10 Things Every American Should Know Before Visiting Aleppo

1. There are now three (!) Hummers in Aleppo.

2. Aleppo is safe enough to walk around at 3 or 4 in the morning – even for women. Try doing that in a similarly-sized city in America.

3. If someone mentions a Christian place in Aleppo and you want to guess where it is, say Aziziyeh. Eighty-six percent of the time you will be right.

4. You’re not allowed to leave town until you’ve dined at Wane’s. Seriously. Ask the guys at Customs.

5. Despite Syria’s reputation, Aleppo is a shining example of how Christians, Muslims, Kurds, Armenians, etc. can live side by side in relative harmony.

6. The best jubneh in Mohafezah is found at the shawarma shack across from Dar al-Fiqr, not Sahtayn or Slav.

7. Remember that bumper sticker that said “My other car is a Porsche”? Here, their other mobile is an iPhone. And probably with a Bluetooth to boot.

8. The kids in Aleppo probably know more about Western music than you do. Don’t question it. Just understand and accept that reality.

9. Don’t believe everything you read (or hear) about Aleppo. Except that this city has the best food in Syria.

10. And last but not least, when you visit Aleppo, please. Keep your city beauty.

 

And in conclusion….

So, as I wind down my stay here in Aleppo (about six weeks to go), I thought it would be nice to rehash what I’ve learned – some of which I may have stated in a previous post. That may be redundant, but hey. History is supposed to repeat itself, too. And I wouldn’t dare presume to be more important than history.

 

What’s going on?

So, someone asked me the other day why this blog hasn’t been updated in ages. Well, to be honest, there’s nothing going on. Not so long ago, there was a car bomb in Damascus. It was literally all everyone (I knew) talked about for minutes here in Aleppo. That’s pretty much it.

 

Chew on this

The following is a translation of an inaugural speech. Comments to follow.

“To what extent are we democratic? And what are the indications that refer to the existence or nonexistence of democracy? Is it in elections or in free press or in free speech or in other freedoms and rights? Democracy is not any of these because all these rights and others are not democracy, rather they are democratic practices … we cannot apply the democracy of others on ourselves. Western democracy, for example, is the outcome of a long history that resulted in customs and traditions which distinguish the current culture of Western societies … we have to have our democratic experience which is special to us, which stems from our history, culture, civilization and which is a response to the needs of our society and the requirements of our reality”

[NB: Please see my comment for an overdue follow-up to this post]

 

MEPE MIA

            It’s been several months now since Tony Blair was appointed/annointed as the International Middle East Peace Envoy and what a few months it’s been. Why just last week, the BBC reported that Blair was on TV (briefly) expressing the same optimism that President Bush earlier commented on when discussing the talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. If all it takes to be the Middle East Peace Envoy is to react to other people’s comments, why, they could have just asked me. I’m sure my retainer would have been lower.

            To be fair, I’m sure that Blair’s new job is more complicated than it would appear. It might actually even involve some work, but one wouldn’t know it. It boggles the mind that someone so high profile has received such a (potentially) high profile position and yet he continues to be overshadowed by every else who visits the region. Is it wrong to expect Blair to trump Bush when it comes to peace in the Middle East? Maybe. America is still the one everyone looks to to solve those problems despite our waning influence there. However, one would do well to ask, then, why even bother having a Middle East Peace Envoy? I can’t help but wonder if this position was just an excuse to give Blair something to do besides watching Richard and Judy now that his most important years are behind him. If there is a valid purpose behind his appointment, then someone needs to start throwing “Bush’s poodle” a bone.

 

Thoughts on reactions to the Arab League Deal re: Lebanon’s President

            In response to the ongoing political stalemate in Lebanon, the Arab League came up with a deal to solve the crisis. I want to discuss the reaction of both Hezbollah and Syria to the deal.

            For its part, Hezbollah wants a deal that ensures it will have enough power to block any threatening legislation. I believe I’ve seen the number “33 percent plus one” batted around, which would make sense given that the passing of legislation requires a 67 percent approval in parliament. Now, lettuce return to the crucial part of that first sentence: “enough power to block…legislation”. Wouldn’t any political organization that subscribes to Realism? Granting such a request to Hezbollah, however, would undermine the already-twisted democratic principles of Lebanon. An increase in the mandated power of Hezbollah’s political wing would come at the expense of the other confessions; and while the lunacy of the confessional style of politics is certainly worthy of another post (or dissertation), it represents the only hope for a stable Lebanon. It cannot and should not be undermined for anyone.

            Another point to chew on is the idea that the Hezbollah spokesman has said that Hezbollah “cautiously welcomes” the deal but will not give the final OK until subsequent events play out. This puts the deal, which many would argue is the best hope for resolving the crisis, in a catch-22 that would only end by giving in to Nasrallah and his lot.

            Syria’s reaction to the deal is also worthy of scrutiny. It has chosen to back, however hesitantly, the Arab League deal. Pundits are arguing that Syrian acceptance is an attempt to ensure the success of the next Arab League summit which is scheduled for March and will be held in Damascus. Such thinking is in line with reports that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallam was warned that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia would not attend the Damascus meeting if Syria did not back the deal. This development begs the questions of why Syria, which no doubt would like to maintain some control over Lebanon, views the summit with greater importance. What is on the agenda of the next Arab League summit that, apparently, in the eyes of the Assad regime, can supersede Syria’s intentions in Lebanon? Perhaps this position is also meant to be a public display of the recent rapprochement (sort of) between Syria and the U.S.

            Incidentally, by way of underscoring how drawn out this stalemate has been, there have already been 11 attempts (with a 12^th scheduled for Saturday) to elect a new president. It’s like the local version of the Writer’s Strike in Hollywood, except more important. Unless you’re “The Insider” or any of those other insipid entertainment shows. And blah blah blah, the final point being that the political crisis in Lebanon ain’t over yet, folks.

 

A few words on Iraqi refugees in Syria

            This post may be somewhat dated, but hey. I had an MA to finish. Anyway, there was a relatively recent report from the Brookings Institution (released in June 2007) regarding Iraqi refugees. I arrived in Syria about two months later and a short time after that, began to hear of how Iraqi visas were being refused and the refugees were being sent back across the border. On the surface, this looked like a positive development for Washington, ever concerned about Syria’s alleged “open borders” with Iraq. It seemed as though Damascus was recognizing that these refugees could become a political liability for the Assad regime. Having scanned the report, however, I’m starting to wonder if Damascus’s moves weren’t more strategic. According to the report, the refugees were able to take advantage of the Syrian government’s many basic goods and services subsidies. Thus, the large influx of refugees was draining the Syrian economy which already has a substantial Palestinian refugee community and continues to face U.S. sanctions on top of that. So, my theory, however half-cocked and quickly-thought-up, is that perhaps the move was not done to placate Washington but rather to free up crucial domestic resources for the “real” citizens. Of course, even if this is true, it might not matter in the greater scheme of things, but I thought it was an interesting alternative explanation.

 

France has ticked off someone else now

My oh my. It’s all a-go over here these days, isn’t it? Not only is Syria abuzz with its warming relations with the U.S. (despite rhetoric from Bush which is probably just talk), but Syria is making headlines with its increasingly poor relations with France. I’ll give you fifty dollars if you can’t guess what they’re bickering about. Yes, shock of shocks, for the first time in what seems like eons, France and the U.S. actually agree on something: Syria’s ties to Lebanon, which both nations view as unnecessary and in violation of Lebanon’s territorial integrity. As soon as I dig up more dirt on why Dr. Bashar has received a Congressional delegation, I’ll pontificate about that. But right now, it’s all about Paris. It seems that relations have gotten so bad between Syria and France that they’re cutting off contact with each other, much as the U.S. did in 2003 in the wake of Hariri’s assassination.

Personally, I find this an interesting development because the fallout over the Hajj assassination last month is becoming complicated. Publicly, the U.S. position remains the same as it has for nearly five years now, being joined by France. At the same time, like I said, Dr. Bashar met with Senator Specter and Congressman Kennedy (if not others) as a sign of rapprochement. At the same time, I continue to hear locally that relations between Syria and Lebanon are at their ziftiest since who knows when, and that Hezbollah is also angry at Assad for allegedly making a deal with America. No doubt, Iran is none too pleased over Syria’s cozying up to the U.S., as well. So basically, at least on some level, everyone’s mad at Dr. Bashar because some other country is going down the tubes. You can’t buy this kind of tension and drama on Grey’s Anatomy, people.

So what happens next? Stay tuned. Over here, our writers aren’t on strike.

 

Hezbollahpalooza

In a 3 January article, Free Syria mentioned that Hezbollah was planning some demonstrations as well as the closure of the Beirut airport (thankfully after my visit, although I know two Americans who may not be so lucky when they try to leave). Additionally, there has been talk of closing down major ports as well as a 60’s-style sit-in near the U.S. Embassy. All of this is allegedly due to the Maronite Christians’ role in the ongoing political stalemate as well as to U.S. support for the March 14^th Movement. Welcome to Beirut 2008 which is starting to look increasingly like the Beirut of 1975 (or perhaps somewhat more optimistically 1974). The only difference being – if memory serves – that thirty years ago, it was the Muslim group in general (or perhaps principally the Sunnis) who wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Now, it’s the Shi’ites turn, no doubt emboldened by the Hezbollah “victory” in last year’s war against Israel.

Anyway, should these events come to pass, there are some troubling issues that need to be addressed. First, the power of Hezbollah. Whether or not one can consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization remains a question of semantics. Personally, I don’t see any reason to contradict the official view of the U.S., although I understand Nasrallah’s counterargument that the IDF is just as culpable. Still, that argument strikes me a lot as a grade school “I’m rubber, you’re glue” argument. Any way you slice it, I don’t feel comfortable with a powerful Hezbollah in Lebanon. I feel even less comfortable when you look at the second issue: exactly how powerful is Hezbollah that they can even seriously consider shutting down Rafiq Hariri International Airport? Is the federal government so weak that it cannot even protect the airport, to say nothing of the ports? The idea that Hezbollah is able to throw its weight around as it pleases is what prompts me to back away from a normally cautious position and see this as the beginnings of the Civil War redux.

The next president of Lebanon (most likely Michel Suleiman) better be able to rule effectively and thoroughly. At the same time, as a country that purportedly practices democracy, the wishes of Hezbollah cannot be overlooked entirely. I think Nasrallah dramatically understates the influence his group has so that he can grab even more power, but part of being a democracy is listening to the opposition. Even in America, we have to listen to the hippies no matter how pot-induced their arguments might be. Whether one acts on those voices is another matter, but everyone deserves a platform. Excluding racists, of course, who sicken the whole of humanity. But that’s a subject for another blog.
As a small side note: perhaps one small measure of Nasrallah’s importance to the Lebanese political scene can be measured by the interview he gave on 3 January. It lasted at least two hours and was carried on at least four channels, including the Syrian TV station.

 

Disclaimer

By the way, despite the title of this post (or rather the description), this blog is incredibly inferior to the multitudes of others out there. If you want the real scoop on what is happening in Syria, I highly recommend visiting “Syria Comment” which also includes a very detailed blogroll. Seriously, everything about that blog puts this one to shame. To be fair, this blog generally was intended just to provide some amusing insights into my experience in Syria (or Aleppo, specifically) as well as to pontificate about that which I pretend to know, which admittedly, is still heavily Russian- and not Middle Eastern-oriented.

NB: This disclaimer probably should have appeared as the first or second entry. My bad.