The title of the following article by Roula Khalaf, written for the Financial Times, is:

“WHY ARAB STATES MUST EMBRACE IRAQ.”

King Abdullah of jordan, the most West-oriented ruler of an Arab State, has broken the ice by going to Baghdad. OK - he did this because of the revealed great financial reserves of the new Iraqi State - and Jordan, as a non-Petroleum Arab State, needs money. But as Roula Khalaf says - there was more to it then simple monetary calculations. With the US disengagement from Iraq in the cards - do the Arab want to see the country move completely to Iran’s sphere of influence? It is clear now that the US will not continue to do the deterrent work for them.

Roula Khalaf is an excellent Arab journalist that we met once at a WWF event in Amman, Jordan. She is now the Middle East Editor for the Financial Times, and, as we picked up on the internet, she announced the launch of the the UK newspaper’s ME edition. Khalaf states that twice a week the paper will publish dedicated regional news. http://www.zawya.com/radio/default.cfm/sidDE080428061709359685

Terror War Re-Evaluated as Musharraf Steps Down.
By BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 19, 2008

America and Pakistan’s neighbors are being forced to re-evaluate their strategy in the war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban after the resignation yesterday of President Musharraf, whose nine-year reign included a decision after September 11, 2001, to cooperate closely with America in the fight against international terrorism.

President Musharraf of Pakistan responds to people gathered after the farewell ceremony in Islamabad yesterday. Officials in Washington yesterday were careful to balance statements of praise for Mr. Musharraf with expressions of confidence that his successors would do just as well. But in New Delhi, where Mr. Musharraf’s recent misfortunes are seen as a probable cause for the renewal of Pakistani-Indian hostilities in the disputed region of Kashmir and elsewhere, officials were almost openly ruing his departure.

A Pakistani-born diplomat yesterday said it is ironical that Mr. Musharraf, after long being maligned as a ruthless dictator, could end up ushering in a new, more democratically oriented government in Islamabad. “He left like Nixon did, under pressure of probable impeachment,” the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said. “Then again, he is also the first Pakistani leader to leave on his own, without being hanged, assassinated, or deposed by the military. For Pakistan, that is a certain step forward.”

But it was unclear yesterday whether Mr. Musharraf would stay in Pakistan, where some are calling for him to be put on trial, or be forced to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or the West. Asylum in America “is not on the table,” Secretary of State Rice said yesterday. According to reports from the region, a Saudi plane departed Pakistan yesterday without picking up Mr. Musharraf, after sitting on the tarmac for hours. A leader of the ruling coalition in Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, spent years in Saudi exile after he was deposed as prime minister in a 1999 military coup by Mr. Musharraf, who was then chief of the army.

“President Musharraf has been a friend to the United States and one of the world’s most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism,” Ms. Rice said in a statement.

“President Bush appreciates President Musharraf’s efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as well as his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda and extremist groups,” a White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said. He added: “We’re confident that we will maintain a good relationship with the government of Pakistan.”

American officials said they were confident that the uneasy ruling coalition of the moderately Islamic party led by Mr. Sharif and the Western-oriented party that was led by Benazir Bhutto until her assassination and is now led by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari; son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and Prime Minister Gilani, would cooperate with America on the war on terror as closely as Mr. Musharraf did. “The war against extremism is bigger than one man,” a State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, said.

Mr. Musharraf’s “departure is a loss for the U.S. because the civilian government will not do as good a job against terrorism,” a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told The New York Sun.

In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, “What we needed in Pakistan is someone to stand with us, and Musharraf did just that,” a Bush administration official said yesterday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. America reciprocated to the tune of $10 billion in military support for the Pakistani government after Mr. Musharraf promised to dedicate his army and intelligence services to the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Now, according to some in Washington, the best remaining Pakistani partner in the war on terror is the current army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who has yet to express a preference for any party. Meanwhile, the partnership between the Pakistan Muslim League-N and the secular Pakistan Peoples Party is fragile and unlikely to maintain Mr. Musharraf’s tight grip over the army and the country’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence.

India is specifically concerned that a resurgent ISI could shift Pakistan’s attention to Kashmir and hostilities with New Delhi from the war on terror and the Afghan border. As speculation about Mr. Musharraf’s departure increased in recent weeks, India’s national security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, told a Singaporean newspaper, the Straits Times, that the president’s absence would leave “a big vacuum.” India is “deeply concerned about this vacuum because it leaves the radical extremist outfits with freedom to do what they like, not merely on Pak-Afghan border but clearly our side of the border too,” Mr. Narayanan told the paper.

In recent years, the long-standing tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad have eased under Mr. Musharraf. The two countries established commercial ties, while the situation in Kashmir grew calmer. During the last few weeks, however, cross-border attacks have increased, Pakistani-backed pro-independence Kashmiri fighters have intensified their activities, and diplomatic talks have slowed. Additionally, both India and Afghanistan blamed the ISI for the bombing in July of the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

—————-

So, all acknowledge that the real power in Pakistan - military dictatorship or not - is in the hands of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and who rules over them? Quite clearly, there never was a Pakistani Ataturk - and what do these generals want? Whatever it is - it is not democracy.

What does Military Nationalism mean in a Pakistani context? Where is their loyalty when it comes to the Taliban, and even Al-Qaeda? What was their historic relationship to the Saudi Arabian money pipeline, or to the US involvement in the Cold War heating-up proxy-stage in Afghanistan with the introduction of religious extremism well funded via the Saudis? Will someone start using this Sunni potential as an antidote to the Iranian Shia element in the larger Islamic World? Historically, it was just only Pakistan, who besides the Saudi monarchy, recognized the annexation of Jerusalem by Jordan. Without a military hand ruling in Islamabad - this being replaced by a politically broad, but weak, alliance - will the ISI, and everybody else, find it more convenient to spend the ISI time now in playing the fields outside Pakistan, rather then trying to muddle the waters at home? Will anyone look under the rug of the old nuclear materials, and know-how sales, and will there be a second round of this sort of sales - specially as they have more to offer then Iran or North Korea?

Musharraf or not, the incomming US President will have to worry about what goes on inside the nominal borders of Pakistan much more then the stated preocupation with Afghanistan.

Saturday, Aug. 9, 2008

Nissan orders Israeli ally to pull commercial.
JERUSALEM (Kyodo) - Nissan Motor Co. has ordered its Israeli business ally to immediately stop airing a television commercial depicting Arab oil barons angered at the high fuel efficiency of a Nissan car, officials of the automaker said Thursday.

“The commercial was produced by a local automobile distributor based on its own judgment, and Nissan Motor has nothing to do with the commercial,” a Nissan spokesman in Japan said.

The commercial depicts wealthy Arab oil barons becoming so enraged at a fuel-efficient Nissan Tiida that one of them kicks the car, bangs on the hood and windshield and heaps abuse on the vehicle.

The major Israeli paper Haaretz, in its online edition, showed video footage of a news program on Saudi Arabia’s MBC TV that quoted a Saudi representative as saying that Persian Gulf states may boycott Nissan unless it apologizes.

Another major Israeli paper, the Jerusalem Post, quoted a public relations official working for Nissan in Israel as saying the commercial was a humorous one and should be enjoyed by both Israelis and Arabs.

————

We, at www.SustainabiliTank.info are compelled to say - “This is elemental - Watson” - the UN runs its DPI exactly in this same fashion thanks to the Japanese USG, Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka, and an Egyptian caretaker of Arab interests, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi, Director of the News and Media Division, at the UN since the days of the Egyptian UNSG, as his right hand.

We Hope the Saudis will forgive now Nissan for the Israelis’ Transgressions. At the UN bringing up questions that illuminate some Saudi, Oil Producers, or Arab propaganda will be met by anulling the correspondent’s accreditation.

That is how you get a UN that speaks a lot about climate change but has yet to come up with any policy what-so-ever. The Saudi’s and their men and women at the UN will not allow tires to be kicked.

When a Japanese Spokesperson for the UNSG was not outspoken enough against Israel, at the time of the last war in Lebanon, Mr. Fawzi took over by himself the press conferences, even though he is not an official spokesperson. The argument was that as he is from the region, he knows the region better.

Aha, we think it is clear now - the Saudis produce the oil, so they know better what the cars need.

Mr Ehud Olmert has gone out of his way to pledge that he would continue working for peace “as long as I am in my position”, and insists that talks with Palestinians and Syria are “closer than ever” to achieving understandings. He also said that he bowes to the steadily mounting pressure arising from corruption and fraud allegations against him last night by announcing his resignation after his party chooses a new leader in just over six weeks. The Kadima party leadership contest was fixed for 17 September and he would leave office as soon as a new leader was chosen.

Mr Olmert, who has not so far been indicted on any criminal charge, is being investigated over suspicions that he used payments from a US businessman, Morris Talansky, many years ago, for personal use during his time as Mayor of Jerusalem and industry minister; and that he made multiple claims for travel expenses, pocketing the surplus for family holidays.

Insisting that he had taken the decision in the interests of the country, he complained in his prime-time address that he had not been granted as Prime Minister “the right to be innocent until proved guilty”. He added: “I will step aside properly in an honorable and responsible way, and afterwards I will prove my innocence.”

Last night’s announcement was a painful surrender for Mr Olmert, a lawyer and one-time right-winger, who moved to the Israeli political centre and has proved himself a world-class political survivor in the face of a string of corruption investigations and last year’s Winograd report, which excoriated his handling of the 2006 Lebanon war.

While there was speculation in Israel that his resignation could damage the new series of negotiations with Syria on a possible handover of the Golan Heights, and the negotiations with the moderate West Bank Palestinian leadership, a possible Tsipi Livni premiership, at least, might not necessarily make them any more difficult than they already are. Ms Livni’s centrality in the talks with Palestinians was underlined by her presence at a trilateral meeting convened this week by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with Ahmed Qureia, Mr Abbas’s lead negotiator.

On the other hand, it was not immediately clear whether Mr Olmert’s promise not to run or “intervene” in the Kadima leadership contest precluded him from carrying out a reported threat to help Transport Minister, Mr Mofaz’s candidacy over Ms Livni.

Shaul Mofaz, 60 - Iranian-born right-winger who defected with Sharon from Likud to Kadima. Notably hardline Chief of Defense Staff and then Defense Minister. Now Transport Minister, he was accused of advancing leadership interests by threatening attack on Iran. Brings many of the old wheeler-dealing skills of Likud to his candidacy as a Kadima leader. Likely to project himself as a figurehead for Jews from Muslim countries against the traditional Ashkenazy ascendancy.

Tzipi Livni, 50 - Former Mossad agent, now Foreign Minister, and the most popular politician with the Israeli public. A strong proponent of negotiations with the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority. Remains hardline on excluding Hamas and rejecting any “right of return” for Palestinian refugees. Called on Olmert to resign after the Winograd report on Lebanon war – but failed to strike home by resigning herself. Almost certainly the most electable Kadima candidate.

Among other candidates expected to stand are the Housing Minister Meir Shetreet, and Avi Dichter, Interior Minister and a former head of the domestic intelligence agency Shin Bet.

The consequences of Mr Olmert’s announcement could open up a series of permutations for a possible future government.

Mr Barak’s desire to return to the highest office and project himself as the real rival to Mr Netanyahu is hampered by his relatively low opinion-poll rating and the fact that he is not a Knesset member. But he could still play a crucial role as a potential coalition partner, although Mr Mofaz, if he were to win the Kadima leadership, might seek to form a coalition with the right-wing parties, possibly including Likud, and bring back to the power-center Mr. Netaniahu. Mr Barak could thus gain by siding with Ms. Livni or backing one of the newcomers.

Ehud Barak, 66 - Labour leader, Defense Minister, and Prime Minister from 1999 to 2001. Could be a kingmaker but less likely to emerge as a prime minister. Seen as a security strongman, and skeptical about negotiations with the Mahmoud Abbas led Palestinian Authority, but advocated current ceasefire with Hamas. Was Israeli PM at the Clinton-brokered Camp David peace talks in 2000. Never really picked up the mantle after the loss of Yitzhak Rabin, but persuaded the Israeli public Yasser Arafat was to blame for collapse of the talks.

Benjamin Netanyahu, 59 - Prime Minister between 1996 and 1999. Leading right-wing challenger to Ariel Sharon, first within Likud where he opposed disengagement from Gaza, and then as leader of the opposition after Sharon formed his new Kadima party in late 2005. Netanyahu’s party crashed to defeat in the March 2005 election, won by Sharon’s successor Ehud Olmert, but he has gained popularity as Mr Olmert’s has declined. Polls show Likud as the single biggest party if there was a general election today. Kadima and Labor will do their best to avoid new elections.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, announces his resignation in Jerusalem yesterday after corruption and fraud allegations

WTO Talks Collapse: Was There Ever a Future for Bananas?
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations collapsed today, July 29, after nine days of intense negotiations. Trade ministers from approximately 35 countries struggled to salvage the stalled seven-year-old Doha round. Optimistic signs and compromises surfaced as a result of last weekend’s supposed breakthrough, but these were soon followed by stubborn accusations from a number of combative nations, including the United States, China, and India. Constructing a 153-country consensus now seems even more cumbersome and talks will not resume for at least two years. During this past week in Geneva, country officials worked particularly long hours in an attempt to come up with the necessary concessions, as well as extending their stay in Switzerland in hopes of returning home “successfully.” Such a dream was, unfortunately, not to be realized.

This latest round of trade talks was launched in the Qatar capital in November 2001, but has long been stalemated over issues of farm subsidies called for by the U.S., Japan and the EU, as well as tariffs on industrial goods imposed by the developing economies of Latin America and Asia. Proposed changes included EU and U.S. farm subsidy reductions of up to 80 percent. The compromise was that developing countries would open their markets to imports of manufactured goods, removing so-called “import shields.”

In the deal last weekend, Latin American banana producers and EU officials appeared to begin the process of putting to rest a quarter-century banana “war.” Many Latin American banana exporters had contended for years that the EU routinely gave preferential treatment to their former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), and had kept import tariffs artificially high on the fruit that originates on mainland Latin America.

The complaint was originally filed by the U.S. because three of the largest banana producers in Latin America are U.S. multinational corporations. COHA repeatedly has argued in the past that U.S. banana companies, and not Latin American economies, are likely to benefit from the removal of the tariffs (see “Banana Wars Continue – Chiquita Once Again Tries to Work Its Omnipotent Will, Now Under New Management: Likely Big Losers Will Be CARICOM’s Windward Islands”). In addition to this contention, many view the present Doha round as an inappropriate forum for banana talk to occur in the first place, as any new arrangement could anger some of the ACP nations and thus would endanger the future of the round. Nonetheless, it is important for the banana conflict to be resolved so that Latin America, as well as U.S. corporations and English-speaking Caribbean exporters (who in most cases depend upon such exports for their economic survival), can see the benefits from the sale of their largest cash crop. Throughout the negotiations, it can be said that the U.S. was less than sensitive to the importance of a favorable outcome to such islands as Dominica, Grenada, and St. Lucia- a matter of sheer survival.

One of the main issues of contention amongst developing countries was the possible existence of Special Safeguard Mechanisms (SSM). This provision would enable countries like China and India to raise agricultural tariffs to protect their farmers in case of a surge in imports. Latin American countries rejected the SSM proposal, saying that it would be damaging to their export interests. Venezuelan Industry and Trade Minister William Antonio Contreras said that “we are not here to block an agreement, but to defend our interests and to fulfill the command of the round that is the one of developing.” The dispute over the existence of these mechanisms, designed to help only certain nations, largely contributed to the collapse of the talks.

It now should be clearer than ever as to why WTO talks have been at a stand still for so many years. It is not an enigma why it has been so difficult to achieve consensus with a myriad of players in the field with a lot to gain, but even more to lose. Lucrative deals for some nations can be devastating to others: WTO negotiations certainly have not proven to be a win-win game.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Revaz Ardesher and Jessica Wayne
July 29th, 2008 COHA is the Washington Based Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

———————-

WTO Talks Collapse Amidst Developing Countries’ Reluctance to Sacrifice Food Security.
Tuesday 29 July 2008

Opinion from - The Center for Economic and Policy Research.        {The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people’s lives. CEPR’s Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, professor of economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, professor and director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. }

Indian women farm laborers plant rice. India and other developing nations are reluctant to sacrifice food security measures during World Trade Organization negotiations.

  Last-minute attempt to push through a WTO expansion “deal” fails.
Washington, DC - Despite trade ministers’ hopes for a last-minute deal, World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations collapsed yet again today, and observers at the talks in Geneva say that the failure is not surprising, given the reluctance of India and other developing nations to sacrifice food security measures in the wake of the recent global spike in food prices.
Given President Bush’s lame duck status, negotiators had been called to Geneva to try to push through a last-minute deal before Bush left office. Because negotiators need about six months after a deal on the major issues to complete the details of the agreement, this possibility has now evaporated.

“Given what’s been on the table, no deal is better than a bad deal. A Doha conclusion would have had major negative impacts for workers and farmers in developing countries. The tariff cuts demanded of developing countries would have caused massive job loss, and countries would have lost the ability to protect farmers from dumping, further impoverishing millions on the verge of survival,” said Deborah James, Director of International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who has been observing the talks in Geneva.

  It is unclear why negotiations were proceeding, given the fact that the U.S. delegation does not have a mandate to conclude negotiations, as made clear by a letter from Senators Feingold and Byrd sent to President Bush last week. In addition, cuts in subsidies agreed to by the U.S. are also incompatible with the new U.S. Farm Bill passed by Congress, and over-riding a veto by President Bush.
Many developing nations not invited to participate in the exclusive “Green Room” meetings in Geneva this past week are likely to continue strong opposition to a deal in the midst of a global economic downturn and increasing concerns over food security.

  At a time when many countries are seeking to reduce dependence on troubled economies in the U.S. and Europe, and as fears of a global recession loom, many nations are questioning the development gains to be achieved from trade liberalization. The projected gains from the Doha Round offer developing countries very little in potential gains. According to World Bank modeling, developing country benefits would be just 16 percent of total world gains, or 0.16 per cent of GDP. This works out to less than a penny per day per capita in the developing world. Poverty reduction - which in itself would be very limited - would reach only 2.5 million people.[1] These projections do not include many of the costs of implementing the Doha Round, which UNCTAD estimates to be as much as four times the projected gains.
The Doha Round could also increase world prices for food.[2] Since most developing countries are net food importers, the recent increase in food prices has led some developing country governments to reconsider food security mechanisms such as tariffs and domestic subsidies, which the WTO seeks to reduce. A number of countries have also imposed restrictions on exports, in response to the food crisis.
“There just hasn’t been much to gain for developing countries in this round - or for that matter, the majority of people even in the rich countries,” said CEPR Co-Director and economist, Mark Weisbrot. “The attempts by the rich countries to reduce policy space for developing countries in manufacturing are widely seen as ‘kicking away the ladder’ that rich countries like the United States used when they were developing countries.
  “The whole process of subordinating national policy to special commercial interests - whether in agriculture, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals (one of the most powerful interests and gainers in the WTO), or the financial sector - has gone way too far. Growth and development in most countries has been hurt, and they are pushing back. In the United States, too, rising inequality and now an economic downturn have provoked a backlash.”

Throughout the negotiations, some developing nations promoted trade policies and objectives at odds with the Doha Round’s objectives of opening developing country markets, including commitments to food sovereignty and defending policy space for alternative forms of economic development.

In a written statement, Bolivian president Evo Morales said that, “The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies.”
[1] Kevin P. Gallagher and Timothy A. Wise, “Back to the Drawing Board: No Basis for Concluding the Doha Round of Negotiations.” Research and Information System for Developing Countries Issue Brief. No. 36, April 2008.
[2] Sandra Polaski, “Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2006.
———————-

www.SustainabiliTank.info does not accept that this was just about bananas - we just posted the case of the airline industry that would have come under the services end of the World Trade Agreement.

A WTO was supposed to balance global trade so that everyone has to get something out of this, but when those that have neither the money, nor the fuel, have to do something to benefit interests that are placed in position to hurt them even more - so better put up barriers to harming trade. For some this means close in your agriculture, but we just pointed at some that would be better off if they closed in their airtransport -this just as an example. So let us be blunt here - the US would be completely in its right now to put an extra “oil-cost-tax” on the National airlines of the oil-states. With an end to the running-around-Doha exercize there is no reason why the US should not do this to help its airlines.

Today’s News are full with the woes of private airlines. “Fuel Prices hurt Ryanair and Shares Tumble 25%;” “Airport Lounges are the latest casualty of the current crisis in the airline industry;” “Delta will charge for the second suitcase;” but Emirates is introducing showers to its first class passengers.

The point is that Emirates and other government owned oil-state airlines benefit from clear subsidy of their fuel costs thus undermining air-transport competition. DOHA happens to be in such a State and DOHA is the keyword for ongoing trade negotiations that include also services - and air transport is these days a main service. We know that when you are dependent on the power that has the cash, and also happens to have the fuel that your country is addicted to - you may not have the stomach for true negotiations.

The DOHA round, supposedly is stuck on agriculture - but what about transport - be it air transport loke in the case of “Emirates” or maritime transport like in the case of Norway - will the negotiators on world trade step up now to an honest witness stand? That is the Question in our present posting.

As Most Airlines Struggle, Middle East Carriers Are Expanding.
By CAROLINE BROTHERS, Published: July 29, 2008, The New York Times.

HAMBURG — As carriers from American Airlines to Thai Airway International respond to high oil prices by shedding jobs, culling routes and grounding aircraft, Middle Eastern carriers are expanding as fast as they can in hopes of redefining their region as the aviation crossroads of the globe.

“There is no sign of a crisis there,” said Thomas O. Enders, the chief executive of Airbus, in an interview on Monday shortly before handing over a new A380 jet to the chairman of Emirates, Sheik Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum. “These airlines are on a very impressive growth path and expansion course.”

Emirates, which in 2000 became the first customer to sign a firm commitment to buy A380s, has since increased its order more than eightfold to 58 planes. At Monday’s ceremonial delivery, Sheik Ahmed signed a letter of intent for an additional 60 Airbus jets with a total price tag of $13.3 billion: 30 wide-bodied A330 planes and 30 of the A350s that are still under development.

The technological capacity of new-generation aircraft like the Airbus A380 allows gulf states to leverage their geographical position as a crossroads, putting 80 percent of the world’s most attractive markets, like India and China, within reach of nonstop flights.

Tim Clark, president of Emirates, said that from the start, the airline had focused on Dubai’s central location. The aim was to link places that were not already linked, like Africa and China, or Russia and South Africa, Mr. Clark said.

The Middle East is pouring $54 billion into airport expansion over the next decade, according to the International Air Transport Association, and airlines in the region have ordered 700 planes at a cost of $140 billion over the last three years.

“The size of our order mirrors the rising prominence of the Middle East and its increasing emergence as a new focal point of global aviation,” said James Hogan, the chief executive of Etihad, an airline based in the region that ordered 100 aircraft in July, including 10 Airbus A380s.

The big Emirates order for the superjumbos — which would be able to compete with low-cost carriers if configured for 750 passengers in economy class — might sound like a recipe for overcapacity. But so far, airlines in the gulf have done well in matching demand, which grew 11 percent in the first five months of this year, with capacity that rose 11.1 percent, according to the transport association.

Furthermore, the gulf airlines are mining fast-growing routes. Passenger traffic between the Middle East and Africa rose 19.8 percent in the five months to June this year, and 14 percent between the Middle East and Far East, though from a low base, the association said. That compares with average growth of 4.5 percent for all international routes.

The Middle Eastern carriers are also running a tight ship. During the five months to May, the load factor, or percentage of available seats sold, on the region’s airlines was 74.6, according to association figures, in line with a “high” global average of 75.2.

The level means that Middle Eastern airlines are flying as full as their rivals and suggests that they are not emptying their competitors’ planes.

But over the longer run, aviation experts said, airlines like Emirates, which compete on price for the mass market and on service for business travelers, should make some inroads against competitors.

The A380 that Sheik Ahmed received Monday represents a crucial element of a business strategy that makes the Middle Eastern airlines “a competitive threat to any European-based carrier,” according to Daniel Solon, an independent aviation consultant based in Barcelona.

The technological advances of the A380 mean that it can fly more passengers farther and for less money than their competitors.

In eight capitals on the Indian subcontinent, Emirates already offers travelers to the United States a chance to change planes in Dubai as an alternative to congested European airports.

Industry executives say that the gulf region would also be a well-positioned hub for traffic from China to Africa, while Emirates’ services between Europe and Australia mean that passengers can bypass Asia altogether.

“The capability of airlines has changed the reach of the gulf region,” said Chris Tarry, an analyst at Ctaira, a British aviation consulting firm. “If you’ve got planes that can fly farther, you change the structure of the market.”

‘Hamas Curbing Groups Firing Rockets’
Interview with Mohamed Bassyouni, head of the Egyptian Shura Council’s Foreign Relations Committee.

CAIRO, Jul 28 (IPS) - Sharing a border with both Israel and the Gaza Strip, Egypt has historically played a major role in Israeli-Palestinian affairs. Egyptian involvement in the longstanding conflict has deepened since June of last year, when resistance group Hamas wrested control of the Gaza Strip - having won legislative elections a year earlier - from the U.S.-backed Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas.

Since then, Israel has kept its borders with the Hamas-run enclave hermetically sealed. Egypt, meanwhile, has kept its own border with the Gaza Strip closed, citing the absence of a formal border agreement.

The precarious situation has led some critics to accuse Egypt of aiding Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza, which has resulted in untold hardships for the strip’s roughly 1.5 million inhabitants.

Mohamed Bassyouni, head of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Shura Council (Egypt’s upper house of parliament) and former ambassador to Israel, spoke to IPS correspondents Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani.
IPS: Last month, Egypt played a central role in mediating a tahdia, or calming of hostilities between Israel and Palestinian resistance groups in the Gaza Strip. What exactly are the terms of the agreement?

Mohamed Bassyouni: The tahdia is being implemented gradually, in phases. The first phase consists of a calm for calm - meaning that both sides halt all aggression against one another. At the same time, the siege of the Gaza Strip should be gradually lifted and Israel’s border crossings with the territory should be opened gradually to allow for the entry of food, fuel and other essential goods.

When this is accomplished, there will be a suitable environment in which a prisoner swap can be agreed to by both sides. And from there, we can start working on an inter-Palestinian dialogue in order to achieve a degree of Palestinian national unity - not just dialogue between Hamas and Fatah, but also between Fatah and the 13 other Palestinian factions in the West Bank and Gaza.

When the tahdia finally brings an improvement to the everyday life of Palestinians - when they have access to sufficient food and medicine - we will begin hearing more calls by the people for inter-Palestinian dialogue. Ultimately, the main objective of the tahdia is to lighten the suffering of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

IPS: Israel has repeatedly accused Palestinian resistance factions in the Gaza Strip of violating the truce by firing short-range rockets at targets in Israel. Is there any validity to these claims?

There is a big difference between Hamas launching a missile salvo at targets in Israel and one of these rogue groups or individuals firing off a couple of rockets. Egypt has requested that Israel distinguish between the two and respect the terms of the tahdia in order to make progress on subsequent phases of the agreement.

IPS: Hamas, for its part, complains that the Gaza Strip’s borders with Israel and Egypt are still closed to passengers and goods. Why doesn’t Egypt open the Rafah terminal, the only crossing along its 14-kilometre border with the strip, on a permanent basis?

MB: According to the terms of the tahdia, Israel’s six border crossings with Gaza should be gradually opened. As for the Rafah crossing with Egypt, it is currently being opened to limited traffic both ways, including medical patients and students and workers travelling abroad.

But there is no mechanism for permanently opening the Rafah crossing except for a border protocol signed in 2005 between the PA and Israel. Any opening of the Rafah crossing, on a permanent and continuous basis, must be in accordance with the 2005 protocol.

IPS: The Egypt-brokered tahdia only applies to the Gaza Strip. Is Israel exploiting the ceasefire there to move against resistance elements in the PA-controlled West Bank?

MB: In order to encourage the success of the tahdia in Gaza, Israel should refrain from all provocative actions in the West Bank. Unfortunately, Israeli military incursions into the West Bank have become a daily occurrence.

These aggressive policies - which also include construction of the ’security wall’, a policy of assassination, and the maintenance of roadblocks throughout the West Bank - will not contribute to the success of the tahdia. Israel must work on building a degree of mutual trust with the Palestinian side in order to revive the stalled peace process and move on to final-status negotiations.

IPS: Egypt is currently attempting to mediate a prisoner swap between Israel and Hamas involving the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Palestinian resistance factions in 2006, in return for a number of Palestinian prisoners. Has there been any progress on this front?

Egypt is continuing to make efforts to overcome these obstacles and arrive at a mutually acceptable prisoner exchange. It would certainly be in the interests of both Israel and Hamas to conclude such an agreement.

IPS: Since last November’s Annapolis peace conference in the U.S., Abbas has been holding negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with the stated aim of reviving the U.S.-sponsored road map peace plan. Do these talks, which have so far failed to make any breakthrough, have any chance of success?

Israel must meet these conditions if it wants to maintain the current ceasefire and begin eventual final status negotiations with the Palestinian side.
________________________________________________________________
This and all “other news” issues can be found at http://www.other-net.info/index.php

“Other News” is a personal initiative spearheaded by Roberto Savio, founder of the Inter Press Service (IPS). IPS was established in 1964.  The new “Other News” is seeking to provide information that should be in the media but is not, “because of commercial criteria.”  Work areas include information on global issues, north-south relations, governance of globalization.

The “Other News” motto is a phrase which appeared on the wall of Barcelona’s old Customs Office, at the beginning of 2003: “What walls utter, media keeps silent”. Roberto Savio

———————

HAMASSTAN is Palestine II that practically seceded from Palestine That we call thus Palestine I.

What above interview points out is the complete sanity in the Israeli approach of viewing the two different parts of what was supposed to become one single State of Palestine - indeed of what they are - two different potential States and the need of Egypt to take a more involved approach to its former occupied territories in the former Gaza strip. Egypt cannot try to wash its hands of what they call the 13 different Arab Resistance groups to a rational two State solution of the conflict.

The best Israel can hope for is to get to an agreement with Abbas and the Fatah movement with the help of the Hashemite King of Jordan. Israel is right to demand from Egypt to step up to the plate and take care of its part in the problem - the part that was created by its invasion in 1948, and the creation of the Gaza Strip, that it practically owned until 1967.    www.SustainabiliTank.info comments.)