Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The Continuum and Ever Expanding US Foreign Policy, of ever more thousands of Tribes with Flags Worldwide, together with MOSSAD and MI6, Evil Nexus...

The Continuum and Ever Expanding US Foreign Policy, of ever more thousands of Tribes with Flags Worldwide, together with MOSSAD and MI6, in the Evil Nexus of the UKUSA Alliance of utter destruction.
"The USA Government is corrupt beyond redemption!"

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is making her first official overseas visit, with scheduled stops in Tokyo; Jakarta, Indonesia; Seoul, South Korea; and Beijing. The choice of Asia as her first destination is intended to signal a more global focus for U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration, as opposed to the heavy emphasis on the Middle East and South Asia seen in the last years of the Bush administration. It also represents the kickoff of an ambitious travel plan that will see Clinton visiting numerous countries across the globe in a bid to project the image of a more cooperative U.S. administration.

Clinton’s Asian expedition is not the first overseas visit by a key member of the new administration. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, where he faced the Russians. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell has finished his first trip to his area of responsibility, and is already planning a return visit to the Middle East. And Richard Holbrooke, special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, has visited both South Asian countries in addition to making a “listening” stop in India.

The Emergence of a New Foreign Policy

As with any new U.S. presidency, there will be a period of reshaping policy, of setting priorities, and of balancing internal differences within the Obama administration. The various individuals and visits cataloged above in part reflect the Obama administration’s emerging foreign policy.

A two-pronged Obama foreign policy approach is unfolding. The first prong, relating to the general tenor of foreign relations, involves a modern application of the “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach. The second prong, relating to the distribution of power within the administration, involves a centralization of foreign policy centering on a stronger and expanded National Security Council (NSC) and relies on special envoys for crisis areas, leaving the secretary of state to shape foreign perceptions rather than policy.

The Obama administration faced mixed expectations as it came into office. Perhaps the most far-reaching expectation on the international front was the idea that the Obama administration would somehow be the antithesis of the previous Bush administration. Whereas Bush often was portrayed as a unilateralist “cowboy,” constantly confronting others and never listening to allies (much less competitors), it was thought that Obama somehow would remake America into a nation that withheld its military power and instead confronted international relations via consultations and cooperation. In essence, the Bush administration was seen as aggressive and unwilling to listen, while an Obama administration was expected to be more easily shaped and manipulated by the new found Siamese twins of CIA2/MOSSAD, that cannot distinguish American and Israeli interests....hence Israel "and" America....becomes a covert paradigm...used by the power behind the power in USA to steamroll US politics into complete submission to the elite's of the elite boys and women ... the CFR,...etc...the so-called ISRAEL's influential lobby....is a myth propagated by this occult power behind the power....because it is a very handy and a "cheap" way ...of controlling both houses of congress ...without ever disclosing any of the rogue intelligence and covert...extra-judicial operations...and all policies....in USA and the world for that matter... and the so-called Israeli lobby, with all of its spectacular ramifications worldwide is completely and utterly subservient to this power behind the power in USA, they are just a front and a cover...for the real power behind all powers in USA, and

its criminal enterprise, the newfound Siamese twins of CIA2/MOSSAD, and the White House Murder Machinations INC, which is globalized in nature since 1994/95....remember Yitzhak Rabin's assassination and take stock...

Between the War of Independence and the end of the 20th Century.

Between the War of Independence and the end of the 20th Century US foreign policy was largely grounded in domestic politics and reflected the real (as opposed to ideal) needs and aspirations of the American people. Paraphrasing von Clausewitz’s comment on war, one can indeed say that US foreign policy was then the continuation of domestic politics through other means.

All this changed in the first year of this century as a result of the convergence of two factors: one extraneous, namely the 9/11 CIA/MOSSAD attacks on US soil, the other internal, namely the rise to power in Washington of the Neocons, driven by ideas. Following which, for most of President George W Bush’s eight years at the White House, foreign policy was idea-driven, rhetoric replaced dialectics and, the sobering link with domestic politics having thus been severed, foreign policy became increasingly disconnected from the realities of the American polity and economy, it started free-wheeling on its own, and hubris finally set in…

Now, with a new President in place who has pledged to address, first and foremost, the American people’s real needs and aspirations, the time may be ripe to again make US foreign policy tributary of domestic realities. And what better foreign policy issue to start with, than the Middle East conflict. For, if there ever was a conflict driven exclusively by ideas and beliefs (i.e., driven by ideology), it is certainly the conflict in the Middle East.

If History has ever taught us anything, it is that beliefs and ideas are non negotiable. Everything else--land, refugees, wealth, power, oil, gas, water supplies and even strategic positions—might be. Not so beliefs and ideas. Hence the unending Israeli-Palestinian (and, beyond it, Jewish-Moslem) conflict, which never was about sheer territory (territory that can be negotiated, as Israel’s restitution of the Sinai to Egypt suggests), but about a sacred (i.e., idealized) territory.

The majority of Israelis (and beyond them a substantial number of Jews from around the world) indeed strongly believe that Israel is the Promised Land given them by the Almighty, and that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish State; while most Palestinians (backed in this by a vast majority of fellow-Muslims across the world) equally strongly believe that Palestine is their rightful homeland, that they have a legitimate right to return to it, and that Jerusalem is theirs, rather than the Jews’. Such beliefs and ideas, whether grounded in truth or not, are non negotiable. And this helps explain why the Middle East conflict has hitherto remained unresolved.

No serious attempt can therefore be made at resolving the protracted Middle East conflict without first stripping it from its strong (and non negotiable) ideological undertones. More specifically:

(i) In a first phase, soil rights ought to supersede and replace blood rights. In other words, the land in Israel and in Palestine should belong to those who now live on it. Both Israel and the Palestinians and the latter’s Arab and Muslim sponsors should therefore rescind their respective Laws of Return that give, on the one hand, all Jews throughout the world the right to come and live in Israel, and, on the other hand, all Palestinians whose ancestors once lived in what is today Israel, the right to return to “their” home and “their” land. As of D-Day, therefore, and once both sides would have rescinded their Laws of Return, would be considered as Israeli citizens only those (whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Druze) whose homes and livelihoods would be in Israel on the day, to the exclusion of all others; and would be considered as being Palestinian citizens on D-Day only those whose homes and livelihoods happen be in the West Bank and in Gaza on the day, to the exclusion of all others.

(ii) In a second phase, the issue of the status of Jerusalem should be addressed and, while its sacred character should be preserved, its multi-denominational reality should also be recognized and then confirmed under international law. In other words, whereas the holy city of Jerusalem would remain the “eternal capital” of the State of Israel and should be recognized as such by Israel’s present foes, there is nothing to prevent it, in its very holiness, from concurrently being the eternal capital of a Palestinian State (or even “the eternal capital of the three monotheist religions”), however tenuous effective Palestinian (or international) control over the city might be. Only then, when the weight of ideas and ideology would have been lifted and life would have reasserted its rights, will the international community be able to tackle other issues such as security, peace treatises and the sharing of natural resources (fresh water reserves, offshore gas reserves). From being bones of contention, all these issues will then turn into as many common denominators.

All this can be made possible if the United States recognizes that its duty as world leader is not merely towards this or that idea or dream, however legitimate these might seem to be, but its duty is, first and foremost and exactly as is the case in America itself, towards life and all that exists: the real men, women and children, irrespectively of their nationality or creed, who now live in the Middle East region and who are all entitled to live in peace, dignity and security.

Anticipation of a weaker administration created a challenge for Obama from the start. While many of his supporters saw him as the anti-Bush, the new president had no intention of shifting America to a second-tier position or making the United States isolationist. Obama’s focus on reducing U.S. forces in Iraq and the discussions during Clinton’s confirmation hearing of reducing the military’s role in reconstruction operations did not reflect an anti-military bias or even new ideas, but something Defense Secretary Robert Gates had advocated for under former U.S. President George W. Bush. A reshaping of the U.S. military will in fact take place over the course of Obama’s term in office. But the decision to reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq is not unique to this administration; it is merely a recognition of the reality of the limitations of military resources.

Diplomacy and Military Power

The new administration has applied this decision as the basis of a strategy to refocus the military on its core competencies and rebuild the military’s strength and readiness, using that as the strong and stable framework from which to pursue an apparently more cooperative foreign policy. U.S. diplomatic power needs a strong military, and operations in Iraq have drained U.S. military power — something highlighted by the U.S. inability to act on its policies when the Russians moved in on Georgia.

It is not only U.S. political power that is reinforced by military power, but U.S. economic strength as well. Control of the world’s sea-lanes — and increasingly, control of outer space — is what ensures the security of U.S. economic links abroad. In theory, the United States can thus interdict competitors’ supply lines and economic ties while protecting its own.

Despite globalization and greater economic ties, physical power still remains the strongest backer to diplomacy. Ideology alone will not change the world, much less the actions of so-called rogue states or even pirates along the Somali coast. The first principal of Obama’s foreign policy, then, will be making sure it has big stick to carry, one freed from long-term reconstruction commitments or seemingly intractable situations such as Iraq. Only with an available and effective military can one afford to speak softly without being trod upon.

Rebuilding U.S. military readiness and strength is not going to be easy. Iraq and Afghanistan remain to be taken care of, and there are years of heavy activity and at times declining recruitment to recover from. While there are substantial benefits to a battle-hardened military accustomed to a high deployment tempo, this also has its costs — reset costs will be high. A very real domestic military shake-up looms on the one- to two-year horizon in order to bring the Pentagon back into line with fiscal and procurement realities, coupled with concerns about midlevel officer retention. But the Pentagon’s thinking and strategic guidance already have moved toward cooperative security and toward working more closely with allies and partners to stabilize and manage the global security environment, with an emphasis on requiring foreign participation and burden-sharing.

A Greater Security Role for Allies and a Centralized Foreign Policy

Obama will also work on managing the U.S. image abroad. Opposition to Bush and opposition to the war in Iraq often became synonymous internationally, evolving intentionally or otherwise into broader anti-war and anti-military sentiments. Rebuilding the military’s image internationally will not happen overnight. Part of the process will involve using the sense of change inherent in any new U.S. administration to push allies and others to take on a greater role in global security.

In Asia, for example, Clinton will call on Tokyo and Seoul to step up operations in Afghanistan, particularly in reconstruction and development efforts. But Tokyo and Seoul also will be called on to take a greater role in regional security — Seoul on the Korean Peninsula and Tokyo as a more active military ally overall. The same message will be sent to Europe and elsewhere: If you want a multilateral United States, you will have to take up the slack and participate in multilateral operations. The multilateral mantra will not be one in which the United States does what others say, but rather one in which the United States holds others to the task. In the end, this will reduce U.S. commitments abroad, allowing the military to refocus on its core competencies and rebuild its strength.

A strong military thus forms the foundation of any foreign policy. Obama’s foreign policy approach is largely centralized in a bid for a wider approach. Taking China as an example, for the last half-dozen years, U.S. policy on China was based almost entirely on economics. The U.S. Treasury Department took the lead in China relations, while other issues — everything from Chinese military developments to Beijing’s growing presence in Africa and Latin America to human rights — took a back seat. While the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue (or something similar) will remain a major pillar of U.S.-China relations under Obama, equally important parallel tracks will focus on military and security issues, nontraditional threats, politics and human rights. This multifaceted approach will require close cooperation among numerous departments and divisions to avoid the chaos seen in things like U.S. policy on North Korea.

This coordination will take place in an expanded NSC, one that brings in the economic elements on equal footing with security and political concerns. Combined with the appointment of special envoys for critical regions, this is intended to ensure a more unified and complete approach to foreign policy. This way, Obama retains oversight over policy, while his erstwhile rival Clinton is just one voice at the table. The State Department’s role thus becomes more about image management and development.

Accordingly, Clinton’s foreign travels are less about shaping foreign policy than shaping foreign images of the United States. She is demonstrating the new consultative nature of the administration by going everywhere and listening to everyone. Meanwhile, the hard-hitting foreign policy initiatives go to the special envoys, who can dedicate their time and energy to just one topic. Holbrooke got South Asia, Mitchell got the Middle East, and there are indications that managing overall China strategy will fall to Biden, at least in the near term.

Other special envoys and special representatives might emerge, some technically reporting through the State Department, others to other departments, but all effectively reporting back to the NSC and the president. In theory, this will mitigate the kind of bickering between the State Department and NSC that characterized Bush’s first term (a concern hardly limited to the most recent ex-president). And to keep it busy, the State Department has been tasked with rebuilding the U.S. Agency for International Development or an equivalent program for taking reconstruction and development programs, slowly freeing the military from the reconstruction business.

As Clinton heads to Asia, then, the expectations of Asian allies and China of a newfound American appreciation for the Far East might be a bit misplaced. Certainly, this is the first time in a long while that a secretary of state has visited Asia before Europe. But given the role of the vice president and the special envoys, the visit might not reflect policy priorities so much as a desire to ensure that all regions get visits. Clinton’s agenda in each country might not offer an entirely accurate reading of U.S. policy initiatives for the region, either, as much of the policy is still up for review, and her primary responsibility is to demonstrate a new and more interactive face of American foreign policy.

Clinton’s Asia visit is significant largely because it highlights a piece of the evolving Obama foreign policy — a policy that remains centralized under the president via the NSC, and that uses dedicated special envoys and representatives to focus on key trouble spots (and perhaps to avoid some of the interagency bickering that can limit the agencies’ freedom to maneuver). Most importantly, this policy at its core looks to rebuild the sense and reality of American military strength through disengaging from apparently intractable situations, focusing on core competencies rather than reconstruction or nation-building, and calling on allies to take up the slack in security responsibilities. This is what is shaping the first priority for the Obama administration: withdrawal from Iraq not just to demonstrate a different approach than the last president, but also to ensure that the military is ready for use elsewhere.

Al- Walid Bin-TALAL...


Al Walid


Prince Al-Walid bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud is a member of the Saudi Royal Family.

Al-Walid (also known as Alwaleed) is a citizen of Lebanon, his mother's country.

Al-Walid owns the yacht
Kingdom 5KR.

He has ordered a new yacht currently known as the
New Kingdom 5KR which will be about 170m long.

He owns 300 cars.

Al-Walid and his children live in a $100 million palace whose 317 rooms are adorned with 1,500 tons of Italian marble, silk oriental carpets, gold-plated faucets and 250 TV sets.

Prince Al-Walid also owns a 317-room palace in Riyadh.[15][16]

Reportedly, Al-Walid makes his investments through the Kingdom Holding Company.

The Economist has suggested that Al Walid is a front man for other Saudi investors. [5]

Several chief executives of companies in which Al-Walid has a major stake (e.g. Disney, Donna Karan International) as well as some of his business partners (e.g. real estate developer Paul Reichmann), have been Jewish. (Prince Al-Walid bin Talal (September 2002))


In the 1990s Al-Walid bought shares in

His holdings in Citigroup reportedly comprise half of all his wealth

Reportedly he came to own own 14.9% of Citicorp,[3] which in 1998 merged with travelers Group.

In 1995, Citibank reportedly assisted Raul Salinas, brother of the former president of Mexico, to move between $90 million and $100 million of suspected drug money out of Mexico.

Cached /BBC News - Citibank criticised over money laundering)

Reportedly Al-Walid has made investments in such companies as AOL, Apple Inc., Worldcom, Motorola, News Corporation Ltd.

His real estate holdings have included a large stake in the
Four Seasons hotel chain.

He has an investment in Monaco's
Monte Carlo Grand Hotel.

He currently holds a 10% stake in
Euro Disney SCA, the organization which manages and maintains the Disneyland Resort Paris.[4]

In 2005 Al-Walid bought the Savoy Hotel in London for an estimated GBP £250 million, to be managed by Fairmont Hotels, in which Al-Walid owns an estimated 16% stake.

In January 2006, in partnership with the U.S. real estate firm
Colony Capital, Kingdom Holdings bought Toronto, CA-based Four Seasons for an estimated $3.9 billion.

As of 2008, there are plans for the $10 billion construction of the
Burj Al-Meel a skyscraper to one mile (1600m) in height.

Reportedly, Al-Walid is on the board of directors of the Carlyle Group. (
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG))

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Whither the Cedar Revolution?

Whither the Cedar Revolution?

May 02, 2007/09 - Woodrow Wilson center...

May I start by expressing my deepest thanks and appreciation for the Woodrow Wilson Center for inviting my colleague and myself today to present our view on a dear topic to our minds and hearts being the Cedar Revolution, and, more importantly, to emphasize on the vital role that the center is playing in advancing democracy in the world through encouraging a comprehensive and constructive dialogue on issues that could contribute to resolving conflicts by political means....

The Cedar Revolution, that we are addressing today, is in fact the fruit of a long process of struggle that Lebanese people fought for their freedom and their independence since Lebanon was occupied by the Syrian army in the mid 70's.

This long struggle took different forms during the last 3 decades varying from military resistance that culminated in Liberation war in March 14, 89 to peaceful resistance that started in 1990 and reached its peak in March 14, 05, one of the most symbolic dates of our recent history (ref. to the long 8 miles walk I had with my family ? wife and 2 daughters ? to the martyrs square).

Hence, it would be naive and/or dishonest to reduce a people?s long fight and sacrifices to just a short period or day where the Cedar Revolution is known to have started.
Thousands of people died, thousands others were wounded or disappeared and thousands were arrested and tortured in this thirty-years-old struggle with the Syrian occupation and it is thanks to them that the Lebanese will for freedom was kept alive until it was met by an international one and made our liberation dream become true.

If the Cedar Revolution succeeded in achieving its main goal of Liberating Lebanon from the Syrian army, it has unfortunately failed to rebuild the country on proper democratic basis. The multi-confessional alliance, reflecting a real national unity, that lead this revolution until March 14, collapsed after some of its main parties went on striking electoral deals with March 8 and traded seats instead of dealing with major national and political issues of paramount importance for the reemergence of a state and not just another form of a power sharing system with the so-called Syrian allies as described now by the Ruling coalition. That has resulted in a government with no political vision completely relying on regional changes and international support which led to instability, contradictions in the directions of the country when what was needed most is a clear Lebanese agenda to face the regional and national challenges ahead.

In fact, and as a result of this deal between antagonist parties being previously - during the past 15-30 years ? the pillars of the Syrian and Iranian installed regime that FPM resisted locally and in exile, I mean by that the coalition of Future ? PSP ? Hezbollah and Amal movements. However, This would have been a great move towards unifying Lebanon if what assembled them was nothing beside a haggling arrangement on power sharing without political agreement and particularly if it was not brought up again to the detriment of their Christians partners that were marginalized by the adoption of a fraudulent and unconstitutional electoral law called as the Ghazi Kanaan law ( with ref to the famous ex chief of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon for 2 decades) and their exclusion ( of the Christians) from this broad national alliance.

Gerrymandering the elections once again and paralyzing the Highest court in the country i.e. The constitutional Court equivalent to The US Supreme Court, by a law voted in parliament on its very first meeting following elections even though 11 claims contesting 11 seats were filed by our parliamentary bloc and which is still paralyzed to date 2 years after the elections!, led to a doubtful if not fake parliamentary majority due to the misrepresentation of popular votes. This has generated a government that is everything but a democratically elected government as built on the above referred to 'quadripartite alliance' with ambiguous and confused stances on major issues i.e. UN 1559, Shebaa farms, International tribunal, Palestinian armed militias and the very Presidential issue, that demonstrate the fragility of their common political platform, if any.

By establishing an unbalanced political system with regards to representation and political homogeneity, the so called quadripartite alliance jeopardized the whole initial project of the Cedar Revolution. The government was paralyzed by its essential contradictions and lack of vision as well as the balance of power in the main institutions, Presidency, Government and Parliament, was not sufficient for any of the two sides of this alliance to prevail.

No wonder that this union didn?t last too long and ended in the actual crisis that burst six month ago and sealed the end of the cohabitation between the two camps (8 and 14), leaving the whole country in a stalemate.

In addition, by betraying and consequently losing one of its main pillars, - the Free Patriotic Movement -, the Ruling coalition has weakened dramatically the original plan of the Cedar Revolution. The previously joint forces were now split between government and opposition and the FPM was forced to conduct a struggle of existence and reinstatement of a just and representative democratic system that consumed its efforts and energy instead of concentrating them on the fulfillment of all the revolution goals.

Nevertheless, the worst blow that the Cedar Revolution suffered was the deviation of the Ruling coalition from its real objectives. Originally, the revolution was aimed to liberate Lebanon, restore sovereignty and independence and rebuild democratic institutions in the country. It was supposed to reunite the Lebanese people around a collective national vision and consolidate their unity. It was promising to reform and strengthen the state and its institutions.

Instead, the Ruling coalition built a power of their own rather than a state for all. They implemented a hegemonic strategy on all the state institutions and spoiled the democratic process through the fiddled elections and all the government practices that followed. The power logic took over the statehood logic and the Lebanese partnership formula was seriously jeopardized.

Lastly, the Ruling coalition deceptive alliance with Hizbullah-Amal parties without true political understanding has prevented the accomplishment of a joint national vision that the Lebanese people needed badly after their independence has been restored.

A momentum was missed and an opportunity was lost at a historical moment where the international community has its eyes and mind focused on Lebanon.

The consequences of the Cedar Revolution failures were devastating :

- an unprecedented system crisis resulting in several violations of the constitution;

- a country severely divided between two camps in an even, and therefore futile showdown;

- a political and constitutional deadlock paralyzing the functioning of the main state institutions;

- a vulnerable situation, prey to insecurity with many crimes and assassinations occurring under an impotent and incompetent non reassuring authority to protect the citizens and the country;

- a country victim of huge pressure and influence by the regional agenda deepening its division and endangering its unity;

Unfortunately, this divided, perplexed and vulnerable Lebanon has to face major challenges and milestones. Many UN resolutions were issued. Resolution 1559 called on all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias to disband; Resolutions 1595 and 1644 called for the creation of an international investigation committee and an international tribunal for the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and was extended to all the terrorist crimes that followed; and Resolution 1701 that resulted from the latest war in July 2006 called for a series of measures, notably related to weapon control hand in hand with the development of a political solution.

Not surprisingly, these Lebanese obligations could not be isolated from the conflicting regional interests around them. This lead to growing external interference and has regrettably complicated the problems and the dissensions between Lebanese parties.

Thus, one can deplore the absence of a shared Lebanese vision to face fundamental stations going on in the Middle East in the dramatic standoff between two axis grouping Syria and Iran from one side and Saudi Arabia( taking some distance now as seen from the role the King is trying to play in bringing a global political solution regionally and locally) and USA from the other (ref is also made to the efforts the US is investing internally and abroad to widen their views on the conflict, Baker-Hamilton report as well as the US backed regional meetings ? Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria - in Baghdad lately and in Sharm el Sheikh beginning of May) .

But we, FPM, adopted this way of dealing with national issues between the Lebanese components of the political scene well before the actual crisis (and following the collapse of the quadripartite alliance) but definitely before the eruption of the July war in an attempt to reinstate inter-Lebanese confidence and avoid resorting to violence that would destabilize the country fragile confessional tissue. In fact, and back to Feb 6th Amid this stagnation, the Free Patriotic Movement took a courageous initiative to break the cycle of deception where Lebanese politics was locked up. Encouraged by a general consensus that the application of UN Resolution 1559 should come through internal dialogue between Lebanese, FPM seriously engaged Hezbollah on the issue and these talks lead to the announcement of a ?Memorandum of Understanding? (MOU) that included a variety of vital points such as defining the frame of the relationship with Syria and a disarmament roadmap for Hezbollah to the advantage of both the Lebanese State and Army as the sole military institution in charge of the country's security. (adopted months later by the national dialogue table and the 7 points plan of PM Siniora following the July war that were also mentioned in the 1701 UN resolution).

But rather than seizing this occasion that FPM created and elaborate it further towards a final solution, the Ruling coalition camp accused FPM of all kind of evil intentions and belonging to the Syrian-Iranian axis. Yet, a careful reading of the MOU would show that FPM did provide the beginning of a political solution that was not provided Prime Minister Siniora?s government in its first ministerial declaration ( ref. is made to the parag. related to preserving and protecting the 'resistance' i.e. Hezbollah until the liberation of the occupied land ? Shebaa farms - and Lebanese detainees in Israel, which the Hezb used as a legal covert to pursue its business as usual.

Another opportunity has been wasted and the ambiguousness that remained in the government contributed largely in the tragic developments that we witnessed in summer 2006 when the war broke out with Israel.

Despite this obscure and grim perspective, Lebanon still stands a chance to get out of its actual quagmire. For that, all the Lebanese parties should start by dissociating their calculations and stances from any bet on regional development in their favor and should reach the belief that the actual internal crisis would not end unless on a win-win basis.

Solution starts by reinventing the power sharing equation and therefore reinstating a real and effective partnership in the power. It is mandatory that any decision or agreement around the controversial issues be the product of a representative government with the adhesion of all, for the good sake of stability. Excluding any of the major Lebanese groups from crucial national decisions will undeniably expose Lebanon to the risk of new tumult and troubles.

Power regeneration could take place through different forms: a government of national unity with true representation; new parliamentary elections after adopting a just electoral law; or a fair consensus on the presidential elections.

No one should be shocked by the opposition call for government resignation or change. This has nothing to do with any putsch allegations that some in the actual government conduct against us. This is just a corrective measure to remedy all the damages that were made by these parties during the power constitution process. Please allow me to refer to a part of the US Declaration of Independence that expresses so eloquently our situation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Once the power issue is correctly addressed, solutions should be found to the conflicting questions. The international tribunal has to follow its constitutional course through the Lebanese institutions in order to be created without further delay. It is healthier for the tribunal functioning that its creation happens under a wide Lebanese consensus that would provide it with a strong support and protection.

A unified vision for the Resolution 1701 should be put in place. It is imperative that Lebanese parties assume a unique interpretation of the resolution requirements. Any ambiguity or duality will imperil Lebanon to new dangers.

Progress is needed on the regional level of the resolution. Shebaa farms issue has to be solved as well as the prisoners swap with Israel. Lebanese borders have to be protected so that Lebanon is safe of any future foreign aggression or destabilization attempt by its neighbors.

More generally, a political solution approach has to be embraced with regards to UN resolution implementation rather than confrontational policies based on military techniques that proved to be vain. We remain committed to dialogue and trust building as the only and best way for Lebanese to sort out their differences.

Syria is a key element in the solution. Lebanese-Syrian relationship should evolve towards normalization within the frame that was agreed during the national dialogue and that includes borders demarcation, establishment of diplomatic relationships, and disclosure of the fate of Lebanese disappeared in Syrian jails.

Finally, and last but not least, it is essential to include the Palestinian issue in any solution. Disarmament of Palestinians, restitution of Lebanese authority on the Palestinians camps, international guarantees against any form of Palestinian implantation in Lebanon backed by a realistic alternative are a must for the resolution of the Lebanese crisis and for the completion of the sovereignty and independence restoration process. In this respect, I refer to the Geneva Accord between the Israelis and Palestinians, as the outcome of secret negotiations that ended in 2003, among the provisions of the 'Accord' an agreement on the question of the Palestinian refugies based on their settlement in the host countries in return of financial compensations. Israel went even further by asking for compensations to the Jews who were displaced from Arab countries. We therefore, draw International community's attention that Lebanon is a fragile multicultural/multiconfessional consensual democracy, as agreed between the Lebanese in the 1943 National Pact and the Taef National Pact. The settlement of the Palestinian refugees will destabilize Lebanon, but also the region and the world. That is why a realistic alternative is required...

Only a comprehensive package solution dealing with all the internal and external aspects of the problem can bring the actual Lebanese crisis to an end and carry stability and salvation to Lebanon. Any partial solution wouldn?t be more than a pause in the conflict and will put the country under the danger of a new eruption in the future. This would have serious consequences not only on Lebanon but on the whole region too. Therefore, no regional settlement should be done to the disadvantage of Lebanese interests.

Let us remember what M. Woodrow Wilson himself said in his visionary speech before the congress in 1918 about his 14 points perception of a lasting peace in the world. Point 5 of the 14 quotes:
5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the population concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

We appeal to the international community to support impartially all Lebanese in their quest for peace. We appeal to all our partners in the country to reach together a truthful political consensus and a strong national unity that would preserve our coexistence within the actual Lebanese formula.

Though, The Cedar Revolution is also in need of a new vision if not a Redirection plan, It is then and only then, that we can hope to achieve its original national goals in securing a stable, independent and democratic Lebanon that would foster its historical role between East and West for the benefit of developing democracy in the Middle East, reduce tensions and encourage the abandon of extremism of all sort.