Nov

24

The ‘Threat’ of Palestinian Elections

Filed Under Britain, Peace Deals, israel/palestine, palestine | 2 Comments

Mahmoud Abbas issued what some have been calling the ‘threat’ of elections in the coming year should Palestine’s two major political factions, Hamas and Fatah, fail to reconcile anytime soon:

“We are determined that there be a continuation of the dialogue and will make every effort for it to succeed but if not, there will be a presidential decree at the onset of next year for simultaneous presidential and legislative elections,” Mr Abbas, pictured below, told a meeting of Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) committee members.

He did not set a date for a possible poll but said that any decree would call for elections to be held according to a system of “total proportional representation”, which would do away with the district contests that contributed to Hamas’s shock victory in the 2006 legislative elections. Hamas rejected Mr Abbas’s proposal, a stance which in effect makes it impossible for balloting to be held in Gaza.

Hani al-Masri, the director of the Alternatives think-tank in Ramallah, said that a new poll could make the Fatah-Hamas rivalry more bitter.

“If elections are held without Hamas’s agreement, we could end up with Fatah holding its own elections in the West Bank and Hamas holding its own elections in Gaza. Then the Palestinian division will reach the point of no return.” The ensuing legitimacy crisis could deteriorate to the point of “assassinations and bombings”, he said.

There are also doubts about whether Israel, which controls movement in the West Bank, would agree to polling.

That last point is significant as well, considering a recent report issued by the Isreali defense establishment to the country’s cabinet advising the prevention of “elections in the PA, even at the cost of a confrontation with the US and the international community”.

Just how wise would it be to hold elections in the Palestinian territories?  The two factions hold effective strongholds in their respective territories, and any new poll would likely strengthen the divide between Gaza and the West Bank.  Abbas is claiming he’d call for elections if no reconciliation is reached; with the governing institutions divided between the two territories, reconciliation seemed to many to be a prerequisite for elections.  Add to that Abbas’ inability to stimulate a grass-roots movement among the youth of the West Bank and the subsequent lack of new leaders to reinvigorate Palestinian politics, and a new election process may not necessarily favor Fatah.

I imagine the incoming U.S administration has learned from its experience with the previous Palestinian elections, and likely seek to temper talks of voting and stress the process of reconciliation before new leadership is selected.  The unfortunate reality remains that the ‘threat’ of elections seems empty given the consequences such a procedure would entail and the interests of third parties involved in the conflict.

In related Palestine/Israel news, the Saudi-sponsored 2002 Arab Peace Initiative is being pushed by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, and by Abbas who took a more direct route of communicating with Israelis through a full page ad published in Israeli papers.  Hamas has denounced the move, calling Abbas a “merchant” for selling Palestinians’ rights.

Nov

19

Britain-Syria Resume Intelligence Sharing

Filed Under Britain, European Foreign Policy, Lebanon, Peace Deals, Syria | Leave a Comment

On a visit to Damascus this week, the first trip made by a top British diplomat since 2001, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband managed to re-establish high level intelligence sharing between his government and the Syrians.  With this renewed measure of cooperation, the Europeans (following Sarkozy’s visit in September) look set to usher Syria back into the international arena and may force the incoming Obama administration to play its hand on Syria early in its tenure.  The diplomatic isolation is beginning to thaw, and Joshua Landis suggests that renewed intelligence sharing will eventually force the United States into the fold, at the very least communicating with the Syrians indirectly:

The announcement that Miliband has re-established high level intelligence sharing with Syria is also significant. Secretary Rice and Foreign Minister Mu`allim discussed restarting intelligence sharing in May 2007 at Sharm al-Sheikh, but Syria asked the US to return an ambassador to Damascus as a sign of Syria’s cooperation. The US refused this gesture, forcing the US military “to take matters in their own hands.” Ultimately, the politicians in Washington forced the Defense department to settle the border issue militarily - hence the raid last month that killed eight Syrians. (We still have no proof that the Americans killed or captured the “facilitator” Abu Ghadiyya, whom they claim they snagged n the raid. I find it a bit odd that they have not shown us a photo of the man as they did with Saddam or his sons. Why all the secrecy about a raid they claimed as a stunning success and a person they have told us so much about?)

At any rate, the Syrians clearly offered the British the same offer they made to the Americans well over a year ago. The difference is that the British have been smart enough to take the offer, sending their foreign minister to Damascus as a gesture of good will and cooperation. So the British will now supply the US with Syrian intelligence. This will be awkward for the Americans; they will be dependent on the British for intelligence. Of course, if the Americans like the bits of intelligence they get from the Syrians, they will have to ask for more and will have to ask the Syrians to act on the intelligence or to deliver certain fighters. In this way, one can only presume that the Americans will start to negotiate with the Syrians indirectly. Just as the Syrians talk to the Israelis through the Turks, the US will talk to the Syrians through the British. The silliness of this will strengthen the Defense Department’s hand in insisting that Washington politicians do the right thing and grow up. It is just plain silly. Syria wants to help the US kill al-Qaida types, but the US refuses to say yes. How goofey is that? If Obama doesn’t send someone of stature to Damascus to fix this, I will eat my hat.

What do these diplomatic overtures signal for Lebanon, a country whose political instability over the past decade can largely be attributed to Syrian interference into Lebanese affairs?  Whenever French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner visits the Levant, he ties the importance of Syrian-Lebanese relations to Syria’s relations with the West.  Miliband is in Lebanon now, and after a meeting with the leader of the Future Movement Saad Hariri had this to say about Lebanese stability:

Miliband said that Lebanon’s stability was an indicator of that in the region.  “We appreciate the important steps that were taken and that are still underway to realize stability and strengthen the state in Lebanon,” he told reporters.  It was crucial, he added, that the international community send a strong message prior to the 2009 parliamentary elections. Miliband noted that his country supported Lebanon by coordinating with the United Nations and giving financing to the International Tribunal and investigation into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri

The British minister said that the work toward the establishment of Lebanese-Syrian diplomatic ties was important and that he hoped it would be accomplished by the end of 2009. He also said that good neighbors must work together and maintain mutual respect.

His approach over the past three months, Miliband said, toward the peace process in the Middle East included addressing the issue of the Shebaa Farms, on which he said the incoming US administration was also determined to reach a settlement.

Miliband also promised to raise the issue of Syrian support for Hezballah during his trip to Damascus, but the British Foreign Secretary would be wise to remember Damascus’ other transgressions against Lebanese soveriegnty.  As an editorial in NOW Lebanon points out, both the Hariri assisination as well as decades of political interference paint skepticism on the faces of many Lebanese who worry that Syria’s latest maneuver toward the West may come at the expense of its political independence:

Syrian rhetoric on combating extremism may have reassuring resonance in London, but it rings rather hollow in Lebanon, where many Lebanese see Damascus as the arch deliverer of mayhem and murder. The Lebanese can read between the lines and were not surprised when Assad’s warnings of a growing terrorist threat in Tripoli in September were immediately followed by the deployment of thousands of troops along Lebanon’s northern border. Nor were they particularly stunned, when two weeks ago, state-run Syrian television broadcast images of members of Fatah al-Islam, confessing to involvement in the September 28 Damascus car bombing even the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, all funded apparently the latter’s family.

You see, Mr. Miliband, in Lebanon, where the memories of Syrian occupation are still fresh and often painful, the TV confessions and the saber rattling along its border felt more like a pre-emptive justification for interference in Lebanese security matters or even a limited military intervention to press home the idea that only Damascus can guarantee Lebanon will not become a breeding ground for Sunni extremists.

…

Mr. Miliband should not forget that the Syrian regime is high on the list of suspects in the Hariri and subsequent assassinations and has been quietly working with its allies in Lebanon to thwart the desire of most Lebanese to see justice run its course. Mr. Miliband’s government supports the UN-sponsored International Tribunal to bring Hariri’s killers to justice, and therefore he must not backtrack and allow Syria to believe that immunity from judicial proceedings can be won with warm diplomacy. It would be fatal for Lebanon’s aspirations of genuine democracy, sovereignty and independence.