Thursday, August 13, 2020

Beirut Port Blast: What lies ahead for Lebanon?

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Charvi Trivedi

Article Title

Beirut Port Blast: What lies ahead for Lebanon?

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 13, 2020

URL

The smoke of the Beirut explosion spread over the sky of Lebanon

The smoke of the Beirut explosion spread over the sky of Lebanon | Source: Mehrnews.com via Wikimedia

The year 2020 will be remembered as the year of disasters in the history of humankind. A devastating tragedy struck Beirut, the capital of Lebanon on August 4, 2020, in the form of a massive explosion which occurred in the port area and ripped a large part of the town .

As per initial estimate the death toll stands at 157 with more than 5000 people severely bruised and thousands displaced from their homes. The incredible force of the blast could be felt as far as Cyprus, which is at a distance of 250 kms from the explosion site.

A giant red cloud of smoke erupted in the clear skies followed by a deafening ‘bang’ and smashing of windows. "First we heard one sound. Seconds later there was a big explosion. All hell broke loose and I saw people thrown five or six metres" said Ibrahim Zoobi, who worked near the port. Satellite images show that warehouses and buildings within a radius of 2km from the site of the blast were completely destroyed, ending up in debris.

The intensity of the blast was equivalent to almost ‘2.2 kilotons of TNT’, according to an analyst and weapons expert. The aftermath included scenes of jam-packed hospitals, running without proper electricity connection, increased demand of blood donations and generators and agonized cries of people searching for their loved ones amongst the rubble filled roads.

Michel Aoun, the President of Lebanon | Source: Wikimedia

American President Donald Trump was quick to tweet about calling the blast a ‘terrible attack’. However, according to Michel Aoun, the President of Lebanon, the actual culprit of the blast was the 2,750 tonnes of fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, stored in one of the warehouses in the port area which caught fire. This explosive material was reportedly confiscated from a Russian cargo ship, back in 2014, when it made an uninformed stop at the Lebanese port.

Ammonium nitrate is a white substance used as a fertilizer as well as an explosive. It cannot explode on coming in contact with air but can detonate immediately as it encounters a flammable substance like oil or fire. Being an oxidiser, it will accelerate the severity of the explosion and also lead to release of toxic gases like nitrogen dioxide.

Boaz Hayoun, one of the top bomb experts of Israel, states “Before the big explosion, in the center of the fire, you can see sparks, you can hear sounds like popcorn and you can hear whistles”, which is a strong indication of fireworks. This might point towards seemingly inadequate warehouse management issues in Beirut, as such substances might have come across the explosive nitrates and instigated the blast. The safety protocols were simply not followed, despite being aware about the presence of a ‘ticking time bomb’ in the warehouse.

As Beirut is fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and a financial crisis, it was definitely not ready for another blow. Beirut’s grain storage tower, the largest in Lebanon, was also engulfed in the flames, hampering the entire country’s food security. "It's an economic crisis, a financial crisis, a political crisis, a health crisis, and now this horrible explosion” says Tamara Alrifai, spokesperson for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

France, the US, Italy, Turkey, Iran, EU, and OIC came up with the offer of help and show support for the people of Beirut.  Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, was the first foreign leader to visit the crisis-hit Beirut. While he consoled the citizens, their grief turned into anger as they chanted the word ‘Revolution’.

There is great anger among the citizens against the government, whom they accuse of being corrupt, sectarian, unaccountable, and out of touch with the common people. The intense protest by the people on the street forced the Prime Minister Hassan Diab to resign along with his cabinet on August 10, 2020.

The economic cost of the Beirut blast, where over 300,000 people have become homeless after their homes get destroyed, is estimated to be $15 Billion. Lebanon, which was already on the verge of economic collapse before this disaster struck, may find it impossible to withstand such a blow to the economy. It will need the support from the world over to rebuild Beirut.

A donor conference for rebuilding Beirut received a total pledge of about $300 million. Though it is a minuscule figure as compared to the destruction in Beirut, it will help to tide over the immediate humanitarian crisis. Apart from this Turkey has offered to help rebuild the port of Beirut and many countries are sending relief supplies.

The days ahead for the citizens of Beirut are going to be challenging as the country navigates the sectarian divide during the formation of a new government. It will be keenly watched by the citizens as well as the international community, whether Lebanon will discard its entrenched ruling elite and reject the toxic sectarian divide to elect an inclusive government or continue to perpetuate the misery on the common citizens.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 5:18 PM

The Persian Gulf Crisis and the Security Dilemma

This article explains the recent tensions between Iran and the United States, and presents it as a case of the ‘Security Dilemma’ theory in practice.

The Persian Gulf Crisis 2019-20

To understand the current crisis in Persian Gulf, we must look at the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015, also called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The JCPOA was signed between The E3/EU+3 (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, and the United States, China, with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the Islamic Republic of Iran, to permit nuclear capabilities for Iran exclusively for peaceful purposes, in exchange for the lifting of crippling sanctions.

JCPOA terms:

International Atomic Energy Agency representative in Tehran, Iran for talks on JCPOA implementation | Source: Tasnim News Agency

Under this accord, Iran had to reduce its Uranium stockpile by 98% to 300kg, maintain its level of enrichment at 3.67%, reduce the number of centrifuges, and only keep one of its Uranium enrichment plants active. It also had to redesign its reactor at Arak, so it could not produce weapon’s grade Plutonium. Until 2031, Iran is not permitted to make heavy-water reactors.

Further, it was to permit itself to regular inspection of their nuclear site by the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In return, Iran gained over $100bn of frozen assets overseas, and was permitted to allow trading in oil in international markets and use the global financial system for trade.

Trump Administration’s Revoking of the JCPOA

In 2018, the Trump administration reimposed some of the sanctions in Iran, despite Trump's election promise to reduce involvement in the Middle East. Countering the re-impositions, Iran threatens to resume Uranium enrichment. In May 2019, Iran suspends nuclear deal commitments, and gives other signatories a 60-day deadline to protect it from US sanctions, before resuming Uranium enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran had already increased Uranium production, but is unclear by how much.

President Trump signing executive orders, imposing sanctions on Iran | Source: Shealah Craighead via White House

In May 2019, the US increased military deployment in the Persian Gulf, reportedly to prevent what the termed was a “campaign” between Iran and its proxies to threaten US oil shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Tanker Crisis

In June 2019, two tankers were set ablaze in the Gulf of Oman, using mines. The US blamed Iran for these blasts, but Iran denied the charges.

In the same month, Iran Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down a US surveillance drone, escalating tensions and causing the US to name the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

In July 2019, the British Royal Marine Commandos seized an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibraltar, as it was suspected to be en route to Syria, in violation of EU sanctions. The US declared that anyone assisting the ship would be considered an accomplice of terrorist groups, namely the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

In retaliation, Iran seized British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Iranian tanker was released six weeks later, on the condition that they do not unload their cargo of 2.1million barrels of oil in Syria.

December Air Strikes

In December 2019, the K-1 Air Base in Iraq was attacked by an unconfirmed party, killing one American contractor. This base hosts Americans (amongst other nationalities) who are responsible for training Iraqi troops in counter-terrorism. The Americans alleged that the attack was carried out by Kataib Hezbollah, which denies it. Kataib Hezbollah is a rebel group (recognized as a terrorist group by the US) backed by Iran. The Iraqi’s alleged that ISIL was responsible.

In retaliation for the killing of the American Contractor, the US launched air strikes on the weapons depot and command centres of Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria in the same month, reportedly killing 25 militiamen.

Assassination of Iranian Major General

Late Iranian General, Qasem Suleimani | Source: Tasnim News Agency

Iraq and Iran condemned the attack, and on 31 December, 2019, Iraqi militia attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad. In response, the US conducted airstrikes at the Baghdad International Airport in January 2020, killing the Commander of Iranian Quds Force, General Qasem Suleimani, the second most powerful man in Iran.

These escalations, placed within the context of US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, provide a good example of the Security Dilemma theory and how it plays out in practice.

What is the Security Dilemma?

Before delving into the theoretical definitions it is worth reminding ourselves that States do not behave as they do because a theoretical model demands them to. Rather, most theoretical models are based on observations of real-world behaviour of states, and seek to explain said behaviour. The Classical Realist theory, of which the Security Dilemma is a part, is amongst one of these, and I endeavour to highlight some of the key points of this theory.

The Classical Realist theory holds that States (or State-actors) are the basic unit of any international system. They are the most important actors, as there is no authority higher than them. The international system is fundamentally anarchic, with every actor left to their own devices with no supranational oversight. Each State finds it in their own self-interest to provide their own means for security. Security comes with the ability of the State to exercise its power, and thus Power Hegemony and Security are inextricably linked. In other words, since no State can rely on a supranational authority to provide security (an every-man-for-himself scenario), it is in each State’s best interest to understand the power distribution across all state-actors and maximize power for themselves, as the ultimate security. This results in a zero-sum game, with one actor’s loss being another’s gain. In providing absolute security for one’s own State, one leaves others insecure. The resulting power imbalance manifests in conflict, and for the Realist it follows, therefore, that Conflict is the natural state of affairs.

This, in essence, is the Security Dilemma: Striving for absolute security leaves others absolutely insecure, thus providing powerful incentives for an arms race, leading to further conflicts. It is little wonder that this is also called the Spiral Model, for in the very process of striving for security, one gives birth to escalating conflict.

How does this relate to the Persian Gulf Crisis?

The US has long followed the Realist model, believing that in a state of fundamental anarchy, it is justifiable to have nuclear capabilities and have intense militarization, as a means of gaining absolute security (justified by ‘offense is the best defence’). However, the US is also known for disallowing Weapons of Mass Destruction and nuclear capabilities in other countries, despite having such resources by itself. Here we see the Security Dilemma: to maintain absolute security, the US cannot allow others to be similarly armed. This is seen clearly in the signing of the JCPOA.

Consider the case from Iran’s point of view. As a result of the US war against Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrow of Saddam Hussain in Iraq, there has been constant American presence in both the countries bordering Iran since almost two decades. That this poses a threat to Iran is obvious: the US caused fundamental regime changes in Iraq after the war; with its manpower and firepower, alongside its strategic placement on both sides of the Iranian border, the US is at a vantage point to attack Iran – placements that are, paradoxically, intended to guarantee American security.

The American show of strength and the impending danger of conflict leave Iran with two choices: Forge alliances with US adversaries, such as China or Russia, to deter Iran-US conflict, or be nuclear-armed. Iran managed both, causing, in effect, a nuclear arms race that culminated in the JCPOA.  In retrospect, the JCPOA seems like the perfect solution to the Security Dilemma in US-Iran conflicts: not only does it allow Iran to benefit from its suspensions of nuclear capabilities, it also ceases the arms race and de-escalates the conflict. In short, it is the Diplomat’s way out of the Security Dilemma, guaranteeing security without arms.

The Trump administration’s call to reimpose sanctions on Iran only serves to re-ignite security concerns for both countries. With Iran having ousted its JCPOA commitments as of January 2020, we can only hope that de-escalations will soon follow to prevent the otherwise inevitable spiralling into arms race and false absolute security.

Read More