December 31, 2007 7:54
2007: Enjoy It While It Lasts
This past year was a good one in the Middle East at least in one sense: there was no new regional war. At the beginning of the year, you'll remeber I started this blog with no small amount of apprehension. Would there be another war between Israel and its enemies in Lebanon or Syria? Would America and Iran come to blows over Iran's nuclear weapons program and its support of insurgents in Iraq? Would the sectraian killing between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq spread to other countries in the region, such as Lebanon?
The fact that these dire scenarios didn't play out is probably due to to the fact that a fragile kind of stability returned to Iraq, thanks either to the surge in American soldiers, or the new American strategy of protecting Iraqi civilians, or simply because sectarian militias finished round one of the Iraqi civil war by clearing out Baghdad's mixed neighborhoods. Either way, the chaos in Iraq was like jet fuel for the region's many simmering conflicts. With that heat down a few degrees, not much else has exploded.
But it's far too soon to celebrate. It's not just that the American surge in Iraq is due to end my mid-2008, there were also a few ominous signs this year that the status quo of regional semi-peace is unsustainable.
Kurdistan, the one relatively peaceful part of Iraq, suddenly looks a whole lot less stable since Turkey began staging operations against Kurdish militants in northern Iraq this month. By continuing a military strategy that has failed for the 30 years against the PKK (a group of radical Turkish Kurds who have bases inside Turkey and northern Iraq) Turkey is on its way to getting sucked into the Iraq quagmire. An alternative would be for Turkey to open peace negotiations with the PKK. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. Both Turkey and the US designate the PKK as a terrorist group.
Hamas' takeover off Gaza in June was scary on several levels, in part because of the ease with which they defeated the American-trained and funded Fatah security forces. Hamas are clearly a bunch of guys that need to be reckoned with, but the US and Israel aren't. America didn't invite Hamas to the peace conference in Annapolis, and Israel just ignored a Hamas cease-fire offer. A peace process that doesn't include enemies is a road map to nowhere.
Think Hamas is bad? Try talking to the guys in Fatah al Islam, and other Al Qaeda inspired groups that are gaining ground by leeching off the war in Iraqi, the Arab-Israeli wars, and just about every other unresolved conflict in the Middle East. They don't just want to fight Israel, they want to fight everyone who's not a Muslim. Fatah al Islam staged that uprising in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon this summer, and these well-armed, Iraq-trained jihadis held out for months against the Lebanese army. Almost 60 years, since the creation of Israel and the creation of the Palestinian refugee population, these camps have become hothouses for radical groups that make Hamas look like the Boy Scouts.
So I wish I could have some more faith that 2008 would be more like 2007, but I'm afraid its going to be more of the same. Instead of using the goodwill created by the surge in Iraq to help heal old wounds in the region, we are letting them fester. I don't know what's going to break out in 2008, but I doubt it will be peace.
What do you think is going to happen in 2008?
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
December 21, 2007 8:17
Happy Holidays!
As we head into the Christmas long weekend, I want to thank all of you, our loyal readers, for your support, your comments, and your passion for this region.
Eid Mubarak, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas!
See you in 2008,
Andrew
December 20, 2007 11:28
Kingdom of Silence?
Human Rights Watch issued a damning report on Jordan this week, entitled Shutting Out the Critics, basically accusing King Abdullah II of talking a good game about reform to the West while actually further restricting freedoms inside the Hashemite Kingdom.
Check out the full report, but here are a few key excerpts:
Jordan has long sought to present itself as a country of political reform. The king and his diplomatic representatives make polished presentations when visiting Western capitals about how they are moving forward with legislative and policy changes to bring about increased freedoms and the rule of law. At his keynote speech for the World Economic Forum held at the Dead Sea in May 2007, King Abdullah emphasized the priority he places on developing and promoting civil society in the country. The stark realities in Jordan contrast with this rosy picture presented to the world.
In the past few years, rather than broadening the space for civil society participation in the country’s public affairs, the Jordanian government has made it increasingly difficult for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to operate—or even exist—with a modicum of independence. In 2007, the cabinet proposed a new Law on Charitable Societies and Social Institutions, a draft of which imposes restrictions on associations stricter than those of the current 30-year-old law.Jordan likes to pride itself on a vibrant civil society, but in reality, NGOs who actually dare to be critical of the government struggle to ward off continual pressure and interference from the authorities. As a result, many do not criticize the government, and those that do face closure and, at worse, prosecution and possible prison time for their employees.
The Ministry of Interior has clamped down on the right of Jordanians to freely assemble, whether in a demonstration or in public meetings in smaller groups. Following a change in the Law on Public Gatherings in 2001, affirmed by parliament in 2004, a governor must now approve demonstrations or public meetings in advance instead of being only notified. In most cases of requests for approval that Human Rights Watch has learned about, governors have denied permission, without giving a reason.
As evidence for its charge that the government has backtracked on reform, the opposition cites a newly enacted Law on Political Parties, which is likely to shut down many of the smaller parties due to the high numbers of five hundred required founding members, now also required to hail from five different governorates. It also cites the government’s failure to enact a new electoral law with fairer distribution of parliamentary seats.
While the Jordanian government prides itself on its election in 2006 to the United Nations Human Rights Council and to be one of the council’s vice presidents, it has failed to live up to its pledge as a council member to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights,” as the UN General Assembly resolution creating the Human Rights Council defined the responsibilities of Council members.
HRW's recommendations to the Jordanian government:
-- Amend its legislation restricting the right to freedom of assembly and of association;
-- Require only notice, not advance permission, for public gatherings and should impose only those restrictions strictly necessary to protect those gathered and the rights of others;
--Automatically register NGOs or non-profit companies who give notice of their formation without government vetting, and should have no role in monitoring or interfering in their work, including by deciding the appropriateness of NGO funding sources on a case-by-case basis, or by removing an NGO’s management board. Dissolving an NGO should require a judicial order and include the right to appeal.
The King and his government do talk a good game on reform, and I think they are sincere about it. I never thought the late King Hussein was much of a democrat, but his son is. One of the obstacles to reform, which the HRW doesn't really address, is the political context. Jordan and therefore its regime has been buffeted by one major severe regional crisis after another almost since the day Abdullah became King in 1999: the Palestinian intifadeh that started in 2000, 9/11 in 2001, the Iraq invasion in 2003, and the political turmoil, including the flood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees into Jordan, since then. Another problem throughout this period was the need for Abdullah, who was Hussein's death bed choice as successor, to solidify his authority within Jordan and internationally. Miscalculations can be a matter of life and death for a regime that is caught in the crossfire of regional conflicts and remains divided between Palestinian and tribal forces domestically. Reform entails some risks and a turbulent political environment argues against risk-taking. The King understandably feels that no full democracy can be achieved in Jordan until a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict determines the fate of Jordan's Palestinian refugees once and for all.
But none of that's an excuse. Without question the King and his government need to show much greater commitment and vision in turning his good words into better deeds.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 19, 2007 10:51
Attention Readers!
Dear readers:
Time.com blogs are experiencing some spam problems that are temporarily affecting the incoming comments.
Please accept our apologies if your comments have gone astray.
We're attempting to correct the problems but it may be another day or two before things are back to normal. Thanks for your patience!
Happy holidays,
The Middle East Blog
December 19, 2007 3:33
The Big Eid
Preparations for the Muslim festival of sacrifice (Eid al Adha ), a four-day holiday commemorating Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, Ishmael, began this morning at dawn at slaughterhouses and butcher shops across Beirut. By tradition, celebrants slaughter sheep or goats and donate the meat to charities, to the poor, or distribute it to friends and neighbors.
The sheep are first weighed to make sure they are about 26 stone and one year old. To ensure that the meat is halal (ritually clean) butchers slit the animals' jugular veins in one steady stroke, then offer a quick prayer -- "In the name of God, God is Great" -- while blood drains from the jerking bodies of the dying beasts.
Like so many holidays, Eid is for many a celebration of continuity and community, as families gather early in the morning to visit the graves of departed relatives, wash the tombstones, and decorate them with greenery, flowers and burning incense. But for others, the day is a reminder of the jarring loneliness of life and of sacrifices unwillingly made. In a large cemetery in West Beirut, one women showed me a photograph of her daughter, murdered three years ago when she unknowingly triggered a bomb hidden in a portable stereo that had been sent to an uncle involved in a family feud over money. The girl was 19 years-old, was studying at the Lebanese American University to be a pharmacist, and had gotten married three months earlier. "Every time I come here, I am shocked to see her name on the tomb," she said.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
December 19, 2007 2:41
"Chicago": A Modern Arabic Novel
I spent a wonderful evening in Cairo this week at the launch of the English translation of Chicago, Alaa Al Aswany's latest novel. Many blog readers will no doubt know that Al Aswany is the Egyptian author of The Yacoubian Building, published in 2002, one of the best selling Arabic novels of all time.
Alaa Al Aswany discussing Chicago at American University in Cairo
Like his earlier work, Chicago is the story of a set of Egyptians struggling with their lives. Rather than the inhabitants of a decrepit downtown Cairo apartment house, this time the characters are affiliated in one way or another with the University of Illinois where Al Aswany himself studied dentistry in the mid-'80s. Al Aswany thus not only gives us a relatively uncommon novelistic treatment of the lives of Arab expatriates in the West, but he provides a rare --and largely sympathetic-- Arab-drawn fictional portrait of a country that has aroused deep resentments in the Middle East especially since 9/11.
With a plot that is discouraging yet offers hope, and characters that are so human in their contradictions, flaws and weaknesses, Al Aswany again succeeds in crafting the kind of universal tale that brought The Yacoubian Building such literary acclaim. Chicago, also, dwells on social decay and the state's role in it, which led one of the guests at the book launch to remark that like The Yacoubian Building it can be read as a pessimistic story. Yet Al Aswany was eager to explain that while that may be true, his aim in writing his novels is to convey the message of tolerance, understanding and forgiveness, and to "maintain our ability to dream." That he succeeds in doing that is a sign of hope itself.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 18, 2007 9:19
Unhappy Holidays in Northern Iraq
For a while, the crisis between Turks and Kurds in northern Iraq looked like it was going to hibernate for the winter. There had been no major clashes between the Turkish army and the Kurdish Works Party (or PKK) -- a radical group composed of mainly of Turkish Kurds fighting the Turkish government -- since the militants released eight captured Turkish soldiers in early November. And as snowy weather approaches, it looked less and less likely that the Turkish army would stage an offensive against PKK bases in mountainous northern Iraq.
So Sunday's attack by Turkish warplanes against PKK targets inside Iraq, and the invasion today -- just a day before the Muslim Eid holiday -- by some 300 ground troops came as something of a shock, even if the operations are largely for show. The air strike wounded six people and killed a woman whom Iraqi Kurds officials claim was a civilian, and the 300 Turkish commandos dumped into hostile mountain terrain will be lucky if they find any of the 5,000 or so PKK guerillas in northern Iraq, let alone cramp their style. Still, despite months of diplomacy, despite the prisoner release, and despite an offer by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan of limited asylum for certain PKK members, the raids are a sign that Turkish military is going to deal with the Kurdish problem the old fashioned way: by making it worse.
Turkey was waged a 30-year civil war with the PKK to no avail. Meanwhile, the PKK has since dropped its original demands for a separate Kurdish nation to break away from Turkey and now claims it wants to give up armed struggle in return for security guarantees and greater rights for Turkey's Kurdish minority. But the Turkish government has never negotiated directly with the PKK. Even Erdogan's most recent amnesty offer wouldn't have included those guerillas actually doing the fighting.
Now the conflict is spreading into northern Iraq, where the PKK have operated since the 1990's, when the region was a lawless wasteland. Though Iraq's Kurdish minority, which now administers northern Iraq, has turned the region into the most secure part of the country, their leaders say there is little they can do against a determined insurgent group in remote mountain hideaways, and have asked the United States to push Turkey for a political solution.
But instead of encouraging the Turks to negotiate with the PKK, the US -- which officially lists the PKK as a terrorist group -- is enabling the conflict. While pressing Turkey to stage only limited attacks inside Iraq, it gave the Turkish air force permission to enter Iraqi airspace, which is monitored by the US Air Force from its base in Qatar. Now a precedent has been set. If fighting between the PKK and Turkey continues -- as it probably will this spring -- will the US be able to prevent Turkey from attacking Iraq in greater and greater force? Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurdish leaders have ordered their peshmerga fighters to prevent any more Turkish solders from entering Iraq, setting the stage for possible clashes between Turks and Iraqi Kurds. Which may be exactly what the Turkish army -- which has grown increasingly hostile to the emergence of Kurdish power in northern Iraq -- is hoping for.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
December 18, 2007 5:17
Arabic Music's Golden Oldies
Listening to Majida al-Roumi's "I Dream of You, O Lebanon" got me in the mood for some more YouTube tunes.
Especially for everybody celebrating Eid al-Adha this week, here are snippets from two of the greats of Arabic music, Umm Khalsoum singing the eternal "Enta Omri" ("You Are My Life") and Farid Atrash, the "master," strumming the oud. (Our thanks to sherief222 and youboob83.)
Happy holidays...
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 18, 2007 1:51
"Qatif Girl" is Pardoned
Welcome news in the story of the 20-year-old Saudi woman given a harsh prison sentence herself after being raped by seven men in 2005: King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud has pardoned "Qatif Girl."
Ebtihal Mubarak, who monitors human rights for Arab News in Jidda, also reports that a disciplinary case against the victim's lawyer, Abdul Rahman al-Lahem, has been dropped and that his confiscated license to practice law will be returned to him.
Due partly to more aggressive than usual press coverage inside the Kingdom, the rape victim's case made headlines around the world and prompted widespread criticism of Saudi justice, including a rare rebuke from President Bush two weeks ago. "My first thoughts were these: What happens if this happened to my daughter?" Bush said at a press conference on Dec. 4. "How would I react? And I'd have been very emotional, of course. I'd have been angry at those who committed the crime, and I'd be angry at a state that didn't support the victim."
The case involves seven men who were convicted of raping the victim a total of 14 times when she was an 18-year-old 11th grade high school student in Qatif, in eastern Saudi Arabia. According to Arab News, the attack reportedly occurred after she arranged to meet alone--in contravention of ultra strict Saudi religious law-- with a former boyfriend who may have been threatening to distribute old photos of the woman.
She was given a sentence of 90 lashes when the verdicts were initially handed down in 2006, but on appeal the punishment was increased to 200 lashes plus six months jail time. Last month, Human Rights Watch quoted an official at the General Court of Qatif saying that the court had increased the sentence on Nov. 14 because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."
By issuing his pardon on the eve of Eid al-Adha, a customary occasion for royal humanitarian gestures, Abdullah clearly sought to defuse growing international criticism of Saudi Arabia at a time when the Kingdom has regained a prominent role in various Middle East issues, including the Arab-Israeli peace process. It's likely that Abdullah would also have been concerned about a widening Sunni-Shi'ite schism over the case. Saudi justice is administered by ultra conservative Wahhabi Sunni religious scholars, while the rape victim herself is from the Kingdom's Shi'ite minority.
Quoting King Abdullah, Saudi Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Ibrahim Al Alshiekh said that the woman had been "subject to psychological and physical pressures that could be considered enough punishment."
So while welcome, it's looking too much like the king did the right thing for the wrong reasons. If nothing else, the case of "Qatif Girl" is a good example of how strict Wahhabi legal doctrine barring such behavior as unrelated men and women mixing together is incompatible with 21st century life, including in Saudi Arabia, not to mention with international standards of individual liberty. Whether Abdullah's pardon is a signal to the Saudi government and religious establishment to undertake reform very much remains to be seen.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 17, 2007 12:31
"I Dream of You, O Lebanon"
The second anniversary of the assassination of our courageous Lebanese colleague Gebran Tueni was marked last week... by another assassination in Beirut, of army commander Francois al-Hajj and another deepening of Lebanon's dangerous political vaccuum. Yet, it was also observed with a moving tribute by the wonderful Lebanese singer Majida al-Roumi.
A friend pointed out to me that the speech is on YouTube, where as of this morning more than 100,000 people had viewed it. Majida's words are in Arabic, but I reckon even if you don't understand the language, you can hardly hear them with dry eyes or without feeling the passion Lebanese have for their country and their desperation to live in freedom and peace.
Here's another clip, of Majida's 1975 hit, "I Dream of You, O Lebanon," from the joyous concert of hope that Majida gave in Martyr's Square during the 2005 "Cedar Revolution."
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 15, 2007 7:52
The Emperor and the Washerwomen
The Palestinians say that the best olives and apricots in the Holy Land came from a hill near Bethlehem that has since been seized and turned into a Jewish settlement known as Har Homa.
Even after the Annapolis summit, when the three big players—the U.S., Israel and the Palestinian Authority—promised to really, honestly, truly, work to make peace, the settlers at Har Homa were revving up their bulldozers. That’s because the Israeli Housing Ministry, run by a buddy of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, signed off on the construction of another 307 units in Har Homa.
This certainly angered the Palestinians, and even U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rica was a little miffed about this brazen disregard of the Annapolis spirit. It turned out, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz, that two middling bureaucrats gave the go-ahead to Har Homa. And Olmert shrugged his shoulders and said there wasn’t much he could do about it. That seemed a pretty lame excuse for the prime minister of Israel and commander in chief.
It reminded me of something I’d heard in Delhi about the Last Mogul Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar II. He came to the throne late, in his mid-sixties, when his long beard was streaked with silver. He was regarded as a poet and Sufi mystic, but a powerful ruler he wasn’t. By the 1850s, the British had reduced his once great empire to all but the Red Fort in Delhi where he resided with his threadbare courtiers and harem girls. One day, while writing a poem, he was distracted by hollering and fighting down by the Yamuna river. Two washerwomen on the riverbank were pushing and yelling at each other. When they looked up and saw Zafar leaning over the balcony, they of course bowed low. After all, his titles included: His Divine Highness, He Who Is Surrounded by Angels, Mightiest King of Kings. “Please, Your Highness, Will you not rule to settle this argument?” And Zafar replied, “ I’m sorry, I was once the ruler of all India and beyond, but now my domain only extends to the walls of my palace. I can do nothing, ladies” And the sad emperor turned back to his un-finished poem.
Zafar had an excuse. The British had stripped away all his power and even struck his face off the Indian rupee. But Olmert doesn’t have that excuse. Is Israel’s mighty Prime Minister to be stymied by two bureaucrats?
--by Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
December 14, 2007 3:55
Khatami's Comeback?
The buzz of Tehran this week is the rebuke of President Ahmadinejad and the hard-line policies he represents by his normally cautious, mild-mannered predecessor, Mohammed Khatami. Speaking to students at Tehran University on Student Day in Iran, where protesters recently called Ahmadinejad a "dictator," Khatami delivered backhanded criticism on various international and domestic issues, like presidential provocations that have increased international pressure on Iran and the jailing of Iranian students.
Interestingly, Khatami also issued a frontal attack on Ahmadinejad's Robin Hood economic policies, suggesting they were designed to win popularity but in fact were ill-conceived, could wreck the economy and therefore are harmful to the poorer classes Ahmadinejad claims to champion. "It is this kind of 'justice' that which makes the concept null and void of all essence," he said. "It is this 'justice' which squanders the resources of the nation and spreads poverty, the same resources which ought to be used create wealth.
Khatami said political freedom was more important than slogans about economic justice. In that vein, he sharply criticized the Guardian Council, the body that has routinely disqualified Iranian reformists from participating in elections and thereby tilted the outcome in favor of conservatives and hard-liners. "What right do some have to make decisions on behalf of the people and disqualify those trusted by the people on the grounds that their eligibility was not approved by six or 12 individuals?" Khatami asked.
Khatami, it seems, is out to change his reputation in Iran for being a well-meaning politician who lacks political courage. His remarks suggest he will take a leading role in mobilizing reformists against Ahmadinejad and his fellow hard-liners in parliamentary elections scheduled for March.
Although it has not coalesced into a formal alliance, there has been a lot of talk that Khatami will be part of a three-way anti-Ahmadinejad bloc that includes two other major figures, former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and former Speaker Mehdi Karroubi, both of whom lost to Ahmadinejad in the last presidential contest.
There's no sign that Khatami will actually be a candidate for president once again in the 2009 election, but he would stand a good chance to defeat Ahmadinejad if he did run. Despite widespread disillusionment that he did not fulfill his promise as president, Khatami remains one of the country's most popular figures. In the 1997 and 2001 elections, he captured more than 20 million votes each time in the first and only rounds of voting. By contrast, Ahmadinejad won less than 6 million votes in the first round of the 2005 election, and 17 million in his victorious runoff. Since leaving the presidency, Khatami established the International Institute for Dialogue among Cultures and Civilizations.
An Iranian leader with that kind of orientation can do a lot to improve Iranian relationships with the rest of the world. Khatami did achieve something in that respect as president, significantly mending ties with the Arab world and Europe. He failed to make much progress with the U.S., though. Despite his government's cooperation in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, President Bush decided to confront Iran as one of the three designated states in his Axis of Evil speech three months later. That confrontation continues and it's one the current Iranian president relishes.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 14, 2007 3:28
A Soldier's Funeral
Though it is still a mystery who killed General Francois Hajj -- perhaps Lebanon's second most important general -- in a car bomb attack on Wednesday, that hasn't stopped those waging ideological war in Lebanon from claiming him as a martyr for their own causes. Michel Aoun, a Chritsian leader of the Syrian supported opposition -- and Hajj's former commander -- implied that Lebanon's own American-backed security services were responsible for the murder. But U.S. President George Bush, speaking from the White House yesterday, hailed Hajj as a tireless foe of Syrian interference in Lebanon, suggesting that the Syrian regime had a hand in Hajj's death.
But the reality is (as usual) more complicated. Hajj was perhaps the most prominent of this country's generals who maintained good relations with both sides the anti-Syrians and the anti-Americans. (Hajj was an out-spoken opponent of Israel.) Most candidates to succeed him -- and to succeed top general Michel Sulieman should he become president -- are more partisan figures. Hajj's death could open the door to a political struggle inside the army. Which is bad news because the army -- though it is staffed by many officers trained by the Syrians in the days when the Baathists next door occupied Lebanon -- is one of the few truly national institutions, made up of all of Lebanon's fractious sects and factions. So perhaps whoever blew up Hajj was hoping to spread Lebanon's ongoing political crises into yet another arena.
The army's top brass was out in force today for a funeral mass in honor of Hajj, held at a basilica overlooking the headquarters of Lebanon's Maronite church and the sea below. Despite the wet weather, mourners lined the highway to salute the hearse and throw rose petals and rice at the motorcade escorting Hajj's coffin south to be buried in his hometown near the border with Israel. No doubt the fact that that unknown assassins could so easily kill one of the country's top military leaders has many of them wondering if anyone is safe.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
December 12, 2007 10:42
Another Assassination in Lebanon
Only days ago it seemed as if Lebanon was moving past its latest crisis. The country's feuding factions, backed by America on the one hand and Syria on the other, had reached an agreement on a candidate to fill the country's empty presidency. All that was left was to pass a constitutional amendment allowing the chief of the army, General Michel Sulieman, to become the head of state, a position normally barred to serving military officers. A slight thaw in relations between America and Syria -- as symbolized by Syrian participation in the Annapolis peace conference -- seemed to presage an easing of tension in Lebanon.
But now it seems that the country is teetering one again. This morning, the chief of operations of the Lebanese army was killed in a bomb blast along with at least four other people in the outskirts of Beirut. And on Monday, parliament once again delayed the presidential vote, while rival factions appear to be returning to their hard line positions.
The assassination of Brigadier General Francois Hajj in Babdaa, a town that holds both the presidential palace and military headquarters, is the latest in a string of assassinations that have plagued the country since 2005. Unlike previous victims, most of whom were anti-Syrian politicians and journalists, Hajj had no overt political affiliation. However, he was one of the leading candidates to head the army if Sulieman is elected president, and he was also instrumental in leading the battle against Islamic militants in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp this past summer.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
December 10, 2007 11:05
Putin lures back Russian Jews from Israel
When the faltering Soviet Union opened its exit gates, over a million Jews flocked to Israel. They are now Israel’s top ice-skaters and chess masters and its most glamorous models. Soviet doctors and nurses staff many Israeli hospitals. They have their own television channels and newspapers, and their own billionaires and rough-edged politicians.
Now Vladmir Putin wants them back, it seems. The Israeli daily Haaretz on Monday ran an excellent expose claiming that under the guise of a Russian culture center in Tel Aviv, headed by a former KGB spy and a noted Hebrew expert, Putin is trying to lure back the Russian professionals who left for Israel in the mid-1970s and onwards. Haaretz claims that Putin established a group called “the Sons of the Homeland” to keep open links between Mother Russia and its wayward children. The daily says that over 3 million Russian-speaking Jews are scattered over five continents, but many of the ones that Putin wants back –-those with education and entrepreneurial savvy, not to mention lots of cash-- are concentrated in Israel.
So, is it working? Haaretz doesn’t explain what enticements the Russian cultural center seems to be offering, other than better wages and swift nationalization. But the paper cites statistics from Israel’s Immigration Ministry showing that 100,000 Jews from the ex-USSR have moved back to Russia and the Ukraine, and another 70,000 Israelis are living in Moscow, but hanging on to their old passports in case the Russian economy sours.
While this is going on, the Israelis are busy in Russia trying to get more Jews to emigrate. But not all Soviet Jews that ended up in Israel are, well, that Jewish. An Israeli mayor told me that when he assisted at the burial of a soldier killed during the 2006 Lebanon war, he saw the deceased’s mother crossing herself –as did many of the dead soldier’s comrades and buddies. Estimates say that up to 300,000 of the ex-Soviets who ended up in Israel may not be entirely kosher. They fudged documents claiming Jewish ancestry. And that may explain why a few Russian teenagers set up their own neo-Nazi gang and vandalized a synagogue and a graveyard. Those are the ones that Israeli would like to see queuing up outside the new Russian Cultural Center for a ticket to Siberia.
--by Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
December 10, 2007 5:13
Saintly Bernard vs. Colonel Gaddafi
Monsieur Kouchner, spare us the sanctimony. The French foreign minister's boss, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, extended a ground-breaking invitation to Libya's Moammar Gaddafi, who arrived in Paris today on a state visit. Faster than you can say bienvenue en France, Sarkozy's secretary of state for human rights publicly warned that "Colonel Gaddafi must understand that our country is not a doormat on which a leader, terrorist or not, can come and wipe the blood of his crimes off his feet. France should not receive this kiss of death." Backing her up, Bernard Kouchner chimed in about how terribly pained he personally was, "being a human rights activist," to have to welcome such a man as Gaddafi on French soil.
Without doubt, of course, the crimes with which Gaddafi's regime has been accused over the years, including the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, are reprehensible. But Gaddafi engineered a rapprochement with the West in 2003 that included abandoning Libya's weapons of mass destruction and paying compensation to the victims of terrorism laid at Gaddafi's door. It was an unsatisfying deal for many, from Libyan democracy advocates to the families of the terror victims, but it was a deal endorsed even by President Bush in the interests of regional stability. Sarkozy predecessor Jacques Chirac and then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Gaddafi in Tripoli and the U.S. reopened its embassy in Libya. Kouchner quite rightly says that what should most concern us now is the Libya of tomorrow.
So, what accounts for Kouchner's hypocrisy? Let's be blunt about it. Gaddafi is in France on a shopping trip, which could include $4.37 billion worth of Airbus planes as well as billions more for a civilian nuclear power program. Sarkozy has also milked Gaddafi to burnish his diplomatic record as well. His invitation to Gaddafi was extended last summer when he was only too glad when Gaddafi allowed the new French leader to claim credit for Libya's decision to free Bulgarian nurses after an eight-year incarceration over AIDs contamination. The nurses flew out of Tripoli with much fanfare on a private jet under the escort of then-Madame Sarkozy.
Kouchner is certainly entitled to his views on Gaddafi. But do insults and hypocrisy benefit the practice of diplomacy? Would it be good diplomacy, perhaps, if the current Iraqi government invited Sarkozy to Baghdad and then publicly repudiated France over its long-standing support for Saddam Hussein's bloody regime?
I wonder if Kouchner is working up an apology to the nation of Algeria, which France occupied for 130 years? Kouchner says he doesn't forget Gaddafi's victims, but has he forgotten the thousands of Algerian freedom fighters who were massacred by French soldiers for daring to demand their independence? The French National Assembly took a novel approach recently: a law to require school history teachers to stress the "positive" aspects of French colonialism, including in Algeria.
As it turns out, just last week Kouchner's boss had a golden opportunity to help put things right when he paid his first visit to Algeria as president--looking for billions in French contracts, of course. Sarkozy called colonialism "unjust" but equated France's "terrible crimes" with those of Algeria's resistance- the occupier and the occupied, it seems, were equally guilty for that one century plus occupation. Sarkozy pointedly refused to honor a two-year-old Algerian request for an apology for the crimes France committed in Algeria.
If Kouchner finds Gaddafi so repugnant and France so morally superior, then there's a very simple answer: don't invite Gadafy to Paris and don't try to make some big bucks out of it. Maybe it's a better idea to take advantage of Gaddafi's striking transformation, encourage further positive steps in public, lecture him in private and tie diplomatic and economic engagement to tangible progress in democracy and human rights. Perhaps Kouchner's real problem is not Gaddafi but his own personal struggle, between the side of him that loves the moral purity of "being a human rights activist," and the other side that loves power too much--with its moral ambiguities and corrupting influences.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 10, 2007 4:14
Win a Trip With Andrew Lee Butters
If columnist Nicholas Kristof can use the New York Times to troll for college-age interns, I might as well use this website to announce a job opening.
I'm looking for a paid, full-time, Lebanese reporting assistant/translator for help on articles, a book project, and administrative work.
If you are a regular reader of the Middle East Blog, you probably have a good idea of the kind of work we would do together, and the qualities I'm looking for in an assistant. Candidates should be adventurous, kind and curious, as well as smarter and more organized than I am. (The latter qualities shouldn't be too difficult to find.) He or she should also be bilingual in Arabic and English, have a degree from an American, British, or top Lebanese university, and previous experience in journalism or a demonstrable knowledge of regional politics and culture.
Your first test as a would-be reporter is to find my e-mail address and send me a cover letter and resume.
Those of you who enjoy pointing out the flaws in my writing and the failings in my logic: here's your chance to set me straight. But please, you have to live in Lebanon. Sorry, Jacob Blues.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
December 9, 2007 5:53
NIE: Tehran's Choice Now
Besides kicking off a taboo-breaking debate in the U.S., the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program four years ago should be an opportunity for Iranians to have a new discussion about the U.S. Iranian leaders, too, should re-evaluate how their past mistakes have contributed to the 28-year Cold War with Washington, and whether improving relations with the U.S. would serve Iran's national interests.
A few observations:
Death to the Great Satan! The revolutionary battle cry doesn't get much traction in Iran any longer. Sure, it makes for good television news footage or a good headline, but it resonates with perhaps no more than 15% of Iranians--approximately the percentage that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can count for his die-hard support. Iranian hard-liners and moderates have to start calculating the damage the rhetoric does to any hopes they have of fully normalizing Iran's relations with the West and particularly the U.S. As well as the damage that is done to its national interests by its provocative support for radical Arab groups like Hizballah and Hamas that help keep Arab-Israeli peace out of reach. If the U.S. can't expect Iran to respond to confused stick-carrot messages, nor should Iran expect American politicians to seek a rapprochement as long as Iran projects its militant face alongside its pragmatic one.
National interests. Nobody should expect a popular revolution like Iran's to leave no political wake. The nationalist and religious fervor stirred up by the overthrow of the shah and the internal and regional battles that followed made it difficult for Iran to have normal relations with the U.S. But nearly 20 years after the end of the destructive Iran-Iraq War, Iran has made extraordinary progress in establishing itself as a serious and semi-normal country. Despite the hue and cry over Ahmadinejad's remarks on Israel and the Holocaust, Iran has greatly improved relations with nearly every country except for the U.S. and Israel. Despite the nuclear controversy, Iran has a much better track record of cooperating with the IAEA than many other countries, including Israel. But if Iran hopes to continue that trend toward being a respected nation, it will have to make some hard choices about whether to unambiguously work toward a rapprochement with the U.S. With its nuclear brinksmanship, Iran may have come perilously close to being targeted for a U.S. attack, a scenario that would have done neither the world nor Iran any good. Iran still faces the prospect of tightened sanctions, a move led by the U.S. because of continuing fears about Iran's nuclear ambitions as well as its support for violent groups. All of Iran's political factions have much to gain by Iran's true return to the community of nations. The domestic battles in Iran should be over which politicians will take the necessary steps, rather than whether to take those steps.
Iranian moderates? Iranian politicians, to be fair, have probably engaged in a more thoroughgoing internal debate about whether to improve ties with the U.S. than American politicians have done vice versa. In Iran the risks of doing so are much higher, in fact, given the poisonous nature of Iran's domestic politics. Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the towering figures of the revolution, flirted with rapprochement as far back as the mid-'80s during Irangate, when Reagan White House envoys brought him a cake and a Bible amid the arms-for-hostages talks. During the Clinton administration, he sought to bring U.S. oil companies to Iran, only to be rebuffed by the White House. His successor Mohammed Khatami extended an olive branch to the "great American people" in a CNN interview early in his presidency, but feared a bolder move would provoke hard-liners opposed to his reform agenda. Then suddenly came Iran's offer of a "grand bargain" with the U.S. in 2003 that may have had the approval of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Khamenei. Now the vindication that Iran claims in the NIE as well as the latest IAEA findings give Tehran a foundation to explore a particularly face-saving peace with Washington. Iranians should now fully absorb that while Cheney and hard-liners favor regime-change, Condi Rice, the Baker-Hamilton commission, Barack Obama and others have advocated dialogue with Iran.
The Amhadinejad Factor. Khatami's successor has done everything he could to exploit U.S. hostility to Iran for his own political popularity. There may be a danger that Ahmadinejad gloats too much about Washington's climb-down. In a television speech last week, he crowed that "a coup de grace was fired at all the dreams of the ill-wishers, and the righteousness of the Iranian nation was proved once again." Yet, even Ahmadinejad seems to see the limits of America-bashing's appeal among the electorate. In the last year or so, he has penned long letters to America in general and Bush in particular, complaining about U.S. policies, to be sure, but seeking to come off as a humanist who has America's future well-being at heart. It doesn't get much attention, because his hard-line persona is so indelible, but Ahmadinejad is on record advocating that the U.S. and Iran turn a page in their relationship. When I asked him in an interview in Tehran one year ago this week whether he regretted that the'79 hostage crisis stands in the way of better relations, he replied, "We have now 25 years behind us. We should think of the future, not about the past." When I asked him if we wanted to talk to the U.S. or not, he said, "I do believe that if the government of the United States changes its behavior, the conditions will be changed. Then a dialogue could take place." Now, Ahmadinejad has the chance to make a historic opening with Washington and get all the credit for it. GIven that better relations with the U.S. would be very popular among Iranians generally, that would help make him the man of the people he considers himself to be.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 8, 2007 8:50
The Leveretts, the White House and Iran
I have a few more things to say about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, but this Salon piece by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett deserves special attention.
Flynt Leverett, who left government service after the Iraq invasion, is a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council. Hillary Mann Leverett is a former Foreign Service officer who dealt with Iran. Collectively, they have spent 20 years in national security posts in Republican and Democratic administrations.
Out of government posts, they have written frequently on U.S.-Iranian relations. A year ago, the CIA heavily censored an article they wrote advocating a U.S. "grand bargain" with Iran. What they have to say now in the Salon article, and why the CIA, apparently at the direction of the White House, objected to their New York Times Op-Ed, is worth a close look.
Writing on what they believe are new questions raised by the NIE about the Bush administration's veracity in alleging Iran's nuclear threat, the Leveretts say the "real lie" is Bush's claim that "his administration has made a serious offer to negotiate with the Islamic Republic, and that Iranian intransigence is the only thing preventing a diplomatic resolution."
The Salon article goes on to chronicle how European allies initiated negotiations with Iran in an attempt to "drag" the U.S. into talks that Bush had refused to enter on his own. When the so-called EU-3 proposed a package of incentives to Iran to drop its uranium enrichment program, Bush vetoed a section that would have provided offers of a security guarantee and recognition of a regional role for Iran--rendering the package worthless from Iran's point of view.
The Leveretts maintain that only U.S. agreement to provide Iran security guarantees--for example, that the U.S. does not seek regime-change in Tehran--will entice Iran into a grand bargain, a "strategic deal" that they say Iran's collective leadership desires. They call for a profound reorientation of America's policy toward Iran, akin to the shift in China policy executed by Richard Nixon. "The Bush administration has never offered to negotiate with Tehran on any basis that might actually be attractive to the Islamic Republic's leadership," they write. As a result, they say, "Almost three decades after the Iranian revolution, the potential for the United States to engage the Iranian leadership on the basis of Iran's national interest -- and by doing so generate enormous benefits to America's strategic position-- remains unrealized."
Some questions:
Why didn't the Bush administration seriously explore the "grand bargain" offer that came its way from Iran in 2003?
Why did the White House apparently intervene in censoring the Leverett's 2006 Op-Ed on the subject of a grand bargain?
Why has Cheney continued to push for the option of a military strike on Iran when the Bush administration knew 1) that Iran had made a sweeping offer to negotiate and 2) assumptions that Iran was constructing a nuclear weapon rested, as we now know, on shaky intelligence grounds?
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 7, 2007 8:07
No, the other Axis of Evil
The Axis of Evil -- a stand-up comedy team made of three Americans of Middle Eastern descent -- passed through Beirut this week, just in time to coincide with the political farce playing out in Lebanon's parliament, which is still unable to agree upon a candidate to for the presidency, empty since last month. "Who need's a president?" said Maz, an Iranian-American, as he mocked the jaded Lebanese audience. "You've got the sea. You've got the mountains. You've got Miss Lebanon! A president would just mess things up. Tonight we party!"
Axis of Evil is known in the States for playing with the often paranoid stereotypes that Americans have about Arabs and Muslims. Ahmed Ahmed, the MC, bemoans the fact that he has such a hard time at airport security because a well-known terrorist shares the same name. But then he wonders how pissed off the the other Ahmed must be when people think he's a comedian and ask him to tell a joke. "I'm a terrorist, goddamit!"
The group's Middle Eastern tour is also getting a lot of laughs out of local foibles. Some of the funnier ones I remember include: "When Arabs hook up they never say 'Your place or mine?' They say, 'Where are your parents, and how big is your car?'" Or on how an Arab version of the TV game show "The Price Is Right!" should be called, "This Price Is Not Right!" Or how everyone in Jordan had already seen the Axis of Evil DVD when the group doesn't have a distributor in Jordan. "It's the Middle Eastern distribution system," said Ahmed Ahmed, who is Egyptian-American. "One person buys it, and everyone else copies it."
The team is hoping that by supporting emerging Middle Eastern stand-up acts, and by heaping scorn equally on all sects and creeds, they'll do their part for peace in the region. "Is there any religious group that doesn't actually think it's superior to everyone else," said Aron, the Palestinian-American. "'No, were not the Chosen People, but we do come highly recommended.'"
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
December 7, 2007 6:44
Lebanon: Still No Prez, Yet No Abyss Either
Today Lebanese politicians failed again to name a new president, postponing a parliamentary vote for the seventh time in three months. Having been on a dangerous knife-edge all year, Lebanon now has lacked a president since Nov. 23, when Emile Lahoud's term of office expired. Last week, there was another punch-up in West Beirut among students aligned to different factions. You might think that Lebanon is about to plunge into the civil war that so many people have been fearing.
But, in fact, things may be looking much better, at least in the short term. The brinksmanship going on right now isn't about confronting existential threats to one Lebanese community or another, but rather about negotiating a temporary win-win political deal that involves dividing up the spoils of government power.
The majority March 14 coalition backed by the U.S. and the minority March 8 coalition supported by Syria and Iran have actually agreed on a compromise candidate for president, Lebanese army commander Michel Suleiman.
March 8, which includes Hizballah, publicly backed Michel Aoun, a former army commander and Hizballah ally, as its choice for president. But many believe that Suleiman is Hizballah's preferred choice, first because he is not March 14's man, and second, because as a top military officer since 1998 he was close to Syria and has consistently supported Hizballah's military wing.
March 14 preferred a candidate more to the liking of Lebanon's pro-democracy forces, but threw in with Suleiman rather than allow a dangerous political vacuum to develop. The real issue now, pending some unexpected reversal, is simply dividing up the main government positions like prime minister and army commander between the political factions.
Either March 14 or March 8 could have pushed the country into a deeper crisis. The former could have insisted on using its slim majority in parliament to elect one of its own as president of the republic, the opposition be damned. The latter might have influenced the departing Lahoud to appoint a new caretaker government and hand it power, the current March 14-led government be damned. The first scenario could have produced a violent backlash, the second a dangerous constitutional deadlock.
Among the decisive new factors, perhaps, is Annapolis, the new U.S.-led effort, begun during the Maryland conference two weeks ago, to achieve a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East. It represents the Bush administration's gradual shift from idealism to realism--from pushing a democracy agenda that shows zero-tolerance for countries and groups like Syria and Hizballah to pushing a security agenda that involves bringing the Middle East's warring parties into negotiations. Syria would have made a strategic mistake by ignoring Bush's invitation to engage in talks aimed at a Syrian-Israeli accord over the Golan Heights. Seeing that the White House no longer had the stomach for brinksmanship in Lebanon, the March 14 forces threw in the towel and agreed to compromise with March 8.
That amounts to a hugely demoralizing setback for the millions of Lebanese who took to the streets on March 14, 2005 to protest Syria's military domination of Lebanon after the assassination of March 14's martyr, former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri.
Nick Blanford's time.com story about the Suleiman deal this week captured the political shift and the accompanying disappointment, quoting a senior March 14 figure saying, "The message the Americans are sending to the region is that what succeeds is terror, bombings and a total disregard for democracy. No one is going to remove the feeling from March 14 that we have been dumped by the Americans."
The fear, of course, is that the U.S. will "sell" Lebanon to Syria once again, as it did in 1990, in order to get Damascus to cooperate on broader Middle East issues--such as getting Bashar Assad to join an anti-Iran coalition, just as his father Hafez signed up for the anti-Iraq war 17 years ago.
In the short term, Lebanon can use the peace. Nobody should ever have believed that George Bush was going to bring democracy to the Lebanese. It was unrealistic to think that either March 14 or March 8 could triumph, winner take all. But to prevent a long-term disaster in Lebanon, and so that Hariri did not die in vain, the U.S. has to see through the commitments Bush made in Annapolis "to do all I can" for a just peace in the Middle East.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
December 6, 2007 11:04
NIE: Washington's Choice Now
It's a heaven-sent gift: the stunning revelation in the National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities that U.S. spy agencies believe that Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program four years ago.
There should now be a new, serious American debate about Iran. We should examine how misunderstandings have played a part in preventing past cooperation and perhaps even a rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran. We should also look at whether the Islamic regime in Tehran is one that Washington can do business with now.
A few observations on these points:
Iranian Counter-Revolution. Neoconservatives around Cheney and some Iranian exiles would love to see the Iranian government overthrown. This is wishful thinking that betrays a complete lack of understanding about Iran's 1979 revolution.
"Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran." Short of regime-change, many American hard-liners would like to put an economic stranglehold on Tehran and launch preemptive military strikes to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment capability. Much more likely than not, this would enable the hard-line elements in Iran to strengthen their hand on the grounds that the nation is under attack from foreigners. Punitive measures against Iran may actually prolong rather than end destructive Iranian interference in regional affairs and domestic repression.
Facts vs. False Assunmptions. The NIE should be a wake up call to avoid basing Iran policy on assumptions--and the most paranoid assumptions, at that--rather than on a cool reading of the facts. Cheney & Co. have been banging the war drums largely on the basis that Iran was about to go nuclear--and that this would enable the bad guys in Tehran to dominate the rest of the Middle East. But the NIE says that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that this decision indicates that "it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." Thus, it would have been a miscalculation of Iraq-War proportions, or worse, to have launched a massive strike on Iran to take out its nuclear program.
Iranian Pragmatists. The NIE supports the view that Iranian leaders are far more pragmatic as a whole than Washington has given them credit for being--in other words, they are not fanatical ideologues who cannot be reasoned with. The NIE said Tehran probably suspended its nuclear weapons and enrichment programs and allowed more intrusive international inspections in 2003 "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure" resulting from the exposure of Iran's secret nuclear programs. This "suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously," the NIE said. More importantly, it indicates that "Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs."
Condi Rice's Half-Offer. In the past two years, with the cost-benefit model in mind, the Secretary of State has wrested the upper hand in making Iran policy away from Cheney. In May 2006, she issued a landmark statement in which she offered to negotiate with Iran if Tehran suspended its uranium-enrichment program. Compared to Cheney's preference for regime-change, Rice's offer was indeed a significant olive branch. Yet for Iranians watching the U.S. quagmire in Iraq, it did not offer very much in exchange for a major tangible Iranian concession. Rice merely offered to sit down at the table in existing talks between Iran and European countries over Iran's nuclear program. Iran, in fact, has been looking for a much more significant deal with Washington; not just the prize of talking to an American diplomat, but one that shows recognition of Iran's influence and stature in the Middle East.
Chance For a Grand Bargain? Iran's offer in 2003 of a so-called grand bargain following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is evidence that influential elements in the Iranian regime are prepared to bargain seriously. It proposed many concessions from Iran's side. It offered acceptance of much tighter IAEA controls on Iran's enrichment program. In fact, later that year, Iran temporarily agreed to such controls by voluntarily accepting the IAEA's Additional Protocol. Just as significantly, Iranian diplomats offered tacit recognition of Israel, via support for the 2002 Arab peace initiative and restraining allies such as Hizballah and Hamas; support for U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq; and cooperation against Al Qaeda. In return, Iran demanded an end to U.S. hostility toward the Iranian regime, including acceptance of Iran, as the largest nation in the Gulf with 70 million population, as a regional superpower. Although the grand bargain was essentially ignored by the Bush administration, the NIE suggests that accommodating Iran's interests "security, prestige, and goals for regional influence" may be an effective way to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons quest altogether.
Washington's Choice. Recognizing Iran as a major power in the Gulf will be a bitter pill for Washington politicians to swallow. The memories of the 1979 hostage crisis and Iranian involvemen