Liz who? Ibrahim what???
Friday, April 13, 2007, 02:17I’ll cut to the chase: who the hell are Liz Cheney and Ibrahim Suleiman to opine on Syria, on who should talk to Syria, on what should be done to Syria, and on what Syria should be doing? What exactly are their credentials? Apart from family ties, that is?
Like it wasn’t bad enough having one Cheney messing up our lives, there’s now another trying to impose a very one-sided reading of just about everything going on in the Middle East – without mentioning the evil planners who caused so much suffering there (obviously, because that would mean washing the family’s dirty laundry in public). Ms. Cheney wants to tell freedom-loving readers “The truth about Syria,” which ends up being mostly a list of the assassinations of the various Lebanese who were all anti-Syria (get it?) through 6 paragraphs. That in itself is supposed to explain why “Syria” (as a whole) is guilty of these murders – who needs investigations, when you think about it?
While this summary would probably be refused by the publishers of “Middle East Politics for Idiots” (a book that I think is really needed), this is clearly not an impediment for the Washington Post and its sinking standards (including the failure to identify the author as the daughter of the Vice President), which allow for embarrassingly kitschy descriptions such as “Lebanon’s freedom forces” (March 14 for you and I) and weird analysis explaining that “the risks to you of ending Syria’s occupation will be high” when the Syrian troops had in fact already withdrawn and the "risk" had already been taken (after which it becomes "consequences"). Unfortunately, Cheney doesn’t explain who exactly in Lebanon was supposed to represent Jefferson, Adams and Madison, so knock yourselves out.
Two particular sentences cracked me up in this so-called opinion piece which doesn’t burden itself with trivial matters like facts. The first funny sentence is “Arab leaders should stop receiving Bashar al-Assad.” Because …? Because they’re not as “outlaw” as the Syrian regime? Because they themselves don't interfere or have interests in the region? Because they are beacons of democracy and freedom? Because they were actually elected to their positions? Because they are big on feminism, freedom of speech and freedom of worship? Because they apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
The second really hilarious sentence is “The Security Council should also hold Syria accountable for its ongoing violations of existing resolutions.” Can’t argue with that … if only it read “every country” instead. Of course, the country currently in violation of the highest number of resolutions is Israel (which I believe is flouting 68 resolutions at last count).
Here’s a thought. As you read Cheney’s article, especially towards the last couple of paragraphs, replace the words Syria and Syrian with Israel and Israeli, the word Damascus with Tel Aviv, and the words Lebanon and Lebanese with Palestine and Palestinian. At least it would be a lot more factual, and proven; for example, the last sentence of Cheney’s piece would read that “Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Tel Aviv while they kill Palestinian democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful.” But then, of course, the freedom forces bloggers wouldn’t be able to quote it ad nauseam as proof of America’s concern for Lebanon.
As for this Ibrahim Suleiman fellow who is really getting more suspicious, and whose only saving grace seems to be the fact that he is not listening to the Cheneys and their gang, my initial opinion of his bright ideas has merely been confirmed, or rather strengthened, after seeing him give a press conference in the King David Hotel, of all places.
The man who, may I remind you if you forgot my entry on the “picnic in the park white paper,” actually believes Dennis Ross should be given the Nobel Peace Prize, has now become the official Peace Park Plan Peddler, regardless of the ridiculous indignant denials from the Syrian regime. He clearly has the confidence to state that peace is possible withing 6 months, and to divulge that Syria refused to open a second front during Israel's barbaric assault on Lebanon last summer, a loaded declaration on which I will not comment for the moment, pending more information.
While Suleiman doesn’t mention who exactly are his contacts in the Syrian regime, it isn’t very difficult to guess; as with Cheney, the family name does ring a bell, doesn’t it? This “independent” endeavor stinks to high heaven and I don’t like it.
[ 84 comments ]
The Pelosi pandemonium
Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 14:00There are good news and bad news to report after Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus. The good news is that it seems to prove that there is no such thing as bad publicity (mostly for Syria), that more Americans are now vaguely aware of a place called Syria, and that some have even understood the meaning of “the road to Damascus” in its original and current political sense. The bad news is that many now think we actually killed John The Baptist, decapitated him and burried his head in the Omayyad Mosque.
Against my better judgement, I browsed some popular right wing blogs discussing the issue; the comments alone about Pelosi wearing a scarf as she visited Omayyad Mosque would scare the living daylights out of any normal person. When several level-headed and knowledgeable people mentioned that it was only a sign of respect, just as women wear a head cover to meet with the Pope, or as one would wear appropriate attire to enter a church or a synagogue, they would be chastised with the admonition that there is no moral equivalence between those and a mosque! To read these disparaging comments and the sheer ignorance, hatred and aggressiveness about all things Islamic, Arab and female was truly an eye opener, even for someone who follows media as closely as I do.
Still, most Republicans and neocons (including those in Lebanon) and the usual array of "independent" journalists (especially those from Lebanon) were simply infuriated by the visit. In other words, it was a highly successful PR coup for Syria, regime and country alike!
In the short term, this visit changes absolutely nothing (this is obviously not the first time members of Congress or government officials visit Syria recently), but holds many benefits for all involved, summarized herewith very superficially. The AIPAC-fearing/loving/abiding Pelosi and her cohort of Democrats show a reasonable approach to international relations (while safegarding Israel’s interests) and a willingness to reconsider America’s position, following the advice of experts (like those of the Iraq Study Group), hoping this diplomatic evidence can put Democrats back in the game as wiser strategists for Iraq. The Bush administration and its foreign policy “gurus” show that they are adamant about dealing with “rogue states” and score points against unruly Democrats, while reaping, behind the scenes, the benefits of actually engaging with Syria.
And last but not least, the Syrian regime, in all innocence, shows how indispensable it is, how right it was to be “steadfast” and how well this reflects its wisdom on all other issues. Hey, the Syrian regime can even claim to have caused ripples on Capitol Hill, in the White House, and in practically every major and semi-major publication in the US, getting Republicans and Democrats to actually debate (or at least lecture each other) on a new subject that touches on most Middle East problems. Not bad!
All of the above are milking this visit to suit their particular agenda, and it seems that all are succeeding on their own respective turfs, judging by the amount of column inches and blog entries dedicated to the affair. Fellow blogger George Ajjan, an American Republican of Syrian extraction, as he describes himself (and to whom I should clarify that I am NOT British-Syrian … and if I were, I would be Syrian-British) has a nice entry on the subject, simultaneously showing extreme distaste of Pelosi while seemingly approving the ultimate benefit of talking to Syria, if only for America’s sake.
There are numerous articles on the subject in mainstream media which I haven’t bothered to read, but I found the language of this Washington Post editorial, certainly not its usual fare, overly indignant and undiplomatic, demonstrating the significance of this whole Syriagate affair which seems to be just beginning.
For the Lebanese, of course, at least the “life loving” ones, things don’t look so rosy, regardless of their predictions of impending doom for Syria, and especially after the Arab summit which was a success for Syria no matter which way you look at it. The collective reaction of March 14 (aka they who love life, unlike the rest of us apparently) seems to have been to warn the Syrians: don’t be so smug, this just proves that you are very weak, or something to that effect. How logical.
In fact, the Daily Star insists that Syria had better not believe this fantasy, but the livid tone of the editorial seems to show that the paper itself believes the contrary, and that Syria’s isolation is effectively “caduque” (to quote the quintessential “irrelevant” and isolated leader). Still, they tell us that politicians visiting Lebanon come to “support Lebanon” and prove its importance, but politicians visiting Syria come to “send a strong message” and prove its weakness. Clutching at straws, they pick and choose the statements that will “prove” that the Hariri investigation is neither forgiven nor forgotten, that the tribunal is coming come hell or high water, and that the end is nigh. These are the people probably praying that Président Sarkozy, knowing his transatlantic political leanings and hoping the Chirac legacy will include Lebanon’s care, will conduct a smooth transition with the next American administration. (I think Sarko – and Ségo, for that matter – have more urging matters in mind, but who am I to break an illusion.) They are also the people probably hoping for “4 more years” of the same team (give or take a Bush) given the Democrats’ scandalous propensity to talk to Syrians.
And that’s the shocking truth: it’s not just about the Syrian regime … it’s about the Syrian people as well, which is definitely less amusing. Indeed, the reactions to Pelosi’s little tour of Old Damascus were often offensive, and not only in the barrage of insults she received for merely wearing a headscarf. Most commentators were beside themselves with fury at the fact that Pelosi actually talked to Syrians and was received so well by them – as visitors usually are. Obviously, such images do nothing for the continued portrayal of backward Syrians (especially as compared to their “life-loving” neighbors) and seem to show a human side they would rather leave undiscovered. In a way, it was even amusing to see how incensed they were by the warm, jovial, generous reception she got; how dare Damascus compete with more “worldly” and “sophisticated” capitals, heh? Who the hell do these Damascenes think they are, talking to Nancy Pelosi?
Nancy Pelosi’s stopover in Damascus managed to get most of America’s political and media circles to discuss Syria’s delicate situation, and to rehash the basic gripes with the country. Frankly, I was surprised to see surprise at Pelosi’s disregard for the appalling human rights situation in Syria (and only in Syria – the other countries she visited seem to be paragons of humanity). Regardless of whether or not the Speaker of the House is entitled to an opinion on the matter, what exactly did we expect from a Congress that has for the past few years fearfully acquiesced every one of Bush’s evil plans (from invasion to invasion), freedom-curtailing legislation (Patriot Act, anyone?) and liberal interpretations of law to suit specific American whims (Guantanamo to name but one)? Given their record on Israel alone, it is simply naïve to ask someone like Pelosi or Lantos to show concern for our brave prisoners of conscience, whose fate tragically continues to slip slowly from the public’s attention as the regime toys around with their lives.
As for Israel and the “message” sent or not sent via Pelosi to Syria, this is clearly an evolving story with fresh messengers popping up every now and then, but we should not underestimate the ties that bind Pelosi’s group to Israel’s advocates back home. If she had a message, it first came from Washington’s lobby, via Tel Aviv, and the bargaining over a certain price to pay probably didn’t just take place in Souq Al Hamidieh! I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss this at a later stage.
In any case, I don’t know by what strange coincidence the ICG’s latest report deals with the subject of Syrian-Israeli talks You can see for yourself, and I may or may not have the time to dissect in detail, but the short of it is that I find it ridiculous. As usual, the onus is on the other, never on Israel, to provide every single reassurance. This is not how you resolve conflicts. I had already written my objections to ICG’s Arab-Israeli conflict solution in The Guardian’s CIF; let me tell you, I am even less impressed with how they plan to treat the specific Syrian case! More soon, if I get around to it.
[ 16 comments ]
Getting away with nonsense
Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 01:22SANA has a rather strange “quote” which I’d like to share with you, quoting it verbatim: “British Magazine of "The ECONOMIST" said that Syria, by cleverness and patience of President Bashar al-Assad overcame circumstances and pressures put on her.” For once, I’m not going to comment on syntax or grammar (I give up) given that the content is actually interesting in itself. Now call me finicky, but I had already read the piece in the actual Economist to which SANA “writers” refer, and which they only discovered on Monday (somebody better tell them that it actually comes out on Fridays), titled “Has he got away with it?”
In fact, I have this week’s issue next to me on the desk, and I can assure you that the closest - and this is really stretching it – part of the article one could consider as their “source” is the following sentence: “He owes his new lease on political life to the incompetence or fatigue of his enemies, to clever diplomatic footwork and to lucky circumstances.” Not quite the same, is it? Talk about paraphrasing.
Someone at the Ministry of “Information” should do something about this; it may seem like peanuts when looking at the big picture, but media is such a vital element of politics these days. Syria gets enough flak as it is for real events and real statements: is it really necessary to go to these extremes about something anyone can check? Honestly, Syrian officials who allow this to happen deserve the ridicule they receive, but Syrian people inevitably get dumped with the lot and it's getting tiring.
I can’t remember if I mentioned it in this blog, but I once literally asked the previous Minister of Information, Mehdi Dakhlallah, to shut down the online English section of SANA until they got their act together. He told me he couldn’t fire a single person, and that there was really nothing he could do about it. (He also told me not to read Israeli papers, and I really should write more about that meeting we had! Or have I already?) I wonder if Muhsin Bilal has the same power, or lack thereof; if so, what’s the point of the ministry anyway? Circulating miscellaneous statements about visiting dignitaries (I'll eventually get to Pelosi's visit, because there are actually a couple of interesting things about it) is not much of a remit, and misquoting respected publications is just so absurd. So, Mr. Minister, what are you going to do about it?
[ 8 comments ]
Damascus and Sham’s heritage are under attack
Sunday, March 25, 2007, 19:19
There is a common denominator between the name of the new Syrian car and the continuing “modernization” in Old Damascus; the first is an incult insult, the other an irreversible injury, and both illustrate how Syrian authorities are simultaneously misappropriating the name of Sham and abusing its heritage.
I cringed when I read the name of the latest Iranian-Syrian venture: is this car assembled in Syria so magnificent that it is worthy of the name Sham, or has this historical name been so degraded, whether out of ignorance or by design, to allow its association with an ordinary, mechanical object?
It is obviously high time my country produced something other than chewing gum and paper tissues, in addition to some successful manufacturing outside the field of fast moving consumer goods (pharmaceuticals and cotton goods are such cases). It is also high time that some Syrians, at last, may begin to at least dream about owning a car one day, even though Mohamed Imadi (at the time Minister of Economy, and now in charge of setting up a Stock Exchange) once explained that cars, like houses, were a luxury.
But when the makers brainstormed (as if) to list possible names for this car, this one should not have been an option. Sham, a name bursting with significance and connotations, history and memories, passion, glory and even melancholy, is to become synonymous with a vulgar vehicle whose specifications can’t possibly do justice to the weight of meanings it carries. If this is the name chosen for a car that is merely assembled in Syria, what would they have baptized something like the TGV or Airbus? Not that we need to pose this hypothetical question, given that 40 years of Baathist education have ensured that graduates of this system are mostly concerned with faithfully parroting the slogans that will give them a passing grade, a promotion, or a lucrative connection. Pity the nation indeed …
The Syrian authorities should get over this unfortunate obsession with such pomposity that tries to hide, unsuccessfully, an inferiority complex (teamed with a highly dubious reading – and appropriation - of history) and start taking lessons from the communication professionals. Even if they don’t care about the Syrian people’s wishes, for the time being, they could at least aspire to become image-savvy, if only for the reputation of the country as a whole. When producing El Nasr, Egyptians didn’t think of calling it the Alexandria, the Ramses or the Cheops, for example. Nor did the Iranians call their original product Persepolis. Syria’s Cham Palace Hotels (with the more elegant and less awkward French spelling) can at least pretend they are offering a five star service, which I assume is not the case of this particular sham. Just think: if this is the name of the basic model, what will the top of the line, full option version be called?
All this complaining because of a mere car? Yes, because it’s emblematic of many aspects of current Syrian officialdom. The Syrian authorities keep sticking totally inappropriate, grandiose labels to undeserving things and issues. Even worse, they do not realize that this has the opposite effect, and that they are in fact over-promoting mediocrity.
Historical names like Sham, or Cham, are more suited to public libraries, opera houses or concert halls, it at all. Often, however, these don’t need such endorsements to be special: Vienna’s Staatsoper, surely one of the world’s most magnificent opera houses (or indeed buildings of any kind) or its Konzerthaus, from where the New Year’s Day concert is broadcast to tens of millions of homes every year, didn’t need to burden themselves with names from the Austro-Hungarian empire’s riches to be exceptional. More recently, in Paris, the library that François Mitterrand bequeathed to his country was simply la Très Grande Bibliothèque. None of these man-made structures or things borrowed a name laden with historical perspective, or even simply a name; perhaps the regime should rethink its naming strategy with regards to a number of items, and above all leave the historic names, and historic sites, to history. Which brings us to the injury.
The liberties taken with our historical Sham would have been upsetting and insulting enough had they been limited to the name. But both Bilad Al Sham and our present day Sham, as we fondly call our beloved Damascus, have fallen prey to questionable schemes that will cause the greatest, irreparable harm. Native Damascenes are surely not the only ones to be horrified by the flagrant abuses, in every sense of the word, that are turning this ancient oasis of conviviality into a monstrous agglomeration with no respect for the massive responsibility that history places on all civilizations and all rulers, be they chosen or self-imposed.
The so-called modernization plans for the city are the real sham here. There are no philanthropists in this story, and there are no well-meaning but misguided millionaires accidentally damaging historic quarters in order to donate a school, a hospital or modern homes for the countless needy. There are only ruthless people who keep digging deeper into the rich layers of Syria’s past, having already skimmed off the cream of Syrians’ present and future. No amount of investment and vague promises of job creations can disguise the ultimate motives, or can justify the regime’s cavalier approach with our heritage, damaging the core and the soul of our old city.
Damascus already has the dubious attribute of having one of the world’s most expensive real estate, with house prices rivaling Paris and London in certain areas of the city which are certainly out of the league of most Damascenes. Shouldn’t the government begin to concern itself with that problem first, before pretending to “improve” things elsewhere?
But the issue of Old Damascus goes beyond the rights of the people who live and work there, and who are to be uprooted and sent packing to the ever more distant, and ever more depressing, suburbs of Damascus. Indeed, this is about the rights of all Damascenes, all Syrians, and all the heirs to this fantastic heritage. This is about the intense emotions cities like Old Damascus have provoked in compatriots and Damascus lovers like Nizar Qabbani or Ulfat Idilbi, amongst numerous others, who in turn immortalized their infatuations to make us yearn even more for things we took for granted, like countless writers did before them, decades and centuries ago.
Syria’s “responsibles” are acting with complete impunity … and complete irresponsibility. They have allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to deposit piles of money for the right to “modernize” or “beautify” places that need neither modernization nor beautification. As I already mentioned in this blog last year, high fashion already found its way to The Street Called Straight and there is clearly no heads or tails to the so-called “plans” of Damascus Municipality in its blind ignorance and uncivilized attempt to appear enlightened.
Nobody has the right to treat one of the world’s oldest, if not the oldest, cities with such disrespect, greed and ignorance. No building complex or structure of any kind can justify the continued tearing down of walls that have stood the test of time, only to fall victim to a vulgar demolition crew. I have seen with my own eyes, guided by a friend who happens to be an internationally-known authority on Islamic architecture, the permanent damage done to the great Omayad Mosque, which has been disfigured by ignorant “repairs” that have not been faithful to the original. Are we going to allow such rash behavior to continue all over the old city? All our region’s heritage is priceless and should be safeguarded for future generations, but as a native Damascene I can’t hide the special place in my heart reserved for my Sham.
This online petition to save Damascus is an honest attempt to draw international attention to this problem. While I will gladly add my name to any such initiatives, hoping that UNESCO will put immense pressure on the Syrian government to prevent the destruction of a World Heritage Site, I also believe this is a battle we must fight within our borders, and this is a petition that must be taken to the highest authorities within Syria, who are now tearing down the wrong walls!
Legend has it that Prophet Mohammad refused to enter Damascus after admiring it from Mount Qassioun, as one only enters paradise once; today, tragically, he would have numerous different reasons for refusing to enter it.
Addendum: Fellow blogger Gottfried was kind enough to send a couple of links regarding the demolitions in Old Damascus, which I only saw after posting the above. Please visit his blog here for more information.
[ 67 comments ]
Syrian-Israeli peace? Not if the US has a say, and it does!
Saturday, February 24, 2007, 09:54My latest article on the Syrian-Israeli conflict came out on Thursday, before the news of Condoleezza Rice’s insistence on her government’s position. It has been revealed that the United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, as detailed in this Haaretz article. While this will undoubtedly make a lot of people happy, I was asking, rather, whether America’s actions were not really counter-productive; you be the judge.
Interestingly, on the issue of timing, this report from UPI (which for some reason mentions my father) seems to imply I wrote my article in response to the revelation.
Unless there are huge news, there will probably be very light posting, if any, until mid-March because I am travelling. But commenting is always on.
America's veto on Syrian- Israeli talks is counter-productive
For years, unlike the other thorny issues that form the Arab-Israel conflict, the status of the Golan Heights hasn't triggered a sense of urgency in any party. Strangely, this apparent nonchalance also applies to Syria.
Apart from a brief joint Syrian-Egyptian effort in 1973 to retrieve territories invaded by Israel in 1967, the important battles in the Syrian-Israeli conflict have not been fought on the Golan Heights, but in other arenas and even through proxies. This doesn't mean that its importance has not been recognized or that resolving the issue has not been attempted; numerous interventions by successive American administrations have come and gone, but breakthroughs were always prevented by the changing agendas of the people who could make them happen.
Forty years on, and 15 years after an unprecedented peace process was launched with the Madrid Peace Conference, we seem to have reached an inexplicable impasse again. While Syria has repeatedly indicated it was willing to restart negotiations unconditionally (implying the progress made with the so-called Rabin deposit and the near-agreement with Barak at Wye River could be scratched), Israel has time and again rejected these advances, fully supported by the US, in an erratic and ambiguous attitude serving no long-term purpose.
More recently, any chance of Israeli dedication to the matter has been completely put to rest by the intransigence of the Bush administration, which instructed all its allies to turn a cold shoulder toward Syria, hoping to impose a new isolation. The present administration, in fact, has engineered the most significant change in American policy toward Syria since the 1980s, a change that predates both the Lebanon file beginning with UNSC Resolution 1559 and the invasion of Iraq, the two main current points of contention between the US and Syria. After 9/11, and after having accepted Syrian intelligence cooperation, Washington was transformed from a sponsor of the Syrian-Israeli peace track into a promoter of the Syria Accountability Act.
America's unjustified indifference to the issue of the Golan Heights and its shameless selectiveness in applying international law are neither new nor surprising, given its life-long blind support of Israel. In the circumstances surrounding the Middle East today, however, such behavior is foolish and counter-productive, for a peace settlement with Syria is a prerequisite to comprehensive calm.
The Bush administration has accused the Syrian regime of every possible crime and misdemeanor in the region, blaming Damascus for problems in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, to mention only the most pressing issues. If Washington is simply looking for a scapegoat, one can only wonder about the benefits of such conduct. But if it really believes that Syrian actions are that powerful, then that is all the more reason to "force" Syria to behave according to American parameters. This could be done in one of two ways: threats, pressure and sanctions (the current modus operandi of the Bush administration), or engagement and promises of mutual benefits. In other words, for the US, Syria can either be beaten into submission, which hasn't been effective until now, or it can be enticed somewhat into the American sphere of influence.
It has been suggested that "offering" negotiations on the Golan Heights in return for Syrian assistance on other problematic fronts could help achieve several American goals in the region, including a divorce between Syria and Iran, a distancing from Palestinian radical factions, a relaxation of open interference in Lebanon and, most importantly, a pro-active role in the pacification of Iraq. But simultaneously, there are allegations that the Syrian regime is not serious about peace and only wants to escape isolation by negotiating, which is the line that Washington has chosen as its premise.
Such reasoning, such polarization into "us or them", only serves to perpetuate the deadlock. Syria is being accused of wanting to negotiate for negotiations' sake, but Israel and the US themselves are only talking peace to achieve other goals.
Furthermore, the long-awaited return of the Golan Heights to Syria should not be marketed as a reward offered to Syria for "good behavior" in other arenas. Unless this conflict is resolved to the letter of the international law that clearly defines its ownership and its borders, the US will only be playing with fire. Turning a national right into a potential fringe benefit is bad politics, especially when the peddler has repeatedly proven its bias in the case.
There never was a bad time to rekindle a peace process, especially in a region where lack of peace doesn't merely entail frosty relations, but rather ongoing hostilities. Every possible scenario has already passed: active war, quiet non-belligerence and non-peace, rightist and leftist governments in Israel, on and off American involvement, bilateral and multilateral negotiations, resolutions and peace initiatives. The only thing that hasn't been tried yet is compelling Israel to commit to international law and United Nations resolutions; in the case of Syria, this means UNSC Resolutions 242, 338 and 497, among others.
Sooner or later, Israel must give back the land it has illegally invaded and annexed, an inevitability that the Israeli political class understands full well. Creative solutions to circumvent the obligatory full return of the Golan Heights (such as the dubious non-paper revealed recently by Haaretz) cannot work, and yet Washington seems to object even to that. By needlessly perpetuating the status quo, and by rejecting the sound advice offered by the Iraq Study Group to engage with Syria, isn't Washington foolishly shooting itself in the foot? - Published 22/2/2007 © bitterlemons-international.org
Rime Allaf is associate fellow at London's Chatham House.
[ 25 comments ]
Flag fatigue and flawed fancies
Thursday, February 22, 2007, 22:51Syria and Lebanon watchers know that March is becoming a busy month politically, even somewhat crowded, what with the movements of “March 8” (a defining date both for the Baath and for Hizbullah), “March 14” and now, not to be outdone, "March 11." While the March 11 date is in itself part of the movement’s raison d’être, and thus understandable, an even better date for a regional movement might be “March 21,” to capitalize on the notion of spring and rebirth (rebirth from the rebirth of the Baath itself, of course). In the Arab world, March 21 is also Mother’s Day, which can bring countless positive connotations to a movement of change from Big Brother towards the compassionate realism of Mother. Something like March 21 sounds nice for a real Renaissance, wouldn’t you say?
There’s still the availability of other months, such as February for instance, although it is also gearing up to be full of political activities and ever more daring (some might say suicidal) statements of position, which is necessarily not a bad attribute for a political movement in normal circumstances. Unfortunately, most of these activities were manifested with the tiresome and highly unoriginal flag waving mania. While I will always continue to virtually wave the Palestinian flag (or at least pin it right here on this blog), I confess that both Lebanese and Syrians have turned me off flags for a long time. I don’t think I can bear anymore to see crowds of any political camp, on either side of the border, robotically waving flags in their thousands, identical photos in their hundreds, and chanting ever more hair-raisingly kitschy anthems to one cause, to one leader, to one nation … or to another. All this for a massive deadlock which neither side is capable of tipping. For all the outside support each side is getting, for all the promises of civil disobedience it is quite obvious that Nasrallah couldn’t deliver on his promises (internally, that is) – apart from creating a total freeze that has merely upset even many of his own supporters - and that Siniora is even less capable of “prime ministering” the country, no matter how his superiors push him.
So how long can this corny “my crowd is bigger than your crowd” game go on? I don’t know about you, but I’m all flagged out. And all speeched out as well, especially after having rediscovered that the Lebanese do empty rhetoric (Arabist, nationalist and other) as competently as your leading Baathist, as boringly as your leading regime sycophant, and as convincingly as SANA. Could Saad Hariri have been any less uninspiring? Instead of moving forward, everyone seems to be stepping backward in time and adopting the most ridiculous steadfastness (oh, that hated word) and self-righteousness.
The latter, of course, is somewhat difficult to achieve when the speaker’s entire brain seems to be occupied by the “originality” of the insults being hurled across the border ... and being hurled straight back of course. I think this last point is worth examining, and not because it is unheard of for members of one regime to attack the president of another, and a “brotherly” country to boot, the symbol (whether we like him or not, and I don’t) of a cause many of us hold dear. You surely all remember Mustapha Tlass notoriously calling Yasser Arafat the son of 60,000 … well, you probably saw it for yourself since it was a televised speech. So this is not totally new.
But in the case of the cohort of warlords (mainly Jumblatt and Geagea) going to such extremes, one has to wonder: do the March 14 leaders know something we don’t know? The categorical crude denunciations of Bashar Assad imply that they are totally confident that they never need to work with him, to talk to him, or to negotiate with him again. Rightly or wrongly, they seem confident that there will be an international tribunal, under Chapter VII even, and that the Syrian regime will be found guilty of Hariri’s assassination. At the very least, they are behaving and orating according to this scenario, throwing caution to the wind and not leaving place for alternative readings of the situation.
For all their supposed experience with the Syrian regime, it seems to me that these people simply don’t know with whom they’re dealing! If I were in their shoes, I would not burn all my bridges – especially knowing the history of the region.
It’s true that the Syrian regime appears to be doing everything it can to avoid the tribunal, an attitude most eager analysts are taking as a de facto admission of guilt. While this is still a big possibility, in spite of the tame technical reports submitted by Serge Brammertz, I think it is time to consider other possible explanations for the regime’s apparent obsession with sabotaging said tribunal; amongst others, there is a long list of scores the regime wants to settle.
Whatever happens, the regime will never, ever forget, let alone forgive, the Lebanese politicians/warlords who went running to Bush and Chirac and precipitated the humiliating, hurried Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon with 1559 – the first time a Security Council resolution was passed putting Syria in the wrong. Likewise, the regime will never forget, let alone forgive, the immediate, loud accusations of Syrian leaders every time something went astray in Lebanon, regardless of its actual involvement. In other words, whether or not it actually had a hand in all this chaos is moot here: the regime won’t let go of the fact that it alone was blamed so publicly by rebelling former minions. As far as the Syrians are concerned, lèse-majesté began a long time before the ridiculous insults of this February 14 crowd. The very least the Syrian regime will do, then, is thwart the plans of Lebanese opponents at every possible opportunity, and the Hariri tribunal’s centrality in the latters’ agenda makes it the perfect target. Here’s a big if: if the tribunal is indeed established, and if the Syrians are not found to be guilty, there is going to be hell to pay (regardless of the truth).
But the March 14 leaders seem to be assured of eventual victory, repeating that the Syrians are responsible for all these actions because they are isolated and weak. And here again they are wrong. How little they know the Syrian regime; it is when it feels strongest that it turns its attention to the little annoyances that have been piling up, out of pure spite sometimes. Take the example of civil society activists who have become long suffering prisoners of conscience at a time when they posed absolutely no threat to the regime (not that they had ever posed a threat). There is the worrying case of our respected friend Michel Kilo being left waiting for a process in vain, or the terrible case of Anwar Bunni who was not only beaten in jail, but who is now said to be facing the removal of his citizenship, a possibility that his Syrian lawyer colleagues didn’t deem important enough to protest, given they were too busy striking to denounce Zionist and American campaigns. Meanwhile, Aref Dalila continues to languish in solitary confinement in appalling health conditions. None of these brave men really poses a threat to the regime, but they are being hounded even in their confinement. Kilo and Bunni are particularly relevant to the “revenge for Lebanon” scenario, given that the excuse for their arrest was the Damascus-Beirut declaration - which I remind you Lebanese “activists” hardly deigned to co-sign.
Revenge is a dish best eaten cold, but there are so many instances when the regime couldn’t wait to impose the harshest punishment it could to those who dared affront it. Remember the blockade of Lebanon, and remember the subsequent easing of import restrictions on the Syrian economy, made just in time for the Lebanese one to suffer even more. And there are countless such examples, many already mentioned in this blog.
Syrian regime self-confidence continues to grow, regardless of what some people would have us believe. Is it confident enough to prepare a new law which Dardari says would make the imposition of a state of emergency significantly more difficult? I’ll believe that when I see it (not forgetting that actuals laws never meant anything when a regime crony wants to have his way), but in the meantime, I don’t really see the isolation gleefully announced in some quarters, nor the supposed fear of the regime. On the contrary, the regime feels stronger than before and even has a series of “elections” coming up to prove to the world how popular and democratically-inclined it really is. The more confident it feels, the more time and attention it devotes to its presentation. Syrian media now frequently refers to the president as “fakhamat al ra’is” and not “siyadet al ra’is” anymore – socialism and proletariat be damned. This is significant.
And Syrian television news, while we’re on the subject of media, has undergone an umpteenth exercise of modernization and development (not reform, you see, it’s not needed), changing the static reddish background (too socialist perhaps?) to a busy bluish one, imagining it is good for its credibility. They feel good, so they try to make it look good as well. Well, I’m going to go out on a limb and give the Ministry of “Information” some free marketing advice: nothing kills a bad product like good advertising. No matter how many times it is underlined. (If you don’t follow SANA regularly, you may be a lot saner than I am, but you won’t know that the verb “underline” in all its tenses is the most popular word there, at least in the “English” section where everyone is always underlining the importance, steadfastness and nobility of Syria.)
You don’t need to follow Syrian news to realize that the regime is far from cowering in its corner at the thought of an eventual Hariri tribunal. Which brings us back to the invective of February 14 and the self-confidence of March 14-ers: what do they know? They’d better hope they are right, because they now have burned all the bridges behind them, and the Syrian regime was never the forgiving type; the Syrian people know it, and the Lebanese politicians should know it too. Lebanese analysts, in the meantime, are proving to be very poor judges of the Syrian regime.
[ 52 comments ]
Syrian embassy press release on the Iraqi refugees issue
Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 15:44I wouldn’t presume to have an impact on the Syrian government (except for regularly getting a few people upset), but I can safely say, at least, that my indignation at Condi Rice’s “authorization” detailed in the previous post was eventually also felt there, at least in Washington.
The Press Secretary of the Syrian Embassy in Washington, Mr. Salkini, has kindly forwarded me this press release sent to Congress and to media outlets; the underlying message is that engagement with the US would have to be comprehensive, and that the topics of discussion would not be dictated.
I wish the London-based Syrian Media Center, or the British Syrian Society (both of which deal with the media and in which I still count a number of friends) would be as vigilant in responding to official statements or to media misrepresentations (such as The Independent's claim about the "contentious" Golan Heights).
Here is the press release as I received it.
February 14, 2007
Contrary to what the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was told last Thursday, there has been no communication between any U.S. and Syrian officials regarding the Iraqi refugees’ situation in Syria.
It is quite evident that one of the most disastrous byproducts of the U.S. occupation of Iraq is the displacement and exodus of several million Iraqis out of their homes. While the U.S. has taken in just over 450 Iraqi refugees, Syria has welcomed over 1,300,000 Iraqis, which is a tremendous burden on any country.
The time has come for the U.S. to take responsibility for its enterprise in Iraq and share in the humanitarian burden resulting from its failed policies. In the meantime, Syrians will continue to exert all measures in providing shelter for their displaced Iraqi brothers and sisters.
The Embassy of the Syrian Arab Republic, Washington
[ 37 comments ]
Beggars on Iraq, choosers with Syria
Monday, February 12, 2007, 19:42When the invasion of Iraq was being spin doctored in American and British media (remember WMDs?) and some commentators warned of a humanitarian and refugee catastrophe, they were ridiculed by the warmongers already on a high from the adrenalin of the imminent attack, labeling any sane person pointing to the folly of the enterprise “Saddam supporter.” Why were these anti-war kill-joys preventing Iraqis from liberation, wondered the neocon clan (which came to include the British Labour Party, to the frustration of the Tories who were robbed of the extreme right-wing position by Blair and who couldn’t possibly turn the opposite way)? The whole doom domino concept (war-chaos-refugees-etc.) was nonsense, we were told; Iraq would be liberated, WMDs would be found, democracy would be installed, and the only domino theory would be the one spreading happiness and justice for all. That was before the “birth pangs” theory of course.
Fast forward four years; the refugee catastrophe has exploded, and the exodus of some 2 million people (according to the UN) was most certainly not an “unforeseen” by-product of the invasion, as some media agencies with short memories would have us think. After the US and Britain embarked on this illegal, immoral and inhumane war against the country and the people of Iraq, the hope remaining in Pandora’s box has not been sufficient for many Iraqis who have fled in despair to neighboring countries.
There are around 1 million such refugees alone in Syria, facing the inevitable hardship of all refugees and a difficult period of readjustment. Unintentionally, they are simultaneously making life difficult for a good number of Syrians as well, who have suddenly seen property prices sky rocket (for rentals and sales), general inflation increase rapidly, and a new height of overcrowding in the big cities. Jaramana alone, a suburb of Damascus, has practically become an Iraqi quarter where house prices are similar to those in Damascus. According to most accounts, Syrian authorities have behaved in an exemplary manner with the refugees, treating them with compassion and affording them the same social services (including health and education) to which Syrians have access.
By way of example, “moderate” and major US ally Saudi Arabia, in contrast, is building a fence to keep out undesirable Iraqis, and other “moderate” and major US ally Jordan has been treating Iraqi refugees quite badly, denying them healthcare and education, and letting live the exploited life of illegal aliens. With its generosity applauded by the head of UNHCR, Syria finds itself in the other, the “right” extreme here. But after a long period of laissez-faire, continuing to treat all Arab nationals equally, and not as foreigners needing visas, Syrian authorities have begun to apply visa restrictions to try to manage a situation that is spiralling out of control. Authorities have seemingly promised that Iraqis would not be deported or turned back, as they are in Jordan, but clearly the open-arms, no questions asked treatment is going to be regulated.
There is no doubt that the blame for this catastrophe lays squarely at the feet of the US and Britain, which is why it has actually become funny (even for regime critics) to hear officials from these two countries describe Syria as a negative force in the region, given that anything the Syrian regime actually does – or even anything it is allegedly doing – really can’t compare with the unprecedented devastation brought to us courtesy of the Anglo-American enterprise. Really, look who’s talking.
Be that as it may, whether Syria is negative, positive or neutral, the Bush administration nevertheless seems to have no choice but to liaise with this force, apparently, for lo and behold, the American Secretary of State has now declared that she has authorized talks with Syria about the refugee crisis. Authorized. In other words, Syria is allowed to help America solve its mess, and permitted to talk to its chargé d’affaires in Damascus towards that end. What an honor. Let the appreciation ceremony begin.
Washington’s infuriatingly condescending attitude is doing nothing to endear it to Syrians, and should technically endear it equally little to the Syrian regime being approached for help. Unfortunately, the likelihood of the latter hurriedly grabbing the opportunity to make proper contact on an official level is high, regardless of the official rhetoric. However, even while recognizing the reality of a unipolar world where most issues are dictated by the agenda of the superpower (who, in addition, currently happens to be our next-door neighbor), it is intolerable to imagine that Syrian citizens who have been affected directly by the war on Iraq should be grateful to America for granting them the privilege of simply talking – talking to help that same America try to manoeuver out of the refugee problem it has created.
It should be made absolutely clear, officially that is, that Syria is helping Iraqi refugees regardless of - and not because of – America’s "authorization," and that the US had better start taking responsibility for its actions, which are having a huge impact on the life of Syrians (let alone Iraqis). Like it or not, Faruq Shara’a was right when he claimed that the influx of refugees had “imposed heavy economic, social and security burdens on Syria.” The financial costs for the refugee crisis must be borne by the invaders and the occupiers alone, as they have caused this mess in the first place.
Regrettably, even when saying some of the right things, some media (this one being just an example) can’t help but being patronizing about Syria even as they praise its actions with refugees. I don’t know about my fellow Syrians, but frankly, I find this is all getting a bit tiring, this old record of pro-terrorism, radical, negative, etc. Especially when it comes from those who used to sing the praises of the regime (yes, it’s a digression, but I mean the Lebanese political leaders, who treat their own refugees like dirt) while Syrian civil society activists were being harassed. Unlike others, Syrians didn’t wait for involvement or influence from anyone outside Syria to speak whenever they could, at their own risk. So when Syrians (yes, even the regime) do something good, like the regime has actually proved with the Iraqi refugees, to whom it even allowed the luxury of voting freely and choosing from dozens of candidates (I leave you to absord the irony which we’ve already covered in this blog), or when the Syrian people fling open their homes, their wallets and their hearts to the tens of thousands of Lebanese refugees escaping the Israeli war machine, let’s give credit where credit is due without the “but” part. It wouldn't hurt to be treated like the other problem makers in the area - even the "moderate" ones - every now and then.
[ 22 comments ]
The Golan Disinformation Campaign intensifies
Tuesday, February 6, 2007, 13:02Only a few days ago, in the last post (followed by a discussion on the media and Syria), I wrote about the gradual slip of the Golan Heights in the media, from being a Syrian territory invaded and illegally annexed by Israel, to becoming one that was “contentious,” having been “seized” or “captured” during a vague war and kept in a subsequent "Arab invasion." There are no mentions anymore of UNSC Resolutions 242 or 338, or of the Madrid Peace Conference, nor are there categorical declarations of the Golan Heights’ legal status as Syrian land as it morphs into yet another "painful concession" for Israel that is willing to generously "give land" so it can "receive peace."
Israelis and pro-Israelis have already achieved quite a lot with this, creating a very misleading perception in public opinion that will be difficult to reverse. As if that wasn’t quite enough, and it apparently never is with Israel, there is now an outrageous attempt to speak in the name of the people under occupation, and to imply they are not a concern for their compatriots, in turn suggesting that this should be taken into account when deciding on the future of the Golan.
The article’s title sets the tone immediately, but doesn’t even pave the way for the dangerous absurdities that will follow: indeed, declaring “The Golan's Druze wonder what is best” isn’t meant to be an innocent statement about an ambiguous situation, but aims at implying that the Golan’s Syrian inhabitants actually prefer to remain under Israeli rule, within Israeli borders, rather than returning to their mother country!
Seth Wikas, who has a number of other gems about Syria, pretends impartiality by mentioning the Syrian people languishing in Israeli jails for having resisted various Israeli actions, but that’s where the pretense stops; for the duration of this ridiculous article, he deceitfully refers to them not as Syrians, but as Druze. He begins the process by explaining that “The fate of the Golan's Arabs, who are Druze, illustrates the human side of future land-for-peace deals. Arabs, as versus the 20,000 Jewish settlers … and as versus the 2,000 Alawites in Ghajar. So far, the reader is told there are Arabs (who are Druze) and there are Alawites (who aren’t Arabs?) but not a word about Syrians of either religion. It is difficult to know whether this mess of a statement is simply ignorance or deliberate deception; we can only assume it's the latter, as the rest of the article goes downhill from there, with Wikas attempting to convince us that Druze are torn between Israel and Syria.
Here are some choice passages which allude to the dream of life in Israel versus the nightmare of life in Syria.
To begin with, they are richer now than they would be back under Syrian rule, so let’s not make them go back. ”It also highlights the emptiness of Syrian rhetoric about its "occupied Golan brethren," inasmuch as Druze villagers have been given little economic incentive to return to a Syria where they can expect to be poorer.” So we’ve been wrong all these years to insist on, say, the Palestinians’ right of return because they’re much better off elsewhere?
Of course, Israel would love nothing more than having Syria pay the Golan's citizens to leave it, moving to other areas of Syria, just so that Israel can get rid of the inconvenient native inhabitants who weren't already expelled or who hadn't fled under Israel's aggression, leaving more room for settlers.
The writer admits they haven't wanted to become Israeli, but look at how well the Israelis have treated them. ”Irrespective of their legal status, all residents have access to Israeli schools (which teach Torah and Hebrew), pay taxes and enjoy municipal services such as water and electricity.” Aw, isn’t the Israeli occupation nice? Surely we shouldn't expect residents (note the choice of word: residents!) to want to leave it when Israelis allow their victims to “enjoy” water – their own water of course!
We're told in no uncertain terms that it’s the economy, stupid, and therefore a Syrian Golan is not really an option. ”While not as rich as the bon vivants of Tel Aviv, the inhabitants have a standard of living vastly surpassing that of their counterparts on the Syrian side of the border.” Syrians under occupation are doing so well they never want to be anywhere near Syria again, right?
And if you’re not convinced by now, let’s state the obvious facts about why the Golan shouldn’t go back to Syria: the nice people (who apparently aren't even really Syrian) would be miserable there, with all those awful Syrians. ”The locals work hard - whether in agriculture, construction, or services - and have little regard for Syrians who, in many Golanis' minds, "drink tea and sleep all day." In Syria, working hard rarely ever translates into making more money - unless you have government connections.” How can you expect these civilized, hard-working, Israeli-like people to associate with lazy, unfamiliar Syrians who drink tea and sleep all day? Well, my Syrian friends, isn’t that what we all do? Surely this "Syria expert" can’t be uninformed, or a racist, or a bigot!
And anyway, even if the Druze of the Golan really feel a bit Syrian, let’s remember that the Syrian people only use them as rhetoric, so they shouldn’t go back to Syria. ”While most identify themselves as Syrian and take Syria with both its grandeur and its faults, once in Damascus these students can see how the Golan has become a rhetorical tool that has not trickled down into Syrian public consciousness.” Now the writer is not only speaking for the "Druze of the Golan" but also for the actual Syrians of Syria, for whom he claims the Golan is not even in their consciousness, perish the thought. This Syria expert is pretending we haven't heard about the Golan, ad nauseam even, since we were born!
Remember, when all is said and done, these poor Druze are afraid of Syria, so let’s not make them go back, let them stay in good Israel where they can live well. Besides, they’re Druze, not Syrian. ”This and the fact that they can earn more in Israel are why many young Druze, as well as their parents, fear a return to Syria.”
There you go. FEAR A RETURN TO SYRIA. That’s the next wave of propaganda that will begin to spread now: the Druze of the Golan have nothing in common with the evil, lazy, poor Syrians, so the Golan should stay in Israel. Good thing The Daily Star now opens its opinion pages to increasingly "balanced" (not to mention informed) points of view; after waking up from our nap and drinking our tea, how else would we know about the reality of our land, and about what the Druze of the Golan really want?
[ 51 comments ]
Definitions from the Syrian-Israeli conflict lexicon
Saturday, February 3, 2007, 13:25Well that’s interesting. So you have your land occupied, and you fight a war to get it back, and it’s called an "invasion" (a “joint Arab invasion” to be precise). That’s the 1973 October War for you, an invasion.
In contrast, the initial invasion of Arab lands by Israel is called “capture.” You see, the plateau was ”captured from Syria by Israel in 1967 during the Six Day War,” which from this description sounds like it just was an inevitable, unfortunate turn of events, rather than a unilateral, simultaneous Israeli attack on several Arab countries. They might as well have written that “The Golan Heights were just running around in the wild and Israel decided to capture them for safekeeping.” Other equally imprecise reports describe the Golan as having been “seized from Syria in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.”
It gets worse: the Golan Heights plateau, apparently, is “one of the most contentious strips of land on the planet.” Really? Why is that? What exactly is controversial or debatable about which country has the rightful ownership of the Golan Heights? Are there no history books around? Are there no UN resolutions mentioning it?
And that’s The Independent! Imagine the other media.
It seems to me that the PPP (Peace Park Plan), also known as the secret Syrian-Israeli track 2 talks, which Syrian officials are still refusing to publicly acknowledge, is being dragged on and on not only because it is big news, but also so that the media has something different to write about. Apparently, nothing interesting is happening in Palestine or Iraq, same old same old. Seriously though, and, more importantly, by describing the Golan long enough as “contentious” or “captured” (the latter being technically correct, but misleading), or other similarly vague terms, public opinion will increasingly regard it as a “painful concession” which peace-loving Israel is generously, needlessly giving UP, not BACK, just so that it can finally have peace, while the warring, violent Syrians get what is not rightfully theirs just so that the region can breathe.
This might seem exaggerated to someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of long-term public relations and propaganda campaigns, but I say this as a marketing and media professional. For examples of how this works, remember the Wexner Analysis.
My father was always opposed to the equation of "land for peace" and spoke about it repeatedly. He was so right. It implies Israel is asked to give up - not back - land to receive peace, and it implies Arabs are getting something for nothing. This is dangerous and unfair.
For the past few years, in conferences, seminars or different meetings, I’ve spoken about the need for Palestinians and concerned Arabs to start preparing a professional, targetted campaign for June 5, 2007 – also known as the sad 40th anniversary of the Israeli invasion of the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza, Sinai, and of course, the Golan Heights. Have you seen anything around? I haven’t. All that is left to see are "facts on the ground."
[ 39 comments ]
Little, late, but better than nothing
Thursday, February 1, 2007, 12:25According to The Economist, I’m rich, and so are most Syrians, hurray; it claims the Central Bank of Syria's managed float started at a dollar rate of US$51.8:S£1. Count your Syrian pounds, folks, and see how many dollars that makes.
On a more serious note (but honestly, what are the editors doing?), I agree with the general tone of the article; Syria is slowly opening up, but not fast enough, and not comprehensively enough. I leave you to read the article, which is basically a summary of recent developments that all Syria followers will have already seen. I still remain sceptical, as always, about the efficiency of new laws; with the archaic procedures of the Syrian legal system, it remains to be seen exactly how new laws are to cancel out earlier laws. Remember Decree 408 and Article 8 of the Syrian constitution? I still haven't read the details of the new decree, but I can already foresee application problems with the differences between Law N. 10 and the new Decree 8, sending investors into a black hole of bureaucracy hell.
The regime has made it clear there would be no political reform, but it’s time the economic reforms it promised and pledged repeatedly started coming. It’s not yet too little too late, but it is little and it is late. We need more.
[ 38 comments ]
Going under in Syria
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 12:09After the intensity of discussing the notorious PPP (the Peace Park Plan) in my last post, with a slight detour to cover some of our national culinary delicacies in the comments section (falafel, mostly, if you missed it), I was surprised to find myself enjoying this piece by Guy Taylor covering Syrians’ search for freedom online in the aftermath of the Damascus Spring. It’s chatty and - unlike many articles on Syria - it is also mostly correct; but there are a few slips in Taylor’s piece, notions that have been repeated often in the past few years, and with which I’ve disagreed equally often.
For instance, Taylor repeats the tale that the Damascus Spring started with the death of Hafez Assad; that is not true. Not to be finicky, but it’s a very important point; the relative relaxation of the regime, the so-called Damascus Spring, began earlier, while he was still alive in the late 90s, comfortable in the knowledge that nothing could shake his regime anymore – comfortable enough to allow for more criticism of the government (remember, there’s a difference between the state and the regime). While things certainly continued to flourish after his death, in the period dubbed the Damascus Spring, it was actually only because civil society activists were openly encouraged to speak … only so they could fall harder, as we all witnessed. In my opinion, this distinction is essential in understanding the current regime’s actions and attitude.
Taylor’s claim that the new freedoms were crushed when it became clear the US would be invading Iraq is obviously wrong. The first wave of arrests of our brave civil society activists, including the removal of parliamentary immunity and arrest of Riad Seif and Mamoun Homsi, started over the summer of 2001, with Dr. Aref Dalila being arrested in August 2001, before 9/11, and way before the "war on terror" and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq became a sorry part of our reality.
I smiled at Taylor’s analysis as to why a night club would play a pop song that was “pro-Syria, pro-Assad” (aren't the two terms redundant in this context, given there couldn't possibly be a variation with "anti" no matter where you put it?) at 3 AM; one of the possibilities, in his opinion, was that “the song may also have been a way for the nightclub’s owner to stay open late while avoiding trouble with the authorities.” Very cute, and in line with the school of thought followed by every little shop prominently displaying the inevitable official and unofficial photos.
The description of his first meeting with the founder of Champress was also funny: ”I was taken aback when he suddenly swerved up to the curb in a black Mercedes 600 with tinted windows, the sort of car that seemed more likely to be driven by a secret security agent than by a man who spends his time breaking down barriers to free speech.” Well, most secret security agents actually drive other types of cars (remember the countless white Peugeots?) but Taylor clearly wasn't buying the idea that Syrians could make it big in the media sector - at least not exclusively. (Not just in Syria, by the way: few journalists could afford similar cars.)
His revelation of Mohsen Bilal’s daily phone calls to Champress reminded me of Ali Ferzat and his ill-fated Ad-Domari, when he was hounded by the-then Minister of “Information” Adnan Omran. On the subject of freedom, I maintain that the best material written so far on the Damascus Spring is "Syria: Neither Bread nor Freedom” by Alan George. When I passed it on to my husband after I finished it, I remember he would interrupt his reading every few pages, rather worryingly asking me: “Are you sure you didn’t write this yourself? Does Alan George really exist?” But I digress (what a surprise).
So, when you’re done reading about online media in Syria, make sure you get the latest on key indicators of Syrian character and socio-political attitudes: the manufacture of lingerie! Really, journalists must be running out of subject ideas (go figure) because this is all the rage. Yossi Sarid explains in Haaretz that “The future is in underwear,” basing his entire article on another article in Time Magazine by a Lydia Wilson called “Undercover in Damascus.”
But besides being apparently out of ideas, Haaretz is way too late and Time is not quite timely, the former in particular speaking volumes about the supposed expertise of Israelis on Syria. That’s because the subject, about which a book has now been written, believe it or not (“The Secret Life of Syrian Lingerie”) was already covered last year in a rather weird article by the author of that same book, who at the time was still researching, in a British weekly called The New Statesman.
Being a more attentive follower of Syrian society, if not lingerie, than Haaretz and Time, I had already covered that coverage in my blog at the time, reporting amongst other things the basic, essential “fact” that Gulf money made Syrian bras possible in 1973. Intrigued? Then do please read it to understand the significance of Syrian underwear, and its impact on politics - or was it the other way around? I know there’s so much to say about home, but I really didn't expect we would be discussing underwear twice in this blog!
[ 16 comments ]
A white paper for a picnic in the park
Monday, January 22, 2007, 23:58”Israel has said that the Arabs have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And it seems this time that it is Israel which is missing the opportunity. Here you have all Arab parties involved in the Israeli conflict negotiating for seven rounds, for hundreds of hours, during the mandate of two Israeli governments, and yet not being able to agree on any of the core issues, or the essential issues necessary to establish peace, a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace between them.”
Ambassador Mowaffak Allaf, Chief Syrian Negotiator,
National Press Club, Washington DC, October 29, 1992
At the State Department, 1992, AFP
My father said these words during a press conference 14 years ago, on the first anniversary of the Madrid Peace Conference. He felt that Arabs had already given enough (more than enough) commitment to warrant better responses from Israel (even the so-called Rabin Deposit, never honored, was a mere statement of the obvious in a process based on the equation of land for peace), and he never really believed Israel was interested in peace.
I can only imagine how my father would react to the news, over the past few years and more recently this month, of repeated Syrian offers for unconditional resumptions of negotiations – unconditional to the extent of scratching all these hard years of negotiating and starting again from square one, thus renouncing previous agreements. And I’m sure he would not be the only one horrified by the extents to which Syria seems to be bowing to Israel (even as the latter wages war) as it continues to practically beg for them to pay attention to its overtures. Be it a secret track two attempt, a repeated open call for talking without restrictions, or a rash handshake, such actions do nothing to keep Syria in a strong – and legally rightful – position.
There was nothing “informal,” as wrongly explained by a number of analysts, about Syria’s participation in the Madrid +15 Conference which took place a fortnight ago. Do not be fooled by the relatively low level of representation allowed there, in the persons of Riad Daoudi and Bushra Kanafani – both of whom pretended to be there in a personal capacity, with the approval of the authorities. In fact, the Syrians were most eager not only to attend this conference, but also to make sure they could influence the agenda and even choose some participants – at least in the Syrian and Lebanese camps. Although the initial invitation to the conference came from an NGO, the Toledo International Center for Peace, which had wanted to keep it out of governmental channels, staying amongst academic circles to keep the discussion open, the Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, took over contacts with Syria and was only too happy to get a more official participation – one which dictated who was acceptable to the Syrians, and who wouldn’t, say, bring up things that were inconvenient (like, for instance, the fact that there is no need to negotiate unconditionally).
This is why my name (along with that of another Syrian, a friend to whom I leave the freedom to declare himself should he wish to do so) * Update: see Addendum below was stricken off the invitation list as one of the requests made by the Syrian government. A few journalists had already seen my name on the participants’ list and asked me to talk to them about Madrid +15 before it convened, but I stalled, knowing what was happening behind the scenes and not wanting to reveal much before the actual event took place.
That the Syrian regime is not a great fan of mine is not much of a revelation – our feelings seem to be mutual on at least one issue. But it amuses me to know (and this is not the first time it happens) that they feel threatened by my presence, even as an observer or a normal participant, worried I might actually say something that makes sense to others, with all my intransigence on the status of negotiations that doesn’t agree with their particular agenda. (Someone very close to me told me I should take this as a compliment, because people like me make people like them look bad. I choose to believe him.)
In any case, given that the current regime seems willing to start from scratch again just for the sake of talking, it seems I am way too much of a hardliner as far as they are concerned, with regards to the Golan and to Syria’s negotiating stances. So was my father, of course, with an “intransigence” described by the despicable Yossi Ben Aharon. Ben Aharon’s ugly antics are well known to diplomats and journalists, and Sami Moubayed remembers one of the many incidents my father had to endure with this Likudnik (see the last paragraph, which explains the title of Sami’s article, “Too busy dancing”). While my father always believed there was little difference in substance between Likud and Labor, I am sure he was happy to see the back of such a nasty character when Shamir’s ousting as prime minister brought Itmar Rabinovitch to the head of the Israeli delegation’s as Rabin’s man.
It’s normal to assume that my father’s position simply followed the orders at the time, but that is only partially correct. In fact, my father accepted to head the negotiations with Israel only reluctantly, to put it mildly, and only after having asked Hafez Assad, face to face, to give him his word that the June 4 1967 border was the minimum acceptable, and that no secret track two talks would be allowed – to which Assad replied: you know, if you hadn’t said this, I might have doubted you were really Mowaffak Allaf! This is a story that has been recounted to my brothers and I over the years by various Arab diplomats, for whom it confirmed that my father’s ultimate concern was always defending his cause, and for whom daring to face Hafez Assad with a provocative and loaded question few others would have the courage to pose as a condition was not a problem. Assad had chosen my father personally to head the talks, and word was that a number of regime cronies who wanted to push their own people were upset that Assad couldn’t find a single person inside the regime to become this “responsible,” or inside the Baath, or even inside Syria (we were living in Vienna at the time)!
This long digression went through my mind as I read last week about the secret talks between Syria and Israel that have been making headlines. One might think my reactionary position is inherited, but with a hundred reasons to denounce the attitude of the Syrian government, I hope it is a natural reaction which is typical of my compatriots.
We’ve already seen it repeatedly: the more Arabs (Syrians and Palestinians included) concede needlessly on major issues, the more Israel finds itself in a strong position, whining that it is making “painful concessions” and trying to dictate the parameters of a strange kind of peace. Like the “peace” peddled in this strange, dangerous non-paper (which reeks of really being a white paper to me) divulged by Akiva Eldar last week in Haaretz.
A non-paper “based” on the June 4, 1967 border, but a border which remains to be agreed. In other words, it completely ignores the pledge of Ehud Barak, who numerous observers (including “honest broker” Americans) agreed got cold feet at the eleventh hour and went back on the agreement which would have brought real peace between Syria and Israel, fairly and squarely.
A non-paper giving Israel unprecedented, unwarranted water rights. Syria’s rights, in contrast, are limited to residential and fishing rights.
A non-paper which doesn’t even mention Israeli settlements (as it speaks of “areas that Israeli forces will vacate”), but implies that Syrians will not have the right of return to their own land (a specialty of Israeli policy) so that the area can remain “free of permanent residents” (so much for residential Syrian water rights). No right of return, and no right of compensation, although both are guaranteed by international law.
A non-paper that would see Syria dropping its support of Palestinian groups in a second, in blatant contravention to every pledge ever made by successive Syrian governments, let alone by Syrian Baathists. The Palestinian cause becomes a tangent, an afterthought, as if we hadn’t spent the last 60 years living through its impact, all of us.
A non-paper demanding cooperation on “local and international terrorism” without defining it, implying both countries have equal understanding of the term.
A non-paper demanding, for once, Syria’s interference in Palestinian, Lebanese and even Iraqi affairs ... but according to Israeli and American interests.
A non-paper giving Israel the luxury of “withdrawal” over 15 years (and certainly not less than 5) while the demilitarized area (on the Syrian side mostly) becomes controlled by American checkpoints – and possibly the unmentioned armed Israeli settlers.
A non-paper, finally, pretending to seriously present the idea of a park on the Golan Heights, allowing Israelis free access without a visa. A park, for picnics with Israeli neighbors we happen to meet. The person who takes credit for this ridiculous notion of a park, an insult to our collective intelligence, should really stay out of politics – especially if he thinks Dennis Ross deserves the Nobel Prize (although given some of the recipients, the Nobel for Peace has certainly gone downhill).
After 40 years of hardship, of young Syrian men spending up to 3 useless years in the army, of army officers’ children driving around recklessly in their big Mercs, and of the regime justifying every excess on the state of war, we get a peace park. It’s a wonder this non-paper didn’t propose, as a “confidence-building step,” a Syrian commitment to acknowledge our beloved falafel as the national dish of Israel, and to throw in our hummus too for good measure (an “Israelization phenomenon” which I once complained about as it smacked of “having your hummus and eating it too”). But not to worry. So far, the Israelis are officially being all high and mighty, pretending they are worried about real Syrian intentions, and insisting they can’t talk for now. So if the Israeli government is refusing even this pittance of a deal publicly, after so much bowing from the Syrian regime, imagine what an actual “peace” treaty would actually look like. Unlike the Syrians, the Israelis have held on to every point yielded by the opposite party as if it was manna from heaven. It is not the Israelis who will ever say they will negotiate without preconditions (on the contrary, of course). Some “humat addiyari” our current negotiators are!
In desperate situations, capitulation is understandable (this agreement being a glorified version thereof) if it is to save lives and eradicate war and all the related suffering. Nobody wants to play hero over the misery of their people. But in that case, it should be called capitulation, and not peddled as a peace deal to be applauded. I am certainly not a fan of “creative solutions” to clear problems, whether in the case of Syria or of Palestine. As far as I’m concerned, and until I see some humane, decent, or even simply lawful action from Israel, I think it’s time to call for a new version of the 3 Nos:
- No to unconditional re-negotiations
- No to undignified track two supplications
- No to unnecessary capitulations
For all its solemnity, this post is light-heartedly dedicated to my Syrian cyberfriends, who will rue the day they ever nagged me to write and ended up with 2000 words!
Addendum: I wrote above that “another Syrian, a friend to whom I leave the freedom to declare himself should he wish to do so” was also taken off the invitation list to Madrid +15. He has gracefully revealed his identity himself in the comments section, and you can read for yourself what he has to say. It is Dr. Murhaf Jouejati, our well-known Syrian scholar and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at The George Washington University, whose career is summarized here. On a personal note, I would like to add that Murhaf is also the son of one of our most eminent and respected diplomats, my father’s friend and colleague who was equally involved in the peace talks - the late, regretted Ambassador Rafik Jouejati.
[ 110 comments ]
Sunday, December 31, 2006, 23:35
Despite everything, these couple of weeks are also the time to celebrate a variety of holidays (still running into January for our Orthodox friends). May they bring us all some peace of mind, if not peace.
[ 17 comments ]
The significance of Saddam's execution on Eid Al Adha
Saturday, December 30, 2006, 01:20While Palestine is slipping from many people's immediate concerns, given the sad repetitiveness of the news (except when it is to gleefully announce the advent of civil war), and while Iraq descends further into hell, with enough tragic events to warrant continuous news broadcasts for days on end (something you wouldn't know from following Anglo-Saxon media, although American and British media should be duty-bound to report on the catastrophic consequences of the crimes against humanity committed by their elected governments – whose justifications they have so often parrotted idiotically), most media have decided that Somalia is actually the most breaking of all breaking news. Of course, it has the easiest, most convenient attention-grabbing headlines; after all, you can't go wrong with screaming titles like "Islamic Courts ..."
I have much to say about events in Palestine in particular, and the situation in the region as a whole, having recently attended a couple of conferences on the subject in the past fortnight. As they were held under Chatham House Rule, it means I can't tell you the details of where I was or who was there, but I can certainly report that I'm feeling even more disheartened than usual about the prospects for our region. The positions that were expressed by American, British and European officials were, to put it mildly, appalling. More than usual. More than you can imagine. More than is reported in the media. More than you would think possible, or smart. Totally lacking in long-term strategic vision, or intelligence.
Which brings me to the urging subject of Saddam Hussein's imminent execution, which kept me unexpectedly busy today as journalists called to inform me about its reported timing, and to ask about its possible effect. Some seemed to think that it might help control the violence in Iraq; this might have been funny, but nothing about Iraq is funny. I wonder where they get ideas like that, and who is trying to market them as "solutions." If Saddam is to be punished (or in this case executed), it should be because a lawful court found him guilty of crimes - and not because someone in Washington or London thinks it might help the situation!
I am against the death penalty, although I admit am often tempted to make exceptions to my own principles. But I do not dispute – quite on the contrary, in fact – the need to have criminals like Saddam Hussein pay for their blatant abuses of power and their crimes against their people. I hope other "leaders" in similar positions, and other people in the cliques surrounding these leaders, will meet a similar humiliating, if not fatal, fate (preferably à la Romania, by the people, and not à la Iraq, by the invaders), and not just in the Middle East, but let us not digress.
The occupation of Iraq by the US and Britain renders the whole trial of Saddam Hussein illegal and worthless (in addition to having been a farcical pretense at justice). Paul Bremer's damned pen, busily signing illegal, immoral decrees up until the last hours of his miserable reign (during which he disbanded the Iraqi army and fired all the Baathists, amongst other brilliant strategies) was only a precursor to the ridiculous American-imposed process of writing a new constitution for Iraq, a document as worthless as the paper on which it was written. Worthless, and extremely dangerous.
These points are not new, and they've been discussed before in this blog. What is new is the crazy – or is it crazy? – notion of executing Saddam Hussein, who is technically a prisoner of war and whose case technically falls under the Geneva Conventions, sometime around dawn on Saturday December 30, in a few hours from now. This will be the dawn of Eid Al Adha, the most important Muslim holiday of the year, following the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Since the Anglo-American invasion, we've had "experts" and media repeat ad nauseam the idea that Saddam's regime was a Sunni regime persecuting the Shia population. Now, with a Shia government ruling under the umbrella of Anglo-American supremacy (in a political sense only of course, since they only really rule the Green Zone), this Sunni leader is going to be executed by a Shia-led government (under a Kurdish president, one might add) on the most important Muslim day, on the same day Muslims believe that God Himself stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son.
Can you only imagine all the potential symbolism that can come out of this execution on that particular date? Can the decision-makers really be that stupid? Can they really not even think that there is room for turning Saddam into a national AND a religious martyr, for turning the issue into a national one first, and a sectarian one second? Or, even worse, vice versa? Is it possible that nobody is thinking of the possibilities?
Or are we the naïve ones, wondering about their lack of foresight when they have possibly already considered all the possibilities and are purposely planning to cause even greater chaos and violence? This execution plan calls for people who are either mighty brave, or mighty stupid. Given recent Anglo-American behavior, it's more likely the latter, and the consequences are going to be devastating. If Saddam is to be executed, he should not go to the hangman alone; his foreign executioners are guilty of even bigger crimes.
I will shed no tears over Saddam Hussein, but I will probably be crying more in despair over Iraq in the near future.
[ 10 comments ]
If the Virgin Mary came today ...
Monday, December 25, 2006, 02:37As millions of people around the world gather to celebrate the wonder of Mary giving birth to baby Jesus, an event revered by Christians and Muslims alike, please think of pregnant Palestinian women who are suffering needlessly and whose babies are dying simply because of Israeli cruelty.
As reported in The Independent, Palestinian women "have been giving birth in startlingly similar conditions to those suffered by Mary 2,000 years ago. They have delivered their babies with no doctors, no sterilised equipment, no back-up if there are complications." In fact, they have been boycotted back into the Stone Age, explains the shocking article.
This is all because Israel, the country on whose behalf the "international community" is starving the Palestinian people and making them live in archaic conditions, refuses to recognize the Palestinians' right to exist.
Once more, therefore, Palestinians will not be having a Merry Christmas, or a Happy Eid for that matter. No wonder their cards aren't so jolly!
[ 1 comment ]
Murder victim and media victim
Monday, December 4, 2006, 21:02Al Jazeera English, in its 17:00 GMT news today, has just described the first victim of violence during the Beirut sit-in as "a pro-Syrian Muslim." I'm sure his family will be honored, in its grief, to know that his whole life has been reduced to this characteristic, his entire being summarized as "pro-Syrian."
This tragic killing has generally been relegated to the "in other news" sections of newspapers and websites, failing to make "breaking news" status even on television news, in most cases. At first, one might be tempted to admire the "self-restraint" of this responsible media, not wanting to pour gasoline on the spreading fire, but we all know better. Can you imagine the screaming headlines, the front page photos, and the urgent alerts if Ahmad Ali Mahmoud had been a Hariri/March 14/anti-Syrian supporter? Can you imagine the indignation, the threats and the denunciations had he been under the wing of the "government elected by the people of Lebanon" which the British Foreign Secretary is so keen to protect (in sharp contrast to the government elected by the people of Palestine, which doesn't happen to meet with her cabinet's approval)?
But since the young victim is none of the above, mentioned in most reports as a mere "Shia," and a "pro-Syrian" one at that, (the opposite of the victim media loves), the news is not deemed important enough. No investigation will be called into his killing by irate and "civilized" officials. No condemnation will be issued by the "international community." No tears will be shed by Fouad Siniora.
The latter's supporters, like most of the mainstream media which has been reporting on these events with even more superficiality and bias than usual, are busy spreading the notion that Hizbullah is basically causing civil war. I never fail to be amazed by the supposed powers of this party, which is apparently capable of putting fire – on its own – to the whole of Lebanon. Pity the nation indeed, which always falls victim to one malevolent group after another, while the ex-warlords are innocently dragged into the violence kicking and screaming. It's always someone else who is trying to hurt Lebanon (the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Iranians … and a couple of March 14 people have even deigned to mention the Israelis), but somehow it is never the Lebanese themselves – or at least never those allied with the powers that be. (Only the LA Times, from what I've seen, has noticed the Israeli soldiers who remained on Lebanese soil until now - but it's basically only to praise them for being so "diplomatic.")
Al Jazeera English, which I've been forcing myself to watch in order to prepare a fair appraisal, did not fail to add its voice to those warning of sectarian violence, as if there was no other reason for the crisis. Now that everyone has become an expert on "Sunnis versus Shias," there suddenly seems to be no other way to explain why things are going wrong in the region. First it was all about the Hariri tribunal, and now it's all about sectarian violence, you see. Yesterday, on Al Jazeera English, Clayton Swisher (who I see for the first time, and who was described as the channel's Middle East analyst) explained the situation in Lebanon as such: there is a "spillover effect from Iraq" ("a series of dominoes," added the presenter helpfully) which can be dangerous, especially if with 100,000 people in downtown Beirut (yes, he said 100,000) someone comes with an explosives belt and blows himself up. This was Al Jazeera English's contribution to our understanding of the Lebanon crisis: on top of being because of the pro-Syrians, it's also because of Iraq and possible suicide bombers! (Well, at least he's not limiting himself to the usual and only "it's the Syrians" line.)
I mention the number he used to point to the clear deficiencies in reporting. I myself am getting tired of this game of "my demonstration is bigger than your demonstration" and I think I've seen enough flags for a long time - especially when they're all the same! However, it looks like we're going to be watching this confrontation for the foreseeable future, and while both sides have genuine grievances, it appears that some, frankly, are more existential than others.
Update: Some media reports are still, reliably, assuring us that it's all Syria's fault, even when "pro-Syrians" are being killed. You see, "Al-Mustaqbal television, which is owned by the Future Movement of anti-Syrian parliament majority leader Saad Hariri, said the army detained three Syrians who had allegedly provoked the incident by throwing stones from an overhead bridge at the passing Hizbullah cars." That explains it then. Thank you Annahar.
[ 13 comments ]
Will we (the people) become like them (the revolution)?
Friday, December 1, 2006, 02:20I've tried to ignore the Lebanese political scene this past week or so (it was getting a bit repetitive), but it's impossible to ignore Fouad Siniora's announcement that tomorrow's demonstration in Beirut by the Lebanese opposition amounts to a coup. Siniora did not feel that the previous mass demonstrations by the previous opposition (to which he belonged) had been a coup; in fact, the so-called March 14 movement calls it a revolution. I wonder what makes it different from the March 8 movement. And let me state loud and clear that I am not taking side with either movement (and that includes, obviously, the "corrective" one); if I did, it would be neither with the side Israel prefers, nor with the side that brings theology into political life. I guess I need more choices.
I am also tired of this obsession with the Hariri tribunal, as if it were the only issue of importance today; call me naïve, but I believe there are other reasons as well for the political impasse in Lebanon today, and it's certainly not all about Hariri, regardless of how much March 14 try to hammer it in. Granted, these assassinations should all be investigated, but what about all the other events in the country? Like it or not, Hizbullah does have some other issues, to put it mildly, following last July's "events" (to put it even more mildly).
In any case, after observing the Lebanese political scene, in particular over the last 18 months or so, I think the March 14 movement has the dubious honor of having caused the loss of all the sympathy it had first gained after the assassination of Rafik Hariri. In my opinion, this is mainly because of the way it failed to differentiate between Syrian regime and Syrian people (becoming outright racist at times), and because of its silence during the barbaric Israeli aggression of Lebanon (its official silence that is, as it appears there was lot of wishful thinking for Hizbullah's defeat).
This loss of regional sympathy on the popular level is pretty much what the Bush administration achieved with its actions after 9/11. True, it's on a much smaller scale in Lebanon's case, but that's still quite an accomplishment.
This led me to have some worrying thoughts about the possible behavior of Syrians in similar situations. What if when we Syrians finally get "democracy" we end up bickering like idiots and not solving anything, letting the country run to waste? What if we let form take precedence over content? What if we get so stupid that we start blaming every single thing going wrong in the country on those who ruled it shortly before we took over? What if the remaining warlords (slash businessmen slash politicians slash parliamentarians) start getting rid of one another ("fakhar" like, as we say in Arabic), taking advantage of the fact that everyone will automatically blame the previous rulers for these crimes, whether or not they did it?
What if we go into mass hysteria when one of our leaders is killed, forgetting all our past criticism of him, living in denial about the state of our economy and foreign debt, and only remembering his multi-billionaire's vision of our capital's downtown? What if we lose sight of the values we fought for all these years when the unjust rulers ruled? What if our intellectuals, writers and activists all suddenly decide to ignore those who for years defended their cause and wrote about it at great risk to their personal freedom? What if we ignore a joint declaration they have taken great risks to publish in support of our cause, and look the other way when they are punished for it?
What if we begin to mix between people and rulers, and what if we start taking it out on poor workers, beating them, killing them, burning their tents? What if we start speaking of the rulers' compatriots, or co-religionists, as if they were to blame for our years of hardship? What if we start treating them all in one way (a bad way), forgetting that they suffered as much as we did from these rulers, even if they came from the same background?
What if we start doing what they are doing? I've always thought Syrians had learned from their neighbors (in Lebanon and now in Iraq) never to fall into the temptation to take revenge or to fight on sectarian or other God-forsaken terms. I'm not so sure, however, that the temptation to bicker stupidly and endlessly has gone; in fact, if there's anything our sycophants know how to do, it's waxing poetic about leaders and repeating useless slogans ad nauseam while the important issues are ignored. Imagine if they start using these "skills" to reinvent today's "responsibles" as tomorrow's visionaries, and if they start to fight one another and paralyze the nation ... now that really would be the end of us yet.
[ 9 comments ]
Welcome to Britain ... apparently
Thursday, November 30, 2006, 15:43Time for a massive digression from the usual topics in this blog. There are certain aspects of living in Britain that have become simply insufferable, especially when coming back from the warmth and friendliness of people in my country of birth. That's when the culture shock hits you, even when you've lived abroad forever, even when you're used to such attitudes.
To begin with, the fiasco imposed by the British government on travellers after the supposed terrorist threat last summer was the biggest waste of time. Our small piece of cabin luggage, bought especially because of the restrictions and because its measurements, on paper, obeyed requirements, was refused because the wheels would not fit in the test frame; how was that a threat to the security of everyone? How was forcing us to remove two laptops from it, carrying them by hand (in addition to the baby's car seat, the baby's pram … and of course the baby!), supposed to make us feel safer? How was safety improved by letting two women (my Mom and I) and a baby run to the gate after the delay caused by the "threatening" wheels of our tiny new luggage? Of course there must have been thousands of stories like this one, so I hope everyone felt a lot safer knowing women's makeup was safely out of reach from the cabin.
This made seeing the mukhabarat at Damascus airport a joke; in fact, they even seemed pleasantly welcoming, but I may be exaggerating slightly here. (OK, I'm definitely exaggerating, but you get my drift.)
Flying back to Heathrow was just as disagreeable. At Damascus airport already, for the first time in the life of this frequent traveller, I was asked to make two photocopies of my passport and of my daughter's, both European, because the British government had demanded that all "foreign citizens of Arab origin" be thus treated and our details filed and passed on to them. People at the check-in counter were clearly shocked, but I think I was the only one who made a comment out loud. I'll leave you to guess, as it's pretty untranslatable anyway.
When we got to London, 6 policemen waited at the end of the finger, checking our passports (and actually making a point of comparing my baby with the photo on her passport!) before allowing us the honor of treading on Heathrow's ground, as we made our way to the official passport control and customs. We don't get this personalized welcome coming from other countries, although I'm sure this special treatment applies to countries other than Syria as well.
To top it off, in spite of my frustrating experience with the fallacy of British helpfulness, I had made the mistake of assuming someone at Heathrow would actually help a woman with a baby (and pram and car seat) and the luggage cart. Of course, it was a Syrian man who first helped me with my suitcases, without my asking. But as I took time to settle the baby and the other small bags, and after having been informed that nobody from the airport would be helping me, I found myself pushing both along to get through customs and to my waiting husband outside. The British customs officers stood there, arms folded, observing me as I struggled to push one item after another, holding on tightly to my baby. You guessed it: it was two foreign gentlemen, an American and a German, who swept to my rescue, each taking an item (on top of their own luggage) and insisting I just follow them.
I've been to many places around the world, but I have never ever experienced the rudeness – or, even worse, the indifference – I see in London. As I don't drive in London, and having gotten to use the public transport system frequently, I was shocked to realize that even a heavily pregnant woman got no help. Men would turn their faces when they would see me get on a bus, worried they would look guilty sitting down. Standing in line to get on buses, I even got pushed a couple of times, and several men and women overtook me several times to rush to the remaining free seats before I even dreamt of sitting down myself. In fact, I will always remember the ONE time a man offered me his seat – and that's because he was French! As for women, 3 of them offered their seats during the entire length of my pregnancy. And here I am honestly not exaggerating. Welcome to Britain.
[ 13 comments ]
The pariah who came in from the cold
Thursday, November 23, 2006, 23:56John Le Carré fans will recognize the liberties I took with one of his most famous novels, even if I could find nothing suitable that sounded like "spy." I have the feeling we're going to be talking (and getting tired of talking) about Lebanon for a long time, so following on my last post, here is my article for Bitter Lemons published today.
The pariah who came in from the cold
The last couple of months have been good, or at least better than before, for the Syrian regime. After getting a cold shoulder from the US over its opposition to the invasion of Iraq and even more so after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the Syrian regime was finally being acknowledged as a force to be reckoned with, and a regional partner to be considered, even valued.
This is mostly because of the quagmire in Iraq, but also because of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon this past summer that, as far as the Syrian regime is concerned served to demonstrate to doubters that there exists a bigger and much more violent meddler in Lebanon. Israel's spectacular belligerence enabled Syria to say "I told you so" to scores of Lebanese, many of whom agreed.
In addition, Hizballah's unexpected defeat of Israel, in all possible senses of the word, boosted the standing of the group even among Lebanese previously skeptical of the group's intentions but wary of rumors that other Lebanese parties had actually encouraged Israel's aggression. With Hizballah's sudden increased popularity, Syria influence in Lebanon was once again out in the open.
Since then, Hizballah has made no secret of its agenda: having enjoyed renewed power enhanced by its initial restraint after the Israeli aggression, it recently demanded more significant participation in the country's government, commensurate with its estimated size, and sought to oblige Fouad Siniora to install a more inclusive government. To this end, following rather blunt references to Siniora's government as that of Jeffrey Feltman (the American ambassador to Lebanon), Hizballah was to have called its followers to take to the streets on November 23, a day after Lebanon's National Day, to demand a national unity government.
This was certainly an event to which the Syrians were looking forward, and the irony of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud's complaint about the illegality of the present government (having himself been imposed by the Syrians in violation of the Lebanese constitution) seemed to pass unnoticed in the midst of so much tension.
All of this could only benefit Syria, especially as interesting developments were taking place on other fronts. British PM Tony Blair officiated over the first step in the rehabilitation of Syria by sending Nigel Scheinwald, his special envoy to the region, to test the waters in Damascus. While the Bush administration pretended not to be agreeable to this initiative, it is likely that Blair's overture had in fact been made at Washington's behest. Indeed, help on Iraq is desperately needed by the Anglo-American coalition and the time seems ripe for reconciliation with Syria and a reevaluation of the stakes.
The need to include Syria (and Iran) was also underlined by the Iraq Study Group, which is set to recommend engaging the two countries in order to help stabilize Iraq. Simultaneously, the European Union took the Association Agreement out of the closet, paving the way for more cooperation with Syria. Once again, Damascus airport was welcoming a string of foreign dignitaries.
Within this context, it would seem idiotic for the Syrians to provoke a new outburst of anti-Syrian sentiments in Lebanon -- which seems to be the default initial reaction to the sadly frequent assassinations of political figures there. Indeed, whether as a deliberate aim or as an unintended consequence, depending on who actually committed this crime, the assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel will initially hurt Syria's position in Lebanon.
For one, instead of Hizballah's demonstration aiming at bringing down the government, a mass funeral with a strong anti-Syrian tenor filled the streets of Beirut. Instead of the March 8 forces thanking Syria for its support, the March 14 forces are back to accusing it of deadly meddling. To all intents and purposes, Syria was coming in from the cold, until a sudden mafia-style assassination in broad daylight stole its thunder.
If only because of its timing, Gemayel's assassination will at the very least postpone Syria's plans for a friendlier -- or at least more comprehensive -- Lebanese government. Furthermore, it will empower the UN-led international tribunal investigating the assassination of Hariri to also include the assassination of Gemayel.
Nevertheless, while these developments have forced Syria to retreat to its usual defensive mode, even publicly refusing to cooperate with the international tribunal, there is every reason to believe that this is only a momentary lapse in its standing and that the only way is up with regards to regional influence.
The US is looking for a way out of Iraq and it needs all the help in can get; any talk about the "independence" and "sovereignty" of Lebanon, already forgotten during America's support of Israel's aggression, will again be put on the back burner while Syria is coaxed back to the axis of inevitable partners. The restoration of diplomatic ties between Syria and Iraq, mere hours before Gemayel's assassination, was a pivotal element both in Syria's rehabilitation and for America's hopes in Iraq, the latter having become even more of an issue after the Democrats took control of Congress in the US.
And even within Lebanon, as long as politicians' positions are stated purely in relation to Syria (as "pro-Syrian" or "anti-Syrian"), the Lebanese themselves are inflating Syria's influence instead of shaking it off, especially as the impact of Israel's war will continue to be felt and as Hizballah continues to consolidate its gains.
Because of these factors on both sides of Syria's borders, and because of the low likelihood of solving the mystery of Gemayel's killing, like that of Hariri, there seems little doubt that Syria's role in Lebanon is bound to regain some of its previous luster. Syria's plans may have been delayed, but they remain on track as it comes in from the cold. - Published 23/11/03 © bitterlemons- international.org
Rime Allaf is associate fellow at Chatham House.
[ 22 comments ]
Assassinations and demonstrations
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, 23:56On the day of the assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, New TV was playing patriotic songs praising Syria and Hezbollah, the kind you usually find on Syrian television only. I hadn’t noticed them before, but I guess this pretty much settles where New TV stands on the assassination of Pierre Gemayel, on who is really responsible, and on who benefits from it according to them. Most other Lebanese channels are in a very different mood (and so is CNN, by the way). I naturally deplore any assassination, I deplore the cold-blooded killing of a young man, I deplore this violence, but let's not lose track of the stakes here.
Gemayel's assassination is quite different from Hariri's, and not only because of the latter's stature. After Hariri, there was shock but also defiance in Lebanon. After the other murders (Hawi, Kassir, Tueni), there was sadness but continued and resolute boldness. After Gemayel, however, I feel there is mostly apprehension, because the 24 gun shots fired in broad daylight may have different consequences on the situation in Lebanon. But what? The Syrians are already out, Hezbollah will be damned if it disarms or steps aside after Israel's attack last summer, and the investigation into the first murder is rather tepid up to this point. So what's going to happen? I think that Syria is going to be temporarily slighted by this event, but that there is no long-term possibility that it will relinquish its influence for the benefit of the US and Israel.
The promised or threatened (depending on which side of the fence you stand) mass demonstrations of Thursday, under the leadership of the March 8 forces (aka Hezbollah and co), will now be replaced by a mass demonstration (funeral) under the leadership of the March 14 forces (aka Hariri and co). The slogans will be drastically different, and the support for the crumbling government of Fouad Siniora (who at least didn't cry yesterday) will dominate the event. Not music to Syria's ears, but it will survive.
Some Lebanese parties are acting and speaking as if the International Tribunal for Hariri will actually accuse, prosecute and condemn the entire Syrian regime for the assassination, and that everyone will then live happily ever after. I have my doubts about this version of events, but in any case, the assassination of Pierre Gemayel basically sets in stone the foundation of the tribunal, rather than the contrary – in other words, he could not have been killed merely because of this. The tribunal was going to happen with or without Syria's agreement, with or without Siniora's governance, and with or without Gemayel's assassination. Still not in Syria's interests, but again the regime will survive.
And Syria's actual role in the assassination? Frankly, who really knows? It's not like there is a lack of suspects, but you wouldn't know that from following comments on the situation.
It's nearly funny to note that most Lebanese bloggers are, as usual, passionately ridiculing the notion of "Syria doesn't gain by this" as even a possible rationale for their non-involvement. These days, it doesn't matter whether something makes sense or not as long as Syria can be blamed; you see, that rationale is that even if it doesn't benefit Syria, the Syrians are so stupid that they capable of doing things that hurt them.
I certainly think this applies to a number of events in the past couple of years, but not to this one, as too many good things were happening to Syria recently (more on that in an article I am supposed to be writing instead of blogging). I think the "certitude" of certain Lebanese (like Samir Geagea) that ministers were about to be eliminated qualifies at least as a possible lead, don't you think? And there are certainly other suspects amongst the Lebanese themselves, and amongst other neighbors!
I'd also add a few miscellaneous comments on the whole situation. Why are the Lebanese Phalanges, inspired by Hitler's Nazi party and a fascist party by default since its creation by Pierre Gemayel senior, now considered a beacon of democratic values while the Baath (of which I hope you all know I am certainly no fan) is considered an evil fascist party although it is actually socialist in inclination?
Why is Emile Lahoud "unconstitutional" (a statement with which I agree entirely) while Fouad Siniora's government, now missing ministers from an entire sect, not unconstitutional?
Why were the demonstrations last year which aimed at removing the pro-Syrian government "democratic," while Hezbollah's planned demonstrations are considered a "coup d'état"? Why are Nasrallah's calls for his followers to take to the streets "threats" while March 14 calls are freedom of expression?
Why is Syria necessarily the culprit "because it is weak," and why is it equally necessarily the culprit "because it is strong"?
Why is the American ambassador's blindingly obvious interference in Lebanese affairs not considered "meddling," while every one of Syria's comments are?
Why is Robert Fisk so boring, so predictable, and so superficial when he writes about Lebanon?
I am on neither side, but I hate double standards! Speaking of which, I leave you with this hilarious (not really) statement by the Israeli foreign minister, who said of Gemayel's assassination that "this is the kind of step that can only increase tension in the region rather than lead to greater peace, and it is something to be deplored." Clearly, she feels that indiscriminate bombings of Lebanese civilians and infrastructure was, on the contrary, leading to peace.
[ 27 comments ]
Gaza babies' silent suffering
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 00:41While the "war on terror" gets all the headlines, and all the taxpayers' money, the actual war of terror imposed on the Palestinian people remains totally ignored by the free world whose values are supposedly so awesome. So here is another small taste of what it's like to be a Palestinian. Remember to thank your lucky stars that you do not live in Gaza, for these could be your children.
This is what Israeli missiles do to little children.
This is what Israeli missiles do to 9-month old babies.
This is how frantic parents bring their children for emergency treatment. No stretchers. No ambulances. No immediate first aid.
Imagine what £7 billion could do for Gaza. But warmongers do not care about the suffering of little children. At least not these children.
[ 13 comments ]
Life and death in Gaza
Monday, November 20, 2006, 01:58Médecins du Monde has just published an extremely depressing report detailing the inhuman conditions of life for people in Gaza, made much worse than their usual miserable conditions since the international embargo began (after they dared democratically elect the "wrong" party) and after the Israeli army attacks increased (after the "liberation" of Gaza).
The tremendous physical and mental damage from which Palestinians are suffering due to this continued multiple assault is detailed in the full report, downloadable in English and in French from this link. The summary mentions that "70% of the Palestinian population currently live below the poverty line, the recorded unemployment rate in the Gaza Strip stands at 40%, and it is harder to access food and drinking water than before 2000. In addition, the destruction of infrastructure and main transport routes during operation “Summer Rain” launched on 28 June, greatly hinder electricity, drinking water and fuel distribution and restrict travel in the Gaza Strip."
It is thanks to French media that this devastating report is getting some recognition; as usual, Anglo-Saxon media is probably waiting for a press release from some Israeli ministry or American department before it considers the item to be news (and trust) worthy. And yet, they could even quote Israeli sources to realize how drastic the situation has become; B'Tselem has itself just issued a report about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which makes for more depressing and sobering reading – especially for those still living under the illusion that there has been an actual Israeli "withdrawal" (or "disengagement" if you insist on using Israeli terminology) and that it has made any difference. Read it and weep.
In these circumstances, how is such a life worth fighting for? And when it comes to Gaza, a tiny territory under constant threat from Israel, does the term "human shield" necessarily provide a reassuringly safe form of protection? After all, Israel has never really shown any concern for civilians of any age, whether they were "collateral damage" or deliberate targets, like the regretted Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall, amongst other brave souls, who both died while trying to protect their fellow human beings.
Some Palestinians dare to confront Israeli soldiers who mistreat their compatriots, but they end up paying a heavy price.
But if you knew that an Israeli air strike was imminent, as it so regularly happens in Gaza, would you have the courage to become one of those human shields? I'm not sure I would, as I have little faith in Israel's respect for human life, and the Israeli army does not shy from targetting even children (most recently, sadly, a 7-year old boy shot in the head as he sat at his desk) and women. Therefore, I continue to be amazed by the courage of these heroic Palestinians risking their lives to protect one of their own, just as they always risk their lives under Israeli fire to run and pick up their fallen compatriots, as we have seen them do countless times.
These women had the courage to defy Israel, so soon after other Palestinian women were killed in cold blood by Israeli soldiers. Undeterred, they gathered on the rooftop of the building chosen for destruction.
And these men also had the courage to defy Israel, filling the building and the streets surrounding it, trying to prevent Israel from striking - and for once succeeding.
When will the rest of the world do likewise and stand up to Israel?
[ 6 comments ]
Correctioning SANA's English
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 23:00According to SANA, Syria today "celebrated" the 36th anniversary of the "Correctionist Movement." Hurray.
As my fellow Syrians blew out their virtual candles with sheer delight, I couldn't help thinking that what we really need is a "correctionist movement" within SANA itself, at least within its English section. Somebody simply must take some corrective (sorry, correctionist) measures to reach, at the very least, basic language correctness (sorry, correctionism). Clearly, as things stand, I'll never be able to get a job there, and if I did, I'd get fired immediately for writing things like "corrective movement." Sigh.
[ 11 comments ]
Blair's bizarre overture to Syria
Thursday, November 16, 2006, 11:05While channel surfing to check news headlines yesterday, I saw a few minutes of the Queen's speech to parliament on BBC, having forgotten it was opening on that date (when you're away from London, British politics seem so unimportant). In all seriousness, Queen Elizabeth mentioned peace in the Middle East between Israel and "the Palestinians" (the Brits just can't bring themselves to call it Palestine again; is that on account of their guilt?), supporting the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, bla bla bla. I saw Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Gordon Brown and John Prescott nodding gravely, their expressions just dripping with "concern" for the region. Since there was nothing new, I thought it was old footage from one of the earlier speeches. But then I saw Margaret Beckett and I realized this was today, and I thought to myself: plus ça change … (I also thought other things not suitable for this blog).
As it happens, I had just sent my article on Blair's Syria "initiative" to The Guardian's CIF (published this morning) making it perfectly clear what I thought of his diplomacy. In addition to ridiculing Tony Blair's self-perception as an influence on the US, I have a couple of other points to make about this whole business of engaging Syria.
a) Since when did Syria become an "adversary" of the US (or of Britain for that matter), on par with Iran? True, there certainly has been a gradual deterioration in American-Syrian and British-Syrian relations, but it pales in comparison with the Iranian revolution's impact. Putting Syria and Iran on the same level, with regards to relations with the US, is a gross exaggeration and ignores the history of the past 30 years.
b) Who is really more to blame for this deterioration? The Bush administration and its unparalleled incompetence and arrogance, the Blair government's propensity to blindly and irrationally follow where Bush goes, or the Syrian regime and its immaturity and stubbornness? All played a role of course, but the invasion of Iraq was undoubtedly the greatest offense, and the greatest factor.
c) I am astonished (or am I really?!) at the eagerness of the Syrian regime to jump so obviously and indicate its immediate willingness to "discuss" matters with the US. Whatever happened to playing your cards and maintaining a poker face? Of course, the regime has now allowed the US to openly rule out talks with Syria … while considering talking to Iran! What is wrong with this picture? Of course, given the US's despair to solve Iraq, David Satterfield is merely playing tough, and that is exactly the point I was making. (Yes, in most foreign policy issues, I advocate strong positions by Syria.)
In the meantime, Syria and Iran are supplying arms to Somali Islamists, apparently. My oh my, the poor Americans can hardly keep track of these two regimes' evil misdemeanours. Of course, we all know that interfering in other countries, arming one side against the other (or both at the same time, as has often been the case) is a purely American prerogative.
But let's get back to Blair and his bizarre overture! I really must remember to tell The Guardian to fix my photo ... some commentators keep calling me Mr. Allaf! Here's my full article from The Guardian's website:
Patching things up with the neighbours
Tony Blair's sudden drive to reconcile the US with Syria and Iran is not as spontaneous as he would like us to believe
Tony Blair would have us believe he can solve the Iraq fiasco, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the entire Middle East problem (all of which Britain so negligently helped create) by first "convincing" the US to speak with Syria and Iran. He also claims to have come up with a brilliant Middle East strategy, whereby solving the Palestinian question would - surprise, surprise - make Muslims hate the west less and cooperate with it more. Given Blair's repeated false promises on the subject, one shouldn't expect Palestinians to be ecstatic by this sudden revelation for a lame duck prime minister with Clintonian aspirations. As for Syria and Iran, they should beware desperate men bearing no gifts, and - even worse - liberally making accusations.
Indeed, while Blair pretends that his persuasive efforts will soften the White House, he is clearly not concerned with "convincing" Syria and Iran to accept the same proposal, as if the latter should be grateful for the mere Anglo-American recognition of their importance in the region. Blair, as usual, is being badly advised and should have been more tactful in his approach, as it's not good manners to speak of reconciliation while dubbing the projected helpers an "arc of extremism" (the speech writers must be running out of metaphors). Nor is it sensible to speak threateningly and condescendingly to countries whose support Iraq's occupiers urgently need. Having endured years of insults and accusations, Syria and Iran probably imagined a more civil and less aggressive approach; Blair, however, was patronising, reciting that they must help the Middle East peace process rather than hinder it, stop supporting terrorism in Lebanon and Iraq, and, most ironic of all, abide by and not flout their international obligations ... or else.
Even if they're not willing to rejoin the world of diplomacy, London and Washington should at least become more level-headed and factually think of Syria and Iran as the "axis of inevitable partners". They should also acknowledge that these two countries have their own interests to protect, and that tangible help in Iraq - if and when it comes - will fall within parameters suited to Damascus and Tehran first. Regardless of America and Britain's notions of superiority, they will get nowhere if they don't respect the rights of the neighbours (or, in this case, of the occupied Iraq's neighbours).
James Baker's Iraq Study Group is wisely advocating talking to these "enemies", having realised that blaming every problem in Iraq on these two "rogues" was neither accurate nor helpful. How is it then that most media credit Blair with an admission that has clearly taken root in the US? Sooner or later, all British media will have to face the fact that Blair has little clout in Washington (and little more elsewhere), as we've all recently had the occasion to confirm for ourselves during the "Yo, Blair" conversation.
It seems that no matter how many sweaters he knits, the British prime minister's travel plans must first be approved in Washington (or Texas), and his foreign policy (especially in the Middle East) requires the endorsement of the White House before that of the Foreign Office. In fact, the last time Blair tried to take an initiative for the region, he was publicly humiliated by both the US and Israel as they openly ignored the peace conference he was planning for January 2005 in London.
Even assuming that Blair had the slightest bit of influence, his dismal performance and limited accomplishments in the Middle East so far would render the whole persuasion exercise futile, resulting with the blind leading the blind. In fact, if Blair were truly concerned about peace in the Middle East, Britain would not have abstained in the security council resolution condemning last week's Israeli massacre of 19 civilians in Beit Hanoun, Gaza, nor would have Blair adamantly refused to even call for a ceasefire in July as Israeli bombs ravaged Lebanon, killing and maiming indiscriminately.
So with no influence and no record of peacemaking, why this feigned air of initiative, and why this particular pretence that Blair is pushing the Syria line on the US? Last week's trip to Damascus by Nigel Scheinwald, Blair's (and not the FO's) envoy, was marketed as being an independent Blairite endeavour to find out whether Syria would play a constructive or a destructive role , which is rather rich coming from a government which has done so much damage to the region already.
Here's a more plausible reading of Blair's behaviour: the US has finally recognised (partly through the persuasive skills of James Baker who is fed up with the stupidity of the present administration) that it needs Syria and Iran's help in order to come out of Iraq with even a tiny speck of dignity. But the Bush administration will be damned if it ever admits it's been wrong about something; therefore, it needs to show that it is being brought back to engagement kicking and screaming, only agreeing reluctantly because of the good offices of a trusted ally. Enter Tony Blair, who obligingly plays the part of the friend (shoulder-to-shoulder, let's not forget) who "convinces" the US to patch up with the neighbours in Iraq for the greater good of all.
Blair's matchmaking serves several purposes. It allows the US to grudgingly "overlook" its enemies' real or supposed offences, for the sake of the region. It allows, or so the administration probably hopes, a friend (Blair) to request a comprehensive dialogue (specifically with Syria) so that the varying Anglo-American goals in Iraq (stopping WMDs, or bringing democracy, or fighting the global war on terror, etc.) can be approached more realistically. It also allows Blair to appear important and buys him (or so he hopes) some much needed credibility and esteem. It makes him appear diplomatic, as if his efforts were the reason why the US refrained from more aggression in Iraq or elsewhere.
Blair the pacifier would be a good moniker if it weren't so ridiculous; indeed, if anything, Blair has been a recruiter of force rather than a persuader of peace. It is Blair who made the rounds as Bush's roving ambassador in the weeks preceding the invasion of Afghanistan. And it is Blair's connivance with the dodgy Iraq dossier, and his ad nauseam repetition that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that facilitated the invasion of Iraq, an invasion which Bush had been more than willing to conduct without Britain's support. While he pretends to be a calming influence on the war-mongering Bush, all Blair has ever done was follow his American ally's instructions. Therefore, the idea of Blair as the peace broker is just an illusion, and the thought of his Syria-Iran initiative is highly suspicious.
Of course, there is always the slight possibility that Blair did, for once, try to break out of the neocon hold and have an independent thought or action. He may have decided to throw caution to the wind, putting his mentor in front of a fait accompli and risking his ire to be broadcast worldwide. If this is the case, and given that altruistic deeds aren't really his forte, worrying questions arise: why does Blair need such an entry on his CV, and what position is he eyeing exactly? Whatever it is, it can't be good news for the Middle East.
[ 1 comment ]
Axis of inevitable partners
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 00:02I have a lot to say about this (coming soon to this channel) but in the meantime, here's the front page of The Independent on Tuesday.
The text is short, the wording debatable (no Syrian official has actually been accused of Hariri's murder yet), and it seems to remember the Golan Heights as a mere afterthought. But clearly, we're "in" again for the time being, as I was saying in this blog a couple of weeks ago.
[ 15 comments ]
Does Syria need reforms?
Friday, November 10, 2006, 20:56Judging by this sign, which I caught while driving a few days ago, yes it does. I mean what have we come to if we can't even spell March 8 properly? Where is our spirit of revolution?
In any case, my good friend, respected economist and businessman Dr. Samir Aita, who also is the editor of Le Monde Diplomatique in Arabic, clearly meant this to be a rhetorical question when he spoke at the Banking Conference organized by the British Syrian Society last week in Damascus. The Syrian media, which reported on every little thing happening there, completely ignored him and didn't even acknowledge his presence; only Ayman Abdel Nour's All4Syria dared to recognize his right to exist. Here is a summary of his keynote presentation for your perusing pleasure and information. Honestly, who needs Syrian media?
Does Syria need reforms?
by Dr. Samir Aita
A year ago, an analytical and recommendation effort, sponsored by the ERF and the EU, was presented to the Syrian Government: The Country Profile Syria, a collective work of Syrian experts that I had the honor to coordinate. In this presentation, I stated that "there is a time window of opportunities to make reforms. This window allows doing courageous steps, the necessary "leapfrog reforms," giving clear strong signs to cut with old practices. This window also allows acting with proper management, with margins minimizing negative social or economic impacts. This window should not be lost. Otherwise, the cost and difficulties could be much higher."
This recommendation still stands today. And one may add that the so-called "smooth and slow" reforms advocated by the authorities still in many aspects don’t give clear signs about the future to allow the necessary predictability, and even in some cases give bad signs. Practical examples can be easily seen on the ground. To explain, allow me to get on some of the six major subjects, dealt with in the Country Profile, starting with the main subject of this conference: banking.
As early as the year 2000, a clear reform sign was given that private banks shall open in this country, maybe the only such clear sign. The results are here today with the rapid growth of the private banks and the introduction of a new competitive environment in this field. This growth shall continue, and also in insurance as the market is eager for such services.
However, in order to insure healthy development in this sector, two clear signs are still missing; the first on the reform of the State-owned banks, and the second on the Central Bank. To summarize, I will say that there is a need for a lot of political courage to "clean the dusty things hidden, with proper solutions," and there is still a need to understand how to act as a regulator, and not as the commander or only owner. Just an example, to illustrate, the balance sheet of the Central Bank has not been approved by the state auditing, or other, since the 1970's.
Here several clear strong signs are still lacking, even though that the slogan has changed towards "social market economy." Two major signs are still missing here: the first is on the enforcement of property right and the rule of law, on old and new issues. And the second is on the role of the State, enforcing again its role as a regulator and not as an owner, being an engine for development, and insuring equality of chance in business and social justice. The current practices encourage rent seeking and not the production of value.
One good news however, because of the large size of the informal sector, is that even the IMF acknowledges today that Syria GDP is underestimated. The reason? The State has no precise idea about the activities of the private sector.
Budget and Fiscality
One should acknowledge serious efforts made on the difficult ground of fiscal revenues, to move them from oil rent based towards citizens and companies based revenues.
However, the signs lacks on two major issues: the efficiency of the public service (salaries, know-how, legitimacy and power to implement) and on the spending side (How to spend? Where to spend?).
The good news is the low debts of the Government, both Foreign and local, and its large foreign assets (higher than the GDP). How to do that is a crucial issue, to move the Syrian economy to be based jointly on local demand drive and fostering non-oil exports. The question is that of a mindset: "better state, defending public money, instead of defending losing public sector, legitimacy and accountability on spending."
Foreign Trade & Investment Environment
Despite the recent free trade agreements, many signs are still lacking here to move out of the present situation: with deteriorated infrastructure (including for example in IT, even comparatively to the region), biased investment environment based on short term view and on deals.
The question is to answer where Syria will stand in the global rapidly moving environment? We are missing opportunities one after the other. I acknowledge that there is a lot of regional and international politics behind this issue, but good investment environment and good infrastructures are always good answers to contrary winds.
Labor and Employment
A major challenge. Unemployment (27%) is hardly hitting young people and women. You cannot deal with that with old rigid laws, which in addition are selectively enforced. For example, only 14% of the employees of the formal sector are registered effectively in the mandatory social security.
Changing these laws cannot be without a constructive dialogue with social partners, recognizing that they are partners (the business community, unions, social organizations). I am not talking about welfare. I am talking on how to avoid that all the young, especially the skilled, dream only about leaving the country. I am talking about my old professor here, who taught me everything, having a decent life. I am talking on that insuring social fairness will increase local demand, which will boost the economy.
Governance & the Rule of Law
There is a lot to be said on this, where Syria is badly ranked in all world indexes. But let's summarize the recommendations of the country profile as follows: "Syria suffers from a strong pressures, especially from Western countries. Can the good answer to that not be more opening, more democratic behavior inside, better rule of law?" I believe yes. It could be an excellent strong sign for those who love Syria. And I know that they are many.
[ 10 comments ]
Summary of midterm elections
Thursday, November 9, 2006, 18:15Or rather, it's the wars, stupid. All of them. Too bad the Democrats aren't really much better with regards to the Middle East, but still: Thank You America!
[ 21 comments ]
Mourning with Palestine after latest Israeli massacre
Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 16:07Ehud Olmert and his equally violent, racist cabinet members are clearly worried. They fear that the Palestinians will really come up with a national unity government which the "international community" would not obligingly boycott (which would put an inconvenient end to the strangulation of the Palestinian people) and with which Israel would have no excuse not to "negotiate" – an empty word, because human rights, including those of Palestinians, are not negotiable.
The Israeli massacre in Beit Hanoun last night is so opportunely timed not only to be eclipsed by American elections, but also to paralyze any dangerous talks of national unity. Israel will never learn! Successive Israeli governments, with their ever increasing amounts of brutality and barbarism, seem to think Palestinians are eventually going to give up trying to live like human beings, but no matter how many die, more will keep on demanding their rights.
Palestinian victim or terrorist?
The international media is reporting what it can, but even papers like The Independent need to put the words numbering Palestinian victims and casualties in quotation marks, as if Palestinians were not even trustworthy enough to give the basic facts, and as if there weren't enough visual proofs on television and on the Internet. In contrast, the word "terrorist" is hardly ever flanked by such quotes. I have always been for free and open media, but I must admit that I am sick and tired of hearing Israeli spin doctors explain in a hurt voice how they have no choice but to fight terrorists … on Al Jazeera and other Arab channels. When Western media returns the favor and allows the Palestinian point of view sufficient air time, I might change my mind.
Palestinian victim or terrorist?
As for the pretense of "concern" from governments which have done everything to facilitate Israel's brutality, it is sickening and insulting to the memory of Palestinian martyrs - especially during the week of the sad anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. The cowardly EU doesn't even dare be "shocked" at this massacre without making sure it mentions Israel's right to defend itself. I think I would prefer it if they came out and frankly said they don't give a damn about Palestinian victims. The truth might be refreshing for a change.
Palestinian victim or terrorist?
Nothing but heart-wrenching pictures and news are coming from our corner of the world, and the continued assault on Palestine is unbearable. The director of Beit Hanoun hospital explained today that Israel had cut off the water and the electricity since it began its latest wave of aggression. Who will help these brave Palestinians? And who can blame them for resorting to desperate measures to fight back the brutal Israeli war machine? Nobody should be surprised by Palestinian reactions, and everyone should spare us the sanctimonious speeches about how peace and democracy go together. If you really want to help, tell Israelis to start acting civilized - and human.
[ 9 comments ]
Loose canon Olmert, techy Bush, dead man walking Saddam
Sunday, November 5, 2006, 23:11I was out driving when I received the first phone call from journalists today, informing me about Saddam's guilty verdict and asking me about my reaction. Apart from "who cares" or "he got what he deserved" or even "here's to the next one," I had several reactions.
The first is more of a conclusion I've reached, namely that it must be a slow international news day for Western media given that it continues to ignore, as usual, the systematic mass killings of Palestinian people by the violent Israeli aggressor. Yet, journalists only need to check The Google (and even The Google Maps to witness buildings destroyed by Israeli raids) to realize that for Israel, the notion of "women and children first" applies in the most brutal way possible. Indeed, it's been both women and children first, as in the past few days alone Israel has killed some 50 Palestinians (only Israelis are counted exactly by the media, while a mere approximation is enough for their victims) in a massive assault arrogantly termed Operation Autumn Clouds (having already treated God as a real estate agent, it is no surprise to find that Israel also steals Mother Nature's prerogative to control the seasons, as it does its dirty business). But who will put Olmert on trial, for killing 50, 100 or 1,000 Palestinians or Lebanese?
Palestinian suffering is never breaking news, but patience: all their problems will be solved the minute they become more "democratic" (but really less democratic as they ignore the last elections) and choose a national unity government. Oh yeah, that will solve the Palestinians' problems and bring Israel security. So enough digression ourselves, right? The Anglo-American liberation of Iraq and Saddam's bringing to justice are so much more topical anyway, right?
Without any doubt, the killer of 148 people deserves to be punished, and no other verdict could have been reached by any court, let alone a court set up by the occupying power which removed the dictator with such bloody hands in the first place. But why did the "Iraqi justice system" start with this crime in Dujail?
a) Given that there were other (and bigger) crimes which would have been easier to document, the choice of Dujail shows that the Bush administration and the Blair government (or the "Iraqi justice") were not quite certain what to do with Saddam at first, and needed a trump card just in case. In a trial for Halabja, for example, it would have been impossible to argue that an insurgency was being quelled and that security needed to be maintained – both defenses which were used against the prosecution, and which could have been accepted here had it suited the occupiers.
b) As luck would have it, wouldn't you know it, the fantastic news of Saddam's verdict comes a couple of days before the congressional elections in the US (which you simply must follow on The Google), just when neocons needed some good news to ram down people's throats through the willing media.
c) Nevertheless, someone will have to break the other news to Messrs Bush and Blair, namely that the life or death of Saddam Hussein will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the security or lack thereof in Iraq, and most probably no impact on the elections, no matter which media is reporting. Somehow, today's news just don't have the same ring as "we've got him." Good thing Saddam can still appeal and technically live until spring, by which time God knows what other victory Bush will need.
d) Speaking of sentencing to death for crimes against humanity in Iraq, who is going to try and sentence Bush, Blair, and the legions of advisers and "experts" who surround them?
e) Finally, I don't think I can bear the idiotic commentaries I've been hearing on television so far, including the "expert" opinion that Sunnis will be upset by this verdict while Shias will be happy! And this was even on BBC television and Reuters, among others! For crying out loud, lest this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, let us stop already with these idiotic, wrong, simplistic and dangerous generalizations.
I rest my case.
[ 20 comments ]