Is Lebanon short on decent men? Just ask Nancy Azzi

According to this story on The Daily Star, Nancy bought a blue bikini (same shade as the UN blue helmet) and drove all the way from Jounieh to Tyr to catch a glimpse of Italian and Spanish Soldiers arriving to man the new UNIFIL.
Of course Azzi wants more than just a glimpse:

“Azzi added that she hopes to have more than a “meeting” with the Italian troops; she is actually hoping to find “the man of her dreams” among the 1,000 Italian soldiers deployed to date.

Of all the nationalities, the Italians are the most in demand, according to the Star:

A random polling of women interviewed in the South unanimously voted the Italian troops as “the sexiest,” with a few gushing over recent photographs in the media of French Foreign Legion soldiers in shorts and muscle shirts rebuilding ruined bridges.

They even love kids

The poor soldiers’ wives and girlfriends were probably thinking their loved ones are heading for a safe place where women stay home.

How wrong they were…

The Lebanese modus operandi is intrinsically chaotic. Is this a good or a bad thing?

In an article entitled “In praise of cacophony”, Micheal Young had this to say on the Lebanese Media:

Lebanese media comes out looking relatively free. The paradox, however, is that this is often the result of an abnormality: media outlets are private and mostly represent contending political or other interests, and from that cacophony information emerges that would not in a more centralized, government-controlled media environment.

I would like to build on that article: As any Lebanese knows, the cacophony he mentions acts a checks-and-balances system not only to the media, but to all aspects of Lebanese life.

When I was driving in Tripoli one day, I wanted to make a U-Turn, but I had two problems: a “No U-turn” sign and a police officer standing right under that sign. But in total disregard to the police officer, the cars in front of me went ahead and made that U-Turn. The police officer wasn’t bothered at all. In fact he helped us by stopping the other cars.

When my friend Kelly, a Canadian, visited me in Lebanon, she remarked: It’s funny how things work in this country, there seems to be an unwritten agreement between drivers that they can all drive chaotically, but somehow, you can sense an order in the chaos.

Why are we like that? Why are police officers very lenient? Why are our security officers and soldiers very nice with us (The amn 3am personnel in the airport for instance are notorious for their kindness, sir, madam, please, thank you, sorry. Even our armed forces are, unlike the repulsive syrians, chummy)

The answer is simple. It’s for the same reasons that Micheal Young mentions.
Because of our system of patronage in Lebanon, security officers would not bully someone who drives a nice car because it could cost him his job. As the case of Wafik Jezzini, the official in the interior ministry who refuses to be disciplined by his boss (with big people protecting his back), shows, Lebanon is a chaotic places that derives its order from that very chaos.

The never ending debate remains though: Is the chaos a force for creativity, or a sign of backwardness?

Gotta love today’s issue of Annahar

On today’s first page of the Lebanese daily, Condoleeza Rice sits comfortably on a couch while delivering a stern warning to Hisham Melhem: The situation in Lebanon is very fragile and Lebanese figures might be assassinated.

But before you get too depressed, you might want to check the painting of a figurine that is seated exactly like Condy who also is featured on the main page. This time, the headline is more upbeat: “Art at the Janine Rubeiz Gallery puts us in a deep state of joy”.

Of course, the irony is not intended.

Hariri has done the right thing by warning Hezbollah from forcefully attempting to change the government. But like Samir Geagea before him, he has chosen the wrong podium for his message.

“We, the people of Tayyar al Mustaqbal, the people of Rafic el Hariri, are warning those who think they can change the current government using non-democratic or peaceful means. Street demonstrations and mob behavior will be only be countered by similar actions, and those who start can only blame themselves. (wil bedi azlam)”

Thus Saad Hariri completes the trilogy of reactions to Hassan Nassrallah’s “victory speech”. Hariri, like Jumblat and Geagea before him, is making it clear to Nassrallah that he is not intimidated by Hezbollah’s fire breathing, and that he is committed to establishing the rule of the central government on all the Lebanese territory.

The problem with the speeches of Hariri and Geagea is not their content. They are both well crafted, forceful and confident. The problem is the context in which both leaders chose to send their messages.

Mr. Geagea addressed thousands of Christians on a Sunday morning next to a historic cathedral in the heart of Christian mount Lebanon. Similarly, Mr. Hariri addressed “Beiruti families” whom he invited to a Ramadan Iftar in his Qoraitem residential. On one of the tables were seated P.M. Seniora and, yes, you guessed it, the Sunni mufti.

It is sad that Hariri, Geagea and Jumblat chose to have separate events with their chore sectarian constituencies in sectarian strongholds instead of pooling their “resources” into one major event in a place that carries nothing but Lebanese symbolism.

The March 14 protagonists have allowed Hassan Nassrallah to appear to have an upper moral hand. Nassrallah at least tried to pretend his rally wasn’t confessional and he cautioned the Lebanese from portraying political differences as sectarian differences.

So perhaps next time, “the people” of Hariri and “the people” of Geagea and “the people” of Jumblat should stand together under the banner of the people of Lebanon.

Behold one of President Bush’s best ideas on Lebanon.

Who should rebuild this?

When Hezbollah started distributing aid to victims after the Israeli war on Lebanon, American commentators went crazy demanding their government to “beat Hezbollah” to the hearts and minds and pockets of the Lebanese by immediately sending bigger and fatter cash to the war-ravaged country.

In the midst of that frenzy however, two level-headed people, Carlos Pascual and Martin Indyk wrote an influential op-ed piece in the New York Times (no subscription version here) suggesting better ways to help the Lebanese. The methods were articulated as “six guiding principles” for reconstructing Lebanon, of which the third and fifth are particularly sensible:

The third principle is to use local capacity. Iraq taught us how not to rebuild: using international contractors that take months to get in place and spend perhaps a third of their budgets protecting themselves. Lebanon has world-class engineers and experience from rebuilding the country after its civil war. Lebanese and Arab contractors who employ local workers should be given priority. Of course, international donors will need to help the Lebanese government design streamlined procurement rules with external auditors. Again, let’s learn from Iraq: payments should be based on results, not on level of effort.

A fifth principle is to make maximum use of the private sector. As they showed in recovering from civil war, the Lebanese are among the most entrepreneurial people on earth. Rather than having the West send huge amounts of food aid that can depress local markets, families should be given cash grants that will allow them to buy food.

Bush seemed to have taken notice; after meeting yesterday with executives from CISCO, Dell and other big companies, he announced a public/private partnership to help Lebanon.

The Idea is simple: American companies would invest in Lebanon, while American banks would offer capital to already existing small and medium Lebanese enterprises. The purpose, as Mr. Bush announced, was to help Lebanon flourish.

Of course, nothing is as innocent as it sounds. The White House is betting that if enough investment is poured into the southern part of Lebanon (like Cisco’s $10m for a youth jobs program), in the medium term a middle class would emerge that finds little in common with Hezbollah which, remember, recruits its foot soldiers by being generous in social welfare.

It is essential however that Mr. Bush follows the ideas of Pascual and Indyk. The people on the ground should all be Lebanese, and one thing we have in excess is talent. If he can pull that off, it would be one of Bush’s best money spent.

It is about time we shelved the misconception that the Lebanese Christians are allied with Hezbollah.

On March 8 last year, hundreds of thousands of Hezbollah protesters flooded the streets of Beirut to say “Thank You Syria”. It was a show of force like no other and it caused the fragile types to start wondering whether Hezbollah has become the de-facto dominant power in Lebanese politics.
One man however, was unmoved. He understood the situation very well: The rally was a sham and the Lebanese won’t be fooled by such artificial displays of power. The name of that man was Michel Aoun.

After the Rally, General Aoun had this to tell the World Net Daily:

[..] the protest wasn’t what it appeared to be. It was an elaborately staged affair.
This was not a Lebanese showing, and many of those who actually were Lebanese were not there because they support Syria. We know that at least three Palestinian camps were present. And there are 700,000 Syrian workers inside Lebanon, many of whom are not even supposed to be there. They were urged by Syria to attend so it looks like many Lebanese are protesting. Plus Syria bused in their own citizens from Syria through the border into Lebanon to join the rally.

Fast forward to today, where the previously beloved General appeared in the front row of an event similar to the very one he criticized last year. Surrounded by a handful of orange-clad die-hard followers, General Aoun failed to convince.
The Christians he constantly claims to represent simply didn’t feel at home among people throwing their fists in the air to the chants of Labbayka Nassroullah, let alone to calls to martyrdom and pledges of sacrifice to the last child.

Enter that very under-rated Christian leader, Samir Geagea.
Last Sunday, under his leadership, one of the biggest Christian rallies took place in Harissa. In a stark contrast to the paltry amount of loyalists Aoun tugged with him to the Hezbollah rally, hundreds of thousands of Christians showed up to say NO to Hassan Nassrallah and YES to Lebanese sovereignty. They all cheered a beaming Mr. Geagea who was flanked by a large statue of Virgin Mary on one side and a historic cathedral on the other.

The message couldn’t have been clearer. It is time for western pundits to stop referring to Aoun as the representative of the Lebanese Christians.

According to this online poll by Al-Balad, a majority of the Lebanese is against the resignation of Seniora’s government.

Al-Balad is widely read and is considered to be a fairly independent newspaper (some say it has a Aounist slant.) The poll has been up for a few weeks.

The poll is only indicative of the opinion of online readers who chose to take part of it, but the 9-percentage-point difference is consistent with the Lebanese Parliament’s composition (see graphic below).
This assumes that the FPM , Amal and Hezbollah (56/128) are all calling for the resignation and that the March 14 grouping (72/128) are all against it.

Hezbollah might be thumping its chest, but it is weaker today than it has ever been. Can it survive this crisis?

No more smiles for Nasrallah

“7illou 3an sama rabbna!!” (get off our backs!!)

That was how a Hezbollah MP, Nawaf Al Mussawi, responded to his many critics on a TV program last week. In his interview with Aljazeera, Hassan Nassrallah, The Hezbollah leader, insinuated that the parliamentarian majority and the Lebanese P.M were covertly complicit in the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. People in Lebanon are noticing that Hezbollah is unusually loud, irritable and less compromising with the rest of the Lebanese. Why is it so?

Some people say the traumatic effect of the war took its toll on Hezbollah’s nerves. Some say Hezbollah are reacting to a newly-emboldened March 14 movement (According to Al-balad, Hariri’s Future Movement is now officially referring to Hezbollah as a militia). But most likely, Hezbollah is kicking and screaming because it’s losing its grip on power.

As veteran political Analyst Sarkis Naoom pointed out in Annahar, A strong UNIFIL in the south and good border patrols mean that Hezbollah’s weapons have become largely ineffective. This is prompting the Lebanese to ask: “Why are you keeping your weapons if you don’t intend to use them against other Lebanese?”

But Hezbollah’s problems are not only about hostile Lebanese, rebellious Shiites and military incapacity. It can survive those the same way it survived its last identity crisis after the Israelis withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000. The major new problem for Hezbollah is that its allies are showing signs that they might abandon it.

Michel Aoun, Hezbollah’s Christian ally in Lebanon and a major source of internal legitimacy for the party, has for the first time blamed Hezbollah for the war (although he also blamed the Lebanese government). Aoun made it clear to Al-Arabiya that “Hezbollah is not our ally, we just have an understanding with them over a few points”

Syria, Hezbollah’s logistical ally has become so weak it had to promise Koffie Annan, the UN chief, to stop the flow of arms to Lebanon. This can be seen as an admission of guilt, but most likely Syria will revert back to its old ways soon. Still, it will be more difficult as the scrutiny has intensified.

Iran, on the surface, remains a strong backer of Hezbollah. But something seems to be going on between Iran and France. The French Foreign Minister shocked the world when he visited Tehran while the war was still raging and cordially shook hands with his Iranian counterpart. He raised eyebrows when he declared that Iran is “a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region.”
Today, that visit was followed up with a major and surprising setback for the United States when President Jack Chirac of France effectively announced that he opposes sanctions against Iran. The question that could make Hassan Nassrallah lose sleep is: what did Iran have to give France (who has Lebanon high up in its priorities list) in return?

In light of the above, it is easy to understand why Hezbollah is holding a major rally on Friday to declare its “Divine Victory”. If enough people showed up, they calculate, Nassrallah can convince its reluctant allies that it still has a lot to offer and it would be an error to abandon them.

Hezbollah’s logic seems to be: If you’re in a hole, keep digging.

An Aljazeera cartoon on the contrast between Pope Jean Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (click on photo to play)

The Pope has apologized in person for offending Muslims. The ball is now in the court of Muslim leaders to show the world that we want to be part of it.

To many Westerners, the problem is often not what Muslims do, but what Muslims don’t do. Witness how angry the Americans were because Muslim leaders failed to condemn clearly and unequivocally the attacks of September 11.
Among other things, Muslim leaders are failing to condemn the genocide in Darfur (today is a day of worldwide protests against the atrocities there but the Muslim world is conspicuously absent from marking it), and are hesitant to call terrorism in Iraq by its real name.

This post is not about why things are the way they are, but about how to help change that perception. The Pope’s apology to the Muslim world this morning is a good place to start.

Many Muslim leaders have fanned the flames of angry mobs by (rightly) condemning the pope’s speech and demanding an apology. That was a popular thing to do as most leaders want to be seen as protectors of the faith. But the real test of leadership comes from the way they respond to the apology.

Responding publicly and favorably to the pope and to his call for dialogue, in the same urgency and energy they used to condemn his speech would be the right thing to do.

Failing to do so will further prove to the western world that we are not real partners in the conversation among civilizations. We should all remember that if we want to be heard, we have to work hard towards building our reputation.
Only after that can real influence follow.