By Janine Zacharia Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, April 8, 2010; A11
GAZIANTEP, TURKEY -- Since Turkey and Syria eliminated border restrictions several months ago, the crowds of Syrians at the glittering Sanko Park Mall in this southeastern Turkish city have grown tenfold. Exports from Gaziantep to Syria are booming, and rich Turkish businessmen are stepping up their investments across the border.
"There's no difference between Turks and Syrians," said Olfat Ibrahim, a 35-year-old Syrian construction engineer with bags of goods in hand. She said she has stepped up her visits across the border since the lifting of visa requirements. "Syria is Turkey.''
The thriving trade is a sign of Turkey's rising influence with Syria, part of its effort to reach out to neighboring countries to build economic ties it hopes will also stabilize political relationships and expand its influence in the region. Those efforts, which include business ventures with Iran, illustrate to some extent how futile U.S. efforts to isolate those countries with sanctions have become. They've also raised concerns in Washington and in Israel about whether this key Muslim member of NATO is undergoing a fundamental realignment.
Turkey's efforts, however, seem as much about economic expansion as they do about foreign policy, with an aggressive strategy of seeking new markets for Turkish businessmen, many of them backers of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party.
"We want to have an economic interdependency between Turkey and neighbors and between different countries in these regions. If you have an economic interdependency, this is the best way to prevent any crisis," said Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.
The push has included an effort to broker a resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks, easing tensions between Syria and Saudi Arabia -- the main power brokers in Lebanon -- to help avert a political crisis there, and trying to mediate an end to the West's dispute with Iran over its nuclear program.
With wealth garnered in emerging markets and growing self-confidence as a new member of the G-20, Turkey is reaching out as much to former European enemies, such as Greece, as to its Muslim neighbors. In the past year and a half, Davutoglu and his predecessor made roughly twice as many trips to Europe as they did to the Middle East. A Turk serves as president of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly as well as the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
To some analysts, Erdogan doesn't seem as much of an ideologue as a pragmatic capitalist trying to make money and create markets. When he visited Tehran in October, he described the Iranian nuclear program as "peaceful,'' causing U.S. officials to bristle. Less noticed was Erdogan's push for a free-trade agreement.
Accompanying the Turkish leader on the trip was Rizanur Meral, chief executive of Sanko Holding's Automotive Group and president of TUSKON, a Turkish business association representing 50,000 small and medium-size Turkish companies.
Business leaders are playing an important role in Turkey's foreign policy, serving as unofficial ambassadors and advisers. Syrian businessmen in Gaziantep pushed for the relaxation of the visa requirements. When President Abdullah Gul visited Cameroon last month to sign a free-trade accord and open a new embassy, he was accompanied by three cabinet ministers, four members of parliament -- and 147 businessmen. Erdogan took similar-size delegations to India, Iran and Libya.
"The business consideration is very important for this government," said Ismail Hakki Kisacik, general coordinator of Turkey's Taha Group, which controls the country's largest clothing chain and joined government officials on the recent Africa trip. "If you're developing your business with countries, it means your relations improve.''
The United States may be an exception.
Washington's relations with Turkey took on a sour tone in February when the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution calling Turkey's killing of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 "genocide." Turkey recalled its ambassador, Namik Tan. The Obama administration has insisted that it does not support the panel's move.
Over the past year, U.S. officials have shown muted tolerance toward Turkey's outreach to Syria and outright disapproval of Turkey's rhetoric on Iran. The United States has openly chastised Turkey -- which is heavily dependent on Iranian-supplied energy sources -- for undercutting the U.S. push to isolate Iran internationally over its nuclear program.
"It seems, to me at least, that Turkey is contemplating a fundamental realignment,'' said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds U.S. foreign policy initiatives.
Phil Gordon, the assistant secretary of state for Europe, said recently that the United States doesn't necessarily believe that Turkey is turning away from its Western allies. He said Turkey's move to improve relations with its neighbors was understandable, but warned that that effort "should not be pursued uncritically or at any price," especially at the expense of its relationship with Israel.
Relations between Israel and Turkey were good until Israel launched a military offensive in the Gaza Strip in December 2008. Erdogan's popularity soared after he lectured Israeli President Shimon Peres about the attacks in January last year.
His criticism, which has continued, contributes "negatively to the way Israel is perceived in Turkey," said an Israeli diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of relations between the two nations. "It's not clear which direction Erdogan is taking Turkey."
But to Turkish officials, the direction is obvious. As their nation has grown economically, it is only natural for Turkey seek a bigger role in global affairs.
Turkey, meanwhile, is also looking to export some of its cultural influence. In recent years, the country has had about 30 television shows broadcast across the Arab world.
Kivanc Tatlitug, a popular soap opera star, has been so effective at promoting Turkey's interests and tourism in the region that during Foreign Minister Davutoglu's recent visit to Bulgaria, "there was a question whether Turkey, as a government, is promoting these series as propaganda,"' Davutoglu said.
It is, he said, one thing the government is not doing.
By Howard Schneider Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, January 11, 2010; A08
BEIRUT -- The victory by a pro-U.S. faction in last June's parliamentary election has given way to a situation in which Hezbollah will keep its large arms stockpile and a veto over major government decisions, while efforts are underway to repair relations with neighboring Syria.
The compromises made by new Prime Minister Saad Hariri as he assembled a governing coalition are seen by supporters as unavoidable in a country in which complex internal politics and the influence of outside powers can make governing difficult. But they also show the practical limits of the Obama administration's overture to the Islamic world.
The June election victory by Hariri's coalition came just after Obama delivered a major speech from Cairo and just before violent street demonstrations rattled the government in Iran, considered an important influence in Lebanon because of its support for Hezbollah. Some Obama advisers went so far as to attribute Hariri's success to the mood of reform the president had brought to the region.
But victory at the polls did not translate so smoothly on the ground. Hariri spent six months trying to form a government, and could do so only after accepting key Hezbollah demands and giving up on a main aim of his coalition: to curb the Islamist group's influence.
He also agreed to visit Damascus and meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad, a difficult symbolic step because of Syria's suspected involvement in the 2005 assassination of Hariri's father, former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. A United Nations tribunal is still investigating the killing. It is one of a number of political assassinations that led to a U.N. resolution and other outside pressure, prompting Syria to end its longstanding military presence in Lebanon.
"We won the election, but it looks like we lost," said Marwan Hamadeh, a member of parliament and supporter of the "Cedar Revolution," which has aimed to curb the influence of both Syria and Iran in the country at a time when other power brokers, especially the United States, want to talk with both nations. "There has been a lot of realism and a lot of frustration. The Cedar Revolution forces were convinced: Why look for a fight when everyone is trying to negotiate with Iran and Syria?"
The shape of Hariri's coalition is not seen by U.S. officials as a major setback; they view it instead as far preferable to a coalition dominated by Hezbollah and its allies. Hezbollah maintains a militia that it justifies as necessary for potential conflict with Israel, despite a U.N. resolution ordering the group to disarm. The United States regards Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. The group's opponents in Lebanon argue that its arms stockpile puts the country at risk of another war, such as the one in 2006 in which Israel maintained that all of Lebanon would be held accountable for Hezbollah's actions.
U.S. military and economic aid to Lebanon is continuing, largely to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces and other state institutions and undermine Hezbollah's argument that the country can't defend itself. The United States has contributed about $400 million to Lebanon's military since 2006, a level expected to continue in the form of supplies that range from armored personnel carriers to new boots.
"It's glass half empty, glass half full," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said as he toured the country last week. "Does Hariri's visit to Damascus mean you have to beg for Damascus's dispensation, or does it mean that Bashar wants a new relationship? It remains to be seen."
It is a question central to the discussion here and connected to U.S. efforts to turn Syria away from Iran, derail Iran's nuclear program, and limit Iran's influence through proxies like Hezbollah here and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Hariri's visit to Damascus, according to his supporters and others, was brokered by Saudi Arabia, which has been taking its own steps to repair relations with Assad. What's less clear -- and under debate here -- is whether the Saudis were hoping to weaken Syria's long-standing alliance with Iran by making amends or were hedging against the possibility that Obama will fail in his efforts to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons technology.
The White House has its own policy of engagement with Syria, though progress has been fitful. The expected return of a U.S. ambassador to Damascus has not occurred, and there is still U.S. dissatisfaction with Syrian efforts to control its border and halt the flow of insurgents into Iraq.
Hariri's meeting with Assad did produce some concessions, including an expectation that the countries will work more closely on defining borders and other issues that are considered a source of instability inside Lebanon and between Lebanon and Israel. Diplomats and analysts also regarded Assad's willingness over the past year to exchange ambassadors with Lebanon as an important acknowledgment of Lebanon's sovereignty.
But there is still worry here that the momentum of the Cedar Revolution has been lost, and skepticism that U.S. efforts to engage Syria and Iran will change the behavior of either. The shape of the new government has only added to those concerns.
"Everybody is waiting to see if the Syrians will deliver, and if the Iranians win or lose their battle" both internally and with the United States, said Ghattas Khoury, a former member of parliament who is close to Hariri. "I think everyone reached the conclusion that these were not things you can do much about."
In the fall of 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen on his way home from Tunisia, was pulled out of line by US officials while changing planes at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport. He was locked up for twelve days, much of that time incommunicado, and harshly interrogated. When he was finally allowed to make a phone call, after a week in captivity, he called his mother in Canada, who found him a lawyer.
The lawyer saw Arar on Saturday. The very next night—a Sunday evening—immigration officials held an extraordinary six-hour hearing starting at 9 PM, orchestrated from Washington, D.C. When Arar asked to have his lawyer present, they told him that she had chosen not to participate in the hearing. In fact, the only "notice" they had provided was to leave a message on the lawyer's office voice mail that Sunday night. She got the message Monday morning, and immediately called the immigration service. They told her, falsely, that Arar was being transferred to New Jersey, and she could contact him the next day. In fact, that night federal agents took him on a federally chartered jet to Jordan, and from there to Syria.
In Syria, Arar was handed over to intelligence officials who imprisoned him in a cell the size of a grave, three feet by six feet by seven feet. Syrian security agents tortured him, including beating him with an electric cable, while asking the same questions that FBI interrogators had been asking at JFK—was he a terrorist, was he linked to al-Qaeda, did he know various other persons thought to be associated with al-Qaeda? (The Syrian security forces are widely known for their use of torture, as the US State Department reports every year in its annual Human Rights Country Reports.) After a year, the Syrians released Arar, concluding that he had done nothing wrong.
Arar returned to Canada—this time bypassing JFK. Canada launched a major independent investigation, which concluded that he was wholly innocent, and that Canadian officials had erred in providing the Americans with misleading information about him while he was in US custody. The Canadians erroneously told US officials that Arar was a target of a terrorist investigation; in fact, he had merely been identified as someone who should be contacted to see if he had any information about the target, and was not suspected of any terrorist activity himself. The Canadian parliament offered Arar a unanimous apology, and Canada paid him CAD $10.5 million in compensation.[*]
But the Canadians were unaware that the US intended to send Arar to Syria, and they had no part in that decision. It was the US, not Canada, that locked up Arar without charges, blocked his access to the courts, spirited him off to Syria, and then provided the Syrians a dossier of questions to ask him while he was being tortured. Arar filed suit in a US court, suing the federal officials who had a part in his mistreatment—including Attorney General John Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. As a volunteer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, I am one of Arar's lawyers.
Arar's claims were simple: to forcibly send him to Syria to be tortured violates the Constitution's due process clause, which the Supreme Court has interpreted as forbidding conduct that "shocks the conscience," as well as the Torture Victim Protection Act, which allows torture victims to sue those who subject them to torture "under color of foreign law." Courts have long held that torture is the paradigmatic example of conduct that "shocks the conscience" and violates due process. And Arar alleged that the US defendants sent him to Syria for the purpose of subjecting him to torture under Syrian law. These allegations were largely confirmed not only by the Canadian investigation, but also by the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general. In twenty-five years as a lawyer, I have never had a clearer and more egregious case of abuse.
Yet thus far the US courts have shut the door entirely on Arar, not even allowing him to offer proof of his claims. In Arar's latest setback, an eleven-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on November 2, 2009, that "special factors counseling hesitation" barred Arar's core claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was sent to be tortured. The Supreme Court has ruled that suits for damages are generally available for such violations of constitutional rights, but has refused to permit suits where Congress has provided an alternative remedy, or where "military discipline" would be undermined by permitting soldiers to sue their commanding officers. The Bush administration argued that Arar's claim for damages should similarly be dismissed because it implicated sensitive issues of national security, foreign policy, and secret diplomatic communications between the US and foreign governments. The seven-judge majority agreed, finding that any adjudication would likely involve classified information, and could not proceed
without inquiry into the perceived need for the [extraordinary rendition] policy, the threats to which it responds, the substance and sources of the intelligence used to formulate it, and the propriety of adopting specific responses to particular threats in light of apparent geopolitical circumstances and our relations with foreign countries.
Two things are remarkable about the majority's reasoning. First, the rationale quoted above appears to presume that sending people to be tortured may be permissible depending on the "geopolitical circumstances" or "the threats to which [the torture] responds." But under our law and international law, torture is never permissible, and thus these concerns ought not even enter the picture. Second, to dismiss Arar's case at this early stage, the court had to find that, even accepting as true his allegations that federal officials sent an innocent man to be tortured, Arar would be entitled to no remedy. The court concluded, without actually reviewing any classified evidence, that Arar's case was too sensitive to adjudicate, because it would require court review of national security policy and confidential diplomacy. The court suggested that Arar ask Congress for a remedy instead—notwithstanding that he is a foreign national with no voice in the US political process, and that US officials have prohibited him from entering the country for any purpose.
Four judges dissented. Judge Guido Calabresi, former dean of the Yale Law School, predicted that "when the history of this distinguished court is written, today's majority decision will be viewed with dismay." Judge Rosemary Pooler dismissed the majority's national security concerns as "hyperbolic and speculative," and maintained that Arar should have a remedy "to reinforce our system of checks and balances, to provide a deterrent, and to redress conduct that shocks the conscience."
Judge Barrington Parker, appointed to the Second Circuit by President George W. Bush, wrote that "if the Constitution ever implied a damages remedy, this is such a case—where executive officials allegedly blocked access to the remedies chosen by Congress in order to deliver a man to known torturers." Had Arar been able to get to a court to challenge his removal before federal officials put him on a plane, the court would plainly have had authority to review the case and forbid the removal; courts routinely enjoin removal when a foreign national faces a substantial risk of torture. The fact that the defendants lied to Arar's lawyer to keep her from filing an action when the torture could have been averted, in Parker's view, only strengthened the case for a damages remedy after the fact; otherwise, the courts are essentially rewarding the obstruction of justice.
Judge Robert Sack reasoned that if Arar had been tortured by federal officials at JFK, he would indisputably have a right to sue, and that the defendants' choice to outsource his torture abroad should not insulate them from liability:
I do not think that whether the defendants violated Arar's Fifth Amendment rights turns on whom they selected to do the torturing: themselves, a Syrian Intelligence officer, a warlord in Somalia, a drug cartel in Colombia, a military contractor in Baghdad or Boston, a Mafia family in New Jersey, or a Crip set in South Los Angeles.
What no judge pointed out, however, is that this is the same court of appeals that has regularly entertained lawsuits for torture and other gross human rights violations against foreign government officials, even when the wrongs were committed wholly outside the United States and affected only foreigners. One might think that such cases, in which we stand in judgment over other countries' alleged wrongs, would be even more diplomatically sensitive to adjudicate. Yet one month after the court dismissed Arar's suit, it affirmed a $19 million judgment against Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, the former leader of a Haitian death squad, for rape, torture, and attempted killing of three Haitian women by forces under his control. Under this precedent, had Arar been able to sue the Syrians who participated in his torture, the federal courts would have been ready and able to hear his claims. (He could not because none of the Syrians were in the United States, a prerequisite to the court exercising jurisdiction.) But because he sought to hold US officials accountable, his claims were too sensitive even to consider. International human rights, it seems, are something the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stands ready to impose on others, but not on ourselves.
The same week that the court of appeals in New York dismissed Arar's case, a court in Milan, Italy, convicted twenty-two American CIA agents, a US Air Force lieutenant colonel, and two Italian military intelligence agents for the "extraordinary rendition" of a Muslim cleric, Abu Omar. He was abducted from the streets of Milan in 2003 and delivered to the Egyptian security service, which imprisoned him for four years without charges and tortured him, before returning him to Italy, uncharged.
That case involved the same sort of secret information, diplomatic communications, and conduct on the part of US officials as Arar's. In Italy, however, the courts did not deny all accountability at the threshold, but instead addressed each of these issues in turn as they arose. Some claims against some defendants were dismissed because they rested on secret information, but the case proceeded against most of the defendants. As the Italian court showed, concerns about national secrets and confidential international communications can be accommodated in the course of litigation, and need not serve as a threshold bar to any accountability whatsoever.
2.
More than sixty years ago, in a series of trials conducted in Nuremberg, Germany, the United States and its allies made history by holding Nazi officials accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during World War II—including abductions, disappearances, torture, and genocide. The Nuremberg judgments in turn had a critical part in the birth of international human rights. In the ashes of World War II, many nations, working with the United States, created a regime of rights and responsibility designed to affirm the inviolability of human dignity and to ensure that such atrocities would not happen again.
The legacy of that period includes a set of charters defining the scope of human rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and the international treaty prohibiting torture. Equally if not more importantly, however, the same legacy includes the establishment of forums for holding rights violators accountable—including international war crimes tribunals, regional human rights courts (such as the European Court of Human Rights), the International Criminal Court, and domestic courts that hear international human rights claims. Nuremberg was as much about the necessity of a forum for accountability as it was about the norms themselves. In the absence of effective enforcement, international human rights are mere words on paper.
The last forum I have mentioned—the domestic court—may be the most important. By bringing human rights home, domestic courts give them a concreteness and immediacy that is critical to their effectiveness. Here, too, the United States has been a leader. In 1980, the same court that dismissed Arar's case ruled, in a landmark decision, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, that federal courts could adjudicate claims by foreign citizens against foreign defendants for human rights violations committed abroad. Filartiga involved a young man who had been abducted, tortured, and killed by a Paraguyan police chief. When the family learned that the officer had fled to the United States, they sued him in US court. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared that the torturer is the "enemy of all mankind," and therefore may be sued for his wrongdoing wherever he is found.
The usual reluctance to have a US court pass judgment on overseas conduct not involving any American citizens was overcome by the fact that the prohibition on torture is universal. Since that decision, US courts have adjudicated human rights claims involving brutality in Burma, South Africa, Yugoslavia, Nigeria, Mexico, the Philippines, Argentina, and many other nations. The Supreme Court upheld the practice in 2004. Yet according to the Second Circuit, the same sorts of claims are too sensitive to permit adjudication when brought against US officials.
In addition to a forum for enforcement, human rights also require equal application. Their purpose is to identify those norms so fundamental to human dignity that no government may violate them. Indeed, Nuremberg's legacy has always been somewhat clouded by the fact that the Soviet Union, itself responsible for terrible crimes against humanity, participated as a prosecutor, but was never held accountable for its own crimes. If international human rights are to be legitimate, they must be universal, and not a euphemism for "victor's justice." The torture standard does not differ based on whether the United States, Haiti, or Paraguay is engaged in the practice. The Italian court convicted Italians and Americans alike. If anything, it should be easier, not more difficult, to hold one's own government officials accountable than to hold foreign government officials accountable.
The notion that domestic courts can hold another country's torturers accountable is not an American anomaly, as the Italian case illustrates. International law recognizes a principle of "universal jurisdiction," which holds that torturers can be held to account anywhere. Applying that principle, a Spanish judge in 1998 issued an arrest warrant for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity, including torture. Great Britain's highest court, the Law Lords, ruled that the warrant could be enforced to extradite Pinochet from England to stand trial. (In the end, Pinochet was returned to Chile on medical grounds, but was then indicted there.) The same Spanish judge, Baltasar Garzón, is currently investigating whether criminal charges should be leveled against the Bush administration lawyers responsible for authorizing torture at Guantánamo—John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, and Douglas Feith. The torture they authorized was inflicted on several Spanish citizens at Guantánamo, causing terrorist charges against them in Spain, also prosecuted by Garzón, to be dismissed.
The principle of universal jurisdiction recognizes that if a country is responsibly pursuing accountability for its own wrongs, a foreign court should defer to the domestic process. In his speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, President Obama insisted that the Justice Department and the courts "can work through and punish any violations of our laws or miscarriages of justice." Cases like Arar's belie his confidence, as does the Justice Department's failure even to investigate the lawyers who authorized the CIA and the military to engage in torture and disappearances as a means of getting suspects to talk. If we fail to carry out this responsibility, other nations, using principles that the US did much to develop, may take up the charge.
BEIRUT, Lebanon — In any other part of the world, a new prime minister’s visit to a neighboring country would be a fairly routine event. But Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s trip to Syria over the weekend has been treated here as a kind of Lebanese national drama, the subject of almost endless commentary in newspapers and television shows.
It is not that anything really happened. Mr. Hariri and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria exchanged some thoroughly forgettable diplomatic banter and posed for photographs.
Instead, the trip epitomized a national story with anguished, almost operatic dimensions: a young leader forced to shake hands with the man who he believes killed his father. And it served as a reminder of this region’s deep attachment to political symbolism.
For many Lebanese, the visit was a measure of Syria’s renewed influence over Lebanon after years of bitterness and struggle since the Syrian military’s withdrawal in 2005. That withdrawal came after Mr. Hariri’s father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, was killed in a car bombing that many here believe to have been ordered by Syria.
The withdrawal was a blow to Syrian prestige, and afterward Saad Hariri seemed to have the entire Western world at his back as he built a movement for greater Lebanese independence and pushed for an international tribunal to try his father’s killers.
But since then, the United States and the West have chosen to engage with Syria, not isolate it. And Saudi Arabia, which has long backed Mr. Hariri and competed with Syria for influence here, reconciled with the Syrians earlier this year, leaving them a freer hand to guide politics in Lebanon as they once did.
All this has been known for months, but it was still tremendously important for Mr. Hariri to actually cross the mountains — in his first visit since before his father’s killing — and pay his respects in Damascus.
“The image of Syrian soldiers retreating was a huge blow to them,” said Elias Muhanna, a political analyst and the author of the Lebanese blog Qifa Nabki. “So the image of Hariri coming over the mountains means they’ve come full circle. It demonstrates to all the power centers in Damascus that Bashar has restored Syria’s position of strength vis-à-vis Lebanon.”
The visit also has vivid historical echoes for many Lebanese. In 1977, the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt visited Damascus just weeks after his own father was killed in an attack that is believed to have been arranged by Syria. Like Mr. Hariri, he had little choice: he had to reconcile with Syria if he wanted to continue playing a political role.
“The stability of Lebanon always depends on its environment, and basically this environment is Syria,” Mr. Jumblatt said in an interview on Sunday. “For the sake of Lebanese stability, we have got to put aside personal animosity.”
It is difficult to say exactly what Mr. Hariri’s visit portends in terms of Lebanese-Syrian relations. By one measure, he has already achieved his most important goals: the Syrian Army is gone, and no one expects it to return. The two countries restored diplomatic relations this year. The international tribunal that was formed in 2005 under United Nations auspices to try the elder Hariri’s killers continues its work here and in the Netherlands, where it is based. It could still indict high-ranking Syrians, although most analysts say that seems less likely than it did four years ago.
But most agree that Syria will once again have a powerful, undisputed voice here on issues ranging from cabinet positions to the militant Shiite movement Hezbollah, which Syria supports. The influence is not likely to be as crude as it was during the 1990s, when Syrian officers strutted through Beirut and were accused of raking profits from Lebanese industries. To some here, that is improvement enough. To others, Mr. Hariri’s trip across the mountains was a tragic concession.
“Whether Saad Hariri admits it or not, it was a severe setback to everything that happened starting in 2005,” said Michael Young, a Lebanese columnist who has long been critical of Syria’s role here. “I think he did it reluctantly, but he never had a choice.”
(New York) - Syrian authorities should end their unlawful and unjustified practices of attacking peaceful Kurdish gatherings and detaining Kurdish political and cultural activists, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 63-page report, "Group Denial: Repression of Kurdish Political and Cultural Rights in Syria," documents the Syrian authorities' efforts to ban and disperse gatherings calling for Kurdish minority rights or celebrating Kurdish culture, as well as the detention of leading Kurdish political activists and their ill-treatment in custody. The repression of Kurds in Syria has greatly intensified following large-scale Kurdish demonstrations in March 2004. The report is based on interviews with 30 Kurdish activists recently released from prison, as well as 15 relatives of Kurdish activists still in jail. The Syrian government refused to reply to requests for information or meetings with Human Rights Watch.
"At a time when other countries in the region, from Iraq to Turkey, are improving the treatment of their Kurdish minority, Syria remains resistant to change," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "In fact, Syria has been especially hostile to any Kurdish political or cultural expression."
Kurds, an estimated 10 percent of Syria's population of 20 million, live primarily in the country's northern and eastern regions. Human Rights Watch found that since 2005, Syrian security forces have repressed at least 14 Kurdish political and cultural public gatherings, overwhelmingly peaceful, and often resorted to violence to disperse the crowds. Not only have the security forces prevented political meetings in support of Kurds' minority rights, but also gatherings to celebrate Nowruz (the Kurdish new year) and other cultural celebrations. In at least two instances, the security services fired on the crowds and caused deaths.
"The Syrian government sees threats everywhere, even in village new year celebrations," Whitson said. "If the government wants better relations with its Kurdish minority, it should address their legitimate grievances instead of trying to silence them."
Syria has obligations under several international treaties to uphold freedom of expression and association, and the associated right to freedom of assembly. In addition, international law requires Syria to protect the identity of minorities and to guarantee them the right to participate actively in public and cultural life, including practicing their language and celebrating their culture in private and public.
Human Rights Watch also documented the arrests and trials of at least 15 prominent Syrian Kurdish political leaders since 2005. Since there is no political parties law in Syria, none of the political parties - let alone the Kurdish ones - are licensed. Accordingly, any member of a party, including all of the Kurdish parties, is vulnerable to arrest for membership in an unlicensed organization, a crime under Syria's penal code. Most recently, on November 15, 2009, the Damascus Criminal Court sentenced three leading members of the Kurdish Azadi Party, which advocates an end to discrimination against the Kurdish minority, to three years in jail for "weakening national sentiment" and "inciting sectarian or racial strife or provoking conflict between sects and various members of the nation."
Of the 30 former Kurdish detainees interviewed by Human Rights watch, 12 said that security forces tortured them. Most of those detained are referred to military courts, where they can be convicted of vaguely defined, overbroad "security charges," most typically the charge of "spreading false or exaggerated information that weakens national sentiment" or committing an act or speech that advocates "cutting off part of Syrian land to join it to another country."
A Kurdish political activist detained in October 2008 for three months at the Palestine Branch of Military Intelligence described the way the investigators treated him:
If the investigator was not convinced by what I said, the guards would take me to the "torture square," where they would make me stand on my feet for long days with my hands tied behind my back and my eyes covered with a black cloth. I was made to stand for 11 days with only brief periods of rest for 10 minutes to eat. If I would fall due to lack of sleep...they would throw cold water on me and beat me with cables. I developed many illnesses because of this torture. Tests I had done after my release showed that I had inflamed joints as well as infections in the stomach, kidneys, and chest.
(For more testimonials, see below)
Harassment of these activists continues even after their release; security forces continue to call them in for interrogation and frequently bar them from traveling outside the country.
The European Union and the United States have been eager to engage with Syria recently. Human Rights Watch urged these governments to communicate their strong disapproval of Syria's treatment of its Kurdish minority and to emphasize that further progress in their relations with Syria will depend on concrete improvements in Syria's human rights situation.
"Ignoring the treatment of Kurds in Syria will not make the problem go away." Whitson said. "The international community has played an important role in improving the treatment of Kurds in Iraq and Turkey and it needs to do the same for Syria's Kurds."
Human Rights Watch called on the Syrian government to:
Free people being detained for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, association, or assembly;
Amend or abolish the vague security provisions under the Syrian penal code that unlawfully restrict free speech;
Investigate officials alleged to have tortured or mistreated detainees;
Enact a law recognizing the right of political parties to organize, and establish an independent electoral commission to register new political parties; and
Form a commission to address the grievances of the Kurdish minority in Syria.
Accounts from "Group Denial":
A participant in a musical event to celebrate women's role in society organized on March 9, 2009 by a Kurdish party in the town of Qamishli described how the security forces dispersed the crowd:
Fifteen minutes after the celebrations had started, the security forces circled the room. They were carrying guns and sticks, and they scared the women and children. They quickly confiscated the [sound system] speakers and the chairs.
An activist who was at a private home attending a talk on the history of the Kurds described the arrest of participants by Military Intelligence on January 29, 2007:
We were 12 people gathered at Yasha's house to attend a cultural talk on Kurds. Suddenly, members of Aleppo's Military Intelligence came in and took all of us to their branch. They kept us for 10 days in Aleppo, and then they transferred us to the Palestine Branch [of Military Intelligence] in Damascus. They released seven of us and kept five in
detention. The five had confessed that they were members in the Yekiti Party.
A member of the Kurdish Future Movement, a political party, described his arrest while he was waiting to board a bus:
The civilian police detained me in the town of `Amuda and immediately transferred me to Political Security in al-Hasakeh. They charged me with belonging to the Kurdish Future Movement. They interrogated me for 12 days. During the investigation I was deprived of everything. Their questions focused on the political program of the party, its internal rules, my role in the party, especially after they had kidnapped Mr. Mesh`al Temmo, the official spokesperson for the party. After the interrogation they referred me on September 1 to a military judge in Qamishli, who ordered my detention for belonging to an unlicensed political party and inciting sectarian strife.
A member of the PYD party, a Kurdish political party, described the torture he endured while detained by Political Security in `Ain `Arab in May 2006:
They tortured me physically and emotionally. The physical torture began from the moment I arrived at the branch. The officer who heads the branch beat me personally. His men tied my legs to a Russian rifle, and the officer beat me on my feet with a whip. The beating covered various parts of my body. He would insult and threaten me and insult the Kurds. He found a notebook in my pocket where I had written the name of the town by its Kurdish name, Kobani, which the regime had changed to `Ain `Arab, so he hit me with more than 100 lashes saying, "Damn you and damn Kobani. Why don't you write `Ain `Arab?" The torture lasted for almost six hours of on-off beatings.
DAMASCUS -- The chief of Palestinian militant group Hamas said his organization is prepared to cooperate with the U.S. in promoting a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the White House can secure an Israeli settlement freeze and a lifting of the economic and military blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Khaled Meshaal, 53 years old, said in a 90-minute interview at Hamas's Syrian headquarters that his political party and military wing would commit to an immediate reciprocal cease-fire with Israel, as well as a prisoner swap that would return Hamas fighters for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
He also said his organization would accept and respect a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders as part of a broader peace agreement with Israel—provided Israeli negotiators accept the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees and the establishment of a capital for the Palestinian state in East Jerusalem.
That pledge falls short of recognizing Israel, a necessary step for Hamas to be included in peace talks, but many Middle East diplomats said it could mark an important step toward that goal.
"Hamas and other Palestinian groups are ready to cooperate with any American, international or regional effort to find a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to end the Israeli occupation and to grant the Palestinian people their right of self-determination," Mr. Meshaal said.
A senior White House official said Mr. Obama's administration wouldn't respond to Mr. Meshaal's comments. Mr. Obama has said the U.S. would only hold direct talks with Hamas if it formally renounces terrorism and violence and recognizes the state of Israel. U.S. officials say that to engage directly with Mr. Meshaal would undermine the Palestinian Authority.
A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday dismissed Mr. Meshaal's comments. "Anyone who has been following Khaled Meshaal's comments over the last few months sees clearly that despite some attempts to play with language in a cosmetic way to give the impression of possible policy moderation, he remains rooted in an extremist theology which fundamentally opposes peace and reconciliation," said the spokesman, Mark Regev.
Hamas in 2006 was elected to rule the Palestinian territories, but a global boycott, Israeli arrests and a 2007 civil war left the group in charge only of the Gaza Strip. Fatah maintains control of the West Bank, leaving the territories bitterly divided.
Mr. Meshaal said his movement is waiting for Mr. Obama and his special Middle East negotiator, George Mitchell, to present a broader outline for conducting Middle East peace talks.
Mr. Mitchell has focused on securing an Israeli settlement freeze in disputed areas in return for Arab states beginning to normalize their relations with Israel, such as establishing trade and telecommunications links.
"If Israel doesn't accept a halt to stop building settlements, what then?" Mr. Meshaal said, seated under photos honoring fallen Hamas leaders and Jerusalem's al Aqsa mosque. "The end of the settlements is a necessary step, but it's not the solution itself."
Mr. Meshaal's conciliatory positions toward Washington come amid significant political shifts in the region that are affecting Hamas's principal allies.
This week, Mr. Mitchell met Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus and agreed to begin easing U.S. sanctions as part of a growing diplomatic rapprochement between the two rivals. In June, Hezbollah, the Lebanese political party and militia, failed in its bid to gain political power through elections in Beirut. And Iran's government—Hamas's chief arms supplier and financier—has been subsumed in a post-election struggle that could lessen Tehran's ability and willingness to project itself into the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Some Middle East analysts and Western diplomats said these events could be feeding into Hamas's conciliatory line.
Syrian officials said this week that they've been advising Hamas to play a more constructive role in Arab-Israeli talks. They specifically cite Hamas's recent offer to enter into a long-term truce with Israel. "We believe Hamas has evolved," Syria's deputy foreign minister, Fayssal Mekded, said Monday. "They are for building and developing a Palestinian state."
A number of Middle East experts say Hamas's willingness to accept the 1967 borders represents a quasi-recognition of the state of Israel, though the militant group hasn't formally taken this step.
Hamas's 1988 political charter formally calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state on the lands that currently make up the Palestinian territories and Israel. The organization is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., Israel and the European Union because of its use of suicide bombers against Israeli citizens and military personnel.
The "Quartet" of bodies seeking to broker Arab-Israeli peace talks, which includes the U.S., EU, United Nations and Russia, has refused to collectively engage Hamas in the process until it formally recognizes Israel's right to exist, and renounces terrorism and violence. Russia has been holding bilateral talks with Hamas.
Mr. Meshaal's conflict with Israeli authorities is also personal. In 1997, Mr. Netanyahu ordered the assassination of Mr. Meshaal in Jordan and Mossad agents sprayed a lethal toxin into the Hamas official's ear that began shutting down his respiratory system. The late Jordanian monarch, King Hussein, intervened and forced Mr. Netanyahu to dispatch an antidote by threatening to end Jordan's peace treaty with Israel.
In the interview, Mr. Meshaal offered both conciliation toward the U.S. and the West, and enmity toward Israel and its leadership. "I don't care about Israel—it is our enemy and our occupier and it commits crimes against our people," he said. "Don't ask me about Israel, Israel can talk for itself."
In recent months, a number of leading European politicians and U.S. foreign-policy luminaries, including former U.S. national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, have called on Hamas to be formally brought into the peace process.
Critics of engaging Hamas, including senior members of the Obama administration, are wary of Mr. Meshaal's statements of accepting a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders.
Palestinian Authority leaders attacked Mr. Meshaal Thursday, saying Hamas was moving arms into the West Bank and trying to launch a "coup" in the territory.
Mr. Meshaal said Hamas wouldn't be an obstacle to peace. "We along with other Palestinian factions in consensus agreed upon accepting a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines," Mr. Meshaal said. This is the national program. This is our program. This is a position we stand by and respect."
(Beirut) - The Syrian government should treat all murders alike and not make exceptions for so-called "honor killings," Human Rights Watch said today. On July 1, 2009, President Bashar al-Assad abolished Article 548 of the Penal Code, which had waived punishment for a man found to have killed a female family member in a case "provoked" by "illegitimate sex acts," as well as for a husband who killed his wife because of an extramarital affair. The article also lowered penalties if a killing was found to be based on a "suspicious state" concerning a female family member. The article that replaced it still allows for mitigated punishment for "honor killings," but requires a sentence of at least two years.
"Two years is better than nothing, but it is hardly enough for murder," said Nadya Khalife, Middle East and North Africa women's rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The Syrian government should punish all murders alike - no exceptions."
The new text of Article 548 reads: "He who catches his wife, sister, mother or daughter by surprise, engaging in an illegitimate sexual act and kills or injures them unintentionally must serve a minimum of two years in prison." In the previous text, the killer benefited from a complete "exemption of penalty".
Syria does not maintain definitive data on these killings, usually by family members who consider the woman to have done something to shame the family or harm its reputation. On March 29, 2006, Al-Thawra newspaper reported an estimate of about 40 such killings a year. The Syrian Women Observatory, an independent Syrian website that addresses discrimination against women, estimates that there are nearly 200 such killings each year. If this figure is correct, on average, 16 Syrian women are killed by relatives every month, in a country with a population of approximately 18 million.
In 2008, the National Forum on Honor Crimes, sponsored by the Syrian Commission for Family Affairs (SCFA) in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Religious Endowments, set out a number of key recommendations, including repealing Article 548. It also recommended amending Article 192, which states that if a killing was based on an honorable intent, the judge has a number of options for reduced sentences, including short-term detention or imprisonment.
"The recommendations set out at the National Forum showed the government the way forward," said Khalife. "But there is a long way to go to rid Syria of this vicious practice."
Another article, 242, allows a judge to reduce the punishment both of men and women in cases in which a murder is committed in rage and motivated by an illegal act provoked by the victim. Extra-marital affairs are illegal in Syria.
"You cannot abolish one penal code provision that protects these killers and leave others intact." Khalife said. "Article 548 was a start. Now the government needs to reform all the articles in the criminal code that treat those who say they kill for ‘honor' differently from other murderers."
The United States has called for Syria's "full co-operation" in trying to achieve a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement.
Speaking after talks in Damascus, Barack Obama's envoy George Mitchell said discussions with Syria's president had been "candid and positive".
Mr Mitchell said restarting peace talks between Syria and Israel was a "near-term goal".
He later arrived in Israel, to try to revive Israeli-Palestinian talks.
Mr Mitchell's visit to Damascus was his second since June, amid a renewed US push for peace since President Obama took office earlier this year.
The envoy's trip comes ahead of a string of visits to Israel this week by leading Obama administration officials, at a time when US-Israel relations are unusually strained.
'Historic endeavour'
Mr Mitchell said he had told Syrian President Bashar Assad that Barack Obama was "determined to facilitate a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace".
“ Naturally, in the context of friendly relations between allies, there isn't agreement on all points ” Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli prime minister
"If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace. We will welcome the full co-operation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in this historic endeavour," he said.
Correspondents say the visit was not expected to bring a breakthrough, but Syrian officials have been encouraged by Washington's new willingness to listen.
Damascus is a major player in the region, because of its support for the Palestinian militant group Hamas, its backing for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and its close links with Iran.
This made Syria a pariah in the eyes of the Bush administration, which cut virtually all ties with Syria.
The BBC's Lina Sinjab, in Damascus, says President Obama's commitment to talks with all parties is welcomed in Syria but not with much enthusiasm.
Getting back the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights is a priority in Damascus, our correspondent says.
Syria was expected to lobby Mr Mitchell on the issue of the Heights, a strategic mountainous area seized by Israel in 1967.
Syria's official news agency quoted President Assad as stressing to Mr Mitchell "the Arab right to recover occupied lands through achieving a just and comprehensive peace."
Direct talks between Israel and Syria broke down in 2000 over the scale of a potential Israeli pull-back on the Golan Heights.
Sticking points
The diplomatic flurry comes at a time of strained relations between the US and Israel.
The BBC's Middle East correspondent Katya Adler says Mr Obama has been leaning on Israel's government unusually hard for an American president.
Washington has called on Israel to stop all Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank, but Israel says it will not curb what it calls "natural growth" there.
Mr Mitchell arrived in Israel later on Sunday and met defence minister Ehud Barak in Tel Aviv.
In an effort to kick-start stalled Israeli-Palestinian talks, the envoy is due to meet Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Monday and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday.
Shortly before Mr Mitchell's arrival in Israel, Mr Netanyahu said he hoped to reach an agreement with the US.
"This relationship is important and strong. Naturally, in the context of friendly relations between allies, there isn't agreement on all points, and on several issues we are trying to reach understanding," he said.
As well as Mr Mitchell, US defence secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor James Jones are also due to hold talks in Israel.
Our correspondent says Iran and its nuclear programme will certainly be discussed.
Israelis say that is their top priority but arguably the focus of the visits will be the possibilities for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and also the wider Arab world, she notes.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8169111.stm
The arrests of more than 40 prominent politicians and Jewish leaders in New Jersey and New York on corruption and money laundering charges have sent shockwaves through the close-knit Syrian Jewish community there. Federal investigators in New Jersey announced Thursday they had arrested more than 40 people, including public officials charged with corruption. Charges against others included international money laundering, selling counterfeit goods, and the black-market sale of human organs.
Acting US Attorney Ralph Marra Jr. speaks at a news conference with Newark division special agent in charge Weysan Dun (R), 23 Jul 2009, Newark, N.J.
In addition to three mayors, officials arrested five influential rabbis from New Jersey and the New York borough of Brooklyn. "They used purported charities, entities supposedly set up to do good works, as vehicles for laundering millions of dollars in illicit funds. The rings were international in scope, connected to the city of Deal, New Jersey, Brooklyn, New York, Israel and Switzerland," said Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph J. Marra about the money-laundering scheme. The rabbis are accused of using their congregations' charitable organizations to launder about $3 million by passing money from alleged illicit activity through their charities' bank accounts. The FBI said the rabbis then kept about 10 percent for themselves. All of the rabbis come from the close-knit and wealthy Sephardic Jewish communities of southern New Jersey and Brooklyn - and the arrests have put the spotlight on a usually quiet community.
Rabbi Saul Kassin (C) leaves federal court in Newark, N.J., 23 Jul 2009
One of the rabbis arrested, Saul Kassin, is considered the leading cleric of the U.S. Sephardic community, comprised of families that emigrated mostly from the Middle East, Syria in particular, following the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. Rabbi Kassin leads the largest Sephardic synagogue in the United States, Shaare Zion in Brooklyn, and has written books on Jewish law. Members of the community have expressed shock and disbelief over the allegations against Rabbi Kassin. Many have been reluctant to speak publicly. One member of Shaare Zion, Ezra Kassin, told reporters he did not believe the charges. He's just a very honorable person. I can't believe it, I don't believe it. Whatever they want to say, it's hogwash," he said. Authorities said an FBI "cooperating witness" helped federal investigators gather evidence in the case. Media reports said he was arrested in 2006 for bank fraud. FBI agent Weysan Dun said the probe seeks to root out corruption in New Jersey, wherever it is found. "This case is not about politics. It is certainly not about religion. It is about crime, corruption, arrogance. It is about a shocking betrayal of the public trust," he said. The FBI said the two-year probe is part of a wider investigation into political corruption and money laundering that started 10 years ago.
Washington decision to name an ambassador seen as positive but some are cautious.
By an IWPR-trained reporter
Syrian analysts and officials have welcomed the United States’ decision to send an ambassador to Damascus after a four-year break but said that Syria was still waiting for Washington to play a stronger role in establishing peace in the region.
On June 24, media reports quoted officials in Washington as saying that the new US administration had decided to send an ambassador to Damascus.
The officials said that the move reflected recognition by the new US administration “of the important role Syria plays” in bringing peace and stability to the Middle East.
Washington withdrew ambassador Margaret Scobey from Damascus in February 2005 as an expression of “profound outrage” over the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, a crime that was widely blamed on the Syrians. Damascus has denied any involvement in the killing.
Since then, the US kept its embassy open but headed by a chargé d’affaires. The Syrian ambassador in Washington stayed in his post.
Washington has not yet given the name of the new ambassador nor the date of his or her appointment.
The US assistant secretary for diplomatic security, Eric Boswell, visited Damascus in April to examine the possibility of opening a new embassy, according to Syria’s official news agency, SANA.
Observers view the recent rapprochement between the US and Syria as a “reward” for Syria’s improved attitudes in the region, mainly the exchange of diplomatic representation with Lebanon and boosting security along its border with Iraq.
Syria’s presidential and media advisor, Butaina Shaaban, declared in TV interviews that the US decision was “positive” but said that Damascus would not make any official statement about it at present.
Meanwhile, the Syrian ambassador to Washington, Imad Mustafa, told US media that the step was a small improvement. However, he cautioned that it was early to talk about radical changes in contacts between the two countries.
The US move comes at a time when the Iranian regime – Syria’s strongest strategic ally – seems to be shaky and one Damascus-based political analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Washington was trying to weaken that alliance.
He said that the US has also tried to persuade its allies in the region, mainly Saudi Arabia, to be reconciled with the Syrians in order to pull Damascus away from Tehran’s sphere of influence.
There were already signs of divergence between Iran and Syria on some regional issues, he said, and the Iranians were not content that Syria had cooperated with Saudi Arabia on Lebanon and put pressure on its Lebanese allies to compromise with their foes.
But the analyst said that the Syrians realised that “the price of breaking their alliance with Iran would be very costly”.
“What the US has offered to the Syrians is not enough to take that risk,” he added.
Before considering giving up its ties with the Islamic republic, Damascus expects a full commitment by the US to the peace process with the Israelis and eventually the return of the Golan Heights – a strategic patch of land occupied by Israel since 1967, the analyst said.
George Hajouj, a Damascus-based political analyst, told IWPR that Damascus had a clear vision of what role the US should play after the appointment of the new ambassador.
Damascus wants the US to pave the way for a fair settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict based on the “land for peace” principle and Washington is aware of that, Hajouj said.
“What is unknown up to now is the US vision and role in the region during the next phase,” he added.
In the past few months, several US officials visited Damascus including George Mitchell, the special US envoy to the Middle East, who is expected to lead the American efforts to seek peace in the region.
Some Syrian media reports said that the new ambassador would be working on a new US plan for peace between Israel and Syria developed by Mitchell’s team. The plan reportedly would turn the Golan Heights into a demilitarised nature reserve controlled by both Syria and Israel. In return, Damascus would break away from Iran and cut its ties with anti-Israeli militant groups.
Some hope that the appointment of a new ambassador will also boost stagnant economic relations between the two countries.
Ossama al-Qadi, an economics expert based in Damascus, told IWPR that the US should follow the European strategy of establishing economic, scientific and financial agreements with Syria to have a more tangible presence on the ground.
Helping Syrians get jobs and assisting Syria in building an infrastructure suitable for a modern economy would create trust, said Qadi.
The Syrian ambassador in London, Sami al-Khaimi, told the Lebanese TV channel LBC recently that he hoped the new US diplomat would be able to bring US investors to Syria.
Khaimi said Damascus also hoped the US would help with the “billions of dollars” that it costs to deal with a large number of Iraqi refugees in the country.
Despite the recent overtures, Washington decided last month to extend economic sanctions against Syria for another year, which was seen as a setback for the Syrians.
The measures, imposed in 2004, prohibit US exports to Syria except for food and medicine.
Some Syrians are not optimistic that the improvement in relations between Syria and the US will bring real change to the region.
“It does not seem that the US is willing to build peace in the region,” said Nour al-Khatib, a 26 year-old saleswoman living in Damascus.
“Tensions will continue in the region … as long as the US employs double standards in the region.”
Eyad Jarrous, 27, a Damascus-based engineer, said that the Syrians were weary of the “no-peace but no-war situation” with the Americans.
“We don’t want our government to continue oppressing us economically under the pretext of needing to finance the army,” he added.
WOMEN ADVANCE IN MEDIA AGAINST ODDS
A few senior jobs have gone to women but they still face an uphill struggle to be accepted as equals.
By an IWPR-trained reporter
Women are making a name for themselves in the Syrian media as never before, however some say they have to work a lot harder than men to prove themselves.
Last December, for the first time in the country’s history, a woman was chosen as editor-in-chief of one of the main official newspapers, Tishreen.
The appointment of Samira Masalma to this important position in Syrian society raised many eyebrows in a country where men occupy most of the leading posts, but was welcomed by some as a sign that more and more women are gaining importance in media institutions in Syria.
One of the most prominent is Intisar Younes, who presents Chessboard, a new political programme on national television that brings her face to face with mostly male analysts and politicians to tackle questions about Syria and the Middle East.
“Women in the media today are like women working in any other institution here. They basically have to carve out their careers,” said Diana Jabbour, a leading female figure who has been director of Syrian state-run television for three years.
“For women to make achievements, they have to pass through strenuous tests on a daily basis,” Jabbour said.
When a female journalist makes a mistake she will frequently be stigmatised for being a woman, she said.
Rim Haddad, an editor at the private Syrian TV station Dunya, said that she was once removed from her position as a producer of a TV programme that discussed articles in the local press.
Haddad, who headed a team of six men, said her colleagues kept complaining to the director of the channel that they refused to be headed by a woman and that they were more competent as men.
Female journalists face the patronising judgements of a male-dominated society that often regards them as professionally less competent than men, some say.
Abdel-Hamid Tawfik, director of the Damascus bureau of the Arab satellite TV station Al-Jazeera, told IWPR, "I am not against women working in the media but these women are in the end wives and mothers so their lifestyles obliges [them] to be present a lot of time in their homes.
“Therefore, I am not for women journalists occupying leading positions in media institutions because they get distracted a lot from their work. When I am away, I prefer to be replaced by a male reporter.
"It is true that [some] women have reached high-ranking positions in Arab and Syrian media but they are still considered to be minors in the eyes of men no matter how knowledgeable and experienced they are."
Women’s physiology and their role at home as mothers and wives limit their capacity for work, said Hisham Ghabra, director of the news department at a Damascus radio station.
Shahinza Bissani, a news editor at a Damascus radio station, said that her neighbours insulted her behind her back her because she returned late from work.
“I had to change my shifts at work to save my parents’ reputation,” Bissani said.
Although men and women working in the media earn much the same, it is more difficult for a female journalist to get promoted, observers say.
Souad Jarrous, who works in Damascus as a correspondent for the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, said that for a long time she had to accept a low income for the stories she wrote before getting a fixed job.
Many female journalists also complain that there are certain areas of journalism that are considered out of reach for them.
Female journalists are mostly confined to writing about art or women-related issues like fashion, said Jabbour at Syrian TV. Women are told that they are not good enough to analyse politics and culture because they cannot grasp these topics, she added.
“I had to fight to enter the world of politics,” said Jarrous, adding that for ten years she was only allowed to write about local news and crime before becoming a political reporter.
Many female journalists also find it hard to cover events in the field, which pushes many of them into desk jobs editing or compiling news reports.
Arij Bouwadakji, a news editor at the eSyria website, said that as a journalist it was difficult for her to report on the ground about controversial social issues like so-called honour crimes because as a woman she was looked down on by the relatives of the victims and even the investigators.
Honour crimes, where men kill female relatives who engage in extramarital sexual activities to save the family’s reputation, are common in certain areas of Syria and the rest of the Arab world and largely go unpunished.
Bouwadakji also said that women reporters were treated with condescension by police officers and so avoided reporting from police stations as well as court rooms.
Some observers also say that good looks, not competence, are the driving force behind the employment of female journalists, especially in TV.
The journalist at a Damascus radio station, Bissani, said appearance is the most important criterion today when hiring a female journalist, even in radio.
She lamented that many media institutions rejected competent female reporters if they were not attractive, which, she said, is bluntly expressed by some male directors or implied from their behaviour.
Mays Orfali, a presenter on Syrian national TV, said that as a veiled woman she was unable at first to find a job in television. She finally removed her headscarf after feeling it was the only way to get the work she wanted.
Meanwhile, many observers say that women in the media are also challenged by general difficulties that are equally faced by their male counterparts, such as restrictions on freedom of expression and nepotism.
“I have lost any ambition to change the current situation,” said Jarrous.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vFDcyw9qQjLsNoR3KhdlykEcvCINXABa-p0SyYiUbbzvDgcsQt-TxuCPS48sx9P3XaqsTTTBJisNQLlFk5TnzRJF1f-9t80UTIxjZ7b5eTb_jDOqJJoP-m0fkcsyuFTtMG-rU_QZNiGdX19NLdcd14=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u3dajTsCNX1JqVw4Dgbfrvi1vP8mNOOanjLBuh920X5YlD95kHgRs5-6GeghxRvheR8VCVoej_udMYzpsYam8XhRSJPMe6O7_2TPO_v_r-nA0RFViZQFnCeljkGrJeoR8DF2x_MkmtFDMH_YT8bGHF=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v3I3gKQI8TkuMztsqR2yWJH59qhm_0Y5aHMLDAnTAkYkSS0deMtGXzu3IQenF24hf19BF8eSb5QuSh9RoRHN6SfhP7HY4F5q2UCzSzSVXQvxo6y_-VQk5XabpOQPaKPEphoTJA9TQcE3rBOIF3FvxG=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vRyK83RDy2jBKxj-jW6UfbvUqfFWYgeA3adOy4OOnyyftRNkq3qljGVVgipnEhNDbLXdRoa4DxxuamHglFTGjKHTkIee244fCU-yYDHh5dTCE_F_sfc7cdxOLNfnAAUz_l-w985KiaHcAhhEntIOWy=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_siVaX5y0fykG8R9L-0gf2Xiedtv_XWZVrjlA-qiDtyCoQiPGvk8o0buFxKBgl1Gz1ThWTouOZWPiwyoXfGVRH-Z8ReA9tFKRQvFcom-slYxOannKsHz0uud_CLncFhETetkq2OpvoDoS4VbVKiXCrq=s0-d)
![[HAMAS]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_unhbi6EeHNSD0hHdfbf32MCI_V5UHUmbul3b2xl9NwBPJlr9Osz0btGQ7BRQcwoSEQYPTZLyvYl_9wOI2x9bwmQXxTJ7CJEwqmas2FrFesvpfaqgFhms3Ticx6AjSSgBlKFPS_6BR5TBIYzyG_ro4zdg=s0-d)
