A year after the exercise called “Black dawn” was done to simulate the effects of a nuclear attack at NATO headquarters, former Senator Sam Nunn performed again the same operation of propaganda at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Atlantic Alliance. Once again words tell aboutt a terrorist organization, similar to al-Qaeda, which strikes upon the core of the NATO institutions, thus causing the death of many civilians and a major economic and environmental crisis. In the International Herald Tribune, Nunn analyzed the consequences of his “war game” with Pierre Lellouche, president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. For them, “Black dawn” showed that Europe was unprepared to face a terrorist threat. Therefore, the strengthening of security measures was recommended for the nuclear sites in Europe and around the world. The main target: the nuclear facilities of the former USSR, whose number Washington expects to limit.
In Le Figaro, the very atlantist president of the European Commission and vice-president of Security and Justice Affairs, José Manuel Barroso and Franco Frattini, announced their security plan for Europe. They also insisted on the terrorist threat against the continent, expressed their satisfaction for the common outcomes and urged to strengthen the instruments of the anti-terrorist fight, that is, the alignment of the European legal procedures with the American Patriot Act.
In both cases, the anti-terrorist fight is used to justify decisions made by Washington. This problem, however, could be reversed. Thus, in an interview in Die Welt, the Pakistani Minister of Interior, Aftab Khan Sherpao, made a statement justifying the anti-terrorist fight in his country. When insisting on the excellent status of his country in this regard, he mentioned that Islamabad had to be compensated with an economic aid.

In Lebanon, legislative elections that will end on June 19 still continue. It is especially difficult to understand the rationale that urges the different parties and alliances among community groups, because the differences will vary substantially depending on the region.
In an interview made by La Republica, taken up in Russian by Inopressa, Saad Hariri, son of the assassinated Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, expressed his satisfaction for his victory in the region of Beirut and was setting up himself as candidate for the post of Prime Minister. He denounced the Syrian influence on Lebanon and implicitly accused President Emile Lahoud of being an accomplice in the assassination of his father. This happened when the Hariri’s widow had just been elected under the rules of the Hezbollah, which is accused, however, of being pro-Syrian.
The electoral campaign was characterized by the assassination, on June 2 in Beirut, of the Franco-Lebanese Samir Kassir. An open-minded journalist, Kassir had taken strong positions against Damascus, including Israel and several political movement of Lebanon. Therefore, he had a lot of enemies, although in France, the media has only spoken of his anti-Syrian commitment. Again, even though there was no evidence, as in the case of the assassination of Rafic Hariri, Damascus was in the mediatic dock. Surprisingly, France has not demanded any explanation from the Lebanese government even thought it is about one of its citizens. Washington had requested above all that the international investigation on the death of Rafic Hariri equally included that of Samir Kassir. But such claim was taken out of the text that condemned this murder, as unanimously voted by the UN Security Council on June 7.
Whatever the case might be, for Antoine Basbous, director of the Arabic Countries Observatory and former spokesman of the Lebanese Christian militias during the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, there is no doubt that Syria is to be blamed for these assassinations. In Le Figaro, he called the purge organization in the country to kick out the politicians or officers who had or would have had links with Damascus. More ambiguously, the head of the ICCPPP, the International Civil Campaign for the Protection of the Palestinian People, Nahla Chahal, denounced the crime in Le Monde without mentioning the culprits. Only called by the pronoun “they”, the killers are, nevertheless, presented as such, so that the reader of Le Monde who has read various articles lashing out the Syrian responsibility, the culprits’ identity leaves little room for doubt.

At the same time, in Damascus, the 10th Congress of the Syrian Ba’ath, the Bachar El-Assad Party was opened. On this occasion, The Independent published excerpts of the opening speech by the Syrian president in which Bachar El Assad lashed out, without mentioning it, the United States for the use of the new technologies and information to destabilize his country and the rest of the Arabic countries. As a defensive action, he called for the Arab unity once again.
The Baas congress should have been characterized mainly by the adoption of two motions for a gradual opening of the regime. It is especially about the legalization of the political parties under a long validation process (which should result in a next pluralist presidential election but without any opposition party, which would campaign). Also on the spotlight was a reform of censorship, which would later be, not under the Ministry of Interior, but under the unanimous agreement of the Council of Ministers (which would make it difficult to implement). This would be accompanied by economic reforms. Hence, these reforms would be the foundations to speed up the democratization of the Syrian regime without facing the collaborators of the deceased Hafez El Assad.
However, there are few analysts who share this point of view. Regarding the congress, the opinions are more determined by the need to justify the forthcoming operations rather than by an objective vision of its development.
The English edition of the Lebanese daily paper Daily Star, interviewed two Syrian analysts, who have different opinions about this issue. For Ziad Haidar, Damascus is going through a transition process in order to separate the Ba’ath from the State without destabilizing the country. But for the novelist and collaborator of the Brookings Institution, Ammar Abdulhamid, nothing could be expected from the Ba’ath. It is a corrupted party that has failed at all levels and which the Syrians should overthrow.
In the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune, the Syrian journalist and writer, Yassin al-Haj Saleh, indicated that the Ba’ath would only come up with cosmetic reforms, without actually changing anything. However, he feared that the overthrow of Bachar El Assad would destabilize the country and called Washington to be careful with its actions.
For the president of the Reform Party of Syria - a satellite organization of the NED/CIA-, Farid N. Ghadry, on the contrary, there is no time to waste. The Syrian power is in a desperate situation and Syria is in a pre-revolutionary stage. Hence, he set six months as a deadline for Bachar El-Assad before he falls. In the Washington Times, he urged Washington to be ready to intervene when the time comes.