Global Geopolitics Net Sites / IPS
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.
By Mona Alami
BEIRUT, Nov 3 (IPS) – Over the past few months, Tripoli, a large harbour city sitting on Lebanon’s northern shores, known for its mazy souks, century-old mansions and oriental sweets, has made front page headlines, falling prey to a series of deadly security threats. Following the recent political reconciliation between warring politicians, however, the army made headway towards establishing stability by infiltrating a terrorist cell accused of orchestrating attacks against the Lebanese army.
In the presence of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, leaders of Tripoli’s various factions last month agreed a reconciliation agreement at the residence of Sheikh Malek Chaar, Mufti of Tripoli and North Lebanon. The document’s ratification put an end to four months of spiralling violence between the Alawite minority living in the Baal Mohsen area, also known as Jabal Mohsen, and Sunni communities from the adjacent impoverished neighbourhood of Bab el-Tebbaneh. The Alawites are a Shia sect.
The agreement was signed by Sunni and Future movement leader Saad Hariri, son of slain premier Rafik Hariri who was killed in a bomb blast in 2005 that is largely attributed to Syria. It was endorsed by pro-Syrian Alawite leader Rifaat Al-Assad and his son, Ali Eid. Siniora declared while signing the document that “Tripoli should be a demilitarised city, free of gunmen and any military presence.”
He went on to underline that the army and security forces have been ordered to enforce law and order. Hariri also attempted to reassure the public by pledging that the state will meet the needs of victims of the violence.
An army source interviewed by IPS, who chose to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the issue, admitted that “power struggles among the different factions in the north have temporarily ebbed since the reconciliation.” But he said that while money flowing into Tripoli will help relieve pressure in the shanty towns sprawling around the city, the issue of weapons, which abound in the northern capital, remains unresolved. The source said the Alawites are still in possession of large stockpiles of weapons received from Syria, while weapons are also found in many Sunni households.
The fractured Lebanese government has yet to address the issue of weapons, and restoring the peace in Tripoli has proved a complex exercise in cooperation. The Lebanese pro-Western and Arab parliamentary majority — comprised of the Future movement, the Druze Progressive Socialist party as well as the Christian Phalangists and Lebanese Forces — has been engaged in intense rivalry since the death of Rafik Hariri with the pro-Iranian and Syrian minority dominated by the Shia Hezbollah and Amal parties, which are allied to the Christian Free Patriotic movement.
In spite of both blocks forming a unity government in July, and Tripoli’s allegiance to the majority leadership, the dissention between the two factions, though condemned officially by all sides, has translated into intermittent eruptions of violence in the northern city. The area was shaken by two terrorist attacks that targeted the army on Aug. 13 and Sep. 29, resulting in 21 deaths.
“There was a definite breakdown of power in the North, with every small faction taking over a neighbourhood and imposing its own law, with individual feuds being exploited by various political factions and taking on a sectarian dimension,” said the army source.
However, political factions seem to have finally reached a consensus. “The resulting collaboration between the various intelligence services has allowed the crackdown on a terrorist cell accused of the bombings, which, according to information provided to me, was operating independently,” said Future movement MP Moustapha Allouch.
Islamist factions close to the minority added, however, that fear of possible Syrian intervention in the north under the banner of support to the Alawite community, or a possible quelling of the Salafist movements (a radical faction of Islam) as well as pressure from foreign countries allowed for the crackdown. Syria, Lebanon’s immediate neighbour to the north, ruled by an Alawite minority, has historically suppressed Islamic movements, and Tripoli is known to be home to various fundamentalist factions.
On Oct. 13, members of the terrorist group allegedly involved in the recent bombings targeting the army in northern Lebanon were arrested, according to a statement released by the Lebanese army.
“Tensions have been diffused to a certain extent since the intervention of the High Relief Commission (HCR), which is handling the compensation of victims of violence in Tripoli and has beefed up its staff working on the relief effort from four to ten committees. However, the lengthy process has frustrated some citizens,” said Allouch.
The MP pointed out that the fragile reconciliation process could still be jeopardised by the activity of foreign intelligence services — namely, Syria. But for now, the decrease in the number of men in fatigues roaming the streets is a refreshing sight.
President Assad wants a Cold War
Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
© Copyright 2008 Meir Javedanfar – Middle East Analyst. All rights reserved.
This article was originally published on Middle East Analyst. Read the article in its original form.
By Meir Javedanfar
The guns have barely fallen silent in the conflict between Georgia and Russia. The two sides are still squabbling over the implementation of the ceasefire agreement. Yet that didn’t stop President Bashar Al Assad of Syria from becoming the first head of state to visit Russia, where he declared his unyielding support for Moscow’s position regarding Georgia. “We understand Russia’s stance regarding the breakaway regions and understand that it came in retaliation to Georgian provocation,” he said.
Even more interesting was his follow-up statement: “We oppose any attempt to harm Russia’s position.” He even went as far as to generously offer to host Russian ground-to-ground missiles in his country.
Assad could see that Western demands for Russia to withdraw its forces from South Ossetia – and the recent agreement between Poland and the U.S. to place an anti -missile shield on Polish territory – are worrying Russia.
Moscow is concerned that the West, especially the U.S., is using every opportunity to undermine its position. Some Russians have gone as far as to view Georgia’s provocative decision to send its forces into South Ossetia as a Western-sponsored trap, meant to lure Russia into a conflict. The West would then use Russia’s response as justification for the expansion of NATO in the Caucasus, as well as in Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine. Both are very sensitive points for Moscow.
By throwing in his lot completely with Russia, Assad obviously hoped that he could use the current anti-Western sentiment in Moscow as capital to finance Russia’s support – both militarily and politically – for Syria and its position.
The purpose of his visit and supporting statement was clear. He was basically insinuating to the Russians:
The motivations of his strategy are understandable. Unlike his father, when Bashar became president he did not have the support of the Soviet superpower. This made the job of purchasing sophisticated weaponry to counter that of Israel much more difficult. The loss of the Soviet Union as a backer also meant that Damascus lost a powerful ally on the international stage, especially in the UN. Although Syria consolidated power in the Middle East through its alliance with Hezbollah and Iran, on a global scale the country remains isolated, with no prospect of the U.S. or the EU giving their support as the USSR once did. Furthermore, the country’s present economic situation under Bashar is far worse than when his father was in charge. Back then, Syria was earning 80% of its income from oil. Now, due to dwindling resources, this figure is down to 20%. The same goes for water resources. There are reports from Damascus that repeated, lengthy cuts in water supply are making life for its citizens extremely difficult, especially in the summer heat.
Despite his efforts, it is unlikely that Assad can get the Cold War revival that he seeks. First and foremost, Russia of 2008 is far more different than Russia of 1988. Its economy is far more intertwined and dependent on Western capital and trade.
This was demonstrated recently when foreign investors pulled their money out of Russia in the wake of the Georgia conflict at the fastest rate since the 1998 ruble crisis. According to the Financial Times, Russian foreign currency reserves dropped by $16.4 billion in the fist week of the conflict with Georgia. This was one of the largest absolute weekly drops in ten years, which put pressure on the ruble and on foreign confidence in the Russian economy.
These days, thanks to trade with the West and high energy prices, Russians are used to the good life. “If the Georgians were smart, instead of attacking South Ossetia, all they needed to do was to threaten to bomb the Gucci shop in Moscow,” quipped a Russian businessman I know, who travels regularly between Israel and Russia. “Russians would have agreed to their annexation of South Ossetia in no time.”
Joking aside, Russia’s leadership is all too aware that economic misery could cost them votes and popularity at home. This is why they will not allow their relations with the EU and the U.S. to deteriorate too drastically by entering into another Cold War.
Unfortunately for Assad, the same goes for Russia’s relations with Israel. Level of trade and diplomatic relations between Russia and Israel, compared to the days of the USSR, have increased astronomically. Russia now hosts hundreds of thousands of its citizens who lived in Israel, have Israeli passports, and are now back living in their land of birth. Many more of its citizens live in Israel. Israeli companies have offices and have invested in the Russian economy,. They have also been instrumental in the high tech and jewelery industry. Today, Russians visit Israel in record numbers. The level of bilateral trade between them is estimated to stand at more than $2 billion – and is rising. Russia would have very little to gain by supporting Syria, at the cost of making Israel into its enemy.
Furthermore, with the emergence of China as a superpower, maintaining relations with as many sides as possible is considered crucial to Moscow’s foreign policy.
Russia’s cold shoulder to Syria’s hopes for a new Cold War should not worry Iran too much. Its case is different than that of Damascus. Tehran has much larger gas and oil reserves. For now, its economic situations is not dire as Syria’s is. Furthermore, China supports Russia’s stance in the UN vis a vis the Iranian nuclear program. This means that Russia does not have to make any dramatic changes in its relations with Tehran. Even though they would prefer it, Iran’s leadership can live without a Cold War between Russia and the West. For Syria’s leader, it will be much more difficult.
Meir Javedanfar
Middle East Analyst
www.meepas.com
The Middle East. Analysed.