Please, please, not again

Late-breaking news, and in the context of the Syrian civil war, this is very bad news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20006389


Lebanon blast: Car bombing in Beirut kills eight


The aftermath of the explosion in Beirut

Related Stories

A huge car bomb has killed at least eight people and injured 78 in Beirut, Lebanese state media report.
The explosion occurred in Sassine Square, a busy part of the mainly Christian district of Ashrafiya in the centre of the capital.
Ambulances have been seen rushing to square. Witnesses say the blast was heard several kilometres away.
The intended target is unclear. Tensions in Lebanon have been rising as a result of the conflict in Syria.
Friday's attack is the first major car bomb attack in Beirut for four years.
It occurred about 200m (650ft) from the headquarters of the Kataeb, better known as the Phalange, a Maronite Christian group.
The general secretariat of the Western-backed 14 March coalition of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri is also based there.
Several cars were set on fire as a result of the blast. TV footage showed considerable damage to buildings.
A nearby hospital is calling for people to donate blood to help treat the wounded.

Abstract of Recently Completed Doctoral Dissertation


Transnational, Trans-Sectarian Engagement: A Revised Approach to
U.S. Public Diplomacy toward Lebanon

A Doctoral Dissertation
by Deborah Lee Trent
The George Washington University
Columbian College of Arts and Sciences
Washington, D.C.
31 August 2012

Abstract
Broadly, public diplomacy is governmental engagement directly with global publics in pursuit of national interests. Public diplomacy engagement involves outreach, listening, informing, explaining, collaboration, and persuasion. Specific to this dissertation, the U.S. government pursues public diplomacy for the additional purpose of strengthening relationships with global publics. This dissertation employs organizational sensemaking theory and process (Weick, 1995; 2001) to explore the mutual interests that foster, and the divergent interests that impede, credible public diplomacy with the Lebanese and Lebanese American publics. The scholarly and practitioner literatures framing the dissertation are: networked cross-sector governance; collaborative citizen engagement, relational public diplomacy; and government-diaspora relations.
The two central research questions of this dissertation are 1) How do U.S. public diplomacy personnel, relevant Congressional committee staff, Lebanese Americans in U.S. civil society, and Lebanese stakeholders make sense of the challenges of public diplomacy toward Lebanon? 2) How would these stakeholders like to change the way U.S. public diplomacy policy and programs are administered?
Analyzing the organizational sensemaking narratives generated in 77 personal interviews and 27 meeting observations of key stakeholders across government and civil society in the U.S. and Lebanon has generated three main findings. 1) The U.S. designation of the Lebanese political party and militia, Hizbullah, as a foreign terrorist organization precludes U.S. public diplomacy outreach to key Lebanese audiences and discourages engagement and collaboration among key Lebanese American citizens. 2) Despite these divergent interests between the two governments, significant mutual interests exist between the two nations. They can be strengthened by: diversifying outreach among the religious sects in Lebanon and the diaspora; and, further exploiting cross-cultural social-relational processes, traditional public and cultural diplomacy approaches, more recent social media networking tools, and collaborative management of engagement through public-private partnership. 3) Engaging collaboratively with diasporans informs and facilitates outreach with the Lebanese public, fostering new political space for mediating conflict and pursuing mutually beneficial cultural and socioeconomic projects.
This dissertation contributes to the scholarship and practice of public diplomacy and government-citizen relations a new country study that explores the increasingly important domain of networked, transnational, cross-sector governance. It proposes a transnational, trans-sectarian approach for U.S. public diplomatists to strengthen collaborative engagement among the people of the U.S. and Lebanon. This approach seeks to mitigate the primary problem of credibility of U.S. policy toward Lebanon and limited public diplomacy engagement with the Lebanese and the diaspora. Overall, the dissertation informs government-to-government and government-to-people diplomacy in the broader Middle East, where sectarian conflict, civil society uprisings, and lack of a Palestinian state are major challenges.

An Arab American Comic Strip

Source: http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=Artamp;Culture&article=5960 , accessed September 18, 2012.


DC Comics’ Geoff Johns discusses new Arab American "Green Lantern" during visit to Dearborn
By Samer Hijazi
Friday, 09.14.2012, 11:17am
DEARBORN — Last week Geoff Johns, comic book writer and Chief Creative Officer of DC Comics returned to his home state of Michigan where he made some public appearances in Dearborn coming off DC Comics' announcement earlier this month that the comic book company's superhero "The Green Lantern" would be re-incarnated as an Arab American named Simon Baz who resides in Dearborn. 

Johns engages with fans during his visit to the museum last week.
Johns, born in Detroit, is half Lebanese and grew up in Grosse Pointe and Clarkston. As a child he discovered comic books in his grandmother's attic which quickly transformed into a passion for him. He studied Media Art, Screenwriting and Film Production at Michigan State University where he graduated in 1995 before moving to Los Angeles. During his earlier years there he worked on the production of a few Hollywood films including 1997's "Conspiracy Theory," staring Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts.

From there Johns was able to meet with DC Comics personnel and was given the opportunity to pitch ideas for the company, where he was heavily involved in the re-launch of DC's comic book "Teen Titans." Further down the road he became heavily involved in other DC comics titles which included "Aquaman" and an older incarnation of "The Green Lantern." John's work would also expand into television where he served as a writer on a few episodes of "Smallville," the popular long running series based on the early years of Superman.

Johns spoke with The Arab American News during his visit to Dearborn last Friday, saying that the updated version of  "The Green Lantern" had been in the works for about two years.

"I think diversifying our universe is really important to us.  So when I had the story of re-creating a new Green Lantern, I just thought maybe I'd look at my heritage and draw from that. Immediately the publishers and editors were on board. Diane Nelson, the president, approved it right away and they were very supportive of it," Johns stated during an interview before an autograph signing at Dearborn's Green Brian Comic Book store located on Michigan Ave., where dozens of comic book fans showed up for a meet and greet. 

Johns speaking at the Arab American National Museum
Additionally, the updated version of "The Green Lantern" comic book series, which was launched earlier this month with its first issue, will be partly set in Dearborn. The stories will revolve around Simon Baz, an out of work auto engineer who ends up as a car thief before the Green Lantern ring chooses him to be a "cosmic cop." Additionally the comics will tackle some of the struggles that the Arab-American community has been facing.  The first issue in the series begins with depicting Baz as a 10-year-old dealing with the current events of 9/11 and the toll it took on his Muslim family as well as his community. 

"A lot of it will take place in Dearborn. In the next issue there will be a scene that takes place on the roof of the Dearborn Music Building. His sister Sera, will also play a big role in the comics. She works at the Secretary of State," Johns added. 

The announcement of the new series has been well received in the Arab American community, coming as a surprise to many who had been used to the idea of a genre filled with dozens of superheroes that had previously been lacking in the diversity department. Last year, another major comic book company, Marvel Comics, was applauded for taking one of the first steps in diversifying their line-up, when they announced that Spiderman would be revamped  as a half Black-half Latino character for their new comic book series. But for the Arab and Muslim communities, an Arab American Muslim superhero is seen as a major step, especially in a post-9/11 era.

"In general, when you think about Arabs and Muslims in main roles in pop culture, they're always the villains,"  Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York told the New York Daily News earlier this week. "We're always the hijackers. We're always the bad people that the good American soldiers or CIA is trying to fight. To finally have the opportunity where the Arab-American can be the super hero, to be the one who saves people, is a lot more powerful an image," Sarsour added.   

Aside from an autograph signing and a meet and greet at the comic book store, Johns also gave a presentation at the Arab American National Museum located on Michigan Ave. on Saturday. He tells us that part of his visit back to Michigan was to speak to the youth and to encourage them to follow their dreams.

"I want to spread the message of how I got into the business...my twists and turns along the way and everything that I have done. The thing about comic books and writing in general is that there is no specific path or college course to take like other careers," Johns stated.  "But the truth of the matter is, whatever it is you have a passion for, you can succeed in it. All writers get rejected, and I remember my first pitch to DC Comics was rejected. There was a lot of struggle but it's just part of the business. Even Steven King was rejected, but don't let rejection deter you. You just need the drive to do it," Johns stated. 

Johns says while talks of a film adaption of the new Green Lantern are too soon to be put on the table (last year a film adaption starring Ryan Reynolds hit theaters and was considered a box office disappointment), the olive skin complected character, who will bear an Arabic tattoo on the same arm as his lantern ring, which stands for "courage," is expected to be turned into an action figure in 2013.  

Another chapter of the long story of U.S.-Israeli Relations

Thanks to Seth Anziska (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/a-preventable-massacre.html?pagewanted=all)


OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A Preventable Massacre

ON the night of Sept. 16, 1982, the Israeli military allowed a right-wing Lebanese militia to enter two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut. In the ensuing three-day rampage, the militia, linked to the Maronite Christian Phalange Party, raped, killed and dismembered at least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps’ narrow and darkened alleyways. Nearly all of the dead were women, children and elderly men.
Edel Rodriguez
Multimedia

Thirty years later, the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila camps is remembered as a notorious chapter in modern Middle Eastern history, clouding the tortured relationships among Israel, the United States, Lebanon and the Palestinians. In 1983, an Israeli investigative commission concluded that Israeli leaders were “indirectly responsible” for the killings and that Ariel Sharon, then the defense minister and later prime minister, bore “personal responsibility” for failing to prevent them.
While Israel’s role in the massacre has been closely examined, America’s actions have never been fully understood. This summer, at the Israel State Archives, I found recently declassified documents that chronicle key conversations between American and Israeli officials before and during the 1982 massacre. The verbatim transcripts reveal that the Israelis misled American diplomats about events in Beirut and bullied them into accepting the spurious claim that thousands of “terrorists” were in the camps. Most troubling, when the United States was in a position to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Israel that could have ended the atrocities, it failed to do so. As a result, Phalange militiamen were able to murder Palestinian civilians, whom America had pledged to protect just weeks earlier.
Israel’s involvement in the Lebanese civil war began in June 1982, when it invaded its northern neighbor. Its goal was to root out the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had set up a state within a state, and to transform Lebanon into a Christian-ruled ally. The Israel Defense Forces soon besieged P.L.O.-controlled areas in the western part of Beirut. Intense Israeli bombardments led to heavy civilian casualties and tested even President Ronald Reagan, who initially backed Israel. In mid-August, as America was negotiating the P.L.O.’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Reagan told Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the bombings “had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered,” Reagan wrote in his diaries.
The United States agreed to deploy Marines to Lebanon as part of a multinational force to supervise the P.L.O.’s departure, and by Sept. 1, thousands of its fighters — including Yasir Arafat — had left Beirut for various Arab countries. After America negotiated a cease-fire that included written guarantees to protect the Palestinian civilians remaining in the camps from vengeful Lebanese Christians, the Marines departed Beirut, on Sept. 10.
Israel hoped that Lebanon’s newly elected president, Bashir Gemayel, a Maronite, would support an Israeli-Christian alliance. But on Sept. 14, Gemayel was assassinated. Israel reacted by violating the cease-fire agreement. It quickly occupied West Beirut — ostensibly to prevent militia attacks against the Palestinian civilians. “The main order of the day is to keep the peace,” Begin told the American envoy to the Middle East, Morris Draper, on Sept. 15. “Otherwise, there could be pogroms.”
By Sept. 16, the I.D.F. was fully in control of West Beirut, including Sabra and Shatila. In Washington that same day, Under Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger told the Israeli ambassador, Moshe Arens, that “Israel’s credibility has been severely damaged” and that “we appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.” He demanded that Israel withdraw from West Beirut immediately.
In Tel Aviv, Mr. Draper and the American ambassador, Samuel W. Lewis, met with top Israeli officials. Contrary to Prime Minister Begin’s earlier assurances, Defense Minister Sharon said the occupation of West Beirut was justified because there were “2,000 to 3,000 terrorists who remained there.” Mr. Draper disputed this claim; having coordinated the August evacuation, he knew the number was minuscule. Mr. Draper said he was horrified to hear that Mr. Sharon was considering allowing the Phalange militia into West Beirut. Even the I.D.F. chief of staff, Rafael Eitan, acknowledged to the Americans that he feared “a relentless slaughter.”
On the evening of Sept. 16, the Israeli cabinet met and was informed that Phalange fighters were entering the Palestinian camps. Deputy Prime Minister David Levy worried aloud: “I know what the meaning of revenge is for them, what kind of slaughter. Then no one will believe we went in to create order there, and we will bear the blame.” That evening, word of civilian deaths began to filter out to Israeli military officials, politicians and journalists.
At 12:30 p.m. on Sept. 17, Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir hosted a meeting with Mr. Draper, Mr. Sharon and several Israeli intelligence chiefs. Mr. Shamir, having reportedly heard of a “slaughter” in the camps that morning, did not mention it.
The transcript of the Sept. 17 meeting reveals that the Americans were browbeaten by Mr. Sharon’s false insistence that “terrorists” needed “mopping up.” It also shows how Israel’s refusal to relinquish areas under its control, and its delays in coordinating with the Lebanese National Army, which the Americans wanted to step in, prolonged the slaughter.
Mr. Draper opened the meeting by demanding that the I.D.F. pull back right away. Mr. Sharon exploded, “I just don’t understand, what are you looking for? Do you want the terrorists to stay? Are you afraid that somebody will think that you were in collusion with us? Deny it. We denied it.” Mr. Draper, unmoved, kept pushing for definitive signs of a withdrawal. Mr. Sharon, who knew Phalange forces had already entered the camps, cynically told him, “Nothing will happen. Maybe some more terrorists will be killed. That will be to the benefit of all of us.” Mr. Shamir and Mr. Sharon finally agreed to gradually withdraw once the Lebanese Army started entering the city — but they insisted on waiting 48 hours (until the end of Rosh Hashana, which started that evening).
Continuing his plea for some sign of an Israeli withdrawal, Mr. Draper warned that critics would say, “Sure, the I.D.F. is going to stay in West Beirut and they will let the Lebanese go and kill the Palestinians in the camps.”  
Mr. Sharon replied: “So, we’ll kill them. They will not be left there. You are not going to save them. You are not going to save these groups of the international terrorism.”
Mr. Draper responded: “We are not interested in saving any of these people.” Mr. Sharon declared: “If you don’t want the Lebanese to kill them, we will kill them.”
Mr. Draper then caught himself, and backtracked. He reminded the Israelis that the United States had painstakingly facilitated the P.L.O. exit from Beirut “so it wouldn’t be necessary for you to come in.” He added, “You should have stayed out.”
Mr. Sharon exploded again: “When it comes to our security, we have never asked. We will never ask. When it comes to existence and security, it is our own responsibility and we will never give it to anybody to decide for us.” The meeting ended with an agreement to coordinate withdrawal plans after Rosh Hashana.
By allowing the argument to proceed on Mr. Sharon’s terms, Mr. Draper effectively gave Israel cover to let the Phalange fighters remain in the camps. Fuller details of the massacre began to emerge on Sept. 18, when a young American diplomat, Ryan C. Crocker, visited the gruesome scene and reported back to Washington.
Years later, Mr. Draper called the massacre “obscene.” And in an oral history recorded a few years before his death in 2005, he remembered telling Mr. Sharon: “You should be ashamed. The situation is absolutely appalling. They’re killing children! You have the field completely under your control and are therefore responsible for that area.”
On Sept. 18, Reagan pronounced his “outrage and revulsion over the murders.” He said the United States had opposed Israel’s invasion of Beirut, both because “we believed it wrong in principle and for fear that it would provoke further fighting.” Secretary of State George P. Shultz later admitted that “we are partially responsible” because “we took the Israelis and the Lebanese at their word.” He summoned Ambassador Arens. “When you take military control over a city, you’re responsible for what happens,” he told him. “Now we have a massacre.”
But the belated expression of shock and dismay belies the Americans’ failed diplomatic effort during the massacre. The transcript of Mr. Draper’s meeting with the Israelis demonstrates how the United States was unwittingly complicit in the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila.
Ambassador Lewis, now retired, told me that the massacre would have been hard to prevent “unless Reagan had picked up the phone and called Begin and read him the riot act even more clearly than he already did in August — that might have stopped it temporarily.” But “Sharon would have found some other way” for the militiamen to take action, Mr. Lewis added.
Nicholas A. Veliotes, then the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, agreed. “Vintage Sharon,” he said, after I read the transcript to him. “It is his way or the highway.”
The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted. In the aftermath of the massacre, the United States felt compelled by “guilt” to redeploy the Marines, who ended up without a clear mission, in the midst of a brutal civil war.
On Oct. 23, 1983, the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed and 241 Marines were killed. The attack led to open warfare with Syrian-backed forces and, soon after, the rapid withdrawal of the Marines to their ships. As Mr. Lewis told me, America left Lebanon “with our tail between our legs.”
The archival record reveals the magnitude of a deception that undermined American efforts to avoid bloodshed. Working with only partial knowledge of the reality on the ground, the United States feebly yielded to false arguments and stalling tactics that allowed a massacre in progress to proceed.
The lesson of the Sabra and Shatila tragedy is clear. Sometimes close allies act contrary to American interests and values. Failing to exert American power to uphold those interests and values can have disastrous consequences: for our allies, for our moral standing and most important, for the innocent people who pay the highest price of all.
Seth Anziska is a doctoral candidate in international history at Columbia University
.

More to Chew On -- and This Idea Sounds Deliciously Effective


From: http://whistlepigwhiskey.com/ , retrieved 9/15/12

The State Department’s Diplomatic Culinary Partnership: peace through deliciousness, and not a moment too soon

 2 1
 
comments (0)
White House executive chef Cris Comerford (left) and Blair House executive sous chef Kiesha Sellers at the State Department reception (Leslie Brenner)
This time last week, I was in Washington, D.C. for the Association of Food Journalists’ annual conference — a first for me, and it was stupendous. This is the first of what I hope will be several blog posts about events surrounding the conference.
Most notably from a news point of view, as a group we were invited to a reception at the State Department for the launch of its new Diplomatic Culinary Partnership Initiative. The initiative strives to “elevate the role of culinary engagement in America’s formal and public diplomacy efforts.” (If only we could use culinary diplomacy real quick to cool things down in the Middle East….)  Washington Post restaurant critic and AFJ member Tom Sietsema wrote a fine preview story about it.  All part of the American Chef Corps, an impressive retinue of chefs, was in attendance, including White House Executive Chef Cris Comerford, José Andres, Rick Bayless, Mary Sue Milliken and many more. The program aims to “foster cross-cultural exchange” by having the chefs participate in public diplomacy programs and “enhance formal diplomacy” through food and cooking to engage foreign leaders at Department of State functions. “This is a really important moment for chefs,” said Sam Kass, assistant chef and senior policy advisor for healthy food initiatives at the White House. “Besides chefs,” he added, “grandmothers are the only ones with real food knowledge in this country.” (Well, some of the members of the Association of Food Journalists might argue with that…)
The food and drink were pretty fabulous, including a wine bar that focused on vintages from  Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, New York and, yes, Texas! (McPherson Cellars “Tre-Colore”), and an impressive spread of American charcuterie and cheeses. Some of the chefs were set up in stations making plates — I loved Mary Sue Milliken’s heirloom bean, avocado and bacon tostada, anchored by a wonderful, tangy version of an old-fashioned three-bean salad. Art Smith and Wes Morton’s roasted farro salad with smoked Carolina swordfish was terrific, too.
Pigs in blankets and tobiko blankets on smoked salmon pigs (Leslie Brenner)
And the passed hors d’ouevres were adorable, like spaghetti and meatballs (a forkful of spaghetti atop each small meatball with a dollop of marinara); tiny pizzas (each in its own Diplomatic Culinary Partnership pizza box); and a verdant pasture of pigs in blankets (the old-fashioned kind) and pig-shaped smoked salmon canapes, each wearing a blanket of tobiko — cute! Also of note: an excellent 10-year old rye whiskey from Vermont called Whistlepig and a cocktail called a George Washington Rye Rickey.
Follow Leslie on Twitter@lesbren and join her on Facebook

A Column To Chew On

Thank you to Michael Young [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2012/Sep-13/187725-america-just-cannot-be-the-loved-one.ashx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WhatsNewInPd+%28What%27s+New+in+Public+Diplomacy%29#axzz26NqNiagZ#When:20:34:33Z] and Donna Oglesby, tweeting @Winnowingfan .

America just cannot be the loved one
By Michael Young
Dozens of disappointing Pew polls later, with the United States government having earmarked vast sums of money for public diplomacy, you have to wonder whether Washington hasn’t run up a blind alley in its desire to be popular among Arabs.
An obscure Israeli-American real estate developer in California uploads a video condemning the Prophet Mohammad, and mobs storm the American consulate in Benghazi, killing an ambassador. In Cairo, demonstrators attack the fortified American Embassy building. Utterly irrelevant, evidently, is the fact that Egypt has benefited from billions of dollars in American aid for over three decades, or that the U.S. helped militarily overthrow Moammar Gadhafi last year.
However, the issue here is not the ungratefulness of the Arabs. There were doubtless quite a few Egyptians and Libyans unhappy with what took place this week. There were probably many more with no opinion whatsoever, who are neither fond of America nor the contrary, largely because America is absent from their daily life.
That doesn’t change the fact that anti-Americanism is more the norm than the exception in the Arab world, even if a vast majority of people never expresses that sentiment in violent ways. Yet who can deny that the mainstreaming of hostility toward America greatly facilitates the violence of minorities? At no time was this more obvious than after 9/11, whose 11th anniversary we commemorated this week, when initial shock soon made way for explanations, then implicit justifications, of the mass murder that had occurred.
It was 9/11, and the question posed at the time, “Why do they hate us,” that sent American officials scurrying for remedies to that hatred. Public diplomacy was given a bureaucratic face-lift, radio and television stations were opened broadcasting in Arabic, and despite the invasion of Iraq, many thought they had discovered the best therapy in the exit of President George W. Bush and his replacement by Barack Obama, who, fortuitously, had “Hussein” as a middle name.
Well, apparently not. Whether it is Obama or Bush, the American sirens calling for more love are apparently not having their effect. There are many reasons for this, but listing them would serve only to reinforce the argument that the Americans are to blame and must, therefore, reshape their conduct to please the Arabs. The Americans are indeed to blame in many ways, just as many in the Arab world are at fault, not least for their hypocrisy when it comes to America. However, the disconnect between America and the Arabs goes beyond perceptions of mutual behavior to include more systemic problems.
It’s a given that the powerful are disliked, and no country has been more powerful than the United States in recent decades. If you have the ability to change things, but no change comes, then you somehow become responsible for everything that goes wrong. The Americans were indeed the defenders of a debilitating status quo in the Middle East, but since 2011 they have been on the side of emancipatory change, despite intense uneasiness. Yet they remain perpetually disliked, with the poll figures sometimes edging up, sometimes down, but always reflecting deep ambiguity toward the superpower.
There is the Israel excuse, of course. Washington’s support for Israel is the knee-jerk pretext whenever an explanation is sought for why America is loathed by Arabs. There is a great deal to censure in Washington’s seemingly unquestioning devotion to Israel, frequently against America’s better interests, but let’s get a grip. For years numerous Arab countries have ruthlessly mistreated or manipulated the Palestinians and their cause, without provoking a discernibly negative reaction from Arab societies.
In light of this, perhaps we must seriously consider that the Arab world has so internalized its disapproval of the United States over time, integrating it perfectly into a prevailing sense of Arab misfortune and frustration, that anti-Americanism has become a constant of Arab political discourse, a crutch of sorts. That is not to say that America is blameless or the Arabs always wrong; it’s to say that the positivist belief among Americans that they can be loved simply by altering their actions and manners is naively overstated.
Being loved is not nearly as important as being respected, and in that regard the United States has been riding a roller coaster. When each post-Cold War administration has cast fundamental doubt on the Middle Eastern policies of its predecessor, holding it responsible for everything that is haywire in the region, expect Arabs to enjoy those catfights, but also to see their doubts about America reinforced. The reality is that when no clear, overriding strategy exists for America’s approach to the Middle East, administrations function more on the basis of domestic politics, calculations and rivalries, and these tend to be alien to the concerns of the Arab countries they influence.
Few Arabs held dear Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, but America fundamentally and advantageously overhauled its policy in the region during the 1970s under their stewardship, on the basis of a careful, long-term reading of Washington’s well-being. In contrast, though George W. Bush injected democracy into America’s regional perspectives, he soon recoiled on that front, before his legacy was overturned by Barack Obama, whose principal motive in the Middle East is to minimize American involvement.
The White House and the State Department would do best to save their public diplomacy funds and focus more on a redefining a lasting, bipartisan strategy toward the Middle East that can span antagonistic administrations. This has not been done in a serious way since 9/11, and it needs to be at this essential moment when Arab countries are facing momentous change. In politics, love is overrated.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.


Copyrights 2011, The Daily Star - All Rights Reserved
13/09/2012

Don't forget to vote!



Urgent Reminder Regarding the Registration for the Lebanese Upcoming Parliamentary Elections



Citizens of Lebanon in the U.S. may cast their votes in the U.S. for the 2013 parliamentary elections of their country of origin, but only if they register before the end of this calendar year. See
http://www.lebanonembassyus.org/ .


And those of us with U.S. citizenship have no shortage of reminders that it is a presidential election year, with both candidates and their running mates traversing the country and advertising across all media platforms. Which candidate has peace as campaign promise?



Honesty in campaigning? This article -- thank you, Stephen Walt -- illustrates why we need campaign finance reform, although not just because of policy in the Middle East.http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/30/this_year_in_jerusalem


What 'unshakeable commitment' to Israel really means

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

Pandering to special interest groups is a time-honored American political tradition, especially in an election year. The practice is hard-wired into the U.S. system of government, which gives interest groups many different ways to pressure politicians into doing their bidding. Whether we are talking about the farm lobby, the NRA, the AARP, Big Pharma, Wall Street, or various ethnic lobbies, it's inevitable that politicians running for office will say and do lots of stupid things to try to win influential groups over. Especially in a close election.

Which of course explains why Mitt Romney flew to Israel over the weekend, and proceeded to say a lot of silly things designed to show everyone what a good friend to Israel he will be if he is elected. He wasn't trying to win over Israelis or make up for his various gaffes in London; his goal was to convince Israel's supporters in America to vote for him and not for Barack Obama. Most American Jews lean left and will vote for Obama, but Romney would like to keep the percentage as low as he can, because it just might tip the balance in a critical swing state like Florida. Pandering on Israel might also alleviate evangelical Christian concerns about Romney's Mormon faith and make stalwart "Christian Zionists" more inclined to turn out for him. Of course, Romney also wants to convince wealthy supporters of Israel to give lots of money to his campaign (and not Obama's), which is why a flock of big U.S. donors, including gazillionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, accompanied Romney on his trip.

Once in Israel, Romney followed the script to the letter. He referred to Jerusalem as Israel's capital (something the U.S. government doesn't do, because Jerusalem's status is still supposed to be resolved via negotiation). He said that stopping Iran's nuclear program was "America's highest national security priority," which tells you that Romney has no idea how to rank-order national security threats. One of his aides, neoconservative Dan Senor, even gave Israel a green light to attack Iran, telling reporters that "If Israel has to take action on its own, the governor would respect that decision."

But this sort of pandering is a bipartisan activity, and it's not like Barack Obama isn't keeping up. The administration has been sending a steady stream of top advisors to Israel of late, including Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and last week Obama signed a $70 million military aid deal for Israel, in a public signing ceremony. His message: "Romney can fly around and give speeches, but I'm delivering real, tangible support."

The good news, such as it is, is that both Romney and Obama are probably lying. No matter how many times each of them talks about the "unshakeable commitment" to Israel, or even of their "love" for the country, they don't really mean it. They are simply pandering to domestic politics, which is something that all American politicians do on a host of different issues. Of course, they will still have to shape their policies with the lobby's clout in mind (as Obama's humiliating retreat on the settlement issue demonstrates), but nobody should be under the illusion that they genuinely believe all the flattering stuff that they are forced to say.

Why do I say that? Well, consider what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in a July 2000 interview, conducted as part of an oral history project conducted by the University of Virginia's Miller Center.
"...Every president I worked for, at some point in his presidency, would get so pissed off at the Israelis that he couldn't speak. It didn't matter whether it was Jimmy Carter or Gerry Ford or Ronald Reagan or George Bush. Something would happen and they would just absolutely go screw themselves right into the ceiling they were so angry and they'd sort of rant and rave around the Oval Office. I think it was their frustration about knowing that there was so little they could do about it because of domestic politics and everything else that was so frustrating to them."
What was true of these presidents was also true of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and if Romney ends up getting elected, I'll bet the same thing will happen to him too. He just won't admit it publicly.

The obvious danger in this conspiracy of silence is that it prevents the foreign policy community from having an honest discussion about the whole Middle East situation, including the "special relationship." Although public discourse on this topic is more open and wide-ranging than it used to be, mostly because some journalists and academics are freer to write honestly about this topic, it is still nearly impossible for politicians or ambitious policy wonks to say what they really think. If you want to get elected, or if you want to work on a campaign and maybe serve in the U.S. government, you have to either 1) be fully committed to the "special relationship," 2) pretend to be committed by mouthing all the usual platitudes or 3) remain studiously silent about the whole subject. And I can't think of any other diplomatic relationship that is such a minefield.

This situation wouldn't be a problem if U.S. Middle East policy was filled with success stories or if Israel's own actions were beyond reproach. But no country is perfect and all governments make mistakes. The problem is that politicians and policymakers can't really have a completely open discussion of these issues here in the Land of the Free.

There's also a tragic irony in all this. In his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote that the two presidents who did the most to advance Arab-Israeli peace were Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. Carter negotiated the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and Bush 41 led the 1991 Gulf War coalition and assembled the 1992 Madrid Peace Conference. According to Ben-Ami, Carter and Bush made progress on this difficult issue because each was willing "to confront Israel head one and overlook the sensibilities of her friends in America."

In other words, each was willing to do precisely what Romney is now telling you he won't.
But what thanks did they get? In 1976, Carter received 71 percent of the Jewish vote and Gerald Ford got 27 percent, a typical result given the tendency for American Jews to favor the Democrats. In 1980, however, Carter got only 45 percent, the lowest percentage ever recorded for a Democratic candidate since World War II. Similarly, George H. W. Bush got 35 percent of the Jewish vote in 1988 (compared with 64 percent for Dukakis), but his share plummeted to only 11 percent in 1992. Their Middle East policies are not the only reason for these shifts, but these two elections are the main outliers over the past fifty years and the (false) perception that Carter and Bush were insufficiently supportive of Israel clearly cost both of them some support.

Which is what Romney is hoping for. The losers will be the American people, whose Middle East policy will continue to be dysfunctional, and Israel, which will continue down its present course towards becoming an apartheid state. And of course the Palestinians will continue to suffer the direct costs of this unhappy situation. But that's democracy at work. If you don't like it, then you'll need to convince politicians that they will pay a price at the ballot box for this sort of mindless pandering. Until they do, it would be unrealistic to expect them to behave any differently. 

A little bit of nostalgia and a lot of hope and love...

This sentimental piece by a Lebanese American demanded a post, here. How lovely to read about this fellow's return to Lebanon after three decades away, and to the same neighborhood in West Beirut that I stayed in last year. I have similar photos, too, of the scenes at the American University of Beirut.

All the best to the author, and for our beloved Lebanon.

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2012/06/syracuse_beirut_lebanon.html

syracuse.com

From Syracuse to Beirut and back again

Published: Sunday, June 10, 2012, 5:58 AM
The Post-Standard 
Banyan tree in BeirutThe banyan tree climbed by the author as a child.
By David A. Shomar
It's been 32 years since I saw Beirut. Thirty-two years! How absurd that would have seemed on my last visit in 1980 or in 1976 when I immigrated to the United States.
I could not imagine leaving the "Paris of the Middle East" for long. I planned to finish my engineering degree at Syracuse University and head back to work.
Yet, here I am in the town of my birth, arriving with the anticipation of a child on Christmas Eve, filled with memories, emotions and questions. Did it change much? Will I see friends of old? What will it feel like? How did 16 years of civil war change the jewel of my youth?
I landed at Rafik Hariri International Airport. I expected the same old routine, landing far from the terminal, the airplane's doors opening to a greeting of Beirut air, filled with the sweet smells of jasmine and the Mediterranean Sea. But it was a modern airport, and all I saw was a long sky bridge corridor, air-conditioned and nondescript. Is this a disappointing omen? Will nothing be the same?
I re-learned quickly that Beirut never disappoints. It is a city filled with life and passion. The old mixes with the new, like a tapestry across the ages.
You still hear a multitude of languages, sometimes all in the same sentence. Eavesdropping on conversations, I thought how my wife and sons laugh when I shift languages talking with my mother or friends back home in Syracuse.
This was a business trip and after checking in to our hotel, I excused myself. I wanted to go unaccompanied by conversation on my journey back in time. I aimed to wander on a walk, but with a destination in mind: American University of Beirut (AUB) and the neighborhood where I grew up right outside its gates.
I walked to Hamra Street, the main street of West Beirut. The street that seemed so large in my memory was tiny and crowded.
New, tall buildings seem to pop up on every inch of available land. If you want to see a real estate boom or bubble, depending on whether you're an optimist or pessimist, come to Beirut.
Even so, I found old landmarks as I walked the streets. There was the Strand movie theater and Red Shoe store.
The smells! The gyro sandwich shop mixed with the fresh fruits of the famous Lebanese mountains. They kept teasing memories to life, and I felt 20 again.
I strolled past the butcher shop next to my grandmother's house; now it is a copy place just like Kinko's. The restaurant Faisal, where AUB students gathered and discussed politics, is a McDonalds. The photography store where we got our pictures taken is a Krispy Kreme.
I came to see my old hometown only to find I am back in the States.
AUB College HallAmerican University of Beirut's College Hall. Photo by David A. Shomar.

I walked past our old church where my grandfather was laid to rest. The street was so narrow. I remembered how, with so little room to maneuver, I had my first car accident.
Then, there it was: The majestic campus of American University of Beirut. I went to the main gate where the sign still claimed its place in Lebanese history, “American University of Beirut 1866.”
AUB was a Presbyterian mission, a gift from my new country to my old country. As I entered the campus, College Hall was looking at me. This was the symbol that was bombed during the civil war as an attack on foreign presence. We, the alumni, and the rest of the true Lebanese and Arabs who owe so much to that university considered it an attack on knowledge. It was rebuilt to the exact replica of its majestic self with donations that exceeded the cost of rebuilding.
The campus remained an oasis in the city. There were the green benches overlooking the Mediterranean. The same green stadium field where soccer players mixed with runners. Then, 104 steps to lower campus, there was the banyan tree that my brother and I climbed when we were young, its branches descending as roots as if to say, here the future is built on our rich past.
I passed Bliss Hall, where my mother worked at the math department. It is now the computer science department; the past giving way to the future.
But the past is stubborn here in a city that dates to 2000 B.C. Right there, next to all the technology, was the same drinking fountain that quenched my thirst during hot summers. There was West Hall and its marble steps where we sat to watch girls pass by.
I headed out of campus toward California Street where I lived for my first 20 years. As I approached our old building, I knew that it had been demolished. I braced for disappointment only to be pleasantly surprised at the attractive architecture of the new high rise in its place.
I had been walking for three hours. To quench my thirst, I went into the small convenience store at the corner. This took me right back to my childhood. It had been the grocery where we bought our food.
I approached the register to pay and struck up a conversation with the clerk. I relayed my story and remembering, to my amazement, the old grocer's name, I asked if he knew of the man. To my astonishment he replied, "He was my father." He had passed away last year.
I felt my heart skip a beat.
"I was 12 years old when my mother sent me to get a jar of jam," I told the grocer's son. "When I asked your father to get me one, he became irate and started to scold me and threatened to call my mother." Being from Palestinian origin, the word for jam in our dialect coincided with the word for unfiltered cigarettes in Lebanese slang. He was watching out for me. Now that is a good man who cared about his community and not only his bottom line.
The son and I hugged, and I left feeling right back at home.
The next few days were filled with old friends, family and fantastic meals.
On Sunday we headed to church where my mother's cousin is the priest. His church is in the downtown area that was completely rebuilt after the war by Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated while bringing Lebanon back to life.
The rebuilding of downtown Beirut is a story in itself. The utterly devastated buildings were rebuilt with care to reflect the city’s history and culture, using the Arab and French architecture that gave Beirut its style. In the process of excavating, ruins from as far back as the Hellenistic era were uncovered and turned into living museums. Business is business, but it takes vision and passion to save a culture at the expense of another dollar profit.
At Mass, I was moved by the piety of the assembled. Their belief was genuine without being arrogant. I noticed the piety of the Muslim Lebanese as well who attended prayers in the new Hariri mosque with its four minarets reaching to the sky. Not far away, the Lebanese Jewish temple has been rebuilt.
David ShomarDavid A. Shomar

Yes, there are Jewish Lebanese and they remain Lebanese. That is a side of Lebanon that should give us all hope.
Differences divide us in Lebanon, in the United States and elsewhere in the world, but this beautiful country can also show us the path toward coexistence. I long for the day when my fellow Lebanese will use their common piety to see how similar they are in their journey. If they could look past the petty to their common history and culture, they would see what they have achieved. This would be the greatest gift they can bestow on the human race.
I am lucky to have two hometowns to be proud of. From Syracuse to Beirut and back again. Lebanon perseveres, and my hope is that it can show the world the gift of coexistence and lead us to a more perfect union.
David A. Shomar is Regional Director of Middle East Operations at Saab Sensis. He lives in Manlius with his wife and two sons. He can be reached at dshomar@gmail.com.
© 2012 syracuse.com. All rights reserved.

"Global-Local" Cultural Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy

Robert Albro, a public policy anthropologist at American University, summons powerful evidence from communication theory and cultural and public diplomacy practice to suggest that cultural diplomacy (and therefore public diplomacy, at least as practiced by the U.S. government) is an inherently transnational project (http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog _detail/cultural_engagement_as_glocal_diplomacy/). What he argues has important implications for "western" and "secular" governments confronting the emerging "Islamist" governments.

Thanks to Len Baldyga (LJBJBB@aol.com, 5/15/12) and his PD list-serve for e-mailing the link to Albro's essay.

New Film Out Today!

From Nadine Labaki, the director of "Caramel," comes a recent film about Muslim and Christian Lebanese women trying to navigate the tragedies of sectarian politics in their lives (see http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/lebanon-lens/). It opens today, promising to be thoughtful and poignant, with a soulful political message of forgiveness.


High-Context, High-Powered Diplomacy


The piece below (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/can-western-women-tamebr-irans-n.html) offers refreshing insight on diplomatic negotiation. It mentions “relational diplomacy,” reminiscent of the “relational” framework of R.S. Zaharna (American University), so informed by cultural context. Thanks to all the authors and Al-Monitor.

Can Western Women Tame Iran’s Nuclear Negotiators?

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (L) and Iran's chief negotiator Saeed Jalili pose for media before their meeting in Istanbul April 14, 2012. (photo by REUTERS/Tolga Adanali)
  
  


By: Laura Rozen and Barbara Slavin posted on Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012
Photos of the high-stakes Iran nuclear talks held in Istanbul earlier this month tell their own story.

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Summary:
Three high-powered women are the principal negotiators for the P5+1 team in the Iran nuclear talks, which creates a novel working environment for their Iranian counterparts, because women generally can’t get top government jobs in the Islamic Republic. This raises an intriguing question: Could the presence of women across the table from the Iranians change the dynamics in the nuclear talks?
Author: Laura Rozen and Barbara Slavin
Published on: Tuesday, Apr 24, 2012
Categories: Originals  Iran  
In them, the top two negotiators — European Union foreign policy chief Cathy Ashton and Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili — stand smiling in front of a mural depicting Istanbul’s bridge over the Bosporous, wearing what almost looklike yin/yang versions of each other’s outfits.
Jalili is in the Iranian male uniform of black suit and white, collarless shirt; Ashton wears black pants and a cream blazer over a black top, with a white scarf discreetly wrapped around her neck and shoulders. In one photo, Jalili looks to be genuinely amused and grinning as Ashton, arms outstretched in a “ta-da” pose, moves toward him for a photo spray. What a contrast from a year ago, when a strained-looking Jalili stood, eyes averted and brow furrowed, at a clear distance from Ashton.
Unusual for such talks — and particularly novel for the Iranians — Ashton is but one of three high-powered women who are the principal interlocutors for what is known as the P5+1 — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
Ashton’s deputy is Germany’s political director, Helga Schmid, who is to meet with Jalili’s number two, Ali Bagheri, for preparatory talks before the next plenary round in Baghdad May 23. The US delegation is led by Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran allowed more women to become educated and to enter professions denied them in Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia. An Iranian woman — Shirin Ebadi — was the first Muslim woman to win a Nobel Peace Prize and she and others have figured prominently in civil society and political protests. But a host of discriminatory measures regulate women’s behavior in Iran and they generally cannot rise to senior jobs in the government of the Islamic Republic.
Which leads to this question: Could the presence of women across the table from the Iranians change the dynamics in the nuclear talks?
While Western governments credit tough sanctions imposed over the past year for prodding Iran to adopt a more constructive posture, Ashton worked hard to set up an atmosphere more conducive to re-launching negotiations.
Measures included messaging Iran through multiple interlocutors on the need to demonstrate seriousness, to kicking off the meeting with a three-hour, rapport-building informal dinner with Jalili at the Iranian consulate in Istanbul the night before the talks.
Before the meeting, Ashton also reached out to policy makers from Latin America and Central Asia, where the Iranians “have personal relationships, to send the right message,” said a European diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity. The focus “was on how to create a special opportunity which is easier seized than rejected.”
Atmospherics also played a role. Another Western diplomat who participated in the negotiations told Al-Monitor that the women negotiators made a conscious decision “to dress conservatively” to avoid making the Iranians feel uncomfortable.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and the EU's Cathy Ashton look strained at the stalemated Iran nuclear talks in Istanbul January 21, 2011.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and the EU's Cathy Ashton look strained at the stalemated Iran nuclear talks in Istanbul January 21, 2011.
“We want to create an environment, an atmosphere that is more likely to” be conducive to compromise, the first Ashton aide explained.  
Farzaneh Milani, a professor of Persian literature and women’s studies at the University of Virginiasays the fact that the top Western negotiators are women could have a positive impact.
In her 2011 book, Words, Not Swords: Iranian Women Writers and the Freedom of Movement, Milani describes two means of conflict resolution in Iranian culture.
The first is captured by the Persian proverb, “Kill a cat in the nuptial chamber.” It describes how a groom tames a notorious shrew on their wedding night by ordering a cat to bring him a glass of water and beheading the unfortunate animal when it fails to do so. The terrified bride, presented with the same request, immediately complies; the conflict is resolved through male dominance and violence.
The second model is that of Scheherazade. She volunteers to wed the murderous King Shahriyar, who, after his favorite wife betrays him, marries a series of virgins and kills them after the wedding night. As we all know, Scheherazade tames her husband using words, not swords, by spinning tales for 1001 nights.
“She took her stories there and her patience and her knowledge of negotiations,” Milani says. “She empathized with the king and tried to come to grips with the past of the man she was dealing with…The first story is an example of “how men resolve conflicts, the other is how women do it… I’m very hopeful that they can do something that men have not managed to do.”
Haleh Esfandiari, director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, says while the Scheherazade saga is “not a good comparison,” the Iranian negotiators have come to respect their female interlocutors.
“They have by now concluded that Ashton is a very tough cookie and cannot be pushed around,” Esfandiari said. “They have probably adjusted themselves to dealing with her. Spending three hours having dinner with her for Jalili was a very big step. She is his counterpart and they have developed a very professional and cordial relationship.”
As for Sherman, Esfandiari said the Iranians had “done their homework and know she is an expert” who led US negotiations with North Korea in the Clinton administration.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and the EU's Cathy Ashton look strained at the stalemated Iran nuclear talks in Istanbul January 21, 2011.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili offers a welcome to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton as they pose for photos at nuclear talks in Istanbul April 14, 2012. Photo by REUTERS/Tolga Adanali
“What impressed them is the professionalism and businesslike attitude of these women,” Esfandiari said, conceding that “a little charm” doesn’t hurt either.
Sherman and Schmid moved into their jobs, which include overseeing day to day running of Iran nuclear negotiations, last year; Ashton has held the title of EU high representative for foreign policy since 2009.
Ashton “is trying to walk a tightrope,” the European diplomat told Al-Monitor. “She wants to show [the Iranians] in word and deed that these negotiations are a genuine opportunity to move forward. But [she is also trying] not to be hoodwinked and fooled by negotiators who have [in the past] strung out and wrapped negotiators in games of politics.”
 “Where Cathy can be strong is she has a very easy way with people,” the diplomat added. “She can bring difficult interlocutors to a place they feel more comfortable and could compromise.”
Though Ashton carries among her sometimes-bewildering titles that of “Baroness,” she doesn’t come from a privileged background. Rather, Ashton, 56, a former antinuclear activist and British Labour Party worker, got the title when she was named to the House of Lords by Tony Blair in 1999. In fact, she comes from a working class family of coal miners in northern England and was the first member of her family to attend university.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, she was an administrator and later treasurer and vice-chair of an anti-nuclear activist group, the UK campaign for nuclear disarmament.
That youthful activism is “obviously a good thing for her” in the eyes of Iran’s nuclear negotiators, the European diplomat said. “It shows her attitude on nuclear weapons from her youth — which has been used at points in the West as an argument against her — is an argument in her favor” in the view of the Iranians, who have frequently railed against perceived international “double standards” that permit other countries to have nuclear weapons but sanction Iran for its as-yet weaponless nuclear program.
A relatively junior European Commission trade official in Brussels, Ashton landed her present job as a compromise candidate and has “done reasonably well” in the confines of a 27-member bloc that works by consensus, an American diplomat who worked on Europe but asked not to be named told Al-Monitor. “She can’t be pushed into places where there isn’t consensus.” In the case of Iran, where there is, Ashton “is delivering,” he added.
While her lack of pretension and un-posh style have made her the occasional object of snobby derision in the British press, her modest roots may be another asset in dealing with the Iranians.
“She is totally working class,” the European diplomat said. “The criticism from the British press if anything is that she is from northern England, and speaks with a northern accent…Her manner and style are not that of a globe-trotting foreign minister. She has a subtle way of working. Her brand is relational diplomacy, whereas for the US, it’s power diplomacy.”
It is, of course, far too soon to say that these negotiations will succeed. Jalili refused to meet one-on-one with Sherman and in his final meeting with Ashton, he relentlessly pressed her to delay an EU embargo on Iranian oil due to go into effect in July, Al-Monitor discovered.
 “He tested her, [but] you can expect that,” the European diplomat said of Jalili, who holds the title of Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war and the paramilitary Basij. “Of course, they test and prod and push. They are keen for sanctions relief. They would like to get it for absolutely nothing. And she headed them off.”
Laura Rozen reports on foreign policy from Washington, D.C. She has written for Yahoo! News, Politico and Foreign Policy. Follow her on Twitter @LRozenBarbara Slavin is Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where she focuses on Iran. Follow her on Twitter @BarbaraSlavin1.


Lebanon takes a big step toward absentee voting for the diaspora

The following passage in the April 25th edition of Naharnet (2012) (http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/38077-cabinet-approves-mechanism-allowing-expats-to-vote-in-polls) reports:
The government approved on Wednesday a mechanism that would allow Lebanese expatriates to vote in the 2013 parliamentary elections and approved a reduction in the weight of the Arabic bread pack to appease bakeries.
The government is scheduled to hold a meeting at the Grand Serail next Wednesday to discuss the details of the mechanism and ways to implement it, Information Minister Walid al-Daouq told reporters after the session held at the presidential palace.
Another session will be held at Baabda palace next Thursday, he said.

As the snipet implies, there are lots of political and logistical obstacles to implementing this step. Stay tuned.

A Lebanese Daily sums up the President's visit to Australia

The following piece (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=170965&mode=print)
is about President Sleiman's remarks after returning from Australia recently. Sleiman is the principal Christian leader in the national government, along with the Shi'i Speaker of Parliament and Sunni Prime Minister. I have highlighted places where Sleiman lays out key planks in his platform for relations with the diaspora and the Australian government.



Sleiman back from Australia, calls for boosting ties with expats
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman praised Saturday the Lebanese diaspora in Australia and called for boosting ties with them as well as improving consular services in that country and other parts of the world.

“The Lebanese diaspora in Australia forms an important and unique Lebanese presence and contact with these Lebanese at all levels is important and beneficial,” Sleiman, who arrived in Beirut Saturday, told the National News Agency in an interview.

During his week-long official visit, the president made stops in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne, where he met with top officials as well as various segments of the Lebanese diaspora in Australia.

Sleiman said his visit would have a positive impact on encouraging expatriates in Australia to form stronger ties with their home country.

“The fruits of this visit will emerge rapidly, particularly concerning the return of expatriates to Lebanon,” he said.

“This return will not be a physical one as I have not called on them to leave Australia for good ... but [the return] through their links to Lebanon in order to preserve their lands, houses and so that they can invest, put forward political opinions, attend national and religious occasions and the like. This is what I mean by a return and this is what I urged them,” he added.

Sleiman praised the Lebanese diaspora in Australia, citing their diverse participation in the country, and said continued contact with Lebanese in the country was required.

“The Lebanese have a wide influence in Australia. The sons and daughters of the diaspora hold prominent positions at the political, economic and social levels and what is required is that we specify our needs to them and that contacts be intensified according to productive mechanisms,” he said.

“I felt they [the Lebanese diaspora] demonstrated all the readiness to be branches of the mother nation and what is required of us is to secure continuous communication with them,” Sleiman told the agency.

Sleiman said Lebanese consulates and embassies throughout the world needed to be supported.
“The embassies and consulates in diaspora countries, particularly in Australia, need to be supported in order to secure the needs of expatriates for routine matters that relate to personal status issues. This diaspora ... should not be neglected,” he said.

Noting that Australia would soon be joining the U.N. Security Council as a non-permanent member, Sleiman said his visit was also aimed at conveying Lebanon’s stance regarding regional issues such as Palestine, particularly the condition of Christians in Jerusalem, the Middle East crisis and the “Arab Spring.

Sleiman said he conveyed to officials that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could “not come at the expense of Lebanon.”   END OF ARTICLE


The passage in which Sleiman discusses the Lebanese Australians' transnational political role -- 

'This return will not be a physical one as I have not called on them to leave Australia for good ... but [the return] through their links to Lebanon in order to preserve their lands, houses and so that they can invest, put forward political opinions, attend national and religious occasions and the like. This is what I mean by a return and this is what I urged them,” he added.'

-- is vivid sensemaking about diaspora relations with the homeland underpinned by the context in the rest of the article where Sleiman describes how the diaspora participates in Australian civic life. Sleiman's platform of more attentive relations with the diaspora is ambitious and controversial among Australian officials (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012 /Apr-23/171064-sleiman-ruffles-feathers-inaustralia.ashx#axzz1srem6E2y).


Sleiman ruffles feathers in Australia
By Hasan Lakkis
BEIRUT: Australian authorities are irritated by President Michel Sleiman’s call for Australians of Lebanese origins to get engaged in Lebanese politics, diplomatic sources told The Daily Star Sunday.

The sources said that during Sleiman’s visit to Australia last week, Australian authorities informed the president’s delegation of their annoyance with Sleiman’s attempts to involve Australians of Lebanese origins in political affairs which bear no relation to Australia.

According to the sources, Australia believes that any Australian, whether of Middle Eastern or other origins, should have no “national” political affiliation other than with Australia as long as he or she has become an Australian citizen.

During his visit, Sleiman visited with members of the Lebanese community and stressed what he considered their right to take part in 2013 parliamentary elections, promising that polls would be held on time and that their participation would be allowed.

He encouraged expatriates to register their names in embassies and consulates. Although Lebanese expatriates were granted the right to vote in parliamentary elections in 2008, some officials are worried that the mechanism for out-of-country voting won’t be ready in time.

Sleiman said that he did not expect a high expatriate turnout for the 2013 elections, but didn’t consider this important as he voiced confidence that such turnout would gradually increase over the years.

The president said that Lebanon’s concern for its expatriates would encourage them to care for their homeland in return.

Which election law will be adopted in next year’s general election is currently the subject of heated debate, with Sleiman and Speaker Nabih Berri supporting proportional representation while Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt openly opposes it.

The sources called it unacceptable that a guest in Australia, namely Sleiman, would ask Australians of Lebanese origin to interfere in the politics of the country from where the guest originated.

In a number of speeches during his visit, Sleiman tackled Lebanese politics, stressing that political assassinations would not hit the country again.

“We have respectful security forces that are fully ready, after a long period of neglect, to uncover crimes quickly and within a few days. This is reassuring because it prevents assassinations. There will be no return to assassinations in Lebanon,” he said.

His assurances came in light of fears expressed by some March 14 officials about a return to political assassinations after Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea survived an attempt on his life on April 4.

The president also voiced concerns over the yearlong crisis in neighboring Syria, which he said is linked to Lebanon by “strong family, geographical and historical ties.”

“I hope that [Syria] will transition to democracy peacefully and smoothly and that the Syrians will talk to each other without the intervention of anyone to find the best way to apply democracy.”

The sources explained that Mexican authorities conveyed a similar message to Lebanon following Sleiman’s visit to Mexico earlier this year. END OF ARTICLE

Lebanon's political and financial situation have of late been precarious, due to the civil strife in Syria and general pressure of the civil society uprisings around the region, and lack of a Palestinian homeland. The Lebanese economy is turning down, although there is no increase in instability there,  and need for direct foreign investment increasingly strong. Remittances and business investment by the diaspora is needed more than ever. Also, Lebanese around the world have wanted to be able to vote from abroad, but the legislation and infrastructure to establish a worldwide voting process are not yet in place. Pressure grows to complete the legislative and technological procedures before the 2013 parliamentary elections.




The Lebanese President Works on Two Relationships In Australia




Politics - Sleiman wraps up official visit to Australia

Politics - Sleiman wraps up official visit to Australia

Fri 20/04/2012 16:56
حفظ اطبع هذا الموضوع | اغلق هذه النافذة

NNA - 20/4/2012 - President of the Republic, Michel Sleiman, assured Friday that Lebanon currently owns a decent security system capable of unveiling crimes and cutting the way to assassinations' reoccurrence.
"Political assassinations in Lebanon are gone for no return," the President announced, assuring that security apparatuses would always be alert and ready to fight crimes, after long years of negligence.
Sleiman who concluded his official visit to Australia confirmed that the Lebanese Army proved, by way of addressing national affairs that "Lebanon is united and always will be."
"I am aware of your concern over the situation in Lebanon and the Middle East, yet I reassure you that latest developments are nothing but the regular outcome of public freedoms and technological progress towards democracy," the President avowed.
"We are also concerned over the situation of our neighbor and brother state, Syria, to which we are historically and geographically tied," he admitted, hoping that this country would manage, somehow, to reach democracy by peaceful means, on top of which inter-Syrian dialogue.
He accordingly confirmed that Lebanon was not a scene for settling accounts or for sabotaging any country whatsoever.
Skimming through the Taef agreement issue, Sleiman told Lebanese Diaspora members that the role it played in ending the war and establishing stability was of major importance; however, it [Taef] has to be reformulated and renewed for the best of the country.
Separately, Sleiman tackled the health conditions of the 26 year old woman, Pamela Abou Sejaan, who suffers from leukemia and needs marrow bone transplant. The President called on all Lebanese residents and expatriates to look for potential donors which could possibly have the same blood type.
Sleiman promised the young woman's family to be in full charge of this humanitarian situation, until a donor was found.
After his meeting with the Lebanese Diaspora, Sleiman and the accompanying delegation left Melbourne airport, wrapping up their six-day official visit to Australia.
D.K. 

Lebanon's President Conducts Public Diplomacy with the Lebanese in Australia ... and the Rest of Country


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Apr-14/170244-sleiman-visits-australia-to-tackle-diaspora-concerns-bilateral-ties.ashx#axzz1sDqc1W5P


The Daily Star



Sleiman visits Australia to tackle diaspora concerns, bilateral ties
By Antoine Ghattas Saab
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman leaves Saturday for a one-week official visit to Australia, where his agenda will range from the concerns of the Lebanese diaspora to bilateral ties and fighting terror.
Sleiman will be accompanied by Deputy Prime Minister Samir Moukbel, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour and Public Works Minister Ghazi Aridi, with the delegation scheduled to stop in the capital Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne.
Baabda Palace sources said the visit will focus on sounding out the Lebanese community on their participation in next year’s scheduled parliamentary elections after officials in Beirut promised to ensure that expatriate voting abroad will take place for the first time.
However, the sources said, Mansour has informed the president that enthusiasm in the diaspora appears to be lacking for now, even though his ministry has completed the necessary logistical arrangements for the process.
The sources said that while an estimated 11,000 Lebanese residing in Australia voted in the 2009 polls by flying to their country of origin, fewer than 10,000 people, according to Mansour, have registered at the Lebanese Embassy in Australia for the right to vote while remaining at home.
Sleiman’s trip is expected to focus on several concrete areas of improving bilateral relations.
One is cultural and educational exchange, as Lebanese officials hope to benefit from Australia’s multi-ethnic experience and establish stronger ties between universities in the two countries, which would lead to cultural and educational exchange programs and projects.
The Lebanese delegation is also expected to discuss the two countries’ trade balance, which is in favor of Australia, and seek Australian help for Lebanon’s agricultural industries.
As for the strictly political component of the visit, Sleiman and his accompanying delegation will hold talks on Middle East-related issues. The sources said that although Canberra is a staunch ally of Israel, it does support a two-state solution in Palestine.
The Australians are also concerned about combating terrorism, the sources continued, and Sleiman is expected to raise the issue of a number of Lebanese who spent time in Pakistan before heading to Australia, and whether they constituted a danger by embracing extremist ideologies.
The sources said that Sleiman’s visit will be important in terms of raising the morale of the Lebanese community abroad, by convincing members of the diaspora to visit and engage with their mother country.
The sources said rectifying the diaspora voting issue, and promoting interaction in various fields, will play a huge role in determining the visit’s success.


Copyrights 2011, The Daily Star - All Rights Reserved
14/04/2012

 

© Deborah L. Trent 2024