardment carried out by takfiri (Sunni extremist) groups present in that region,” a Hizbullah statement said. It did not name any particular group and there has been no claim of responsibility for the attack, which pro-Hizbullah media said happened on Thursday night. On Friday, Hizbullah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qassem said that the party will announce the results of its investigation into the assassination of Badreddine “within hours.”“Israel and the takfiris received painful blows in the past few years,” said Qassem at Badreddine's funeral in Beirut's southern suburbs, hinting that any of them could be involved in the operation that occurred in Syria near Damascus' airport. Hizbullah had said on Friday that it was still investigating the cause of a blast near Damascus airport but it did not immediately point the finger at Israel as it did when the commander's predecessor, Imad Mughniyeh, was assassinated in the Syrian capital in 2008. Badreddine, who was in his mid-50s, was a key player in Hizbullah's military wing. He was on a U.S. terror sanctions blacklist and a key suspect in the 2005 assassination in Beirut of ex-premier Rafik Hariri in addition to being one of Israel's most wanted men.Hizbullah has deployed thousands of fighters in Syria where Badreddine led its intervention in support of President Bashar Assad.

Competition Heats up ahead of Mount Lebanon's Municipal Polls
Naharnet/May 14/16/The second round of Lebanon's municipal elections are set to kick off in Mount Lebanon on Sunday following mostly successful polls held a week earlier in the capital Beirut and in the Bekaa and Baalbek-al-Hermel district.
The elections are the first vote of any kind in Lebanon since the last municipal polls in 2010. The rivalry for the municipal and mayoral positions in Mount Lebanon is said to be tough mainly in the town of Jounieh where reports have described it as the “mother of all battles.”The battle is said to be tough as well in Beirut's southern suburb of al-Ghobeiry and Hadath and in the town of Sin el-Fil.Several candidates competing for the municipal and mayoral position have declared earlier uncontested victory in several towns and villages around Lebanon.The media office of Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq said in a statement that the 834,768 voters are to head to the polling stations on Sunday in Mount Lebanon's six districts of Baabda, Jbeil, Keserwan, Aley, Chouf and Metn. Elections in South Lebanon and Nabatieh are set on May 22, and in the North, including Akkar, on May 29.

Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on May 15/16

Another Syria Peace Push, but Has U.S. Put Too Much Faith in Russia?
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 14/16/First a ceasefire in Syria, then aid and then -- who knows -- perhaps a political transition? Don't bet on it, analysts warn, saying Washington has put too much faith in Moscow. Efforts to end Syria's brutal five-year civil war may hang by a thread, but Washington's top diplomat will once again throw himself into the fray. Secretary of State John Kerry set off on Friday for Saudi Arabia to consult with his Arab ally before talks on Syria in Vienna on Tuesday. Once again, senior officials from the 17-nation International Syria Support Group (ISSG) will meet to reaffirm their support for peace. But will they have any more success than they have had so far? Or will Bashar al-Assad and his rebel foes fight on as Syria drowns in blood?"Obviously, not all the trend lines in Syria are going in the right direction," Kerry's spokesman John Kirby admitted on Friday. "There's plenty of work to be done in the ISSG," he added. "And the secretary is still mindful of the challenges ahead." But many of the US administration's critics think the plan is doomed by a fundamental flaw -- it relies on Russia's good graces. - Regional paranoia -Kerry and his Kremlin counterpart Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the odd couple of great power diplomacy, are co-chairs of the ISSG. Moscow has undertaken to pressure its ally Assad to respect the shaky truce that Washington hopes will smooth the path to political talks. And the US, with regional ally Saudi Arabia, is working to reassure an opposition coalition that a ceasefire will lead to a political transition. But what if, reassured by the military and diplomatic support of Russia and Iran, Assad and his regime have no intention of standing aside?
"Regardless of what the Russians might want, they are effectively supporting a victory operation on behalf of Syria and the Iranians," said Jim Jeffrey, a former top diplomat and senior adviser to president George W. Bush. "And all we have against this is to meet with the Russians and plead with them to adhere to all of these agreements," he told Agence France Presse, arguing that Moscow has already backtracked. "The Russians agreed to a clear political transition -- they have not delivered on that."And it is not just former senior officials from Republican administrations who feel Kerry's Russian outreach will not be enough to dislodge Assad. "Keep in mind we're not asking the regime to come to the table," said Philip Gordon, a former member of President Barack Obama's National Security Council. "We're asking them not to exist. We're asking them to get rid of their leader," he told reporters this week at the Council on Foreign Relations. Kerry's response to this obvious flaw in the ISSG strategy is to hope that Russia will grow tired of propping up its friend in Damascus. Gordon, Jeffrey and many others -- including serving diplomats from US allies speaking privately -- find this naive. "I think many have consistently underestimated Russia's determination to prevent this regime from falling," Gordon said. In Jeddah before the full ISSG meeting, Kerry will seek to reassure the Saudis -- and through them the Syrian opposition -- that Assad's days are numbered. But it is not clear what will happen if he holds on beyond the supposed August 1 cut-off that the ISSG has agreed must be the start of a process of transition. Obama, still proud of his record as the president who extricated the United States from Iraq, shows no sign of wanting deeper military involvement in Syria. Earlier this year, Kerry publicly floated the idea of a 'Plan B' in which stepped up US and allied support for the rebels might give Assad pause. But he has gone silent on that idea in recent weeks, and his spokesman refuses to address it.
"There is no plan B for Syria. It's a very different situation," snorted Jeffrey, now a fellow at the Washington Institute."These guys are on a roll and everybody in the Middle East notices this," he said of President Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Meanwhile, some observers suggest the overthrow of Assad should not be Washington's main target. - Military options -Gordon argued that the current position on the ground -- with Russian and Iranian forces defending Assad -- means any US meaningful intervention would be costly. "It is perfectly legitimate to argue we should do whatever it takes," Gordon said of military options. "But let's not pretend it's a modest increase."The US and its Saudi, Turkish and Gulf Arab allies could increase the scale and sophistication of arms in the hands of the rebels. But without a large-scale US-led intervention -- one that the American public would likely not support -- Assad could cling to power to power indefinitely. "If you are not prepared to do what I think would be necessary to do to achieve that political objective, then you have to change that political objective or accept that the war just goes on with all of these consequences," Gordon argued. Instead of the Kerry plan -- which Kirby outlined as being to secure a truce, extend humanitarian aid and then begin a transition -- why not shift the focus off Assad? Then, Gordon argued, if the ceasefire takes hold and people begin to see the benefits of peace, areas outside Assad's control may begin to develop self-governance. Jeffrey, by contrast, called for a tougher stance. He compared the Syria strategy to the relatively successful bid to freeze the Ukraine conflict by stepping up NATO's military posture and imposing sanctions on Moscow. Would either plan work? No one can guarantee it. But nothing else has.

Care about Syrians as much as gay weddings: Erdogan to West
AP | Ankara Saturday, 14 May 2016 /Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has slammed Western countries, saying they care more about gay and animal rights than the fate of conflict-stricken Syrians. Addressing a large crowd Friday in northwest Turkey, Erdogan also accused the West of possessing a mindset “remnant of slavery and colonialism.” His latest anti-Western outburst came amid a standoff with the European Union over its demand that Turkey amend its anti-terrorism laws to secure visa-free travel in Europe for Turks. Erdogan said: “Shame on those who don’t show sensitivity ... to the women and children who reach out to them for help.”He added: “Shame on those who deny the sensitivity they show to ... the whales, the seals and the turtles in the sea to 23 million Syrians.”

ISIS attacks Syrian hospital, declares state of emergency
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Saturday, 14 May 2016 /ISIS on Saturday killed 20 members of pro-regime forces in an attack on a Syrian hospital in the eastern city of Deir Ezzor, a monitoring group said after the militant group declared a state of emergency in its stronghold city in the conflict-torn country.
“ISIS attacked Al-Assad hospital at the city’s eastern entrance, killing at least 20 soldiers and allied fighters,” said Rami Abdel Rahman, director of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. He said the attack sparked clashes in which six militants were also killed. Meanwhile, a US military official has seen reports of ISIS declaring a state of emergency in Raqqa, its self-declared capital in Syria. "We have seen this declaration of emergency in Raqqa, whatever that means," Col. Steve Warren, the spokesman for the US-led anti-ISIS coalition, was cited by CNN as saying on Friday. "We know this enemy feels threatened, as they should."It is believed that the militant group feels it may soon come under siege in Raqqa through air strikes and ground attacks. "They see the Syrian Democratic Forces, along with the Syrian Arab Coalition, maneuver both to their east and to their west," Warren said. "Both of these areas becoming increasingly secure, and the Syrian Democratic Forces increasingly able to generate their own combat power in those areas."ISIS is reportedly “|moving personnel around the city and trying to put up covers in certain areas” as part of the state of emergency declaration, according to CNN. "We've had reports of ISIL repositioning both their combat capabilities, I guess what they think may be coming next," Warren said, using another acronym for ISIS. "And we've seen reports of them repositioning personnel ... either within the city or even out of the city."CNN quoted a US defense official as saying that ISIS leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi "remains extremely careful" about his personal security.He also said ISIS snipers are targeting humanitarian corridors established by security forces to relieve suffering in the ISIS-held city of Fallujah in Iraq.
Deadly airstrikes in Idlib
In a related story, suspected Syrian government airstrikes in the northern city of Idlib killed at least 12 people on Friday, activists said. The strikes came as part of an intensified air campaign launched after Islamic militants, including al-Qaeda fighters, seized a central Alawite village. President Bashar Assad hails from the Alawite minority, an offshoot of Shiite Islam that has been targeted by Sunni militants throughout the civil war. Raed Saleh, the head of a first responders group that operates in opposition-held areas, said at least 15 bodies, including those of three children, were pulled from the rubble after two airstrikes in a residential area of Idlib. He said another 38 people were wounded. The Observatory, which relies on activists inside Syria, put the death toll at 12 and said it was likely to rise as rescue efforts were still underway. A coalition of insurgent groups, including the al-Qaida-affiliated Nusra Front, captured Idlib and the surrounding province of the same name last year. The airstrikes came a day after insurgents captured the village of Zaara in central Syria, where activists and government media said dozens of civilians were killed. Ahmad al-Ahmad, an activist from the nearby city of Hama, and the Observatory said airstrikes were also launched around Zaara on Friday, where clashes were still underway. Syria’s state news agency SANA said government warplanes struck Nusra Front strongholds in Idlib province and Hama, killing more than 30 militants. US State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters in Washington that initial reports of the violence in Zaara were “very, very troubling,” and indicated it was based on “religious affiliation.” But he said it was not yet clear who was responsible. (With AFP, AP)

ISIS kills at least five in Iraq suicide raid
AFP | BaghdadSaturday, 14 May 2016 /ISIS infiltrated a town in Iraq’s Anbar province with several fighters wearing suicide belts Saturday, in a raid that killed at least five people, security officials said. The militant attackers entered Amriyat al-Fallujah, a government-held town 50 kilometres (30 miles) southwest of Baghdad and a key base for any operation against the ISIS-controlled city of Fallujah, further north. “Eight suicide bombers snuck into the city, the security forces succeeded to repel the attack by killing five of them,” Major General Ismail al-Mahalawi, who heads Anbar Operations Command, told AFP. “The other three blew themselves up, which led to the killing of three civilians and two policemen,” he said. A leader of the tribal forces assisting federal forces in Anbar confirmed the death toll and said the situation had been brought back under control. The government’s “war media cell” that provides updates on Iraq’s fight against the militants posted a video of fighters shooting in the air to celebrate their thwarting of the attack. A vehicle could be seen dragging the body of an attacker on the road as pro-government fighters cheered. Amriyat al-Fallujah lies around 20 kilometres (12 miles) south of Fallujah, which is one of the two main remaining cities ISIS controls in the country. The other is Mosul, the country’s second city, which lies in the north of Iraq and has a much larger population. Iraqi forces have been making steady progress in Anbar this year, retaking full control of the capital Ramadi and wresting territory back from IS ISin several parts of the province. Fallujah has found itself almost completely surrounded, raising concern over the fate of civilians trapped there with dwindling food supplies. The US-led coalition that backs Iraqi forces with air strikes, training and special forces on the ground, has set Mosul as its priority, hoping to deal a fatal blow to ISIS’ self-proclaimed “caliphate”.

25 Palestinian children killed in 3 months: UNICEF
AFP, Jerusalem Saturday, 14 May 2016/Twenty-five Palestinian children were killed in the last three months of 2015 during a wave of anti-Israeli attacks and the number detained was the highest in seven years, the UN children’s agency said. “Serious concerns arose regarding excessive use of force, particularly in relation to incidents where Palestinian children were shot dead by Israeli security forces after carrying out or being suspected of carrying out stabbing attacks,” UNICEF said in a report. It said more than 1,300 Palestinian children were injured during the spike in attacks, almost all in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, while three Israeli children were hurt in the West Bank and west Jerusalem. UNICEF cited the example on October 25 in Hebron in the West Bank of a 17-year-old girl who was “taken by IDF (Israel Defence Forces) soldiers for a search, shot with at least five bullets and killed.”“Israeli authorities said that she had attempted to stab a policeman, however an eyewitness stated that she was not presenting any threat at the time she was shot, and was shouting that she did not have a knife,” it said.Compared with the high toll for the October-December period, UNICEF recorded four Palestinian children killed and 165 injured between July and September. UNICEF also voiced alarm over the number of Palestinian children aged between 12 and 17 held by the Israeli army, noting the tally stood at 422 at the end of December according to the Israeli prison service, the highest recorded since March 2009. Israeli law allows Palestinian children from the age of 12 to be put on trial. Since the October outbreak of a wave of unrest, 204 Palestinians and 28 Israelis have been killed. Most of the Palestinians killed were carrying out knife, gun or car-ramming attacks, Israeli authorities say.

Trump Muslim ban doesn’t include ‘every Muslim’
Staff writer, Al Arabiya EnglishSaturday, 14 May 2016/US Presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the country last year “never included every single Muslim,” his campaign spokeswoman said on Friday. Trump “has not backpedaled on his Muslim ban,” Katrina Pierson said in an interview with US network CNN, responding to a claims that the tycoon-turned presumptive Republican nominee had softened his stance closer to the November election. “He said he would back off of it in an instant if things have taken place where we can properly vet individuals,” Pierson said. Trump called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US back in December, in response to a shooting spree by two radicalized Muslims in California that killed 14 people. In the Friday interview, Trump’s spokeswoman insisted that the ban was a “suggestion” and an “immigration policy.”“It never included American Muslims living overseas. It never included anyone other than those looking to immigrate into this country. So even that has been total media spin and completely false.” Media attention of Trump’s controversial proposal resurfaced after London’s newly-elected Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan had expressed worries that he would not be able to visit the United States were Trump elected in November.Khan told Time magazine that “Trump's ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe -- it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists.”Trump said in response, that “there will always be exceptions,” to his proposed ban. (With AFP)

clashes kill one Turkish soldier, two PKK militants
AFP, AnkaraSaturday, 14 May 2016 /One soldier and two Kurdish rebels were killed in clashes on Saturday in Turkey’s restive southeast, the Turkish army said.
Two soldiers were also wounded in the fighting in the Daglica region of Hakkari province near the Iraqi border, the army said on its website. “Our hero comrade fell martyr during the armed clashes with the terrorists,” the army said, referring to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) listed as a terror group by Turkey and its Western allies. It said “two terrorists” were killed, adding there was an ongoing operation to hunt PKK rebels in the region. Six Turkish soldiers were killed on Friday in a clash with Kurdish militants in the Cukurca district of Hakkari while two more lost their lives when a military helicopter sent to the scene crashed. Turkish F-16 and F4 jets dropped bombs on PKK targets in the southeast and in northern Iraq on Friday, the army said. Ninety-eight targets came under fire in nine air strikes around Hakkari province, as well as several regions in northern Iraq including the mountainous Kandil area, it added. Turkey has been waging an offensive against the PKK after the collapse in 2015 of a two-year ceasefire declared by the group. Hundreds of members of the Turkish security forces have been killed in attacks since. Over 40,000 people have been killed since the PKK took up arms in 1984 demanding a homeland for Turkey’s biggest minority. Since then, the group has pared back its demands to focus on cultural rights and a measure of autonomy.

Gulf states, Pakistan slam Iranian attempt to politicize pilgrimage
Saudi Gazette, RiyadhSaturday, 14 May 2016 /The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) slammed on Friday the Iranian attempts to politicize the annual pilgrimage of hajj and misuse it to harm Saudi Arabia. Abdullatif Al-Zayani, secretary-general of the six-member GCC, said in a statement that the Gulf states denounced the move by Iran to politicize hajj through putting hurdles to block a final agreement with Saudi Arabia in facilitating the arrival of Iranian pilgrims to perform the pilgrimage during the upcoming season. “The GCC states emphasize that the Iranian officials should realize that hajj is a sacred religious duty for all Muslims and it should not be linked to political stances or differences between countries under any circumstances,” he said while urging Iran to cooperate with the concerned Saudi authorities to finalize arrangements so that pilgrims from the country can fulfill the obligatory religious duty, the Saudi Press Agency reported.Al-Zayani expressed appreciation of the GCC states to the government of Saudi Arabia for its utmost keenness and care in the case of hajj and umrah pilgrims as well as visitors to the two holy mosques. The GCC chief’s comments came in the wake of Iran’s refusal to sign the annual agreement for this year’s hajj and a ban imposed on its Umrah pilgrims. Meanwhile, Sheikh Taher Mahmoud Al-Ashrafi, chairman of the Pakistan Scholars Council, lauded the great efforts being made by the government of Saudi Arabia in offering the best possible services and facilities for hajj and umrah pilgrims. In a statement issued in Lahore on Friday, he categorically rejected demands raised by the Iranian Hajj delegation for signing a bilateral agreement for this year’s hajj. “The performance of hajj rituals is a religious duty of Muslims and making arrangements for the performance of hajj in the holy land is a sovereign right of Saudi Arabia. And hence, the Islamic Ummah will reject any interference in this matter,” Al-Ashrafi said while warning Iran against politicizing the pilgrimage.

Iran says Holocaust cartoon contest is not a denial
AP | TehranSaturday, 14 May 2016 /Iran is staging an international cartoon contest on the Holocaust, saying it is not a denial of the Nazi massacre.
Masuod Shojai-Tabatabai, the secretary of the contest, said Saturday, that they have no interest in denying the Holocaust or “ridiculing its victims.”He added that the world was witnessing a similar massacre “by the Zionist regime in Gaza and Palestine.”Some 150 works from 50 countries are on display. The works mainly criticize what they consider the use of the Holocaust by Israel to distract from the Palestine issue.Cartoonists from various countries, including France, are competing in the contest which is organized by non-governmental bodies with strong support from Iran’s hard-liners.

Russia Says Yacht Detained by North Korea
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 14/16/A Russian yacht has been detained by North Korean coastguards in the Sea of Japan with five crew on board and towed in to land, Russian officials said Saturday. "The North Korean side has communicated that the yacht has been taken to the port of Kimchaek," Igor Agafonov, a foreign ministry official in the far-eastern city of Vladivostok told state-run RIA Novosti news agency. "The crew is alive and well. We are still waiting for an explanation from North Korea as to the reasons for the detention," Agafonov said, adding that diplomats were seeking permission to visit the crew. Earlier an unnamed official at the Russian embassy in Pyongyang told TASS news agency that the sailboat Elfin was detained by North Korean coastguards late Friday with five people on board as it was sailing from a competition in the South Korean port of Busan to Vladivostok. "The embassy... has handed over a note to the North Korean side demanding the immediate release of the crew," Denis Samsonov, a spokesman for the Russian mission in North Korea, told RIA Novosti. On Friday the vice president of the regional sailing federation Yevgeny Khromchenko wrote on Facebook that the vessel had been stopped by "North Korean fishermen" 85 nautical miles (160 kilometres) from shore and was being towed in to land. Russia shares a short land border with North Korea and enjoys relatively friendly ties with the country's reclusive Stalinist regime.

Migrants Rescued off Sicily are not Syrians, U.N. Says
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 14/16/There were hardly any Syrian migrants among the 800 people rescued off Sicily, contrary to earlier reports from Italy's coastguard, the U.N. and the International Organization for Migration have confirmed. The coastguard had said Thursday that half of the 342 migrants they had picked up were Syrians, sparking concern that the flow of Syrians previously attempting to cross into Europe via Turkey and Greece was shifting to Italian shores. Around 50,000 Syrians arrived in Italy between mid-2013 and early 2014, after which Greece became the route of choice, the IOM said. While only 26 people from the war-torn country have landed in Italy this year, a deal between Turkey and the EU to close down that route and return those attempting to cross has raised fears Syrians would begin once more to set out for Sicily. Of the 800 arrivals, only two people were believed to be Syrians. "The information was incorrect," Carlotta Sami, Italy spokeswoman for the UN's Refugee Agency, told Agence France Presse after UNHCR humanitarian workers spoke to the newly-arrived migrants on Friday after they were brought to various ports on the Italian island. "There are a lot of different nationalities: Yemenis, Somalis, Eritreans, South Sudanese", she said, while IOM spokesman Flavio di Giacomo said there were also many Egyptians and a high number of unaccompanied minors. The IOM said what was notable was the rise in the number of people setting off from Egypt rather than Libya. The 800 migrants rescued had all departed from Egypt, and there has been a 10-fold increase in the numbers leaving from there in the first four months of the year, compared to the same period in 2015, di Giacomo said. The boats used by Egyptian smugglers are usually in a better condition than those employed by their Libyan counterparts, who rely almost exclusively on poor-quality inflatable dinghies.But the length of the crossing and greater numbers of people packed onto the boats raises the risk of tragedies at sea.
 

Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on May 15/16

How to pull the world economy out of its rut
Peter Coy| Bloomberg/ May. 14/16
Crazy things are happening in the world economy. In Europe and Japan, interest rates have turned negative, something long thought impossible. In the U.S., workers’ productivity is improving at the feeblest five-year rate since 1982. China is a confusing welter of slumping growth and asset bubbles. Through it all, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen practices the central banker’s art of draining the drama from any situation. She insists that conditions are returning to normal, albeit slowly. Her favored approach, “data dependence,” is nonpredictive and noncommittal, like finding your way in the dark by pointing a flashlight at your toes.
Lawrence Summers, the Harvard economist who almost got Yellen’s job, has no patience for such patience. Since losing out to Yellen in 2013, he’s been jetting around the world – from Santiago to St. Louis to Florence, Italy – to argue that the world economy is in much worse shape than central bankers understand. Focusing on monetary policy alone, he says, they’re doomed to fall short of reviving growth. They need to reach out to the governments they work for, he argues, and insist on strong fiscal stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending and the like. As an intellectual brawler from way back, he’s in his element.
The jury’s still out on Yellen vs. Summers. Boring does not equal wrong, and provocative does not equal right. If the U.S. economy heals nicely over the next few years under business as usual, Yellen’s incrementalism will look smart. But the longer things stay weird, the more Summers appears to be onto something.
“My sense is that if Larry’s hypothesis is true, it’s a total game changer. It will affect how we think about macroeconomic policy for the next several decades,” says Gauti Eggertsson, an Iceland native who worked in the Federal Reserve System for eight years and is now a macroeconomic theorist at Brown University. In November, after Summers presented his ideas at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, its president, Adam Posen, himself a former policymaker at the Bank of England, blogged that “all of us in the profession have a lot of work to do” to respond to the “disturbing questions” Summers raised.
For economic policymakers, the most disturbing question is why global growth remains paltry and uneven. The annual growth rate of gross domestic product in the U.S. in the January-March quarter was just 0.5 percent. The eurozone was stronger than the U.S., at 2.2 percent; Japan, which has been flipping in and out of recessions for a quarter century, shrank 1.1 percent. Deflation once seemed to be a strictly Japanese problem – now it’s a worldwide threat. Pessimism about growth prospects is reflected in low forecasts for long-term interest rates. The annual yield on German 10-year notes is only 0.13 percent.
It wasn’t obvious in the summer of 2013, when President Obama was choosing between Yellen and Summers, that Summers would turn out to have such out-of-the-box ideas. Obama said that “when it comes down to their basic philosophy on the future of the Fed,” the differences between the candidates were so small “you couldn’t slide a paper between them,” according to Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who attended a meeting with the president. Both were highly credentialed – she as a longtime Fed official who was a labor economist at the University of California at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business; he as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, former Harvard University president, and former head of Obama’s National Economic Council. If anything, Yellen seemed more likely to be an activist Fed chair and “would probably be more committed to keeping stimulus in place until the economy was definitely recovered,” Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase, said at the time.
But in November 2013, after Yellen was chosen but before she replaced Ben Bernanke as chair, Summers went to the International Monetary Fund in Washington and raised the specter of “secular stagnation,” a term coined in the Great Depression by Harvard economist Alvin Hansen, who lamented “sick recoveries which die in their infancy, and depressions which feed on themselves and leave a hard and seemingly immovable form of unemployment.” “Secular” is econospeak for long-lasting, as opposed to cyclical. Hansen’s warnings about secular stagnation seemed to be disproved when U.S. growth accelerated in World War II and then remained strong after the war stimulus ended.
For Summers, bringing the idea of secular stagnation back into the academic debate was like putting on a moldy old coat from Grandpa’s attic. But revive it he did. “Now, this may all be madness, and I may not have this right at all,” he told the IMF audience, before coming around to saying, “we may well need, in the years ahead, to think about how we manage an economy in which the zero nominal interest rate is a chronic and systemic inhibitor of economic activity, holding our economies back below their potential.”
In other words, Summers claimed world economies could be so imbalanced that even zero interest rates would be too high – and for many years, not just briefly as economists had believed. The speech lit up the Twitterverse and drew heavy news coverage. Journalists’ attention has waned a bit, but Summers has kept developing the concept on his blog, in his Financial Times columns, in speeches, and in papers written with other economists, including Brown’s Eggertsson, who’s translated Summers’ thinking into the formal language of general-equilibrium economics. The real world is helping Summers’ case. The longer stagnation lasts, the more it looks secular rather than just cyclical. “I’ve come to a growing conviction” that the theory is right, he says.
To be clear, Summers is challenging much more than when and how much the Fed should raise interest rates. True, he criticized it for voting in December to lift the federal funds rate by a quarter of a percentage point after seven years at just more than zero. But that’s an ordinary argument over how high to set the monetary thermostat.
Summers’ deeper argument is that world growth is stuck in a rut because there’s a chronic shortage of demand for goods and services and a concomitant excess of desired savings. The U.S. and other industrialized nations tend to save more as their populations age, he says. Meanwhile, growing inequality puts a bigger share of the world’s income in the pockets of rich people; they can’t spend everything they make, so they save it. The investment that would ordinarily soak up those savings is falling short. That’s partly because the new economy is asset-lite: Companies such as Uber and Airbnb prosper by exploiting assets (cars and houses) that already exist. Software, which is pure information and doesn’t require the construction of factories, accounts for a bigger share of the economy. Slow growth in output and productivity reduces investment as executives lose faith in the payoff from capital spending.
Exhibit No. 1 in Summers’ case: Interest rates have been trending down for 30 years, even after taking into account the decline in inflation. The interest rate, like any price, reflects supply and demand. It’s fallen because the demand for loans is weak and the supply of loans from savers, who have extra cash to deploy, is strong. It used to be thought that interest rates couldn’t go below zero, but the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank, among others, are so desperate to kindle growth that they’ve pushed some rates below what used to be called the “zero lower bound” into negative territory.
Despite opposing the Fed’s December hike, Summers continues to worry that an extended period of ultralow and even negative rates will cause bubbles in assets like stocks and housing, as desperate investors chase after higher returns. He says fiscal policy needs to play a much bigger role than it has. How? On the investment side, he favors government spending to fix America’s dilapidated roads and bridges, combat global warming, and improve education – big, expensive projects that would provide value while soaking up excess savings. A favorite line: “The United States right now has the lowest infrastructure investment rate that it has had since World War II.” On the savings side, he favors, among other things, changing the tax code to get more money into the hands of lower-income and middle-class families who’d spend rather than hoard it.
This, of course, sounds a lot like the agenda Obama has been pushing unsuccessfully for the past eight years. “To me, it looks like an opinion masquerading as a theory,” Arnold Kling, a former Fed economist, wrote on his blog in 2014. Congress shows no interest in any measure that smells like fiscal stimulus – especially now, with lawmakers hiding under their desks until after the election. Summers responds that his prescription is separable from his diagnosis; conservatives might prefer to fix the problem with, say, export promotion, the elimination of wasteful regulations, and big tax cuts to induce companies to build factories.
Summers has been getting more of a hearing from central bankers around the world. His message to them: Think bigger. The Fed traditionally restricts itself to managing the “business cycle” – fluctuations of output around a supposed long-term upward trend. Summers questions the very existence of a business cycle, an inherently optimistic concept implying that what goes down must come up. When output declines, his research shows, it never quite gets back to its original trajectory. Productive capacity suffers lasting damage, in part because laid-off workers lose skills. That makes it imperative to avoid a recession whenever possible. Yet Summers says the odds of a U.S. recession in the next three years are “significantly better than 50-50.”
Lately, he’s added the idea that secular stagnation is infectious, spreading between countries by trade and investment flows. A stagnant country can try to cure its unemployment problem by pushing down the value of its currency and running a big trade surplus; that worsens unemployment in its trading partners, which suffer trade deficits, according to recent work by Eggertsson, Summers and others. Beggar-thy-neighbor trade theory, in other words, is alive and well.
Summers argues that central bankers should stop focusing on the business cycle, stop jealously guarding their independence, and work with other institutions to solve the deep problems that have gotten the economy into this condition. “Central banks like to say ... ‘Well, yeah, productivity growth’s a problem. That’s not our problem, though.’ ‘Inequality’s a problem. That’s not our problem, though,’” Summers said in a question-and-answer session after his Peterson talk. “I would suggest that no major central banker in the world is seriously engaged with this as an issue.”
The Federal Reserve System employs more Ph.D. economists than any other organization in the world, so it would seem to be an ideal place to bang out big ideas about secular stagnation. But Fed economists tend to focus on short-term forecasting and the mechanics of monetary policy, Peterson’s Posen says. Yellen can’t afford to indulge in blue-skying. Her most important job is to move the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee along by baby steps, maintaining as much of a consensus as possible among hawks and doves and being careful not to surprise the financial markets. “If you’re a member of a central bank committee, let alone the chair, every word gets scrutinized,” Posen says.
On the narrow question of where rates are headed, the Fed is gradually drifting in Summers’ direction. The median projection by rate setters of where the federal funds rate will eventually settle has come down a full percentage point, to 3.25 percent, since the Fed began releasing projections in 2012. But Yellen, unlike Summers, isn’t calling on Congress to amp up stimulus. In a speech in November at the Banque de France, she said contractionary tax-and-spending policy was “hardly ideal,” but gave fiscal authorities an out by saying they had to take long-term sustainability into account.
Yellen has tiptoed around secular stagnation, referring to the theory but not endorsing it. Her right-hand man, Vice Chair Stanley Fischer, who taught Summers, Bernanke, and European Central Bank president Mario Draghi at MIT and once ran Israel’s central bank, seems more open to the idea that something fundamental has changed. Speaking to academic economists in San Francisco in January, he referred to “the secular stagnation hypothesis, forcefully put forward by Larry Summers in a number of papers.” He agreed that interest rates will likely “remain low for the policy-relevant future.” He even entertained one of Summers’ solutions for the savings/investment imbalance: government spending on long-term projects. Summers says: “Even people who don’t like to use the term ‘secular stagnation’ are accepting new realities of excess saving relative to investment, very low rates, and chronic demand shortfall.”
One big fact is hard to square with Summers’ idea that the economy suffers from a shortfall in demand – namely, the 5 percent U.S. unemployment rate. If Americans spend a lot more, as he desires, there might not be enough workers available to handle the demand. The result could be a bidding war for talent, climbing wages and unacceptably high inflation.
Princeton’s Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chairman, is one of a group of economists who argue that economic stagnation emanates from weak supply, not weak demand. “When I go to sleep at night worrying about the economy, I’m never worrying that Americans won’t spend enough,” he says.
Robert Gordon of Northwestern University similarly says growth is impeded by a lack of innovation – a supply-side explanation.
Summers, no surprise, has an answer to those objections. He says there may be more slack in the labor market than is sometimes recognized. And he says the demand-side and supply-side explanations for stagnation aren’t mutually exclusive: Weak demand growth can itself damage the supply side of the economy – i.e., the people and machines who make stuff. Unemployment causes workers’ skills to atrophy; companies stop investing in equipment and software.
Strengthening demand can turn that vicious circle around and gradually raise the economy’s productive potential, Summers says. Far from crowding out private investment, government spending could induce more of it.
When interest rates can go negative, all of the verities in economics are up for grabs. Economists joke that the questions on their doctoral exams haven’t changed in 50 years, but the answers have. The joke “captures a truth,” Summers says.
He seems to relish being in the midst of the upheaval. “That’s the effect of living backward,” the White Queen told Alice in Wonderland. “It always makes one a little giddy at first.”

Prospects of a Coup in Baghdad and the US-Iran Understanding to End the Crisis
Middle East Briefing/May 14/16
We would like first to apologize for an inaccuracy reported last week. We mistakenly wrote that refugees from Fallujah were sheltered only by Iraqi Kurds. While the KRG allowed thousands of Sunni Fallujans in its territory and provided shelters and food to them, over a thousand of Fallujah refugees were also hosted in Najaf and Karbala under instructions from Ayatollah Sistani. We wish that our readers in Iraq who corrected our information exert some pressure to reduce the blind bombing of the city which is the original reason for the death of many civilians there recently while many others fled the destroyed town and became refugees in their own country.
Now, we turn back to the course of the current absurd political crisis in Iraq. According to information obtained through several Iraqi sources, the US and Iran were engaged in intensive behind the scene talks to reach a plan to contain the deteriorating political fight in Baghdad. The talks were based on the fact that the two countries have a stake in Iraq, they both see the crisis as distraction from the fight against ISIL, and they both agree that Abadi should remain in the driving wheel for the time being (though he is not that good of a driver anyway).
None of the two countries has the stomach now for a protracted political fight in Baghdad. Salim Al Jabouri would remain in his post as the Speaker of the Parliament, the Parliament would reconvene and resume its daily carnival, and a new cabinet formed with the consent of the major political blocks would be formed.
This set of affairs is simply a return to the point prior to Abadi’s short-lived attempt to reform.
The protests of Muqtada Al Sadr followers stormed the Parliament claiming they want a cabinet of technocrats to fight corruption and sectarian quotas. The religious leader was summoned to Qom to be “calmed down” and his supporters scaled down their uprising. Salim Jabouri, the Speaker who was the focus of the crisis when Maliki supporters and others tried to force him out of his post in a show of strength, is still trying as hard as he can to convene the Parliament and get things back to its normal track.
The most likely scenario is that the Parliament will indeed reconvene and things will go back on their normal track. But while American and Iranian officials would congratulate themselves and each other for pulling Iraq back from the edge and getting things back to track, others would not probably see that in fact, things changed and would not go back to the same point where they were.
Baghdad is virtually divided mainly between three forces. The Badr militia controls large parts of the west of the capital, Asayeb Ahlu Al Iraq controls the east of Baghdad, while Al Sadr loyalists control the Sadr city.
It is not only that Baghdad passed the period of the crisis without effective official police and security presence, the crisis also made the idea of storming the Green Zone by force again closer to all eyes. Sadr supporters may have done more than a short protest inside the zone that symbolizes the political immunity of the state.
It is indeed worth reflection. On what was the central government hanging when its political sanctuary was violated? There was no Parliament. There was no cabinet. And the city itself was under the control of militias. What kept Abadi floating?
Police forces were nowhere to be seen in Baghdad during the crisis. It was various wings of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)–a dominantly Shia force—which spread their control over the capital. The Spokesman of PMF Karim Al Nouri unconvincingly said that the deployment of the PMF units was done for “religious reasons”. “We wanted merely to secure visitors to the shrine of Imam Kadhim. We receive order from the Commander in Chief, Prime Minister Haider Abadi”.
The deployed PMF forces were its elite units: Al Khurasani Brigades, Ashoura Brigades and Al Jihad battalions. They spread their control swiftly in Baghdad while the Interior Ministry, which has powerful influence over the PMF, pulled out its forces.
Badr’s head of Parliamentarian block Qassem Al A’araji explained that the deployment of the PMF was not, after all, to protect the visitors of the Shia shrine. “PMF protects the political regimes as much as it fights terrorism. They defend order and fight chaos”. The same explanation was provided by a member of the Baghdad Governorate Council—Sa’ad Al Matlabi—when he soberly said May 8: “The deployment of PMF units in Baghdad was due to the political crisis. We have groups rejecting the political process and other supporting it”. “There is a need to keep the balance of power. There is a need to protect the political process and what is left of the state”, Al Matlabi, who is a Maliki supporter, said. He did not explain however what he meant by the balance of power. Assumedly, he was talking about the balance between the various Shia political groups, each has its own militia.
Through the deployment of the PMF in Baghdad during the crisis, we discover that the “after-shock” consequences of Sadr supporters attack on the Parliament not only broke the psychological barrier between political forces and capturing power by force, it provided a kind of rehearsal for such a move. The Ministry of Interior pulled out its forces from the streets, the security force of the Green Zone vanished, there was no Parliament, and there was no government. The only force on the ground was the PMF.
Technically speaking, there was nothing standing on the way of staging a coup. Mainly, the US-Iran understanding prevented this from happening. President Obama does not want Iraq to explode now, and the US and Iran want preparations for the battle of Mosul to continue in earnest. Furthermore, Tehran sees, correctly in fact, that a coup will open a long and bloody conflict between the Shia forces in Baghdad.
But the whole tilted configuration leaves US policies in Iraq hostage to Tehran’s plans.
This is the price of pulling US forces prematurely as clear as it can get. Pulling out the forces was not wrong in and by itself. It was wrong as it was not coupled with developing what General Petraeus’s men established and achieved during the second half of the last decade. Preserving and maintaining a US allied indigenous Sunni force able to keep Iraq’s Sunni land free of ISIL and similar groups was going as well to provide a base for more balanced political equation in Baghdad and less ambitious Shia militias. This was supposed to give moderation and a larger US leverage a better chance than what we see now.
For what can really prevent a coup d’état by the militias against a helpless Abadi? When we examine the general picture we will find only one reason: The militias are competing one with the others and Iran would not encourage any to mess with “the balance of power” among them. A coup d’état that can happen and is not happening may sometime be more effective than a coup that already happened.
This entails examining yet a second point: the actual base on which the current political system in Baghdad stands. With the infiltration of political forces into the “national” security forces and the non-existent monopoly of force by the state, we can clearly see that Abadi is in fact standing on nothing. The “institutions” have already shifted towards the militias and the various political forces during the Maliki years. While this puts the government, as such, in jeopardy, it raises questions about future prospect of preserving Iraq’s national unity.
Such a state of affairs leaves larger space to the Iranians. It becomes clear why the US had to talk to Tehran to keep Abadi afloat. Regardless of the Prime Minister’s political views related to Iran or Iraq’s political powers, he cannot defend, let alone impose, his decisions on anybody. His weakness is not personal, it is institutional.
Abadi, therefore, cannot carry a reform platform anywhere. He simply does not have what it takes. The recent crisis in Baghdad showed this fact clearer than ever before. The moment Abadi tries to step away from the existing structure, let alone move against its corruption, is the moment when he will find himself hanging on the air. He can survive only if he bases himself either on one or more active political-militia forces or on Iranian dictates, the two are identical in many cases, though not all.
The significance of this episode, which is not totally over yet, should be reflected on how we see the future of Iraq. On the national level, Baghdad cannot provide a unified view based, not on oppression, but on real inclusiveness. On the level of Baghdad and the Shia regions, there is clear disintegration and competition. The sectarian cement goes only as far. Financial rewards of political power does not provide a particularly strong bond. Thieves unify against their common enemy, represented in this case in reform and anti-corruption measures, but fight between themselves for larger pieces of the pie.
If we see it as a national view- that is an inclusive national objective (Sistani-Abadi and others) versus a sectarian view (ISIL-Some Shia militias and political forces in both sides), we will detect immediately that the national view, in terms of practical prospects of existence and turning into a concrete force on the ground exist only in moral power (that of Sistani for one example). The actualized force on the ground is that of security forces, led through a sectarian prism, or the bluntly sectarian militias. The problem does not stop here. So long as there is space to expand, an organism, like the militias, will consider, plan and try to expand. In their minds, there are no boundaries in Sunni land to pull out expansionist ambitions from their agendas. Unfortunately, the only retaliatory force was ISIL which is hated by all, including large numbers of Sunnis.
But we also see here that the space between Tehran on the one hand and the control over the fate of Baghdad on the other is narrowing, not increasing, regardless of the intentions of the Sadr protesters or Abadi or even Sistani. The protesters’ move into the Green Zone exposed the brittleness of the political system, hence showed how far it can go in implementing an independent and serious “unification” plan or even a limited reform-which is just few centimeters.
The militant nature of the militias and the fact that they are increasingly becoming the center of the real power due to their level of arming and indoctrination, should push us all to think over the prospects of the future of Iraq.
Iran can rein in the militias for some time according to its understanding with the US, but mainly according to its own plans, but Tehran does not believe in a unified Iraq based on the free will of all its citizens. The reasons for the US-Iranian understanding, which is aimed at ending the current political crisis, are not valid to support any assumption that Tehran would order the militias to become non-sectarian and democratic in a clear summer night, and so long as subordinating the Sunnis is conceptually possible and practically doable.
The way out is to establish a Sunni Peshmerga in Central Iraq. This should never be done under the banner of partitioning Iraq. Rather, it is the only way to create a unified and strong Iraqi unity where everyone is treated with dignity, either he is a Shia, a Kurd or a Sunni or belong to any other group. Correcting the political structure in Baghdad is conceptually impossible so long as the current disequilibrium exists on the ground. We have not seen a strong Iraq based on oppression, either by Saddam who collapsed in days, or by the majority’s sectarian rule. Even the existing political structure should not be considered a fair representation of the Shia popular majority, which is overwhelmingly patriotic and attached to their national identity.
But the current administration is focused only in rushing the fight against ISIL for political expediency, and gluing together whatever exists in Baghdad even for a short time to score a victory over the terrorist group, however short-lived it would be. Pushing the crisis under the carpet, and stitching together profoundly destructive elements then hoping for something positive to happen is delusive. In another story in the current issue of MEB we explained why we see this policy as self-defeating.
In any case, and when we hear that the crisis in Baghdad is “over” and that the country finally has a government and a Parliament, and we will hear that pretty soon, this would not mean that the crisis is really over or that there is a “country” to start with.

Davutoglu’s Departure: Impact on ISIL, Iran, Syria and Middle East
Middle East Briefing/May 14/16
Only four years ago, some Washington Middle East “experts” were promoting the “Turkish Model” for the future of political Islam in the Middle East. Now, their silence is deafening. After all, the Model proved not to be a good model. Now, all tricks to float the theory of a democratic rule by political Islam seem to have reached their utter and complete failure. It is hard to imagine that there would be any more ingenious tricks in the future, but who knows. Political Islam, as it stands in all its current versions, is unable to ideologically condone democracy. Turkey’s President allegedly said once: “Democracy is a bus, you leave at the terminus”. The terminus, of course, is political power. Adherents of this group of political activities feel they have a mission from the creator to enforce his rules, which they themselves is their embodiment. All the others have deviated from the one righteous line the follow: theirs’.
Yet, the problem of the salesmen and saleswomen of the “Turkish Model” is not only in its first half of that mantra. It is in assuming that there should be a “model” for governance in the Middle East. It is a comforting supposition. But it is a profoundly erroneous one as well.
However, our topic in this space is the rise and fall of Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s Prime Minister. And the proper point of start is Erdogan’s speech in the day after the political execution of Davutoglu. Erdogan gave a speech May 6 in which he promised a steadfast “progress” to implementing a presidential system in Ankara.
“At this point, there is no turning back. Everybody should accept this by now. “I believe the new constitution will be prepared in a way that would institutionalize this new way of administration that was brought about based on the preference and approval of our people”, the Turkish President said.
But what is really interesting in this speech is Erdogan’s reference to the November 1 elections which was engineered and fought hard by his dismissed Prime Minister. “Our nation knows that despite elections and changing governments, there is not and will not be a vacuum in the country’s administration thanks to a directly-elected president”. This should be translated as follows: the period of uncertainty between the general elections of June 7 and November 1, 2015, was completed “without crises” thanks to a “strong presidency”. In fact, this is no translation, they are Erdogan’s words. Literally.
Then comes the President’s justification for his role in the ruling party (the AKP). “Some are disturbed that I am following closely the developments inside the party that is run by my friends of 40 years, which I founded and led for nearly 12 years. Why are you disturbed? What can be more natural?” Erdogan asked, saying he was elected to the seat of the presidency with his identity as the leader of the AKP. Yet, the constitution states that the office of the President is nonpartisan.
This explains, at least in part, why Davutoglu was sent home. In a pyramid, there is only one top head. Power is irresistible. When it is mixed with an ideological cause it becomes a mission from heaven it becomes dangerous. A model?
Davutoglu did not cross any lines. He is only smart, sophisticated, pragmatic, and he has the ability to think of new and creative policies. But up there, on the top of the pyramid, there is only one allowed to think and plan and make policies.
For example, Davutoglu negotiated creatively a new deal between Turkey and the EU allowing Turks to travel to the Schengen Zone countries without visas. In return, Turkey was to mitigate its witch hunt against Kurds activists and the other political opponents and revise its anti-terror laws.
In response to the creative initiative of his sacked Prime minister, Erdogan rejected the deal saying that no such deals are possible if Brussels insist on Ankara amending its laws. “Why don’t you change your mentality of allowing terrorist camping near the European Parliament?” The Turkish President said addressing his words to the EU.
Erdogan’s expansion of power puts the future of Turkey at risk. The Turkish President based his calculus on a simple, and unfortunately correct, equation. Europe needs him to stop the flow of immigrants. The US needs him for the fight against ISIL and for Turkey’s central role in NATO. Both powers will turn their heads the other way whatever he does.
And in fact, the Turkish President is quite talented in playing rough politics. He is no apologetic and he draws a straight line between what he wants and where he stands. He does not question the ethics of any means so long as they lead to his objective. And he enjoys unquestionable popularity.
What we see is a gradual evolution of “the Turkish model” on its way to the bus’s last stop. Political power is more and more concentrated in the hands of the leader who came in time to use the proper context and circumstance to fulfill his mission, which is, in his view, assigned to him by “up there”.
What will that lead to in terms of the explosive situation in the Middle East? Here are some preliminary thoughts:
* Relations with Iran:
Davutoglu was a main defender of developing relations with Tehran, based on his pragmatic views. Though Erdogan has been pushing in that direction as well, Erdogan’s ideological stand and his special relations with some GCC powers make him less inclined to rush in this direction.
Davutoglu’s visit to Tehran last March was a bold move to rebalance Ankara’s ties in a way that fits more its immediate needs. Turkey badly needs Iranian natural gas. Russia’s sanctions against Ankara threatens to cut Turkey off its major energy supplies. At the time of the former Prime Minister’s visit to Iran, Turkey’s reserves of natural gas reached a threatening level.
But Erdogan thought that his Prime Minister push to improve ties with Iran is a US inspired policy. He sensed that Washington is trying to reshape alliances in the region. But he had his own plans which are profoundly different than those of the US.
Davutoglu is more of a realist. He was more ready to suggest changes on his country’s regional policies in return for trade and economic benefits. Erdogan is less inclined to rush any changes for the time being. He is more sensitive to his ties with Saudi Arabia and to his regional image. Davutoglu did not have the same concerns on political or personal levels. Yet, the difference between the two, in regard to Iran, was quantitative in essence. The Turkish President would improve ties with Iran once he is certain that this serves his other regional ties and presumed role of a pillar of the Sunni Muslim world.
Davutoglu, in his part, was inching his country’s strategy back to the zero-problems policy in its regional stand, a more pragmatic position by definition. His less ideological inclinations, and more realist instincts, were making Erdogan nervous. Not only because someone else is trying to chart a new road for Turkey, a role Erdogan likes to maintain exclusively for himself, but also because the nature of the former Prime Minister’s policies would deprive the President of the “militant” ideologue role he likes to play among Sunni Muslims.
The differences between Erdogan’s way to approach Turkish-Iranian relations and that of his sacked Prime minister is mainly a difference in the pace of its rapprochement with Iran and the timing of such a step. Both know that relations with Iran is strategically important to the two countries. But they differed in the way to handle the process. While Davutoglu believed in a journey back to the zero-problem-policy, Erdogan now believes in optimizing every problem in the crisis ridden region to achieve his own agenda. Ties between Turkey and Iran will now be more attached to Ankara’s overall regional strategy than trying to separate this issue and improve relations on bi-lateral bases. Turkey-Iran ties will now continue on their Erdogan’s zigzag path with less dramatic initiatives like the one seen in Davutoglu’s surprise visit to Iran last March.
*Policies on the Syrian civil war and ISIL:
Again, here we see a difference between the screens which both Davutoglu and Erdogan watched at their offices. The former Prime Minister had the EU, the US and Iran on his screen side by side with the Arabs, the Syrians, the Kurds and the immediate interests of Turkey. Erdogan has the same elements, albeit in different weights and sizes, besides his own image, regional ambitions and ideological inclinations.
The Turkish President does not see it urgent to change his course in Syria. He is more inclined to demanding higher prices for such a change, if he is willing to do it at all. His personal image, played again a role which did not exist on the screen at Davutoglu’s office.
The former Prime Minister could not have introduced deep changes in his country’s policies on Syria. But he was more opened to deal and wheel in a faster pace than his boss. Erdogan, on the other hand, is more strategically patient. This patience looks more as a result of ideology rather than of a practical calculus, though it has both elements in it no doubt.
Higher prices for cooperation with the EU and the US on the Syrian crisis and fighting ISIL are to be expected. The question of US ties to Syrian Kurds and Turkey’s ties to some Syrian opposition groups will miss now the practical formulas that Davutoglu was ready to deal with. Davutoglu saw Syria as a Turkish issue. Erdogan saw it from the perspective of his regional policies and plans.
While Erdogan will continue to cooperate with the coalition in the fight against ISIL, he will want to exact a high price for every step. He would also balance each measure required from him against elements of interest to him like his regional ties, personal image and a far reaching view of his role in the region. The problem here is that the Turkish President does not see that if one hardens his position endlessly, there is a point when any bargain would be impossible. Too hard means sometimes too brittle. The Turkish President will be ready to forget any commitments he made if he feels that he has not squeezed the sponge to the last drop. Here, we see a non-apologetic player who does not pay much attention to any other thing except the screen at his office.
* Turkey’s Middle East policies:
Davutoglu was ready, as mentioned above, to inch his country slowly towards the “zero-problems” policies of the pre-Arab Spring. Erdogan is more cautious, more sensitive to his ideological ties and image, and more inclined to wait and go slow. He believes that the tide in the region may change if Egypt changes directions and if Saudi Arabia and Iran reaches a regional modus operandi. This would enable Erdogan to move a step forward towards his dream of becoming a regional leader and to rebuild the neo-Ottoman sphere of influence. So long as he does not have to drop his dreams under any immediate pressure, he does not see why he should sustain his former Prime Minister practical calculations.
The two men, Davutoglu and Erdogan, saw the role of ruling Turkey differently. Davutoglu did not have any real power base in the AKP. His popularity was increasing in the Turkish street. But this stuff does not help much in a faceoff with an ambitious President skilled in party politics and populism. The divorce was inevitable. A ray of hope of realism and pragmatism in Ankara has been dimmed. It is very tough indeed to defeat Erdogan. He has it all, and it will be a miracle to see the Turkish President shaking anytime soon.

The Battle for Sirte Enters a Decisive Phase
Middle East Briefing/May 14/16
With the Islamic State (ISIL) facing a looming showdown in Raqqa, which could see the capital of the Islamic State Caliphate fall to some combination of Syrian government, Syrian rebel and/or Kurdish forces in the coming months, the future of ISIL may be playing out along the Mediterranean coast of Libya, centered on the vital town of Sirte. The Pentagon, along with European NATO allies, have concluded that the weakening of the ISIL infrastructure in Iraq and Syria has placed new priority on the fight inside Libya, where the Islamic State has carved out a strong base of operations, spanning an area of between 150 and 250 kilometers of coastal territory. The current “emir” of the Islamic State in Libya is Abdul Qadr al-Najdi, who was appointed by the Raqqa leadership after his predecessor was killed in a bombing attack in March. ISIL is believed to have affiliated groups in eight countries in Africa, from Algeria, to Nigeria and Egypt.
Last week, top Pentagon officials, including Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, were in Europe for meetings with NATO allies. One priority topic of discussion was the plans for a military intervention against the Islamic State in Libya. Carter told reporters that Italy has offered to be the lead nation in the anti-ISIL military campaign in Libya, and that extensive planning is now underway to develop a battle plan to crush ISIL in Libya before top Islamic State officials can move into Sirte from Raqqa. Best US military estimates, based on US Special Forces and British SAS on-the-ground intelligence, gathered over the past several months of covert operations, indicate that ISIL has in the range of 7,000 fighters in the Sirte region—many with hard combat experience in Syria and Iraq. A handful of top ISIL leaders were dispatched to Libya to oversee the creation of an extensive Islamic State area of control, which has steadily expanded from Sirte towards Misrata in recent months.
The Western strategy for preempting the ISIL relocation plans is both complex and challenging. The United Nations imposed a Government of National Accord (GNA) in March, under Prime Minister Fayez Serraj, but he and his small government team are largely confined to a naval base in Tripoli, with little if any actual governing power.
On May 6, Serraj announced the formation of a military task force to plan out and coordinate the assault against the Islamic State stronghold of Sirte. The day before the announcement, the Islamic State in Tripoli Province seized a major check point 75 miles south of Misurata, at Abu Grein, using classic ISIL battle tactics: suicide bombings followed by a wave of armed fighters. As many as six towns surrounding the check point were taken by ISIL, cutting off supply routes between Misrata and points south, where Misrata tribal forces have been battling the foreign Islamic State units and have aligned informally with the Serraj government.
The tactical support for Serraj coming from the Misrata militias is indictative of both the opportunities and the flaws in the US and European strategy for defeating the Islamic State in Libya, before they are able to consolidate a new hub of operations large enough to constitute a fallback “caliphate.”
As much as necessity has driven the Misrata rebels to fight against the Islamic State’s recent incursions, they are simultaneously in a power struggle, with military dimensions, against the rival government-in-internal-exile in Tobruk. The Tobruk government is dominated by the Defense Minister, Gen. Khalifa Heftar. Gen. Heftar, who enjoys the official backing of Egypt and the more informal backing of the United States (he lived in exile in the United States for years), is in the process of launching his own assault on Sirte, after having liberated the key eastern Libyan town of Derna from ISIL on April 21.
Misrata militia forces are gathering to the west of Sirte in preparation for a move against the ISIL stronghold, with 2,000 troops now staged near the battle front at Abu Grein. Gen. Heftar has deployed a force to the east of Sirte at Ajdabiya. He has a total force of 7,000 men, along with combat planes and new tanks and armored personal carriers (APCs), which have been recently supplied by Egypt. US, Italian, German and French combat advisers are reported to be embedded in both the Misrata and Heftar units. Those same nations have offered to send in an international force made up of at least 6,000 troops, to back up the assault on Sirte. But the foreign intervention is opposed by the Misrata militias, and the Tobruk government is yet to vote on whether to recognize the UN-backed Serraj government in Tripoli. The Serraj government has pledged to remove Gen. Heftar from his official position, and this is a major motive for the Misurata forces’ backing.
The announcement of the united combat command from the Serraj government on May 6 is a step towards bringing in the foreign forces to accelerate the drive against ISIL. But the very same move could intensify the internal fighting: Between the Misrata and Heftar forces, between the two rival armies and the Islamic State, and against the very idea of the UN-installed “unity” government, which has been criticized strongly by factions of the Libyan Dawn, that previously held power in Tripoli, and the Tobruk internationally-recognized parliament.
The situation on the ground is made more complex by recent reports that Gen. Heftar has invited some former Qadaffi loyalists to join his forces against ISIL. One of Gen. Heftar’s recently installed senior commanders is Gen. Ali Kanna, a Tuareg fighter who backed Qadaffi in the 2011 war, but then fled to Niger in August 2011, when Tripoli was taken over by the rebels. Mattia Toaldo, a Libya specialist with the European Council on Foreign Relations, reported the return of Kanna, and noted that some former Qadaffi officers see the battle against ISIL as an opportunity to return to Libya with some leverage for the future.
There are conflicting reports that US Special Forces on the ground in Libya have made contact with some of the ex-Qadaffi fighters, who can play a valuable role in the anti-ISIL offensive, since they originally came from the Sirte region and still have tribal ties there.
The Pentagon strategists and National Security Council planners who are pushing the offensive against the Islamic State in Libya are said to be well-aware of the trappings of their strategy, but feel they have no alternative, given the strategic importance ascribed to defeating ISIL in North Africa, before they establish a further beachhead and potential new capital for their global operations.
Washington is hoping, with very little basis for optimism, that a three-prong strategy can ultimately succeed in defeating ISIL and creating the basis for a unified government in Tripoli. Under that strategy, the US will support rival indigenous military forces that all are competing to take over Sirte. At the same time, US and European Special Forces advisers on the ground will look for opportunities to forge unified military actions against ISIL, drawing together rivals. And if the Serraj government can establish a credible command center for the anti-Islamic State war, he may be able to invite foreign military assistance at some point that could be a decisive game-changer. All of these contending factors make a short-term success in the Libya anti-ISIL effort hard to imagine. From a technical military standpoint, there are logistical problems, given that foreign military operations will be likely coordinated out of Italy, and through the US Africa Command (AFRICOM), which has its formal headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. Prime Minister Serraj has already issued warnings that he opposes the launching of any offensive against Sirte, until his command center is up and running. Events on the ground argue against such a delay.

On the Separation of Fighting ISIL and Solving Syria and Iraq
Middle East Briefing/May 14/16
We are faced with two contradicting questions: Is it right to focus mainly on fighting and defeating ISIL as a quasi-state without solving the Iraqi and Syrian mess and regardless of the terrorist organization’s root causes? Or is the right path the one that gives priority to solving the Iraqi and Syrian crisis then turning to ISIL as a second step? We argue that both approaches are wrong if put opposed to each other. But it is necessary first to define “defeating ISIL” accurately. The mission of defeating ISIL is defined, in the current debate in Washington, in different ways: Either to contain the group and keep it “harmless” to others for a longer period, or to crush it militarily and economically as a quasi-state, or, moreover, to annihilate its ideological Jihadist deeper sources.
But we take it as practically impossible to achieve any of these missions, regardless of our favorite priority, without making progress in realizing the other-addressing whatever we see as the raison d’etre of the group. This may sound as a simple mathematical addition meant cunningly to avoid the choice. But we will soon see, in practical terms, that it is not.
While the US military does what it is ordered to do, they understandably do not have control over the approach defined mainly by the White House. The multiple factors which are in play in the White house have their impact on limiting the approach to fight ISIL to an almost futile effort. The military tries to do with the margin it is given. But some military commanders adapt fine with the limited altitude given to them instead of having the headache of confronting the distorted views of the almost handicapped strategists in the White House. It is indeed a sad picture of the flaws of the strategic decision making process.
The separation between fighting ISIL militarily and confronting it as both the poisonous fruit that it is and the soil which sustains it-this separation is founded in the current common concepts of a strategy. These common concepts narrowly define the objective by what is doable within the political boundaries defined by the White House. But the roots of those concepts exist somewhere else. They exist in the over practical approach, even with military leaders, that often leads to failure as we repeatedly saw. The “division of labor” in modern societies has gone to a high degree of sophistication to the extent that the part overshadows the whole. In other words, a given part, usually the most effective in producing empirical results, replaced the main job as a whole. The over specialized division of labor creates its own culture and ways of thinking.
There is no question that ISIL should be rendered “harmless”, either by crushing it or containing it. But first, which one of the two should be the objective?
Here, we will find ourselves forced to connect what we some strategists have divided and pushed aside. Containing ISIL is impossible due to its ideological nature and the surrounding circumstances conductive to a potential later move out of its presumed imposed cocoon. It has to be crushed. In a weak body, a germ either grows or be forced by external help to disappear, otherwise it will multiply fast.
Assuming that ISIL would remain static in its contained status does not only go against its own nature and views but it is also not supported by the fact that ISIL itself is the revival of the very germ that General Petraeus thought he defeated in 2007-8. The birth of ISIL, from the womb of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the persistence of the favorable environment inducing it to grow in a different form should be revisited. This should make us think of both the germ and the body.
This is why a military victory over ISIL, which is a necessity imposed by the very nature of the organization, should be seen as a whole. A military victory, in this case, should not be measured against itself. It should rather be placed in a wider context which transcends the immediate military aspect, performed superbly by General Petraeus and his men in Iraq few years ago only to see the same germ emerging later. The growth of the part (defeating ISIL militarily) swallowed the whole (stabilizing Iraq to prevent the re-emergence of terrorism) and made it fall from the screen. This proved over and over again to be an exercise in futility. ISIL has to be destroyed as a state and as soon as possible. But what does it mean “possible” here?
Statecraft is based, in similar moments, on conflating available means in a context that addresses both the immediate military mission of defeating ISIL, the environment favorable to its re-emergence and the root causes which brought the organization which wreaks havoc in the china store called the Middle East and threatens the world with terror. But there is only that much that the US can do under the circumstances. Let us see one or two preliminary “projects” showing how a different methodology can provide a practical approach to Iraq and Syria even with limited US engagement.
* Iraq:
As we said in previous occasions, the political equation in Baghdad is devised with some structural flaws from the start. But to sum up, what we have is an “inclusive” government that is all but inclusive. The central government, made mainly of Shia political forces, was left with the powerful temptation to control the Sunni regions by force.
People think of what is possible. The central government does not think of controlling Iraq’s Kurdish region by force. The Peshmerga, among other factors, make this impossible to conceive. But it is a different story in Central Iraq.
One of the reasons of the charged and perpetual crisis in Baghdad exists precisely in the gap between the existing superficial “inclusiveness” and the true inclusiveness that should be the goal. In this gap, all false and artificial “nationalist” (read: sectarian) characters seen in Baghdad daily flourish and increase their powers making it even more difficult to create an inclusive political structure. But strangely enough, this “nationalist” fever melts on the borders of the KRG. Sectarianism does not grow of itself. Often, it camouflages other objectives. It is raised for a reason, or multiple reasons. When controlling Central Iraq seems at reach, incitement increases to furnish the ideological base for expansion and to help charge enough people to mobilize in order to achieve that. Therefore, we have a tilted political structure that not only expands its arms and make reform almost impossible, as we have recently seen, but also incites sectarianism and harbors ambitions to subordinate Iraqi Sunnis based on their lack of any means to protect themselves.
Is it safe then to arm the Sunni tribes in Central Iraq? No. It is a risk. But it could be made a limited one. The lessons of fighting Al Qaeda in Anbar province nine years ago showed that it could be done properly.
A quasi-independent region in the Central of Iraq should be a structural step to preserve the integrity of the country. A central government, like the one of Nouri Al Maliki, which claimed day and night that it is working to preserve the unity of Iraq, was in fact destroying this unity by trying to impose it through sectarianism and force. If unity is based on a tilted political base in Baghdad, a sectarian view of the multi sect and multi ethnic society and the mantra of forcing the Sunnis into submission, it would not be unity. It would be a certain path to yet another terrorist group and ultimately to partition.
Abadi is trying to reverse gears. Yet, the problem is not that he is weak or strong, the real issue is that the political structure in Baghdad, with its alleged Sunni “representatives”, is based on unrepresentative foundations. The actual and “realized” weight of the Sunni component is left to ISIL, which is essentially a separatist, terrorist and deformed expression of Sunni aspirations.
Partnerships, either in governance or in fighting ISIL, should not be based on working with an imaginary partner reduced in fact to a bunch of persons labeled “representatives” but without any real base, because the Sunni regions are oppressed and threatened by force. Partnership is a relation with an existing social and political block. Sunnis in Iraq are politically in a no man’s land. There, they meet ISIL. If defeating the terrorist group is to be achieved, an indigenous force is needed to capture the land and keeps the terrorists away. But why would Iraqi Sunnis do that? To be stepped over by the worst sectarian zealots in Baghdad run by the IRGC?
This means that the US should not waste any more time with the corrupt and incompetent politicians in Baghdad. That does not mean throwing whatever capital built there out of the window. It simply means that the central point in defeating ISIL and balancing the political formula in Baghdad is to organize and arm a Sunni force from Sunni Arab tribes to police the region, by-passing the current carnival in Baghdad.
A new system of loyalty should be created, a la Petraeus model, with a regionally financed fund supervised by the US. This will bring about an expected storm of protests from Iran and its allies in Baghdad. But the only way to satisfy those guys is either to subordinate Sunni Iraq by force, which will bring another ISIL if this one is defeated, or to keep the current chaotic state of affairs. Here, we clearly see that defeating ISIL is not a military mission only. We see that the current “strategy” which assigns the mission of defeating ISIL to the military and forgets all the other aspects is neither a fair deal to the military, nor a way to really defeat ISIL.
The wealth of experience of 2006-2008 of US military in Anbar should be studied once again. Mechanisms to minimize the risks of arming a Sunni Peshmerga in Central Iraq is but a part of a comprehensive approach which should deal with the economy of the region and its ties with Baghdad and the KRG.
We see a revival of the calls for partitioning Iraq. This is, in form, the wrong approach. All efforts should revolve around preserving the integrity of the country, based on a federation which should have a concrete content of the term. The current “unity” of Iraq is a false unity. The alternative is not partition. It is a federation that has a true content of a federation. One cannot create a “federation” between a part that has everything and another that is denied everything.
In this example, we find that the mission to really crush ISIL should be expanded based on an encompassing principle which integrates regional diplomacy, economic initiative and military action.
It is funny to sometimes hear the exclaiming “legalistic” question: Are you proposing that the US arms the Sunni tribes without going through Baghdad? Yes. Precisely. The US arms the KRG’s Peshmerga. Russia arms the YPG. Iran arms the Shia militias. And others helped ISIL before. So, Please!
* Syria:
The situation in Syria is more complex than Iraq. Much more. But what should have been done three years ago—arming and training selected and considerable numbers of moderate opposition fighters– must start without any further delay, knowing that it is going to get worse before it gets better.
No one speaks now of the battle of Raqqa. Everyone is talking about Aleppo. As obvious from the development in the north of Syria, the mission of “crushing” ISIL seems to be temporarily shelved. Yet, the coalition is still active bombing ISIL positions and the US SF are active hunting its leaders. But this is not “crushing”. Not even close. Here again we see that the separation of missions and tracks testifies to the chronic lack of the “whole”. The whole here is a concept to gather and optimize available means in a coordinated division of labor which is in harmony with the final objective.
ISIL will not be defeated in Syria without a political solution. This phrase, chewed by everybody now, testifies to the fact that an encompassing concept that conflates all available means have always been missing.
What both fighting ISIL and reaching a political solution require is a balance of power between Assad and an acceptable opposition force which ends with preserving the state and the core of its functions and its security force all the while expanding the role of civil society. There will be no stability in Syria, hence there will be no crushing of ISIL and all the semi-ISIL groups, without achieving both objectives.
But this would require an intensive work to create the non-ISIL, non-Assad force that is capable of providing the antidote to both. Assad’s regime, as it stands now, bears the responsibility of the civil war, side by side with regional powers which rushed to use the crisis to serve their own regional agendas.
The task has to start from what is available but with a clear view of how to develop it gradually in the road to this objective. This will take time. Arming and organizing an indigenous force then integrating it in the national army of a new Syria is not an easy task. But it is the one road to really crushing this ISIL and providing, as possible as it can get, the guarantees that it would not emerge again.
A regional-international plan to rebuild Syria is a condition for healing the deep wounds of that nation, if they are not yet fatal. The principle of working with partners on the ground, which is meant to mitigate the burden on the US, is reduced to a technical text parroted in an illogical way. Talking about partners on the ground means talking about this ground, its conditions and relations, and how the partners would be mobilized to partner with. Comparisons are lame. But only working with indigenous inhabitants led to Al Qaeda defeat in Anbar which, for example, did not happen in Afghanistan. A meager military approach to Syria and Iraq, even if it leads to indeed crushing this ISIL, may work, but only for a short period of time so long as the other aspects are not addressed.
Dissecting the mission of defeating ISIL, and focusing only on what the military does or should do is the clearest testimony to the absence of a strategy. A military strategy is but one component of a general strategy.

Britain's Muddled Priorities?
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/May 14/16
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8029/britain-terrorism-priorities

On the one hand, the overwhelming cause of our current security problems is Islamist terror. It is the number one cause of concern to our police, intelligence services and everybody else with the nation's security at heart. The public expects to be protected from such terror and expects that protection to come from that security establishment.
Yet all the time, a vocal lobby of Muslim and non-Muslim figures tries to pretend that the threat is not what it is, or that an attempt to depict any and all efforts to protect the country -- even one phrase said by one actor in one simulated attack scenario – is some terrible crime of bigotry.
An actor saying "Allahu Akbar" in a simulated terror attack may be offensive to somebody's religion. But if so, what is more offensive to their religion: one actor saying "Allahu Akbar" as part of a simulation, or countless Muslims around the world shouting the same phrase before real attacks in real time?
Sometimes you can see a whole society's self-delusion in under a minute. Consider a single minute that occurred in Britain this week.
On Monday night, Greater Manchester Police staged a pre-prepared mock terrorist attack in a Manchester shopping centre in order to test emergency responses capabilities, readiness and response times. At one stage, an actor playing a suicide bomber burst through a doorway in a crowded part of the shopping centre and detonated a fake device.
It turned out that the actor pretending to be a suicide bomber had shouted the words "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is Greatest") before the simulated attack. This may have helped make the simulation more realistic, but it had an immediate backlash. Nobody complained about the simulated attacks. What disturbed some people was the simulation of the signature Islamist sign-off.
A video still from the mock terrorist attack staged on May 9, 2016 by the police in Manchester, England.
Within hours, the simulated moral outrage machine, social media, began deploring the outrageousness of the exercise. Soon, community spokesmen were on the airwaves, deploring the use of the crucial phrase. Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan said,
"[O]n reflection, we acknowledge that it was unacceptable to use this religious phrase immediately before the mock suicide bombing, which so vocally linked this exercise with Islam. We recognise and apologise for the offence that this has caused."
Greater Manchester's police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd, tried to explain that,
"it is frustrating the operation has been marred by the ill-judged, unnecessary and unacceptable decision by organisers to have those playing the parts of terrorists to shout 'Allahu Akbar' before setting off their fake bombs. It didn't add anything to the event, but has the potential to undermine the great community relations we have in Greater Manchester."
By now, most of the national papers and the 24-hour news programs were all over the story. That is where the revealing minute happened. On Sky News, interviewer Kay Burley was interviewing one Jahangir Mohammed, who was introduced as a "community worker." Mr. Mohammed spent some time commenting:
"Like everything, there's a securitised approach to these things and that's necessary in training like this. But I think sometimes there's also a need for them to have a bit of religious and cultural context when they're doing training like this in a wider setting about the possible implications and the effects on wider society and communities within that society."
Ms. Burley thanked Mr Mohammed for his illuminating contribution and went onto the next news item. In other main stories, she said,
"One man has died, three others injured after a knife attack at a train station near Munich. The attacker -- a 27-year-old German -- shouted 'Allahu Akbar' according to witnesses, before stabbing people at the station in Grafing. He was overpowered at the scene and is now in custody."
The combination of these two news stories took about one minute.
Whether or not the Grafing attacker turns out to be a non-Muslim with psychiatric issues, as the press is currently suggesting, or an Islamist with or without such issues, this single minute of broadcast footage says so much about the problem that societies such as Britain's are now in.
On the one hand, the overwhelming cause of our current security problems is Islamist terror. It is the number one cause of concern to our police, intelligence services and everybody else with the nation's security at heart. The public expects to be protected from such terror and expects that protection to come from that security establishment. Yet all the time, a vocal lobby of Muslim and non-Muslim figures tries to pretend that the threat is not what it is, or that an attempt to depict any and all efforts to protect the country -- even one phrase said by one actor in one simulated attack scenario -- is some terrible crime of bigotry.
Of course, there would have been no social media backlash and no swift apology from the Greater Manchester Police if the terrorist simulation had involved a "far-right" terrorist. But there is always a backlash if the scenario reflects the real security threat that all our societies are facing. This is yet another occasion in which the general public's view of people's priorities is legitimately raised. Why would any Muslim or anyone else genuinely opposed to terror object to the realistic simulation of such an event? One can see, of course, that it may be offensive to somebody's religion. But if so, what is more offensive to their religion: one actor saying "Allahu Akbar" as part of one simulation, or countless Muslims around the world shouting the same phrase before real attacks in real time?
If I were a Muslim, I would spend every minute of my waking life trying to persuade my co-religionists not to kill people right after shouting about my Allah. I do not think I would bother for a second if a police force, trying to keep people safe, chose realistically to simulate the behaviour of my co-religionists. It is a matter of priorities, and across Britain and many other countries in the world today, our priorities are now seriously awry.
Douglas Murray is a current events analyst and commentator based in London.
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
 

A water entrepreneur and her quest for rural development
Ehtesham Shahid/Al Arabiya/May 14/16
Joana Bacallo will celebrate her 30th birthday early next month. The senior stewardess at the Dubai-based Emirates Airline is used to being mid-air on such occasions, taking different flight paths and meticulously attending to passengers. However, this time around a special plan has been taking shape for weeks.
Joana’s friends and volunteers – from faraway places such as Germany and Brazil – are flying in to reach the remote rural Pulag Mountains of the Philippines. Together, they are planning a life time experience for a group of 200 children. There will be mountaineering, fun and frolic, eating on banana leaves and gifts to mark the occasion. The week-long celebration has been arranged in partnership with Juan Portrait – an organization of photographers, students, and volunteers. The message to be delivered is the following – cities must consume and conserve clean water so that the same can be ensured in remote villages. “Future generations are going to inherit major challenges related to water and the more they are sensitized about it the better, especially in remote rural areas,” Joana says. Joana became a self-proclaimed water entrepreneur due to the clean water crises in her home town, Manila, and other cities she frequented. The joy of being home after hours of flying would be marred by the need to boil water before drinking. This prompted her to launch a startup, Aqua Pura Natural, with the objective to provide clean and pure water to communities.
Understandably, there were obstacles on the way and some detractors even suggested on her face that she should have an exit plan ready. Yet, undeterred, she maintained a lean business model and eventually succeeded. As the organization grew from strength to strength, Joana’s bonuses went into trucks for transporting water, reaching far-flung areas. With her savings, and relentless crowd funding, she managed to take the enterprise to the next level. She made trips to China and brought machines that could purify water at a large scale. Her apartment in Manila was turned into an industrial unit where water was purified, bottled and distributed.
Ironically, the project gained immense popularity when disaster struck, in 2013, in the form of typhoon Haiyan. The demand for her water skyrocketed and stretched the company’s reach beyond the domestic market. This gave her a sense of achievement and the reassurance that she was on the right track.
Going countryside
Having succeeded with her social business in a major city, one of Joana’s next objectives is to provide sustainable solutions for faraway villages. Plans are afoot to recycle water for the benefit of coconut farmers. She is working to get access to the latest technology and attending water conferences to discuss ideas and projects. Joana’s success as an entrepreneur can be attributed to her ability to identify the challenges and finding ways to overcome them. “It is all about managing time and resources,” she says. Her years of flying experience have helped shape her perception of customer care and hospitality. “I have never been to the areas where my purified water bottles reach; I see this as power of communication and enterprise,” she says. Individuals and communities with the least access to resources are the ones who need the most help and the earlier we realize this the better it will be
At one level, Joana’s story is also about sensitizing people in the urban sphere about the common challenges they share with the countryside. Her trip to the mountains is all about experiencing firsthand that such villages and communities exist and require support.
Being a social entrepreneur is not about making money but making a difference. Individuals and communities with the least access to resources are the ones who need the most help and the earlier we realize this the better it will be. By pursuing her passion and doing what it takes to make a difference, Joana has reiterated this fact.
 

The true value of journalism and its awards
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/May 14/16
There is a place for everyone in Dubai, this is the secret behind the city’s success. Like millions of people, I moved to live and work in this city more than a decade ago and have found it a welcoming and tolerant place. Innovators, adventurers, beginners, people searching for a space to express themselves, young people, seniors, men, women, they all perceive Dubai as a city of success that makes expats feel at home. Dubai has succeeded in being a media hub, despite our doubts that it couldn’t fulfil its promises due to the challenging issues of journalism. Every year, the Arab Media Forum is held Dubai and features a journalism award. This year, I have been honored by the forum with the “Media Personality of the Year Award" which was handed to me by UAE Vice President, Prime Minister And Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashed Al-Maktoum.Dubai has succeeded in being a media hub, despite our doubts that it couldn’t fulfil its promises due to the challenging issues of journalism I must admit that this award is the result of collective work in television, written and digital journalism. It must be accredited to all whom I have worked with. These lines are not enough for me to pay tribute to them all. Some of them have lost their lives doing their job. Back then, our profession was not an ordinary job framed by ethical competition. I shall dedicate this award to all those who have lost their lives to journalism or suffered because of it, like my friend Jawad Kazem who survived an attempted attack on him. Some journalists have been kidnapped and imprisoned like Baker Atyani and Wael Issam, while others have risked their lives beyond borders chasing the unknown. Many colleagues are behind all this success and deserve to be honoured with this award. Journalism is a tough job and we go through years of struggle and hard work without being recognized. I feel privileged and grateful for Sheikh Mohammad‘s appreciation and for this media award, not because it my first in 41 years of journalism but because I consider it a gesture towards people like me who believe in modernization and insist in using media tools to create a positive change in our region that deserves better.

The enemy within: What European and Arab histories tell us about ISIS
Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/May 14/16
It is the enemy within that a diminished Europe is facing now; the alienated sons and daughters of its former colonial subjects are being inspired by the enchanting sirens coming from the self-appointed high priests of sacred Islamist violence in the faraway former provinces of the empire, calling on them to wage a relentless war of terror to dismantle their societies, and to seek redemption and martyrdom in the thrill to kill.
A diminished continent
It is a sign of these modern brittle times that three men laden with explosives and unfathomable hatreds can bring a European country, nay a continent to a standstill, while casually strolling into an airport and unloading their wrath. It may be too late for Europe to raise its drawbridges, man the ramparts and enlarge the moat; fortified Europe is a thing of the past. In the age of empire, rebellious subjects in distant provinces were subdued by expeditionary forces fighting them on their grounds. Now the enemy is within, living in small enclaves inside the city, and is familiar with Europe’s ways, habits and vulnerabilities. Instead of dispatching bands of would be Jihadists from Arab and Muslim lands to wreak havoc in the heart of Europe, the so-called Caliphate which has attracted tens of thousands of fighters, including a sizable number from Europe, can simply train them in the art of terror and send them back on a last visit to the countries they have abandoned, or just inspire from afar new recruits to attack the enemy from behind.
These new soldiers are not like the traditional Jihadists who volunteered to fight Soviet dominion in Afghanistan, or like those who waged terror against various Arab and Muslim tyrannical regimes with the objective of restoring Islamist rule, they are the new European Lumpenproletariat, lacking Islamic consciousness, although they are part of the Muslim communities living in Europe but not totally of Europe. These young alienated, angry misfits, petty criminals and former convicts living on the margin of society, get religion either in prisons or are recruited to “Jihad” by local heavies, and radical Imams, mostly imported from the Middle East or South Asia. Thus, their empty lives are given meaning and purpose after receiving a rudimentary introduction to Islam, with heavy emphasis on the real and imagined grievances of the Ummah at the hands of the Imperialists and the Crusaders. Their criminal core is finally wrapped in an Islamist veneer.
For the last half millennia, the European continent has shaped world history, initiated the scientific and industrial revolutions, and was the repository of great culture and art ; and while it had its dark and ugly side expressed in massive violence and world wars, it nonetheless laid the foundation of the modern world. The Islamist inspired terror that has in recent years visited the great cities of Europe; London, Paris, Madrid and recently Brussels has demonstrated powerfully to what extent the post-modern Europe as embodied in the European Union, with its open borders, and diluted sovereignties has been weakened. Coming after Europe’s failure to check Russia’s aggressive irredentism which is bleeding the Ukraine, and the confusion and contradictory approaches to solving the historic influx of refugees and migrants from the Middle East and Africa, this new strain of terrorism is threatening the very foundations of an exhausted European Union.
A fake state and a state of emergency
A pretend “Islamic Caliphate” straddling the two failed states of Syria and Iraq has declared war on many Muslim lands, the European Union and the United States. Its self-appointed Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi might have been a ghost, but he knows that none of his Western enemies is willing to engage his forces on the ground. Such is the nature of terrorism against open societies in a globalized and interconnected world that it is rewriting the whole concept of asymmetrical warfare. Never have a small number of people been capable of inflicting so much damage against so many people in so many supposedly powerful countries, for so little a cost and for such a long time. The Caliphate, a non-state fake state, through few men wreaked havoc in Europe, and created a state of emergency and fear in the continent.
Of anarchists
A lot has been written about what Belgium should do technically and administratively to be more effective, in collaboration with the rest of the EU states in anticipating and combatting its growing Islamist inspired terrorism scourge. But ‘Molenbeek’ as the archetype of the impenetrable ISIS infested enclave in the European city, will remain for the foreseeable future an intractable problem for the continent. But modern European history is instructive here. In the 19th and early 20th centuries anarchist violence shook every European capital from Madrid in the West to Moscow in the East. Anarchist terror was so ubiquitous it left its deep impact (and scars) on the politics, literature, philosophy and art of the whole continent. (Anarchism informed the works of some of the greatest novelists of the 19th century; Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, Balzac, Zola and others). Violent men armed with pistols and bombs and helped by philosophers, theoreticians, and pamphleteers justified the anarchists’ utopia, and terrorized their way into the hearts and minds of millions of Europeans by assassinating kings, presidents and Prime Ministers.It may be too late for Europe to raise its drawbridges, man the ramparts and enlarge the moat; fortified Europe is a thing of the past
They created and relished anarchy, and like the ISIS assassins of today, they enjoyed the thrill to kill. The nihilistic, absolutist impulses that drove the anarchists of Europe in the 19th century in their take- no- prisoner war against the State as the embodiment of evil, are essentially the same nihilistic absolutist impulses that are driving the young, angry and marginalized foot soldiers of ISIS in their all-out war against the ‘Crusader’ states of Europe. It took European societies and governments decades and in some cases generations to eliminate the anarchist’s “culture” and allure by a combination of counter violence, good governance, economic and social development and countervailing intellectual force. It will take European states and institutions similar approaches and tactics and many years to eliminate the threat of the Islamist foot soldiers of ISIS and like-minded groups from their own ‘Molenbeeks’.
…And fake Mahdis
The Caliphate in the Levant and Mesopotamia, and its budding branches in Libya, Yemen and even in faraway Afghanistan can only be defeated by the sword. The ‘Islamist State’ is the last of a long string of radical, millennial, apocalyptic, revivalist and schismatic movements, led by false prophets, fake Caliphs and usurping Mahdis . In fact the dawn of Islam saw the birth of the first such bloody movement. The Kharijites, (or Khawarij) literally ‘the outsiders’ was a rebellious movement that practiced a primitive form of egalitarianism, became infamous when one of its members in 661 AD assassinated the venerable Imam Ali, the last of the four ‘rightly guided’ Caliphs who was Prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, thus intensifying the Sunni-Shiite schism. Some of these claimants of prophethood barely deserve a footnote (although the greatest classical Arab poet Al-Mutanabbi, 915- 965 AD, as his name indicate, claimed the mantle of Prophethood in his youth) but others ruled large domains. The most powerful of these movements in modern times was that of the Mahdiyya movement in Sudan. In June 1881 a religious leader named Muhammad Ahmad Ibn Abdallah proclaimed himself the Mahdi (the guided one) who would redeem the Muslim faith. The movement was built on a reservoir of Sudanese resentment against the Egyptian-Ottoman dominion of Sudan, and had roots in the revivalist messianic popular beliefs among the local sects.
The charismatic Mahdi and his successor Abdallah Ibn Muhammad established an Islamic state in Sudan and in parts of Egypt and Ethiopia supported by a large army. The famed British General Charles Gordon fell to the swords of the Mahdi’s holy warriors in the battle of Khartoum in 1885. The Mahdiyya state terrorized the Nile Valley region, and their rampages lasted for 20 years, until another renowned British General, Horatio Kitchener leading an expeditionary British force of 8000 soldiers and an auxiliary 17000 combined Egyptian and Sudanese force, dispatched a larger Mahdist army of 60000 and destroyed the Mahdiyya state at the battle of Omdurman in1898. It is instructive here that the Mahdiyya state was defeated militarily by a combined Muslim-British force.
Terrorism without borders
Terrorism without borders is the natural outcome of globalization and the digital age. Countering this qualitatively new threat requires a strategy without borders too. After the Brussels bombings, President Obama re-iterated his mantra that the Islamic State is not an “existential threat” to the United States – “They can’t destroy us. They can’t defeat us”. And once again the President is framing the issue the wrong way. Just as he criticizes those who accuse him of reneging on his threats and promises regarding Syria, by twisting their words to make them sound as if they were counseling him to invade Syria, his framing of the issue of ISIS’ terror misses the point. Yes, it is true that ISIS and al Qaeda do not constitute an existential threat to America, but that is not what the critics are objecting to. Obama deals with this strain of terror as if we are still living in the ancient world of pre-globalization and the primitive age of the pre-digital possibilities. A war need not be an existential threat to cause tremendous damage. The only war that had the potential to destroy the United States was the civil war. And only during the Cold War the possibility of a thermonuclear exchange with the Soviet Union could have been considered a truly existential threat to America. No war in the twentieth century came close to representing an existential threat to the United States. America by virtue of geography and capabilities fights its wars overseas.
But as the American led minimalist war against ISIS, and the long conflict in Syria have demonstrated, far away wars in our inter-connected world, could have a devastating effects not only on Syria and Iraq, the primary theatre of the conflict, but also on Washington’s allies in the region, and as we have seen with the influx of refugees and migrants from the Middle East and Africa, the very foundations of the European Union are being undermined.
It is not only that the Schengen Agreement which led to the creation of “borderless Europe” is slowly collapsing now, but also the rising power of exclusionist tendencies and the ascendency of right-wing politics, and the potential for mass violence between local radical Islamists and neo-fascist groups that could deal a historic blow to a post-Cold war Europe that was supposed to be ’whole and free’. When hostile terrorist entities like the “Caliphate” control large open spaces that includes universities, labs, hospitals, and scientists, the possibility of assembling and detonating a “dirty” bomb to contaminate a city, or stealing radioisotopes to cause radiation poisoning, cannot be excluded.
What is to be done?
The American reaction to the mayhem in Brussels was somewhat predictable. The reaction of the two leading Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz was inflammatory, offensive, ill-advised, impractical and downright idiotic. Senator Cruz betrayed his ignorance of the conditions of America’s Muslim population, called for empowering law enforcement “to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized”. Someone on his staff should have told him that there are no American ‘Molenbeeks’ full of resentful and alienated Muslim youths, and that the majority of Muslim Americans, who live throughout the country, are well educated, mostly middle class and at home in America, unlike the relatively, isolated and disenfranchised Muslim communities in European countries like France and Belgium. Yes, we had some radicalized American-born Muslim individuals who were inspired by terrorist groups and theoreticians to commit violence, but we don’t have radicalized, Muslim communities, holed up, in ‘Molenbeek’ like enclaves ready to explode.
There were other ‘remedies’ by candidate Trump like banning Muslims from entering the United States, and re-introducing and legalizing torture to extract quick confessions from detainees. The leading democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, after criticizing the infantile proposals of her Republican rivals, proposed doing more of what president Obama is already doing, such as intensifying the air campaign, improving coordination with allies, tightening the visa and passenger-list systems. She differed with Obama only on her proposal to establish a safe zone in Syria to stem the flow of refugees.
The Brussel’s bombings, like the Paris attacks last year have heightened the debate about the best way to deal with the ISIS threat. The Islamic State’s impressive prowess in electronic warfare and its early successful use of social media, led to calls for greater emphasis on the virtual battlefield. Candidate Hillary Clinton called for a virtual war on ISIS. “We’ve got to defeat them online. This is where they radicalize, and that’s where they propagandize”. While a countervailing push online is necessary to fight the diabolically creative “electronic brigades” that ISIS has been deploying to wage online hashtag campaigns and to do battle with Twitter, and Google in the end this epic struggle with ISIS will have to be decided on the ground and not online, by sharp swords and not by sharply worded tweets.
The “clanging of the swords”
Defeating ISIS will require good old fashion military muscle. While the air campaign and selective special operations against ISIS leadership, and military installations have degraded the group, the decisive blow can only be delivered by ground troops. The Obama administration’s support for Syria’s opposition groups was invariably, limited, tepid and tactical. President Obama and his senior advisors initially stuck to the mantra that there is no military solution to the conflict, then with the rise of ISIS wanted the nationalist opposition to fight ISIS and ignore the very Assad regime that brought ISIS to Syria in the first place. Since the US is not likely to dispatch an expeditionary force to rout ISIS from its “capital” Raqqa on the Euphrates, as Britain did in 1898 to defeat the Mahdiyya state, conceivably a new American President can adopt some of the well thought out military options proposed by a number of serious experts such as Kenneth Pollack and Frederic Hof et.al.
Time is of the essence. Barring a Deus ex Machina in the form of American direct military intervention, or the formation of a new Syrian opposition force with significant American and Arab support, Syria’s wars will continue and could conceivably in a year or two unravel the Levant region the way we have known it for a century. Only military force could defeat ISIS and the Assad regime; and as ISIS is fond of saying, victory can only be achieved by the “clanging of the swords.”