Lebanon 'immune' to financial crisis

The world maybe in meltdown but Beirut is booming. The country best known for wars, turmoil and instability has not just survived the global financial crisis, it seems to be thriving because of it.

A silver lining?
___

Labels: Lebanon

The Democrats should drive the Administration to more carefully consider the interests of Third World allies
President Bouteflika has left Bejing with a package of diplomatic and ecnomic agreements, following the Beijing Summit on China-Africa Cooperation earlier this week. The agreement reflects in part, Algeria's grand strategy, and opens the door for forming a new American policy towards Algeria in the wake of the Democratic coup.

According to The People's Daily, China has supported Algeria's quest towards joining the WTO, as of Monday, after a gushing session between the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and the Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

Additionally, the meeting resulted in the extension of Approved Destination Status in Algeria to Chinese students, and included "agreements covering economy, taxation, civil aviation, judicial services, quality inspection and quarantine after a joint statement was signed by leaders of both countries to facilitate strategic partnership."

Both countries further pledged to enhance their strategic relations in the political and cultural realms. Building on a tradition of warm Sino-Algerian relations, it should be easy for these efforts to come to fruition.

Bouteflika took to praising the Chinese model of global integration, and encouraging continued co-operation between the two nations, whose diplomatic, military, and political ties reach back to the years of the Algerian revolution. China was the only communist nation to recognize the Algerian Provisional Government when it was announced in 1958, and official Algerian delegations visited Beijing no less than five times that year. Indeed, these delegations

detailed arrangements both for the financing of Algerian arms purchases in the Middle East and Europe by an interest-free loan ("to be repaid after independence") and for the training of selected Algerian officers in China are believed to have been made as early as the spring of 1959. (Ed. Brezinski, Zbigniew, Africa and the Communist World, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1963, pp.162-63)

I should add that the agreements make little mention of arms. This, as Liberte put it, leaves China "jostling among the great powers regarding the sale of weapons." Algerian grand-strategy seems to be centered around diversifying the sources of Algerian arms and diplomatic resources. Last year, when the now jobless Donald Rumsfeld visited the Maghreb, Bouteflika's requests for American fighters and other weaponry was handedly denied, probably as punishment for Algeria's then recent arms deal with Russia, and for fear of triggering a North African arms race between Algeria and Morocco (traditionally, Morocco has used American jets, while Algeria's have been purchased from the old Soviet Union, its satellites, and more recently from China; many of these are outdated, and Algeria has been looking to modernize its air force).

Liberte also notes that Bouteflika has been itching the scalp of the US since his visit to Cuba in September, where he chaired the G-15 meeting, met with the ailing Cuban president, and made "certain burning declarations". This meeting with the "l’antiaméricain chronique," has irritated some of my sources inside Washington who had hoped to incorporate Algeria into the anti-neo-Third Worldist camp (my wording, not theirs). Chavez has made many overtures to Algeria in the field of gas and anti-Americanism, much of which have been met with a luke warm feeling, but have been embraced nonetheless. Bouteflika has rejected American plans for the Greater Middle East, and the parliament has strengthened state control over the energy sector in recent months. Again, as Liberte mentions, Algeria has become in recent years a "pivot state," a nation of supreme importance in the War on Terror and somewhat sympathetic to American security concerns, but by no means a rainy day ally.

The material effects of Algeria's relationship with the anti-Americans, for lack of a better term, are difficult to discern. Economically, the US has not taken measures contrary to Algerian interests with the aim of coercing Algeria into co-operation. The only visible sign is the refusal of the United States to provide Algeria with next generation military supplies in the manner that it does to its traditional allies, Morocco, Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf States. Hawkish American policy has turned many -- if not most -- Algerian off to the idea of being allied with the United States, and if Bouteflika were to form such an alliance, it would most certainly be met with objection. The American invasion of Iraq, as I have written previously, has greatly harmed its relationship with its allies, both traditional (Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia) and fair weather (Algeria, the post-Syrian Lebanese factions, etc.). The Algerian case shows the necessity of a new American policy as a new American government comes into office. If the Americans plan on cementing friendships with the nations of the Third World, it should regard the interests of these states.

While the spread of democracy like a great wild fire may be rhetorically appealing, it is indeed contrary to the notion of an alliance in this modern world. One of the primary purposes that nations enter alliances, besides the fact that they share a common security concern, is that they wish to preserve themselves. A nation does not enter a pact with another nation for the sake of stirring a revolution within itself. It enters that alliance to strengthen itself.

If the United States wishes to make an ally out of Algeria, and conduct effective statecraft among the other states in the Middle East and North Africa, it ought to reevaluate the manner in which it goes about voicing its policy. Regime change in Iraq opened a regional power vacuum, which added an extra variable to the region’s security complex that did not exist there today. This vacuum has been filled by Iran, which has introduced other variables, such as Venezuela and an even bolder Russia, the region.

Those regimes whose policies were up for grabs before the war, have been forced to make and choice, and by now most have. Algeria is still attempting to pursue an independent foreign policy, but in a region and world whose new, post-Pax Americana poles are taking shape ever more clearly each day, this cannot last for long.

The current climate serves Algeria’s grand strategy well, though. Algeria has long held a policy of non-Alignment. While it has typically leaned towards the camp of the global left, the anti-colonialists, and the revolutionaries, there are more than a few instances where Algeria has cooperated with Western nations where their interests were congruent. The new international system allows Algerian to oscillate between East and West, and to more effectively push its interests. The greater and lesser powers must compete of Algeria’s (and much the rest of the world's) diplomatic and economic support (in exchange for energy) in exchange for arms, investment, and all the rest.

This should not be viewed as a threat. While Sino-Algerian and Russo-Algerian relations have historically been rather warm, American-Algerian relations have been cordial, though mutual suspicion has always existed as a result of Cold War mentalities and issues, not to mention the Palestinian matter. But, there is no intrinsic gaffe between the two nations.

The United States was one of the first international stops made by Ahmed Ben Bella, though this visited was immediately followed up by a visit to Cuba (which aroused the suspicion of Washington). Algerians have sided with the United States in several key votes at the UN, and have rarely taken or supported actions that were antithetical to American national security. Cooperation between Algeria and the European nations on terrorism, especially since the 1980’s has been extensive. Algeria has supported the American Pan-Sahel initiative, and has even allowed American forces to train Algerian troops. President Bouteflika was the first head of state to send his condolences to President Bush on the occasion of 9/11.

There is no reason that the United States and Algeria should have hostile relations; the US must understand that Algeria’s interest lie in diversification and not in subservience or preemptive strikes. The interests of Algeria, and other states like her, are primarily economic and structural, that is, primarily interested in modernizing their domestic infrastructure, economy, and military. In some cases, such as Algeria's it is somewhat of a reconstruction. While the interests of the US and the non-Allied camp may not always coincide exactly, they do not have to for a healthy working relationship to take shape. The non-Allied are non-allied for exactly this reason. The new American leadership should take this into account when formulating its policy towards the nations of the Third World.

Visit The Thinking Lebanese.

Syria didn't have to stop the attack on the US Embassy in Damascus. If the country is the rogue state this administration portrays it as, would it not have let the attack happen?

Certainly Damascus is concerned that it is in US war plans and any failure to stop such an attack would be seen as complacency. But they could have let it happen and did not. I wonder what the Arabs-aren't-human crowds in backasswards America think about Arabs saving Americans now?

Now that we've destabilized the whole Middle East, we can't afford to destroy an oasis of stability. I hope this cooperation will help to keep Syria intact when the war moves past Iraq.

To the Syrian security guard who died protecting America, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. To the murderous thugs who died in the attack, have fun in Hell, swine.

The morbidity of this nation's memory once again presents us with images and empty reflections of a day when 3000 people died for no reason. Ours is a culture that worships violence and destruction; it's no wonder you can go to a righty's blog and see video repetition of the planes crashing into the towers.

Never forget - that's what they say. But we've already forgotten. We've already forgotten the unity we had after that moment. We've forgotten the books that we bought to try to understand, even those of the infamous orientalist Bernard Lewis. (Hey, at least people who bought his books after the event were trying to understand.) What's left is only hatred, vengeance, and a morbid desire to keep watching the towers fall, to keep thinking about it, dwelling on it, and refusing to believe that there is more than pure hatred to fundie Islam. Nobody knows history, nobody knows colonialism, nihilism, corporatism, materialism, existentialism, communism, fascism...every single one of these isms contributes to what we are seeing now. Contrary to popular ignorance, fundie Islam isn't some mindless random violence. There is a philosophy behind it. It's a pretty shitty philosophy, but it exists, and until we attempt to understand it, perpetual war is what we get.

Why don't we watch Pearl Harbor get blown up every December 7th?

You can put up all the ribbons you want, sing as many meaningless patriotic songs as you can, and say September 11th as often as your mouth will let you, but what does that do? Nothing. Empty slogans like "Never forget" and "United We Stand" are garbage if you aren't paying attention to the news and you don't know what's going on. Why is it so difficult for people to read the news? Why do they resort to empty slogans and garbage propaganda? Sieg Heil, America, sieg heil.

I'd prefer to keep September 11th as a remembrance of my grandfather's birthday or the day when Pete Rose hit 4192, not to recall with anger, disgust, and horror at watching people jump to their deaths from the edge of Heaven.

I am sick. The vile champions of hate produce another generation who know not peace, forgiveness, compromise. These are Israeli children in this photo, writing messages on bombs like murder and destruction are a happy part of childhood innocence, mere chalk on a sidewalk. They don't know it yet, but hatred already pollutes their blood and rage runs through their veins. They will never know Justice, only the eternal cycle of barbaric vengeance.

As bombs like these pour from the sky like blood from a never healing wound, as children like these are murdered, maimed, psychologically tortured for life, blame spreads like wildfire, and it doesn't care who it takes down in its path of destruction.

You plant a demon seed, you raise a flower of fire.

I was too young to understand the chaos. CNN and cable media weren't ratings whores back then, and people still watched the evening news on network television. News was news, not what Paris Hilton ate for lunch.

I have faint recollections of images on television. I knew that the word "Lebanon" meant something bad. But I was the kid who looked at Russian script and thought it all was about nuclear bombs. (To this day I often refer to printed Russian as the "nuclear letters" just for fun.) Why did the Marines die? Why was the President on television so much? They never taught us these things in school. I didn't even know what the Middle East was, and no teacher ever attempted to explain that there was a war on. Why? Were they sheltering us? Were they trying to avoid having to explain why Lebanon was a mess, avoid talking about Israel or the Ottoman Empire? Or was it just too complicated for them to understand, let alone some eight year old kids trying to wrap their little minds around it?

I learned about the Lebanese civil war from Thomas Friedman. Don't groan - he wrote From Beirut to Jerusalem way before his ego inflated to the size of Beirut and Jerusalem put together, and it's quite a good book. Since then, I've been employed in the Mideast field and have come to learn much about what used to be an enigma to me. Still, keeping track of the factions and the alliances over Lebanon's recent history is difficult to do. I wish those who say Americans don't care about Lebanon could understand why that just isn't true. Lebanon is a confusing place, and I don't think many Americans comprehend what is going on, especially in light of the fact that American media is a multibillion dollar industry. The Fourth Estate has burned to the ground. It's dead.

I've been reading as much as I can about the current situation. I don't want to have an uninformed opinion about it, although that's pretty much what all of the opinions are out there. I've read some real hate in the last few days - Arabs blaming Jews, Jews blaming Arabs, Arabs blaming Americans, Americans blaming Arabs, Americans blaming Jews, Jews blaming Americans, Arabs telling Americans to clean up the mess, Jews telling Americans to stay out of it...it's all so maddening! Get a grip people! I did discover a blog today with some sense (and a sense of humor.) Go to The Lebanese Bloggers for some rational insight into what's going on.

More violence in Iraq.

A car bombing leaves over 20 dead
The prime minister is visiting the city of Basra to try and calm to sectarian militias that have sprung up.
US marines are alleged to have shot without reason 25 people in the west. A report by the US, expected to be whitewash, will be published this week.
Two journalists and 2 British soldiers have died in Basra
In the whole country only 3 provinces are counted as stable, all in the Kurdish north. The rest are either dangerous or in anarchy.

What can be done to solve the situation?

1. A withdrawal of coalition troops might work - but it might create a vacuum of power that would be filled by theocratic totalitarianism - a la Iran, which would be covertly opposed by Sunni governments such as Saudi Arabis, to the point where they might send troops undercover to destabilise the country. Somalia mkii, anyone?
2. Democracy could be helped if the cabinet could actually form properly. This means that the defence and interior posts, the most important jobs, were occupied. Otherwise, legislative and political gridlock will deprive democracy of any momentum and we will return to Square 1.
3. The execution of Saddam Hussein. With him gone, Iraq could be seen to have reached a 'turning point'. This may take some time though and it is not certain how valuable a figurehead Saddam remains.
4. The purging of Shi'ite and Sunni militants from the civil service, most notably the police force. This is easier said than done, and relies on excellent loyalty values being installed by the police towards Iraq. This requires a more long-term solution, namely:
5. The distinction between religion and politics. At the moment there is none and never has been in an Islamic country. This could take generations to eradicate. Look at Iran. ostensibly a democratic government - but then look further to see the ruthless Ayatollah excising anything that doesn't fit with Islamic custom. This neutralises free speech, democracy and effectively opens up to be a militaristic, mercilessly autocratic and deplorable state, with homosexuals being hanged from cranes and shot in football stadiums.
6. A sense of personal responsibility amongst Iraq i people .Many do this already - and it is hard to stand up against armed militias. But US trying to rid them off the streets will not destroy them; it will have the opposite effect. Rejection of sectarian values in favour of a secular Iraq can be only be a good thing, along with a rejection of revenge violence as a whole

These are my ideas. Does anyone have any others?

President Bouteflika's recent comments regarding the French colonization of Algeria have caused quite a stir. His fuss holds the potential to accomplish a great deed; placing such a burden on the world community's conscience that they feel moved to take meaningful action in Darfur, or at least to make them seriously contemplate it. But it does not seem to be the case that Mr. Bouteflika, or any one else, is going to use this tremendous opportunity to do good.

His comments have been a source of reflection for me over the past week or so. Firstly, I am inclined to sympathize with his postion; I do believe that the French occupation of Algeria, and its methods of rule had genocidal tendancies. He's on the money in that respect. I am also glad that someone is bringing this issue up, as it is common for historians and politicians to over look not just the massacres at Setif and Gulema in 1945 (on V-E Day no less), but the overall French presence in Algeria and its intentions. It seems that there has actually been a resultant of Bouteflika's angry speeches: historians, not just Algerian ones have come out in support of the label of genocide. Most of the historians that have used the term "genocide" in reference to the French experience in Algeria have been Algerians, or other Arabs, and often have drawn paralles between the French occupation of Algeria and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. But a British historian of Armenian origins, Aza Sarafian, has spoken up in favor of Bouteflika's appellation,

criticising the French draft law that will punish the deniers of the Armenian genocide, said France should first start with its role in Algeria and Rwanda. (Note, this quotation comes from Zaman Online, a Turkish paper that seems to deny the fact of the Armenian genocide)

Sarafian is a prominent publisher of primary sources on the Armenian genocide, and his calls for France to recognize its past are quite interesting. This could lead to a wider recognition of France's brutal history in Africa, and perhaps for pressure from foreign academics and leaders for the French state to take responsibility for its actions. There is little doubt that the French colonial forces and settlers were aiming to eliminate all that was remotely Arab from Algeria; they often said as much in their communal newspapers and journals. The French even had a term for the removal of natives from the coastal and fertile regions to the dry and arid back country: refoulement. (More on the French colonization of Algeria can be found here, the second part of a two part essay published on my other blog.)

However, I disagree with Bouteflika's belief that Algeria has a "'fundamental right' to a 'public and solemn apology for the crime of colonisation committed against our people'". State apologies are insincere and produce nothing of value. The perpetrators of this genocide no longer walk the earth or sail its seas, and for the men of today to apologize upon their behalf is a ridiculous notion. If a heart felt apology could be levied from Bertrand Clauzel or the Governor-Generals, I would be all for such action, and for bringing them to international authorities. But it is not. None of them are alive today, save for the most elderly of soldiers who massacred hundreds at Setif and Gulema in 1945 and those who tortured members of the FLN during the War of Independence. Is it truly realistic though, to think that Jean-Marie Le Pen, or Jacques Chirac will sincerely apologize for their actions during that hairy sally?

No. Algerians can at best hope for a strong recognition and condemnation of the genocidal practices that took place from the time of Charles X to De Gaulle. But a formal apology is unlikely and undesirable. After the apology, the French nationalists may ask, "Why should we write or read about this now? We've apologized, get over it." An apology would do more harm to the Algerian historical cause than good. Recognition would allow for the French people of today, most of whom had little to do with the colonization of North Africa, to not have to assume responsibility for the horrendous crimes of their forefathers, and Algerians recieve due respect from the French state.

My second thought is less positive. It is clear that Bouteflika is using the issue of genocide as the "nationalist card," in a way similar to how Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used the nuclear issue in his country. In hopes of showing to the people of Algeria that he is a true patriot, and not just a corrupt thugg, Bouteflika is banging the drum of Algerian nationalism, appealing to the sensitive emotions that are attached to Algeria's colonial history. In doing so, Bouteflika mainly appeals to the older generation; pensioners, verterans and their ilk. But could Bouteflika's efforts have a more sinister motivation behind them than cheering up the toothless crowd?

While President Bouteflika is ranting and raving about tribulations gone past, a real genocide is taking place on Algeria's own continent, and within its cultural and political realm. Violence in Darfur, Sudan have taken hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced milions. Bouteflika's coments have not called attention to this; in fact, they have the serious potential of distracting certain individuals away from the hellish state of affairs in Sudan as of late.

President Bouteflika, having lived during an era of colonization and under the pauperized Algeria of the 1940's and 1950's should know that it is not a good feeling to be left all alone to jackels. Algeria needs to take a vocal stance against the Islamist and misanthropic policies of the Sudanese government. Algeria, a nation supposedly seeking to rebuild its world wide reputation as a dealer in peace (Algerians worked to ease tensions between Iraq and Iran during the 1970's, to negotiate the release of American hostages from Iran in 1979, and Mr. Bouteflika himself aided in settling the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea) and cooperation, has seemingly ignored the crisis in Sudan. It would do Algeria's reputation a great deal of good internationally if it were to come down hard on Sudan, if even rhetorically.

Algeria's silence is not out of place though. Leaders of Middle Eastern and North African states frequently lament the trials and conspiracies of the past while ignoring those of the present. How often, for example, does one hear Iranian leaders admonishing the UK and the US for Operation Ajax? It is common to hear Arab leaders shouting cries of "colonialism" or "imperialism" while they have no foriegn troops, and quite often very few foreign embassies, on their soil. Algeria is simply following along with its peers. The root of Algeria's indifference may be that the government truly is not concerned with the happenings in Darfur and in Chad. It is more likely, however, that the government does not wish to irritate its long time military patrons, Russia and China, and its odd new bed fellow, Iran; all of whom are against military or otherwise decisive action in Sudan at any level outside of the Sudanese state. An other fear is most certainly that if a given Arab state takes its own position, out of step with the main steam of "Arab" opinion, it will be marginalized by other states in the region. None of the Arab League states support action to end the genocide in Darfur.

It is then a pitty that President Bouteflika's comments will likely have no value other than that of the sentimental. What a sight it would have been, to see Algeria, a country whose national character and social mannerisms were formed by an uncivilized and ostreperous genocide, among the leaders of the crusade against genocide. But it would seem that the leaders of that great nation are lacking in their ability to connect the events of the past to those of the present. So too are they lacking the manliness to step up and challege those who are committing the same sort of refoulement today that was enforced upon their forefathers.

Six journalists were detained at a protest in Cairo today in support of judges who are facing a disciplinary committee for criticising election abuses. The arrests are the first since the Egyptian Parliament voted to extend the emergency laws for two years last week.

Egyptian journalists have become increasingly bold in recent years as President for Life Mubarak seemed to be tolerating a somewhat more open government. Articles criticizing the regime began to appear in Arabic language papers. Before, there was some room for criticism in English language papers, as Mubarak's thugs knew articles in English couldn't arouse the Arabic speaking masses. A group of reformers drafted the Alexandria Declaration in 2004 stating the need for reform of the oppressive regimes in the region and calling for more transparency in policymaking. In Egypt, there have been two follow-up forums since then organized by Ahram Regional Press Institute and the Center for International Private Enterprise in which writers engaged in drafting recommendations for reform.

It appears that Mubarak's thugs are content to end that period of increasing openness.

I say to the US administration - PUT THE PRESSURE BACK ON MUBARAK NOW. He feeds on gifts from our treasury; we should not let these human rights abuses continue.