While "Russia is back", its clash with Georgia makes it not the same former superpower, writes Rasha Saad In "Wagering on the Russian bear" Elias Harfoush wrote in the London-based daily Al-Hayat that, "many had been awaiting such an opportunity that was provided by the foolish step taken by Georgia's president." Harfoush wrote that countries of the former Communist bloc, such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Ukraine, have rushed to seize the opportunity, welcoming US defence systems and NATO bases on the pretext of fear of the Russian bear recently unleashed in the European forest. Other countries, including Syria and Iran, who face crises in their international relations, have taken the opportunity to earn Russia's sympathy and stand by its side during these testing times, argues Harfoush. The sympathy, Harfoush explains, has reached such an extent that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad expressed his readiness to "cooperate with Russia in any project that can strengthen its security," advising it to really "think of the response it will have when it finds itself closed in a circle." However, Harfoush warns, Moscow's success in teaching the Georgian president a lesson does not necessarily turn it as some of the Arabs would wish, into a superpower facing US unilateralism. According to Harfoush, if the USSR itself did not last in facing the US, as a result of its fragile political system and weak economic position, what then of Russia, which is less powerful and influential and the GDP of which does not exceed one tenth of that of the US, not to mention the vast difference in their military expenditures? Also Russia's economy, adds Harfoush, is known to be mainly based on oil and gas revenues. Russia has certainly benefited from the recent rise in gas prices, but its situation remains dependant on price fluctuations. For Harfoush, these are not the characteristics that allow one to speak of a superpower that can be depended on in the tribulations of international politics. "The Russian bear had been asleep, and it would have been better not to awaken it. But it certainly is not the same frightening bear that had been reliable in times of polar cold. It is a bear with broken fangs, the past of which is more reliable than its present," wrote Harfoush. In the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, Amir Taheri wrote the same lines, questioning the headlines anticipating that "Russia is back". "Suppose that Russia is back. One might ask: which Russia is back?" asked Taheri. Taheri wrote that today's Russia is not a rich country; it is a moneyed country. He explains that a rich country has good schools, universities, hospitals, national parks, libraries, research centres, and sports facilities not to mention motorways, modern railways and airports. A moneyed country just has lots of money. Taheri added that a rich country produces literature, art and culture, wins Nobel prizes in science, and shines at international sports events. "The new Russia has produced a Mafia-style culture of materialism, greed and violence." Taheri also argues that Russia is experiencing an unprecedented demographic decline. In the last decade, he stresses, its population has declined by almost 10 million. If the present trend continues, Taheri contends, Russia may end up with a smaller population than Iran by 2020. The percentage of ethnic Russians is falling even more rapidly. Turkic ethnic groups would become the largest population bloc in the federation. By mid-century, Russia could have a Turkic and Islamic majority. "No, Russia is not back in any of its previous epiphanies. It is not back because those versions of Russia no longer exist," concludes Taheri. Drawing a comparison between the RussianGeorgian case and Lebanon and Syria, Walid Choucair in Al-Hayat asked whether Lebanon is Georgia or South Ossetia. Choucair was referring to a statement by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad about the similarity of legitimate interests of Russia in Georgia and those of Syria in Lebanon. Choucair finds in these statements proof that, "Damascus has not given up its policy of re- taking total control of Lebanese decision-making, as it used to do in the past." But Choucair believes that Al-Assad's comments came with conditions that do not match events, since they were made after the Lebanese-Syrian summit, during which the leaders endorsed a new course of relations between Lebanon and Syria. The first and most important component of this new course, according to Choucair, is the decision to establish diplomatic relations and exchange embassies between the two countries. "The decision to establish diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria should be seen as the beginning of a new policy," wrote Choucair. According to Choucair, the Lebanese do not disagree with Syria's legitimate interests in Lebanon, but they oppose and bicker about the nature and limits of these interests. However, Choucair wrote, comparing the two cases -- Georgia and its relationship with Russia, and Lebanon with Syria -- on the occasion of a new track in the relationship between Beirut and Damascus, leads to the following question: Is Lebanon South Ossetia, which sought to cement its independence from Georgia with support from Russia? Or is LebanonGeorgia, which used force to impede the independence of Ossetia and irritated the Russian bear, because the Georgian behaviour stems from the country's subordination to the American axis that Washington is trying to establish in Eastern Europe? Meanwhile, Abdullah Iskandar in Al-Hayat pondered democracy in the Arab world. He wrote that when elected deputies support, in a republican democratic regime, a military coup that leads to overthrowing a president elect, one must wonder about the meaning, conditions, and mechanisms of democracy. Iskandar was referring to what happened in Mauritania, arguing that is not an exception in the Arab world as officers had previously ousted regimes in power, imposing their reign with the help of different formulas that vary from one country to another. Iskandar argues that in Mauritania and in other countries before it, officers justify their continuous actions by using the pretext of ending chaos and imposing stability. "In this sense, democracy appears to be nothing but a mere name given to the justification of the continuity of leadership, rather than a mechanism for organising power and subjecting it to accountability," Iskandar wrote.
