I stopped using 1403 as the pin code for my ATM card this week.
I feel it is pointless to pretend that the March 14 Alliance still exists. Today, Fares Soueid confirmed that I am right:
“We were not upset with Hariri’s statements, but we are assessing the circumstances that led him to voice such remarks,”
So, basically he is saying that the March 14 Alliance, in which the Prime Minister's party is a cornerstone, had no idea that the PM is about to make a statement turning around a key policy of the last 5 years. Worse still, Soueid is saying that they don't even have an idea of what the PM is thinking!
Clearly, there is no substantive policy discussion within the party alliance. What exactly is the point of the alliance then, and why should we continue to make-believe?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Learning the wrong lessons from 9/11
It is sad that media attention has helped cast the shadow of a small, irrelevant church in Florida over the remembrance of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 this year.
The plan by the curiously named Dove World Outreach Center to burn copies of the Koran is being roundly denounced across the US. Hillary Clinton finds it "disgraceful." Attorney General Eric Holder finds it "idiotic and dangerous." General Petraeus too finds it "dangerous," and hints darkly at how this might complicate his troops' mission in Afghanistan.
In the Middle East, the press is predictably aghast. Jamil Mroue of Lebanon's Daily Star, a reliable indicator of the average thought process, writes in his editorial "Koran burners threaten the US":
"The planned action of the church could in the end threaten the achievements – some of them universal in their reach – of US civilization. This incident highlights the treacherous balancing act that the branches of government must perform in building and maintaining a society of free citizens who do not destroy one another."
He goes on to talk about averting the planned burning, followed by some silly statements on the US "record of aggression."
Wow. Dude. Chill out!
It is hard to know who is worse: Pastor Terry Jones who is burning the Koran, or those condemning the burning and would rather see freedom of expression stifled for the sake of political expediency.
It is facile to argue that 9/11 was just an attack on the US. If it was about US power, the attacks would have simply focussed on the Pentagon and (if the high-jackers of United 93 had succeeded) elsewhere in Washington. The attack on the World Trade Center was an attack on a conspicuous representation of the way of life of the most advanced society in the world. It was an attack on the values of the Enlightenment that made that society as enviable as it is, by a gang that would rather see civilisation go back 1000 years, rather than move forward by 1.
Mr. Mroue is dead wrong to talk about the "precipice of a clash of civilisations." It is not about a clash between two civilisations. It is about a clash between civilisation and anti-civilisation.
The only acceptable commemoration of 9/11 is to uphold the very values that were targeted by the attacks. Freedom of expression, however irritating, is sacrosanct. Burning the Koran harms no one. No Molsem will be harmed. No Moslem will have his right to worship abridged in any way. No one should really care if a bunch of pyromaniacs in Florida burn a few books. This is all absurd.
Moslems that are offended by Pastor Jones, and believe in freedom, should consider the words often attributed to Voltaire: I disagree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it. A good slap in the face of Pastor Jones would be for Moslem organisations to speak in defence of his right to burn the Koran. If it becomes a trend, "smart-money" Moslems might consider investing in a Koran-printing business....
The plan by the curiously named Dove World Outreach Center to burn copies of the Koran is being roundly denounced across the US. Hillary Clinton finds it "disgraceful." Attorney General Eric Holder finds it "idiotic and dangerous." General Petraeus too finds it "dangerous," and hints darkly at how this might complicate his troops' mission in Afghanistan.
In the Middle East, the press is predictably aghast. Jamil Mroue of Lebanon's Daily Star, a reliable indicator of the average thought process, writes in his editorial "Koran burners threaten the US":
"The planned action of the church could in the end threaten the achievements – some of them universal in their reach – of US civilization. This incident highlights the treacherous balancing act that the branches of government must perform in building and maintaining a society of free citizens who do not destroy one another."
He goes on to talk about averting the planned burning, followed by some silly statements on the US "record of aggression."
Wow. Dude. Chill out!
It is hard to know who is worse: Pastor Terry Jones who is burning the Koran, or those condemning the burning and would rather see freedom of expression stifled for the sake of political expediency.
It is facile to argue that 9/11 was just an attack on the US. If it was about US power, the attacks would have simply focussed on the Pentagon and (if the high-jackers of United 93 had succeeded) elsewhere in Washington. The attack on the World Trade Center was an attack on a conspicuous representation of the way of life of the most advanced society in the world. It was an attack on the values of the Enlightenment that made that society as enviable as it is, by a gang that would rather see civilisation go back 1000 years, rather than move forward by 1.
Mr. Mroue is dead wrong to talk about the "precipice of a clash of civilisations." It is not about a clash between two civilisations. It is about a clash between civilisation and anti-civilisation.
The only acceptable commemoration of 9/11 is to uphold the very values that were targeted by the attacks. Freedom of expression, however irritating, is sacrosanct. Burning the Koran harms no one. No Molsem will be harmed. No Moslem will have his right to worship abridged in any way. No one should really care if a bunch of pyromaniacs in Florida burn a few books. This is all absurd.
Moslems that are offended by Pastor Jones, and believe in freedom, should consider the words often attributed to Voltaire: I disagree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it. A good slap in the face of Pastor Jones would be for Moslem organisations to speak in defence of his right to burn the Koran. If it becomes a trend, "smart-money" Moslems might consider investing in a Koran-printing business....
When government by auto-pilot is better than active government
Finance Minister Rayya al-Hassan submitted the 2011 budget law proposal to the cabinet yesterday.
This would be good news, in normal circumstances...after all 2011 is 3 months away. But this is Lebanon, which is rarely normal, and the event did raise some justified skepticism. After months of bickering, the 2010 budget proposal was referred to Parliament by the President last month!
Lebanon was very lucky to have spent most of this year on auto-pilot based on last year's budget. To understand why, you need to look no further than the Ministry of Finance's website:
In a year when economic growth has been strong, increasing tax revenue, Lebanon agreed on a budget that would increase spending even faster. While sitting on top of one of the highest debt to GDP ratios in the world, the budget proposes a Primary Deficit, which will imply a further increase in the debt burden.
The environment of low interest rates and rapid growth enjoyed by Lebanon this year, is only partly due to skill in economic management. The truth is that Lebanon was more lucky than good: lower global interest rates and a primary surplus allowed this happen. If the budget had been approved early in the year, Lebanon could only have enjoyed its current level of economic growth if it had been more lucky than bad.
I do not pin the blame on the Ministry of Finance. The Cabinet has shown itself throughly incapable of agreeing on anything other than the lowest common denominator. In economic terms, this invariably means increasing spending for this Ministry or that, but few meaningful restraints anywhere. To be sure, the country needs to increase spending in some areas, but it can't afford to do so without some serious cuts elsewhere. Most of us can think of entire government departments that can (and should be) shut down without any loss of service or convenience to anyone.
This is an instance where no agreement by the Cabinet would have been far better than agreement.
This would be good news, in normal circumstances...after all 2011 is 3 months away. But this is Lebanon, which is rarely normal, and the event did raise some justified skepticism. After months of bickering, the 2010 budget proposal was referred to Parliament by the President last month!
Lebanon was very lucky to have spent most of this year on auto-pilot based on last year's budget. To understand why, you need to look no further than the Ministry of Finance's website:
In a year when economic growth has been strong, increasing tax revenue, Lebanon agreed on a budget that would increase spending even faster. While sitting on top of one of the highest debt to GDP ratios in the world, the budget proposes a Primary Deficit, which will imply a further increase in the debt burden.
The environment of low interest rates and rapid growth enjoyed by Lebanon this year, is only partly due to skill in economic management. The truth is that Lebanon was more lucky than good: lower global interest rates and a primary surplus allowed this happen. If the budget had been approved early in the year, Lebanon could only have enjoyed its current level of economic growth if it had been more lucky than bad.
I do not pin the blame on the Ministry of Finance. The Cabinet has shown itself throughly incapable of agreeing on anything other than the lowest common denominator. In economic terms, this invariably means increasing spending for this Ministry or that, but few meaningful restraints anywhere. To be sure, the country needs to increase spending in some areas, but it can't afford to do so without some serious cuts elsewhere. Most of us can think of entire government departments that can (and should be) shut down without any loss of service or convenience to anyone.
This is an instance where no agreement by the Cabinet would have been far better than agreement.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Bubble, Bubble, here comes trouble...
A story carried by Bloomberg today notes that Beirut is the 10th most expensive city in the world for expat housing:
"The city is ahead of Paris, Abu Dhabi, Amsterdam, Geneva and Rio de Janeiro and behind Singapore, Osaka, New York City, Moscow, Hong Kong and London...."
Actually, the phenomenon is not just for expat housing. I suspect that when average home prices are compared to average incomes in Lebanon, US sub-prime buyers would appear financially prudent.
"The city is ahead of Paris, Abu Dhabi, Amsterdam, Geneva and Rio de Janeiro and behind Singapore, Osaka, New York City, Moscow, Hong Kong and London...."
Actually, the phenomenon is not just for expat housing. I suspect that when average home prices are compared to average incomes in Lebanon, US sub-prime buyers would appear financially prudent.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Is civil war inevitable?
It is difficult to explain Hariri's statement to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat today simply in the context of "a new page in relations with Syria":
"At a certain stage we made mistakes. We accused Syria of assassinating the martyred premier, and this was a political accusation."
There certainly wasn't a dearth of evidence pointing to Syria. By asserting it was a political accusation, Hariri is playing into the hands of those (like Hizbollah) who are attempting to discredit the entire investigation. He then says:
“ There are people who misled the investigation, and they have caused harm to Syria and Lebanon…these false witnesses ruined the relationship between the two countries, and politicized the assassination”
But an early part of the investigation included statements from a large number of Lebanese politicians who recounted their understanding of the last meeting between Assad and Rafiq Hariri. Is Saad Hariri saying his allies were lying and were all involved in a political ambush of Syria?
Syria does not appear to be publicly pressuring Hariri into an apology, judging from the number of meetings he has had with Assad over the past year. At first glance, the timing and nature of this statement don't make any sense, unless it is motivated by something else. My gut feeling is that there are two explanations (that are not mutually exclusive):
1. The statement was somehow scripted in Riyadh and little thought was invested into it by Hariri's office in Beirut. Indeed, I find it interesting that Hariri's office in Beirut had no comment on the statement, according to the Huffington Post.
2. Hariri fears the risk of civil war are very high, and good relations with Syria are necessary to protect the Sunnis from an impending showdown with Hizbollah.
Judging from the political rhetoric since the Burj Abi-Haidar clashes, the second explanation appears most likely. As one friend presciently put it 2 years ago: "Hizbollah and the Sunnis will go to war. Hizbollah will beat the shit out of the Sunnis, who will have no choice but to cry to Damascus for help. Beirutis will end up welcoming Syrian troops with flowers."
I hope that I'm very very wrong, and we never see that nightmare again.
"At a certain stage we made mistakes. We accused Syria of assassinating the martyred premier, and this was a political accusation."
There certainly wasn't a dearth of evidence pointing to Syria. By asserting it was a political accusation, Hariri is playing into the hands of those (like Hizbollah) who are attempting to discredit the entire investigation. He then says:
“ There are people who misled the investigation, and they have caused harm to Syria and Lebanon…these false witnesses ruined the relationship between the two countries, and politicized the assassination”
But an early part of the investigation included statements from a large number of Lebanese politicians who recounted their understanding of the last meeting between Assad and Rafiq Hariri. Is Saad Hariri saying his allies were lying and were all involved in a political ambush of Syria?
Syria does not appear to be publicly pressuring Hariri into an apology, judging from the number of meetings he has had with Assad over the past year. At first glance, the timing and nature of this statement don't make any sense, unless it is motivated by something else. My gut feeling is that there are two explanations (that are not mutually exclusive):
1. The statement was somehow scripted in Riyadh and little thought was invested into it by Hariri's office in Beirut. Indeed, I find it interesting that Hariri's office in Beirut had no comment on the statement, according to the Huffington Post.
2. Hariri fears the risk of civil war are very high, and good relations with Syria are necessary to protect the Sunnis from an impending showdown with Hizbollah.
Judging from the political rhetoric since the Burj Abi-Haidar clashes, the second explanation appears most likely. As one friend presciently put it 2 years ago: "Hizbollah and the Sunnis will go to war. Hizbollah will beat the shit out of the Sunnis, who will have no choice but to cry to Damascus for help. Beirutis will end up welcoming Syrian troops with flowers."
I hope that I'm very very wrong, and we never see that nightmare again.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Champions of Democracy
While I was in Beirut a few days ago, I somehow missed this interesting and unusually good piece of news about the country. The Lebanese Interior Minister received an award from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. In this context, Former President Jimmy Carter said:
"I have supervised more than 83 elections in 83 countries worldwide but the best I have seen were in Lebanon [in 2009]."
I wonder what he thinks of the candidates, though.
"I have supervised more than 83 elections in 83 countries worldwide but the best I have seen were in Lebanon [in 2009]."
I wonder what he thinks of the candidates, though.
Insidious politics of hate
Iran and Hizbollah are in full swing today marking "Al-Quds/Jerusalem Day." A gesture of support to the Palestinians? No. Think again. For those of you unfamiliar with its history, Al-Quds day is an annual event on the last Friday of Ramadan, established by Khomeini in 1979:
"I invite Muslims all over the globe to consecrate the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan as Al-Quds Day and to proclaim the international solidarity of Muslims in support of the legitimate rights of the Muslim people of Palestine."
Note that non-Muslim Palestinians have been conveniently excluded from the Grand Ayatollah's support. Presumably such infidels don't deserve support. If his intention was to express support for Palestine at all, there is no reason why Khomeini could not have chosen to mark the same day as all Palestinians do (namely Nakba Day). This day is different. It is simply about anti-Zionism. In other words, this day is not for something, it is just against something. It is a bit like the political views of a "Facebook friend" of mine:
"I invite Muslims all over the globe to consecrate the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan as Al-Quds Day and to proclaim the international solidarity of Muslims in support of the legitimate rights of the Muslim people of Palestine."
Note that non-Muslim Palestinians have been conveniently excluded from the Grand Ayatollah's support. Presumably such infidels don't deserve support. If his intention was to express support for Palestine at all, there is no reason why Khomeini could not have chosen to mark the same day as all Palestinians do (namely Nakba Day). This day is different. It is simply about anti-Zionism. In other words, this day is not for something, it is just against something. It is a bit like the political views of a "Facebook friend" of mine:
This fellow is not unique. I never bothered to ask him what he actually believes in, as opposed to what he doesn't believe in -- it would be a futile exercise.
To mark this fine occasion, Khamenei was busy on Twitter with his idea of constructive support to Palestinians precisely at the time they are negotiating in Washington:
Nasrallah, meanwhile, is pretending to be a sage with words about the "big picture", namely that everything somehow involves - you guessed it - a Zionist and American conspiracy:
"The American and Zionist intelligence [agencies] are connected with all the suicide operations that targeted the Iraqis."
"What happened in Bourj Abi Haidar is pure loss..... This was an individual incident that developed in a regrettable way and has no background. Whoever considered the incident to be an expression of an Iranian-Syrian dispute is frustrated. They are little tools in the failed American project."
...and, of course, the Special Tribunal is also a conspiracy targeting the "Resistance." etc etc.....
I suppose he is hoping for an end like Mel Gibson's Conspiracy Theory: if he keeps seeing a conspiracy in everything for long enough, at some point he may actually stumble upon one, in which case he will feel vindicated.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)