Hezbollah's Fatal Mistake?

Israel’s headline-grabbing airstrike on a Syrian convoy garnered much attention this week, with some asking if this signaled a greater external presence in the ongoing conflict. It distinctly does not, since Israel’s main target is not in fact Bashar al-Asad’s government, but rather Hezbollah in Lebanon. The strike this week did, however, shine a light on the degree to which the Lebanese political party and militant wing have become embroiled in the Syrian conflict next door, as well as highlight the precarious position Hezbollah finds itself in as a result of its pro-Asad position.

Hezbollah supporters rally with both Hezbollah flags and pro-government Syrian flags (courtesy Bilal Hussein / AP)

In other Arab countries, a Pew research poll in June 2012 found an overwhelming percentage of residents from all religious backgrounds support the fall of the Asad regime. In Lebanon, a delicate sectarian balance coupled with complicated ties to Syria and Asad has resulted in a more nuanced picture. While overall 53 percent of Lebanese supported the Asad stepping down, when broken down by sect, 67 percent of Christians and 80 percent of Sunnis supported the fall of the regime, while only 3 percent of Shias said they supported the end of Asad’s rule. Additionally, 96 percent of Lebanese Shias had “favorable” views of Asad. This support goes beyond religion and is deeply rooted in Shia Alawite-dominated Syria’s historical support for Lebanon’s Shia population, which is much larger proportionally than in other Levantine countries.

Hezbollah has supported Asad since the beginning of Syria’s civil war more than two years ago, but due to popular condemnation of the regime it attempted to distance itself from direct actions to aid the Syrian government. Elected officials in the political branch of Hezbollah advocated for a policy of “dissociation” with Asad’s government to appease the large numbers of Lebanese who denounce his regime and the atrocities being visited upon the Syrian population. Yet rumors of Hezbollah’s militant fighters being filtered into Syria are no longer just rumor: just this Tuesday, the Syrian opposition “reported that rebels had killed 15 Hezbollah fighters in Qusair[1].” In summer 2012, reports surfaced of a group of 5,000 Hezbollah fighters being sent to Syria, earning the approbation of Lebanese and international observers alike.

Hezbollah-backed Shi'ite Lebanese fighters cross into Syria (courtesy Bilal Hussein / AP)

Israel’s recent airstrike on a convoy of Syrian weapons supposedly heading for Hezbollah therefore does not reflect a political will for deeper involvement in the deadly conflict, but a sincere fear of the direct arming of Hezbollah with Syria’s arsenal, including chemical and biological weapons. While Israel cannot stop the Syrian conflict nor keep Hezbollah from supplying it with fighters, it can prevent weapons from flowing freely to Lebanon and raising the likelihood of not only another Israeli-Lebanese war, but also an Israeli-Syrian one.

This (barely) covert support for Asad has had serious political consequences for Hezbollah domestically. Lebanon had been ruled by a March 8 coalition made up of Hezbollah and several other parties, in opposition to the Sunni and Christian-led March 14 movement. Prime Miniter Najib Mikati resigned from the government in March, citing the ongoing domestic crisis in Lebanon that has resulted from the Syria conflict as one of the primary reasons behind his decision to step down. Violence has rocked the country over the last two years as pro- and anti-Asad Lebanese as well as Syrian refugees and migrants engage in street battles, especially in northern Lebanon where the civil war’s effects are particularly acute.

Daddy's boy: Bashar al-Asad pictured with Hassan Nasrallah and his father, Hafez al-Asad (courtesy REUTERS/Ali Hashisho)

While Israel’s airstrike and involvement in any Arab war will be controversial and play on pre-existing anti-Israel sentiments in the region, reactions are not nearly negative enough to counter the bad publicity Hezbollah is suffering at home and abroad for its support of Asad’s regime. The leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah remains loyal to the Hezbollah-Iran-Syria axis that has served his party well for years. As the Syrian civil war drags on with no end in sight, however, he may find that his once incredibly popular group made a losing gamble both in the Arab world and in Lebanon itself. One can only hope that any Hezbollah-led government would realize its error before civil war returns to Lebanon.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/world/middleeast/hezbollah-takes-risks-by-fighting-rebels-in-syria.html?hp&_r=1&

Botswana's Diamonds: Turning Resources into Foreign Policy - By Sam Worley

Botswana is a small, landlocked country in Southern Africa. Besides being one of the only countries in Africa with a relatively stable government, Botswana has also had considerable economic growth not seen in any other country in Africa. This is unarguably because of diamonds, Botswana's main export and key non-renewable natural resource. After gaining independence from Great Britain in 1966, Botswana found significant diamond mines and after some years of negotiations, control exactly half of the company that manages all of the diamond mining in Botswana, Debswana.

            

Diamonds generate immense amounts of wealth for Botswana. A Botswana Export Development and Investment Agency statistical report on their economy stated, “The mining sector remains the main engine of growth for the Botswana economy. The sector contributes over a third of GDP, 75% of export earnings and over 55% of total government revenue. The main driving force for the sector has been the diamond sub-sector.”  But this is a double-edged sword because being dependent on the activity of one economic activity exposes Botswana's economy to greater risks of fluctuations in GDP, export earnings, and Government revenues. Botswana has a small, specialized economy and is still a developing nation, thus exploiting global markets is necessary to achieve sustainable growth and economic diversification. Botswana is therefore tailoring foreign policy initiatives to target Botswana's competitiveness and productivity in the global market.

            

Diamond's revenues have led to a stable government through the creation of a bureaucracy that grew parallel to the increase in diamond revenues. Unlike other South African countries, the wealth generated from diamonds and the subsequent proper allocation of these revenues, pushed Botswana into a position of short-run economic stability. Once this stable government and revenue stream was established, a foreign policy could be implemented.

            

Botswana's government knows it can only benefit short-term from a specialized, diamond-dominated economy, a non-renewable resource can only go so far. Botswana's foreign policy is mostly concerned with its own economic diversification, which pushes their policy towards a regional integration of neighboring countries. Botswana's prominent role in the South African Development Community (SADC) and its strengthening of this entity to restore Africa's importance in the global economy, shows Botswana's policy commitment to fostering regional economic cooperation.  Botswana's strong involvement in the SADC and stable government gave them clout to move their foreign policy a step further, speaking out against anti-democratic movements and participating in conflict management in neighboring countries.

            

Internationally, Botswana participates in numerous organizations the promote democracy and human rights, namely International Institute for Democratic and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). By being a part of IDEA, Botswana is engaging in a foreign policy aimed at improving its international image as a stable, democratic nation that is worthy of investment in the private sector. A rapidly growing private sector, with foreign investment, is a strong way to diversify Botswana's diamond heavy economy. 

            

Diamonds and their revenues helped establish a strong government and bureaucracy in Botswana and therefore a strong regional foreign policy, but if Botswana continues to lag in diversification of their economy, their ability to be a political force in Southern Africa will diminish. Not to mention a continued dependence on diamond revenues will lead to a collapse of society, environment, and economy. Diamonds created a stable bureaucracy and short-term revenue stream in Botswana, therefore creating a foreign policy that was initially geared towards regional stability. In full circle, Botswana's government is now pursuing a domestic policy to slow down growth in the diamond mining sector and tailoring their foreign policy to give their economy a variegated model as to have long-term stability and constant revenues. 

The Media and the Manhunt

The Media and the Manhunt:

The Banality of Evil (and Good) 

Christine Deluna and Zach Crawford

On Wednesday April 17, CNN’s Peter King reported live on TV a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings was taken into custody. This would have been a huge victory for CNN and Boston…if it were true. King falsely reported this “breaking” story and started a media firestorm, which ended in every reporter in a 100-mile radius descending on a Boston courthouse only to find there was no suspect, and oh, now there’s a bomb threat at the courthouse.  Shamefully, CNN’s next BREAKING NEWS bulletin would feature its own journalist’s negligence.

CNN’s misreporting Wednesday became the catalyst to the media equivalent to a chicken running around without a head, wings, and legs. From the millisecond-by-millisecond coverage of the manhunt to the post arrest schmorgesborg of misleading and speculative coverage, the media’s response to the Boston Marathon bombings has revealed the flaws of many news outlets while highlighting the strengths in others. Unfortunately, these strengths were, and continue to be, outshined by hypotheticals and flashy attempts to contextualize and sensationalize a news story, even if some (or entire) details are completely irrelevant.

Oh, we know what you're thinking: but the terrorists are white.

To the Brink and Back: India and Pakistan’s Continual Escalations

Since 1998, the world has lived with two openly nuclear neighbors with a troubling relationship. India and Pakistan have never enjoyed completely amicable relations since independence and partition in 1947. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by both powers have had analysts predicting alternately Armageddon and a stable subcontinent ever since. India tested its first nuclear weapon in 1974 but refrained from launching another test for over 20 years, until 1998 when it tested its first fusion weapon. In response, Pakistan launched 6 missiles, officially joining the global nuclear club. Neither country is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus were not in contravention of international law in proliferating. Yet the international community’s initial response was one of dual-sided approbation and fear, especially given the two countries’ long-standing territorial dispute in Kashmir. Pakistan had been supporting the Kashmiri insurgency as well as other uprisings within India for decades, and now there was real danger of escalation of conflicts to the nuclear level in the minds of scholars and policymakers alike. Alarm bells were ringing in South Asian circles with many predicting that there would be a new and equally dangerous “Cold War” on the sub-continent.

The Thick Red Line - Syria's Intolerable Use of Chemical Weapons

Evidence has been amassing in recent days to support the notion that the Syrian government is using chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war ravaging the country. The use of chemical weapons has continuously been referred to as Obama's "red line;" therefore, the implications of this are quite serious. However, despite the White House having said since the beginning of the conflict that they would not tolerate the use of chemical weapons and would see it as grounds for more substantial intervention, nothing seems to be happening. Without a clear consensus coming from lawmakers and the White House, continued floundering by the U.S. on this issue will have significant repercussions for the Syrian opposition. In a moment vaguely reminiscent of Rwanda in 1994, President Obama's legacy may be galvanized by his wavering on what is one of the gravest issues he has faced as president thus far.