Reasoned Comments

Proxy Wars: Could the U.S. end up supporting al-Qaeda-like groups in Syria?

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:27:27 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

For the second time in several months, Russia and China have vetoed a UNSC resolution concerning Syria. The double veto last Saturday especially irritated the U.S. and European leaders because they thought that the Arab League’s proposal had been revised several times to meet Russia’s demands. Russia argued that the Western states had rushed the vote, despite its request to wait until after its diplomatic envoys visit Damascus on Tuesday. Both the West and Russia have reasons to maintain this bizarre diplomatic faceoff, but the true reasons are not necessarily the stated ones.

Russia’s hardline position must be understood in the context of its internal and regional politics. The same can be said about the Arab League’s proposal, which called on Assad to step down. Recent history, too, plays a major role in this clash between Russia and the U.S., a replay of the Cold War Era rhetoric.

Importantly, the Russian leadership may face unrest this March if the elections there return Putin to the presidency and his opposition rejects those results. The U.S. has already gone on record supporting Russian protesters. Russia does not want the Arab Spring exported to its streets, and they believe that saving the Syrian regime will be a test of their ability to manage similar crises.

The uprising in Syria is significant for Saudi Arabia, a country eager to weaken Iran. For this reason, Saudi Arabia, as well as Qatar, took leading roles in shaping the political and military aspects of this crisis. The Gulf States’ media coverage of the Syrian crisis fails to refer to violent armed groups. Russia, on the other hand, insists that armed groups should take the blame for the increased violence. Syrian state-controlled media blames most of the deaths on armed groups (which it calls terrorists). Independent journalists, most recently a crew from a Lebanese news outlet—al-Akhbar, described several border towns as being as militarized “forward bases.” The Syrian uprising, initially peaceful, has now been hijacked by Salafi militants who are financed and armed by Saudi Arabia via Lebanon.

Saudi involvement, however, did more than sponsor armed rebel factions. It awakened Russia’s dormant–but not forgotten–memory of the Saudi-American alliance that created the Mujahidin networks in Afghanistan, which in turn defeated the Soviet Union. The Saudi role in the Syrian crisis is eerily similar to the one they played in Afghanistan. Russia, the heir of the Soviet Union, does not want to repeat history and lose its long alliance with Bashar Assad–its most reliable international relationship in a critical region. Russia has decided it must challenge the replication of the Soviet-Afghanistan scenario. Russia has insisted on four demands before it will support any UNSC resolution:

1: No UNSC resolution authorizing a regime change in Syria.

2. No UNSC resolution authorizing military intervention in Syria.

3. No UNSC resolution banning arms sale to Syria.

4. No UNSC resolution condemning the Syrian regime’s violence without condemning the violence perpetrated by the armed groups.

These are Russia’s red lines. Kremlin leaders are convinced that Saudi Arabia is arming ultra-conservative groups and funneling money and weapons into Syria through its borders with Lebanon and Turkey. Some observers have concluded that Russia has already signaled to Assad that he should use military force to clear the towns. On Tuesday, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the head of the Russian foreign intelligence visited Assad to demonstrate their support, and insisted that armed groups should be held responsible for the violence against civilians and government security forces.

The U.S. on the other hand, is mulling the idea of arming opposition groups. On Tuesday, John McCain, ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee said that "we should start considering all options, including arming the opposition." The Obama administration is “not considering that step right now," according to White House spokesman Jay Carney. Instead, the administration is "exploring the possibility of providing humanitarian aid to Syrians." Although the White House played down the suggestion, its lack of a comprehensive strategy for Syria leaves the initiative in the hands of regional powers such as Saudi Arabia–which is thought to be already arming its favorite groups.

Clearly, the Syrian crisis is now turning into a regional and international turf war. The Saudis are eager to use Syria to settle the score with Iran. The United States is determined to see Iran further isolated. Russia refuses to lose its historical ally, Syria. The Muslim Brethren are becoming political opportunists. And the Syrian people are suffering as their government commences what it calls “decisive military action.” Should this conflict become more significantly militarized, the Syrian people’s hope for representative governance will evaporate in the heat of a bloody civil strife fueled by proxy war. The United States in particular ought to be careful pursuing a clandestine military partnership with the Saudis. The last time it did so, that partnership produced al-Qaeda.

§ Photos of Syrian armed groups are courtesy of al-Akhbar.

_____________________

* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. He is the author of the book, Contesting Justice. Opinions expressed herein are the author’s, speaking as a citizen on matters of public interest; not speaking for the university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.

Israel will not bomb Iran this year

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:56:55 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

I recognize that it is injudicious to make emphatic predictions like this one and it is especially impolitic to do so without access to all information. In this case however, all critical information is publicly available. The only important piece of information that we don’t know is whether or not Iran has or is close to having a nuclear bomb. But all those who are supposed to know don’t really know. The most recent estimate suggests that Iran could have the capacity, the knowledge, and the material to produce several crude nuclear bombs within one year. Similar claims were made at least five other times in the past 25 years.

Increasingly, talking about Iran as a nuclear threat is becoming an exclusive hobby for politicians. Although some of the Arab regimes feel equally threatened by a nuclear Iran, only Israel seems to emerge as the subject of this threat. Israeli leaders have made it clear that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat and that they will do whatever is necessary to eliminate that threat, including a preemptive military attack. Unexpectedly, some U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, went as far as setting a time for such an Israeli military strike: this spring. Nonetheless, here are several reasons why, in my opinion, Israel will not attack Iran this year.

An education in occupation

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:10:27 PST

Cost of War comments:

Iraq has a history rich in contributions to various academic fields, and its universities were the envy of the Middle East thirty years ago. In the early years of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the education system in Iraq was well resourced, globally connected, secular and open to women. University education was free and literacy levels rose from 52 percent in 1977 to 80 percent in 1987. The near collapse of Iraq’s education system was the culmination of a process of decline that gathered pace with the international sanctions regime of the 1990s, culminating in the war of 2003 and its aftermath. Iraqi universities were stripped clean not only of cultural artifacts like books but also of the basic infrastructural items that enabled them to function at all. Due to international sanctions following the 1991 Gulf War, foreign bureaucrats blocked requests for education materials and resources. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, museums and university libraries were looted and many of their cultural artifacts and documents destroyed, despite earlier pleas from the Pentagon’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance to protect cultural heritage sites in Iraq. Jerry Bremer’s DeBaathification process, initiated in 2003, led to the removal of half the intellectual leadership in academia regardless of whether or not they truly believed in the Baath party.

Many professors were kidnapped and assassinated during the violence that followed the US invasion. While the exact number of academics killed is difficult to determine, estimates by journalists range between 160 and 380 by 2006. Female students have meanwhile become targets of threats and intimidation by fundamentalist militia groups. In just three decades, Iraq’s universities, reputedly the best in the Islamic world, were effectively destroyed.

In 2004, John Agresto, the US Senior Advisor to the Ministry of Education, assessed the rebuilding needs of devastated Iraqi universities. He requested from Congress $1.2 billion even though the UN and World Bank had estimated it would take almost $2 billion to “ensure minimal quality standards of teaching and learning.” Nonetheless, Agresto received $8 million, less than 1 percent of what he had asked for.

Far from the battlefield, American universities have paid a less visible price during the post-9/11 wars. The university system places greater emphasis on military research than it did prior to 9/11 and, as a result, diverts students from careers and researchers from other pressing projects they might pursue. Instead of tackling considerable public health problems such as diabetes and heart disease that kill large numbers of Americans, resources have been skewed towards a preoccupation with bioterrorism (which has killed five Americans since 9/11).

The war in Iraq harmed the Iraqi and American systems in different ways, resulting in the complete degradation of the Iraqi education system and a reallocation of research labor away from important health and other social problems in the United States.

*****

As the last American soldiers left Iraq in December, so, too, did many of the journalists who had covered the war, leaving little in the way of media coverage of post-war Iraq. While there were some notable exceptions -- including two fine articles by MIT's John Tirman that asked how many Iraqis had been killed as a result of the US invasion -- overall the American press published few articles on the effects of the occupation, especially the consequences for Iraqis.

An Academic's work provides some insight into the state of Iraqi universities.

Hugh Gusterson, an anthropologist, is a professor of anthropology and sociology at George Mason University. His expertise is in nuclear culture, international security, and the anthropology of science. He has conducted considerable fieldwork in the United States and Russia, where he studied the culture of nuclear weapon scientists and antinuclear activists. Two of his books encapsulate this work--Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (University of California Press, 1996) and People of the Bomb: Portraits of America's Nuclear Complex (University of Minnesota Press, 2004). He also coedited Why America's Top Pundits Are Wrong (University of California Press, 2005) and the sequel, The Insecure American (University of California Press, 2009). Previously, he taught in MIT's Program on Science, Technology, and Society.

Download the research paper >>

Islamists win again in Egypt confirming an emerging electoral trend

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:02:49 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

Two days before the anniversary of the Egyptian revolution that forced Hosni Mubarak out on February 11, 2011, the newly elected members of the Egyptian parliament (Majlis al-sha`b) convened for the first time and endorsed a member of the Muslim Brethren as speaker. Saad al-Katatni was elected on Monday receiving 399 votes out of 498 cast.

The 59 year old botany professor was elected to the current parliament as the representative from the province of Minya (south of Cairo). However, he is not new to politics. Katatni is a seasoned legislator who served as the leader of the Muslim Brethren parliamentary bloc between 2005 and 2010, when they ran as independents because, then, the Islamist movement was not allowed to field candidates directly.

The Egyptian results, compared to those of similar elections in Tunisia, Palestine, Iraq, and Turkey suggest that in any fair and transparent elections in the Islamic world, Islamist parties and their affiliates can easily win at least 40% of the votes. In fact, in the case of Egypt, Islamist parties together won over 77% of the seats. These results can be used as predictors of future elections in other Arab and Islamic countries in the area. Arguably, if fair elections were in Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, Islamists are likely to win 40% or more of the votes. The question, then, is no longer whether Islamists could win a majority in elections, but which strain of Islamism and by how much.

By all accounts, the elections in Egypt were unprecedented. More than 30 million people voted (over 60% of the eligible voters), and more than ten million of them voted for the party of the Muslim Brethren, the Freedom and Justice Party (al-Hurriyya wa-‘l-adala). This margin of victory allows that party to govern without needing to form a coalition with any of the major parties. The party won 127 seats through the party list and 108 individual seats for a total of 235 seats. The parliament consists of 498 elected members, ten appointed, for a total of 508 seats. They only need about 20 seats to establish a governing majority. Therefore, the Freedom and Justice Party has many options to form a majority government.

The FJP could enter into a coalition with al-Nur, the Salafi party that came second after winning 24% of the votes, a result that surprised most observers. The FJP could also merge with another Islamist party, the Center Party (al-Wasat), which won 10 seats and attract some of the independent members. Alternatively, it can enter into a governing coalition with both Islamist parties, a move that will heighten secular politicians’ anxiety. The so-called liberal parties combined won a mere 15% of the seats, led by the oldest party, al-Wafd, which came in third after securing 38 seats. However, despite the weak performance of al-Wafd, the FJP might be inclined to enter into a coalition with it instead of one or both of the Islamist parties, which it considers to be direct competitors.

Regardless of the coalition choices the FJP may make in the next few days, this body of elected representatives will be tested as it faces a host of problems during this transition period. Importantly, the leaders of the parliament must appoint a committee consisting of one hundred members tasked with drafting the new constitution. The FJP will face pressure from the right as well as from the left.

The ultraconservative al-Nur party, whose supporters have generally shunned democracy as un-Islamic, will likely push for the inclusion of explicit language about the shari`ah being the main source of law in the new constitution. Liberal politicians and western governments will advocate for a constitution that favors secularism. It is likely that a compromise will be struck that will enshrine shari`ah as a main source of law. Short of that, and if leaders of the parliament cannot reach consensus on this and other critical issues, the military would likely intervene—a scenario favored by a number of military leaders.

One thing is certain however: the next Egyptian president will not be allowed to consolidate power the way Mubarak and his predecessors did in the past. The Muslim Brethren implicitly endorsed such a plan. First, immediately after the fall of the regime, that party announced that it will not field a presidential candidate. The move was interpreted as reassurance to the Egyptian public and foreign governments that Islamists are not interested in a power grab. That move did not mean that Islamists are disinterested in the position. Instead, they are interested in reforming it. Second, all indications show that the Muslim Brethren favors a ceremonial presidential position and a strong government under the oversight of the parliament. Ultimately, this divested-power model might benefit Egyptian society, which has suffered under authoritarian rule since independence. It may also promote the emergence of autonomous civil society institutions, which is necessary for accountable government.

The most important achievement of these elections, however, remains the embrace of the electoral paradigm for the determination of political legitimacy. Indeed, the ban on Islamists in past turned them into political martyrs. The Salafis’ rejection of democracy attempted to discredit the representative governance model. Now, the participation of more than one Islamist group in local and national elections takes religious absolutism out of the equation and empowers the people to determine their political leaders and institutions; that in and by itself is a step in the right direction.

___________

Class warfare or economic justice?

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:39:52 PST

When Romney resisted releasing his tax records unless he becomes the GOP nominee, the discussion that was started by the Occupy movement found new life. The fundamental issue is fairness in the U.S. economic system—not class warfare, as some would like to characterize it. Many in the Occupy movement believe that corporate influence in the political process unfairly disadvantages working people and rewards greed. One of the areas unfairly influenced by wealthy corporations and persons is the tax code. Many Occupiers want that system reformed.

The 1% have the means to not only influence the debate, but to buy the political leverage necessary to secure favorable outcomes. The absolute majority of the 99% want a fair system that neutralizes these influences. They don't want giveaways from the 1% and they are not opposed to capitalism and private property ownership.

The NYT reported that Mitt Romney, for instance, “has called for keeping the current low rates for capital gains and eliminating capital gains altogether for taxpayers making less than $200,000.” Joe Scarborough, a conservative commentator and former lawmaker, defended the low 15% percent tax rate paid by Romney and other wealthy individuals by suggesting that the money taxed at the 15% rate is actually taxed twice: first it is taxed as income at a higher rate and then taxed again as investment income. That is a disingenuous and misleading characterization of the facts. Here is why:

Let's say a hardworking Joe makes $100,000 a year. That income will be taxed at a rate closer to 35% than to 15%. After years of hard work, Joe saves $50,000, which he invests. At the end of the year, Joe receives a statement showing that he earned $2500 through capital gains, dividends, interest, etc. Only the $2500 Joe earned on top of his original investment of $50,000 will be taxed at the 15% rate; Joe is not taxed at a 15% rate on $52,500 (his original investment plus his gains). So there is no double taxation.

Now let's look at another scenario. John is a software engineer who has worked for Microsoft since the early 1990's. John's yearly salary is about $67,000. But when John was hired, he took the stock option the company offered its employees, which consisted of 5000 shares priced at $5 a share. After more than five years, John was able to sell these shares for the market value of $300 per share (a gross sale value of $1,500,000). The net income (after deduction for cost and fees) is taxed only once, at the 15% rate. Furthermore, it is only taxed the year it is sold, not every year John saw gains through increase in stock prices.

Let's look at a third example. Brinn is a programming guru. He quit school to start an Internet company. His company was so successful he valued it at $1,000,000 and made it a public company. Before the initial IPO, Brinn decided arbitrarily to fix the value of each share in his company at $1. Now Brinn's company is available for public trade, but not before he reserved 500,001 shares for himself and 200,000 shares for his employees or his favorite charity. Brinn is now the CEO of the new public company, too. He decides that he will receive $1 a year in salary, but will receive additional compensation in the form of stock options.

Because Brinn's company is awesome, everyone wants in. Joe used some of his saved money to place a bid to buy some shares. Before Joe is able to fulfill his order, the price of a single share in Brinn's company jumps to $50. Suddenly, Joe becomes the proud owner of 100 shares costing him about $5000, which drives Brinn's wealth to over $25,000,000.

Five years later, Joe sells his 100 shares at $100 per share (earning about $5000 on top of his original investment). Brinn, on the other hand, earns $50 million. He will pay the 15% tax rate on those earnings, because he does not have to claim it as earned salary income on his tax return. That is a best case scenario. Another equally likely scenario is this: after five years, Joe is forced to sell his shares to pay for an unexpected event. Although the price of the stock was up at some point near $100, when Joe needed to the cash however, the stock was $48 per share. Joe lost $200 in this investment. Brinn is still $47 per share ahead.

Capital venture investors use a multitude of methods to avoid paying the higher tax rate that 99% of monthly wage earners must pay. Stock options, property reclassification, tax shelters, and charitable donations are just few ways they control their wealth and avoid paying higher taxes. Business professionals have access to tools and knowledge that allow them to find the loopholes they need to pay minimum taxes.

Moreover, corporations and wealthy individuals "tax" the infrastructure, the natural resources, and environment more than the rest of us. They use heavy trucks on our highways and roads to transport their goods. CEOs travel in private jets that pollute our environment while hundreds of us travel crammed in crowded airplanes, buses, and trains. They use more energy in their huge mansions and air-conditioned offices in skyscrapers, while the 99% share fewer resources and use communal services.

In short, the 99% are not asking to take the 1%’s money, they just want a fair system that offers everyone equal access to resources, to public servants, and to the law. The 99% want true equal opportunity.

Newly proposed U.S. Internet laws

noreply@blogger.com (RC Editors) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:32:13 PST

All websites and Internet users could be affected by the recently proposed laws governing the Internet. Even if these bills were to be shelved this time around, it is likely that other laws will be proposed in the future. Jason Harvey posted a very good piece addressing the major issues of the current bills. We encourage our readers to read it and stay informed about governments' measures to control or censor the Internet. Here are the links to the actual bills and to Jason Harvey's piece:

PROTECT IP (Senate) AKA Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011
Stop Online Piracy Act (House)
Jason Harvey Article

Impact of an embargo on Iranian oil

noreply@blogger.com (RC Editors) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:57:07 PST

Strait of Hormuz

International news has been dominated by the Iranian issue these days. Not only the nuclear dispute is present front and center, but military confrontation was moved from the threat level to active planning level. In return, Iran put its cards on the table. Any attack on its nuclear facility will force it to attack all parties involved and all military bases in the region. Then, Iran announced that even in the absence of war, and if an oil embargo is imposed, it will close the Strait of Hormuz because it sees such sanctions as a declaration of war. A recent study, published by Chatham House, an influential think tank based in London, discussed the possible outcomes of an EU embargo on oil exports from Iran. The author made five key conclusions:

The initial impact is that the EU countries will have to find alternative supplies to replace their imports of heavy, sour crude from Iran.
The hunt for alternative supplies will create transitional friction for oil prices. Thus prices for heavy source crude in the Atlantic basin markets would increase and in Asia-Pacific they would decrease as Iran tried to find alternative outlets for the crude originally destined for European markets.
So far the analysis has assumed that Iran simply accepts the EU embargo without retaliation. This is extremely unlikely.
There has been much speculation that Iran's response would be to inhibit the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. This is unlikely. First, any closure would equally damage Iran's ability to export the oil on which its economy is so dependent. Second, serious and credible attempts to close the Strait are in effect Iran's 'big guns' on the issue of whether or not the United States (or Israel) would launch a military attack on Iran.
A more effective means of putting pressure on Iran would be for the United States to persuade the EU to extend sanctions to financial transactions. An oil embargo alone cannot succeed.

The study remains speculative and overlooks many other critical variables. Importantly, while the author gave ample space to western adaptation to the fallout of an oil embargo, it did not factor in Iran’s ability to adapt as well. The threat of closing the Strait alone increased the prices of oil. An actual instance of violence will devastate the world economy.

The author also estimated that Iran would not close the Strait because doing so would affect its own oil export. That may be true, but that neglects the fact that the closure of the Strait would impact other Gulf States more than Iran. Without the Strait being sealed, Iran’s export would be already impacted by the sanctions. With the Strait sealed, other Gulf States will be effectively under an embargo as well. Specifically. Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar will not be able to export any oil for the duration of any violence in the Persian Gulf. In other words, 40% of world supply will be impacted; but 100% of the oil export of those three countries will be shut down.

Lastly, Iran’s revenues from oil export are about 60%, relatively high. But the Gulf States dependency on oil export is even higher.

In conclusion, western powers ought to revisit their math and assess the likelihood of imposing more sanctions on Iran would bring about change that would outweigh further damage to the global economy and bring about the desired outcome in terms of Iran's behavior.

read research note >>

What is on the mind of Arab media

noreply@blogger.com (RC Editors) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:57:45 PST

via RCReadersFeed

Tunisia’ new leaders wanted to celebrate the revolution that deposed the old regime and ushered in representative governance. So they invited other Arab heads of state, but only several showed up. Of course, this is not a normal gathering. It is one that reminded the Arab rulers that they will all go unless they reform. Reportedly, the new Tunisian leaders sent invitations but only the leaders of Algeria, Libya, Qatar, and Mauritanian showed up. The rest of the countries sent low level representatives just to be polite. Tunisian media noticed this awkward party moment.

Although Tunisia and Egypt have more or less moved to representative governance with bloodless revolutions that removed the strong regimes of Ben Ali and Mubarak, the Libyan uprising was bloody and cruel. Nearly 50,000 people are said to have lost their lives and there are daily reports of gun battles between competing rebel factions. The instability in Libya did not go unnoticed in other Arab countries. Consequently, enthusiasm for revolutions is brought under check especially in places like Yemen and Syria. Arab media took notice of the change in attitude.

Here are some of the other themes discussed in several influential Arab news outlets recently.

Russia moves to limit its losses, editorialized the pan-Arab newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi:

"If you want to know the odds of a war taking place in the Middle East, just keep track of the statements out of Moscow and Washington and the movements of their respective vessels and aircraft carriers - especially now that Russia is waking up from a period of hibernation and is coming back strongly in the region to protect its interests."

The newspaper argued that Russia will not lose another Arab ally to the West. "Having taken stock of such a major loss, Russia is now determined to counter forcefully any US attempts to topple the Syrian and Iranian regimes," the newspaper concluded.

The newspaper pointed to the Russian ship loaded with weapons reportedly sent to Syria as evidence of this shift in policy adding that the "Russian aircraft carrier and other warships arrived in Syria's Tartous port" are a show of force aimed at reassuring Asad that military intervention will be met with military resistance:

"By dispatching an aircraft carrier and shiploads of weapons and other hazardous materials, Russia wants to send out a strong and unequivocal message to Arab governments and the United States, that it will not let down its Syrian and Iranian allies, after it has already lost Qaddafi's Libya and Saddam's Iraq."

To make matters very clear, Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian envoy to Nato since 2008, who was appointed in December as his country's vice premier for defense industries, said last week that "any military intervention having to do with Iran's nuclear program will be considered a threat to Russia's national security."

U.S. image in the Arab world: “soldiers abusing Muslims is a pattern”

Another issue that was picked by the Arab media is the US soldiers' scandal. Sharjah-based newspaper al-Khaleej editorialized that U.S. soldiers violating their own laws, like urinating on dead bodies, are not isolated cases; they are patterns of behavior. The paper referred to the humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison several years ago and said that that “showed how US soldiers were having fun dehumanizing prisoners in unimaginable ways.” The paper contended that other cases, such as “al-Nisour Square incident in Baghdad in 2007, when US soldiers killed more than a dozen Iraqi civilians for no reason.” Guantanamo Bay, the newspaper argued "is yet another flagrant example of the violation of basic human rights." The latest incident in Afghanistan is not "isolated or individual", the newspaper said. "It is a function of the usual method adopted by the US forces in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq."

Beneath the "Iranian Threat" Lie Neglected Voices

noreply@blogger.com (RC Editors) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:31:37 PST

By Navid Zarrinnal

An Iranian-American student visits the grave
of Mohammad Mossadeq; Ahmadabad, Iran.

Today, perceptions on Iranian life, society, and politics are shaped through the security concerns of the US's state and military apparatus. These security concerns are conceived of and expressed through fear-inducing phrases─ the most popular one now being the "Iranian threat." Dominant public discourses, from those in political speeches to the mass media, provide the American public with narratives that are also preoccupied with the "Iranian threat." Paying almost exclusive attention to the "Iranian threat" has made it difficult for most Americans to conceive of Iran in terms other than those denoting a threat to their country and the world. Even during public events on Iranian cinema, questions on the "Iranian threat" accompany the Q & A section.

These dominant discourses do an astonishing job of oversimplifying complex realities. In their obsession with the "Iranian threat," they exclude a number of realities formed by the experiences of over seventy million people from diverse backgrounds, and provide a simplistic image of Iran in the public mind. Additionally, these discourses are quite effective in dehumanizing Iranians. When phrases like the "Iranian threat" dominate public discourses, Iranians are viewed with suspicion and distrust, as the threatening "other," and are effectively deprived of the humanity they share with Americans.

A systematic inclusion of Iranian voices in the public discourse can help reveal the complexity of Iran, and more importantly, humanize Iranians. Iranian voices express a rich and dynamic struggle for human dignity─ a struggle characterized by a sustained opposition to absolutism (estebdaad) imposed through both internal and external forces. In their century-long struggle against absolutism, Iranians of diverse backgrounds have come together to create a constitutional government (dowlat-e mashrute) deprived of excessive and arbitrary powers. They have persisted in this struggle despite failures resulting from actions of power-hungry monarchs, the CIA, and a number of powerful Shi'ite clerics. Today, this struggle continues and is vividly evidenced in the social movement known as the Green Movement─ a movement that officially began after the disputed 2009 presidential elections. Green Movement participants are demanding a range of reforms, including a government that rules within its constitutional limits, individual liberties, and greater gender equality. Beneath dehumanizing discourses obsessed with the "Iranian threat" then lie non-threatening Iranian voices potently demanding the ideals of peace, liberty, and equality sought by all humans across the globe.

Iranian voices, though excluded from dominant discourses, are very real. Iranians speak on sociopolitical issues with intense courage and determination. Even when their voices are crushed, whether via CIA coups or by internal authorities, Iranians persist in voicing their concerns and continuing their struggles, often at great cost to their personal safety. The following passage provides one example of these neglected voices. Following a fresh set of US sanctions on Iran, Reza─ an Iranian citizen, contractor, and father of three children─ concerned with the future of his country expresses his thoughts on a number of sociopolitical wrongs inside and outside of Iran, all of which infect the Iranian population:

I do not know about the distant past, but compared to the past thirty years, today, people feel unprecedented levels of alienation from and opposition to politicians, military officials, intellectuals, and their own classes. The opposition between them is stronger than ever. A dozen people, let alone a couple hundred, can manipulate a nation's fate. No peace, voices are not heard, the press is defunct, institutions are dead, and the civil society is depressed—the collection of these is a prescription for death and darkness. The dissidents and those wanting to reform the nation are put into prisons and we do not engage in dialogue with one another. What is happening to us? Despite differences, now is the time to make peace between conflicting voices.We live in a time where as the world's resources are being plundered, we [Iranians] have come to symbolize savagery and aggression. These are our houses, resources, culture, and dignity that are being plundered. They take from our children's sustenance and give it to China and Russia, and after a circumambulation, this sustenance settles in the pockets of Western capitalists. Whenever plunder awakens us─ yes plunder─ they resort to the violence of war. They begin by murdering voices that are demanding reform and an end to the plunder. Aggression suffocates these voices and takes the place of dialogue.
We must speak through peace, critique, reflection, and a multiplicity of voices. Oh people! I kiss your hands! Speak out!

Not intending to undertake a careful analysis, Reza expresses some of his thoughts in a disjointed manner. He is distraught by both internal and external wrongs. The former stems from widespread social distrust and an emphasis on violence over dialogue to address national dissent and conflict. The latter is rooted in the implicit irony that, as economically and militarily powerful countries like the United States commit acts of violence and plunder the earth's resources, Iranians have come to symbolize savagery on the world stage, evidencing Reza's awareness that the public discourse─ in the United States and elsewhere─ has come to depict Iran as a savage nation threatening the US and the world. In his concluding remarks, Reza prescribes the need for the principle of peaceful engagement and dialogue which can weaken, if not eliminate, the internal and external wrongs he is concerned with.

Our discourses can continue to view the world from the security concerns of the US's state and military apparatus, instilling more fear in the hearts of Americans, or they can begin to include reasoned voices from Iran like Reza's, helping Americans look at their relations with Iran through their common human needs and aspirations, not through fear and a purported urgency to war.

Turkey and Iran navigate the Middle East tense issues

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:15:27 PST

via RCReadersFeed

Ali Akbar Salihi and Ahmet Davutoğlu

Turkish Foreign Minister held a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Salihi, in Tehran and reiterated his fear that the volatile Middle East might be headed for a new Cold War era unless a sectarian rift in Iraq is immediately mended. Ahmet Davutoğlu has urged Iranian officials to cooperate with Turkey in its efforts to stop the Sunni and Shiite sects from clashing in politically-fragile Iraq.
Before arriving in Tehran, Davutoğlu accused “certain actors” in the region of having sought to recreate the circumstances of the Cold War era, and reiterated Turkey's call for “overarching policies” for the region. To emphasized the similarity between the situations in Iraq and Syria, Davutoğlu stressed the “urgent need for solidarity." He argued:

"Turkey and Iran can contribute to a solution in Iraq and Syria. The regional awakening in the Middle East will make us and our relations stronger. We are now laying the foundations of an era that could last a century. States should not base their policies on sectarian and ethnic tensions.”

In a press conference on Thursday Davutoğlu affirmed the close partnership between Turkey and Iran, denying claims that the NATO defense shield Turkey permitted in eastern Anatolia was meant to target Iran, a country the US has made no secret that it labels as a threat. He contended that Turkish leaders trust Iranian leaders:

“We do not regard any country a threat to us; we confide in Iran and Iran confides in us; the trust is mutual... This is for defensive purposes only. We guarantee that this is not a threat to Iran. We would never take any step that could negatively affect our relations with our neighbor."

The range of topics discussed during the two day visit highlights the complexity of issues facing the countries of the region, especially Turkey and Iran.

Policy and politics of the first democratic government in Tunisia

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:16:20 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

Exactly two months after Tunisia’s October 23 elections, a peaceful transfer of power took place—a rarity in the Arab world. The outgoing prime minister, Beji Caid el Sebsi, handed the reins to Hamadi Jebali, one of the founding leaders of al-Nahda movement and a former political prisoner. The latter introduced his cabinet to the constituency assembly, which voted largely along political party lines to approve it. Forming a coalition government was understandably a struggle for a group of novices, many of whom had spent more time in prison than in government. But in the end, the parties put forth a respectable coalition of 30 ministers and 11 secretaries of state. Three political parties (Nahda, Mu’tamar, and Takattul) and some independents are represented in this coalition government. Several appointments in particular stand out.

The most controversial appointment concerns the foreign ministry, which was entrusted to Rafiq Abdessalam, a former politics and international relations student at the Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, London. The 43-year-old academic has no practical experience that would allow him to navigate the complex world of diplomacy, except his personal connections to some of the rulers of the Gulf States. It is believed that his appointment was meant to reward the historical leader of al-Nahda: Rachid Ghannouchi, his father-in-law. But this very fact did not please many Tunisians who had suffered from the actions of Ben Ali’s in-laws. Appointing the son-in-law of the leader of the winning party to a powerful position despite his lack of experience is a painful reminder of the corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power under the old regime. Nahda might suffer politically in next year’s elections because of this insensitive and probably foolish move.

Nahda leaders may have a saving grace in the new chief of the interior ministry. For most Tunisians, the interior ministry is a euphemism for police brutality. Under Presidents Bourguiba and Ben Ali, the ministry was used to eliminate political opponents, torture political prisoners, intimidate citizens, and spread fear—it was the tyrants’ favorite tool for subjugating peoples. One of the victims of this institution was Ali Laaridh, who was imprisoned for 15 years—13 years of them in solitary confinement—during Ben Ali’s rule. He was sentenced to death under Bourguiba’s regime. It is highly unlikely that a victim of torture and abuse would subject others to the same brutality. Consequently, Laaridh might well be the right person to rehabilitate the security forces and reform the institution.

Another reassuring face in the new government is that of Noureddine Bhiri. The 53-year-old lawyer is a moderate who spent years defending political prisoners. He, too, was imprisoned for his political activities. Many Tunisians, and other human rights activists, hope that his struggles for civil and political rights will serve him well as he leads the critically important ministry of justice.

Governing a country that has suffered years of mismanagement, corruption, and abuses of power is never easy. Forming a coalition government was the right choice. The three political parties seem to trust one another, and they all stand to lose a great deal if the coalition fails. They have months, not years, to deliver on three critical issues: unemployment, political reform, and economic growth. Even more importantly, they have the responsibility of setting new standards for the rest of the Arab world. The new standards must reflect transparency, compassion, and just use of power that demonstrates respect for human dignity

___________

U.S. sanctions on Iran are answered: announcement of new nuclear achievement

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 14:14:36 PST

On the same day the U.S. president signed a bill containing new sanctions on Iran, the latter said its engineers have succeeded in producing a nuclear fuel rod, a major achievement for the country’s nuclear ambitions.

Nuclear fuel rods are used at power plants. They contain small pellets of fuel, usually low-enriched uranium, patterned in a way allowing them to give out heat produced by nuclear reaction without melting down. Building one is a technological challenge, which Iran was thought incapable of overcoming.

According to the Iranian Nuclear Agency, the first rod produced by the country domestically has already been inserted into a research reactor, although it did not specify whether the device was loaded with fuel or not.

On Saturday President Barack Obama signed a controversial multibillion-dollar defense bill that contained new sanctions on Iran, which was said to reduce Tehran’s oil revenues and is expected to force the country into making its nuclear program more transparent. An Iranian official, the head of Chamber of Commerce Mohammad Nahavandian dismissed the new sanctions as “unjustifiable.”

In the past several weeks, Iran has been in the news since the Israeli media broke a story that some Israeli leaders were actively drawing out plans for attacking Iranian nuclear sites. Then, mysterious explosions rocked two military sites in Iran before that country announced the downing of a top-secret U.S. spy drone. While the Iranian navy was conducting a ten day war games near the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran threatened to close if U.S. and EU impose sanctions on its oil export, the administration approved a $30 billion deal setting fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.

Without doubt, even if Iran fails to shut down the Strait, any military tension in that region could raise the price of oil to at least $200—a blow to a fragile world economy.

Holding on to the past and the status quo, Gulf States seek political unity

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:16:44 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

The Arab world is fundamentally changing, and many Arab leaders are racing to adapt. Showing increased signs of nervousness, the leaders of the Gulf States have adopted the Saudi King’s recommendation to move the Gulf Cooperative Council (GCC) towards “unity.” The meeting of the rulers of the GCC member states that concluded on Tuesday December 20, 2011 also issued an unusually portentous declaration. The rulers expressed their fears of “attempts by foreign entities trying to export their internal crises through the effects of discord and division, and inciting sectarianism.” Therefore, they outlined a strategy “to fortify the home front” to counter these attempts through their “determination to achieve the highest degree of economic integration and development of defense cooperation and security.” Let’s attempt to decipher these seemingly cryptic sentences.

The dissipating prestige of the Egyptian military

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:17:07 PST

Despite evidence to the contrary, the Egyptian military continues to deny using violence against protesters and continue to argue that it is the legitimate power broker. On Tuesday, Gen. Adel Emara, spokesperson for the ruling military junta contended that the military had never used violence against protesters:

“The armed forces and the police pledged not to use violence against protesters actively or even verbally.”

When a journalist tried to display a newspaper image of a woman brutally beaten by military police he interrupted:

“Before you open the newspaper, fold it. I know what I’m talking about. Yes, this scene took place and we’re investigating it. But let’s look at the whole picture and see the circumstances the picture was taken in and we will announce the complete truth. Don’t take only this shot, you or any other, and cite it to prove that violence was used.”

Another Egyptian general said that the protesters are "delinquents who deserve to be thrown into Hitler's ovens." Gen. Abdel Moneim Kato, who serves as an adviser to the military's public relations department, made the remarks in an interview with the Egyptian newspaper al-Shuruq on Monday.

The military rulers think that they are the legitimate authorities despite the existence of the newly elected body. In fact, the military junta wanted to circumvent the work of the newly elected members of the assembly when it appointed a “civilian advisory council,” which in turn suspended its activities until the military stopped the violence and apologized. One-third of its roughly 30 members have quit already.

Egypt and the military are both better served by recognizing the fact that the junta’s ascent to power was ordered by an ousted dictator and that only an elected authority can claim legitimacy. The military rulers should transfer power to the newly elected body, which should adopt the Tunisian model and establish an interim constitution and an interim government until a permanent constitution is adopted and general elections are held.

related articles:

What can the Egyptians learn from the Tunisian experience?

Military is trickle-feeding democracy to change-hungry Egyptians

Libyan and European rulers’ treatment of Blacks and immigrant workers: Apathy in the face of Cruelty

noreply@blogger.com (SOUAIAIA) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:33:39 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

Since the start of the Libyan uprising, mainstream news outlets have reported that African and even Eastern European mercenaries were fighting with Qaddafi’s forces. The Libyan rebels, eager to minimize any support for Qaddafi among the Libyan population, have fed western media horror stories of mass murder carried out by Black Africans. Consequently, many immigrant workers were caught between the ire of a regime that did not care much for them and a new wave of prejudice and discrimination fueled by the media and rebel propaganda. The fact that some foreigners fought for the regime does not tell the full story. Most African immigrants were unwilling participants in a war that no one had anticipated.

In order to understand the presence of so many Africans and non-Africans in Libya, one must understand the role played by the former dictator.

Saudis depraved indifference

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:47:29 PST

The manufacturing and toleration of supremacism

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

Even before 9-11, before the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and before the war in Iraq, suicide bombers had targeted civilian Shiite worshippers in mosques and public places in a number of countries. The state of lawlessness created by war merely expanded this heinous trend to Iraq. Now, months before the scheduled U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the cruelty of supremacism was on display December 6, 2011 when a suicide bomber struck a crowd of Shiite worshippers at a mosque in Kabul, killing at least 57 people. Four other Shiites were killed in Mazar-i-Sharif when a bomb strapped to a bicycle exploded in a gathering celebrating `Ashura. The Kabul bomber blew himself up in the midst of a crowd of men, women and children gathered outside the Abul Fazl shrine to commemorate the death of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson, Hussain.

A Middle East run by Islamists: Should Western Powers Freak Out?

noreply@blogger.com (RC) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:42:01 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

In 39 days, three Arab countries held critical elections, Tunisia (October 23), Morocco (November 25), and Egypt (November 28-9). Although the elections in these countries have different contexts and implications, the three events have several things in common. First, the elections were made possible directly or indirectly by the Arab Awakening of early 2011. Second, before the Awakening, Western powers had labeled these three countries as “moderate,” a euphemism for undemocratic regimes run by a westernized elite. Last, these elections brought to power Islamist parties and groups that the west has labeled “extremists.” So should western governments now freak out?

In the short run, maybe. In the long run, not at all. Here is why.

What can the Egyptians learn from the Tunisian experience?

noreply@blogger.com (Assistants) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:17:39 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

The recent wave of violence in Egypt is new evidence that the Arab peoples want real changes, not cosmetic ones. The military leaders in Tunisia acted professionally and within the mandate of any professional military. They acted to protect the people, not a regime or a constitution that was written by an illegitimate regime. The Tunisian military stood on the side of the people and did not involve itself in politics. That institution now stands admired and respected by all Tunisians. The Tunisian people then elected a new body to lead the transition from authoritarian rule to a pluralistic representative one.

In contrast, during the Egyptian uprising, the Egyptian military stood in the middle. It did not shoot at demonstrators but it also treated Mubarak and his regime with deference. Consequently, the ouster of Mubarak did not delegitimize the institutions of the regime. Moreover, the military leaders acted in manner that preserved their privileged status. It was unwilling to transfer power to civilian authorities unless pressured to do so. The pattern of preserving privilege and power has been undeniable. So no one should be surprised today, when the people came back to the streets to demand the one thing they should have asked for the first time they rose up: the election of constituency assembly that will write a new constitution and establish an interim government.

But the post-Mubarak era is being founded on the institutions of an illegitimate regime. That is the fatal contradiction that is preventing Egypt from moving beyond its past. In a sense, the Egyptian revolution was aborted the minute the military assumed power. There is mounting evidence that the military leaders were not truly interested in keeping the peace while politicians tried to chart a new path to representative government. Instead, the military leaders created committees and commissions to amend the corrupt constitution and issue new ordinances and legal instruments that would limit the power and authority of future elected bodies and individuals.

The military leaders need to realize that credibility of their institution depends on their willingness to operate within the limits of the military proper mandate. Civilian rule, not military rule, is the only way forward. A military government cannot gain legitimacy merely by the consent of political parties, whatever their popularity.

In a reaction to the recent wave of protests, the leader of the High Military Council announced that the military could speed up the transfer of power to civilians if the people demand it in a referendum that the military states it is willing to facilitate. This very statement shows that the military leaders are disingenuous. If they have the time and resources to organize a referendum on staying in power, why not organize an election to elect a body that will govern and decide on the transition to representative governance instead? Moreover, if the military thinks that it is possible to hold one round of elections on November 28, why delay other rounds of elections to weeks later? The military leaders do not seem to understand that they lack legitimacy since they inherited power from a deposed ruler. Many Egyptians are now realizing this and they are not willing to allow the status quo to stand.

______________

* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. He is the author of Politics of Appearances. Opinions expressed herein are the author’s, speaking as a citizen on matters of public interest; not speaking for the university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.

The limits of objectivity: Qatari rulers reassert control over Aljazeera

noreply@blogger.com (Assistants) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:15:47 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

The leader of al-Nahda movement, Rachid Ghannouchi, made his first visit to a foreign country after the first post-revolution Tunisian elections. His choice was the State of Qatar. Analysts see many messages in this gesture but some Tunisians are troubled by the invitation he had extended to the Emir of Qatar. Although many do not want any foreign leader present during the opening session of the constituency assembly, some Tunisians are singling out the ruler of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, as a persona non grata. They see him as a bully who is using Aljazeera and his huge wealth to push an agenda that is not necessarily in the interest of their country. From the initiatives in which they have been involved, it is not hard to identify echoes of personal ambitions to amass power and influence. The Qatari officials seem to have found the winning trifecta for success. A quick analysis of their projects shows that they have built a project on three foundations: Arab neo-nationalism, Islamism, and private capital. The single most crucial tool that effectively connects these three elements is information and communication. Aljazeera, then, became the central piece. Through their petro-wealth, the rulers of Qatar bankrolled Aljazeera and through Aljazeera they initiated reciprocal relationships with Islamist and nationalist movements. In this essay, we will examine the conception and function of Aljazeera in the context of the Arab Spring and regional politics and the way the rulers of Qatar have leveraged it for their advantage.

Aljazeera satellite channel has been a reliable source of news for the Arab masses since it was launched in 1996. It has built a reputation of fierce independence, professionalism, and focus on the issues that mattered most to the Arab street. The Arab peoples had lost confidence in their national media, which are seen as the mouthpiece of repressive governments. The absence of independent media and the governmental control over information amplified people’s cynicism and distrust. The majority of Arab and Muslim countries have had a cabinet position managing information. Such governmental agencies are generally in charge of exerting state control over the press and all media outlets. In the eyes of the Arab masses, then, “Ministry of Information” became a euphemism for censorship and propaganda.

In 2000, Aljazeera’s general manager, Mohammed Jasim al-Ali, reiterated the Qatari rulers’ business philosophy and their vision for Aljazeera as follows:When the Qatari rulers decided to enter the business of satellite television, they wanted their venture to stand out by capitalizing on this public sentiment. In fact, immediately before launching the channel, the Qatari rulers dissolved the Ministry of Information. Many of the employees who worked for the ministry were eventually hired by Aljazeera and its various subsidiaries.

“I came to recognize something about the TV business in the Arab world: we concentrate mostly upon entertainment, quiz shows, drama, movies. But I think there is an important field that has been missing, talk shows and news. No one has developed the news, because the reputation of the media in the Middle East is that the news is censored and controlled by the government. All media business in the Middle East is controlled by the government. The leaders of Qatar wanted to change that; they want to have a satellite channel with the aim of no longer hiding any information.”

Although Aljazeera was funded by the government of Qatar and investors from the ruling family, initially, its management and journalists enjoyed unprecedented autonomy. For instance, the successor of al-Ali, Wadah Khanfar, was not even a Qatari citizen. During his tenure, Khanfar developed a healthy relationship with the rulers of Qatar and the religious icon Yousef al-Qardawi. He rarely allowed negative coverage of his host country but his coverage of the rest of the Arab world did not make him any friends. In fact, on many occasions, a number of governments including the Tunisian, Moroccan, Egyptian, Libyan, and Syrian ones shut down Aljazeera offices in reaction to what they deemed “libelous,” “slanderous,” and “poisonous” news stories. The Arab regimes’ hostility towards Aljazeera only increased its popularity among the Arab masses.

Furthermore, the Arab audiences’ loyalty to Aljazeera skyrocketed during its coverage of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Recognizing the Arab peoples’ disapproval of the war, Aljazeera multiplied its “un-embedded” reporters in the battle fields and beamed countless images of dead civilians to millions of Arabs prompting then-Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to call the channel, “the mouth piece of al-Qaedah.” When the U.S. killed one of Aljazeera’s reporters in an air raid, the place of Aljazeera as a reliable source of news for the Arab masses was cemented. The arrest and imprisonment of additional reporters, including the Afghanistan reporter whom the United States held in Guantanamo for years, also added to its popularity in Arab countries and around the world.

With this reputation and huge amount of goodwill capital, Aljazeera has consistently been able to influence public opinion. Many Arab rulers had accused it of inciting protest and dissent. Undoubtedly, the role Aljazeera played in the Arab Spring was unprecedented, especially during the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Many Tunisians credited the channel with speeding the overthrow of Ben Ali’s regime. In general, Aljazeera was loved by the Arab peoples and loathed by the Arab authoritarians--until the Qatari rulers decided to cash in on their unusual investment. The recent revelations about the foreign and national governmental interference in Aljazeera’s editorial decisions created a new context for the takeover.

It all began when Wikileaks revealed that the U.S. government used “soft pressure” to influence the channel’s editorial policy and daily coverage of events. In parallel, many people began to question the neutrality and independence of Aljazeera when the Arab Spring protests hit the Gulf States and Syria. Many observed that Aljazeera’s coverage of the uprising in Bahrain was timid or nonexistent. The same was said of its stories dealing with the protests in eastern Saudi Arabia and Oman. All the while, Aljazeera continued its hardnosed coverage of the Syrian uprising providing ample space to opposition figures and replaying unconfirmed clips about military personnel defections, kidnappings, and murder (some of which turned out to be fabricated).

In retrospect, the Arab Spring was a double-edged sword for Aljazeera in that it increased the network’s popularity but exposed the political and financial strings tying to the Qatari rulers. The fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes and the coverage of those two revolutions helped increase the popularity of the channel. The role of Aljazeera in inspiring the Libyan and Yemeni protesters is also undeniable. But when protest movements reached the Gulf States (Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia), Aljazeera’s coverage became inexplicably tame. It did not take long before viewers (and readers of the online resources) saw the double standard. Amid these critical moments, Khanfar was forced to resign (although he insisted that it was his choice), and a member of the Qatari ruling clan took over as the new general manager.

Immediately after this change in leadership, Aljazeera’s coverage became noticeably different, and even the comments on the channel’s website showed the change in viewers’ attitudes. During the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, Aljazeera’s online assets were hacked and in some cases crashed due to high volume of visitors. Since the uprising in Bahrain and Syria, however, online visitors’ tracking data show that fewer viewers and online users are relying on Aljazeera for news and information. The fast decline shows that viewers’ loyalty takes decades to build, but only days to lose.

Aljazeera’s role as a political tool became evident during its coverage of the Libyan conflict as well. Some Libyan leaders complained that Aljazeera routinely covered select groups and individuals who had links to al-Qardawi, one of the leaders of the global Muslim Brethren movement. He is also the head of self-styled International Union of Muslim Scholars, with which Ali Sallabi, a Libyan Islamist, is also affiliated.

The political role of Aljazeera came to light again when the Arab League, uncharacteristically, attempted to troubleshoot the Syrian crisis in early November 2011. It was reported that when the leaders of the organization submitted the proposal to the Syrian regime, its foreign minister insisted that the deal should include a stipulation requiring “certain television channels” stop their “poisonous” reporting.

At this time, there is no doubt that Aljazeera has become a powerful force and many governments wanted to either limit its influence or arrogate it for political purposes. The Qatari regime is very aware of this asset and they have been using it to raise their profile on the international stage. A tiny state with limited military power, Qatar relied on Aljazeera to become a major player in the region and around the world. Aljazeera’s popularity and influence among the Arab people meant that Arab governments were invested in controlling, to whatever extent possible, Aljazeera’s coverage of their regimes. The Qatari government was able to leverage this desire for control over media coverage into political advantage – favorable or unfavorable coverage of the regime became a bargaining chip in regional negotiations.

The rulers of Qatar, who have run their own country like a private business, have involved themselves in the affairs of many countries and organizations from around the world. Just to name a few diplomatic achievements and ambitions, they involved themselves in the Lebanese crisis that allowed Hariri to form a short-lived unity government, they played a pivotal role in ending the military conflict between the Yemeni government and the Houthis, they attempted to unite the Palestinian factions, and they tried to mediate the Somali conflict. The Emir and his prime minister, a distant cousin, reportedly visited Israel and secretly met with Tzipi Livni to boast of their pragmatism and ambitious aspirations.

The involvement of the Qatari rulers in too many initiatives, on too many sides makes it seem like they are engaged in ad hoc diplomacy. Their wide networks of military, political, and diplomatic relations make their strategy seem conflicted and unprincipled. But considering self-interest and personal greed as the driving forces, the logic in this multi-dimensional Qatari blitz becomes clear. Ultimately, these diplomatic, economic, and military initiatives would not have been possible without leveraging the influence of Aljazeera.

In this age of the promise and fragility of virtual realities, new technologies, when backed by bottomless financial pockets, can build ski resorts in desert lands, isolated artificial islands, roof-top golf courses, and endless shopping malls. From tiny offices in Doha, Aljazeera, as a pet project of the rulers of Qatar, projected itself around the world in style and grandeur, causing fear and paranoia in the hearts and minds of many Arab dictators. The sudden rise of Aljazeera was matched only by its swift loss of credibility when the Emirs decided to reclaim their prized creation.

Ultimately, however, the Qatari rulers, too, will realize that they are grasping the wind. The end of an independent Aljazeera will be a traumatizing blow to the Arab street. The Arab masses may revert to their default position for finding reliable sources of information. They will, once again, follow the official media to learn about events but read between the lines for the truth. Alternatively, they may work harder to find and support independent, but financially struggling, voices of bloggers and YouTubers for critical information.

As for the satellite television stations, we must recognize the unfortunate trend of disappearing independent journalism. Wealthy authoritarian regimes are reasserting their control over the means of communication and consolidating the tools of power and influence. This can only negatively impact peoples’ access to information, the corner stone for the founding of civil society and responsible citizenry.

______________

The anatomy of corrupting power: Nixon Grand Jury Records

noreply@blogger.com (SOUAIAIA) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:45:07 PST

On November 10, 2011, the National Archives in College Park, MD opened 26 files from its Records of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (WSPF) collection including transcripts of President Nixon’s grand jury testimony of June 23-24, 1975, pursuant to the July 29, 2011, order by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In response to a petition filed in the case In Re Petition of Stanley Kutler, et al., Chief Judge Lamberth ordered that the transcript of Mr. Nixon’s testimony and the “Associated Materials” to that testimony be released to the public following the review of these documents for any information that must be redacted as required by law. There are a few redactions made for the privacy of living persons. In addition, there are several portions of the testimony that were deemed to be properly classified for national security. These portions, as well as parts of the accompanying materials, have been referred for declassification. When the National Archives receives a reply to these referrals, the transcript and accompanying materials will be updated.

... access the Records

An attack on Iran means price of oil above $250 a barrel

noreply@blogger.com (Assistants) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:50:34 PST

A Thomson Reuters' report

An attack on Iran will bring oil price to above $250 a barrel according to a report published by an Israeli financial firm.

A leading Israeli investment firm said on Thursday any military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would exact an economic price too high for the world to accept, and as a result, it would likely acquiesce to a nuclear Iran.

A sharp rise in the price of oil, the costs of war and the damage to global trade would be too great and deter world powers from taking any serious action, said Amir Kahanovich, chief economist at Clal Finance, one of Israel's largest brokerage houses.

The assessment differed sharply from Israel's official position that Tehran's nuclear aspirations are unacceptable and that all options are on the table in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, which it views as a threat to its existence.

In a report "The Iranian Issue through Economic Eyes," Kahanovich laid out courses of action -- ranging from additional "light sanctions" to military strikes -- and told investors the world would likely balk at taking the steps needed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Even for Israel the economic cost of a military confrontation that could include retaliatory missile attacks by Tehran and proxies in Gaza and Lebanon would be too high, Kahanovich wrote.

"Unfortunately, it appears that a nuclear Iran is the most reasonable scenario," he added.

... read Article

The women of al-Nahda: faces of the new Tunisian republic

noreply@blogger.com (Assistants) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:50:21 PST

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

Before January 14, 2011, al-Nahda was the main opposition group in Tunisia. No one, even its most severe critics, could question the fact that it was the most persecuted group in terms of the number of political prisoners, exiles, and disappearances. Its politics aside, al-Nahda did not shy away from challenging both the regime of Ben Ali and that of Bourguiba. For these reasons, some people with whom I talked in Tunisia contended that the win should be seen as a token of recognition on the part of the Tunisian voters for al-Nahda’s struggles and sacrifices, not as a validation of its ideology. Be that as it may, that theory will be put to the test a year from now when the party competes again in parliamentarian and presidential elections. In order to understand al-Nahda’s background, we ought to examine the background and views of key figures who won seats in the constituency assembly.

Many commentators did not pay attention to Tunisia’s Nahda movement before the recent elections. So it is not surprising that when western journalists and political commentators began to notice it, their commentaries lacked context and depth. For example, some of those who noticed that 42 of the 49 women elected to the constituency assembly are members of the Islamist party have theorized that the inclusion of women is a ploy to allay fear that the movement would scale back women’s rights. That may be partly true. Those familiar with the history of the movement, however, know that women have always played a leading role. The presence of Souad Abderrahim on top al-Nahda’s list in Tunis 2 is a good reminder of the movement’s past and a telling indicator of its future.

Women like Abderrahim have played crucial role in the leadership of al-Nahda since its formative years when it was called the Islamic Trend Movement. Then, and in campuses around the country, many young women, sometimes unveiled and wearing leather jackets and jeans, would debate other students – especially those from the communist party – defending the views of the movement with enthusiasm and zeal. The movement’s embrace of women as leaders earned it many critics among conservative religious movements such as the Tahrir Party and the Salafi movements who reject all participation in democratic processes.

As a college student, Souad Abderrahim was more of a sympathizer than an activist. She graduated from the fac de pharmacie in Tunis in 1992 and was fairly active in the Union Générale Tunisienne des Etudiants (UGTE), which was controlled by Islamists. When she was officially invited to join al-Nahda party, she accepted without hesitation. She brought energy and flare to her new role as non-veiled woman leading a party suspected of espousing anti-women agenda. She contended that her presence is both reassurance and evidence.

During the last days of the campaign and addressing the doubts about her party’s commitment to social justice and women’s rights, Abderrahim declared that “Nahda has no problem with assigning women to powerful positions, and that women, [in the eyes of the movement], are the mothers, the sisters, the wives, and the daughters who stood by the party members and supported them while they were being tortured and imprisoned.”

She emphasized that “Nahda is very open, and by nominating an independent woman, the party is trying to reassure Tunisians that they are committed to preserving women’s rights and freedoms.” She added that women should not be afraid of al-Nahda. “The proof is that they nominated me as a head of a list,” she argued.

During the last days of the campaign for the constituency assembly, she appeared outside the party headquarters in the Montplaisir district and answered questions from the national and international press. She did so while embracing her public role as the face of a political movement that is committed to civil society. Wearing a blue suit, sunglasses and a smile for the cameras, one would not have guessed that she was a Tunisian politician running on a religious party’s list. She seemed at ease, talking to people, making media appearances and engaging the crowds at the last rally held at the Ben Arus stadium. Abderrahim confidently answered questions that ended up addressing the same issue: what role will women play if al-Nahda wins the elections? Her answers were invariably the same, “Our aim is the freedom of all women. The veil is a religious and a personal choice.”

“al-Nahda is a modern political party,” Abderrahim contended, “inspired by Islam’s best values that are then applied to everyday life. People should not fear us, because our party is ready to work for all Tunisians.” She recognized that she would likely have a major role to play in the future government, but played down expectations saying that it was too soon to be sure of any electoral victories. What is certain, she says, is that, “If the party considers me worthy, I will accept the position offered to me. If the coalition government asks me, and if political results allow it, then why not? Should this not happen, the results achieved in these days remain a historic moment for our country.”

Addressing skeptics, Souad Abderrahim provided context and reassurances, “Tunisia is emerging from a dictatorship, but now the people need to understand that our party wishes to represent everyone… We do not question the status of women and the role they played in the revolution. Tunisian women are well-educated, brilliant, well-read. I myself am committed, as a person and not just as a politician, to achieving the objectives of women, increasing their involvement in institutions, in political and economic life, and in public life in general.”

Now that her party secured a comfortable majority in the constituency assembly, she may be called upon once more to lead, perhaps as the president of this elected body in which her party hold a majority or as a diplomat representing the country abroad. Either way, Tunisia, because of the new political faces like Abderrahim’s, is on a new course, unparalleled and unprecedented in the Arab world. Her party is unable to govern on its own. Her party’s leaders must find reliable partners among the other lists that won significant number of seats and by doing so, a new era or pluralism and peaceful transfer of power might be ushered in. Importantly, the leaders of al-Nahda ought to remember the fact that more than 58% of the voters did not endorse it. Therefore, they ought to understand that they must govern by consensus and they must respect the dignity of all Tunisians, not just their supporters.

_________________

* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. He is the author of the book Contesting Justice. Opinions expressed herein are the author’s, speaking as a citizen on matters of public interest; not speaking for the university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.

Historic elections in Tunisia set the tone for the Arab world

noreply@blogger.com (Assistants) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:53:55 PDT

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*

The country that started the Arab Spring made its first step towards pluralistic, representative governance. On October 23, 2011 and before the eyes of hundreds of national and international monitors, observers, and reporters, Tunisians lined up to elect their representatives for the Constituency Council (Assembly). Nearly ten months after the overthrow of the authoritarian ruler, Ben Ali, more than seven million Tunisians voted. I had the honor to observe the process before, during, and immediately after the elections and I was astounded by the level of professionalism, transparency, and integrity of the process. I will write about the meaning and implications in the near future; but I wanted to share some of the statistics of these elections for that tells just as important of a story as the outcome itself.

To meet the aspirations of the revolution, an independent commission was tasked with organizing the elections (Independent High Commission for the Elections). Out of the total of 1624 lists that sought approval to compete in the elections, 1519 were approved and the rest (about 7%) were denied participation for not meeting the established standards. These lists were a mixture of independents (655), political parties (830), and coalitions (34) competing in some or all of the 27 districts. Each list has a leader; 93% of these leaders were males and 50% of the persons on the lists were under the age of 47 years.

Al-Nahda won 41.47 per cent of the vote (90 of the 217 seats). The Congress for the Republic Party won 30 seats, while al-Takattul came third with 21 seats closely followed by the Popular Petition with 19 seats. The Progressive Democratic Party (PDP), the opposition party since the days of Bourguiba and Ben Ali won only 17 seats. The remaining 40 seats were carried by other lists and parties. The Popular Petition had nine of its seats won in six constituencies eliminated reportedly for breaking the election laws on financing campaigns. One seat in France was invalidated following allegations that the head of the list had an active role within the RCD—the party of the former dictator.

Overall, women took 24% of the assembly after they won 49 seats, and 42 of those seats belonged to al-Nahda. According to the final results, 28 lists are represented at the constituency council, but while 19 party lists hold 203 seats, eight independent lists and one coalition list have nine and five seats, respectively. The elected body will now write a new constitution, choose an interim president and a caretaker prime minister and prepare for the next elections that will take place in one year
_________________

* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. He is the author of the book, Contesting Justice. Opinions expressed herein are the author’s, speaking as a citizen on matters of public interest; not speaking for the university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.

CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

noreply@blogger.com (Assistants) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:42:12 PDT

by Henry Blodget

The "Occupy Wall Street" protests are gaining momentum, having spread from a small park in New York to marches to other cities across the country.

So far, the protests seem fueled by a collective sense that things in our economy are not fair or right. But the protesters have not done a good job of focusing their complaints—and thus have been skewered as malcontents who don't know what they stand for or want.

(An early list of "grievances" included some legitimate beefs, but was otherwise just a vague attack on "corporations." Given that these are the same corporations that employ more than 100 million Americans and make the products we all use every day, this broadside did not resonate with most Americans).

So, what are the protesters so upset about, really?

Do they have legitimate gripes?

To answer the latter question first, yes, they have very legitimate gripes.

And if America cannot figure out a way to address these gripes, the country will likely become increasingly "de-stabilized," as sociologists might say. And in that scenario, the current protests will likely be only the beginning.

The problem in a nutshell is this: Inequality in this country has hit a level that has been seen only once in the nation's history, and unemployment has reached a level that has been seen only once since the Great Depression. And, at the same time, corporate profits are at a record high.

In other words, in the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.

…read Article

Fox News Does not air its own coverage of Occupy Wall Street events

noreply@blogger.com (Assistants) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:01:03 PDT

How is this for Fair and Balanced Coverage:

Thus far Fox's only pieces on Occupy Wall Street have been poorly developed hit jobs like this [Clip] one from Bill O'Reilly, in which a producer makes fun of ill-informed children. But when Greta van Sustern attempted a similar stunt later last week, her producer got far more than he bargained for in Jesse LaGreca, one of the more outspoken Wall Street occupiers. LaGreca, who is far from a hippy-dippy rambler, puts van Sustern's producer on his heels immediately, unleashing a blistering assault on Fox News before delivering a well articulated explanation of why he's protesting. In the end the Fox News producer is forced to admit, "Fair enough. You have voiced an important reason to criticize myself and my company." For some reason, Greta van Sustern chose to never air the LaGreca interview.