The long, hot summer - and Lebanon
The long, hot Gulf summer is in full swing. Sandstorms blowing from Ar Rub al Khali (the Empty Quarter) have hit Dubai. Temperatures are recorded as being in the forties' centrigrade, but often exceed 50C, certainly in the sun.
So hot has it been that Sri Lankan labourers have been asking their embassy to go home because 'they have to work on open sites exposed to the scorching sun' throughout the heat of the day. The Punjab News has alleged that ten Indians have died in an open camp, during a scramble for food and water. Around 2,000 Indians had been rounded up for not having labour cards and residence permits.
Those who can, leave town. Including senior government figures. It was left to the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, for instance, to receive the credentials of the Greek ambassador last week. Although Sayyid Fahd bin Mahmoud Al Said, deputy prime minister for the Council of Ministers, received both the outgoing Syrian ambassador and the British Chief of Defence Staff, a few days later. In the language of diplomacy, the meetings focused on "bilateral relations, current regional and international developments and matters of common concern."
The British Chief of Defence Staff also met Lt General Malik bin Sulaiman al Maamari, Inspector-General of Police and Customs, and Lt Gen Ahmed bin Harith al Nabhani, Chief of Staff of the Sultan’s Armed Forces, which points to a focus on security issues.
Perhaps the summer break explains the lack of published government response to the crisis of Lebanon.
A two-line item in the Oman Observer of 26th July reported that 13 aid flights had been sent to Lebanon with medicine, food, tents and blankets. Compare this with the public fund-raising that has been happening in Saudi Arabia and in UAE, where a telethon organised by three local television stations raised at least Dh49 million (approx £13,342,000 or RO5,130,000).
It might be appropriate to provide a little more background, before examining the direct influences on Oman's foreign policy towards the current crisis.
I gleaned this information from Middle East Report Online.
Hizbullah, like Hamas, is a political party as well as having a military faction. It is a nationalist, Lebanese, institution. It has the reputation of being 'clean and capable', especially in comparison with the corruption and wealth associated with other Lebanese parliamentarians.
Hizbullah evolved to cater for social needs during the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982-2000, particularly for the historically disenfranchised Shi‘i Muslim community. For historical reasons, the Shi'i community had been under represented in the Lebanese parliament.
Hizballah’s military activity has generally been committed to the goal of ending the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Since the May 2000 Israeli withdrawal, they have largely operated within tacit, but mutually understood “rules of the game” for ongoing, low-level border skirmishes with Israel that avoid civilian casualties.
Hizballah’s indirect talks with Israel in 1996 and 2004 and their stated willingness to arrange a prisoner exchange all indicate realism on the part of party leadership.
Funded and supported by both Iran and Syria, Hizbullah nevertheless retains independent decision-making, based on what it considers to be the best interests of Lebanon, without, presumably, consulting with partners in government.
In fact, its leader, Al-Sayyid Hasan Nasrullah admitted to Al Jazeera last week that Hizbullah had not told the Lebanese government, the Syrians nor the Iranians of what it proposed to do.
There is speculation that Hizbullah's actions could have antagonised the Iranian regime, in that it has removed the focus from the Iranian's confrontation with the US and Europe over its development of nuclear technology. Hizbullah has stolen the limelight.
Others believe that the conflict would widen the rift between Shi'i and Sunni Muslims in the Gulf, especially when, towards the beginning of the conflict, Saudi Arabia criticised Hizbullah for aggravating Israel with the capture of two Israeli soldiers. This view was echoed by Haider Abdul Redha Dawood, editor of the Central Bank of Oman publication Al Markazi. "Everyone can see that they [the US and Israel] are trying to divide Sunnis and Shiites, they did it in Iraq and now they have turned to Lebanon," he said.
However, MERIP claims that "Iranian efforts to infuse the Lebanese Shi‘a with a pan-Shi‘i identity centered on Iran have run up against the Arab identity and increasing Lebanese nationalism of Hizballah itself."
The raid had been planned for some time, it seems, in order to obtain hostages to bargain for the return of Lebanese prisoners in Israel. Similarly, the Israelis had been proposing a cross-border strike against Hizbullah with the aim of reducing its military effectiveness. The abduction of their soldiers gave the Israelis an opportunity to pursue this goal, flimsy though the justification was. Al-Sayyid Hasan Nasrullah, secretary-general of Hizbullah, maintained that the Israeli action was not just to defeat Hizbullah but to suppress any spirit of resistance in Lebanon as a whole. Transcript of interview with Al Jazeera.
Within a week, Saudi Arabia had reversed its position. Along with Jordan and Egypt, it condemned strongly the Israeli offensive, criticising its disproportionality, and assuming a humanitarian role.
It's been suggested that the lack of response and intervention from the USA to halt the Israeli campaign, angered the Saudi Royal family, who might have been willing to resist public opinion as a price for strong intervention by the USA with the Israelis, as well as getting US consideration to a Middle East peace plan proposed by King Abdullah last year. When that didn't happen, the authorities in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan felt that there was little option but to be seen to reflect mass feeling. Not only had they been snubbed by the US, the prospect of popular uprisings in opposition to the Israeli action was probably too close for comfort.
Despite the fierce rhetoric from Riyadh, arms have not been taken up in the cause of Lebanon, even though the Saudis gave a firm warning that "Israeli arrogance" could plunge the region into war.
The United States and elements within the UK regards Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation, surrogate to Iran and Syria.
"It's really a proxy war between the United States and Iran," said David J. Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of "Running the World," a book on U.S. foreign policy. "When viewed in that context, it puts everything in a different light."
The editorial in last week's issue of The Spectator, a generally right-wing UK weekly magazine, was entitled, "Let Israel finish the job". In the same journal, Douglas Hurd, who was the Tory foreign secretary between 1989 and 1995, wrote more moderately, "Most Arabs today accept the existence of Israel, but fail to impose that acceptance on those still bent on its destruction (including Hamas and Hizbullah). Israel still tries to safeguard its citizens by using overwhelming force which breeds hatred and future danger."
Rifts are beginning to show between the policy of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who aligns with the USA, and other members of the British cabinet, notably Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, who are calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Until 1st August, the Omani authorities had remained formally silent, presumably preferring political and diplomatic channels rather than media sources to announce its reactions.
An unattributed, but official source from the foreign ministry was reported as saying, "the first step to be taken is to resort to reason and logic to immediately stop the use of military force and the killings. [S/He stressed] the need for the international community to shoulder its responsibilities by taking political measures to correct the whole situation and tackle the reasons behind this situation and eradicate them in a fair way which takes into account the importance of applying equitable criterion and based on the international legitimacy and the relevant laws and resolutions." Times of Oman.
Which in another context might be a way of saying, you naughty children, why can't you learn to behave and act like civilised beings. Fair enough.
The source said that Oman "condemned the massacre committed by Israel in Qana and the tragedies and calamities which affect innocent civilians, their possessions and means of living and the infrastructure and vital establishments in various regions in Lebanon and Palestine."
Consider how the inhabitants of Washington DC would react if Israel were destroying their homes and country rather than those in Lebanon and Gaza. Ah, but, would the inhabitants of Washington DC be shielding "terrorists" or "elected representatives"?
And, "This statement comes in line with the Sultanate’s continued calls to settle issues and crises peacefully and to avoid escalation of armed conflicts in order to safeguard the international security and peace."
Oman professes to have special relationships with both the USA and Iran, having just signed a free trade agreement with the former and invested 1.5 billion dollars in the latter.
The Sultanate's relations with Israel are also equivocal, given that Oman's finance minister is said to have made a commitment in a letter to the U.S. trade representative, that Oman would not boycott Israel.
So it has to be careful in what it says. It seems like an incredible balancing game to me. The Israeli bombing of Qana enabled the Sultanate to seize the moral high ground, administering diplomatic ripostes to both sides in vaguely unattributable language, while appearing to reflect popular sentiment and disgust at Israel's use of force.
The news media in Oman has largely reflected the government's unwillingness to speak out. The only item I have seen in the English language press has been a rather mild op-ed in the Times of Oman by an expatriate journalist largely bemoaning the damage that is being done to Lebanese infrastructure and the dangers of a spread of the conflict which could threaten the wealthy Gulf economies.
Rallying cries in the Oman Daily monitored by the BBC suggest belligerence, but an absence of specific ideas behind the words: "Arab political efforts should continue and exert pressure on Israel to cease the fire and stop the random acts of destruction that extended to everything in the Lebanese cities. They even targeted the vehicles of the Red Cross and convoys of aid coming from world countries... The international community should not give in to the US stance that rejects a ceasefire except in accordance with Israeli conditions, which cannot be accepted." from an editorial entitled "The Israeli aggression and steadfastness of the Lebanese resistance" 27th July.
The international community. Who is that? Isn't Oman a part of it?
From Oman's specific point of view, there is a darker and uncomfortable side on the domestic horizon. Even though Hizbullah has political representatives in the Lebanese parliament, it is still not the government of Lebanon, whether it has widespread sympathy in the country or not. It would not do for the Omani authorities to support unreservedly an organisation that is not legally and politically representative of the Lebanese people. Might that not encourage dissenting and resentful elements in Omani society?
So hot has it been that Sri Lankan labourers have been asking their embassy to go home because 'they have to work on open sites exposed to the scorching sun' throughout the heat of the day. The Punjab News has alleged that ten Indians have died in an open camp, during a scramble for food and water. Around 2,000 Indians had been rounded up for not having labour cards and residence permits.
Those who can, leave town. Including senior government figures. It was left to the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, for instance, to receive the credentials of the Greek ambassador last week. Although Sayyid Fahd bin Mahmoud Al Said, deputy prime minister for the Council of Ministers, received both the outgoing Syrian ambassador and the British Chief of Defence Staff, a few days later. In the language of diplomacy, the meetings focused on "bilateral relations, current regional and international developments and matters of common concern."
The British Chief of Defence Staff also met Lt General Malik bin Sulaiman al Maamari, Inspector-General of Police and Customs, and Lt Gen Ahmed bin Harith al Nabhani, Chief of Staff of the Sultan’s Armed Forces, which points to a focus on security issues.
Perhaps the summer break explains the lack of published government response to the crisis of Lebanon.
A two-line item in the Oman Observer of 26th July reported that 13 aid flights had been sent to Lebanon with medicine, food, tents and blankets. Compare this with the public fund-raising that has been happening in Saudi Arabia and in UAE, where a telethon organised by three local television stations raised at least Dh49 million (approx £13,342,000 or RO5,130,000).
It might be appropriate to provide a little more background, before examining the direct influences on Oman's foreign policy towards the current crisis.
Hizbullah
I gleaned this information from Middle East Report Online.
Hizbullah, like Hamas, is a political party as well as having a military faction. It is a nationalist, Lebanese, institution. It has the reputation of being 'clean and capable', especially in comparison with the corruption and wealth associated with other Lebanese parliamentarians.
Hizbullah evolved to cater for social needs during the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982-2000, particularly for the historically disenfranchised Shi‘i Muslim community. For historical reasons, the Shi'i community had been under represented in the Lebanese parliament.
Hizballah’s military activity has generally been committed to the goal of ending the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Since the May 2000 Israeli withdrawal, they have largely operated within tacit, but mutually understood “rules of the game” for ongoing, low-level border skirmishes with Israel that avoid civilian casualties.
Hizballah’s indirect talks with Israel in 1996 and 2004 and their stated willingness to arrange a prisoner exchange all indicate realism on the part of party leadership.
Funded and supported by both Iran and Syria, Hizbullah nevertheless retains independent decision-making, based on what it considers to be the best interests of Lebanon, without, presumably, consulting with partners in government.
In fact, its leader, Al-Sayyid Hasan Nasrullah admitted to Al Jazeera last week that Hizbullah had not told the Lebanese government, the Syrians nor the Iranians of what it proposed to do.
There is speculation that Hizbullah's actions could have antagonised the Iranian regime, in that it has removed the focus from the Iranian's confrontation with the US and Europe over its development of nuclear technology. Hizbullah has stolen the limelight.
Others believe that the conflict would widen the rift between Shi'i and Sunni Muslims in the Gulf, especially when, towards the beginning of the conflict, Saudi Arabia criticised Hizbullah for aggravating Israel with the capture of two Israeli soldiers. This view was echoed by Haider Abdul Redha Dawood, editor of the Central Bank of Oman publication Al Markazi. "Everyone can see that they [the US and Israel] are trying to divide Sunnis and Shiites, they did it in Iraq and now they have turned to Lebanon," he said.
However, MERIP claims that "Iranian efforts to infuse the Lebanese Shi‘a with a pan-Shi‘i identity centered on Iran have run up against the Arab identity and increasing Lebanese nationalism of Hizballah itself."
The raid had been planned for some time, it seems, in order to obtain hostages to bargain for the return of Lebanese prisoners in Israel. Similarly, the Israelis had been proposing a cross-border strike against Hizbullah with the aim of reducing its military effectiveness. The abduction of their soldiers gave the Israelis an opportunity to pursue this goal, flimsy though the justification was. Al-Sayyid Hasan Nasrullah, secretary-general of Hizbullah, maintained that the Israeli action was not just to defeat Hizbullah but to suppress any spirit of resistance in Lebanon as a whole. Transcript of interview with Al Jazeera.
Saudi Arabia and Co
Within a week, Saudi Arabia had reversed its position. Along with Jordan and Egypt, it condemned strongly the Israeli offensive, criticising its disproportionality, and assuming a humanitarian role.
It's been suggested that the lack of response and intervention from the USA to halt the Israeli campaign, angered the Saudi Royal family, who might have been willing to resist public opinion as a price for strong intervention by the USA with the Israelis, as well as getting US consideration to a Middle East peace plan proposed by King Abdullah last year. When that didn't happen, the authorities in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan felt that there was little option but to be seen to reflect mass feeling. Not only had they been snubbed by the US, the prospect of popular uprisings in opposition to the Israeli action was probably too close for comfort.
Despite the fierce rhetoric from Riyadh, arms have not been taken up in the cause of Lebanon, even though the Saudis gave a firm warning that "Israeli arrogance" could plunge the region into war.
US and UK reaction
The United States and elements within the UK regards Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation, surrogate to Iran and Syria.
"It's really a proxy war between the United States and Iran," said David J. Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of "Running the World," a book on U.S. foreign policy. "When viewed in that context, it puts everything in a different light."
The editorial in last week's issue of The Spectator, a generally right-wing UK weekly magazine, was entitled, "Let Israel finish the job". In the same journal, Douglas Hurd, who was the Tory foreign secretary between 1989 and 1995, wrote more moderately, "Most Arabs today accept the existence of Israel, but fail to impose that acceptance on those still bent on its destruction (including Hamas and Hizbullah). Israel still tries to safeguard its citizens by using overwhelming force which breeds hatred and future danger."
Rifts are beginning to show between the policy of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who aligns with the USA, and other members of the British cabinet, notably Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, who are calling for an immediate ceasefire.
What about Oman?
Until 1st August, the Omani authorities had remained formally silent, presumably preferring political and diplomatic channels rather than media sources to announce its reactions.
An unattributed, but official source from the foreign ministry was reported as saying, "the first step to be taken is to resort to reason and logic to immediately stop the use of military force and the killings. [S/He stressed] the need for the international community to shoulder its responsibilities by taking political measures to correct the whole situation and tackle the reasons behind this situation and eradicate them in a fair way which takes into account the importance of applying equitable criterion and based on the international legitimacy and the relevant laws and resolutions." Times of Oman.
Which in another context might be a way of saying, you naughty children, why can't you learn to behave and act like civilised beings. Fair enough.
The source said that Oman "condemned the massacre committed by Israel in Qana and the tragedies and calamities which affect innocent civilians, their possessions and means of living and the infrastructure and vital establishments in various regions in Lebanon and Palestine."
Consider how the inhabitants of Washington DC would react if Israel were destroying their homes and country rather than those in Lebanon and Gaza. Ah, but, would the inhabitants of Washington DC be shielding "terrorists" or "elected representatives"?
And, "This statement comes in line with the Sultanate’s continued calls to settle issues and crises peacefully and to avoid escalation of armed conflicts in order to safeguard the international security and peace."
Oman professes to have special relationships with both the USA and Iran, having just signed a free trade agreement with the former and invested 1.5 billion dollars in the latter.
The Sultanate's relations with Israel are also equivocal, given that Oman's finance minister is said to have made a commitment in a letter to the U.S. trade representative, that Oman would not boycott Israel.
So it has to be careful in what it says. It seems like an incredible balancing game to me. The Israeli bombing of Qana enabled the Sultanate to seize the moral high ground, administering diplomatic ripostes to both sides in vaguely unattributable language, while appearing to reflect popular sentiment and disgust at Israel's use of force.
The news media in Oman has largely reflected the government's unwillingness to speak out. The only item I have seen in the English language press has been a rather mild op-ed in the Times of Oman by an expatriate journalist largely bemoaning the damage that is being done to Lebanese infrastructure and the dangers of a spread of the conflict which could threaten the wealthy Gulf economies.
Rallying cries in the Oman Daily monitored by the BBC suggest belligerence, but an absence of specific ideas behind the words: "Arab political efforts should continue and exert pressure on Israel to cease the fire and stop the random acts of destruction that extended to everything in the Lebanese cities. They even targeted the vehicles of the Red Cross and convoys of aid coming from world countries... The international community should not give in to the US stance that rejects a ceasefire except in accordance with Israeli conditions, which cannot be accepted." from an editorial entitled "The Israeli aggression and steadfastness of the Lebanese resistance" 27th July.
The international community. Who is that? Isn't Oman a part of it?
From Oman's specific point of view, there is a darker and uncomfortable side on the domestic horizon. Even though Hizbullah has political representatives in the Lebanese parliament, it is still not the government of Lebanon, whether it has widespread sympathy in the country or not. It would not do for the Omani authorities to support unreservedly an organisation that is not legally and politically representative of the Lebanese people. Might that not encourage dissenting and resentful elements in Omani society?
Comments
muscati wrote:
08/02/06 12:08:27
newsbriefs wrote:
Thanks to Muscati, I have managed to uncover the Viewpoints written by Essa bin Mohammed Al-Zadjali, the editor of the Times of Oman, during July 2006.
I would recommend reading them to get a sense of the rage and indignation that is felt amongst the Omani Public at what they consider to be Israeli criminality, aided and abetted by the USA.
But also bear in mind that I do not consider these pieces to be wholly representative of Omani foreign policy. I also think that they tend to be one-sided and don't take a broader perspective into account.
US supplies, Israel applies, 30th July 2006, http://www.timesofoman.com/...
O Arabs, beware! A Zionist tsunami is at your doors, 24th July 2006, http://www.timesofoman.com/...
Zionist state an epidemic in the heart of Arab nation, 16th July 2006,
http://www.timesofoman.com/...
Is the captive Israeli soldier created by God or man? 9th July 2006,
http://www.timesofoman.com/...
Israel invades Gaza as the world watches football, 2nd July 2006, http://www.timesofoman.com/...
08/02/06 14:08:41
Sue, could it be that the Times of Oman keeps it's strongest editorials off of their website?!
I'll email you to phone cam shots of Times of Oman cover pages with editorials from the paper's owner which I haven't been able to find on their website.