In May 2012 Franklin Lamb reported on this site that US Envoys are Losing Lebanon—Visit by Visit. I would add that they are losing the Middle East Piece by Piece. In the following article VIJAY PRASHAD argues that moving Jeffrey Feltman from the State Department to a very important UN job to "identify and resolve political conflicts around the world."
Viyay qouted Noam Chomsky describing the move as “Very Bad News”
In fact the move is not an elevation of Jeffrey Feltman. After the RUSSIA/CHINA double veto, the UN is not the place to dictate solutions for the political conflicts around the world.
To save Erdugan's face they met in Istanbul then met in Baghdad, and they failed because Tehran refused the west's deal: Syria for Bahrain and Yemen and security of the Zionist entity.
 |
| As I expected Hamas, as a resistance movement, is first victim of America Brotherhood deal |
"the Palestinian cause has always been and will remain the compass for the Syrian people."
They would meet again in Moscow, not to discuss the future of Syria but to discuss how to save Saudi, who understood the message, instructed Hariri to sit on the negotiation table with Hezbollah, and delivered a fresh Fatwa: A top Saudi religious scholar issued a fatwa Thursday (June 7th) prohibiting Saudi nationals from "jihad in Syria".
Panicked Hamad paid millions to Geagea to boycott the dialogue.
So I totally agree with Naser Qandeel, that moving "the remarkably consistent" Jeffrey from the State Department is a result of his failures in Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Libya, Tunis, Yemen and Egypt, in particular the failure of the global war on Syria the corner stone of resistance axis (The Axis of revolutionary Arabism and revolutionary Islam).
In August 2006, after the July war, Saad Hariri met with senior Senate Foreign Relations staffer Puneet
Talwar and poloff (notetaker)...Looking to the East, Saad said that the regimes in Syria and Iran are the biggest obstacles to peace in the region.... Saad urged that now is a golden opportunity for the international community to "weaken" Bashar. The USG needs a clear, new policy to isolate Syria. "My belief is, if you don't isolate Syria, if you don't put a blockade, they will never change." By subduing Syria, you remove Iran's main bridge for playing the troublemaker in Lebanon and Palestine. "If you weaken Syria," Saad suggested, "then Iran has to work alone."...
 |
| talk to Bayanuni. See what he's like. You will see wonders." |
"This regime has always lived on conflict. It will only stop if we get rid of the regime."...
Saad suggested that the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, in partnership with ex-regime figures like Abdel Halim Khaddam and Hikmet Shehabi ("though he's still close to the regime"), could step into the void.
Saad claimed that the Syrian Brotherhood is similar in character to Turkey's moderate Islamists. "They would accept a Christian or a woman as President.
They accept civil government. It's like Turkey in Syria. They even support peace with Israel." Saying that he maintains close contact with Khaddam (in Paris) and Syrian Muslim Brotherhood leader-in-exile Ali Bayanuni (in London), Saad urged us to "talk to Bayanuni. See what he's like. You will see wonders."
The Americans talked to Muslim Brotherhood and reached a package deal: Muslim brothers spring For SYRIA, to secure the Zionist entity.
The Americans talked to Muslim Brotherhood and reached a package deal: Muslim brothers spring For SYRIA, to secure the Zionist entity.
Having failed to deliver Syria the Americans cancelled the DEAL.
Having failed to deliver freedom. dignity and independence, they lost the so called by Khalid Amayereh the Axis of Masses, paving the way for the Military council to accomplish its coup.
Stay tuned, most likely Ahmad Shafiq would be the next president in Egypt, and Bin Ammar would be the next president in Tunisia. In Libya only God knows what's coming.
Stay tuned, most likely Ahmad Shafiq would be the next president in Egypt, and Bin Ammar would be the next president in Tunisia. In Libya only God knows what's coming.
In the ongoing game of nations, after the shameful withdrawal from Iraq, and the coming withdrawal from Afghanistan there is no room for Jeffrey Feltman's remarkable consistency, its time for remarkable pragmatism. The deal would be Asia for Africa, Asai for the emeging new powers Russia, China, Iran and Syria, and Africa for Nato.
However, its not the end of history the struggle shall continue. America will try to cut its losses, mainly in Saudia and Lebanon, and cure the damage in North Africa, and would say bye, bye to Hamad, Erdugan and Brotherhood.
Gaza is still under brutal siege
Palestine shall never die.
However, its not the end of history the struggle shall continue. America will try to cut its losses, mainly in Saudia and Lebanon, and cure the damage in North Africa, and would say bye, bye to Hamad, Erdugan and Brotherhood.
Gaza is still under brutal siege
Palestine shall never die.
The "Elevation" of Jeffrey Feltman
“Very Bad News” – Noam Chomsky
A blog visited mainly by UN insiders announces that US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman is up for a very important UN job. Former UN Assistant Secretary General for Public Information Samir Sanbar’s blog, UN Forum, notes that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is set to replace B. Lynn Pascoe with Feltman in the post of UN Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs. The office was created in 1992 to help identify and resolve political conflicts around the world. Pascoe ran at least a dozen missions in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, notably in Burundi, Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon and Libya. The longest running mission is in Somalia (since 1995) and the most recent is in Libya (since September 2011). With a budget of $250 million and funds for special political missions that amount, this year, to $1 billion, the post allows its leader to intervene in political crises around the world.
When Secretary General Ban began his second term in January, he promised to reshuffle some of his senior staff. Pascoe’s replacement is part of this process.
Of the proposed new appointment Sanbar writes, “Designating someone with varied field experience, though controversial, and from a substantially senior post, may mean that more issues could be referred to the Security Council.” The UN Security Council’s Secretariat is handled by the Department of Political Affairs, which would be able to have some sway on its agenda. The post is central to the UN bureaucracy.
News of Feltman’s resignation from the State Department next week simply confirmed all the rumors. Another rumor suggests that the UN will announce the appointment on Monday, May 28.
Is Jeffrey Feltman the best person to run such an influential office in the UN? Why did
Sanbar believe that this appointment is “controversial.”
Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, told me that Feltman is “an accomplished and respected American diplomat.” He has been involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iran, Lebanon and Syria, and other hot spots. These bring up “inevitably controversial issues,” Telhami continued. “Feltman would have his share of detractors, including in the Middle East,” he said.
But why would Feltman have these “detractors” and how did he come off on the “controversial issues”?
On one issue Feltman is remarkably consistent. When it comes to the Middle East, Feltman has been outspoken about the threats posed by Iran in the region. Whether in Beirut or Manama, he has publically denounced Iranian “interference” outside its own boundaries. At the same time, Feltman has generously offered US assistance to these same regimes. In other words, US interference is quite acceptable, but Iranian interference is utterly unacceptable. This might be adequate behavior for the diplomat of a country, but it is hardly the temperament for a senior UN official. It raises doubts about Feltman’s ability to be even-handed in his deliberations as a steward of the world’s political dilemmas.
Feltman’s intemperate logic was not of the distant past. It was on display in March 2012 at a Lebanese American Organization’s meeting at the Cannon Office Building in Washington, DC (as Franklin Lamb reported on this site this week). At this meeting, the former US Ambassador to Lebanon, instructed the Lebanese people as to what they must do in their next election, “The Lebanese people must join together to tell Hezbollah and its allies that the Lebanese state will no longer be hijacked for an Iranian-Syrian agenda.” The people must “use the 2013 parliamentary elections to defeat the remnants of the Syrian occupation, the pillar of which is Hezbollah.”
Indeed, interference by speeches is not the limit of Feltman’s ambitions. On May 3, 2012, he was back in Beirut, meeting former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, former Finance Minister Mohamad Chatah, Future Movement leader Nader Hariri and others at Hariri’s residence.
In the transcript of their meeting (leaked through Al-Akhbar), an older side of US policy making emerges. US Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly is heard saying that the government is “Hezbollah dominated,” to which Feltman says to the Lebanese politicians in the room, “You can bring down the government if Walid [Jumblatt] is with you in the parliament or if Najib [Mikati, the PM] resigns right?” To Siniora, Feltman says, “Would it help if this government is brought down before the elections,” and then he mentions that he is seeing the Prime Minister Najib Mikati later that evening. “This place is very, very weird,” he notes, “weirder than when I left.” This is not a trivial statement. A glance at Feltman’s cables when he was ambassador to Lebanon reveals a fulsome appetite for the weird. The cables betray an obsession with the social lives of the Lebanese elite, their peccadillos and their foibles.
Feltman’s “non-interference” to prevent Iranian “interference” in Lebanon brings to mind another episode in his recent career. When the people’s protest broke out in Bahrain, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent him there at least four, perhaps six, times. He was there on the eve of the Saudi-led invasion into Manama to smash the protests in March 2011.
In a visit to Manama on March 3, 2011, just before the crackdown, Feltman praised the King for his “initiatives” and urged him to “include the full spectrum of Bahraini society, without exception.” In the Shia quarters, and amongst the al-Wefaq party activists, this sounded like Feltman was urging the King to take them seriously. In language similar to what he used in Lebanon, Feltman noted that the US wants a “Bahraini process” and urges others “to refrain, as we are, from interference or trying to impose a non-Bahraini solution from outside Bahrain.” The crucial phrase here is as we are, which implies that the US is not intervening in Bahrain. The fact of the 5th Fleet stationed in Manama and of the close cooperation between the Saudi monarch, the Bahraini King and Feltman’s bosses was to be ignored. “We are not naïve,” Feltman said, pointing across the waters at Iran. They cannot be permitted to intervene, but the US, a “critical partner” of the Kingdom, and the Gulf Arab monarchs, “will support Bahrain.”
When events heated up in Bahrain, Feltman and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen went on a tour of the emirates’ capitals, declaring their unconditional support. The US stands for “universal human rights,” Feltman told the emirs, but of course since “every country is unique” these rights would emerge in their own way. Mullen was at hand to “reassure, discuss and understand what’s going on.” The key word here is reassure.
A clear-eyed assessment comes from Karim Makdisi, who teaches at the American University of Beirut. Makdisi recalls Feltman’s role as Ambassador in the area, where he made himself an extremely divisive figure. Feltman pushed for UN Resolution 1559 from 2004, to disarm the Lebanese resistance, he supported the Israeli invasion in 2006, and he provided assistance to the March 14 political party against Hezbollah. In other words, Feltman actively took sides in a divided political landscape.
Feltman’s appointment “would be a disaster and send exactly the wrong signal for the UN” to the region. Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and elsewhere for the foreseeable future. Makdisi believes that in “anticipating a larger role for the UN,” the US wishes Feltman to be well-placed to “ensure that US interests are maintained as much as possible.” Whatever credibility remains with the UN will whittle in the region with this appointment.
It is likely that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon picked Feltman for an unearned reputation. He is known around the Beltway for his work on the Arab Spring. But in the totality of the Arab world Feltman will not be seen as an open-minded professional. He has already thrown his hat into the camp of the Saudis and their satellites (the Gulf Arabs and the Hariri clan of Lebanon). This will limit Feltman’s ability to move an agenda in the region, least of all on the Arab-Israeli conflict where sober diplomacy is necessary from the UN.
 |
| “very bad news” |
When I asked several people who watch the UN’s work in the Arab world carefully about this appointment, most offered me three words, “very bad news” (these words are from Noam Chomsky). Not bad news for the Saudis or the US neoconservatives, but certainly bad for the people of the Arab world, whose Spring had them longing not so much for this kind of venal diplomacy but for honesty and good-will.
Vijay Prashad’s new book, Arab Spring, Libyan Winter , is published by AK Press.
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment