La dakaroise de l'Ashoura et des Maronites

Today is the Islamic holiday of Ashoura, which commemorates the death of the Imam Hussein at Karbala in Iraq (which I visited in 2003, although because of security concerns was not able to approach the mosque in which he is enshrined) in the year 680. Hussein, like his brother Hassan, was the son of Mohammed's daughter Fatima, and their father was Mohammed's cousin Ali (entombed at Najaf).

Without getting into a long dissertation about Shiite devotion to Ali and the rest of his descendants, suffice it to say that Ashoura holds great and somber significance to Shiite Muslims. In the Islamic world on the whole, however, its commemoration spans a continuum. On the far right, you have penitential types who express their distress over Hussein's martyrdom by flagellating themselves. Ouch. Somewhere in the middle, you have less dramatic individuals who consider the day one of reflection and sadness, analogous I suppose to Good Friday for Christians (or Sad Friday as it is called in Arabic, I dare say more fittingly) or Yom Kippur for Jews.

Then, on the left wing, you have what I witnessed last night here in Dakar. In Senegal, whose natives do not practice Shia Islam, the holiday is called Tamkharit (much like Eid al-Adha, celebrated at the end of the annual Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, is called Tabaski – as depicted in this advertisement for end-of-the-year bank loans from French financial giant Société Générale, oh-so-piously posted on the back of a bus). On the eve of Ashoura, Senegalese children dress up (girls like boys and boys like girls), and a customary dish of couscous is prepared. It's a grand ol' time.

No wonder that some of my Lebanese friends here, Shiites who trace their origins to the village of Qana (known first and foremost as the site of Christ's first miracle and secondly as the target of deadly Israeli bombardments both in 1996 and 2006) have been mumbling and grumbling for the past several days (par exemple: il faut respecter le prophète, et il faut respecter sa famille!!!). For them, it is inappropriate to be joyfully celebrating the death of a saintly figure, depicted in this tapestry which marks Hussein's travels in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Arabia – my friend was keen to show this to me because Aleppo is marked on the map.

This is my first time witnessing Ashoura in a country with a Muslim majority, so it is unclear to me how it is "celebrated" elsewhere. Any instructive comments on that would be welcome.

Now, switching gears for a moment, but still discussing the Lebanese community here in Dakar, I attended once again a Maronite mass this past Sunday. I was amazed. Considering just how francophone Senegal is, and how indoctrinated in the French system were the Syrians who first came here, the mass was totally Arabized (allowing of course for the Qadishat, the consecration, and the other obligatory bits in Syriac/Aramaic). I mean, I've been to Maronite masses in Mount Lebanon that were more francophone than this one – here even the homily was in Arabic! Furthermore, there are some outstanding vocalists amongst the congregation. A real treat.

On the whole, the devotion to their heritage and language shown by Syrians here (both Christian and Muslim) is extremely impressive, and frankly, puts to shame what I have witnessed amongst their counterparts in North America (my own family included), South America, and Europe. But that leads to a whole other discussion of assimilation and the factors affecting it, which I will get to another time...
continue reading "La dakaroise de l'Ashoura et des Maronites..."

The silly side of sanctions

Late last year, I was invited by noted Syrian political writer Sami Moubayed to contribute to a new reform-oriented English language magazine called "FW:", which would appear on newsstands throughout Syria. I accepted with delight, and sent along an article discussing US sanctions on Syria.

This was a particularly meaningful contribution for me, because in some other parallel universe, my 8 great-grandparents decided not to leave Aleppo nearly 100 years ago and as fate would have it, just the right combination of Ajjan, Wardy, Fattell, and Haddad DNA produced a guy named George, identical to me but born and raised in Syria - and maybe sometime in early 2007 he walked past a local newsstand, picked up a copy of a new magazine called "FW:", and read something in it that changed the way he looked at the world.

Anyway, my article appears along with others written by the likes of Syrian Ambassador to the USA Imad Moustapha, Georgetown University Professor Steven Heydemann, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, and popular Syrian blogger Ghalia Azmeh.

The article is not yet online, but scans are available here: page 1 and page 2. The text is below.
----------------------
The silly side of sanctions
by George Ajjan

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has significantly increased its effort to isolate nations it calls "State Sponsors of Terrorism", hoping to encourage behavior more conducive to American objectives. The State Department prepares this list annually, which currently includes perennial American enemies Iran, North Korea, as well as Cuba, and also contains nations with whom the United States still has diplomatic relations – Sudan and Syria – while Iraq and Libya have been removed in recent years.

For its part, Syria earned the State Sponsor of Terrorism designation on December 29, 1979, under Democrat President Jimmy Carter. Of all the countries currently classified as such, Syria has been on the list for the longest period of time – even Iran was not added until 1984. The main reasons for Syria's inclusion on this list, despite the fact that the US State Department acknowledges that Syria has not been directly implicated in a terrorist act since 1986, pertain to its ongoing support of Lebanese and Palestinian resistance groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and others, some of which operate on Syrian soil. Interestingly, Lebanon, whose cabinet itself includes ministers belonging to Hezbollah, has never been classified by the United States as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. (continued...)

In any case, Syria's inclusion on this list has for many years automatically subjected it to a general program of sanctions which includes a wide-ranging ban on arms-related exports and sales, as well as prohibitions on economic assistance, either direct or through organizations like the World Bank. Also, a number of penalties and disincentives apply to any American citizen or company who attempts to subvert these measures.

Historically speaking, the application of sanctions programs like these has resulted in a power struggle between Congress and the White House, in both Democrat and Republican Administrations. Because the President holds the Authority to nominate "State Sponsors of Terrorism", and therefore to apply sanctions, some members of Congress have sought additional oversight on such matters. They consider it a dereliction of their constitutional duty to give any President carte blanche in matters pertaining to trade, including sanctions, because the US Constitution explicitly states in Article I, Section 8, that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. On the other hand, various Presidents have resisted attempts by Congress to limit sanctioning power, citing Article II, Section 2, which gives the White House alone the power to make treaties and conduct foreign affairs.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, however, the intensity of these political battles dissipated, as both the Executive and Legislative Branches sought to burnish their anti-terrorism credentials. Cracking down on the handful of nations already classified as State Sponsors of Terrorism was an obvious starting point. For that reason, congressional leaders from both parties worked directly with President Bush to craft legislation that would, in the context of constitutional compromise provisions, specifically seek to increase sanctions and isolate Syria. Since there is little to be gained politically by defending Syria in Washington, support for the measures was nearly unanimous in both the House of Representatives and the Senate – also reflecting a rare opportunity for bipartisan cooperation in an otherwise bitterly divided political climate in DC between Republicans and Democrats.

Accordingly, the Syria Accountability Act was passed by both houses of Congress, and subsequently the President signed an Executive Order on May 11, 2004, which contained 5 specific sanctions. Most of these were already covered by other laws pertaining to nations on the Terrorist Sponsor list, such as a prohibition of military items and a ban on Syrian aircraft landing in the US, but the key factor introduced in 2004 was a prohibition on the export to Syria of American products other than food and medicine. The President chose not to order some of the more spiteful items from the "menu" provided by Congress, which includes restriction on travel of Syrian diplomats to within a 25-mile radius of their posting in the United States or closing the US Embassy in Damascus (although the Ambassador Margaret Scobey was officially recalled following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005).

While the prohibition of American exports to Syria has had some economic impact, the overall results of the increased sanctions on Syria have been lackluster. On a strategic level, the sanctions imposed by the Bush Administration, because they are largely unilateral, have neither significantly decreased terrorist threats nor promoted Syrian conduct more amenable to President Bush's interests. Furthermore, on a tactical level, poor implementation of the existing sanctions has in some cases made a mockery of Bush's goal of spreading freedom and democracy in the Arab and Islamic world.

Earlier in 2006, nearly 2 years after the sanctions were first introduced, a congressional subcommittee concerning the Middle East held a hearing to discuss the effect of unilateral sanctions specifically associated with the Syria Accountability Act, and the possibility of achieving better results by expanding the breadth and depth of the existing sanctions. To determine the impact, subcommittee member Congressman Gary Ackerman, a Democrat from New York, asked each of the 4 testifying panelists to rate numerically, on a scale of 0 to 10, the impact of the Syrian sanctions toward achieving a change in behavior. The average was less than 4, suggesting that the sanctions had fallen far short of their desired effect.

More telling, however, was Ackerman's follow-up question: if the full menu of sanctions provided under the Syria Accountability Act were introduced, what would be the impact? The panel's consensus: the performance would not change. In fact, both of the panel's top experts, Ted Kattouf (former US Ambassador to Syria) and David Schenker (a junior neoconservative and former adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan) pointed out that unilateral sanctions, without European concurrence, would accomplish little. They also suggested that a more harsh sanctions program would actually worsen the situation and provoke even greater conflict between Syrian actions and American objectives.

In addition to these strategic errors mentioned by Kattouf and Schenker, the US also needs to reevaluate the tactical elements of the existing sanctions in place, and the guidelines given to companies who make decisions regarding transactions with sanctioned nations like Syria. In some cases, the policies are downright reckless, especially concerning virtual business conducted over the Internet.

For example, the website called Syriapol – A Syrian Democracy Project, a public opinion portal designed to measure Syrian political attitudes toward governance, economic progress, democratic reforms, and the peace process, was blocked from view in Syria. Contrary to intuition, though, it was not the Syrian government that had censored the site, but rather the American company, a very popular webhosting service called GoDaddy.com, from whom the domain name had been purchased, which blocks anyone inside Syria from accessing any website that they register. The company explained, "The United States Government asks that we do not conduct business with [Syria]…if a person resides in [Syria], they will not be able to complete a purchase from our website or access our network…this means that people in [Syria] will not be able to access our services."

The irony of this position is beyond ridiculous. A website branded as "A Syrian Democracy Project", devoted to promoting democratic concepts to the Syrian people in line with the Bush Administration’s objectives, cannot be accessed because of American sanctions designed to punish the Syrian government for not being democratic enough.

This flawed tactical policy espoused by the Bush Administration blatantly spites the President's stated goal of spreading freedom. It also contradicts the strategic advice of the congressional panelists, several of whom pointed out the importance of preserving people-to-people exchange between conflicting nations. America cannot
expect to see positive change and a strengthening of a reform agenda in countries like Syria if it supports attempts to block Syrian citizens from even viewing the Internet.

US sanctions policy is broken, according to strategic theorists as well as grassroots practitioners. America must immediately remedy the destructive aspects of its existing protocols, if it is to have any hope of encouraging vital homegrown democratic reforms in the Middle East.

George Ajjan

The author is a Republican activist and member of the Arab American Institute's National Policy Council.

O --- This article first appeared in the English-language Syrian magazine "FW:" in its inaugural issue of January, 2007.

continue reading "The silly side of sanctions..."

Courageous Chuck

There is no one I would support more enthusiastically for President of the United States in the 2008 election than Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. He is an American hero who showed not only military courage as a soldier in the Vietnam War, but continues to show political courage in Washington DC as one of the few Republicans openly critical of the Iraq War.

This week, he released a statement against President Bush's decision to increase the number of US troops in Iraq. Here are some excerpts:

"I am opposed to the escalation of American involvement in Iraq, including more US troops. This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost…The President's strategy will…further diminish America's standing in the Middle East; and continue to allow the Iraqis to walk away from their responsibilities. The fate of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis – not the Americans."

This view of self-determination – that a nation has to stand up for itself – clearly reflects Hagel's experience in Vietnam in the late sixties, as explained by this Newsweek article, which contrasts Hagel with GOP favorite John McCain, and is highly recommended for a good dose of background on both men:

"Chuck Hagel 'walked point' with an infantry company near the Cambodian border in some of the worst fighting in 1967 and '68. His brother Tom often went on patrol with him (the brothers circumvented an Army rule that bars family members from serving in combat together). 'I don't know how many times we would be assigned to go out for a search-and-destroy mission,' Tom recalls, 'and we'd pass South Vietnamese villages with South Vietnamese soldiers lying around sleeping in hammocks. They're doing easy duty while we were out doing the hard part.' The lesson to the Hagel brothers was obvious: 'You cannot win somebody else's independence,' says Tom. 'They have to do it for themselves.'"

This anecdote really hit home with me, because it brought back vivid memories of my trip to Iraq in 2003 (see links on the sidebar for video of me in Baghdad). I remember driving back from Karbala to Baghdad and seeing the Iraqi Police (who, at the time, we were told by Donald Rumsfeld's rosy reports, were being recruited in record numbers) sleeping on the side of the road instead of manning a checkpoint.

Hagel continues:

"We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq. The Iraqis are the only ones who can stop the sectarian and inter-sectarian violence that is now consuming their country…We cannot want success for Iraq more than they want it for themselves. More American troops, treasure and casualties will not change this reality. It will make it worse."

In other words, we cannot continue to baby-sit the Iraqis. The perfect example of this relates to the execution of Saddam Hussein. I was appalled when I read excerpts of an interview with the chief prosecutor for the case, trying to manage the fallout from the unauthorized video footage. He stated,

"Two officials were holding mobile phone cameras...One of them I know. He's a high-ranking government official. The other I also know by sight, though not his name. He is also senior. I don't know how they got their mobiles in because the Americans took all our phones, even mine which has no camera."

This is absolutely ridiculous and is a perfect example of Hagel's view that increased American involvement only makes things worse. In other words, check your cell phone, your sovereignty, and your sense of national responsibility at the door. How can we expect the Iraqis to behave conscientiously and run their own country when we continue to baby-sit them, even confiscating their cell phones? (unsuccessfully, I might add, but that's beside the point) If we manage them like they are a bunch of teenagers in detention, then that is how they will behave. Hagel is correct.

Finally, in order to create "a policy that allows us to leave Iraq honorably, has the sustained support of the American people and does not further destabilize the Middle East", Hagel proposes:

• moving our troops out of the cities to Iraq's border areas, allowing us to help secure the territorial integrity of Iraq which will be seriously threatened and is critical for the future of Iraq
• I agree strongly with the withdrawal from urban areas and I argued that we should have begun that process more than 3 years ago – having seen first hand how much tension and resentment a military occupation causes. The bit about protecting the borders is rather vague, but we might assume Hagel is worried about Turkish intervention into the Kurdish-dominated area of Northern Iraq, and of course Iranian plans for the south of the country.
• begin turning over internal security of Iraq to the Iraqis
• vague and somewhat trite, but Hagel did explain what he means above when he stated that increased American involvement only makes things worse.
• engaging all nations in the Middle East to develop a regional internationally sponsored peace process
• it is unclear whether he means that Iraq's neighbors should sponsor a peace process for Iraqis, or whether we should return to Madrid – either way, I agree with him – this is the consensus of the Baker-Hamilton report as well.
• accelerating training of Iraqi troops
• this point is somewhat weak as well – if we haven't trained enough properly recruited and screened Iraqi troops, then we are only accelerating a bigger disaster. This is something that was horribly mismanaged on Rumsfeld's watch, and it may be too late to fix it now. You can only properly train so many people so quickly.

I forwarded some remarks on Hagel, and an Arab-American Republican colleague replied with a healthy dose of skepticism towards my enthusiasm by saying, "it doesn't matter if Chuck Hagel or Bozo the Clown throws his hat in the ring, the real information required to solve this problem is classified." While that sounds like an ad for a spy novel, perhaps he means to suggest that there are possibly some very painful political and economic choices to be made by the Bush Administration, in terms of what might be offered as incentives to assure that key players (like Iran, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi Kurds, and tribal leaders, as examples) play ball in order to facilitate a dignified or at least face-saving withdrawal of US troops.

Whatever the case, Hagel has a better-reasoned view on Iraq than I've seen from just about any of his Washington colleagues in either party. Sources say his decision on whether or not to run for President is forthcoming in the next month or so. Let's hope he takes the plunge.
continue reading "Courageous Chuck..."

Senegalese elections: the latest Arab-Israeli proxy battle

In the summertime, I related my brush-up with Israeli security in Dakar, thanks in no small part to the "decoy" Jeep I was driving. But in the end, I became friendly with all the Senegalese personnel involved, and made the acquaintance of a couple young Israeli diplomats.

But it seems that others who raised the suspicion of the powers-that-be at Independence Square had a less chummy fate, according to the Senegalese newspaper Le Temoin. The fact that the blunt view expressed herein was found in a news brief on page 2, not in the editorial section or the opinion page, gives a bit of the overall flavor of the paper, which seems to be anti-government and then some – not entirely professional in any case.

I leave the original in French below, since the article is not online, but basically it explains how some French, Italian, and Moroccan tourists have been arrested just for pointing at the Israeli flag. The piece begins, "Truly the authorities of the Israeli embassy in Dakar 'shit on' (literal translation) people since their country represents nothing in this world. Except for barbarism, massacres, and abuses of power…these diplomats reign arbitrarily in the center of town like in the Occupied Territories. Everyone who dares to glance upon the Israeli flag is locked up like a suspected suicide bomber."

Vraiment les autorités de l'ambassade d’Israel à Dakar emmerdent les gens alors que leur pays ne représente rien dans ce monde. Sauf dans la barbarie, les massacres et les exactions. Ayant leur siège à la place de l'Indépendance à Dakar, précisément a l’immeuble CBAO, les diplômâtes israéliens règnent arbitrairement au centre-ville comme dans les territoires occupes. Car, toute personne qui s'aventure a jeter un coup d'oeil sur le drapeau hébreu est embastillée comme un kamikaze suspect. Plusieurs fois, les autorités de l'Ambassade d'Israel ont fait arrêter des touristes. De pauvres français, Italiens ou Marocains qui n’avaient que le tort de prendre de l'air dans les jardins de la place de l'Indépendance ou prendre des photos. Mais la plupart des victimes ou cibles de l'état hébreu, ce sont les passants de type arabe dont la majorité sont des Sénégalais d’origine libanaise. Pas plus tard qu'hier, un jeune libanais a été arrête et conduit a la Sûreté Urbaine de Dakar. Son crime? Le bonhomme a fait plus de 30 minutes sur un banc public faisant face à l'Ambassade. Repéré par les caméras de surveillance, il a été arête et mis a la disposition de la Sûreté Urbaine. Laquelle l'a transféré à la Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire ou il a été entendu sur les raisons de sa longue présence à la place de l'indépendance. C’est scandaleux dans un État de droit comme le Sénégal. En tout cas, certains responsables de la communauté libanaise encourages par des parties politiques comptent organiser une journée de protestation devant l'Ambassade d'Israel afin de mettre à ces interpellations arbitraires.

The end of the article explains how a young Senegalese citizen of Lebanese origin was arrested for sitting on a public bench for 30 minutes, across the street from the embassy (which is literally in the center of town). It also suggests (the whole piece is scant on details) that leaders in the Lebanese community are going to organize a protest march and demonstration at the Israeli embassy, like during the summer war. The interesting bit is that some of the political parties who will compete in the Presidential and Legislative elections that take place on February 25 have encouraged this development. While the Lebanese population in Senegal is less than 1%, it is an economic powerhouse and an important political ally for any ruling coalition.

This whole situation could put incumbent President Abdoulaye Wade (a crafty old-timer with considerable diplomatic credentials - he has played host to the divergent likes of George W. Bush, Moamar Khadhafi, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) in a vice. More on this as the election approaches – we will see what demonstrations actually take place and how much chatter they generate.
continue reading "Senegalese elections: the latest Arab-Israeli proxy battle..."

Notes from a splendid London New Year

I had the pleasure of bringing in 2007 in London, where I had the chance to catch up with some dear friends - and engage in some interesting political debate with the usual transatlantic biases.

The main issue concerned perceptions of the words right and left. In a discussion of the Iraq War, I argued that "bringing democracy to Iraq" was a leftist adventure on the part of George W. Bush. This view, however, was soundly rejected by my porteño and porteña pals, who considered it a territorial entreprise and therefore rightist. One of them, an accomplished journalist who often writes for La Nación and appears on Argentine TV, countered that state intervention only in internal affairs characterized leftist, to which I responded that America's ability to significantly affect developments in other nations means that exercising this capacity also reflects a leftist disposition.

I cited Bush's second inaugural address, the "Freedom speech", in which he (and by "he", I of course mean his neocon speechwriters) stated:

"The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world...America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause...to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way."

To me, that is ultra-left. To my Europeanized Latin American colleagues, it's far right. Interesting stuff.

Along with those friends, I joined a Romanian colleague for lunch the previous day - at which we reflected on the execution of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It was a throwback to April of 2003, when the very same group of us watched the fall of Baghdad live on CNN from Stockholm, Sweden. I will never forget the reaction of my Romanian friend on that day nearly 4 years ago to the assertion of Donald Rumsfeld that:

"The scenes of free Iraqis celebrating in the streets, riding American tanks, tearing down the statues of Saddam Hussein in the center of Baghdad are breathtaking. Watching them, one cannot help but think of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain...Saddam Hussein is now taking his rightful place alongside Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Ceausescu in the pantheon of failed, brutal dictators..."

No doubt recalling her own personal experience as part of the student movement in Bucharest, she yelled back at the TV that "it was we the Romanian people that overthrew Ceausescu - we didn't need American tanks rolling through Bucharest to do it for us!"

Comparing the Hussein execution with that of Ceausescu, she seemed regretful that the former Romanian leader was tried in "half an hour" and shot along with his wife on Christmas Day in 1989, the footage of which was shown on Romanian national TV. As controversial as Hussein's trial might have been, it was clearly a lot more fair than the one afforded Ceausescu.
continue reading "Notes from a splendid London New Year..."