Wednesday, 5 December 2012

"And then there were two" - The United Nations Move to Recognize Palestine

I was fortunate enough to take a course in my second to last year of undergraduate study with Professor E. Adler.

Professor Adler was an Israeli academic who had come to the University of Toronto to teach "Becoming Israel" in the hopes of explaining just how difficult a coherent definition of Israeli statehood is. Moreover he managed to use Israel (one of the globe's newest nations) as a microcosm to explain the unique challenges nations face in their infancy.

In the end he concluded that the only viable solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict was a two-state solution.

While neither the Palestinians or the Israelis are likely to be totally content with an official portioning of the land in Israel one has to understand that we have been quickly approaching a "some or nothing" end game for decades now.

Palestinians in Ramallah hold a chair
representing their "seat" in the UN
The "two-state" solution took a big leap forward this past week, and just a day later it took an enormous step back.

The Palestinians won a historic UN vote by a landslide on Tuesday upgrading their status within the UN to that of a "non-member observer state". That's right folks they used the word "state".

Much to the objections of Canada and the United States the UN general assembly has voted on a move that has significantly strengthened the Palestinian case for statehood. The move was a surprise to some, coming just on the heels of a major Hamas offensive via the Gaza Strip.

The recent November conflict in Israel reminded the world that the Palestinian leadership is fragmented at best with Fatah and Hamas controlling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip respectively. But in the week leading up to the vote, Fatah and Hamas agreed to put aside their differences in the greater pursuit of statehood. It would appear that it worked, in so far as convincing the UN that an upgraded status wouldn't be abused.

It would be important to briefly outline the Canadian/U.S. positions at this point. Both nations strongly opposed the upgraded status for the Palestinians but its not because they are not supporters of the two state solution. Both the Canadian and American leadership support a two state solution that is the end result of bilateral negotiation, rather than unilateral action.

In a nutshell the Canadian and American administrations see the UN's official recognition of the Palestinians as a "non-member observer state" as a clearly unilateral procedure.

This considered, the Israeli's were ready with a counter move of their own in this ever intensifying game of Risk.  

The Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim will be
the site of some of the newly approved construction
[Baz Ratner/Reuters] 
Just a day after that historic vote in New York, the Israeli government approved the construction of an additional 3,000 homes with the aim of connection Israel to those Israeli's occupying illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Since the West Bank and Gaza Strip were designated Palestinian territories Israelis have been settling within those internal boarders illegally. Ultimately it is a strategy used to further contest the land claims in places like the West Bank.

While it is important to point out that these settlements are illegal in the eyes of the Knesset, there is little government action to stop the establishment of the settlements. Yes the IDF routinely makes a show of evicting the settlers, but there has been a concrete lack of effort on the whole to keep settlers out of the Palestinian territories.

The move this week to establish a link to these settlements reveals the Knesset's desire to keep the settlers where they are, because as long as they are there, illegally or not, one can suggest that the land remains disputed. Furthermore it creates an issue for the Palestinian authorities who have constantly named Jerusalem as their preferred future state capitol. Understandably so too do the Israeli's.
Palestinian supporters wave a flag and cheer
in the UN following the vote

The new homes will create a barrier of sorts cutting the Palestinian West Bank off from its direct contact with Jerusalem.

I recall professor Adler's last statement following our final exam. He suggested that in the end, the creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians... but now that it exists and generations of innocent Israeli's have been born there it too would be a crime to abolish it entirely. Thus a two state solution is the only viable proposal.

The Palestinians have apparently won this battle, but with the new homes approved and a hawkish Netanyahu in the Knesset the winner of the war is still very much anyone's guess.

Tuesday, 27 November 2012

Good Night Sweet Prince

Rob Ford in an undated photo [Torstar News Service]
I have most certainly enjoyed weighing in on the ousting of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford from office yesterday.

The social media monster pummelled the pudgy politician more than usual and I was right along for the ride.

My own distaste for Ford aside, the man was, and continues to be bombarded by virulent and humorous deriders alike and he deserves ever bit of it.

The facts speak for themselves. Ford is a man who abused his power on numerous occasions and while none of his antics were particularly vile, they amount to an abuse of power all the same. From emptying TTC buses for the use of his Don Bosco Eagles football team to driving while reading and texting the mayor never apologised and regularly offered lack-lustre explanations for his actions.

Sorry Mr. Ford but being a "busy man" doesn't make it ok to endanger other drivers on the road.

But this is all besides the point. I don't need to outline what Rob Ford did do and what he ought to have done. Instead I'd like to use Ford's loss of office over a conflict of interest as a segue into a broader topic... Canadian mayors in general.

1991 was a bad year to be a communist if you lived in Russia and 2012 is a bad year if you are a Mayor of one of Canada's major cities.

Former Laval mayor Gilles Vaillancourt [JaquesNadeau - Le Devoir]
Just this fall Laval mayor Gilles Vaillancourt, and Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay resigned in the face of the ever broadening corruption allegations flowing through the veins of  Québec. And in November alone London ON mayor Joe Fontana was charged by the RCMP with fraud under $5,000 and uttering forged documents in relation to suggestions that he used federal funds while he was an MP to pay for his son's wedding.

Add John Madden...oh... sorry... Rob Ford to the mix and that's 4 Mayors of major Canadian metropolitans  up to their armpits in guano.

The individual mayor's reactions to their respective situations differ as do the allegations against each one. In both cases of the French connection mayors chose to leave politics at the first sign of corruption allegations. While the two southern Ontarians have chosen to be defiant.

In fact Fontana has refused to step down following last weeks criminal charges. In response a London ON council committee on Monday passed a motion requesting that he resign until the charges are dealt with. In an ironic "lesson learned" moment Fontana declared a conflict of interest at Monday's council meeting abstaining from the vote. Ford famously chose not to do this on one infamous occasion which is precisely what led to his sacking.
Joe Fontana speaks to the press on November 22 regarding
the charges levelled by the RCMP
[The Canadian Press - David Chidley]

All things considered there are a lot of people here in good ol' Upper Canada left scratching their heads and wondering just how we have allowed ourselves to get to this point.

Is it a problem with the system? Is it us? Are politicians inherently devious and shady? It's enough to make anyone put Montreal rocker Sam Robert's track "Where have all the good people gone?" on repeat.

Fear not fellow citizens, I bring good news though its always hard to see it at times like these.

Remember when Paul Martin's government fell to the Harper Conservatives over the sponsorship scandal? The conservatives nattered on and on about accountability and the masses ate it up. The liberals had been naughty and the conservatives pledged to bring honesty back to Ottawa.

Odd that no one mentioned that the whole reason we had a sponsorship scandal was because in the spirit of accountability and transparency the Liberals blew the whistle on themselves and took themselves to task.

Former Montreal mayor Gérald Tremblay
[Robert Skinner - La Presse]
Once again Canadians are crying out for transparency and accountability this time in city halls. Once more citizens want to set fire to the corrupt appendages of government.

Well guess what folks where there is smoke, you can always find the fire. Then, as now, the fact that the actions of these politicians are being exposed, and at least in the cases of Ford and Fontana, the courts have been invoked  proves that accountability is alive and well!

Let's not be naive, corruption, manipulation, and conflicting interests are always going to be a clear and present political danger. That is good news because it forces us to be vigilant, and vigilant we have been.

4 mayors are being forced to confront their egregious selfish actions and the constituents that they have taken advantage of.

Yes it was a long time coming, but a pot needs time to boil. And when the pot boils the scum will rise!

Monday, 26 November 2012

Bye Bye Birdie!

Hamas police officers greet each other after returning to their
destroyed headquarters [MAHMUD MANS/AFP/Getty Images] 
With the cease fire holding in Israel, a climate of normalcy is creeping back into the shooks of Be'er Sheva and Gaza.

Rockets are not falling on Israeli cities and drones have stopped stalking their prey in Gaza... for the time being.

But just when stability looks like it is in the cards, Israel's Minister of Defence Ehud Barak made the surprise announcement today that he is quitting politics.

Ehud Barak at press conference earlier today
[RONI SCHUTZ/AFP/Getty Images]
The 70 year old has enjoyed a long and successful military and political career and his departure, mere weeks before general elections is bound to have an impact.

Barak stated today that he will remain at his post until the a new government is formed after the Jan 22 vote. There is little doubt that incumbent Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu will head up that new government.

A voice of moderation in the Knesset (Israeli Parliment) Barak has acted as a defacto ambassador on unofficial visits to the United States, famously bridging the growing gap between Netanyahu and U.S. president Barak Obama.

The relationship between Obama and Netanyahu is cool to the touch, something rarely seen since Israeli independence. Counted as Israel's strongest ally and closest friend The Obama administration's frequent criticism of Netanyahu's aggressive stance on Iran has proven to be a touchy issue for the two countries.

Netanyahu speaking to the U.N. earlier this year
arguing a "clear red line" must be drawn for Iran. 
Both Netanyahu and Obama have drawn the ire of their political counterpart and many would suggest that the relationship between the two governments may have devolved further if it was not for Barak's middle of the road approach to the Iranian nuclear threat.

His ability to observe the Iranian nuclear threat as an apparent 3rd party was summed up in an American television interview in which he hinted that he would likely strive for nuclear weapons if he were in the Iranian position. He added "I don't delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel." The comment suggests that while a nuclear Iran poses a threat to Israel he refuses to assume that the sole purpose of the Iranian program is to make war with Israel.

A viewpoint not shared by Netanyahu.

Ehud Barak (second from left) after
Opperation Entebbe with rescued hostages
No stranger to conflict, Barak joined the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) in 1959. In his 35 years of service he was an architect of Opperation Entebbe, rose to the rank of Rav Aluf (Leiutenant-General) and stands as the most decorated  soldier in Israeli history.

Yet with his strong military background he routinely dismissed Netanyahu's willingness to consider pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. An stoic, if not odd position for a man who once famously stated "Until the wolf shall lay with the lamb, we'd better be the wolves."

 Netanyahu and Barak worked harmoniously together since Netanyahu's election. But their differing opinions on Iran and their relationship with the incumbent U.S. administration has done well to sour what amicable ties the two enjoyed.

Current political positions aside, this is not the first time Barak and Netanyahu have butted heads in the democratic arena. Barak ran against and beat Netanyahu in the 1999 Israeli Prime Ministerial Election taking the vote by an impressive margin. As a result Barak stood as Israeli PM from 1999-2001.

And so, as the second Gaza offensive in five years fizzles the Minister of Defence is hanging up his gloves. "I feel I have exhausted my political activity, which had never been a desire for me." he said. "There are many ways for me to serve the country, not just through politics."

This Israeli Government Press Photo shows
then Senator Barak Obama, Israeli Defence Minister
Ehud Barak, and Israeli Foreign Minister Zipi Livini flying
over Jerusalem Old City. July 23, 2008 [Getty Images Europe] 
Stopping short of saying goodbye forever, Barak did evade questions regarding his potential bid for a seat in the Israeli cabinet as an appointed "professional". That said, for the time being it looks like Netanyahu will have one less voice of moderation humming in his ear, and Obama will have one less friend in the Knesset.

It is now anyone's move, lets just hope Ahmadinejad doesn't jump on the opportunity.

Thursday, 15 November 2012

The Bulkhead in the Back Room:

Bullet ridden Syrian bunker in Golan Heights 
“Why is your laundry room door so thick” I asked.

I had been in Israel for less than a day and was just receiving an after dinner tour of the home from which I would be staging my month long visit to the country.

Cousin to my life-long friend and travel buddy Noah, Ori, had delighted my companions and I with tall tales of his days as a tank commander with the IDF over supper. Now that the kids were asleep and the Goldstar started to flow we enjoyed a tour of his home and the family complex in Kfar Vitkin which sits just outside of Netanya about a half hour north of Tel-Aviv.

“What do you think?” asked Ori in a tone usually reserved for addressing the foolish… I was at a loss.

Noah showing our position between the
Lebanese and Syrian boarders
“Here let me show you.” he said as he led me out the side door of the house and into the night. Standing in his front yard he pointed at a cluster of lights atop a small hill no more than a few kilometres away.

“This is the West Bank” he said as he casually waved a hand at the lights. “This is why my door is so thick… katyushas”

Then it dawned on me, the laundry room doubled as a bomb shelter.

That was my first experience with the reality that faces Israeli’s (Jews and Palestinians alike) every day, and it was sobering.

Evan, Noah and myself living large in Eilat 
Israel is an enormously friendly and beautiful country. It has something for everybody, eco-tourism, history, culture, food, and music. It has deserts, forests, and beaches that put the Mayan Riviera to shame.

It also has suicide bombers, rocket attacks, military checkpoints, minefields, and plenty of precision air-strikes.

Oh, did I mention it is still technically at war with Syria?

I was lucky enough to travel to Israel in 2007 the year after the 2006 war with Lebanon and Hezbollah and the year before the 2008 IDF invasion of the Gaza Strip.

While my memories of the trip are fond, I realise now just how pervasive the conflict is, it permeates my recollection of each aspect of the trip.

IDF Hummer on the road to the Golan Heights
While it is surprisingly easy to keep fear at an arm’s length when you are baking in the sun in Eilat, or to ignore the IDF tanks parked in intervals, cannons trained on the horizon along the Syrian border; the fact is not a single part of the country is untouched by impending bloodshed. Not even a family’s laundry room.

In Israel I visited archaeological sites, beautiful parks, religious places and amazing cities. I ate unbelievably delicious food (seriously some of the finest dairy products I've ever enjoyed) herd some fantastic music and met some fabulous characters.

I noticed this sign after "relieving" my bladder in the feild
OOOPS!
I also, visited bombed out Syrian bunkers, refuelled next to a Merkava Mark IV, felt the concussion of a far off explosion, was buzzed by F-18’s, witnessed an Apache attack helicopter leave base with a full payload and return empty, peed in a minefield (by mistake… yikes!), herd distant AK-47 fire and had more high powered small arms pointed at me than anybody should.

The fact is, nothing in that country is untouched by conflict, or the threat thereof. That said not a single person I met appears to live in fear. Bomb shelters are just par for the course in suburban communities, checkpoints are regular features of the roads, and guns are worn like purses. Sights that were surely strange for me, but not my hosts.
At the Western "Wailing" wall... do I stand out?

 The rhetoric remains, Israelis warned us of Palestinians and Palestinians warned us of Israelis, both in broad terms. But that’s all it seems to be at times, rhetoric. The same people keen to warn us about their domestic other, just as quickly sing the praises of their friends of the opposite persuasion.

I remember how one new friend derided Palestinians as a sort of verbal habit, but when our car got into a wreck (something that is almost inevitable in Israel) he quickly recommended the services of his buddy a body shop owner and Palestinian. He was dubbed “The best in the biz”.

My first night ended soon after coming face to face with the lights on the horizon. After a final swig and a warm handshake Ori popped into his laundry room and emerged seconds later with his AR-19 and a smile.

“Have a good sleep boys, I'm on neighbourhood watch tonight” he said. “Rest well!”

Wednesday, 14 November 2012

Economics and Blood-sport: African Underdevelopment

One of the best memoirs I've ever read

I'm currently reading a fabulous book called My Friend the Mercenary by British author and journalist James Brabazon. The memoir chronicles Brabazon’s time documenting the civil war that raged in Liberia in the early part of this past decade.

Central to his story is the role of corruption, greed, and competing economic interests in Liberia, and West-Africa on the whole.

It occurred to me last night that a short break from my Middle East posts would be refreshing and informative. And so, let’s take a look at post-colonial African economic practices, and the greed, corruption and brutality that has left much of West-Africa economically underdeveloped.

The cause of Africa’s continental underdevelopment and ongoing socio-economic crises, rests on the shoulders of Western Europe’s initiation of the slave trade, and economic exploitation of the continent during the colonial (1400-1945) and neo-colonial (1945-present) periods. In light of this, the key to future independent development on the continent lies in political literacy.

Beginning in the early portion of the fifteenth century, Western European countries began to expand their spheres of influence. It was during this time that Europe and Africa first became introduced in the modern era (Walter Rodney, 85).

Africa provided an ideal place to colonize. It was rich in resources, both human and natural, and was an excellent staging ground for future trade and exploration due to its central global location.

While European nations had been colonizing actively around the world, the required labour to work the newly acquired land was lacking. The colonial powers themselves could not, or would not, muster the number of able bodies to adequately exploit their new found land (Walter Rodney, 92). Thus this labour deficit led to the establishment of the West-African slave trade. Sadly it was in Africa where the colonists found all the free labour they required (John Henrik Clarke, 41).


Countless West-African’s were enslaved as a matter of convenience by the encroaching European presence. There is a popular notion that likes to think of Africa as a sort of peaceful Eden like place prior to European contact, nothing could be further from the truth. Conflict permeates any and all human society and unfortunately for the peoples of West Africa the existing tribal and political divisions made their conquest by the colonial powers all the easier (Walter Rodney, 85).

Moreover, many colonists pandered to African chieftains and kings who were duped into exploiting their own people in exchange for European goods (Walter Rodney, 85).

One can draw a direct connection between the rise of the slave trade and European development. The slave trade made the routing of colonial resources easy and economical contributing to European capitalist growth in areas such as shipping, insurance, company formation, agriculture, technology, and manufacturing (Walter Rodney, 94).

Not content to just point the finger at Western Europe it is important to note that American economic growth up until the mid-nineteenth century relied heavily on foreign commerce, in which slavery played a pivotal role (John Henrik Clarke, 45).

For a people to achieve any semblance of economic development it is essential that they make efficient use of their own labour force. What is more they must have agency over their own workforce. The slave trade effectively stripped Africa of its labour resources.

To make matters worse the capital made on the backs of the African workforce was never reinvested in the continent’s economies (Walter Rodney, 108). In a real sense the lack of West- Africans in Africa during the colonial period severely hindered the probability that any viable long-term economic practices would become entrenched. Furthermore Africa’s natural resources failed to be developed to their full potential during this time (Walter Rodney, 108).

“The history of Africa’s relations with the west has been a history of robbery of [it’s] manpower, it’s mineral and agricultural resources and it’s land.” – Jack Woddis, Africa, The Roots of Revolt (John Henrik Clarke, 41)

I do not mean to infer that prior to the arrival of Europeans on the western shores of Africa that there was no economic practice within the continent. Communalism was thoroughly ensconced in the majority of African societies. While not perfect, communalism is an effective economic model among tribal peoples as it emphasizes wealth sharing among small tight knit populations.

European’s introduced Feudalism easily as the existing communal populations presented a fragmented resistance to the new economic approach. Feudalism indentures people to the land they work, and creates a situation where all the profits of the land belong to a landowner (Walter Rodney, 85).

With trade environments set up to favour the Europeans Africa was in for trouble. Worse still, the European colonialists controlled the world’s oceans and thus Africa quickly became an economic satellite of Europe. This “metropole” status meant that its economy became entirely dependent on Europe.

The economic machine in Africa was operated according to European supply and demand, forcing African’s to become spectators in their own economic development (Walter Rodney, 86).

The lack of agency given to the African peoples over their own economic development created a situation in which their economies were shaped to suit European rather than domestic needs. Europe controlled the role Africa played on the international trade stage. Hence Africa went from a collection of populations open for trade to an extension of capitalist European ambitions (Walter Roodney, 86).

The eventual liberation of African territories did not, however, banish European influence on their economies. Many of the concerned European entities struck specialized trade agreements with their former colonies, which in effect take advantage of the fledgling independent African trade systems (Adrian Hewitt – Sean Moroney, 771).

Existing trade agreements between Europe and African ensure that Europe remains in control of African markets and benefits from one-sided net gains. Thus present trade relationships continuing the long tradition of funnelling wealth out of Africa and into the hands of the colonial powers (Adrian Hewitt – Sean Moroney, 771).

European Economic Community  Flag
The Yaounde Convention of 1963 is a brilliant example of the twisted trade agreements that have developed in the post-colonial era. The Yaounde Convention solidified preferential and one-sided trade between the original six members of the European Economic Community or EEC (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) and the majority of former French colonies (Adrian Hewitt – Sean Moroney, 772).

While sad to admit, it is clear that Africa is not in the process of developing as that would suggest that there is progress being made in the climb towards economic independence. African nations remain dependant on western nations economically (Walter Rodney, 24). Furthermore lingering racism continues to impede the development of certain nations well after the collapse of the colonial system.

The Republic of South Africa provides a good example of a national economy that is slowed due to racial bias. Even with the abolishment of Apartheid the vast majority of workable land in the RSA is held by a white minority. As a result the black majority have in many cases been forced to work what little land they have to exhaustion (Lloyd Timberlake, 174).

Economic woes now in focus it becomes clear that political literacy is Africa’s best chance of developing independent economies and healthy stable nations.

Nkrumah on cover of Time Magazine
Kwame Nkrumah, prolific Gold Coast nationalist, believed that political education was the best weapon one could wield. He said “The duty of any worthwhile colonial movement for national liberation must be the organization of labour and youth; and the abolition of political illiteracy.” (Kwame Nkrumah – John Henrik Clarke, 107).

By instilling a level of political literacy Nkrumah believed that the average African would realize the disadvantages western dependency brought and thus seek out a political education in order to remove the figurative economic shackles that restrained them (John Henrik Clarke, 107).

The greatest tragedy to befall Africa in the post-colonial era is the speed in which the colonists departed. Wishing to avoid the kind of bloody independence movements that sprung up in South-East Asia colonial powers simply evaporated in Africa between 1950 and 1960. This left an African population without public servants, politicians and so opened the door for an evolved kind of economic exploitation.

“Africa needs a new type of citizen, a dedicated, modest, honest, informed man. A man who submerges himself in service to his nation and mankind. A man who abhors greed and detests vanity. A new type of man whose humanity is his strength and whose integrity is his greatness.” – Kwame Nkrumah  


Works Cited

Clarke, John Henrik. Notes for an African World Revolution: Africans at the Crossroads. Trenton, New Jersey: African World Press Inc, 1992

Moroney, Sean, ed. Handbooks to the Modern World: Africa: Volume One.  

Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. London, England: Bogle L'Overture Publications, 1973.

Timberlake, Lloyd. Africa in Crisis: The Causes and Cures of Environmental Bankruptcy. Ottawa, Canada: The Common Heritage Programme / Inter Pares, 1985.

Monday, 12 November 2012

Ten... Eleven... Twelvers

Syrian Rebels on the streets of Aleppo

As promised I plan to tackle the current civil war raging in Syria this week, something which promises to become ever more complicated.

In the spirit of it’s complicated nature I believe it is essential to provide a bit of context prior to launching into the current state of Syrian affairs.

Of particular interest when considering Syria is it's unique relationship with Iran, Lebanon and Hezbollah. Each of these political bodies factor heavily into, not just in the present conflict, but also in the nation’s history since Hafez al-Assad, took control of the government in 1970.
Hafez al-Assad circa 1993

It is often convenient to discuss political/international/cultural situations through the rose coloured glasses of generalization. It is often easier reference broad groupings of people than to delve into the intricate demographic make-up of a particular region or nation. Hence we have all come to comfortably use terms like Arab world, Muslim Bloc, or the West for that matter.

We use these terms because they keep things in neatly shelved boxes, conveniently compartmentalizing the players on the world stage. But as the conflict in Syria has revealed, that civil war and it's players are rarely neatly compartmental and almost never straight forward.

In the face of internal opposition al-Assad has employed a kind of scorched earth policy, doing his best to murderously stamp out any and all opposition, a move that has earned him few friends in the Arab world. In fact you may recall that the Arab League (a sort of U.N. body comprised of Arab Nations) has gone to great lengths to distance themselves from al-Assad’s Syria, eventually suspending Syria’s membership all together.

This move, aside from puzzling the casual western observer, has highlighted Syria’s role as an outlier within the Arab world, something not entirely owed to the civil war.

Last Friday I discussed in depth the Iranian Revolution which brought about a Shi’a theocracy in that nation. And it is here where a discussion of Iran’s unique relationship with Syria must begin.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Republic of Iran exists as a proponent of the Twelver school of Shi’a Islam.

The names of all 12 Imameen
(decendents of Ali) written
in the form of the name Ali
Twelver or Imami Shi’a Islam is the largest branch of the Shi’a faith made distinct by it’s adherence to the notion that there are twelve divinely anointed Imam’s, the first of which was Mohammed's son-in-law Ali. Of the group, the twelfth or Mahdi, is thought to be in a sort of divine limbo until the end of days when he along with Isa (Jesus in Islam) will return to rid the world of evil prior to the apocalypse.

Sunni and Shi’a populations have been at each other’s throats throughout history, the most recent examples being the sectarian violence that erupted in the wake of operation Iraqi Freedom. Part of the strain between the two groups is specifically their differing beliefs pertaining to Mohammed's successors. In short, Sunni's do not subscribe to the notion of the 12 Imameen and rather support the sucession of Mohammed's father-in-law Abu Bakr as his sucessor.

So one has to beg the question… why would Iran be the largest single supporter of Syria, a nation which is ostensibly 74% Sunni?

For the answer we need only look to Hafez al-Assad. Father of everyone’s favourite ophthalmologist turned bloody tyrant Hafez seized control of Syria in 1970 which was a shock to the world, and those within Syria.

The al-Assad family belong to a minority and mystical group native to the rural boarder regions of Syria called the Alawi. Aside from being branded pagans and shaman by the Sunni majority in Syria Alawites belong to an offshoot of the Twelvers.

Bashir al-Assad
(aka Beaker from the Muppets)
Thus the ruling family of Syria since 1970 have been of the same religious persuasion of Iran’s Ayatollah’s. American Journalist Robert D. Kaplan was quite right when he likened Hafez’s assertion to the Syrian presidency to “an untouchable becoming maharajah in India”. In short no one would have ever assumed an Alawite would rule a predominantly Sunni country.

The general distaste for Alawi beliefs in the Sunni population didn’t win the al-Assad’s many friends in Syria, a problem compounded by their egregious human rights record and despotic actions.

This fact alone may go a long way to explain why Bashir al-Assad seems so dedicated to remaining in power, if toppled it is rather likely that Syrian Alawi would pay a heavy price at the hand’s of the Sunni rebels.

It takes very little imagination to begin to connect the dots from here. By 1979 the newly founded Islamic Republic in Iran was an ideal ally for the decade old Alawite dynasty in Syria. The Syrian’s would gain the support of the world’s single largest Islamic republic, and the Iranian’s would gain a valuable foothold in the Arab world.

As a brief aside, while I assume it is general knowledge, I should point out that while Iran is an Islamic nation (even prior to Khomeini’s Revolution) they are not Arabic. The Farsi speaking people of Iran have been and remain one of the world’s oldest and most distinct ethnic groups.

Hezbollah's flag
But where and how do Lebanon and Hezbollah factor into the discussion?

Syria has a long history of meddling in its south-western neighbour’s political affairs, especially since the al-Assad’s came to power and that is precisely due to the Shi’a population in Lebanon.

Around 59% of Lebanon’s population is Muslim, 27% being Sunni, 27% being Shi’a and 5% being Druze, a Twelver population spread throughout the southern reaches of Syria and Lebanon and Israel’s Golan heights.

Add to the slightly Shi’a heavy Lebanese population the presence of Hezbollah and one starts to see just how complicated the Twelver influence on the region is.

Emerging from the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon Hezbollah was formed as a Shi’a militant movement with the aim of protecting Shi’a interests within Lebanon. As noble as that sounds what Hezbollah really provided was a heavily anti-Zionist rhetoric complimented by a militant attitude.

Hassan Nasrallah: Hezbollah Secretary General
Not satisfied? Ok, here is another layer of complexity. When Hezbollah was in its infancy its leaders drew inspiration from Ayatollah Khomeini and were rewarded by the Iranian Supreme leader who sent a contingent of his notorious Revolutionary Guard to train Hezbollah’s militia.

Suddenly the embattled eye-doctor turned Dictator’s stubborn refusal to capitulate seems less insane than one may have thought, given his lack of popular support in the west, the U.N. or the Arab League.

Bashir al-Assad will likely fall, but it is unlikely his ultimate demise will be aided by NATO air support as was Gadhafi’s. The reason is simple and clear, any military action against Assad via the west is likely to draw Iran into the broader conflict (something everyone wants to avoid). Furthermore it would also certainly elicit a firey response from Hezbollah on Israel which is again something no one wishes to see, considering the last time Hezbollah gave it to the Israel back in 2006, a good portion of Lebanon’s urban centres were flattened by the IDF.

Friday, 9 November 2012

From Achaemenids to Ayatollahs

In the wake of the American presidential campaign and ultimate re-election of incumbent Barak Obama the west lies saturated in the “issues” of the day.

Topics of national and international concern were used as focal points in presidential debates and used as fodder by the endless stream of pundits. Of the many concerns flooding public discourse, Iran and the potential nuclear threat it poses, have taken centre stage.

Ironically the discussion of Iran is essential to understanding the conflict raging in Syria, a subject I plan to tackle next week.
Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini

As much as I’d love to dive into the current and tumultuous relationship between Iran and the west I think it would be prudent to investigate just how the modern Islamic Republic came to be.

Enter Ruholla Khomeini – aka Ayatollah Khomeini. 

In 1921 a young military officer of in Iran’s Persian Cossack Brigade, Reza Khan (later Reza Shah), led a successful coup against Persian monarch Ahmad Shah Qajar. The reason for the coup was Qajar's inability to limit British and Soviet encroachments on Iranian sovereignty.

Thus the short-lived Pahlavi dynasty was established.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi 

Regarded as a steely and often tyrannical ruler Reza Shah would be succeeded on the 26 of October 1941 by his meek and sheepish son Mohammad Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza lacked the iron will of his father, a character trait that had ensconced Pahlavi rule. The case can be made that it was his timid demeanour that opened the door for a rise in clerical criticism in the country throughout the 1940’s.

During the 1940’s the vast majority of Iranians were deeply religious and traditional which often put them out of step with the new Shah’s commitment to modernization.

Not surprisingly those religious and traditional Iranians, so ostracized by the Shah’s move to westernization, had a strong regard for the Shia Ulema (clergy) and generally looked to their religious leadership as a source of guidance.

Like the clerical make-up of all faiths the Ulema is an umbrella term which covers any number of Shia clerical positions. Of principal rank in the Ulema is the Marja or Grand Ayatollah, a position only trumped by God, and the prophet. Marja literally means “source to imitate/follow” or “religious reference”.

In the early 1940’s a young Marja named Ruholla Khomeini found himself in the limelight following the death of a number of prominent Ayatollahs. In the power vacuum that remained Khomeini and his writings gained popular support.
A young Ruholla Khomeini

The young Khomeini had focused a great deal of his time arguing against secularism, an ideology embraced by the Shah. In fact his first book titled Kashf al-Asrar (Uncovering Secrets) was a point-by-point rebuttal of Asrar-e hazar salih (Secerets of a Thousand Years) the work of a prominent anti-clerical historian Ahmad Kasravi’s student.

So here we have a Shah, hell bent of modernization and secularism, and a population that was generally out of sync with those views. Seeing an increasing gap between their lives and the Shah’s Iran, the population began to rally around figures like Khomeini.

The 1940’s were in many was a coming of age for the worlds governments, as the end of WWII heralded a new political landscape rife with rapidly decelerating European colonialism, new political alliances, and the emerging cold war, of which Iran would become a central chessboard square.

The next chapter in Khomeini’s story comes in 1963 with the Shah’s White Revolution a six point program of reform and renewal. These initiatives were regarded as dangerous westernized ideals and practices by the Ulema and Khomeini openly criticized the Shah and his efforts. Riots and public protests supported by the Ulema erupted across the country.

With clear public support the anti-western attitudes of the Ulema were compounded in 1964 when the famous status-of-forces agreement was signed allowing U.S. forces stationed in Iran to be subject only to their own military courts. Khomeini say this as a clear extension of diplomatic immunity to foreign troops, something that did not sit well with him or his supporters.

After disturbing the Shah’s proverbial “shit” for the better part of two decades Khomeini was arrested and subsequently exiled in November 1964. Originally sent to Turkey Khomeini would spend the majority of his 15 years of exile in the Shia town of Najaf Iraq.

The Ayatollah remained a stark and outspoken critic of the Shah while in exile, gaining popular support within Iran all the while.

Khomeini gave a series of lectures in Najaf in early 1970 which were eventually published in his most prolific and influential book titled Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e faqih (Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist). It was here that Khomeini famously expanded the theory of velayat-e faqih or “guardianship of clerical authority” to encompass theocratic political rule by the Islamic Jurist, something he as a marja happened to be.

The three principal concepts of this work laid the foundations for the future Islamic republic. They are as follows.

1. The laws of a society should be those of God (Sharia Law)
·        2. Since Islamic law is the highest moral authority those in positions of political power should be    Islamic Jurists who have the clearest understanding of Sharia.
·        3. Clerical rule is essential to prevent injustice, corruption etc.

Khomeini repatriated in February 1979 to much public fanfare and support. In the face of a total lack of public support or confidence the Shah had left “on vacation” in January of that year, never to return.

With a provisional government under Shapour Bakhtiar intact, Ayatollah Khomeini declared “I shall kick their teeth in. I appoint the government.” Soon after he appointed his own competing prime minister saying “since I have appointed him he must be obeyed” claiming it was “God’s government” calling any moves against him or his appointee “revolt against God”

Khomeini's movement was gaining momentum and the support of some in the Iranian military following a revolt that captured armouries across the country. The Bakhtiar regime capitulated by the end of February.

About a month later on the 30 and 31 of March 1979 a referendum was held to replace the monarchy with an Islamic Republic passing with a landslide of public support.

The new constitution placed Ayatollah Khomeini as the Supreme leader of the newly formed Islamic Republic of Iran, a title he held until his death.

Thursday, 8 November 2012

An Elephant Never Forgets


Now that the dust has settled and our friends in the United States have their election results, we can all begin to digest the world’s most watched presidential campaign.

Perhaps the most substantial revelation to come out of Tuesday’s election result is not that the Democrats are on top, but rather the Republicans are in dire straits.

It has become all too apparent that the Republican strategy of appealing to the white, southern, and religious (that means Christian) voter is in need of an overhaul.

Before I continue it is important to point out that while I would claim to be a Democrat (if I was a US citizen of course) I am not here to wail away on Republican policy or relish their desperate situation. The fact is, a political party is only as strong as its opponents force them to be. And so an invigorated, strong and level headed Republican party is, I believe, essential to overall American political success in the future.

I do not fault the Republicans for spending the better part of the past 5 decades courting, what minority populations the world over dub, “the man”. Yes the Republicans have, at least since the Nixon-Era, relied heavily on the rural and religious white vote but that was not originally the handicap it has become.

In years past Republican politics and political ideals were rooted in what Bill O’Reilly, virulent egocentric and detestable as he is, correctly labelled “traditional America”. In turn those white and religious Americans have come to shape Republican policy.

It is really a chicken & egg kind of scenario but the fact remains liberals shouldn't vilify southern religious white voters and their political ilk simply because they represent a political "other". At its core, the GOP's relationship with "traditional America" is an act of survival. The party will pool in populations that support it, and in turn it will develop policies that return the favour. Are we that shocked that the most conservative of the two parties panders to the most conservative demographic?

The issue for the Republican Party has become the steadily shifting demographic landscape of the United States. Since the “Nixonian” days “traditional America” has been on the decline. Not because they are wasting away, nor that they have become politically inactive, but rather that appealing to them and them alone is now a politically impotent soapbox on which to stand.

We could discuss the flagrant error in trying to convince the American public that Obama has failed to live up to the challenge of the US economic decline. But most level headed people understand that no single administration can obliterate an inherited debt of trillions, let alone restructure an entire economy in the face of the biggest recession since the 30’s in a four year period.

Moreover to suggest that “trickle-down” fiscal policy would put the economy back on-track faster than Obama’s strategies is implausible at best… ever waited for coffee to percolate when you’re desperate for a caffeine fix? But I digress.

The Republicans are standing on the precipice of greatness, but to get there they must take a deep breath and jump into the choppy waters of minority groups, and atheists.

GOP Senator Lindsay Graham
Many in their ranks are already embracing this reality. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham told Jonathan Martin of Politico just prior to Tuesday’s vote that “if we lose this election there is only one explanation - demographics”

He went on to say “If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts… We’re not losing 95 percent of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we’re not being hard-ass enough”

The fact is, if American conservatism is going to survive it needs to evolve. It won’t be easy, especially when one considers that the marriage between the Republican Party and “traditional America” has degenerated into one defined by an abhorrence of left wing politics rather than a dynamic and imaginative conservatism which stands alone without relying on its political “other” for identity.
Governor Sarah Palin

In February of 2010 Sarah Palin addressed the national Tea Party Convention and rhetorically asked Obama supporters “How’s that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?” Two years later I think everyone in the Obama camp will admit that holding onto hope in the face of a slow rate of change (partly due to the Republican stonewall in the House of Representatives) has been difficult.

That said a willingness to change is perhaps the only hope for the GOP brand. I for one would like to see the pachyderm evolution begin soon because an invigorated Republican Party will catalyse American political rhetoric and galvanize the world’s most influential democracy.