Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Peace versus Justice in Kosovo and the Balkans

Carla Del Ponte - the chief prosecutor of the Hague's War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has apparently stated - to Serbian media, no less - that Kosovo's independence should be delayed because it may interfere with the running of the Tribunal.

A classic illustration of the age-old debate: PEACE vs. JUSTICE.

On one hand, many suggest that pragmatism must win out - and when the opportunity arrives to bring peace one must do so with full vigor, whilst others suggest that the pursuit of peace is secondary to the pursuit of justice. In this case, the "justice" is getting the final four suspects and indictees to the Hague for trial --- all said to be hiding out in Serbia. "Peace" - being Kosovo's independence and formal legal separation from Serbia.

"U.N. war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte is urging the Security Council to put off deciding the future of Kosovo until top Balkans war crimes suspects are in custody. From U.N. headquarters, VOA's Peter Heinlein reports the prosecutor noted increasing Serbian cooperation with efforts to bring top fugitives to The Hague for trial."

I think it is also sadly a result del Ponte thinking a little selfishly about her "baby" --- she has unquestionably been the driving force behind the War Crimes Tribunal, and wants to see it wrap up its prosecutions ASAP. I think she's missing the big picture personally.

I'm inclined to believe the peace versus justice debate is a false dichotomy, based on misunderstandings of what "peace" and "justice" mean. Once we have better - more holistics - definitions to work with, the debate becomes moot. Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Any good peace news?

Today has definitely not been a good day for world peace.

Lebanon: Another anti-Syria parliamentarian blown to pieces along with at least 9 other people in Beirut.

Gaza: If anyone still doubts it - this is what a civil war looks like.
Oh - and Hamas seems to have one the first Battle of Gaza.

Iraq: The Golden minarets of the already destroyed golden dome shrine in Samara destroyed by bomb blast. (Ny Times, Getty Images)


Hopefully tomorrow shall bring better news.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Palestinian Civil War?

When do skirmishes between rival Palestinian groups become a civil war?

When is that line crossed between an 'outbreak of violence' and true 'civil war'?

Not sure I know the answer where that line is to be drawn. But it seems Palestinians are well on their way to finding out.
Today's developments:
  • Prime Minister Haniyeh's - leader of Hamas' - home was shot at (presumably by Fatah gunmen.)
Meanwhile not much attention is being paid to this deteriorating situation. Not even the ISraelis and Israeli media seem to care too much about the serious risk of a civil war on their doorstep. Internationally, the Europeans are doing their darndest to screw up Kosovo, and twiddle their thumbs over Darfur, the US only wants to speak about Iraq (and occasionally Iran)... These are all legitimate intl security and humanitarian crises that deserve attention of world leaders.
But the disintegration of law and order in the Gaza Strip does too.
Let's hope it comes before it's too late. Increasingly Gaza is looking like Beirut of three decades ago, let's hope the comparison fails in the coming weeks.....

Intl community and Israel invested a great deal in building up a PAlestinian Authority, provinding autonomy to the Palestinians, and funding their economic well-being. Palestinians enjoyed the only truly democratic society in all of the ARab Middle East --- quite an achievement. All of this is now threatened, as is any prospect of movement towards peace.

ADD:
Ooh... I just saw that UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon express deep concern over the violence in Gaza. ... That should do the job.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Global Military Spending

With figures like these, does the word "hypocrisy" ever come to mind.

We try and stabilize a region like the Middle East by supplying weapons to it's leaders.... hmm... peace through war. How's it working out so far????

Also: the figures are rather stark: --- US is spending half a trillion dollars on weaponry. That is 10times as much as China. And yet we fear China's military expansion. Isn't some of that unfear a little unfounded, or a least premature.

More fundamentally: is it possible for Western democracies - avowed peace loving countries - to continue to justify arms exports to the remainder of the world? Rationalizations and justifications abound... but proof is in the pudding.
Arms Report Says Global Weapons Sales Continue to Rise
, 11 June 2007

A noted Swedish research institute says global military spending by the world's 100 largest weapons manufacturers rose by 3.5 percent in 2006, to $290 billion.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in its annual report, says U.S. and western European sales spurred the increase. It also notes that the United States remained the world's top military spender last year, allotting $529 billion for weaponry. Authors attributed a $24 billion increase from 2005 to costly U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Researchers note China's continuing surge in military spending, which reached nearly $50 billion in 2006. China overtook Japan last year to become the fourth largest buyer of military goods.

Russia spent nearly $35 billion on arms last year, and the report links Moscow's increasing buying power to its surging energy wealth.

Research project leader Siemon Wezeman said U.S. and European suppliers continue to supply vast quantities of arms to the Middle East, despite the fact that it is a highly volatile region.

Researchers also question how cost-effective military expenditures are as a way of increasing the security of human lives.

Friday, June 8, 2007

Israel-Syria Peace Deal Imminent?

Well, "imminent" is probably a little too hopeful. But add up all the informal gestures, private talks, private shuttle diplomacy going on, and even public pronouncements by Israel and Syrian leadership ... and you've got to think that prospects for some genuine negotiations between these two warring countries is a distinct possibility.

Latest report says that Israeli government has convey to Damascus its willingness to "give up" the Golan Heights in an peace deal.

Whilst this may have been patently apparent to many outsides as necessary step for peace to prevail, do not discount the deep abiding attachment many Israelis have for the Golan Heights --- sometimes described as Israel's playground. It's natural beauty is phenomenal, and for a hiking-mad country like Israel, its terrain, springs, waterfalls, rivers and mountains have been the scene of millions of vacations over the years.

Lets also not forget the strategic value of the Heights.... they don't call them the "Heights" for nothing.

An eventual deal will probably include, in my view, three elements:
(1) Complete demilitarization of the Golan Heights. Early warning systems - of both countries - could stay. Some residual international force could also remain (the UN blue helmets have been keeping the peace on the Golan for decades.)

(2) Israel to relinquish any sovereign claim to the Golan, and Syrian sovereignty to be affirmed.

(3) Some arrangement - lease-back? Bi-National Park? - to allow Israelis to continue to enjoy travelling to the Golan, and perhaps even maintaining farmlands and wineries on it too.

In my view, peace needs to be cemented by people - former enemies - interacting, not just their leaders proclaiming peace is at hand. Therefore I'd suggest adding a fourth element - perhaps not seen as critical, but in my view just as important for the long-term

(4) Create bi-national economic/industrial cooperation zones on the Golan Heights. Allowing collaboration and partnership between Arabs and Jews and Druze, and Syrians and ISraelis on a variety of money-making ventures ---- the Peace Dividend.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Darfur: A Little Pushback against the Fingerpointing at China

Below is a piece my boss and I published on Foreign Policy - a great int'l affairs website, by the way.

Intended as a reality check against eager advocacy groups, op-ed writers and others to point the finger at China for not doing enough to resolve Darfur crisis. In short, moral of the story: "People in glass houses..."


Why China Won’t Save Darfur
By Morton Abramowitz, Jonathan Kolieb
Foreign Policy, posted June 2007.

Frustrated by the West’s failure to halt the slaughter in Sudan, Darfur advocacy groups are pinning their hopes on a country they see as genocide’s enabler in chief: China. But in pressuring an indifferent Beijing, activists are merely helping Western governments evade responsibility for a humanitarian crisis that they could do far more to stop.
STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images
Can this man save Darfur? Not by pinning his hopes on China, he can’t.

After four years of tireless efforts, Darfur advocacy groups have had little success in pressuring the Bush administration or any other Western government to move decisively against the Sudanese government for its atrocities in Darfur. These groups are right to dismiss the Bush administration’s latest sanctions initiative as mere posturing; like all of the president’s efforts to date, it’s too limited in scope and lacks a wider, more holistic diplomatic strategy. These groups are focusing instead on the two C’s of humanitarian advocacy—China and celebrities—as a remedy for a crisis that has killed over 200,000 people and displaced more than 2.5 million. But in pointing the finger at China, proponents of stronger action on Darfur are merely helping the White House evade moral responsibility for a humanitarian disaster that it labels a “genocide.”

With its oil ties to the Sudanese regime and its resistance to U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Khartoum, China is a convenient whipping boy, and a cast of celebrities has signed on eagerly to lead the whipping. Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg, Mia Farrow, and George Clooney have come out in recent weeks to criticize the Chinese government for not responding to the cries of Darfur’s people, zeroing in on the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Earnest editorial writers have joined them enthusiastically.

The campaign has had some results. Beijing’s usual foreign policy approach—“non-interference” in Sudan’s domestic affairs—has been evolving under the pressure. China has become more active in trying to persuade the Khartoum regime to cooperate with the international community. China is willing to pursue a peace settlement, and indeed President Hu Jintao pressured Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on this issue and duly urged cooperation with the United Nations on his visit to Khartoum in February. Beijing has also appointed a full-time envoy tasked with assisting in resolving the Darfur crisis.

But threatening a “Genocide Olympics” alone will not bring peace (or peacekeepers) to that troubled region. No amount of criticism will convince Beijing to pursue a coercive strategy and a nonconsensual deployment of U.N. peacekeepers that Khartoum rejects. Yes, China has the economic leverage to gain the ear of President Bashir, but that hardly means it has the ability—or, more to the point, the will—to bully him into accepting a large U.N. peacekeeping contingent in Darfur. China’s multibillion dollar investments in Sudan’s petroleum industry are a much-needed source of energy for its mushrooming economy. Beijing may make tactical moves to pressure Sudan, but it will not choose human rights over oil, a matter of paramount national interest.

And, even if China were capable of delivering Bashir, the Sudanese government is not the only impediment to an effective peace process. Nowadays, more people may well be dying from tribal clashes than from marauding janjaweed or government forces. The infighting of fractured rebel groups and the sheer number of displaced people with no homes to return to are also immediate and significant obstacles to peace. But China has little influence over the rebel movements and is ill-positioned to act as a mediator between them.

Nor is China a good choice to be our moral compass. The West embraces human rights and international humanitarian law, but China emphatically does not. The continuing crisis not only threatens the lives of millions, but the weak Western response undermines those grandiose principles such as the “responsibility to protect”—hallmarks of our international moral code. Moreover, it is the U.S. government, not Beijing (nor the U.N., for that matter), that has invoked the label “genocide” to describe the Darfur crisis. Morally and legally, the responsibility to lead is America’s.

Ending the Darfur conflict requires much more than what China alone can offer. Rhetorical flourishes from world leaders, limited Western unilateral sanctions, and promises of firmer action at some indeterminate time in the future are also patently insufficient. Only a top-level, sustained, and aggressive multilateral mediation effort backed by the United States, the European Union, and African, Arab, and Chinese governments can stop the violence and reverse the massive displacement of people.

Advocacy groups deserve praise for bringing Darfur into the world’s collective consciousness and generating funds to care for millions of dislocated civilians. But their latest campaign lets the U.S. and others off the hook. Highlighting China’s woeful human rights record is important, but does little to resolve the conflict in Darfur. China is not going to do what the United States and Europe have been unwilling to do for the past four years.


Morton Abramowitz is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation and a former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jonathan Kolieb is a research associate at The Century Foundation.

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Jim Wolfensohn's New Take on Changing World - "The Four Circles"

Former President of the World Bank - no, not Wolfowitz, the former former Pres - James Wolfensohn - respected economist, and global statesman - published an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune a few days ago - ahead of the G8 Summit being held in Germany this week.

He offers a new prism through which to view the global economy - the four circles of a changing world. Suggesting that North-South, East-West divisions are nowadays fatally anachronistic, he suggests there are four levels of development - each with their own concerns moving forward.

Why am I mentioning this on the Peace Post? Well, there's increasing research and discussion about the intersection between poverty and conflict, poverty and terrorism. And Wolfensohn sketches a useful analytical tool for us to use in that effort.
For example, he mentions:
"A third tier - a much larger number of economies, perhaps 50 in all - have experienced growth spurts, but also periods of decline or stagnation, especially once they hit middle income country status.

Spanning from Latin America to the Middle East, these economies have been forgotten by the G-8 leaders. They are neither poor enough to warrant special aid, nor sufficiently large and fast-growing to be major players in global growth. Yet more than a fifth of the people in the world live in these countries."

Now we begin to see how this model may be useful for policymaker --- too poor to benefit greatly from globalization, but too rich to warrant aid and attention....... The Middle East.... over a billion people....

"A fourth tier, a billion people, live in the poorest countries, which continue to stagnate or decline. These countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, gain little from globalization but are among the most vulnerable to its adverse effects, such as climate change and higher natural resource prices. The human tragedy engulfing this group is a huge concern and political challenge to the rest of us."

Wolfensohn ends his op-ed by appealing to the G8 for leadership - long-term, over the horizon stlyle leadership.... not merely on single issues but on forging a new global compact recognizing our interdependency.

Fingers crossed.


Tuesday, June 5, 2007

ETA Ceasefire ends - what's best policy in handling "terrorist group" ceasefires?

ETA - the group labelled "terrorist" by US, Spanish and other governments and institutions - struggles for an independent Basque homeland - to be carved out of Spanish sovereign territory.

They've had a 15 month ceasefire, and even launched negotiations with the Spanish government - seeking a diplomatic resolution.

Today they announced an end to their truce and a spokesman said it would “take action on all fronts to defend the Basque Country.”

(pic: Time Inc.)

Of course, they blamed the Zapatero Spanish government for their latest action.

Rather than engage in the blame game for this depressing development, let me pose a larger question:- how should governments respond when their terrorist-enemies declare ceasefires and truces? What is the best way to respond to them? --- accept them at face-value, use the opportunity to negotiate? or reject it out of hand as a ploy - perhaps to buy more time or ingratiate themselves with others?

In other words, how should governments react when their avowed enemies suddenly offer to lay down their arms????????

This question obviously is not confined to Spain. Israel, the US, turkey, Phillipines, Thailand and many other governments are fighting groups they call terrorists and insurgents.

My personal thoughts - generalized:- ceasefires and truces by all such groups should be supported by governments and others. Most of these conflicts do not have a military solution - inevitably it will be diplomats that forge a political solution - yes, a compromise - between the warring parties. Faced with that truth, the question then becomes one of timing:- when do we begin those negotiations - at the first opportunity? or delay for more advantage?

I don't think Spain made a mistake in talking to ETA. I can only hope that over the months of negotiations some good-will was established between the respective leaderships that may be preserved until the next ceasefire and inevitable round of negotiations. Let's hope they'll be more successful.

Monday, June 4, 2007

All Charges Dropped Against Gitmo Detainee

Third person to be charged under Bush Administration's "Military Tribunal" system of "law" has had all charges against him dismissed.

Khadr was 15 years old when he was captured - accused of throwing a grenade at US troops that caused several casualties.

Held for 5 years without seeing a court, he is now 20.

Charges dropped on a "technicality".

Despite having all charges dropped, it's expected he will remain at Guantanomo.

He is only the third detainee to be charged and brought before a military tribunal. The first David Hicks - an Aussie - also held for several years without trial has now returned to Australia where he is to serve less than a year behind bars.

What part of this story is the most shocking?! Your choice.

Friday, June 1, 2007

A Friday-afternoon look at Darfur

Friday afternoon in hot and humid DC. Got to keep it light.

Here is a link to a novel take on the Darfur crisis by Mark Fiore - appearing on Mother Jones website.

A great op-ed.... but my biggest grip with this and many other commentators is the labelling of Darfur as a genocide. It does not now classify as a genocide, and it may never have.

The UN set up a panel of experts to provide an authoritative voice to the debate over whether Darfur amounted to a genocide - they concluded it did not. That was back a few years ago when the conflict had not morphed into what it is today --- a complicated overlapping set of mini-conflicts between militias, rebels, tribal groups and the government. A high placed UN official involved in Darfur mediation told me personally that it is not genocide, and it actually is unhelpful to label it as such. He told me that more people are dying from inter-tribal clashes nowadays than they are from Janjaweed attacks.

I don't like genocide being used as simply an advocacy tool. it is a sacred word that deserves our respect - the way we can show that respect is by being careful when we employ it.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Truth about Global Arm's Trade

An op-ed from today's LA Times - we don't seem to hear such views in the mainstream press.

America -- the world's arms pusher

No one is paying much attention to it, but our top export is the deadliest.
By Frida Berrigan
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-berrigan21may21,0,4748613.story?coll=la-opinion-center
May 21, 2007

THEY DON'T CALL US the sole superpower for nothing. Paul Wolfowitz might be looking for a new job right now, but the term he used to describe the pervasiveness of U.S. power back when he was a mere deputy secretary of Defense — hyperpower — still fits the bill. Consider some of the areas in which the United States is still No. 1:

• First in weapons sales: Since 2001, U.S. global military sales have totaled $10 billion to $13 billion. That's a lot of weapons, but in fiscal 2006, the Pentagon broke its own recent record, inking arms sales agreements worth $21 billion.

• First in sales of surface-to-air missiles: From 2001 to 2005, the U.S. delivered 2,099 surface-to-air missiles like the Sparrow and AMRAAM to nations in the developing world, 20% more than Russia, the next largest supplier.

• First in sales of military ships: During that same period, the U.S. sent 10 "major surface combatants," such as aircraft carriers and destroyers, to developing nations. Collectively, the four major European weapons producers shipped 13.

• First in military training: A thoughtful empire knows that it's not enough to send weapons; you have to teach people how to use them. The Pentagon plans on training the militaries of 138 nations in 2008 at a cost of nearly $90 million. No other nation comes close.

Rest assured, governments around the world, often at each others' throats, will want U.S. weapons long after their people have turned up their noses at a range of once dominant American consumer goods. The "trade" publication Defense News, for instance, recently reported that Turkey and the U.S. signed a $1.78-billion deal for Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter planes. As it happens, these planes are already ubiquitous — Israel flies them; so does the United Arab Emirates, Poland, South Korea, Venezuela, Oman and Portugal, among others. Buying our weaponry is one of the few ways you can actually join the American imperial project!

In order to remain on top in the competitive jet field, Lockheed Martin, for example, does far more than just sell airplanes. TAI — Turkey's aerospace corporation — will receive a boost with this sale because Lockheed Martin is handing over responsibility for portions of production, assembly and testing to Turkish workers.

The Turkish air force already has 215 F-16 fighter planes and plans to buy 100 of Lockheed Martin's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as well, in a deal estimated at $10.7 billion over the next 15 years. That's $10.7 billion on fighter planes for a country that ranks 94th on the United Nations' human development index, below Lebanon, Colombia and Grenada and far below all the European nations that Ankara is courting as it seeks to join the European Union. Now that's a real American sales job for you!

HERE'S THE strange thing, though: This genuine, gold-medal manufacturing-and-sales job on weapons simply never gets the attention it deserves. As a result, most Americans have no idea how proud they should be of our weapons manufacturers and the Pentagon — essentially our global sales force. They make sure our weapons travel the planet and regularly demonstrate their value in small wars from Latin America to Central Asia.

There's tons of data on the weapons trade, but who knows about any of it? I help produce one of a dozen or so sober annual (or semiannual) reports quantifying the business of war-making, so I know that these reports get desultory, obligatory media attention. Only once in a blue moon do they get the sort of full-court-press treatment that befits our No. 1 product line.

Even when there is coverage, the inside-the-fold, fact-heavy, wonky news stories on the arms trade, however useful, can't possibly convey the feel of a business that has always preferred the shadows to the sun. The connection between the factory that makes a weapons system and the community where that weapon "does its duty" is invariably missing in action, as are the relationships among the companies making the weapons and the generals (on-duty and retired) and politicians making the deals, or raking in their own cuts of the profits for themselves and/or their constituencies. In other words, our most successful (and most deadly) export remains our most invisible one.

Maybe the only way to break through this paralysis of analysis would be to stop talking about weapons sales as a trade and the export of precision-guided missiles as if they were so many widgets. Maybe we need to start thinking about them in another language entirely — the language of drugs.

After all, what does a drug dealer do? He creates a need and then fills it. He encourages an appetite or (even more lucratively) an addiction and then feeds it.

Arms dealers do the same thing. They suggest to foreign officials that their military just might need a slight upgrade. After all, they'll point out, haven't you noticed that your neighbor just upgraded in jets, submarines and tanks? And didn't you guys fight a war a few years back? Doesn't that make you feel insecure? And why feel insecure for another moment when, for just a few billion bucks, we'll get you suited up with the latest model military, even better than what we sold them — or you the last time around.

Why do officials in Turkey, which already has 215 fighter planes, need 100 extras in an even higher-tech version? They don't, but Lockheed Martin, working with the Pentagon, made them think they did.

We don't need stronger arms control laws, we need a global sobriety coach and some kind of 12-step program for the dealer-nation as well.


FRIDA BERRIGAN is a senior research associate at the World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center.

Lebanese Army Battling Homegrown Al-Qaeda?

NY Times and others have reported of major armed clashes in and around Palestinian refugee camp in the north of Lebanon.

The Lebanese Army battling "Fatah al-Islam" -- reputedly an Al-Qaeda linked group.

TRIPOLI, Lebanon, May 21 — The confrontation between the Lebanese Army and Islamic militants at a Palestinian refugee camp continued unabated today, after an eruption of violence on Sunday that claimed at least 39 lives and left dozens injured.

Lebanese troops shelled locations within the Nahr al Bared camp on the northern outskirts of this city, which houses about 40,000 Palestinian refugees. Militants belonging to the Islamist group Fatah al-Islam shot back with heavy machine-gun fire. (continued below)

This is a remarkable story on many levels:

  • Lebanese Arab soldiers are dying fighting fellow Arabs - ostensibly in defence of their sovereign government, and against Al-Qaeda.
  • The attacks are centered around a Palestinian refugee camp. The descriptions and pictures hark back to the Lebanese Civil War, and the Israeli invasion of Beirut. Substitute the Lebanese Cypress for the ISraeli Star of David....
  • The Palestinian refugees are despised by many Lebanese - not only for being poor, crime-ridden, and a political sore-point, but also perceived to have fomented the disastrous Lebanese Civil War, under Yasser Arafat's leadership.
  • It remains to be seen how the other Lebanon militant groups respond - Hezbollah, especially.
  • Keep in mind, that Siniora's government is still dramatically unstable. Wide spread unrest may spell his fall.
  • How this will play out in Western media will be interesting to watch:-- simply put, the media message could be: Arabs fighting Arabs, in defence of democracy, and against extremism. A powerful message for a tired American, and Western public to hear.

Thick smoke rose above the city, and the taller buildings in the camp were visibly pockmarked by bullet holes.

During a two-hour ceasefire this afternoon, the Red Cross was allowed to evacuate 16 injured people from the camp. But the intense fighting resumed later in the day. Refugees caught in the fighting who fled the camp said there was growing anger that the shelling was being aimed at Palestinians.

Nine civilians were killed by shelling today, according to Reuters, adding to the 22 Lebanese soldiers and 17 militants killed in the fierce fighting on Sunday.

Witnesses said that militants belonging to Fatah al-Islam fired rocket-propelled grenades as well as machine guns today at army posts on the camp perimeter, according to Reuters.

The continuing violence is one of the most significant challenges to the Lebanese army since the end of Lebanon’s bloody civil war.

It raised fears of a wider battle to rout militants in the rest of Lebanon’s 12 refugee camps, where radical Islam has been gaining ground in recent years. That, in turn, raised the possibility of a deadly conclusion to the crisis, placing strains on the embattled government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Security was stepped up today in other camps as concern grew that the unrest might spread, government officials said.

A spokesman for Fatah al-Islam, Abu Salim, told the Associated Press that if the Lebanese Army did not stop the bombardment, the militants would step up its rocket and artillery fire “and would take the battle outside Tripoli.”

“It is a life-or-death battle,” the A.P. quoted him as saying. “Their aim is to wipe out Fatah al-Islam. We will respond, and we know how to respond.”

While anxious not to seem weak in the face of the militant challenge, the government and the military also want to avoid any scenes that might draw comparisons to the Israeli attacks on Palestinian camps in the West Bank and Gaza, military experts said.

Many of the complex crosscurrents of Lebanon’s politics have been visible in the crisis. The camp in Tripoli has been off limits to the Lebanese army under an agreement with the Palestinian leadership and Arab countries. On Sunday, Lebanese citizens, who hold the Palestinians responsible for sparking the civil war in 1975, cheered the army on the streets of Tripoli and outside the camp.

Syria, which Lebanon accuses of backing Fatah al-Islam, closed several border crossings in the area. And the fighting broke out as the United Nations Security Council took up a resolution to try suspects tied to the February 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syria has been accused in previous investigations of ordering the killing, but vigorously denies any connection.

Tensions rose further late Sunday night when a car bomb exploded in an empty parking lot in a Christian section of eastern Beirut, killing one person, wounding 12 others and sparking fears of an orchestrated terrorist campaign. Last month, Lebanese authorities charged four members of Fatah al-Islam with bombing two commuter buses carrying Lebanese Christians in another Christian district.

Fatah al-Islam has been a growing concern for security authorities in Lebanon and much of the region. Intelligence officials say that the group counts between 150 and 200 fighters in its ranks and that it subscribes to the fundamentalist precepts of Al Qaeda.

The group’s leader, Shakir al-Abssi, is a fugitive Palestinian and former associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia who was killed last year in Iraq. Both men were sentenced to death in absentia for the 2002 murder of an American diplomat, Lawrence Foley, in Jordan.

In the six months since he arrived from Syria, Mr. Abssi has established a base of operations at the Nahr al Bared camp, the scene of the fighting on Sunday.

What began as a raid Sunday on several homes in Tripoli in pursuit of suspected bank robbers connected to Fatah al-Islam quickly escalated into an open confrontation with the group at their stronghold in the camp.

Three soldiers and four militants were killed in the early morning confrontation, said a Lebanese security official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Hours later, they said, militants tied to the group attacked an army patrol in the Koura region south of Tripoli, killing four more soldiers. The gunmen also attacked soldiers who were passing by and were unaware of the fighting, said Lebanon’s information minister, Ghazi Aridi.

The fighting raged through Sunday afternoon at the camp as army reinforcements rushed to the scene and tanks began shelling targets in the camp. Militants who had taken positions around the outskirts of the camp fired back, keeping the army at bay.

Four children and three women were injured in the shelling Sunday, said one medical official, who requested anonymity because his organization forbids members from speaking to the news media. But residents inside the camp, reached by telephone, said at least two civilians had been killed and more than 45 had been injured in the shelling.

There was no independent verification of the residents’ claims.

By nightfall on Sunday, the army had regained control of several outposts surrounding the camp, but the siege of the camp continued. Soldiers manned checkpoints in the area and filled the streets late Sunday night, and armored personnel carriers rumbled through the city.

Residents of Tripoli expressed support for the army’s efforts. “This should have happened from the start,” said one man, who stood in a crowd of onlookers as the tanks fired into the camp. The crowd shouted, “God is great, and God protect the army,” with each shell fired.

“We wish the government would destroy the whole camp and the rest of the camps,” said another in the crowd, Ahmad al-Marooq. “Nothing good comes out of the Palestinians.”

But military experts said a direct assault on the camps would be a grave mistake. “We cannot afford to have that here,” said Elias Hanna, a retired army general, who warned against such a move. “This is not a question of the army’s capabilities or its professionalism. You simply can’t send the army into the camps to arrest 200 people without paying a heavy price in civilian casualties.”

Residents of the camp said that water and electricity had been cut off, and that an effort to convince the militants to hold their fire to allow the Red Cross to evacuate injured civilians collapsed because the Lebanese Army said it could not guarantee the medics’ security.

Lebanon’s 400,000 Palestinians remain among the most downtrodden refugees in the Arab world, enjoying few rights and facing strict restrictions on the kind of jobs they can take. Most are limited to menial, low-paying work and face significant prejudices.

Some refugee camps, in turn, have become fertile ground for growing militancy, especially focused against Israel.

In recent years the ranks of religious militants bent on a broader jihad have swelled, as some have traveled to Iraq to join the insurgency there and, more recently, have returned to establish movements of their own within the camps.

“The army will not be able to defeat them,” said Ahmad Skaff, 20, who lives near the camp, and who said he watched the militants gather outside the camp early on Sunday, carrying grenade launchers and other weapons, ready for a fight. “They are fearless; they will slaughter the army.”

The bomb in Beirut exploded just before midnight on Sunday in a parking lot behind a towering shopping mall called ABC and next to a multilevel garage. There was no clear target, though it may have been aimed at moviegoers who sometimes leave the mall around midnight. But the lot was relatively empty at the time of the bombing.

The explosion shattered the windows of apartment buildings and stores for blocks around. Fire trucks and police vehicles inched their way through the crowded, narrow streets toward the site. Lebanese soldiers in berets and green camouflage fatigues pushed back hundreds of people trying to shove their way into the area, many snapping photos with their cell phones.

“We thought the building had collapsed because it was so strong,” said Hamid Saliba, 39, as he and his wife gingerly stepped through the debris of her mother’s apartment, just a few hundred feet from the blast site. A painting of Jesus Christ hung askew on a wall.

Edward Wong contributed reporting from Beirut, and Nada Bakri from Tripoli. Graham Bowley contributed reporting from New York.