Climate Change: Global Civilizational Challenge.

The Kyoto Protocol, the only international agreement to fight climate change, will come to an end in two years, 2012. The world, including the US who is not bound by Kyoto, has been trying frantically for over a year to come to agreement on what is to replace Kyoto. The Copenhagen conference, last year, turned out to be totally unproductive. Yet the major players have not given up hope for reaching an agreement that would be legally binding to all its signatories.

Unfortunately the progress has been very slow to nonexistent. The meeting at Tianjin, China ended up last week in total disarray. The meeting which was expected to resolve a few of the obstacles preventing an agreement was described by participants as being full of bickering. "At times it has been like watching children in a kindergarten," said Wendell Tio from Greenpeace International.

Although the talks are scheduled to move to Cancun, Mexico, next month not many are hopeful that the level of disagreement between the US and China will diminish. Kyoto divided the world into two groups, the developed and the developing, with the former subject to strict legal limits on its emissions of carbon dioxide while the latter is subject only to voluntary restraints. And that is the rub.

Officially China has become the largest emitter of carbon in the world, replacing the US but by all conventional metrics China is a developing country and so is refusing to abide by the US demands that China and other large developing countries should be subject to strict emissions quotas also. Obviously the Mr. Su, the Chinese representative at the talks, would have nothing of these demands. Mr. Su likened the U.S. criticism to Zhubajie, a pig in a classic Chinese novel, by saying "It has no measures or actions to show for itself, and instead it criticizes China, which is actively taking measures and actions."

It is this inability to view climate change as a global problem that demands a global solution that has wrecked Copenhagen, is threatening Cancun and will probably doom the final resolution to a meaningless gesture that will do nothing to control climate change. As long as various players are attempting to guard their own selfish interest then no meaningful solution is to be expected. This is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons whereby individual actors believe that they are doing what is good for themselves but wind up in hurting themselves and all other players as well.

Climate change is arguably the most important challenge that civilization has faced. This is not a regional problem but one that would affect everyone and everything. No one has the right to neglect this issue , not even the Arab countries who do not think of themselves as being large emitters of carbon. The data says otherwise. The largest emitters of carbon on a per capita basis are the five Arab gulf countries and these are joined by Saudi Arabia as the 14 largest in the world and then Oman as the as number 20. The Arab states as a whole emit over 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually which amounts to around 5 % of the global footprint. The Arab League has failed to take any measures to either control or diminish the carbon footprint of emissions in the Arab world. Actually, the record indicates just the opposite. Saudi Arabia has joined forces with China in order to torpedo any agreement in Copenhagen. Isn’t it time that the Arab world demands that its governments face their ethical and moral responsibilities squarely?

What do you think: Should the less developed be exempted from strict limits on emissions so that the developed will shoulder the greater part of the burden of emission reductions? Does nature discriminate on the basis of the national origin of carbon emissions? What would be a fair allocation of the burden and how heavy shed it be?

STL Indictments: The Begining of the End of Hezbollah?

Hezbollah might eventually be described by the adage “The faster they rise the harder they fall”. This popular adage is applicable to individuals as well as institutions that are thrust into the limelight as a result of some favourable developments but then the same institutions implode because they were not ready for prime time.

Hezbollah is such an institution that rose to prominence as a result of its ability to resist Israeli occupation and to continuously act as a thorn in the side of the Israelis who overstayed their welcome in Lebanon. But Hezbollah was not satisfied with these important gains in its stature since its real goal was not to only help drive the Israeli army from Lebanon. It can be argued, rather convincingly, that the ultimate aim of Hezbollah was to act as an Iranian vanguard by spreading the power of the Qom Grand Ayatollah to the Mediterranean. That goal of establishing a state run by the faqih was never totally abandoned but instead its full implementation was put on hold for purely strategic reasons.

History, in general, unfolds by moving forward in such a way as to create new visions and new realities that expand the concept of rights and ethics. It is note worthy to point to the continuous expansion in the circle of ethics all throughout history. This concept started with the self and then expanded to the family, the tribe, the nation and nature but will not end until it covers the whole cosmos, as suggested by Chardin. Those that cannot accept the challenges of the new realities but insist on solving all problems by going back to an imaginary mythical past will do so at their own peril. This has been the problem of Hezbollah right from its inception. It refused to act democratically and still insists on a very strict and fundamental religious dogma that is based on undemocratic values, rejection of diversity, the right to dissent and above all its ferocious stand to protect its right to stand above the law.

These destructive attitudes have contributed to the creation of an imaginary world where Hezbollah can do no wrong. Hezbollah demanded and won the right to be part of a cabinet that it does not recognize and started what turned out to be a devastating war with huge losses in Lebanese blood and treasure but declared the result a divine victory. Things were never what they seemed.

All of the above though, pales when placed next to its present dilemma. As if it is not enough to be an illegal militia that has no regard to the rule of law and the institutions of the state, a body politic that operates on Lebanese land but pledges allegiance to foreign powers it is currently acting as a guilty party in the case of the assassination of the former prime minister Rafic Hariri. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon,STL, was set up by the United Nations at the behest of the Lebanese government to investigate the egregious events of the 2005 explosion that killed Mr. Hariri and 21 others.

Hezbollah has gone on the offensive to counter what is allegedly expected to be indictment of many of its members in the Hariri case. Sayed Hassan Nasrallah has made a number of appearances to declare to the world that the STL is illegitimate and that it is ultimately an Israeli/American court. We are also inundated with daily proclamations by all sorts of party officials that no one should accept the legitimacy of the STL and those that do are to be considered traitors and Israeli collaborators. Many have even hinted rather bluntly at sedition once the party members are indicted.

This desperate behavior seems to corroborate the validity of the alleged accusations. The honorable and rational thing to do would have been to await the indictments and then respond to the charges. But how can we expect a party whose power rests with its illegal militia to act democratically and within the dictates of the law? It’s a party that rejects the legitimacy of the power of the state that it wants to be a part off and instead is threatening street demonstrations and hinting at pulling out of a cabinet that it would not have been invited to join had it not been for all its threats and machinations.

There is no doubt that Hezbollah can withdraw its members from the cabinet and maybe even force the cabinet to resign. That would actually be a good thing since Hezbollah would have started actions that will end up in marginalizing it. They might force a reshuffle of the government but they will not be able to form one under their leadership. Hezbollah’s reaction to the potential indictment of some of its members in the explosion that killed Rafic Hariri and many of his entourage; if the case is strong; could set in motion a chain of events that will usher in the beginning of the end of this chapter of Lebanese history. Could Hezbollah be the frog that keeps on inhaling to get bigger until it explodes?

Suggestions to reduce Electricity Shortages in Lebanon

Since the beginning of civilized society the concept of “solus populi"- the well being of the people- has provided the strongest justification for the existence of government. Well being is a difficult concept to define but it is agreed that a major component of well being of a nation is to be seen through the unencumbered accessibility to what is regarded essential requirements; food, shelter, clean water, education, physical security and essential utilities such as electricity.
As it should be obvious, based on the above brief list the Lebanese state has not been able to deliver on most of what is expected of it but especially electricity. Although this problem of electric power shortages has plagued the Lebanese society for over two decades the current outlook is for greater rationing and for no end to to what has arguably become a symbol of the incompetence of the Lebanese authorities to deal with what arguably appears to be a rather simple problem to overcome.

It is rather ironic that the Lebanese authorities who are obsessed with the idea of promoting Lebanon as a major tourist destination have failed to undertake any significant effort to supply the electric power needed to run the air conditioners in the luxury apartment buildings that can be seen all across the capital, Beirut and its environs. That is similar to selling internal combustion engines although one cannot deliver the petrol needed to have these engines run.

To make things even worse than what they are the Lebanese state saddles its citizens with the triple burdens of (1)electric rationing (2) high cost and highly polluting private electric supplemental power and (3) a subsidy of 5% of the GDP to an inefficient badly run and managed electricity producing and delivery sector.

A solution to what ails this sector in Lebanon must take the following points into consideration:
A. The overall capacity of about 2200 MW is not sufficient even if it was to be devoted only to residential demand. On the surface it might appear that 2200 MW are adequate but that does not take into consideration the single most important fact about electric generation: Capacity Factor. Fossil fuel plants, when properly run and maintained do not operate above 75% of their capacity and so my guess is that the Lebanese fossil fuel generators barely achieve 60% of capacity. This would automatically reduce the availability of electricity to about 1300 MW.
B. Each 100MW at 60% Load Factor produces about 5.2 Billion KWH/annum. If it is assumed that each Household requires 1200KWH/month then the maximum number of units that can be served would be 800,000 homes. If we are further to assume that the 4.5 million Lebanese live in 800,000 homes then who is to provide electric power to industry and municipalities to light the streets?

But what does the rather severe restriction on capacity have to do with a subsidy of around $1.2 billion a year? A public utility, in most countries of the world, either breaks even or makes a profit so why this huge annual deficit generated by the EDL, Electricity of Lebanon.? The answer to the above is a combination of inability to collect the revenues that are due but most importantly it is due to the antiquated and archaic rates structure that is in use. The present fee schedule for residential demand is the following:
First 100 KWH……o.o23 dollars
Next 200KWH……o.o36 dollars
Next 100 KWH…..0.053 dollars
Next 100 KWH…..o.080 dollars
Over 500 KWH….0.133 dollars

This schedule was established in the early 1990’s when the price of oil was less than a quarter of its current price. No wonder EDL runs at a huge deficit of over $100 million each month.


Proposed solutions
The Lebanese government is under the obligation to fix this hugely important sector ASAP. Some steps that would move the country significantly in that direction are the following:
(i) A 5-10 cents increase per KWH must be phased in. This measure will lead to a more efficient use of the available electricity and would reduce or even eliminate the subsidy of 5% of GDP.
(ii) Institute an efficient collection system from all customers.
(iii) Transform the current production facilities to run on natural gas. This will reduce CO2 emissions and will result in greater efficiencies.
(iv) Construct an additional 1000-1500MW capacity
(v) Encourage conservation through demand management, and through promoting clean renewable energy.
(vi) Allow private electric production companies who will distribute through EDL but phase out the small scale inefficient and highly polluting private generators.

Civil Rights vs Military Courts

Although the idea of personal liberty and freedom has preoccupied humans for millennia the notion as we presently know it was best clarified by the work of John Stuart Mill and later on Isaiah Berlin. What was initially stressed by JS Mill was the important concept that liberty carries within it two essential meanings; the liberty to act when one wills and the conditions whereby one is free from coercion. Berlin however took these two ideas and elaborated on them as to show that liberty has two components; positive liberty and negative liberty. These two ideas are not the same. It is possible to have one without the other.

Positive liberty is when individuals are offered the right and the ability to commit an act such as the opportunity to apply for a job vacancy. This kind of liberty is essential and very much appreciated but not as much as its negative counterpart whereby individuals will be protected from the arbitrary exercise of authority, it is our safety valve against tyranny.

A vibrant responsible democracy is structured so as to offer its citizens protection against abuse by discriminate application of the law. Civil society cannot thrive without a total respect for the rule of law and an unconditional rejection of the rule of men. Unless we are all equal and accountable to the same sets of rules under a perfectly transparent judicial system then none of us is free.

It is paradoxical that the most vocal critics of the Bush-Cheney administration in the Middle East rely , and rightly so, on the US administration’s total disregard of the rule of law and binding international conventions when each of these regimes outdoes the Bush-Cheney administration by a factor in their own abandonment of the rule of law. This is not meant to be a defense of the offensive and serious crimes committed by Bush-Cheney but instead are meant to highlight the sorry state of affairs under which we have to live.

Remember when arrest warrants were issued against three young men who had exercised their positive liberty to right but who were intimidated by the authorities who did not take lightly to being criticized? And then what about the Al Akhbar journalist who was arbitrarily detained by the military for an article that he wrote? I will not bore you by naming the hundreds, possibly thousands, of examples of arbitrarily detained individuals, redacted articles, banned films and songs whose only crime is that they offended the personal sensibilities of certain powerful individuals.

All of the above pales in importance to the continuous non enforcement of constitutional prerogatives. By elections that are supposed to take place in a month sometime go unfilled for much longer, National Constitutional Council is expected to always be ready to hear cases about the constitutionality of developments does not meet for over a year and does not pass a judgment on what is arguably the greatest constitutional violation; to elect a President who is proscribed from that position.
In light of the above political culture that acts as if there is no concept of what is the rule of law do we have the right to expect young well meaning individuals to devote their full time and energy to promote human rights, justice, rule of law and constitutional behavior? Luckily enough for us there are a few of these idealistic energetic individuals who strongly believe in praxis, to live what they preach.
Nour Merheb is such an individual that we can all be proud of for his commitment and idealism to fairness, liberty and equity. Nour has been working diligently to promote his theories and ideas about the steps that need to be taken to transform society from its current political feudalism to responsible and accountable free and democratic society.

Nour was sentenced two days ago by a Military Court to two months in prison for a small altercation with an off duty army personnel. This is outrageous for the simple fact that Military Court in Lebanon have become ubiquitous, passing rules and issuing judgments in all areas. That is simply unconstitutional. A society is ultimately made up of its citizens. Politicians and leaders will strip away our freedoms and institutionalize abuse only with our consent. Make no mistake about it the American public enabled George Bush-Cheney to practice torture in Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib but credit the US public with forcing a change once the facts became known. (Ultimately Bush-Cheney must be held accountable in a court of law).
The real issue facing us in this case is simply when would we show outrage? When would we act as the newscaster in Networks by saying: We are mad enough and we cannot take it any more”.

You might not agree with Nour Merheb on all the issues or even on any of them. That is not what is at stake. What is crucial is that his rights and dignity as a Lebanese citizen be respected. Nour has already declared that he would go on a hunger strike as soon as he is arrested. I would hope that his sentence be annulled but if it is not I would hope that many would declare solidarity with Nour in any way possible including the possibility of joining him in his hunger strike.
Nour and Wael Khair, the Executive Director of The Foundation for Humanitarian Rights, Lebanon held a press conference today that must be watched in order to appreciate the importance of this issue:

Religious Freedom vs. Religious Phobia

Utopias are perfect societal structures that are goals to be attained. They are dreams that will never be fulfilled whether they are based on Plato’s Republic or Thomas Mores’ ideal economy. These are dreams that provide us with targets to aim for but that we will not attain. If a utopia is to be achieved then that would be the end of history, a stage of perfect homogeneity and no conflict.

No world society is at that stage, although some have argued that certain states are closer to the end of history than others. Democracy , when seen in the above light, is such a conception that is to be approached asymptotically and so obviously never reached. That is true of all societies and all states including the experiment that we know as the United States. We all know of many severe challenges that the US system is constantly struggling with such as the relatively major income inequality, the presidential electoral system, the role of money in all elections and the corporate influence in shaping the legislative process. It is clear that given such challenges the resulting democracy is nowhere close to perfect but yet it can be argued that in many areas such as the principles of separation of church and government in addition to the tremendous seriousness given to the issue that is commonly known as “ first freedom” make it very difficult , even impossible, to violate the principle of freedom of religion as spelled out in the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “

A democratic system might not be perfectly equitable or perfectly just but it cannot afford to violate personal freedom of expression and religion. There ought to be no room whatsoever in the public square for religious affairs since these are best viewed as issues of personal faith. I have every reason to believe that the United States looks upon this issue with the utmost seriousness it deserves and will not knowingly violate any persons’ right to worship whoever she wants anyway she desires provided that such an exercise does not impinge on any other persons rights.

The controversy regarding the issue of the construction of a mosque close to ground zero in New York City must be seen within the above parameters. Ideally this means that any individual or group of people should have the right to practice their faith anywhere they want as long as that does not impinge on the rights of others. No one in Manhattan has said that the group of Moslems does not have the right to worship or to build a mosque; the only objections raised are based on the appropriateness of the location. The Mayor of the city, Mr. Bloomberg, has given his unqualified support for the construction of the Islamic center where it is proposed since it meets all the zoning requirements and I believe that the center would be built where proposed.

If for any reason the planned Islamic center is relocated then that unlikely event would be a reflection of Islam phobia and not a violation of the seminal constitutional principle embodied by the first amendment. Fellow Muslims will still be free to pray and build their houses of worship but not in that particular location which will be a tragedy but not a constitutional catastrophe.

If it ever comes to that , which I doubt that it will, then the most obvious question that should be raised by Arabs and Moslems alike is Why did so many of the well educated and enlightened United States citizens develop an Islam phobia but not a Buddhist phobia or a Hindu phobia? Is there something that we can do as a community to allay these fears, as unreasonable as they might seem? Could it be that when so many terror attacks were carried in the name of Islam that not enough was done to denounce these attacks? Could it be that the small groups of fundamentalists have been allowed to hijack Islam without any major rebuttals from the mainstream Islamic power structure? But above all are there many Arab countries that can truly object to religious discrimination by pointing out to religious freedoms in their countries?

The controversy in lower Manhattan does not rise to the level of being a violation of the first amendment. The Islamic center should be built as proposed but if for one reason or another a zoning justification is found to move it to a different location then Islam phobia would be the reason.

If that is to transpire then it would be the duty of every US citizen to analyze in a detached manner the unfairness and the injustice of such a selective judgment. May this controversy also lead to serious soul searching in the Arab countries also? We need to recognize that when we place severe restrictions on the religious practice of non Moslems in our countries and when we prohibit the building of non Islamic houses of worship or place restrictions on the use of religious symbols then we would have abandoned the right to criticize others when their acts infringe on the rights of our fellow religionists. In a perfect world there should be no restrictions on anyone to believe or not believe but in an imperfect world we need to find out the reason for popular phobias.

The above was written for the inaugural issue of Islam Comment.

Water Insecurity in MENA

“Water water everywhere ,Nor a drop to drink” from the Rime of the Ancient Mariner is an adequate description to the water insecurity that is threatening the world as a whole but that is a practical certainty for the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. It is true that many an Arab country is blessed with an excess of Black Gold but the serious scarcity of fresh water availability could make Blue Gold much more important in determining the future of these lands.

Fresh water scarcity is a global problem but in some regions it is much more severe than others. The Middle East and North Africa are classified by the United Nations as the ones with the most water insecurity in the world. Although 75 % of the surface of the planet is water only 2.5% of that is fresh water and ¾ of that is not available since it is frozen icebergs. What is left is less than 1 % of the volume of water and even that 1% is not totally available since some of it is hard to get to and others are just soil dampness. What is important is to note that the amount of fresh water availability is fixed but it is, like most other resources, not evenly distributed. Many regions in the world have access to over 12000 cubic meters per capita per year while others have only a few hundred. Actually, the United Nations considers countries with 500 cubic meters of water per capita per year to be suffering of absolute water insecurity.

Unfortunately, many Arab states are already there, such as Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and Gaza. Furthermore it is estimated that the first world capital to run out of water will be Sana’a by 2020. Water availability is so scarce in MENA that the FAO projects that by 2025 17 Arab states will have to be classified under “scarce water supplies”. In order to put this in perspective the average water availability/consumption the typical Arab will be just 700 cubic meters per year when the global average is ten times as high in availability and 3-4 times in consumption. The situation for the most essential resource for life is so critical in MENA that less than 0.5% of the renewable water resources are in this region of the world. The stability of the water resources is even more acute if one is to remember that 75% of the water in this region originates from outside its political boundaries.

Given the expected increase in population in the region in addition to climate change and its attendant increased demand for water for irrigation the availability of water will be halved by 2050 which will imply severe water insecurity for the whole region. Whether these expected shortages translate into political instability and water wars is a potential outcome that needs to be taken seriously. That is at least one reason that calls for a major highly coordinated effort by all the countries to invest heavily in water infrastructure including modern irrigation techniques.

Lebanon is in a slightly better position than the average Arab country but definitely not in an enviable position of any water excesses. The best that can be said about the Lebanese situation is that it is less severe than Jordan, and the GCC to name a few. Estimates of water availability in Lebanon are rough and they vary between a conservative estimate of 2200 million cubic meters per year and almost 4000 million cubic meters of fresh water per year. As it is clear even the upper estimate provides each of the 4.5 million Lebanese only about 900 cubic meters per year. Lebanon is expected to be consuming just about 3000 million cubic meters of water by 2015. As the above figure makes it clear that would then imply that Lebanon needs huge investments in the next few years in order to gather a lot of this water that is wasted every year by flowing into the sea.
More than half of the water usage in Lebanon is needed for irrigation while about 30% goes for domestic uses. The remainder is used by industry.

The warning by Minister Gibran Basil about the impending water crisis in Lebanon must be taken very seriously. Arguably the crisis has already begun and is visible from the constant failure of the water authorities to deliver adequate amounts of water to its clients. One reason is the antiquated infrastructure and another is the lack of awareness to conserve this most precious of resources. Lebanon cannot afford not to construct a series of dams and to build a modern facility to supply Beirut, where half of the Lebanese reside, with the estimated 250 million cubic meters of water that it needs while it is currently getting less than half of that amount. It is also hoped that the impending water shortages will impel the Lebanese government to adopt a meaningful population policy. Lebanon is simply beyond its physical carrying capacity.

Why All The STL Critics Are Wrong.

Let us be clear, from the outset, that there is no institution, official or person anywhere in the world that is to be held immune from criticism especially when the subject has betrayed and/or violated the principles with which they have been charged. But to be accused of having committed an act that the subject has not done is the epitome of injustice and demagoguery.

It seems to have become fashionable among Lebanese individuals, politicians, the media and political parties to never let an opportunity go by without making a statement about how biased, politicized and Israeli the Special Tribunal for Lebanon,STL, has become. Usually the only supporting documents for such accusations are often limited to a rehash of the undocumented charges that the STL has leveled accusations that are based on false witnesses.

Any investigation of the record would reveal that there is no justification whatsoever for the above position. There is no basis in fact for any of these accusations. After the horrid planned explosion that killed Rafic Hariri, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon and 22 other individuals a one month (Feb. 25 – March 24, 2005) fact finding mission was set up by the United Nation and headed by Peter Fitzgerald. This was later followed by the creation of the United Nations Independent International Investigation Commission, UNIIIC, whose function was to help the Lebanese authorities investigate the deadly explosion of February 14, 2005. The UNIIIC was established on Apr. 7, 2005 through Security Council resolution 1595. Mr. Detlev Mehlis was put in charge of this Commission that proceeded to issue two reports under his tenure ship that ended at the end of 2005. The first report by the UNIIIC, released on October 20, 2005, summarized the progress on the investigation by stating the belief that such a sophisticated operation was a few months in the planning and that it could not have conceivably been carried out without the knowledge of both the Syrian and the Lebanese security services who were known for their almost total and complete control on Lebanon at the time. Yet it is crucial to note that the report ended by stressing that all parties are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The UNIIIC did not indict anyone but merely reported what its investigations have uncovered. A second progress report was issued by the UNIIC ,still under the leadership of Mr. Mehlis on Dec. 20 2005 in which the commission stressed that it is continuing its line of inquiry and that it is also reassessing in order to ”close out any lines of inquiry which no longer have a direct bearing on the case”. This was the last report by Mr. Mehlis who resigned and was replaced by Serge Brammertz who issued the third progress report of the UNIIIC on March 16, 2006 in which he made it clear that the commission was investigating those who have deliberately misled the investigation.
The UNIIIC continued to issue its periodic reports under the leadership of Mr. Brammertz until he resigned effective January 1, 2008 when Daniel Bellemare was appointed as a replacement until the expiration of the UNIIIC mandate at the end of 2007.

Meanwhile the United Nations Security Council had established the Special Tribunal for Lebanon upon the request of the Lebanese state. The Security Council did so under chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter. The negotiations between Lebanon and the United Nations determined the structure that would become the STL: a Registry, Chamber with a pretrial judge, and a Prosecutor. The selection committee had recommended that Mr. Bellemare be appointed as the prosecutor for his familiarity with the details of the investigations that had been carried so far both by the Lebanese authorities and by the now defunct UNIIIC. But it is important to note that when the STL was established the UNIIIC had ceased to exist.

The STL became operational on March 2009 and that was when the Pretrial judge, an independent international jurist who is not a member of the Chamber, exercised his authority to review the evidence upon which the Lebanese authorities had held individuals in this case in custody. The Pre trial judge determined, at the earliest period possible, that the 4 generals held in custody should be released for the lack of evidence against them. Up until this moment the STL has not issued any indictments of anyone and has not made any accusations or issued any other rulings on this matter.

Based on the above, admittedly condensed and brief reading of the developments it is clear that:

1. There is a clear and distinct separation between the UNIIIC and the STL.
2. The Lebanese public and the media have failed to make that distinction.
3. UNIIIC was established to help investigate. It could not and did not issue indictments.
4. The Prosecutor of the STL happens to be the same individual who led the UNIIIC as its mandate expired. This, however, does not make the UNIIIC an organ of the STL.
5. The STL has developed a sophisticated set of rules under which to operate including a detailed account of the rights of the accused, and an independent Pretrial judge to review and approve indictments.

It should be obvious, based on the above that the barrage of daily accusations notwithstanding, there are no legal, rational or logical grounds to besmirch the integrity of an organization by constantly making allegations to which it is not even peripherally connected. The common complaint that the STL anchored its case to the testimony of false witnesses is patently false as the STL did not exist when the issue of false witnesses surfaced and since it must be also emphasized that the UNIIIC was aware of the false witnesses and said so in its reports. The UNIIIC, just like any credible investigator had a duty to weigh the evidence as it appeared and consequently to decide whether to use the evidence or not.

In an effort to get as much clarity as possible on this case a question was submitted to the STL spokesperson, Ms. Issawi, whose response is very informative and revealing:

“With regard to the relationship between the United Nations Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (Tribunal), you are right to treat them as two distinct institutions. UNIIIC is separate from the Tribunal, which only began operating on 1 March 2009. UNIIIC’s mandate, according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1595 of 7 April, 2005, was to assist the Lebanese authorities in their investigations in collecting information and evidence, but not to conduct prosecutions. Conversely, pursuant to Article 10 of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Prosecutor is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for the crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Following the Pre-Trial Judge's deferral order of 27 March 2009, the Tribunal now has primacy over the case and thus the legal framework is completely different, since the Prosecutor now has lead over the investigation. As such, the Prosecutor can use information and evidence collected by UNIIIC, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal."

How Not To Finance An Army

After the incident that took place on August 1, 2010 between a small force of the Lebanese Army and the Israeli Defense Force at Adeisseh in Southern Lebanon Mr. Suleiman, the Lebanese President has been on a mission to finance the Lebanese army through personal contributions. These misguided efforts, although emotionally appealing, have been endorsed enthusiastically by many in Lebanon including Elias Murr, the Defense Minister, who declared yesterday, with pride, the opening of a special account at the Bank of Lebanon to receive such donations. The initial deposit was a miserly $650,000 that was raised over two weeks.
The above described incident has lead some members of the US congress and also some in the French parliament to request that the already approved military aid to Lebanon be suspended pending an accounting of the Adeisseh clash during which 2 Lebanese army personnel have died and one reporter from Al Akhbar newspaper in addition to the wounding of a reporter for Al Manar TV station. One Israeli Colonel was also shot dead apparently by a Lebanese army sniper. A transparent and thorough accounting of what led to this unfortunate incident has not yet been made public by the Lebanese army. What were the rules of engagement? Who issued the order to fire? Did UNIFIL inform the Lebanese army that the Israelis will be pruning a tree on their side of the border? How did the media know about the probability of friction at this particular point and at this specific time? A responsible and accountable democratic system of governance deserves to know precisely what happened especially since this incident could have ignited a very costly war indeed.

Luckily for both sides, cooler heads prevailed and the incident is best described as a skirmish during which the Lebanese side lost a personnel carrier and a local Army building that served as the headquarters in the area in addition to the 4 dead on both sides. This relatively heavy cost appears to have been paid for no reason since the Israeli army was permitted to proceed with its tree pruning the next day without an incident. So the Lebanese tax appear has the right to know who issued this order and why? If this incident was the result of violating the rules of engagement then was the responsible party held accountable?

President Suleiman does not act as if he is concerned in any way in finding what happened, at least not in making it public. He visited the border where the skirmish occurred and had nothing but praise to laud on the army personnel for its courage, steadfastness and sacrifice. He has also decided that the Lebanese army is ready to handle sophisticated weapons and that he will acquire these weapons by initiating a personal pledge drive.

The US contributions to the Lebanese army over the past four years have totaled $500 million. The bulk of these were transport vehicles basic, ammunition, communications gear and other basics without which no army can operate. So the first question that needs to be asked in this regard is whether the Lebanese authorities are willing to cut their nose in order to spite their face. Would the Lebanese new initiative lead say to the loss of $100 million in aid that is crucial for basic army needs in order to replace that by maybe only $50 million spent on more advanced weapons that under normal circumstances serve as trophies? If so then who is to plug the $100 million newly created gap in the basics?

Even if one was to assume that no loss of aid was to be encountered then is a campaign for personal donations the proper way to finance an army? It is fair to assume that those that are willing to resort to unconventional means of finance are doing so because of a deep belief that the need for these weapons is crucial for the existence of the state. If an act is deemed to be that essential then is it appropriate to finance it through a personal pledge campaign instead to giving it the priority that it deserves in the budget.

The Lebanese GDP is expected to be close to $ 37 billion for the current year and possibly $40 billion for 2011. The total budget for 2010 is just over $ 4 billion in debt service and $9.3 billion in other expenditures the largest single item being $1.15 billion allocated to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. It is very difficult to conceive of a personal pledge drive that is going to raise more than a hundred times what has already been raised. This very optimistic figure will only mean a total of $65 million on a one shot deal basis. Shouldn’t a country with a GDP of $ 40,000 million be able to raise through fees and or taxes an additional guaranteed flow of funds of $65 million. That is only 0.0015 % of the total. Equivalently, if this amount of financing is so essential would it is that difficult to find $65 million out of a total of $9,300 million in the regular expenditure budget; that is only 0.0075% of that portion of the budget. It can even be suggested that the whole $65 million could be cut from the excessive budget of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers; in that case the required $65 million would only mean a decrease of just over five percent of the 2010 budgetary allocation. And last but not least let us assume that the debt service for next year is not $4100 million but is $4165 million; does anyone doubt in that case the government’s ability to find the required funds.

It is clear that the current plan not to share with the public the details of the Adeisseh skirmish, the off the cuff decision by the President to purchase for the army weapons that it might not be ready for and whose needs is not well established, the declaration that the new purchases will be financed through personal contributions when the amount of money at issue is easily absorbed through the regular budgetary process lead to the inescapable conclusion that the political process is broken and that these leaders are interested only in shallow, peripheral and meaningless acts.

Yes, The Special Tribunal Can Accomodate Both Sides.

It has been obvious for a while that the case against the perpetrators in the case of former Prime Minister Hariri's assassination lacks the proverbial “smoking gun” ,which is not surprising for a very well organized and sophisticated operation that took place more than five years ago. Many of the news leaks however, have suggested that when the indictments by the office of the prosecutor of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon , STL, are to be issued in September that the indictments will name some Hezbollah party members on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Hezbollah seems to take these allegations very seriously otherwise Sayed Nasrallah , its Secretary General, would not have threatened civil strife but then softened his position to suggest that he is only presenting evidence that has not been considered by the prosecutor of the STL. The bulk of the Hezbollah evidence is circumstantial. It suggests that Israel could have organized the hit against Mr. Hariri. Mr. Nasrallah showed video of the intercepted feed from Israeli Unmanned Vehicles that criss crossed the sky of Beirut and Lebanon but seemed to show that the UMV had a specific interest in the routes usually used by Mr. Hariri. This was the explicit material evidence presented by Mr. Nasrallah in addition to the important implicit evidence that made it clear though that the reason for all the Hezbollah related cell phone traffic in the immediate area of the explosion on February 14, 2005 was due to the fact that Hezbollah operatives were at that stage in pursuit of Ghassan Al Jid who is an Israeli collaborator and who has managed to flee the country to Israel. As you can see the strength of the Sayed Nasrallh presentation rested on showing a potential interest in the exact movements of the former prime minister in addition to providing a rationale for the presence of Hezbollah operatives in the immediate vicinity of the scene of the crime.

Mr. Nasrallah has the right and even the obligation to defend his party and its members against all and any accusations. No one should cast any doubts on the validity of such a claim. Defense though should be within the accepted judicial institutions and only after the indictments are made. Hezbollah and its many supporters however claim that they have earned the right for a preemptive defense, if you will, since the STL record is full of wrong accusations based on false witnesses. They thus claim that the STL is therefore politicized and is actually an “Israeli court” whose only aim is to discredit Hezbollah. That is a weak position since it fails to distinguish between the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) and the STL. Most of the complaints by Hezbollah and its allies tend to be related to the Mehlis era of the UNIIIC when the STL had not been created yet.

So what is to be done at this point? Should the claims by Nasrallah be totally dismissed or should they be taken into consideration. I believe that under different circumstances these accusations could be dismissed but it would be a grave error to do so under the current set of circumstances that is prevalent in Lebanon. This does not mean that the STL should be discredited but neither does it mean that a major proportion of Lebanese society should be allowed to feel slighted and treated unfairly. There is an elegant solution which rests on the formation of a special Lebanese Judicial commission to study all the details that Mr. Nasrallh has voiced and then refer its conclusions to the STL.

Such a move will be within the current statutes of the STL in general and Article 4 in particular which does not preclude such investigations provided that the results of these inquiries are referred to the STL. Under such circumstances the rule of law would have been preserved, both sides would have had their say, the Lebanese factions will accept the final rulings of the STL and then we will have this sordid affair behind us. What is crucial is to preserve the principal that the evidence leads to a determination and that in the field of law there is no place for deciding on an outcome first and then look for evidence to support that hypothesis. There is no place for reverse engineering in the judicial system.

Nuclear Power Is Far From Optimal For Arab States

No matter how the nuclear impasse between Iran and the international community is eventually resolved there will definitely be an unwelcome byproduct of this controversy that will affect the life of all inhabitants in the region for decades to come. Electric power generation in many of the GCC countries in addition to other Arab states is regrettably going nuclear. Many contracts have already been signed and a few others are in the discussion phase.

Iran has been at odds with the international community over what it calls its peaceful nuclear initiative and what practically the whole world regards as a nuclear program for the production of atomic bombs. The Iranian program to enrich uranium and its adamant refusal to agree to have international inspection of its facilities and to cease the local enrichment efforts in exchange for imported enriched uranium 235 have served to heighten the contention that Iran’s’ nuclear efforts are not peaceful.

Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, was found in 2003 to be in non compliance of its obligations under the treaty. As a result the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose Director General at the time was Mohammad El Baradei reported this violation to the United Nations Security Council in 2006 which has resulted in sanctions against Iran and on and off negotiations regarding its right to enrich uranium.

The suspicion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons has heightened international commitment that the world has to act decisively to stop nuclear proliferation and enforce the 1970 NPT statutes. This current nuclear standoff between Iran and the international community is further complicated by the nature of unfriendly relations between Iran and Israel where some Israelis regard an Iranian atomic bomb to be an existential threat to the state of Israel.

It is hoped that ultimately cooler minds will prevail, Iran will find a way to pursue its peaceful nuclear program without the need for local uranium enrichment and that the palpable level of tension with Israel will be brought under control. But even if all goes well and all the nuclear issues between Iran and the rest of the world are resolved the neighbouring Arab states have become directly involved in a different kind of a nuclear race. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and possibly Kuwait have either embarked on programs to generate electricity from nuclear power or are seriously considering it.


So why shouldn’t these countries generate electricity from nuclear power? That does not contravene any NPT regulations. What is most ironic is that probably none of these programs would have been given the approval to proceed had it not been for the Iranian nuclear program. Most of the Arab countries and the GCC in particular feel uncomfortable with an assertive nuclear Iran and so felt that they would respond the best way that they can by adopting peaceful nuclear technology. Nuclear power became the new status symbol in the region and the major providers of the technology; US, Japan France, S. Korea and Russia; welcomed the prospect of tens of billions of dollars for the proposed plants.

But do nuclear power plants make sense? Nuclear power is risky, dirty and inefficient. No one in the world has any workable solution for disposing of nuclear waste, an accidental meltdown of a nuclear core is within the realm of possibilities, the uranium deposits are limited and the cost of producing electricity through a controlled nuclear reaction is competitive only because of the fuel subsidies and the limits on liability to make insurance affordable. Then there is the question of huge capitalization and the prohibitive price of decommissioning.

It’s ironic that when the countries who have the technology and the know how to go nuclear have decided not to. The US has not built a nuclear power plant in over thirty years and there are major public outcries whenever renewing the license for any of the existing ones comes up. Germany has even gone further than the US. Germany is on a process of phasing out all its current nuclear power plants and is replacing them by renewable clean energy.


Sunlight is for free and is very abundant in each of the Arab states that are going nuclear. Besides the abundance of the sun there is also abundance of land close to the final demand for electricity. All of these factors combine to make concentrated thermal solar a clean, inexpensive energy source that will be difficult to beat. Where else would one get a guarantee for the price of the fuel for decades to come? Many of the plants in the Mojave Desert in California and the plans for 2 gigawatts of solar thermal in China show that electricity can be produced through this technology for about 6-7 cents per kilowatt hour.

It is not too late for the UAE to shift gears and change its nuclear plants into solar thermal ones and obviously Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan should reconsider seriously the long term implications of nuclear power and whether it is worth the risk and the additional cost. Investment decisions especially costly projects that are expected to last for decades should not be undertaken on the basis of fads and status symbols they should instead be undertaken on the basis of efficiency, safety and communal good. Under fair conditions solar thermal will win against nuclear every time. It would be regrettable if the only legacy of the current Iranian standoff is the unwise adoption of electric nuclear power in the Arab states of the region.