BEIRUT — The agreed parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program that were reached Thursday between Iran and the P5+1 powers represent a monumental achievement that affirms the power of reason and diplomacy over the ravages of fear and warfare. The technical details of the complex understanding remain to be completed. For now, though, the lasting significant aspects of this development are about the past and the future: The past being the bold leadership that Iran and the United States have shown in launching and advancing the diplomatic negotiations, and the future being about the potential significant regional changes that will follow the implementation of a full agreement.

I will assess in a separate column the potential positive changes in the region that this agreement could trigger. Here I would note enthusiastically the historic lessons to be learned about the power of negotiations over threats. More specifically, this is about the capacity of serious and responsible leaders to advance a diplomatic negotiation by having the courage and confidence to change positions they had long held, but that had become untenable over time. It took serious courage, for example, for the United States and the others with it to finally accept that Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, under international inspections and safeguards.

The United States and Israel in particular for years had fervently opposed allowing Iran to maintain any enrichment facilities that would allow it to produce its own nuclear fuel. Israel stuck to its extremist position, but the United States came to terms with the reality that threats, sanctions and repeated talk of war had not slowed down Iran’s uranium enrichment program, but in fact only saw it expand. The United States’ tacit acknowledgment in 2013 that Iran would maintain its enrichment capabilities — because it had already achieved them and they could not be bombed away — opened the door for a serious negotiation.

Toning down the constant threats of American military attacks against Iran also helped to open that door. Never mind that Washington continues until this day to use offensive language about Iran that presupposes Tehran’s deception and mendacity in conducting its policies and negotiations, treating Iran like one would treat a delinquent offender who has to be nursed back into a normal life under strict police supervision. Iran understood that this was primarily for domestic U.S. and Israeli consumption, where racist language against Arabs, Iranians and others in this region is routine.

Iran largely ignored the offensive tone, in favor of focusing on the substance of the negotiations that had to allow Iran two things: to continue its nuclear program, including enriching uranium and conducting research and development work, for verifiably peaceful purposes; and, simultaneously to result in lifting the sanctions against Iran. The Americans and their partners eventually acknowledged these two demands.

The Iranians also had to make some significant changes in their positions. These included issues like the length of the agreement, the nature of inspections and monitoring, the pace of sanctions reduction, and the magnitude and kinds of nuclear materials production facilities. Iranian leaders mustered significant humility and courage to accept the key demands of the P5+1 parties that are supposed to prevent Iran from achieving a speedy breakthrough to producing a nuclear bomb.

Iran made such big concessions for two important reasons, or principles, that others in conflict situations can learn from: reciprocity and respect. When the Americans and their colleagues started dealing with Iran on the basis that concessions would be made by both sides, and that such concessions would happen on the basis of respecting the rights of all parties equally, breakthroughs started to happen.

The obvious agreement that could have been identified a decade ago finally moved ahead towards consummation in the past year, with all negotiators getting their key demands. Israel has been left in the dust to a large extent for now. The human and political sides of reaching agreement have been much tougher than the technical details. Rarely in modern history have we seen such decisive statesmanship, reflecting a rare combination of realism, honesty, humility, boldness and foresighted leadership. These attributes rarely all gather in the chests of individual human beings, but they have done so here.

We have seen such history-making leadership in several other episodes in the past two generations: when the United States and China reconciled, when the Apartheid South African system transformed to democratic majority rule, when Northern Ireland leaders ended their conflict and shared power democratically, when Polish leaders and opposition members negotiated a transition away from Communist authoritarianism towards an elected government, and when Mikhail Gorbachev saw the bankruptcy of Soviet authoritarianism and initiated a transition to something better for his people.

The men and women who conducted this diplomacy join a special group of leaders and officials, all of whom deserve great thanks and appreciation from the entire world for reminding us of the immense power of negotiating on the basis of reciprocity and respect.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 04 April 2015
Word Count: 834
—————-

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

BEIRUT — We should keep our eyes on one arena and two actors now in any serious assessment of the repercussions of the national election in Israel this week that resulted in a strong victory by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party and a consolidation of rightwing sentiments: Israeli-American relations is the critical arena, and the European and Palestinian leaderships are the two pivotal actors to watch.

The American-Israeli relationship has defined almost all other developments in Arab-Israeli diplomacy since the late 1960s, when American policy structurally and decisively tilted to a pro-Israeli position. Other than the occasional, momentary and superficial rap on Israel’s knuckles by James Baker or Ronald Reagan, or an unsuccessful push by Barack Obama to freeze Israeli settlements, the United States has supported or acquiesced in all major Israeli positions on relations with Palestine. This posture of “no daylight between the United States and Israel” has covered all fields, including military, technical and economic aid, diplomacy at the UN, supporting warfare, and initiatives in other international forums.

Obama-Netanyahu tensions in recent years finally exploded this week, capped by the declaration by unnamed US officials that Washington would now reassess or re-evaluate its positions on Palestinian-Israeli issues in international forums, such as the UN Security Council. Reportedly this could include American support for a Security Council resolution outlining the broad contours of a two-state resolution, which Israel adamantly opposes.

We will know soon if these are momentous structural shifts in the American position, or passing emotional irritations more linked to personalities than to policies. If the United States does support a Security Council resolution affirming a two-state resolution, that would be an important sign of real change. It would open the door to a whole new dynamic in which the United States for the first time differentiates, in its actions rather than just its words, between its ironclad support for Israel’s security, and its objections to Israel’s occupation and settlements policies. A shift in the US position here would dramatically open doors to substantive political developments in several arenas, emphasizing the untenability of the occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands since 1967.

This ties in with the two political actors we should now watch — the European Union (EU) and the Palestinian leadership — to see if meaningful diplomatic change will occur. The EU was a global pioneer in affirming Palestinian national rights in the 1980 Venice Declaration that backed Palestinian legitimate rights and self-determination. Then Europe more or less took a leave of absence from Palestine-Israel diplomacy for some 35 years, before returning to action last year and imposing sanctions on relations with Israeli entities that operate in the occupied territories. It will be important now to see if the EU persists in this direction and more tangibly asserts its support for Israel’s security within its 1948 borders, while punishing Israel for its colonial policies in the 1967 occupied territories. A European lead here, including possibly formal recognition of the State of Palestine within the 1967 occupied territories, would spark important similar follow-up measures by governments, civil society and the private sector.

The Palestinian leadership is the weakest link in this diplomatic chain of actors and issues, due to three related factors: the impact of Israeli occupation-colonization; American, European and Arab policies that perpetuate the status quo; and, the internal incompetences and autocratic nature of Palestinian politics. The Palestinian leadership must now exploit the new landscapes of opportunity and possibility that have been opened up by the small breach in US-Israeli ties and the initial stirrings of reinvigorated European activism.

The Palestinians should take dynamic action to achieve several goals simultaneously. First, they must rehabilitate the Palestinian leadership itself by reconstituting the institutions of the Palestine Liberation Organization as a legitimate, active representative of all Palestinians. Second, they must push hard on several international fronts to challenge and delegitimize Israeli actions in the occupied territories, including in the International Criminal Court, the UN Security Council and General Assembly, and other forums — using nuanced diplomatic engagements to elicit American and European support for some measures that criticize Israel’s criminal colonial behavior. Third, the Palestinians must work with governments and civil society groups around the world to mobilize serious pressure on Israel’s colonization-occupation practices, including sanctions that treat Israel’s occupation in the same manner that the world mobilized against Apartheid South Africa.

New opportunities for diplomacy that may now arise from the evolving pivotal relationship between the American and Israeli governments demand proactive initiatives by Palestinians, Europeans, Arabs and civil society across the world, to provide both the pressure and the possibilities for a negotiated two-state solution that satisfies the legitimate rights of all parties.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 21 March 2015
Word Count: 772
—————-

Syria has always been a larger idea than its own geography, whether in the past or in modern times. Half a century ago, Syria was called “the throbbing heart of Arabism,” and in previous centuries the word “Syria” always referred to a wider region that covered much of the Levant. Today, the fourth anniversary of the war in Syria provides a somber opportunity to grasp again the reasons for the crises, violence and occasional chaos and state collapse we witness in half a dozen Arab countries.

It will take many years to restore Syria to its pre-war condition, but in the meantime it would be useful to understand the underlying drivers of the country’s terrible plunge into inhuman warfare and suffering, so that we might avoid perpetuating them in other Arab lands. Syria reflects the consequence of several trends that are peculiar to this region and that have persisted over several generations. Reversing these factors will be essential if Syrians or other Arab people are to have any chance of enjoying a more stable and productive national trajectory than they have experienced in the past century.

We can clearly see in retrospect the key dynamics that have shaped much of the modern dysfunction of Arab states, whose high point of national incoherence and fragility we witness these days in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and other countries. The three most destructive trends during the past century have always gone hand-in-hand. They are that
a) entire countries have been ruled by small elites, often individual families or a group of military officers, which results in
b) security agencies dominating governments and defining most aspects of people’s lives, which finally leads to situations where
c) ordinary citizens never enjoy the opportunity to shape their national and civic institutions and to define the social contract that is essential to promoting decent governance, socio-economic growth, and stability.

These three phenomena all have their origins in the manner in which so many Arab states, like Syria, were established by European colonial powers, and did not necessarily reflect the free will or natural inclinations of their indigenous people. Not surprisingly, state fragility and collapse in the last half a century often have reflected tensions and then outright warfare among ethnic, national, tribal or sectarian groups that never found comfortable identity in the new state structures that suddenly defined their lives.

Local and regional wars or long-simmering ideological confrontations among Arabs, Israelis and Iranians, most notably, and with Western powers in recent years, fatally diverted attention and resources from democratic nation-building and cemented the military’s hold on power. Military-run security states resulted in large-scale corruption, mediocrity or broad incompetence in governance. This included erratic health and education systems that doomed millions of people from birth into chronic poverty, which entrenched the cycle of human despair that in recent years has been one element in fueling the growth of terror movements.

Home-grown mismanagement and oppression have always had a symbiotic relationship with foreign military invasions, coups and other political interventions across the region. The region’s heavy reliance on direct or indirect oil and gas income, rather than productive and creative economic endeavors, also minimized the role of the private sector in creating jobs and wealth and in promoting a sense of satisfaction and security among citizens who otherwise had to rely on mostly meaningless government jobs.

Such weaknesses and vulnerabilities were camouflaged during the early decades of state development last century, but ultimately they were exposed by two factors that are very evident in Syria’s current demise — unsustainably high population growth rates and steadily worsening environmental deterioration (especially water shortages). When Arab population growth outstripped economic growth in the mid-1980s, most countries in this region started to suffer more poverty, social dislocation, and expanding hopelessness by millions of ravaged citizens. Two reactions from within heightened the inevitable stresses and some collapses we witness now: more severe security oppression by the state to maintain order, and the scramble by citizens to ensure their needs by turning to their own religious and tribal movements. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is merely the latest and most severe of many such manifestations.

With the end of the Cold War and the Anglo-American-led invasion of Iraq, weaker state authorities started to retreat from some sectors and areas of society, and the vacuums were quickly filled by tribal, religious and militant groups. Syria reminds us that we are likely to endure many years of dislocation and violence until local authorities re-establish order that is not based on the security dictates of a single family with its national army, but rather on a more credible social contract among citizens who feel they belong to a state and consensually agree on the ground rules of that state.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 14 March 2015
Word Count: 794
—————-

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

BEIRUT — Jordan’s public opinion, political leadership and regional and international dynamics today offer very useful insights into the current condition of the entire Arab world, and should be studied carefully by anyone interested in how things operate in this region and where it may be heading.

The immediate mass-anger emotional reaction among Jordanians to the brutal killing of air force pilot Muaz Kasasbeh is totally understandable and justified; but behind the current wave of enraged sentiments and demands for revenge is a complex matrix of emotions, ideologies and state-building realities that reveal the deeper challenge that faces King Abdullah. Three particular elements shape this kind of analysis of Jordan, which also apply to most other Arab countries. They are 1) the nature of national political and strategic decision-making, 2) the role of public opinion and limited involvement in governance, and 3) the socio-economic condition of the country and its reliance on foreign support.

All three of these dimensions are active this week as Jordanians come to terms with the massive hurt they feel at the gruesome and cruel Kasasbeh killing, and ponder options on how to respond. Public opinion has swung strongly behind King Abdullah and the armed forces, reflecting the understandable desire to hit back at ISIS and cause as much death and damage in their ranks as possible. This is a sharp reversal from the situation weeks ago, when Jordan enjoyed a lively debate about the wisdom of the country joining the American-led coalition to fight and defeat ISIS. Vocal critics of the Jordanian armed forces’ involvement in the actual attacks as well as in other aspects of the anti-ISIS campaign included personal criticisms of the king’s role in such decisions.

The important point here is not whether the Jordanian decision to join the anti-ISIS fight is sound (I personally believe it is sound, given the real threat ISIS poses to the whole region) but rather the manner in which such fateful national decisions are made in Arab countries without any credible popular consultations or participation by the spectrum of indigenous ideological views. This legacy has led to state ruin in places like Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and a few other Arab states.

Jordan is not in that situation, and remains tightly managed from above by a determined leadership supported by a capable security and military sector — but also with little if any credible popular participation. This is evident in Jordan on controversial issues like relations with Israel — with whom Jordan has a stable peace treaty — or cooperation with the United States and other powers in military arenas.

When things return to normal, Jordan will once again have to confront the big issues that its citizens have long debated, such as the central role of the security sectors in national governance and decision-making, whether or not the elected lower house of parliament accurately mirrors the views and interests of the entire citizenry, how development funds are managed, or why the parliament has no oversight of military-security spending in the national budget.

Other factors at play here should be considered, including Jordan’s existential reliance on foreign aid for its national wellbeing. Foreign grants keep Jordan afloat, and the kingdom relies heavily these days of budget support from the United States and the Gulf Cooperation Council — to the tune of some $2 billion per year. This makes it very difficult for Jordan to conduct its foreign policy in any manner that deviates from the strategic interests of it major backers. This in turn only increases the potential internal tensions between masses of low-income citizens who resent their country following closely the dictates of conservative or militaristic foreign donors, and their own government that has few real options in this respect.

In the short run, Jordanians always behave like all other human beings, in that they will subdue any political misgivings they may have in favor of the two immediate needs that we see in action today: the emotional and political need to assuage their anger and bereavement at the Kasasbi killing, and their government’s need to secure foreign aid to keep the economy going and maintain jobs and income for millions of citizens.

In the longer run — one day when that generous foreign aid may slow down, or internal socio-economic and political marginalization stresses become too intense — the current blend of a strong leadership, able military, and emotionally supportive citizenry, but without any serious mechanisms of political participation and credible accountability, may find it more difficult to respond to the threats and opportunities of the day.

Jordan’s dilemma, which is on full display today, is that its strengths are also its weaknesses.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 07 February 2015
Word Count: 774
—————-

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

BEIRUT — The predictability of the sequence of events between Israel and Hizbullah in the last two weeks played out like clockwork. While there are some unknown motivating factors about the Israeli air attack in the Golan Heights on Jan. 18 that killed six Hizbullah men and an Iranian general, there was no such imprecision about the events that followed.

Hizbullah retaliated on Jan. 28 by lethally attacking an Israeli army patrol in the occupied Shebaa Farms region along the Lebanese-Syrian-Israeli borders, and Israeli responded the same day by shelling a range of areas in south Lebanon, killing a Spanish UNIFIL peace-keeper.

For half a day last Wednesday much of the world speculated whether the tit-for-tat attacks would spiral out of control into another full-fledged Israel-Hizbullah war, as happened several times before in recent years. The fact that this has not happened now is an important marker that tells us much about the new mutual deterrence condition that now defines this hostile relationship.

The tit-for-tat attacks did not lead to a full war because of two main reasons, I suspect: They followed the almost scripted sequence of how to conduct such attacks that Israel and Hizbullah signed on to some years ago, and they reveal the significant deterrence on both sides against waging all-out, indiscriminate warfare as they did in 2006, and as Israel and Hamas did last year.

The 1996 understanding and the 2006 UN Security Council Resolution 1701 spell out constraints on both sides’ military attacks, designed to allow them to hit each other’s targets in a limited manner but without destroying civilian infrastructure or killing civilians in population centers. That process worked perfectly this time, as all the attacks either hit military targets or isolated non-populated border regions. Each side retaliated as it said it would.  The message from the two mighty warriors Israel and Hizbullah was that they would not allow themselves to be attacked without fighting back, but they would avoid large-scale war and death.

The reason for this must be the massive deterrence pressures that constrain them both from reigniting full-scale war across civilian and military targets. The Israelis know that Hizbullah’s perpetually improving capabilities in rocketry, protecting their launchers, communications, field tactics and other military areas mean that an all-out war would be very costly for some parts of Israel, including possibly shutting down the national airport as happened briefly during the Gaza war. A war also — as happened in previous ones — is unlikely to destroy Hizbullah or wipe out its military capabilities, given its nature as a civilian-based fighting force operating in its own territory. The Israeli population will not support a war of choice that is not required to secure the country from an actual threat.

Hizbullah for its part has to think hard before engaging in another total war against Israel, for similar reasons. Israel would inflict immense damage across all of Lebanon, as it did in 2006, causing large-scale civilian refugee flows and adding to the pressures of the 1.4 million or so Syrian refugees in the country. War would also provide an opportunity for takfiri militants like ISIS and Nusra Front to attack along Lebanon’s northeastern borders, which would be a catastrophic blow to the country. The political condemnations of Hizbullah within Lebanon would also be loud and strong, if it were seen to be waging a war of choice that was not necessary to ward off a real threat or attack from Israel.

This bilateral Israeli-Lebanese equation is rather straightforward and clear, but what makes this latest round of military exchanges fascinating is that it started in the Syrian Golan Heights, which has always been the quietest from with Israel. I have yet to hear a definitive explanation of why Israel attacked the Hizbullah-Iran convoy on the Golan Heights in the first place, though speculation is plentiful.

What we can conclude, I suggest, is that we would not be in this situation had Israel seriously studied and responded to the 2002 Arab Peace Plan that provided an important opening to negotiate a permanent, comprehensive and mutually just peace accord between the Arab states and Israel. Why Israel and the United States both ignored that historic offer remains unclear; what is certain is that Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian-Iranian tensions and active warfare would not be a recurring problem, as in fact they are, had Israel responded to the Arab peace plan.

The capacity of the unresolved Palestine issue to destabilize and radicalize the Middle East region and lead it into recurring wasteful wars is very much in play here. The deterrence condition between Hizbullah and Israel only postpones active warfare, if the underlying causes of the confrontations are not addressed.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 31 January 2015
Word Count: 778
—————-

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

 

BEIRUT — Perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the succession in the Saudi Arabian monarchy last week was how undramatic and routine it was. The sixth such succession to a new monarch and crown prince in modern Saudi history lacked the tension and behind the scenes jockeying for power that had been so widely hyped in much of the Western and sensationalist Arab media.

This is because two of the three most important dimensions of Saudi state and society — domestic governance and petroleum policy — are fully under control and in the hands of the ruling authorities, headed by the House of Saud. There is little chance for the moment that any external exhortations would bring about any significant changes in these two domains. Saudi internal and petroleum policies in recent years have evolved broadly in line with prevailing priorities, including occasional local and limited reforms alongside occasional forceful moves — like the current sharp oil price drop — to maintain Saudi Arabia’s share in the global oil sales market.

Any faster or further reforms in domestic policy will reflect the natural evolution of interests and values within Saudi society. These move very slowly — somewhat like gun control policies within the United States, which reflect the same kind of persistence of conservative values that seem impervious to even the most shocking abuse of guns.

The third major dimension of Saudi society and state — regional policy — is the most dynamic and intriguing, because it responds heavily to the actions of others who are not within the control of the Saudi system. Regional and foreign policy is the arena where traditional conservative Saudi values and operating methods run up against the challenges of modern geopolitics and aggressive initiatives by many other states and non-state actors.

Regional and foreign policy has always been conducted quietly and discreetly, using Saudi moral, political and financial influence to maintain stability above all else in the region. Occasional forays into regional conflicts — like confronting Gamal Abdel Nasser in Yemen in the 1960s — was just that, very occasional.

Those days are behind us. Today’s Middle Eastern and global orders present a very different picture from the previous 80 years of Saudi statehood. The collapse of the Cold War in 1990 removed the great stabilizer that had kept the Middle East largely unchanged politically for half a century. The combination of rapidly growing populations alongside economic stagnation and disparity caused most Arab countries by the 1990s to suffer internal stresses and challenges to their established power structures. Some states fragmented or reconfigured, like Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Lebanon; others saw their all-powerful central governments cede authority here and there, which allowed non-state tribal, militia and religious actors to emerge and share power, if not formal sovereignty.

So King Salman now engages with regional and global orders marked by several new patterns: total chaos in some areas, partial state collapse in others, widespread use of political violence and terrorism, and massive intervention by foreign actors. Saudi Arabia itself suffered from political violence in recent decades, but ultimately beat back the attempt by Al-Qaeda within the kingdom to foment trouble and challenge the state.

The traditional Saudi style of quiet action and indirect intervention in regional issues is unlikely to succeed in the turbulent new regional conditions. Violent actors like ISIS, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and many other smaller such groups do not respond to the kinds of Saudi and other political engagements that maintained regional calm in the past, including mediation, development aid, and others. A new sectarian streak in regional and local tensions — especially Sunni-Shiite rivalries — is a troubling and novel element, which the Saudi authorities cannot ignore because of their historic role as custodians of the Islamic heartland and guardians of Sunni Islam.

The late King Abdullah responded to these realities quite forcefully, and quickly grasped the new factor in the Middle East that now faces his successor King Salman: There are no more local conflicts in this region, and all local or national strife is directly linked to greater regional powers and sometimes global confrontations. It is not feasible to address local issues with a local power-sharing antidote, such as happened in Lebanon at the end of the civil war in 1990. Conflicts like Syria, Iraq, ISIS, Yemen, Bahrain, Lebanon, Libya and even Egypt link directly to regional actors like Iran, Turkey, Qatar and others, now including Saudi Arabia, which itself has responded to the regional conflicts by stepping in to forcefully support rebels in Syria, the Lebanese armed forces, the Egyptian government, and, when possible, conflict-ending peace agreements such as the Saudis attempted over the years in Lebanon, Palestine and Yemen.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 28 January 2015
Word Count: 772
—————-

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

LONDON — The recent terror attacks in Paris and arrest of suspected terrorists in Belgium clarify the dangerous reality of thousands of European radicals who go to fight with ISIS in Syria-Iraq and return to carry out attacks in their home countries. Europe may be repeating the same mistakes that George W. Bush made in the initial American-led global war on terror after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack in the United States.

The main problem in both cases is that countries or societies that see themselves as innocent victims of foreign terrorism have tended to respond with a broadly failed combination of massive military attacks, and jingoistic patriotism at home that touts one’s own fine values of liberty, pluralism, and freedom of speech, alongside a desk-pounding determination to be strong and to assert those values due to the terror threat.

This combination of responses is on show again these days after the Paris attacks and the arrest of suspected militants across Europe. The result is likely to repeat the counter-productive post-9/11 anti-terror policies, because this generation of militants in many ways was born as a consequence of the U.S.-led war on terror, which killed thousands of militants and civilians, disrupted terror networks, and unwittingly promoted the fastest growth of Islamist militancy and criminal behavior ever seen in modern history.

Recent studies say perhaps over 5,000 foreign militants from Western and Arab-Asian countries may be on the battlefield in Syria-Iraq alone. So we do face a real serious threat, but have we analyzed it accurately and responded appropriately?

Twenty-one member states of the coalition to fight ISIS met in London this week to discuss progress in the fight at hand and ways to reduce the blowback of Europeans who carry out terror attacks at home after returning from action with ISIS or Al-Qaeda. The indications from these deliberations are that the prevalent approach to fighting this threat will succeed in the very limited arena of containing the spread of ISIS in Syria-Iraq due to sustained foreign bombings combined with some ground attacks by local Kurdish and Arab forces — but it will not make Western and Middle Eastern countries any safer, because the underlying causes of the broad phenomenon and the specific criminal acts of groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda will not have been defeated, or even, in many cases, addressed.

The dilemma that Europeans and Americans seem unwilling to confront is two-fold: Their own policies or actions are responsible to a significant degree for two out of the three elements that cause their own citizens to become radicalized, adopt terror, join ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and return to attack their own Western societies.

Those two are:
1) The socio-economic conditions and policing policies in countries like France, the United Kingdom and others that result in small numbers of very alienated, marginalized young men who see no future for themselves in their land of birth and citizenship, and so they gravitate to the extreme fringes; and,
2) Western states’ foreign policy actions that include ongoing warfare in Arab-Asian regions (Iraq, Afghanistan) that results in catastrophic collapses of society and the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
(The third and most important reason for this problem is the half-century of miserable, incompetent Arab governance and tyranny that humiliates hundreds of millions of men and women, some of whom respond by also moving to the extreme fringes and creating groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS).

The deadly combination of domestic and foreign policies by Western governments has been identified as causing the radicalization of many, many studied young men who joined terror groups and conducted criminal attacks at home. Any successful anti-terrorism policy must include a serious attempt to address all three Middle Eastern and Western drivers of transnational terror, including the reality of French, British and other Western citizens who were born and radicalized in their home countries, due in large part to their reactions to their own governments’ policies.

This is a tough pill to swallow, but the phenomenon must be seriously assessed if there is to be any chance of defeating terrorism by wiping out its root causes, rather than emotionally waving freedom flags, singing national anthems, pounding chests and committing to fight forever to defeat a phenomenon that cannot be defeated only militarily.

New York Times reporter Alan Cowell correctly noted earlier this week that, “As much as Western governments may clamor for enhanced powers to round up suspects or penetrate social media sites in their battle to ward off attacks, it seems that Europe has reached a tipping point where the distant killing fields of Syria and Iraq have fused with — and fueled — homegrown extremism.”

Unraveling and understanding that fusion of mind-altering domestic and foreign conditions that drive extremism is the critical first step to reducing blowback from home-grown French, British and other European terrorists. Let’s hope Europe does a better job on this than the Americans did.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.
Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 24 January 2015
Word Count: 820
—————-

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

 

BEIRUT — The Israeli attack Sunday in the Syrian Golan Heights that killed Hezbollah and Iranian officials has understandably generated much speculation primarily about whether, when and how Hezbollah would retaliate against Israeli targets. The easy answer is that, of course Hezbollah will respond, in some manner that it deems appropriate, but this is really not the most significant aspect of what is happening. That label must go to two related phenomena, which are the tangled dynamics of Hezbollah’s relations inside Lebanon and around the Middle East, and that the Israeli attack in Syria — an almost routine event in the last few decades, sadly — actually hit three targets in one, namely Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

How those three members of the “Resistance and Deterrence Front” (RDF) will or can retaliate against Israel strikes me as the significant issue here, because it can clarify the consequences of Hezbollah’s two concentric circles of its relationships within Lebanese politics and among the RDF in the wider Middle East.

Years ago, Hezbollah was a simpler actor, defined mainly by its two most successful legacies: military resistance to Israel, and mobilizing and lifting up the Lebanese Shiite community from the bottom of Lebanese society to dominance of the national governance system (even though that dominance usually was played out behind the scenes and took the form of blocking decisions it disliked, until a national consensus was a reached that it liked). Today, Hezbollah is a different and more complex actor, reflecting new, or just more explicit elements of, its basic dimensions: its active warfare and military deterrence with Israel, its fighting in Syria to maintain the Assad regime, its fighting against takfiri militants like Jabhat el-Nusra inside Lebanon, its continued structural and strategic links with Iran, and its deep dialogue with the Future movement and allied March 14 forces in Lebanon to reduce domestic polarization and reconstitute a legitimate governance system with a functioning parliament and presidency.

A decade ago Hezbollah was widely acclaimed in much of Lebanon and the region for leading the battle to liberate South Lebanon from Israeli occupation. With every post-2000 military engagement with Israel that caused great destruction and human dislocation inside Lebanon, Hezbollah’s luster has dimmed a bit; today very polarized Lebanese see it either as the nation’s savior and protector, or a dangerous Iranian Trojan Horse. The latter argue that Hezbollah is an instrument of Iranian foreign policy that ridicules Lebanese sovereignty and endangers all Lebanese by keeping them hostage to another destructive war with Israel to serve Iranian strategic interests. That argument about whether Hezbollah serves Lebanese or Iranian interests has gone on for years and remains inconclusive.

Hezbollah’s active military and intelligence work in the north-east of Lebanon and its cooperation with the revived and strengthened Lebanese armed forces is a new dimension of its actions and priorities, one which most Lebanese are grateful for because they know that its military capabilities are a valuable element in repelling takfiri assaults from Syria by groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra. So quite a few Lebanese now have another reason to simultaneously criticize Hezbollah for entangling Lebanon deeper in the war in Syria which has come into Lebanon in a frightening manner, while quietly appreciating Hezbollah for its role in fighting alongside the Lebanese armed forces against the takfiris and maintaining Lebanon’s integrity.

So the answer to the common question of whether Lebanese citizens support or oppose Hezbollah is, “a little of both.” This complexity which has now replaced the formerly linear and one-dimensional attitudes to Hezbollah is matched by similar multi-faceted regional entanglements. Hezbollah-Syria-Iran are a single unit in geo-strategic terms, and in recent years Iraq and Hamas variously have been part of that alignment. So when Israel struck against all three parties in the Golan Heights Sunday, it meant that analyzing when and how any retaliation would occur had to consider the condition, interests, capabilities and broader strategic interests of Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.

That mini-universe automatically dovetails into a much wider cosmos that includes the United States, Russia, global oil markets, Sunni-Shiite tensions in the Middle East, fighting against ISIS, and other factors that directly link Israeli-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah relations to half a dozen major dynamics in the Middle East and further afield. There is not a deep history of Syria and Iran directly attacking Israel or Israeli interests (perhaps, as some argue, because they have always left this dangerous task to Hezbollah), so the focus of speculation today rests largely on what Hezbollah will do. Yet Hezbollah’s options for action are more constrained than ever by its simultaneous fighting and negotiations within its turbulent Lebanese-Syrian terrain; it also still faces immense pushback from millions of Lebanese who do not want to see their country destroyed because of Iranian- and Syrian-backed decisions by Hezbollah to fight Israel, which it is able and willing to do.

Hezbollah probably also has a new challenge which is to tighten up its security system, following the recent capture and trial of one of its members who was an Israeli spy, and the probability that Israeli intelligence that allowed the Sunday attack to happen reflected continuing security leaks in what had always been a well-sealed system.

Because of all these inter-linked local, regional and global factors, any expected retaliation against Israel in the near future will reveal much about the state of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran and the condition of their Resistance and Deterrence Front.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 17 January 2015
Word Count: 901
—————-

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

BEIRUT — Watch out, the Quartet is waking up and threatens to make a move. We should have mixed feelings about the news that the “Quartet” group of powers that aims to shepherd Palestinian-Israeli negotiations to a successful peace accord will convene soon to seek to revive diplomatic efforts that have been stalled for six months.

I say “watch out” because the Quartet, since its establishment 12 years ago, has not lived up to its expectations in promoting Palestinian-Israeli negotiations under the umbrella of its four members — the United States, Russia, United Nations and European Community. Years of negotiations since the Quartet was formed in 2002 have generated much heat, some hope, and mostly unfulfilled expectations, but no breakthrough.

Maybe that was the aim and the Quartet has indeed achieved its main aim. Some people more sinister than myself argue that the Quartet’s main role was to provide an international cover for the United States’ dominance of the peace negotiations and making sure they respond first and foremost to Israeli concerns.

A United Nations announcement that Quartet states diplomats would meet in Brussels Jan. 26 coincided with the UN Security Council’s first formal meeting on the Middle East this year. At that session a senior UN official offered a bleak assessment of the current hostility and mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians who are “engaged in a downward spiral of actions and counteractions.”

The Quartet was a good idea that initially aimed to expand the circle of major parties that lent their weight to achieving a negotiated peace; it allowed both principals to feel that they were not on their own in the negotiations arena, but rather felt secure that Quartet members would ensure a level playing field, or negotiating table. That never happened, for several reasons.

The United States dominated the Quartet’s actions and perpetuated the reality that bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations took place according to priorities and red lines established primarily by Israel. The Palestinians did not harness the considerable support they enjoy around the world and among the Quartet member states or organizations, and the European Union and Russia proved fickle in their Mideast peace-making actions. The Quartet’s special envoy to the Arab-Israeli peace process, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, was also a failure who seemed to spend more time making money for himself in consulting and speech-making than in engaging in the needed even-handed diplomatic mediation.

Blair once again showed his incompetence and misreading of realities on the ground in the Middle East this week, when he addressed a group of 300 Republican members of Congress and staffers. His remarks on radical Islamists, Western responses to them, the US- and UK-led war against Iraq, and other issues revealed a man whose penchant to repeat clichés and simplistic exhortations about Islam and Muslims reflected his wider inability to grasp the realities and causes of political sentiments in the Middle East.

An example of his poor analysis is the assertion that the root of several factors that contributed to radical Islam is a struggle within Islam about the nature of the faith and its relationship with other religious communities. More accurate is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims have no problems with the nature of Islam or its relations with others, but small pockets of cult-like extremists and criminals carry out actions, including terror attacks; these generate global responses that often alienate that massive majority of Muslims who are neither confrontational nor confused about their faith and their relations with non-Muslims.

A Guardian newspaper report of the sessions said that “he reportedly argued that the US and UK had learned that if you topple dictators, you release other forces that have to be dealt with. However, the Arab Spring demonstrated that many of those dictatorships would be swept away in any event.”

This would appear to be a damning criticism of US and UK actions in Iraq especially that helped create an environment that provided radical Islamists the space to develop into movements that now threaten us all to some extent. But Blair would never admit this, and his problem of not coming to terms with Middle Eastern realities was one reason for the failure of the Quartet.

Despite these weaknesses, the idea of a Quartet mechanism remains valid, because American-dominated diplomacy in the Palestinian-Israeli arena, however vigorous it has been in the last 20 years, has failed to achieve a peace agreement that responds to the legitimate rights and needs of both sides. An expanded diplomatic umbrella that drives negotiations on the basis of international legitimacy and the rule of law, rather than Israeli-American-dominated power imbalances on the ground, would be a positive contribution — indeed, a lifesaver — for the failed and moribund peace process.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 17 January 2015
Word Count: 787
—————-

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

BEIRUT — Two things happened in Paris and Khartoum this week that portend bad times ahead for the Arab region and for relations between Arab and Muslim-majority countries, on the one hand, and American- and European-led countries, on the other hand. The more dramatic development was the massive solidarity march in Paris to uphold values like freedom of press and expression and condemn the two terror attacks in Paris by four radicalized, socially alienated French citizens who had joined militant Islamist networks like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The second, and in the longer term the more significant development, was the announcement that Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir has submitted his candidacy to be re-elected for another five-year term in elections set for April 13.

These two developments capture two of the three main reasons that have seen many parts of the Arab region become sinkholes of political violence, extremism, sectarianism and state fragmentation or collapse — most frightfully captured in the ISIS phenomenon and the threats it poses in the region and abroad. These two phenomena are the control of Arab state power structures by military establishments at the service of individuals or families, and the militarized interventions in the Middle East by predominantly Western powers (alongside parallel military or diplomatic interventions by powers like Russia, China, Iran and Turkey). The third cause of chronic stress, waste, militarism and national incoherence is the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict, which only had faint echoes in Paris.

If we were to identify a single foundational reason for the problems and instabilities of the Arab world, it must be the continuing legacy of mostly incompetent military officers who seize control of governments and remain as presidents for life. This process hollows out the indigenous governance systems of competent personnel and replaces them with mediocre friends and cousins of the great leader; redirects security systems to domestic control rather than protecting the nation; promotes corruption that ultimately translates into socio-economic stagnation and massive disparities; and creates conditions of conflict and dependence on foreign powers that ultimately create the opportunities for those powers to intervene at will in the region, including attacking and removing regimes that are identified as undesirable.

This is why the single most important priority across our region is to figure out how to make the transition from this kind of top-heavy autocratic power structure to more democratic and participatory governance systems that tap the creativity, commitment and energy of all citizens. Indirectly, the terrorism in Paris by radicalized young French Muslims includes causal factors that touch on Western armies’ actions in the Middle East (especially Iraq) and the growth of cult-like criminal groups like ISIS whose birth and growth were incubated in the repression and jails of Arab dictatorships.

So this week’s focus in Paris on fighting “Islamic terror and extremism” or other enemies with similar names with a combination of police actions and appeals to “moderate Muslims” to take more vigorous cultural-religious measures to reduce youth radicalism is likely only to intensity existing stresses and further alienate youth who are potential recruits to radical groups. This is because Western governments continue to work closely with Arab and other foreign states whose autocratic policies contributed to the birth of the radicalism now being targeted by the West, meaning the grassroots drivers of terrorism in the Middle East will remain unchanged.

Also, the excessive Western focus on religion in this equation, rather than addressing the more significant socio-economic and political forces that transform slightly directionless young men and women into hardened killers, is likely to aggravate the existing divide that plagues all concerned. This divide is also deepened by developments such as Omar Hassan Bashir’s announcement that he will perpetuate his presidency that started when he seized power in a military coup in 1989 — a quarter of a century ago.

This is only the second presidential “election” in Sudan since then, and perpetuates the farce and illusion of popular participation in choosing the government in societies across our region. The most farcical case was the recent recurring re-election of Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who is so ill that he never appears in public and essentially fronts for the military’s control of power in that country since the 1960s.

So this has been a bad week in the continuing saga of an Arab world in search for decency, democracy and development, which remain elusive despite the proven thirst for these things across the region. The Arab autocracies in part cement themselves by serving the Western tendency to use militarism as the main way to fight terror, which we have witnessed again this week, alongside other dictators like Bashir who ignore the West and single-handedly perpetuate their own incumbency at home by fighting and destroying any credible opposition.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in the Daily Star. He was founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Follow him on Twitter @ramikhouri.

Copyright ©2015 Rami G. Khouri — distributed by Agence Global

—————-
Released: 13 January 2015
Word Count: 789
—————-

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757