Port, and a storm: sectarian violence in Lebanon

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. I'm your host, Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. The Nobel Committee praised this year's Peace Prize winners for their courageous fight for freedom of expression in the Philippines and Russia. We speak to Dmitri Muratov, one of the winners, about what the award means to him. And to the growing list of foreign owners of English football teams, add Saudi Arabia, its sovereign wealth fund was involved in acquiring Newcastle United. We ask why autocrats take such an interest in England's beautiful game. First up, though, Today in Lebanon, Prime Minister Najib Mikati announced a national day of mourning in Beirut yesterday. Gunmen killed at least six people in Lebanon's worst sectarian violence in years. The shooting came during a protest organized by the Shia Muslim groups Hezbollah and Amal. They had gathered to object to the judge who was investigating last year's port explosion, which killed more than 200 people and shattered much of Beirut's center. Eyewitnesses said that snipers from nearby buildings had fired into the crowd. Then there were clashes in the area, which straddles a Shia neighborhood and a Christian one, a reminder of the sectarian violence that fueled the country's 15 years year civil war. In response to the shooting. Michel Aoun, Lebanon's president, urged calm. The port explosion exposed Lebanon's political rot to a people already struggling through a crippling economic crisis. Lebanon's currency continues to tank and energy woes keep its people in the dark for much of the time. And the effort to shed some light on the explosion is only bringing more.

Instability, as is so often the case in Lebanon. We know the middle of the story, but we don't know the beginning.

Greg Karlstrom is our Middle east correspondent.

There are videos that seem to show snipers firing into this crowd of protesters quite early on in the protest. But we don't know who those people were. But what is clear is that this has taken an already difficult situation for this port investigation that was facing a number of legal and political challenges and has now presented a much more tangible physical challenge to continuing this investigation.

And the people who were killed at this protest group, what were they protesting against?

This was billed as a protest against politicization of the port investigation, but I think it's fair to say it was in fact a protest against the investigation itself. The judge who's overseeing the investigation, Tarek Albitar, by all accounts seems to be taking his job seriously. He's summoned a number of high ranking officials for questioning, including former Prime Ministers, former cabinet members, some of them have refused to show up for interrogation. And he has subsequently issued warrants for their arrests. And that has, of course, engendered a lot of opposition within the Lebanese political class. This protest in particular was organized by the two main Shia parties, Hezbollah and Amal. They have been very critical of the investigation. And there have also been efforts in court by ministers and politicians affiliated with Amal to try and shut down the investigation in court. In fact, it was suspended earlier this week pending the outcome of a lawsuit. So again, there was already a legal and political challenge to this investigation, and it's now become something much more.

So we spoke to you at the one year anniversary of the explosion, and you said that the investigation had so far provided more questions than answers. It appears that's still the case.

And that is unfortunately always a safe bet, always a likely turn of events in Lebanon. There is a long history of impunity in Lebanon. The civil war ended with no real accountability for its perpetrators. And fact, there was an amnesty law that allowed many of them to become politicians. There's been a wave of assassinations over the past two decades, again for which no one has been held accountable. And there is certainly an effort to do the same thing in this case. Judge Bitar, the judge who's overseeing it, he's the second judge to hold this job. His predecessor was removed earlier this year because he was found to be biased because his house was damaged in the explosion, which of course, given the scale of the explosion, it's farcical. Just about anyone who lived in central Beirut at the time had their house damaged or destroyed, myself included. This was something that affected a huge share of the population in Lebanon. But that is the level of opposition to accountability that even these sorts of ridiculous claims can gain traction. And again, we're seeing that play out here with Hezbollah and Amal. Both of them say the investigation is biased against them. What they really mean is that the judge has summoned their politic, has summoned their allies for questioning, and they're worried this is getting a little too close to them, and so they're determined to try and stop it.

But you suggested there's also something of a more purely political angle to it.

There is a political angle when Hezbollah is involved. In particular, this is the most powerful, most influential force in the Lebanese political system. This is a group, of course, that was founded in the 1980s, a Shia group that spent its early years fighting against the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, which continued until the year 2000. And it's trying to position itself now as simultaneously the savior of Lebanon and also the guardian of the political order that created this economic crisis in the first place. So, on the one hand, over the past few weeks, it has brokered a deal with Iran to send shipments of fuel to Lebanon via Syria as a way of trying to ameliorate the country's energy crisis, which has become quite severe. The national power grid can only squeak out one or two hours of electricity each day. It went down altogether earlier this week because the main power plants ran out of fuel. On the other hand, the group has worked very closely with Amal, the other main Shia party, to ensure that they can decide who holds the Finance Ministry. They've had control of that ministry since 2014. They have control of it once again in this newly formed Lebanese government. So we have a situation now where the party that oversaw the Finance Ministry when Lebanon was running a state sanctioned Ponzi scheme, when it was taking on unsustainable levels of debt, is now the same party supposedly in charge of overseeing a financial rescue plan that has worked out about the way you would expect. The party has in fact been an obstacle to a financial rescue plan over the past 18 months. So, again, on the one hand, eager to look like a savior, but on the other hand, also keen to preserve the system that caused this mess in.

The first place and now add to that some sectarian violence. I mean, where do you see things.

Going from here in terms of the port investigation? There is certainly a lot of pressure both within Lebanon and without to continue it. The families of the victims have become a somewhat influential force over the past year. We've also heard from a number of Lebanon's partners around the world that they would like to see a proper investigation, including just yesterday when Victoria Nuland, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State from America, was on an official visit to Lebanon. But what happened yesterday in the streets of Beirut certainly makes it more difficult to continue this investigation. I would make a parallel to something that happened in 2008 when Hezbollah gunmen took over temporarily parts of Beirut for a few days. The cause back then was a dispute over a telecommunications network that Hezbollah was running. The government wanted to shut it down. And so the question can the group run a communications network outside of the state? And by deploying gunmen in the streets, it sent a very clear message that any action that was perceived as a move against the group would have very severe consequences. I think the same message was sent yesterday. Regardless of how the shooting started in the first place, the fact that these parties organized a well armed protest in the middle of town, I think, sent a very clear message about what they are prepared to do should this port investigation continue.

Thanks very much for joining us, Greg.

Thank you.

For more analysis like this from our international network of correspondence, take out a subscription to the Economist. Get a great introductory deal@Equality.com IntelligenceOffer the link is in the show notes. A week ago today, the journalist Dmitri Muratov was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to defend freedom of expression in Russia. The Nobel committee called Mr. Muratov and Maria Ressa of the Philippines, representatives of all journalists who stand up for this ideal. Mr. Morotov dedicated the award to six fallen colleagues at his newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, who had been killed following their investigations into stories such as torture in Russia's military and the war in Ukraine. It's not clear the award will lead to greater press freedoms in Russia or the Philippines, but it certainly shines a light on the places where journalists are doing the work of truth telling that governments are not.

Dmitry Muratov is a veteran investigative liberal journalist. He's been around for a good 20 years or more, and he pursues the kind of stories and investigations that precisely the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin and the powerful, the oligarchs and the corrupt, do not want to have pursued.

Anne McElvoy is a senior editor at the Economist and host of the Economist Asks our interview show. She first met Mr. Morotov, reporting from Russia in the 1990s and caught up with him after his Nobel win.

It all started very small scale. He set up Komsomorskaya Pravda with a group of colleagues in the early 1990s, when I first remember meeting him. And then they broke off to start something called Norway Gazeta, the new newspaper. And the aim was to create what they said was an honest and independent news source in Russia. And largely they have succeeded. This is really what they've received the Nobel for and the bravery of their work. But it certainly hasn't been at all easy and probably harder than even Muratov would have envisaged.

And why is that? Why so much harder?

Well, Jason, because the stakes rose so dramatically from the early 2000s, when prominent journalists and investigators and those close to them, lawyers and politicians, were being murdered or coming under serious threats, being forced into bankruptcies. So there's a grim total of six prominent journalists and friends of Novaya Gazeta who have been murdered since that period in a way that suggests it was connected with their opposition advocacy. And Muratov has continued to investigate These killings.

And you've been speaking to him after his Nobel win?

Yes, I managed to catch up with him, which is quite hard to do at the moment, because obviously he's getting a lot of publicity and attention. And as it happened, he was on his way to have tea with Mikhail Gorbachev, who was an early backer of his at Novaya Gazeta. Ah, Dobrdin Dobride. He was in the back of a car, so that accounts for something of the quality of the call. I asked him how had celebrated this award, and he said he'd been drinking with colleagues. He said, we are Russian people, after all.

And so what was the Nobel actually given for? Was this expected, do you think?

I think it was a pleasant surprise to Novaya Gazeta. There's some argument about who deserves this award most. That's not unusual in Russia, but certainly the judges would have been looking into the subjects the paper has investigated relentlessly. Torture in the military, the war in Ukraine, the secrecy around that. The relationship between power in Moscow and that lawless, violent world of Chechnya, where homosexuals are being targeted by particularly cruel and ruthless leadership. And of course, it commemorates the six journalists who have lost their lives along the way, and perhaps particularly Anna Politkovskaya, who was such a prominent member of Dmitry Muratov's team at Novaya Gazeta.

And what are the circumstances around her death?

This month marks the 15th anniversary of the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. She was a journalist of particularly extraordinary determination. She investigated human rights abuses under the Chechen leadership of Ramzam Kadyrov and his links with the Kremlin and with Vladimir Putin personally. So she was fearful, fearless in putting herself in the way of danger. And she was gunned down at her apartment on October 7, 2006, in the middle of a big reporting campaign. And when I spoke to him, Mr. Muratov was at pains to say that this was a prize for colleagues who had perished.

And so how has the award of this Nobel then gone down with the very people that he was reporting on? Vladimir Putin and the rest of the Kremlin.

People in the Kremlin who are mouthpieces, really, of Vladimir Putin, speak out of both sides of their mouths on occasions like this. They said that Mr. Muratov was brave and idealistic, but at the same time, the Kremlin is clamping down on independent Russian journalism very harshly at the moment, is designating many of them to be foreign agents, effectively barring them from their profession. This is not a fate that's been visited on Novaya Gazeta. And that leads to accusations in some quarters that it's a kind of licensed opposition of all Russian politicians. It fell to Alexei Navalny to congratulate Mr. Muratov in a message that was passed on from the jail cell of the leader of the opposition. Mr. Muratov in return said, well, if he'd had any say in it, the prize would have gone to Navalny. So I think honours were even on that one.

Either way, though, to get the blessing of Mr. Navalny must have pleased him.

The intervention of Alexei Navalny congratulating Mr. Muratov was, I think, a significant moment because there's an argument going on and it's quite vehement in Moscow and beyond opposition circles about the extent to which those who are not on this effectively almost banned list of journalists have in some way made compromises with Putin and with those in power. When I put the accusation to him that his newspaper has had to make some compromises, it couldn't be wholly free within the Russian system and still allowed to operate, he didn't like that at all. His response was, frankly, a bit tetchy. He said, our readers know that not to be true. We have never taken a penny of state funding. Alexei Navalny, his message to me was pretty clear. Well, if it's good enough for Navalny as the leader of the Russian opposition, well, it should be good enough for you.

And do you think the awarding of this prize for this work for Mr. Muratov and his newspaper will have any effect on press freedom, on the situation in Russia in a more general sense?

I think it buys them time and I think it buys them some protection. One can never say that 100% in Russia. It's a boost of confidence as well to Russia's opposition, who, like the co recipients of the prize in the Philippines, often feel forgotten. And I have to say, Jason, even as someone who keeps up with this, since I covered it in the 1990s and a bit more in the 2000s, it's easy to forget the names, it's easy to forget the granular detail of what people have gone through in order to report. With some independence on Russia and its clampdown on freedoms, I think this award brings it back centre stage. And from that point of view, it is seen as great encouragement that the Nobel judges have done so.

And on that note, you're going to be speaking with the other recipient of the prize next week on Economist asks.

Yes, I'm going to be talking to Maria Aresa, who co founded a New site called Rappler about 10 years ago in the Philippines. It's one of the few media organizations there to be openly critical of President Duterte and his repressive policies. So have a listen, Jason.

You know I will. And thank you very much for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

This weekend in English Premier League football, Newcastle United will play Tottenham Hotspur, Newcastle's first match since coming under new ownership. Last week, a consortium backed by Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund, chaired by the kingdom's Crown Prince Mohammed bin salman, coughed up £300 million for the club. The sale prompted thousands of fans to gather outside the club's ground as if celebrating a major victory.

There can only be a good thing, you know, to compete again in the Premier League.

Just pray, prayed in the City again.

You know, and, you know, instead of being the laugh and stock.

The last time Newcastle United won a major victory on the Pitch, though, was 1955.

The pass from Mitchell went to his.

Inside man, George Hannah. He banged it home from 10 yards.

Up.

A 31 win in the FA cup tournament over Manchester City. The massive new investment has given long suffering Newcastle fans genuine cause for optimism. But it's led to plenty of awkward questions about why the Saudi regime has decided to invest.

Amnesty International called the deal an attempt at sportswashing its appalling human rights record.

Bill Ridges is an editor at the Economist.

It points to incidents such as the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, who was a journalist who was critical of the Saudi regime. Saudi Arabia has a reputation for other human rights abuses, locking up its critics and suppression of women's rights. And so there's been a real, I think, a lot of soul searching within English football about the direction that it's going with yet another club being brought up and associated with an autocratic regime.

Yet another. There are more, yeah.

So the two other obvious ones are Chelsea, which was bought by Roman Abramovich, a Russian oligarch, in 2003, and the accusation there is really that it was bought at the behest of Vladimir Putin, although Abramovich has strongly denied that that's the case and indeed is bringing a libel case on the subject. Then in 2008, Sheikh Mansour, who is a leading royal in Abu Dhabi, bought Manchester City football club for £150 million. But there are other examples. Arsenal Football Club is sponsored by Rwanda, and that is another problematic state led by Paul Kagame, who has been implicated in many human rights abuses as well.

So why is it, though, that authoritarian regimes with spotty records or people associated with them would take such interest in English football clubs.

I think there are a couple of reasons. The first one really is a projection of soft power. So sportswashing is the obvious accusation levelled against these regimes at the hope that they are buying acceptance and normality through sponsoring these football clubs which are watched the world over. And it's also sometimes seen as a sort of beachhead into English society. So when Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea, this kind of coincided with a point at which a lot of Russian firms linked to these oligarchs were trying to raise capital in the city of London. And I think a second reason is that it gives these regimes some sort of clout within FIFA, which is the body which governs the global game. So it surely helped Russia's cause when they bid for the 2018 World Cup. And the same goes for Qatar. Qatar owns Paris Saint Germain, which is the most high profile club in France, and they were awarded the World cup, which will take place next year.

And what about the effect that it has on the game within the league, pouring in this kind of money wherever it comes from? Is it possible to buy success here?

Yes, it's clearly possible to buy success. I think the biggest correlation with success is the amount of money that is spent and particularly on players wages. And so Manchester City, in the sort of decade and a bit in which Sheikh Mansour has owned the club and poured in his billions, it's won the Premier League five times. Of course, there are always exceptions to that. But what happens when you have five or six clubs or seven clubs who are equally super wealthy? Then of course, buying success becomes more difficult because you're competing with other teams which have huge wealth. And the other issue is now the clubs which are not owned by these billionaire oligarchs and royals and businessmen are now looking to say, well, there is no way that we can compete with Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea and now Newcastle, unless we get a sugar daddy of our own. And I think one worry for English football is it's just going to become this sort of billionaires circus. And it's probably, to be honest with you, nearly there already.

Thanks very much for your time, Bill.

Thanks, Jason.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. The show's editors this week are Kim Gitelson and Chris Impey and our sound engineers, William Warren and Will Rowe. Our senior producers are Duncan Barber, Sam Colbert and Sam Westrin. Our producers are Stevie Hertz and Alize Jean Baptiste and assistant producers Jason Hoskin and Abasoye Ocean. Dairo. With extra production help this week from Lorefta Merced and John Jo Devlin. We'll all see you back here on Monday, Sam.