Iran shuts 'Western' barber shops, Iranian police have closed more than 20 barbers' shops in the capital Tehran. The authorities say the barbers were encouraging un-Islamic behaviour by offering Western hairstyles, tattooing and also eyebrow-plucking for men.
Police say they have inspected more than 700 shops during a two-week crackdown in the city.
The move is part of an annual campaign against what is known locally as bad hijab, or un-Islamic clothing, that this year is also targeting men.

Hundreds of women and men have already been cautioned.

Police say that as well as avoiding Western hairstyles and make up, barbers should not pluck customers' eyebrows.

The closure of the shops comes several months after barbers were warned that they could lose their licences if they did not comply.

However, police have denied a report that they have ordered barbers not to serve customers wearing ties.

Some young boys in Iran sport very wild hair styles, using gel to make their long hair stand on end in a fashion not seen in other countries, correspondents say.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6960959.stm

Published: 2007/08/23 17:06:42 GMT

With surprise visit, France changes its tack on Iraq ,The French foreign minister's visit to Baghdad this week marks a thaw in France-US relations.,Paris - Partly to restore strained ties with ally America, and partly to deal itself into the strategic game on Iraq, France is opening a new chapter in the Persian Gulf.

In the European nation most publicly opposed to the Iraq war, media reaction in Paris on both the left and right appears to support new French offers to mediate among Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish factions – whose strife is paralyzing Iraq's day-to-day governance.

The offers were put forward by Bernard Kouchner, whose surprise visit to Baghdad this week was the first by a French foreign minister since 1988. They signal a significant change in France's tack on Iraq, offering the kind of diplomacy France used to inspire dialogue among ethnic and religious factions in Lebanon. They also come amid warmer US-French ties under President Nicolas Sarkozy, who vacationed in New Hampshire this month.

France's sudden shift on Iraq "is almost as spectacular as the refusal of France to take part in the American intervention in Iraq," noted the left French daily Le Monde. "It is time to stop lecturing the Americans about their errors and start contributing to a solution."

In Baghdad Monday, Kouchner said "the Americans will not be able to get out of difficulty [in Iraq] alone," adding that "Europe must play a role ... and I hope that other foreign ministers will come and visit Iraq." Kouchner, a popular left-wing politician in Sarkozy's right-wing government, said after his visit that "the Americans in Iraq seem unable to see what surrounds them," speaking of the ever-more complex and violent interethnic conflict.

Foreign minister's credentials a plus

Analysts here say that a central factor in France's ability to quickly enter the Iraq fray is Kouchner's own credentials. He developed policies to protect Kurds from Saddam Hussein's army after the first Gulf War, has close relations with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and played a pioneering role in the concept of "humanitarian intervention" in the 1990s.

Kouchner, who cofounded the Paris-based "Doctors Without Borders," is also seen as unconnected to French business and political circles that were closely involved with Mr. Hussein.

While a proactive position on Iraq by Paris is a significant step in Mr. Sarkozy's professed design to regain French traction in international affairs, the French role is purely diplomatic. No troops, major resources, or significant political capital are being committed. As such, the French public has not reacted sharply pro or con to news of a modest role in Iraq.

"This is a symbolically important indicator that the French want to be a positive presence rather than a spoiler. But no hard questions are [on the table]," says François Heisbourg, special adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Studies in Paris. "If Sarkozy said he was sending 10,000 troops, people would go to the streets. But Kouchner, who is extremely popular, has gone to Iraq to signal that France will help if help is called for, and blessed are the peacemakers. Who can think badly of such positioning?"

US-France diplomacy suffered considerably after former President Jacques Chirac tried to create an international consensus against the US-led invasion of Iraq. French initiatives after 2003 were often blocked by the White House, and French influence in Europe itself was hamstrung by France's "no" vote on an EU constitution.

Sarkozy's diplomacy

Since being elected president in May on promises to reassert France's proud internationalist tradition, Sarkozy has conducted an astounding array of diplomatic initiatives. He put France squarely into the effort to create a European constitution, helped Libya end its isolation by brokering a deal to release six Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor, held a conference on Darfur with Chinese and American envoys, got a Frenchman named to head the IMF, continued France's central role in Lebanon, is taking a role on Kosovo independence, and has worked ardently to unfreeze US-French relations.

"We are clearly turning a page here ... it is a new chapter in French-American relations," the No. 2 US diplomat in Paris, Mark Pekala, told cable TV network France 24 earlier this month.

Commenting on an Iraq role for France, the rightist Paris daily Le Figaro argued on Aug. 21 that "The US is looking for a solution ... It is time to show that France, alongside Europe, is available."

Iraqi President Talabani, however, said he would prefer French investment and reconstruction help over diplomacy.

Empowering the Copts,abuse" of Copts in Egypt,.,The United States has been quietly targeting aid to Egypt's Coptic Christians, according to documents obtained by Emad Mekay in Washington
The United States has been quietly funnelling millions of dollars from its annual aid budget to Egypt to groups coming from the country's Coptic Christian community as part of an effort to "empower" the religious minority, according to a review of recent US congressional documents.

Most of the money, hidden in a little-noticed part of the multi-year aid programme, has been channelled through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), part of the US State Department.

Up until July last year, the programme had benefited more than 40 Coptic non-governmental organisations at a cost of tens of millions of dollars.

Egypt is already struggling to contain tensions between its Muslim and Christian populations, which are simmering over issues including a spate of recent conversions from Islam to Coptic Christianity.

The most detailed account of how the US has been silently targeting Egypt's Christian community with humanitarian and political assistance came in a written document submitted to Congress last year by James R Kunder, USAID assistant administrator for Asia and the Near East, the most senior officer overseeing aid to Egypt at the agency, which has its headquarters in Washington.

At a hearing before the US House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Middle East and Central Asia on 17 May 2006, Kunder read an abbreviated version of the written testimony and made only brief mention of the issue.

However, a full copy of his written testimony, obtained in its entirety by Al-Ahram Weekly, gives a first-time peek into how USAID has put US government dollars into what the senior US official repeatedly called areas "with significant Coptic populations".

"USAID's projects in health, education, infrastructure, and civil society development operate in every district with a significant Coptic population, mainly in Upper Egypt and cities such as Cairo and Alexandria," he said.

"USAID's water programmes have installed slow sand filter water treatment plants, improved wastewater collection and treatment systems, or rehabilitated and expanded water treatment plants for about 18 villages with significant Coptic populations."

"Funding allocated to villages with significant Coptic populations under the water treatment programmes alone exceeded $200 million over the last five years," Kunder said.

The funds were channelled "through direct grants to Coptic NGOs", he said.

The aid distribution has also been fine-tuned to cover religious issues in Egypt, previously untouchable, and the senior US official reported to Congress that the Egyptian government did not have direct oversight over money going to the programmes.

"With more than $2.2 million in grants to 40 Coptic NGOs over the past six years, USAID has helped to strengthen Coptic communities and civil society organisations," he added.

The programme has also bankrolled several projects designed to increase "religious tolerance and promote inter-faith understanding between the Muslim and Coptic communities", according to Kunder.

He cited several examples of this, including a plan, still under the direct grants programme, to support the efforts of a local Egyptian NGO to establish a Media Monitoring Observatory to track religious tolerance in the Egyptian media.

For most of their nearly 40 years in Egypt, US aid programmes have shied away from meddling with the sensitive sectarian issue. However, the new revelations represent a shift in how Washington now views the role of its aid to Egypt, a point Egyptian officials are not missing.

An Egyptian Embassy spokesman in Washington told the Weekly that the Egyptian government objected to faith-based measures by any foreign donor.

"Any legally registered NGO in Egypt is qualified to receive foreign assistance contingent on certain procedures," the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.

"However, we do not support, and we take issue with, the disbursement of foreign assistance based on faith or ethnicity."

Yet this is exactly what the State Department has been asked to do by Congress.

In a congressional report accompanying the US Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for 2008 that came out last month, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee explicitly called for American funding of politically active Christian NGOs.

The committee, eyeing the Coptic Christian community, said that no less than 50 per cent of the $50 million slated for "governance and democracy" in its aid to Egypt, which cover Coptic Christian activities, should be provided through non-governmental organisations and away from Cairo's gaze.

Supporters of the measures in Washington say the main justification for the measures is what they term the "abuse" of Copts in Egypt.

"One of the concerns is that many reports from Egypt show Christian Copts are increasingly under pressure. They are suffering from more attacks. There's increasing persecution of Copts in Egypt," said Paul Marshall, an expert on Islam and Religion at the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, a right-wing think-tank in Washington, DC.

"I think this has caused concern in Congress, so I believe it is for that reason they directed USAID to make sure that some of its aid in Egypt also addresses Coptic needs."

But delicate questions remain, chiefly regarding Egyptian sensitivities about the level of involvement of the US in such a sensitive issue and on Egyptian soil.

There is already concern in the State Department that Washington, already reeling from an image problem in the Middle East because of its invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq, may now be seen to be favouring Christians in a predominantly Muslim nation.

State Department officials are reportedly trying to find out how the statements about the Coptic Christian community "slipped" into Kunder's written testimony, which is usually reviewed by several staff members.

USAID officials did not return calls from the Weekly asking for comment on the story.

Rights groups also say that a faith-based approach may not be the right one for Washington to take, even if its concerns are genuine.

"There's nothing wrong per se with helping the Coptic communities if they felt they were otherwise discriminated against, or are not getting their fair share of Egyptian resources," said Sarah Lee Whitson, Middle East director of Human Rights Watch.

"But if the only reason they are helping these communities is because they are Christians, I think that's a big problem."

"You do not want US aid money to be seen as missionary money meant to support one religious community over another, particularly in a country that is overwhelmingly Muslim. I do not think that would sit well with the Egyptian population."

US peace policy for the Gulf: divide and conquer,The timing of the Gulf arms deal looks very suspicious, according to Mohamed Darwish, The recent announcement of a $20 billion US arms deal with countries in the Arab Gulf has stirred widespread controversy concerning the amount and the short- and long-term effects of this deal on the region. The Gulf, a focal point of tensions over rival regional and international strategic and economic interests, has been the scene of almost constant warfare since 1980.

There appears to be a sharp divergence of views between military and political analysts in the Gulf over the actual objectives and potential effects of this deal. Mustafa Al-Ani, senior advisor and director of the Department of Security and Terrorist Studies in the Gulf Research Centre in Dubai, maintains that the deal has been blown way out of proportion and that it would not have a major impact on the balances of power in the region. By contrast, a political science professor at a university in the United Arab Emirates, who asked to remain anonymous, holds that the deal harbours devious political aims and threatens to destabilise the region for a long time to come.

Al-Ani stressed an essential point. The Gulf countries, specifically Saudi Arabia, had requested the arms that are the subject of the deal five years ago. However, for various reasons, the American government deferred approval of the sales. "The shopping list is by no means new and the resultant deal has no relation whatsoever to recent security or political developments in the region," he insisted. Also, according to this strategic analyst, the deal's state-of-the-art weapons and defence equipment comprised are some of the most costly in the world. A $20 billion price tag for such equipment is not excessive in the world of military technology. In addition, although Saudi Arabia will probably be the primary beneficiary of the deal, this relatively modest amount, in terms of military purchases, will be footed collectively by all Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Not only that, but payments will be staggered over 10 years, in $2 billion instalments per year, thereby minimising the strain on the economies of the six GCC countries.

When news of the arms deal was released, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that the purpose of the American sale of this advanced weaponry to the Gulf was to strengthen the front against Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. However, Al-Ani emphasised that the Gulf countries had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with the substance of such statements. The GCC countries are neither bound by such statements, nor do they necessarily share their underlying premises, especially the "source of threat". If anything, the statements must be viewed in the context of the controversy in the US over this deal. Therefore, such interpretations that are aired in that debate do not reflect the positions or commitments on the part of any of the GCC governments.

According to Al-Ani, the criticisms that have been levelled against the GCC countries over the arms contract are groundless. These countries, he said, have no interest in arming themselves beyond what they regard to be their own needs for purely defensive purposes. Iran, by contrast, has been one of the most eager countries in the region to obtain advanced weapons. Yet the Arabs and the GCC countries in particular have never registered any objection to the ambitious armaments programme that Tehran began to put into effect several years ago, in spite of the fact that the development of its Shihab missile system and various other programmes to upgrade its air and naval forces have been a source of considerable anxiety to the Arab countries in the Gulf.

Al-Ani went on to point out that the Gulf arms deal was part of a more comprehensive package that included several other Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt and Israel. The GCC portion of this package accounts for less than a third of its total value. Moreover, whereas the Gulf countries will pay the full costs for the military equipment they ordered, the $30 billion and $13 billion worth of weaponry destined for Israel and Egypt respectively, will be delivered in the form of grants extended to these two countries over the same 10-year period within the framework of the American foreign military assistance programme.

While the UAE political science professor agrees with Al-Ani that the US-GCC arms deal will not have a significant impact on the military balance of power in the region, he is nevertheless highly suspicious of its political ramifications. Why, he asked, did the US choose this moment, in particular, to announce its approval of that deal, bearing in mind that the countries in question applied for this military equipment more than five years ago, which is to say even before the occupation of Iraq in April 2003?

He argued that the US has suffered a major military and political debacle in Iraq and is currently searching for an honourable exit strategy in order to salvage the prestige of the world's sole superpower. But Washington is not prepared to withdraw "most" of its forces from Iraq until it has ordered the situation in the region in a manner that suits its strategic and geopolitical interests. Its recent behaviour towards Iran leaves not the shadow of a doubt that a major factor in American strategists' calculations in this regard is Tehran's growing political and military influence in the region. Of particular concern to them are Tehran's strategic relations with Syria, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine and, perhaps more immediately, its very tangible impact on anti-American resistance in Iraq. They are therefore pressing to create a "Sunni" front, consisting of the Arab Gulf countries, Egypt and Jordan, to oppose the so-called "Shia" front led by Iran. Their hope is that these parties will clash for years to come, unleashing mounting waves of sectarian strife and exhausting the region militarily, morally and materially, thereby eliminating any effective regional powers and clearing the field for the US to assert its hegemony over the region and beyond.

According to the UAE professor, one of Washington's most frequently used tactics to goad the Gulf countries into falling in line with this scheme is to intimidate them with Iran's growing power. US officials are constantly cautioning of "the dangers of Iran's growing influence in the region" and of "the Iranian regime's ability to agitate the Shia minorities in the Gulf [which represent an average of 30 per cent of the population in these countries] against the regimes." He goes on to point out that even though officials in the Gulf are fully aware of the nature of the pressures Washington is trying to apply and even though they are not taken in by its exaggerated claims with regard to Tehran's regional ambitions, they cannot afford to close their eyes to what is actually happening around them.

However, he continues, the US and Gulf leaders know that the types of weaponry being supplied to them under the arms deal could never withstand an actual Iranian assault -- all the more so given that the arms will not be delivered in a single shipment, but bit by bit over the next 10 years. So, if this is the case, he asked, why did Washington link its unveiling of this deal with statements stressing the need to strengthen the ability of Arab countries in the Gulf to stand up against Iran, Syria and Hizbullah? He believes the answer to this is obvious: the US aims to trigger a situation in which regional forces realign themselves along sectarian divides and then lash out at each other until only the US is left to reap the fruits.

In short, the US is resorting to a form of blackmail, using "the potential threat" of the Shia "enemy". This arms deal, which will have no impact on the actual balance of power in the region, is a product of such extortion. Its purpose is to drain the material resources of the Gulf countries in order to boost the American military industries and to offset the enormous budget deficit that accumulated due to the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

While Gulf leaders are aware of this too, they feel that they are caught in a vice. On the one hand, they realise that no matter how much military equipment they acquire they will never be able to respond on their own to any Iranian military response should a confrontation erupt between American forces in the region and Iran. On the other hand, they cannot afford to turn their backs on the sole superpower which has helped keep their regimes in power. Only the might of the US could have driven Iraqi forces out of Kuwait following the Iraqi occupation of that country in 1990. According to the UAE professor, the only way out of this predicament for the Gulf countries is to do their utmost to distance themselves from the conflict between the US and Iran. They fear that if they do not take such precautions their territories will become the theatre of operations in an impending conflagration that would reduce their countries to rubble and reverse all their recent progress.

Danger at sea, Rising sea levels and coastal erosion are threatening Egypt's Mediterranean coast and the Delta region. Reem Leila finds out why, Global warming threatens the Delta: the Mediterranean encroaches on urban development in Abu-Quir, Alexandria
According to a recent study conducted by the Climate Change Division of the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), rising sea levels, coastline erosion and the infiltration of saltwater into groundwater are impacting the country's Mediterranean coastline and the Delta, leading to major challenges for water and agricultural resources, as well as tourism and human settlements.

The study, which predicted a 30cm rise in the sea level by 2025, said that these factors could lead to the loss by inundation of approximately 200 square kilometres of land, the possible displacement of more than 500,000 people, and the loss of some 70,000 jobs.

According to Mohamed El-Raey, professor at the Institute for Study and Research at Alexandria University, Egypt's coastal zone extends for more than 3,500km along the Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts, and it is home to more than 40 per cent of the country's population, most of which lives in or around densely populated cities such as Alexandria, Port Said, Damietta, Rashid and Suez.

However, "the Mediterranean coastline is more vulnerable to a rise in sea level [than the Red Sea coast]," El-Raey said, "due to its relatively low elevation." Any such rise would pose a threat to many inhabitants of the Mediterranean coastal zones.

Coastal erosion is accompanied by the recession of the shoreline and the loss of land area. According to Sayed Sabri, head of the EEAA's Climate Change Division, during storms sea currents combine to reshape the seafloor, causing a pattern of erosion and accretion and either a gain or loss of beach volume. Such factors do not necessarily indicate the long-term path of change, but they certainly contribute to it.

Another main cause of coastal erosion is the decreasing supply of sediment brought by rivers to coastal areas, dams intercepting almost all sediment travelling along the river's path. "Factors associated with longer-term effects, such as changes in sediment supply, sea level rise and coastal subsidence are directly responsible for the long-term behaviour of the coast," Sabri said.

However, the most significant threat to Egypt's coastline is climate change and rising sea levels.

Since the industrial revolution that took place in developed countries from the beginning of the 19th century onwards, industrialisation has been based on the use of coal and other hydrocarbons as sources of fuel, leading to ever-increasing emissions of carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere when such fossil fuels are burned. The clearance of large areas of forest has also enhanced levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

At the beginning of the last century, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide stood at below 280 ppm (parts per million), but by the early 1990s they had increased to over 350 ppm. It is these rising levels that have "contributed to the warming of the earth's atmosphere," Sabri said, "leading to the thawing of the ice at the North and South poles and the increase in global sea levels."

Coastal erosion that comes about as a result does not only cause the loss of valuable land. It also necessitates expensive coastal-protection schemes to save facilities sometimes developed years before, and these schemes can only be planned with advance knowledge of the possible future evolution of the coastline.

Mona Gamaleddin, head of the Alexandria EEAA, stresses the importance of not constructing buildings and roads too close to the coastline, since if there is not a sufficiently wide buffer zone large amounts of money will later have to be invested to build sea walls and breakwaters to stabilise eroding coastlines and save threatened buildings.

"According to international standards, there is usually a minimum width of at least 100 metres from the shore on which construction is restricted," Gamaleddin says. "Egypt should abide by this, though the rule is being violated in several areas."

The need to protect coastal zones at risk from the effects of climate change has been internationally recognised, with the United Nations Convention on Climate Change urging developed and developing countries to work together to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

The convention stresses the need to provide decision- makers with information on environmental problems and sustainable development.

While Egypt has carried out studies and is making a great effort to meet the convention's guidelines, Sabri says that it is not yet eligible to access funds to help meet the effects of climate change.

However, "Egypt will present its plans to the World Meteorological Organisation regarding the limitation of coastal erosion by the end of this year," he said.

"By the beginning of 2008, the country should be entitled to funds in order to help face up to this impending natural disaster."