|
Treat this with a grain of salt
By Zvi Bar'el; http://www.haaretz.com
22-07-2007
The report of Iranian opposition figure Dr. Ali Reza Nourizadeh in the
London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat regarding the arms deal between Iran and
Syria should be read with great caution.
First, the figures: in order to procure the weapons and equipment mentioned
in the report, especially the MiG-31E fighters and the 400 T-72 tanks, Syria
needs four or five times the sum that it is allegedly receiving from Iran.
Syria still owes Russia $3.6 billion (even after Russia wiped out 70 percent
of Syria's debt for 2005). So, where will Syria find $4 billion to fund the
rest of the deal? There is no answer to this conundrum.
Is this even a new deal, or one which the Russian daily Kommersant reported
in June? According to that report, Syria began delivery of MiG-31 fighters
-- an upgraded version of a fighter whose production stopped in 1994, and
the deliveries are being made with aircraft from Russian air force stock.
The Kommersant report said that a deal including MiG-31 and MiG-29M fighters
was worth $1 billion, and claimed that the real end-user was Iran, with
Damascus serving as a "straw company" that will only keep a portion of the
aircraft.
Russia has denied the existence of such a deal, but when Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov visited Israel he said that the arms deal is legal -- which
means that there was no denial.
The defense agreement between Syria and Iran allows Tehran to keep its
aircraft in Iran, with Syrian emblems and registry, but at Iran's disposal.
If this is the same deal reported in June, it is best to examine whether
Russia, more than Iran, is the bad guy in the story, since such a deal means
that Moscow is violating the United Nations sanctions against Iran.
Nourizadeh's report in Asharq Al-Awsat deserves to be dealt with cautiously
also because of the various political conditions accompanying the deal.
According to these conditions, in exchange for Syria avoiding a diplomatic
process with Israel, Iran will continue backing Damascus in its Lebanon
policy. The support will consist of using "Iran's influence to prevent a
session of the Lebanese parliament in order to elect a new president, and
will continue its policies whose aim is the fall of the Siniora government."
This report also claims that there is a disagreement between Syria and Iran
over Lebanon, and that Iran is trying to pressure Syria against conducting
talks with Israel, in return for a favorable policy in Lebanon. This could
suggest that the calls of Bashar Assad for peace have been made contrary to
Iran's will and therefore greater importance should be attributed to them.
Lebanese sources say that Syria and Iran also do not agree over the issue of
the international tribunal established to try suspects in the assassination
of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. On this matter, Syria is feeling
isolated, while Iran is siding with Saudi Arabia.
The bottom line is that if Iran can press Syria on Lebanon, it means that it
does not need Damascus, which would then suggest that Syria would be in
search for a new strategic partner. Or, perhaps the Asharq Al-Awsat report
has been stretched too far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctions fail to
fuel dissent on Iran’s streets
By Gareth Smyth in Tehran ; The Financial
Times Limited
July 24 2007
When angry motorists torched petrol stations
as Tehran introduced rationing last month, Iran’s opponents scented success.
Ehud Olmert, Israeli prime minister, said it showed “economic sanctions are
working increasingly well”.
But after three weeks of rationing, riots have given way to grumbling.
Tehran’s streets are less congested, its air more breathable, and the
government says it is on target to reduce a bill for imported petrol that
was due to hit $7bn this year.
Meeting parliamentarians on Sunday, interior minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi
claimed a “strategic, historic” decision had cut consumption by between 11m
and 16m litres from a daily pre-ration figure of 75m litres.
Few analysts in Tehran doubt the action was prompted by a fear that
importing about 40 per cent of its petrol made Iran vulnerable to
international action as members of the UN Security Council consider a third
round of sanctions over its nuclear programme.
Tehran’s response, analysts say, shows how sanctions do not undermine
government policy but rather reinforce its tendency to choose state-led
rather than market solutions. “These sanctions are like a flood that
overcomes the private sector but also strengthens the state and all its
network and agencies,” says Mohammad Tabibian, a prominent reform-minded
economist.
“I would go as far to say Mr Ahmadi-Nejad welcomes sanctions,” says a second
economist. “He says he believes in the private sector, but he doesn’t
really, and the state is barely affected by these measures as long as it
sells oil.”
The government opted to ration petrol rather than raise the price – among
the lowest in the world – to a market level, as Mr Ahmadi-Nejad stuck to his
promises to be “fair” to less affluent Iranians. “The president thinks of
quantity rather than prices, of ‘social justice’ rather than markets,” says
Heydar Pourian, editor of Iran Economics, a business monthly. Many
private-sector companies face problems in attracting investment after the US
pressed international banks to avoid dollar transactions with Iran.
But the bulk of Iran’s state-owned economy rolls on with record oil revenue
that rose 13.6 per cent to $54bn in the Iranian year ending March 20.
Iranian officials and analysts dispute US officials’ suggestion that
sanctions will spark unrest and undermine the government. “The people in the
west who hope sanctions can lead to social unrest should know that no nation
revolts when it’s hungry,” says Mr Tabibian. Not that Iranians are starving.
They buy state-subsidised bread hot from bakeries.
At the macro level, the IMF predicts 5 per cent growth in 2007; overall
international trade is growing as Tehran looks to the east.
Trade with Italy has fallen 20 per cent in six months. In 2006, Germany’s
exports to Iran dropped 7 per cent and Japan’s fell 13 per cent.
But business with China is booming. Last year Beijing signed a $100bn deal
to import Iranian natural gas and Chinese companies will be 50 per cent
stakeholders in the Yadavaran oil field.
China has also become the second biggest market for Iran’s non-oil exports,
taking $1.72bn in 2006-7, after the UAE with $2.5bn. Iran’s overall non-oil
exports rose 47.2 percent to $16.3bn. “The situation over sanctions is a
huge opportunity for China, former Soviet republics and regional countries,”
says one Asian diplomat in Tehran.
The medium to long-term outlook may not be so rosy, he adds, if Iran cannot
overcome problems in oil and gas production, where contracts often go to
domestic companies with limited experience.
Some officials admit the energy sector faces difficulties. Akbar Torkan,
managing director of the Pars Oil and Gas Company that oversees development
of the South Pars gas field, said last month that more than $4bn was needed
this year to develop the field, up from $2.7bn last year.
Iran faced “problems in attracting finance and foreign investment”, Mr
Torkan said; a plan to sell $3.5bn bonds inside Iran, offering an 8-15 per
cent return, had been sent to Mr Ahmadi-Nejad. But Iran has a poor record in
raising capital by privatisation; it is doubtful bonds can replace
investment offered by companies – including OMV of Austria, Spain’s Repsol
and Royal Dutch Shell – which are hesitating over involvement in Iran’s
energy sector.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Acts Against
Groups Aiding Hezbollah
By JEANNINE AVERSA
The Associated Press; http://www.washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, July 24, 2007;
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration took action Tuesday against an
Iran-based foundation, including its U.S. branch, for allegedly providing
support to the terrorist group Hezbollah.
The Treasury Department's action covers the Martyrs Foundation and Goodwill
Charitable Organization of Dearborn, Mich., which the government identified
as a fundraising office for the foundation.
"We will not allow organizations that support
terrorism to raise money in the United States," said Stuart Levey, the
Treasury Department's under secretary for terrorism and financial
intelligence.
FBI agents removed boxes from the Goodwill Charitable Organization's
Dearborn office on Tuesday.
Dawn Clenney, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Detroit, said members of the
Joint Terrorism Task Force executed a series of search warrants. No arrests
were made, she said.
About a mile away, FBI agents were seen inside the office of the al-Mabarrat
Charitable Organization, which was not named in Treasury's order.
"There is no known threat to U.S. homeland security" regarding the searches,
Clenney said.
FBI agents seized files, paperwork and financial records from both
organizations, said William J. Kowalski, FBI assistant special agent in
charge of the Detroit office.
Goodwill Charitable Organization has no connection to Goodwill Industries, a
major U.S. charity.
Meanwhile, the Treasury Department moved against al-Qard al-Hassan, a Beirut
firm that the U.S. government believes was used by Hezbollah "as a cover to
manage its financial activity."
Two Lebanese people _ Qasem Aliq and Ahmad al-Shami _ were covered by
Treasury's order.
The U.S. identified Aliq as a Hezbollah official who was once the director
of the Martyrs Foundation's branch in Lebanon. The U.S. says he is a
director of Jihad al Bina, a Lebanon-based construction company allegedly
formed and operated by Hezbollah.
Al-Shami had worked for the foundation in
Lebanon and has been in frequent contact with the Goodwill Charitable
Organization, the department said. Goodwill Charitable Organization sent him
money to distribute to the Martyrs Foundation, the department said.
The Treasury Department's action means that any bank accounts or other
financial assets found in the United States that belong to those identified
Tuesday must be frozen. Americans also are prohibited from doing business
with them.
There was no telephone listing for Goodwill Charitable Organization.
The department called Goodwill Charitable Organization, or GCO, a Hezbollah
front organization that reports directly to the leadership of the Martyrs
Foundation in Lebanon.
"Hezbollah recruited GCO leaders and had maintained close contact with GCO
representatives in the United States," the department alleged.
Unlike Goodwill Charitable Organization, which was closed down by the FBI
following Tuesday's search, al-Mabarrat remained open, Kowalski said.
Associated Press writer Corey Williams contributed to this report from
Dearborn, Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Pressure Oil
Companies on Iran Links
By JAD MOUAWAD
July 25, 2007; http://www.nytimes.com
As American and European governments debate
how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, some of the nation’s largest public
pension funds are leaning on European and Asian oil companies to reconsider
their investments in Iran.
In letters citing the risk that international sanctions might jeopardize
their investments, a coalition of funds from New York, California, North
Carolina and Illinois has cautioned eight foreign energy companies working
in Iran about investing there.
These pensions, which include New York City’s five main funds and the
California Public Employees’ Retirement System, hold $3.7 billion worth of
shares in energy companies involved in Iran, out of a total $570 billion in
assets.
The two-page letters were sent to the chief executives of Royal Dutch Shell,
Total of France, Repsol of Spain, Eni of Italy and Gazprom of Russia. In
Asia, they were sent to the China National Petroleum Corporation, the Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation of India and Inpex Corporation of Japan.
A growing number of municipalities and legislatures are seeking ways to bar
state investments in place like Iran and Sudan. Recently, Florida passed the
nation’s first such measure and others, like California and Texas, are
considering similar ones.
Pension funds usually oppose these efforts, which they see as curtailing
their ability to invest. They also point out that long-term investors very
rarely divest themselves of any of their holdings. But the funds in the
coalition are taking their concerns to the companies directly, seeking to
reduce their risks.
“It is increasingly likely that the worsening situation and tightening
economic sanctions will negatively impact companies doing business there,”
the letters said, which referred to Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism.”
The companies were asked to respond about their plans by Aug. 31.
The public strategy recalls a similar campaign a few years ago when
shareholders pressured American companies like Halliburton, ConocoPhillips
and General Electric to shut down the offices of foreign-owned subsidiaries
in Iran.
For European companies that have shares traded in American markets, the move
by these institutional shareholders is another headache for their Persian
Gulf strategy.
The Bush administration has warned foreign energy companies and some foreign
governments lately that they might incur penalties if they pursued deals in
Iran. Given the recent tensions, several European companies have frozen
plans to invest billions of dollars in several projects.
Iran is the world’s second-largest holder of oil and natural gas reserves.
American companies are barred from doing business there.
Kenneth B. Sylvester, assistant comptroller for pension policy at the New
York City comptroller’s office, denied that the move by the pension funds
was a response to pressure from state assemblies.
“We are trying to get the companies to focus on the risks to them and to
their investors,” Mr. Sylvester said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran's message is
softly spoken, yet clear: It will enrich uranium
By Anne Penketh in Tehran; http://news.independent.co.uk
25 July 2007
Iran has issued its strongest signal to date
that it will defy UN demands for a suspension of uranium enrichment - a
possible route towards a nuclear bomb - threatening to respond to any
further sanctions and accusing the Americans of "running away" from
negotiations to end the crisis over the Iranian nuclear programme.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator told The Independent yesterday that uranium
enrichment was "like breathing" for his country, and that Iran would not
halt the spinning centrifuges at its main enrichment plant in Natanz, even
if the Bush administration offered security guarantees.
Ali Larijani reports directly to Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, and to Iran's radical President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who
appointed him. To be granted an interview in the Supreme National Security
Council is a rare event for any foreign journalist.
Mr Larijani was unusually forthcoming about his negotiations with the
European foreign policy envoy, Javier Solana, who has been trying to coax
Iran back to the negotiating table while the UN Security Council prepares a
new round of economic sanctions. The Europeans have taken the lead in
dealing with Iran, which has not had diplomatic relations with Washington
since 1979. They want Iran to suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition
for negotiations. This has been rejected. The Iranians say that the last
time they agreed to a voluntary suspension, a three-week suspension ended up
lasting two and a half years. They say they will not be caught out again.
Asked whether Iran might reconsider its refusal to suspend enrichment if it
were to receive security guarantees from America and a promise that the US
would not seek regime change, Mr Larijani responded: "We are in no need of
US security guarantees. I do not see a relation between these two matters.
This example of yours is like saying, 'if the Americans provide you with a
security guarantee are you ready to give up breathing?'"
His comments are laced with indiscreet anecdotes, details of conversations
with European foreign ministers, who, he says, have told him that the West
is determined to prevent Iran from developing its own enrichment capability
in order to guarantee that it will not be diverted towards a bomb.
During the 90-minute conversation with six journalists from Britain, France,
Germany and the US, the soft-spoken conservative noted that an Iranian
proposal for an international consortium to enrich uranium inside Iran was
rejected by the Americans. "They do not want Iran to have the nuclear
technology, which is a strategic mistake because Iran has already acquired
this knowledge."
Another senior Iranian official said that with almost 3,000 centrifuges now
running at Natanz, "we have at the moment enough centrifuges to go to a
bomb". But the official added that Iran was barred by its own security and
defence doctrine, by parliament, and by a religious fatwa issued by the
Supreme Leader, from building a bomb. The official added that if Iran
produced a single bomb "what is it good for? If we attack Israeli with one
bomb, America would attack us with thousands of bombs. It's suicide."
However, Iran is pursuing a strategy of negotiations plus renewed
co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in hopes of
reaching a "technical and legal" solution before the crisis escalates at the
UN in September. The IAEA said yesterday inspectors would return to the Arak
heavy-water complex, which is under construction, on Monday or Tuesday -
four months after Iran cut off IAEA access there in protest at sanctions.
Yet the senior official revealed that last month Iran had rejected Mr
Solana's offer of a one-month freeze in which the Iranians would remain at
the present level of centrifuge installation, in return for shelving plans
for a third UN resolution.
The Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said on Monday that new
sanctions would mean "confrontation" with Iran, while the senior official
said Iran would be "tempted to do illegal things". He did not elaborate.
Iran believes the proposal for an international consortium is the best
option to end the deadlock, but has also proposed the permanent stationing
of UN inspectors and even "smart centrifuges" which explode when uranium is
enriched past a certain percentage.
The Iranians believe that they have the upper hand, with the Americans
bogged down in Iraq. "Iran's capability is a reality, sanctions can't work,
the military option is unthinkable. The only way is to start negotiations
with Iran," said the official.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need for federal
constitutional court
SENATOR SANAULLAH BALOCH
31-07-2007;
http://nation.com.pk
Pakistan’s political and judicial history is a
mixture of military escapade, judicial submission and intentional
de-gradation and slander of state organs and institutions. Constitution in
Pakistan, like other charters in the world, provides basic fundamental
guarantees to individuals and institutions, but it has never been
implemented or translated with its true spirit. Federal provincial
relations, distribution of resources including separation of power among
government branches, human rights and equality before the law has always
been capitulated by the custodians of the contract. Constitutional mayhem
and rightfulness of rule has always been a longstanding subject in
Pakistan’s political sphere. Recent judiciary versus executive crisis has
exposed the fragile institutional relations in Pakistan, whereas a
subservient department with overwhelming monetary and military power is
superseding and undermining all national institution. However such
encroachment and violation is discouraged in true democracies through
established institutions. Federal Constitutional Courts in most of the
countries have both role of umpire and custodian to protect the rights of
institutions and individuals to discourage any adventurism from
self-proclaimed superior branch of state.
Pakistan has gone through a complex
constitutional crisis from time to time, and lack of standing judicial
system, to deal with delicate constitutional matters has resulted in to the
breakup of the country and repeated setback to the democracy.
Superior courts unnoticed the East Pakistan politico-military conflict that
resulted in the breakup of the country. Military operation in 1973,
abolition of NAP government in Balochistan and ban on National Awami Party
by the central government was quietly ignored by the apex court. In recent
past, Supreme Court dismisses the petition to stop military operation in
FATA and take notice of central government-military offensives against
Baloch people. The role of courts in questioning the use of force in
federating units not only remained unquestioned, but also the deaths of
thousands of innocent citizens, arbitrary arrests, torture, violation of
basic rights, ethnic discrimination remained less the realm of ‘’Supreme”
court.
If Pakistan had a Constitution on time and Constitutional Court, we would
have not been in such fragile political state. Since, Usif Patel (1955) to
Zafar Ali Shah (2002) case, Federal Courts dealt the prime national
constitutional matters with imperfect approach. The manners in which
constitutional questions have been answered by the apex court has changed
the course of political history and paved the way for powerful not for the
rightful to control the power corridor.
Superior judiciary with its limited occupation
has never been a sunshade for political system. The judiciary not only
failed to stop frequent derailment of democracy and keep a check on
extra-constitutional regime change, but also repeatedly endorsed the
consolidation of unrepresntative rules.
Paula R Newberg in her book published in 1995, has portrayed judiciary and
its decision in following words, “Pakistan’s courts and judges are cast as
protectors of the constitution in a separation of powers system. But in
circumstances such as those just described they have usually found it
expedient or necessary to accommodate wrenching alterations of the
constitution or grossly un-or anti-constitutional actions by the rulers of
the day. They have done so because they thought such deeds or misdeeds
essential to the survival of the state or, more likely and more often, to
their own survival.
All courts in civilised societies apply Constitution and the law “without
fear, favour or prejudice”. However, empirical accounts show that the
Judiciary in Pakistan has failed to play its due role during grave national
crisis and conflicts. Lack of fair and just system based on modern
democratic principle has also caused mistrust and split in society.
Absence of specific institutions to resolve
various legal and constitutional disputes and check on government bodies,
resulted in misuse and abuse of authority. Widespread human rights abuses
must be seen in broader perspective, where the establishment, civil
bureaucracy, law enforcement and security agencies have remained unaffected
from legal and judicial accountability. However, a group has always been
benefited from mismanagement of political and judicial system of the country
which control military and civil services.
Unconstitutional rule also resulted in socio-economic disparities in the
regions. Rulers avoiding mass opposition adopted a policy to keep populous
province happy through pumping resources and suppressing the smaller
provinces through guns and canons.
The political representatives from oppressed regions have reservation and
fear to approach superior courts for any political and social remedy, as
superior judiciary has always been twisted and provided legitimacy to the
rulers for their extra constitutional acts.
Parliament in Pakistan is no more an institution to rectify the political
imbalance. Grumbling provinces are less represented in parliament and are
not in a position to set right the rules.
There are a number of issues causing irritation and discomfort among the
people of country living in remote and neglected parts of the country.
Issues like fair and just distribution of resources, federal provincial
relations, imbalanced development, and repeated excesses against minority
provinces, defense spending, political disorder, over centralisation of
authority needs extensive political and legal fixing.
In Pakistan, lack of effective and independent judiciary and comprehensive
system to deal with complicated constitutional matters has resulted in a
disorder in the social and political system. Reliant Judiciary with limited
understanding and capacity always was disposing off cases according to the
will and wish of the ruling junta. Law of necessity sort of decisions comes
when there is no real and effective court available to read between the
lines.
Thousand of cases and appeals are pending for
years in courts. According to 2005 , 37,122 appeals and 55,982 petitions are
pending in high courts of four provinces of the country.
International experience indicates that socio-economic cost and time factor
of justice has been improved in societies due to the improved judicial
system and existence of federal constitutional courts.
The Federal Constitutional Courts are an essential part for smooth running
of a democratic political system. As the guardian of the Basic Law, the
Constitutional Court could play a significant role in umpiring the federal
system, resolving conflicts among branches of the national government,
overseeing the process of parliamentary democracy, monitoring the political
parties, and reviewing restrictions on basic rights and liberties.
The article 153 of Pakistan’s constitution somehow guarantees the right of
provinces through establishment of Council of Common Interests. However, it
is clear from council’s composition to the rules of procedure that not a
single province is in position to benefit or get remedy from the council
except Punjab which dominate majority of members of parliament. Council
never been active and neither proved an arbitrative institution.
Constitutional courts are playing effective role and proved as a significant
institution around the world to promote democracy and rule of law, protect
individual rights and resolving political conflicts in countries those
believe in federal system. Around the world 62 countries have Constitutional
Courts or equivalent bodies to resolve conflicts among branches of the
government, overseeing the process of parliamentary democracy and reviewing
restrictions on fundamental rights.
The Constitutional courts are not an integral
part of the regular judicial system in most of the countries, but rather
installed as a separate judicial institution. Constitutional Court is
regarded as the highest courts when it comes to the interpretation,
protection and enforcement of the Constitution. However, in countries like
USA, Canada, Japan, Israel, Norway, India, Denmark, Estonia, Finland
individuals and institutions rely on their independent, transparent and
reliable judicial system for constitutional matters and disputes.
Developing a just and acceptable political system is in the interest of the
country. Unjust societies can not sustain for long.
The German, French, Spanish and Italian Constitutional Courts tile the way
for a cooperative federalism in these countries. In Italy Constitutional
Court task consist of monitoring changing economic and social realities and
to put together the relationship between state and regions less conflicting.
Spanish Constitutional Court is the supreme interpreter of the Constitution.
Court has powers and jurisdiction to safeguard the fundamental rights of the
citizens through appeal for constitutional protection. CC in Korea
established in 1988, aimed to fully protect the people’s fundamental rights
and effectively check governmental powers.
In South Africa Constitution delegated exclusive jurisdiction to the
Constitutional Court in deciding disputes about the powers and
constitutional status of branches of government and decide about the
constitutionality of any amendment to the Constitution.
The German Federal Constitutional Court has been located in the city of
Karlsruhe, intentionally dislocated from the federal capital and the head
office of the German intelligence in Munich, to avoid social and
institutional influence of executive.
What the people of Pakistan need in this
critical phase of history, a separate, independent, responsible, reliable,
unbiased, capable federal constitutional court, located remotely from power
orbit, represented equally by all four provinces and endorsed by provincial
assemblies with two-third majority to represent and protect the rights of
the individuals, federating units and federal parliamentary system.
The writer is a member of the Senate of Pakistan.
Email: balochbnp@gmail.com
|