Common Ground News Service
Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
12 - 18 December 2006

The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim–Western relations. CGNews-PiH is available in Arabic, English, French and Indonesian.
For an archive of past CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org.
Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and articles may be reprinted by any news outlet or publication. Please acknowledge both the original source and the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Inside this edition

1) Can microfinance heal wounds of war? by Malika Anand and Samer Badawi

In this first article in a series on economic factors affecting Muslim-Western relations, Malika Anand and Samer Badawi, who work at CGAP, a global resource centre for microfinance, consider whether financial services have social implications for conflicting groups in war torn countries. They discuss the conditions in which microfinance has been proven to increase trust and communication in societies devastated by distrust and destruction, and to point the way back to a civil society.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 12 December 2006)

2) ~Youth Views~ More than a question of semantics in Iraq by Bill Glucroft

Bill Glucroft, a student of journalism at Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts, looks at the debate in the United States over the use of the term “civil war” to describe the situation in Iraq, and questions whether the terminology matters at all to Iraqis on the ground. He then suggests some next steps for all parties involved to address the violence and destruction on the ground, whatever one calls it.
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 12 December 2006)

3) The pope without his sting by Ian Fisher

Ian Fisher, a correspondent with the New York Times, takes a closer look at the some of the reactions to Pope Benedict XVI’s recent visit to Turkey. Far from the controversial statements the Pope made in September, his interactions with Muslim leaders in Turkey were interpreted by some as needless concessions, while many others saw the shift as a positive step towards improved Muslim-Christian dialogue.
(Source: International Herald Tribune, 6 December 2006)

4) This year, Arabs express pessimism by James J. Zogby

James J. Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), compares poll results of the mood in Arab countries. He finds that there is a prevailing sense of pessimism across the region that is distinctly different from last year, and, based on his survey findings, examines some of the reasons behind it.
(Source: Jordan Times, 5 December 2006)

5) Emphatically stating the obvious on Iraq by David Ignatius

David Ignatius, a regular Washington, D.C.-based contributor to the Daily Star, analyses the findings and recommendations in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s report. Acknowledging that the real national security threat to America is the “sense in the rest of the world that Iraq symbolises America's fatal new combination of arrogance and incompetence”, he highlights how this report can help to turn this around.
(Source: Daily Star, 8 December 2006)

1) Can microfinance heal wounds of war?
Malika Anand and Samer Badawi

Washington, D.C. - Microfinance is about more than money. Financial services - including credit, savings and insurance - can empower the “unbanked”, helping them generate and sustain income. But these services can also spur solidarity and help war-torn communities rebuild and even reconcile.

Take Bosnia. Natasa Goronja, an expert in post-conflict microfinance (she earned her stripes as a credit officer in Sarajevo), says that although inter-religious interaction could not be forced or engineered after the war, Muslims and Christians came together as a natural consequence of economic life. Often, that interaction happened, literally, “across the counter” at a microfinance institution.

“I was often the first Christian a Muslim client had seen since the person who killed their brother,” recalls Goronja. “Clients would tell me that I was the first Christian they could trust.”

That kind of trust is a hallmark of the microfinance movement. It began with the idea that poor people, who typically lack the kind of collateral required for a bank loan, are just as “credit-worthy” as wealthier bank clients. In fact, some three decades after Grameen Bank’s Muhammad Yunus disbursed his first micro-loan, experts acknowledge that loan repayment rates among microfinance clients approach 100 percent worldwide, eclipsing those of commercial bank clients.

“People repay their loans because they value them,” says Elizabeth Littlefield, who heads the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, the microfinance industry’s leading research and advocacy group. This is even more the case in post-conflict environments like Afghanistan, where CGAP set up a microfinance funding facility soon after the 2001 war. In little over a year, the number of microfinance clients reached the hundreds of thousands -- this in a country that lacked even the beginnings of a formal financial system.

In Afghanistan as in Bosnia, microfinance was in high demand because communities were eager to rebuild and needed loans to buy materials and finance construction projects. But by supporting that entrepreneurial spirit, microfinance providers also helped to recreate a sense of community from the rubble.

Indeed, many microfinance clients manage their debt as a collective, forming groups in which members come together for discussion, support and companionship. These meetings encourage not only repayment but also reconciliation among members. After all, for group loans to function, members need to trust each other and communicate. In societies devastated by distrust and destruction, microfinance can point the way back to a civil society.

Microfinance is not charity. And microfinance clients are not victims; they are individuals who are every bit as capable, dignified and productive as those who have not suffered the vagaries of war, natural disaster or endemic poverty. In all cases, microfinance offers survivors a chance to take back ownership and agency in their lives.

Microfinance has the added advantage of mobility. It does not require a large infrastructure or complex systems. Many microfinance branches around the world function with 3-5 staff members where credit officers visit clients in their homes and organise groups by village or block. Before commercial banks or even the government reach devastated areas, small, nimble NGOs can begin to offer microfinance services.

To offer microfinance services in post conflict areas, a few essential pieces must be in place. Program areas must offer a reasonable degree of security and safety for clients to carry out their activities. Furthermore, since maintaining timely loan recovery is difficult with mobile populations, clients must have a degree of geographic stability. Lastly, there must be a functioning cash-based economy. Microfinance can allow clients to take advantage of economic opportunities but it does not create them. For microfinance to function, people need access to productive resources, to be able to trade, and to carry and use money.

With security, stability and currency in place, microfinance providers have brought financial services to resettled villages and urban centres from Bosnia and Afghanistan to Liberia and Iraq. Although money cannot heal all wounds, microfinance can help restore hope, even for communities ravaged by war.

###

* Malika Anand and Samer Badawi work at CGAP, a global resource centre for microfinance. Learn more at www.cgap.org. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 12 December 2006, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

2) ~Youth Views~ More than a question of semantics in Iraq
Bill Glucroft

Boston, Massachusetts - Early last month, Bessam Ali, my Skype acquaintance from Iraq, wrote to tell me that his Baghdad home became collateral damage in an attack by the Medhi Militia. His family escaped unharmed, but their material livelihood has been decimated.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, the talk of the nation has centred on whether to define the staggering bloodshed in Iraq as civil war or merely sectarian violence (what the difference is, I’m not so sure). Or perhaps it can be characterised as the “birth pangs of democracy”.

Does it matter? While pundits and politicians are squabbling over semantics, the death toll for American troops will soon surpass the number murdered on 11 September, and Iraqi civilians are being killed at a rate not imagined under former ruler Saddam Hussein.

The noise generated from debating the terminology is drowning out a much more valuable discussion about what to do next. There are no good options remaining for this fantastically flawed freedom-fighting foray, but there are less bad ones.

American officials sound silly when claiming a political solution exists to end the chaos, and such comments underscore their lack of understanding of that region’s history and motivations. What we see as modern day political entities violently jockeying for power, many Sunni and Shi’a hardliners see as a rematch of the sixth century Battle of Karbala.

I always support intercultural coexistence, but the increasingly gruesome reality in Iraq makes clear that the sources of instability within the Sunni and Shi’a communities are currently too great to contain within a single, centralised state. Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish populations must each feel a sense of ownership over their piece of Iraq, which is why the country must be divided into autonomous, but not fully independent, regions.

The international community should convene an all-inclusive conference to begin the federation process.

First, conference participants must determine where on the map to draw the lines dividing the newly established regions. Second, they would have to reach a mutual understanding regarding territorial integrity and the preservation of human rights for those that may not relocate to their own sect’s area of dominance. Third, all groups must work towards regional stability and cooperation.

Only Iraq’s army and oil would remain centralised. The former composed by so as to reflect the country’s various cultures and groups; the profits from the latter maintained in an Iraqi-controlled, but internationally-monitored, account, dispersed proportionally amongst the three regions.

As for the United States and its dwindling coalition of the willing, decentralising Iraq would allow not for immediate withdrawal, but at least for a consolidation of forces. U.S. troops, smaller in number than their current presence, would have to remain between the three regions, as well as scattered throughout Iraq’s security apparatus.

The international community would need to handle the mass migration that would result from formally dividing Iraq. And all countries, both inside and outside the region, must commit to a true reconstruction of Iraq, one that not only rebuilds the army and police (as is the current emphasis) but also rebuilds a broken economy and education system using local assets supported, not dominated, by foreign companies.

For sure, this plan is not utopia. Translating it to reality would prove difficult, and certain aspects of it may be entirely unattainable. But the current talking points are even worse options. Stay the course is as meaningless as it is ignorant. A precipitous withdrawal is both logistically and strategically stupid.

But regional autonomy would yield three key benefits. First, eliminating Baghdad as the one and only centre of power also eliminates the violent contest for that power among Sunni insurgents and Shi’ite militias.

Second, separate Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish dominated regions would scare Iraq’s neighbours enough to want to contribute to its stability and security. Iran would not want the Sunni population to challenge its interests, and the same for Turkey with the Kurds, and Jordan and Syria with the Shi’ites. The end result: a balance of power that allows Iraq’s three groups only enough strength to govern themselves.

Finally, federation allows for a diminished U.S. presence, thereby giving the next president a chance to refocus on the long-term health of American foreign policy. And that begins with a massive diplomacy effort aimed at redefining our global footprint, and an equally intensive push for energy independence.

But so long as we continue an inane deconstruction of “civil war”, we risk not only defeat, but worse, irrelevancy to a region that remains potently relevant to us.

###

* Bill Glucroft is a student of journalism at Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts. He maintains his own website at www.allbillnobull.net. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 12 December 2006, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

3) The pope without his sting
Ian Fisher

Has the pope gone wobbly? The question might matter less if he weren't the man he is - and if the images of his facing Mecca in prayer on his trip to Turkey weren't fresh. Supporters have long depended on Benedict XVI for brave talk, even and maybe especially if it was unpleasant to hear. But his was never mere blunt confrontation. With his big brain and the heft of Roman Catholic tradition behind him, Benedict has stood for a remarkably clear idea: There is truth, and we won't retreat from it.

That penchant for truth-telling found its date with history in September, in the pope's now-famous speech in Regensburg, Germany. Rare for a mainstream leader, he planted a steely marker in the struggle against terror and militant Islam, quoting a Byzantine emperor as saying Islam had brought only things "evil and inhuman." Islam, he seemed to say, was distant from reason and thus prone to violence.

But in his visit to Turkey last week, the face of confrontation, and perhaps the hold on certainty, seemed to soften. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan emerged happily from his meeting with Benedict, saying that the pope had endorsed Turkey's bid to join the European Union and so reversed his long-held personal opposition.

In the place of tough talk, Benedict suggested "dialogue" - a concept, with regard to Islam especially, that he had not seemed completely open to before.

And so a new and ever more interesting chapter in this young papacy, as well as in the larger issue of how to engage the Muslim world, including those elements of it that resort to violence, seemed to open on Benedict's four days in Turkey.

The questions are many, starting with whether or not Benedict, the doctrinal purist, has somehow gone soft. To some of his most hard-core supporters, that, indeed, may be the lesson of his visit to Turkey.

"He has signalled to Islam that there are concessions he can make, and reactions other than outrage in the face of intimidation and violence," one conservative blogger wrote in an emblematic posting that found echoes in the concerned Catholic blogosphere. "It is a shame. We needed Benedict, and his withdrawal from the debate is a considerable loss."

But other commentators, with varying views of the pope, put the question another way: Can one's idea of truth be expressed differently, especially when reality gets in the way?

By many accounts, the Vatican was deeply shaken at the reaction to the pope's speech, which was at its heart a criticism of the West for being so beholden to reason that it had blocked out other values, like religion. The section on Islam was short, and Benedict made clear he was quoting others in his criticism of Islam.

But the reaction - and here the Vatican officially blames the news media - focused on the sharp, if brief, critique of Islam. And the Muslim world reacted with rage.

Demonstrations broke out in many Muslim countries; fire bombers attacked churches in the West Bank and Gaza; gunmen killed an Italian nun in Somalia. The pope himself was threatened, accounting for the heavy security on his trip to Turkey.

"This is a pope who hasn't really understood that what he says has consequences for Christians elsewhere," said Sergio Romano, a columnist for Corriere della Sera and the former Italian ambassador to NATO. "He can put them in danger. He has had to adopt a more diplomatic line."

This new phase in Benedict's papacy, then, is seen by many as a transformation from his understanding of his role primarily as a theologian, concerned with a specific truth, to a greater appreciation of his role as something of a diplomat, who seeks to balance various truths in the service of a greater interest - in this case, that of the church and its believers.

David Gibson, author of "The Rule of Benedict," published in September by Harper SanFranciso, described the pope's performance in Turkey as a crucial moment. With his silent prayer in the mosque and general warmth, he showed himself to be every bit as adept at politics as theology.

"We have seen to some degree the transformation of Joseph Ratzinger the cardinal and theologian to Benedict XVI, pope and statesman," Gibson said. "He said and did some things that obviously go against his personal grain."

But, he added, "it was really smart. And it cost him nothing."

Like any good politician, Benedict gave a bit to everyone and kept his words vague enough (he himself never came out and explicitly endorsed Turkey's entry into the EU) that people could read into them what they wanted. Indeed, the Catholic chattering class was working full time on whether he actually did endorse an EU entry or whether he said an actual prayer at the Blue Mosque in Istanbul.

The question for the many long-time supporters of the pope is whether this new Benedict is really the same man, whether the straight talk that distinguished him will be recognisable in a more political outfit.

Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World News, an influential conservative Web site, says he believes that it will be. While he acknowledged that some of Benedict's supporters were not happy about the comments on the European Union or the mosque visit, Benedict continued to raise in Turkey the same issues he always has: concern for religious freedom; respect for religious minorities; denunciation of violence in the name of God.

"I haven't seen any backtracking since Regensburg," he said. "I've seen questions posed in a different manner. And I've seen a concern that he doesn't want to offend people by the way in which he poses the questions. But he's still determined to have those questions posed."

But however well Benedict's new approach seemed to go over in Turkey, Gibson, who described Benedict as a polarising figure in his book, issued a warning: The clash of East and West, Islam and Christianity, is not over. Benedict's role as conciliator is young, untested and does not come as naturally as his older role as a man of certainty.

"I don't think he wants to play Mr. Touchy-Feely with world Islam," Gibson said. "I think there are going to be some difficult moments."

###

* Ian Fisher is a correspondent with the New York Times. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: International Herald Tribune, 6 December 2006, www.iht.com
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

4) This year, Arabs express pessimism
James J. Zogby

Washington, D.C. - Each year Zogby International (ZI) polls Arabs in six countries to test the mood across the region. Last year we found that despite ongoing conflicts and internal problems plaguing some countries, many Arabs were expressing a degree of confidence in their present circumstances and optimism about their future. In fact, last year’s mood was the brightest since we began our annual polling in 2002.

That was last year. This year is a different story.

By any measure, 2006 was a difficult year in the Middle East, with a devastating assault on Lebanon, the continued plight of the Palestinians and the steady descent of Iraq into civil war taking a huge toll in lives and fortunes. But what were the further consequences of these events?

We were asked by the Arab Business Council (ABC) to add some questions to our 2006 survey, to assess the impact regional developments had on the economic and political environment in each of the countries covered in our annual poll (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco). What we found was that these conflicts have, in fact, had a dampening effect on attitudes in each of the countries covered by our survey.

To be sure, the impact of these three issues differed from country to country, but the combined effect is clear.

When we asked our respondents in the six countries to rate the roles played by a number of issues in the political stability and economic development of the region, far and away, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Iraq rated highest in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

Lebanon, of course, presents a special case, and not only because it was the only one of the six countries covered by our survey where conflict actually occurred. One year ago, Lebanon appeared to be on the rebound. Despite persistent internal divisions, 2005 marked the first year since we began our polling that Lebanese, across the spectrum of their society, displayed any sense of optimism. Suffice it to say that the gains of last year have been erased. But not only in Lebanon.

When we asked our respondents if they were better off now than they were four years ago, in five of the six countries surveyed attitudes were down. And when asked if they expected to be better off in the next four years, attitudes were also down — in some cases significantly so — in all six countries.

Of real concern was the substantial number of respondents who simply said they were “not sure” how well off they would be in the future. For example, in Morocco and Lebanon more than one-third and in the UAE almost three-quarters expressed uncertainty.

All this points to an obvious fact: the people of the Arab world are organically linked not only by geography, history and culture; they are tied by sentiment, as well. As a result, the number of conflicts that have plagued the region - each of which took a dramatic turn for the worst in 2005-2006 - have taken a profoundly negative toll on the Arab public’s mood.

While the United States persists in seeing each of the region’s “troubles” as discreet occurrences and expects “business as usual” to continue in countries not directly involved in conflict situation, the region’s people see reality quite differently.

The impact of these conflicts spills over beyond borders. Oil revenues might be up in Gulf countries, for example, but concern over the plight of the Palestinians and the fear of an imploding Iraq combine to damp down optimism and confidence. And the dynamics unleashed by the war in Lebanon are felt well beyond the conflicts of that troubled land.

All these conflicts combined have become a troubling brew. What we learned from our polling is that in their wake, they have brought increased anti-American sentiment, creating real stress for U.S. allies (all six countries covered in our polling are U.S. allies); an empowered and emboldened Iran, causing concern in governments across the region; and increased sectarian division and growing support for extremist groups. And the consequences of all of these can only dampen the public mood and increase uncertainty, neither a good thing either for economic planning or for progress towards internal political reform.

###

* James J. Zogby is founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI). This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Jordan Times, 5 December 2006, www.jordantimes.com
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

5) Emphatically stating the obvious on Iraq
David Ignatius

Washington, D.C. - The Iraq Study Group's report achieved the goal of any blue-ribbon commission: It stated the obvious, emphatically. "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.” Of various proposals for fixing Iraq, "all have flaws.” A "precipitate” withdrawal would be a mistake, but so would a big increase in U.S. troops. America should set "milestones” for the Iraqi government to control all provinces by next September. The U.S. military should shift to a training and advising mission so that most American troops can leave by early 2008. But there is no "magic formula,” and even if this approach fails, the United States "must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.”

A cynic might argue that this laundry list is precisely what the Bush administration was moving toward in its own internal review of policy. But I think that's the point about the bipartisan commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker and ex-Representative Lee Hamilton. They have stamped an interwoven "D” and "R” on recommendations that seem so familiar you wonder why they haven't been official policy all along. (Some of them have, actually, though you wouldn't have known it from President George W. Bush's bluff and bluster.)

What's new in the Baker-Hamilton approach is the part that's least likely to be successful - the call for an International Support Group that, in theory, would include the regional bad boys, Iran and Syria, along with foot-draggers such as Russia, China and France. And while they're at it, Baker and Hamilton propose a crash effort to resolve the Palestinian conflict, make peace between Israel and Syria and resolve the mess in Lebanon.

I like this "New Diplomatic Offensive” precisely because it is so ambitious. It would put the United States back in the business of trying to solve the Arab-Israeli problem that has been driving the Middle East crazy for nearly 40 years. As for Iran and Syria, the great advantage of asking them to join a global effort to stabilise Iraq is that if they say no it's blood on their hands. As the report notes, "An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation.”

And what is America's leverage in bringing Iran and Syria to the table (other than the implicit threat to walk away and let them worry about the Iraqi civil war)? The report includes this delicious Baker-esque ploy: "Saudi Arabia's agreement not to intervene with assistance to Sunni Arab Iraqis could be an essential quid pro quo for similar forbearance on the part of other neighbours, especially Iran.” Aha! So that explains the unusual op-ed piece by quasi-official Saudi analyst Nawaf Obaid in The Washington Post last week, threatening to send Saudi troops into Iraq if America should leave. It was a bargaining chip.

Another laudable aspect of the Baker-Hamilton report (especially in comparison to Bush's rhetoric) is that it doesn't mince words about how bad things are in Iraq. The Iraqi Army has made only "fitful progress toward becoming a reliable and disciplined fighting force.” The Iraqi police are "substantially worse” than the army. The results of the latest effort to pacify Baghdad have been "disheartening.” Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki means well, but he "has taken little meaningful action” against militias. Sunni Arabs haven't yet "made the strategic decision to abandon violent insurgency.” No reconciliation will be possible without an unpalatable amnesty for Iraqis who fought against U.S. forces. At least we are beginning to tell the truth here.

The final reason to embrace the Baker-Hamilton report is that its combination of cut-your-losses pragmatism and earnest do-gooderism will reassure a world that America has turned a page on Iraq. The level of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East these days is genuinely frightening. It has become the organising principle of political life, even in once-friendly countries such as Lebanon. This is the real national security threat to America - this sense in the rest of the world that Iraq symbolises America's fatal new combination of arrogance and incompetence. This report asks the world to help us find our way back home. Even if its proposals don't succeed, the Baker-Hamilton report can still accomplish its purpose, to “enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.”

###

* David Ignatius is a regular contributor to the Daily Star. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Daily Star, 8 December 2006, www.dailystar.com.lb
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

Youth Views

CGNews-PiH also regularly publishes the work of student leaders and journalists whose articles strengthen intercultural understanding and promote constructive perspectives and dialogue in their own communities. Student journalists and writers under the age of 27 are encouraged to write to Chris Binkley (cbinkley@sfcg.org) for more information on contributing.

About CGNews-PiH

The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) provides news, op-eds, features and analysis by local and international experts on a broad range of issues affecting Muslim-Western relations. CGNews-PiH syndicates articles that are constructive, offer hope and promote dialogue and mutual understanding, to news outlets worldwide. With support from the Norwegian government and the United States Institute of Peace, this news service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the field of conflict transformation.

This news service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan in June 2003.

The Common Ground News Service also commissions and distributes solution-oriented articles by local and international experts to promote constructive perspectives and encourage dialogue about current Middle East issues. This service, Common Ground News Service - Middle East (CGNews-ME), is available in Arabic, English, and Hebrew. To subscribe, click here.

The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews or its affiliates.

Common Ground News Service
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 265-4300
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718

Rue Belliard 205 Bte 13 B-1040
Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32(02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033

Email : cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Website : www.commongroundnews.org

Editors
Emad Khalil (Amman)
Juliette Schmidt (Beirut)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Geneva)
Nuruddin Asyhadie (Jakarta)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)

Translators
Grégoire Delhaye (Washington)
Rio Rinaldo (Jakarta)
Zeina Safa (Beirut)

CGNews is a not-for-profit news service.

Posted by Evelin at December 13, 2006 02:03 AM