Katrina Style Government for Lebanese Americans Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Why is it that other countries are or have already evacuated their people from Lebanon but the USA is just getting around to it? Australia had close to the amount of people in Lebanon that we have...and they are all out. Sweden can do it, Italy can do it, Greece can do it, why even a small place like Peru has gotten their people out. ...why can't the US?

Senators Levin, Kennedy and Reid wrote  to Rumsfeld and Rice yesterday on stepping up evacuation efforts:

While we're at it. What has taken us so long to drop everything and get the hell over to the Middle East to stop this violent escalation? Our president too busy giving creepy frat boy massages  to female heads of state? (advice to Ms. Merkel: um. RUN! He will be gone in two years).   
 
Thousands and thousands of Lebanese refugees now exist--fleeing a country that was (hopefully still will be) our friend, that was trying to be democratic. Yes, Hezbollah is horrid. But we are going to have to learn to deal with non-state groups that we don't like (and groups that are democratically elected that we don't like i.e. Hamas) in our post 9/11 world.  Everyone from the Marine Corps to Peace Studies Departments is trying to figure out the art and science of stability without mass violence. Of calculating ill- consequences into decision making when it still matters.  Of avoiding that CIA thing called blowback.

Hezbollah did instigate this round of violence, but Israel's response, overwhelming city-destroying bombing campaigns, is a long-term strategic mistake.  If ours and Israel's regional grand strategy, from Iraq to Lebanon to Iran is helping individuals choose citizenship over extremism, responsibility to society over violence-defined identities, then we are driving them in the exact opposite direction. Airpower is an over-hyped idea leftover from World War II.  It seems as though the myth would somehow be busted by now: that peoples suffering the ruination of their cities and death will somehow get organized and overthrow their leaders? WHAT?  Doesn't work. Never has. Why? Not because the people are stoic, not because they like their leaders. Its because THEIR LEADERS DON"T CARE WHAT THEY THINK. The leaders of Germany, Japan and Italy didn't care in the 1940's. Hezbollah doesn't care today. They have other priorities. They are obviously willing to risk collective punishment of the Lebanese citizenry.

Why? Because right now, Israel is recruiting the ranks of Hezbollah for years to come. And we're helping.

The US, Israel and the 'Democratic Dilemma' Posted by Shadi Hamid

The pro-Palestinian protest I mentioned in my last post ended up taking place. Eventually, close to 150 people gathered on the steps in front of the Doctors’ Syndicate. This (Egypt) is a police state of course, so the protestors were not allowed to spill onto the street or even the sidewalk. Security forces easily outnumbered the protestors and boxed them into a rather small area. There were also two rows of hired thugs across the street (usually a grilled chicken lunch and 10 LE will do the trick) to provide additional “security." I asked one of them how much he got paid. He flashed a big smile. He certainly seemed like he was in a good mood.

The protestors were mostly of a Leftist/liberal persuasion, with a good number of Kefaya supporters. Americans have a tendency to think that leftists and liberals are more “moderate” on Arab-Israeli affairs than their Islamist counterparts. This is not necessarily the case. The crowd chanted in support of “resistance,” bombing Tel Aviv, and other such things. They expressed strong support for Hamas and Hezbollah. For example: "Nasrallah [our] loved one, hit hit Tel Aviv” (it rhymes in Arabic). Or “martyr martyr, Haifa and Yaffa are the land of our country.” Two Israeli flags were burned. And the American ambassador was requested to leave Cairo. There were, to be sure, no Sadat posters in the crowd.

The protestors kept their focus on the current crisis, but every now and then they would break out into pro-democracy chants. It was clear that they saw a clear link between the lack of Arab democracy and the deterioration of the situation in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. For them, President Hosni Mubarak is a dictator. America supports him and, in exchange, he acquiesces on US regional interests. He is dependent on the good graces of those above him – an agent, a lackey, so on and so forth.

On the other hand, so the argument goes, Arab democracies – boasting a popular mandate and popular legitimacy – would be more willing to stand up to Israel and stick up for the Palestinians (i.e. the vast majority of Arabs are hostile toward Israel, so a democratically-elected government would adopt a more “assertive” foreign policy, reflecting the will of said majority). This line of argumentation is not entirely new, but the last couple days, I’ve noticed Egyptians using it more often. A Muslim Brotherhood leader who I spoke to earlier today said that if Arab governments were independent, democratic, and “strong,” Israel would not have attacked Lebanon, because of the deterrent effect of more equally matched adversaries.

Lebanon - UN to the Rescue? Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I've been quiet the last few days, silenced by shock and by uncertainty over what to say about a Middle East spiraling out of control.  I am also no expert of Lebanon's complex and deeply distorted politics, and have spent quite a bit of time trawling in search of a handle on what's going on and what might happen next.

In doing so, I came upon this highly detailed UN account of the organization's own mission in Southern Lebanon, which has existed from 1978 to the present day.   Right now the UN has 2,000 international troops deployed in Southern Lebanon to enforce and patrol the the border established when Israel withdrew in 2000.   The document recounts in depth much of what's happened since then.  I am sure many would dispute aspects of the account, but taking it at face value here's what's salient:

- The Lebanese government has persistently refused to take control over its Southern border, taking the position that absent a permanent peace with Israel its army would not serve as Israel's border guard.  In report after report and resolution after resolution, the UN Secretary General and the Security Council have implored the Lebanese to get a handle on this most volatile swath of land, but to no avail.

- Since the withdrawal 6 years ago, there has been a steady stream of violent flare-ups, including deadly missile and mortar attacks by Hezbollah that have provoked Israeli retaliation.

- For its part, Israel engaged in no violent provocations but ignored repeated entreaties by the UN to cease flyovers into Lebanese territory that were prohibited under the terms of their withdrawal.

Reading this, a few things grow clear:

- It's easy to understand why the Israelis insist that an immediate ceasefire and return to the status quo ante is unacceptable.  They have been dealing with deadly Hezbollah attacks from So. Lebanon every few months for 6 years.  The UN report vividly recounts the nasty festering on the border, showing the uselessness of international efforts to stop it.  With Syria and Iran apparently seizing on Southern Lebanon as a proxy struggle for their own battles against the US, comforting though it might be to hope for a quick deal to return things to "normalcy", that may may well not be possible

- In its current form, the UN role in the region is failing completely.  And yet, I also find myself thinking that when all is said and done here the UN - meaning some form of UN peace enforcement - may be the only hope for an answer. 

The Implosion of the Middle East? Posted by Shadi Hamid

While the Middle East was coming apart at the seams, I was not present. It was as if I was in a parallel universe, one which had defied both time and circumstance. The last few days, I was on vacation in Egypt’s North Coast. I was staying at a resort “village.” I was in Egypt to be sure, but I might as well have been in France, for that’s how remote the tragic events unfolding in Lebanon and Israel seemed.

I will, however, save my discussion of the Egyptian “liberal elite” – and the cloistered universe to which they belong – for another, less consequential day. I know that Lebanon and Israel are on everyone’s minds right now, as they should be. I didn’t think it could get worse, but this region never fails to amaze. It at once defies expectations and shatters them. This is what great tragedies are made of. And they have been in the making for some time now. It is, after all, not as if the region began its implosion today, or yesterday. Away from the glare of an impatient, attention-challenged Western press, the situation here in Egypt has deteriorated markedly the past year. The same can be said for Jordan (and for Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia, Algeria, and so on).

Five long years have passed. The Bush administration’s record in the Middle East has proven to be a total, colossal failure. You name it, and it has gone wrong. The Arab "spring" is no more. Arab dictators have redoubled their efforts. And of course there's Iraq. The Bush administration’s baffling unwillingness to play a more active role in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict has also been particularly destructive. There is “constructive instability,” and then there is plain old “instability.” Bush and his wonderful set of foreign policy advisors appear to have a propensity for the latter.

In any case, I am still trying to take everything in and catch up with the "facts" on the ground. I will hopefully have more to say by tomorrow, once everything is sufficiently digested. Today, I will be covering a pro-Palestinian protest at the Doctors' syndicate here in Cairo (“in solidarity with the Lebanese and the Palestinians” according to the Arabist). Abu Aardvark notes that this time around in Jordan, anti-Israel protests are morphing more easily into criticism of regime oppression and the lack of democratic reform. I have never been a big fan of “combining” the problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the problem of Arab democracy. There is no necessary link and there is no reason why democratic reform should be held hostage to a peace process which shows little sign of picking up. Which is why I’m interested to see how demonstrators will frame the issue tonight. We’ll see.

Scrowcroft’s Ghost Continues to Haunt the Hallways of the State Department Posted by Shadi Hamid

I remember the last time I was in Cairo in May 2005. There was, then, a sense that things were finally moving forward. Hope – that most rare of luxuries – was making a comeback (albeit a modest one). Today, the level of repression is getting pretty bad, as I wrote on Tuesday. And, of course, the State Department can be counted on for making things even worse.

No one in the press seemed to care much about the congressional debate on US aid to Egypt which took place earlier this month, so, for posterity’s sake, let me bring to your attention a few things which capture, quite convincingly I think, the veritable death of the Bush administration’s efforts to democratize the Middle East. If you really care about democracy, I suggest you take a deep breath before you read how our venerable officials at the State Department - perhaps under the spell of the Scrowcroftian spirit which continues to haunt the writhing hallways of the Harry S. Truman Building (and especially the 7^th floor) – made a mockery of our country's founding ideals. What the heck is Condoleezza doing?

On June 9th, Congress debated Egypt’s aid package. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), an amendment which would have reduced US aid to Egypt by $100 million was defeated in a close 225-198 vote. Well, I'm sure you're wondering where the Bush administration stood? This, according to a rather interesting article in al-Ahram Weekly, before congress voted: “The Bush administration has called on Congress to keep annual aid to Egypt of nearly $2 billion dollars intact for the next fiscal year, arguing that America's strategic interests will be harmed if aid to the Egyptian government is cut.”

Then you had one mess of a May 17th congressional hearing on the question of US aid to Egypt. Here, the position of the State Department representatives couldn't have been more clear. You had stalwart realists like Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch, who never for one second cared about Bush’s “vision” for “ending tyranny,” insisting, impassionedly it seems from the transcript, for the maintenance of the status quo:

Our strategic partnership with Egypt is a cornerstone of US policy in the region. We share a vision of a Middle East that is at peace and free of terror.

Who cares about ideals when you’ve got interests? (I guess he forgot that nothing causes terrorism like tyranny). Then, Michael Coulter, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, pointed out that military aid to the Egyptian regime helps guarantee “a defense force capable of supporting US security.” I guess Coulter forgot to mention that Egypt also plays a valuable role in torturing the terrorism suspects that we ship over to them, as part of our extraordinary renditions program. Well, priorities are priorities.

In the Face of Repression Posted by Shadi Hamid

The regime of Egyptian President-for-Eternity is in full repression mode, arresting pretty much anyone it doesn’t like. Yesterday, Ibrahim Eissa, the liberal editor-in-chief of al-Dustour, was handed a one year prison sentence for his criticism of President Mubarak. Today, the ruling National Democratic Party shoved through parliament the horrendous Judicial Authority Law. The Egyptian government is still apparently grappling with the idea of “due process,” and it appears they remain steadfast in their belief that human rights standards are not “appropriate” for Egypt, due perhaps to its “cultural specificity.” More than 700 members of the Muslim Brotherhood have been arrested for belonging to a “secret,” “illegal” organization, which is rather absurd when you think about it, since the Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in parliament, holding 20% of the seats.

In times like these, one hopes and prays (since this is the kind of thing that may require intervention of a divine nature), that after God knows how many years of mutual acrimony, Egypt's notoriously fractious opposition will get its act together, put its squabbles behind it, and unite behind an inclusive pro-democracy platform. This means that leftists, liberals, secularists, and Islamists need to work together because they share one thing in common – a hatred of Arab autocracy and a desire for a democratic Egypt.

It is worth recalling that successful democratic transitions in Latin America and Eastern Europe were facilitated by broad-based opposition coalitions which were able to unite behind inclusive platforms. A culture of compromise prevailed as key players were able to reach a basic consensus on key issues. In the Arab world, however, the opposition has been paralyzed by ideological cleavages – until now (or so we hope at least).

To be sure, the ideological cleavages still exist but, in the shade of regime brutality, there are signs that liberals, leftists, and Islamists are beginning to grasp the need to get over the past and work together, today, against a common adversary. Which is why I found the blogger-activist Alaa Abdel Fatah’s recent declaration of solidarity with the Muslim Brotherhood quite interesting.

When Democracy and Liberalism Collide Posted by Shadi Hamid

We are liberals. As such, one presumes that we believe in not just democracy, but democracy of a distinctly liberal nature. Democracy, without liberalism, can lead to “mass praetorianism,” rule by decree, and a kind cynically constructed populism. One presumes that these are not good things and, for those Americans that were not sure, the last five years offer a rather fascinating window into democracy’s fragility once its liberal safeguards begin to erode, first slowly then with greater intensity. The fact that America has resisted the careful onslaught of the republican-dominated legislative, executive, and judicial branches is a testament to the strength of our founding institutions, their durability, and their unmistakable ability to adapt, however haltingly, to the most urgent of challenges.

Our preference for liberal democracy, however, is not one without inconsistency. It is often assumed that promoting democracy abroad is in keeping with our founding ideals. It of course is, but it is less tidy than it might otherwise appear. In the context of the Middle East, more democracy leads to less liberalism. In societies where the electorate is illiberal, their illiberalism will be reflected in the kind of leaders they elect. Not only that, these leaders will invariably be more “populist” and anti-American than the “pro-US” dictators which preceded them. This makes sense – democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the majority.

The rising levels of anti-Americanism, thus, complicate our efforts to promote democracy in the Arab world. The more anti-Americanism there is, the more promoting democracy abroad will bring to power people who don’t like us too much (i.e. Islamists). Arab democracy in 2006 will look different than it would have in the less contentious times of, say, Bill Clinton (whom Arabs have always had a soft spot for).

Abbas' Gamble Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is making a diligent attempt to personally rewrite the history of the next phase of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  Just 10 days ago Abbas was being dismissed as a figurehead who, by failing to rein in corruption and sustain a following among hardline Palestinian youths, had squandered the chance to lead the Fatah party toward permanent status talks with Israel. 

The five months since Hamas was elected have been a tense period for the Palestinian people, with thousands of hard-working government employees including teachers going without pay and major fuel shortages.  Israelis have cut off the flow of tax monies that they collect on behalf of the Palestinians, and the US and many other international donors are withholding relief monies previously supplied.

Abbas deserves a lot of credit for a smart scheme that just might cut through the impending crisis.   He has seized upon an 18-point plan (here's a loose English translation by the Jerusalem Post) developed by a group of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.  The package advocates a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders, reestablishes the PLO as Israel's negotiating partner, recognizes Israel's borders, and renounces violence within Israel proper.  The mastermind behind it is Marwan Barghouti, a charismatic and wildly popular Fatah leader whom I've written about before.   Here's an interview Barghouti gave on the document.

Accord on Iran, At Least for Now Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A few quick observations on the agreement reached today among the permanent 5 UN Security Council members plus Germany on Iraq:

First of all, its good news that we're able to announce any common ground at all with the Russians and Chinese over Iran.  Many thought that impossible. 

From what I can glean, there was an at least implicit quid pro quo whereby the Administration agreed to drop its unconditional refusal to talk directly to the Iranians in return for an announcement that the P5 were all on the same page.  Of course, Washington's expression of willingness to deal face-to-face with Tehran was subject to the major caveat that Ahmadinejad would need to renounce his nuclear program first, a demand that was promptly refused. 

While I am frankly skeptical that any good could come from negotiations with Ahmadinejad, if the price of the cessation of Iranian enrichment was as cheap as a sit-down session, it would have been well worth it.  In the event, our "concession" cost precisely nothing.

More importantly, the Administration's decision to play ball with its Security Council partners and make what everyone knew would be a symbolic overture was a wise one.  This is the nature of the diplomatic dance the US must do at the UN:  others often tell us precisely what it would take to get what we want.  Too often, we snub their requests and demand our druthers any way, only to be chagrined when we don't get it.

No one should be surprised that today's agreement included no mention of sanctions.  The Security Council is just beginning what's likely to be a long and excruciating give and take with Tehran.  That process will play out slowly, and the key for the US is to put the maintenance of unity ahead of the desire to hasten things to a conclusion that we are at best ill-prepared for. 

Iran is a decade away from having operational nukes.  Short of a halt to their activities, our best bet is to constrain their room to maneuver and delay them through inspections, reports, negotiations, evidence-gathering, etc. in the hope that internal political developments will eventually offer up a more credible negotiating partner.  If it extends the period during which Iran's nuclear activities are at least partially stymied, a slow pace at the UN may thus not be a bad thing.

In the meantime, the other UNSC members will not agree to prejudge subsequent phases of the process, for example by specifying sanctions for non-compliance with a resolution that has yet to be passed.  This is the very same debate that arose in the context of the famous, vanishing "second resolution" on Iraq.  The US maintained that the first resolution provided all the authority it needed to wage war.  The majority of UNSC members who differed with us are not now going to hand us the ability to make the same argument that the use of force is somehow pre-approved for Iran.  Getting agreement on sanctions for Iran will never be easy, but it will get easier if Tehran flouts successive rounds of UN resolutions.

2010: A Taxi-Cab Odyssey Posted by Shadi Hamid

Cairo, Egypt. May 2010. The following conversation takes place in a beaten up cab from the 1950s that does not (and cannot) have any seatbelts. Unable to stand the enveloping silence, I make some small talk with the driver:

Shadi: It’s kind of hot today.
Taxi Driver: Yep.
Shadi: Well, what about the political “weather” then (this makes sense in Arabic)? To be honest, I’m pretty disappointed. Always bad news. Gamal [Mubarak] is turning out worse than his father. I didn’t think it was possible.
Taxi Driver: Tell me about it.
Shadi: Well, thank God the US is serious about democracy promotion. The White House will give Gamal a panic attack with its grandiose Wilsonian lectures on political reform.
TD: Who is Wilson?
Shadi: He was an American president 90 years ago. He believed in self-determination for third world peoples, and presumably for Arabs as well.
TD: We want this man Wilson.
Shadi: So do I but, alas, he is dead.
TD: May God be praised. To God we must all return. Still we don’t believe Clinton’s wife is serious in her democracy talk. She talks like Bush. Nice words but empty words. In the Arab world, as you know, we don’t believe what politicians say.
Shadi: Well, I guess that’s one thing we have in common. But what about the US postponing a Free Trade agreement for another five years because of the lack of progress on democratic reform?
TD: Details. Deep down, you don’t want democracy. Ya captain (i.e. Mister) - we remember what happened in Algeria.
Shadi: But that was 20 years ago.
TD: …we also remember what happened in Palestine, when you asked for elections and then you changed your mind after.
Shadi: Ummm...
TD: Plus, you Americans pretended like you didn’t want Gamal to succeed his father. But you could have stopped him if you wanted.
Shadi: 

(silence)

Shadi: Things seemed a lot better when Bill Clinton was president, didn’t they?
TD: May God grant Bill Clinton continued success and prosperity.