The War Journal

New Website Up and Running!

2011-05-17T01:46:00.000+01:00

I'm pleased to announce that my new website is finally up and running! All the articles you love here and more have now been carted over to: www.thewarjournal.co.uk

Thank you all for your support. I will still post articles here, but the main site is as above. Please circulate if you enjoyed this site! Thanks!

New Website in Development!

2011-05-12T01:13:00.000+01:00

Although this blog has been running for a short time, I have received some very positive feedback and so have therefore decided to commission the development of a webpage at a dedicated domain name. Soon, my new page will be up and running on www.thewarjournal.co.uk and will feature more of the political, economic and cultural writings as well as contributions by other writers on technology and the arts.

Thanks for your continued support, please circulate, and watch this space!

Obama, Osama, and the US economy

2011-05-08T23:43:00.000+01:00

By: Tallha Abdulrazaq

Apart from the very beginning of his presidency and the events unfolding now in May post-mortem Osama bin Laden, President Barack Obama was certainly not inspiring too much confidence domestically or internationally. Apart from a few domestic political victories, such as the passing of a new healthcare bill that has benefitted many Americans, Obama has presided over a time of US political and economic decline. International events also shape the level of confidence that his people have in him, and whilst Obama convinced many that this was a “chance for change” with such addresses as his speech in Cairo in 2009, his failure to navigate the defunct Palestinian-Israeli peace process, to decrease perceived and real tensions in the Middle East at US military presence, as well as his lack of movement on closing Guantanamo Bay amongst other promises have seriously drawn down his approval rating among Americans.

One of Obama’s main problems was that he was being perceived as always trying to take the soft approach. Although Obama allowed the continuation of illegal drone strikes into Pakistan, and also increased the US military presence in Afghanistan, he has been irrationally criticised mainly by Republicans as being too much of a soft-power proponent. In reality, the only difference between Obama and his predecessor, George Bush Jr., is that the former actually knows how to conduct politically acceptable discourse whilst still pursuing hard-power policies. However, Republicans have attempted to capitalise on Obama’s mild-mannered appearance and silver tongue, and have even questioned his Americanism – an apparent national ideal seemingly defined by neoconservative politicians as blasé aggression – via incredibly odious assertions even being made by infamous business tycoon, Donald Trump, who openly doubted whether Obama was born an American. Clearly, this was never likely to be the case as the White House would be stupid indeed not to check the credentials of potential presidential candidates. Nevertheless, such was the pressure felt by Obama that he felt compelled to release the long-form of his birth certificate to the media to dispel any myths about his national heritage.

Whilst the above certainly will not be inspiring confidence in Obama and by extension the US, a look at key economic indicators shows how there is a distinct lack of faith in the American leadership, its economy and the US dollar. At a most basic level, the US economy is a high credit, high energy economy requiring copious amounts of fossil fuels, nuclear reactors and other sources of energy to keep it going. It goes without saying that the US is also dependant on oil for fuel, and much of that comes from other nations via large privatised oil companies. The problem with oil, as a fossil fuel and a strategic resource, is that it is finite; it is impossible to rely on it forever. Even if new sources of oil are located, the gluttonous growth of the US economy has relied upon it so extensively that more and more oil is necessary to maintain that growth and so therefore speed and efficiency of oil extraction becomes an issue of paramount importance. However, this is where things begin to get interesting economically.

Kurt Cobb, American energy activist and author, has been trying to put across the message of ‘peak oil’ and the threat that this poses to the US and even the global economy. Peak oil represents the maximal rate at which oil can be extracted and refined for use and Cobb has accurately argued that mankind is close to reaching peak oil levels. Even if more oil sources were found, they might be so far underground or even possess a lower viscosity making it difficult to extract and therefore an oil production constraint is born. As it currently stands, prices of oil are at a record high, over $100 per barrel and climbing and this is largely due to the aforementioned constraints as well as conflicts in or near key oil producing states. But what are the economic effects of this undeclared oil crisis?

Obama has blamed the rising prices of oil on commodity speculators who have apparently kept an upward trend in oil prices, hoping to go long and sell at a price peak for maximum profits. Whilst there is no doubt that speculators and traders are keen to ride this wave of rising oil prices, this is not the only reason that oil is so expensive. As previously mentioned, oil is running out and extracting it is becoming more of a problem. Also, unrest and instability in the Middle East, where a large amount of the world’s oil resources comes from, has certainly helped to push the price of oil up. Indeed, even though Saudi Arabia recently increased oil production to bring prices down, the overall turmoil and the growing realisation that oil is running out has managed to easily break their efforts, and this is not good news for Obama and his administration; if oil remains at such high levels it will affect the US economy in a multitude of ways. Average Americans will have much higher petrol costs to keep their cars running to get to work therefore affecting productivity; businesses will suffer due to an increased cost in logistics and supply chain management; and higher oil prices means higher energy costs overall. This increase in price means oil companies and their lobbies on Capitol Hill benefit in the short term at the expense of the common American, but even they will have to find a new source of revenue once oil finally runs out.

This, as well as an endemic credit problem, has forced the US dollar to weaken significantly, and this could spell serious trouble for not just Obama, but US power as a whole. With this dire economic situation to contend with, Obama made a political decision to boost his own popularity and, with it, the US economy; he killed bin Laden. Whilst a previous article discussed the actual murky killing of bin Laden, this article will instead limit itself to the effects of this action. The real effect of bin Laden’s death is very minor indeed. He has not directly controlled al-Qaeda for a very long time and was pretty much impotent whilst he was in Pakistan. For all we know the US may have, as economist Max Keiser dryly remarked, “defrosted” him and finally announced to the world that he was dead. However, the perceived effect of his death has managed to rally support not only for Obama, but also the US economy. This month alone has shown some dire US economic indicators, with unemployment rates still high amongst other problems arising from quantitative easing (QE) and the printing of more dollars. Nevertheless, after the reported death of bin Laden, the dollar has skyrocketed and increased in value and is now up to 74.84 from 72.95 on the dollar index. This strong rally reflects the recent surge of American patriotism as well as increased international confidence in the US government and its perceived power to be able to still take risks when the chips are down, or so they would like everyone to believe.

Unfortunately for Obama, whilst his political credit may last a while longer, his economic credit is about to run out again. Strong down trends are usually punctuated by surging rallies before resumption of the down trend and vice versa, and the death of bin Laden reflects one of these instances. Obama and his team have not addressed the underlying problems of the US economy and rather than making sound public policy decisions, they have instead allowed oil and energy company lobbies to force them to accept corporate profiteering. The US Federal Reserve has kept interest rates low to encourage borrowing in a poor attempt to act like a junkie and get a quick fix. At the same time, they have engaged in successive rounds of QE and this basically means that the dollar is quickly losing its value, and people are borrowing valueless currency which is not based on something like a gold standard. The US government has given large Wall Street banks – largely to blame for the economic crisis in the first place – a lifeline and trillions of dollars worth of support to prop them up. This has the effect of allowing a failed bank to stay in business to repeat or make even worse decisions to increase their own profits thereby killing private credit and making these banks and the people reliant on government credit. As private credit in the US has shrunk significantly, the US will be in dire straits indeed if their government credit runs out, which is a final reserve. The best option for the US is to let these banks die, encourage fresh blood into their banking system while changing laws to prevent a repeat of such mistakes again, and to disengage from their highly expensive and unpopular military campaigns abroad. Unfortunately for Americans, this is unlikely to happen so long as corporate lobbies so closely affect domestic politics, and we may even see the US economy weakening so drastically that the US dollar will no longer be the international reserve currency in five or ten years time.

The Death of Bin Laden: Suspicions and Questions

2011-05-02T15:01:00.008+01:00

By: Tallha Abdulrazaq

It can be of no doubt that many around the world are relieved, some even ecstatic, by the death of Osama bin Laden. Reports from all over the world following US President Obama’s announcement that US military personnel had killed bin Laden show scenes of jubilation in America, Europe, and even expressions of relief from many Muslim organisations around the world. However, there are many unanswered questions and even details that can be drawn out and analysed following the killing of bin Laden.

Bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been the US governments scapegoats and raison d’être for a number of wars and even technically illegal drone attacks in areas like North Western Pakistan for a very long time now. Whenever something violent happens in the news, one can be certain that buzzwords and terms such as “terrorists”, “Islamists”, “Jihadists”, and “al-Qaeda” will be bandied about and sensationalised in the mainstream media before any significant evidence has even been provided, and without a real intellectual understanding of what these terms really define and mean. It has become very convenient for governments around the world to declare many threats posed to them as representative of elements of al-Qaeda. Witness the crazed despot, Muammar al-Gaddafi, who insisted that the recent uprisings in Libya are a result of al-Qaeda dosing impressionable young men with hallucinogens. Clearly, that is one extreme example, but it is not hard to find others all over the world.

The most pertinent question is this; has the US known about bin Laden’s whereabouts for a long time and done nothing because it served their interests to have an international bogeyman? If the above is true, then it is clear that bin Laden had outlived his usefulness.

What is instantly striking about this US operation is that bin Laden was purported to be living in a compound worth millions of dollars in the city of Abbottabad, north of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad by some 100km. A CIA official was reported on Aljazeera as saying; “We were shocked by what we saw, an extraordinarily unique compound. It has 12-to-18-foot walls, topped with barbed wire; internal walls sectioned off different areas of the compound; access was restricted by two security gates”. In addition to all of this, it also had its own waste burning facility. If we compare bin Laden’s “hideout” with a previous fugitive hunted by the US, we can see instant oddities. When Saddam Hussein went on the run, he significantly changed his appearance, fled from place to place, and eventually was found hiding underground in what was dubbed a “spider hole”. Saddam, as we have been led to believe, was far less a wanted man than bin Laden, yet he went out of his way to travel discreetly and not stay in one place for too long. Bin Laden on the other hand lived in a fortified compound; hardly low profile. The waste disposal facility located inside would indicate that a large amount of people lived within, or at least transited through, this compound. The barbed wire walls and two security gates make this seem more like a military base than a hideout. How did the US find Saddam in an underground hole but could not find bin Laden in a suspicious complex? Also, surely bin Laden is not stupid enough to seek refuge in an eyesore like that unless he had some sort of assurances, and this leads to our next point.

President Obama’s administration was keen to distance itself from any link between their operation and collusion with the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). According to one US official, “An operation like this has the utmost operational security attached to it. No other country was informed, and a small circle of people within the United States knew about it”. Considering that bin Laden’s compound has been shown to have been significantly brazen, and that according to Aljazeera it was not far from a Pakistani military academy, then it might be safe to conclude that Pakistan certainly was not informed by the US. Indeed, perhaps Pakistani ISI did the informing, as the CIA are apparently adept at finding targets to illegally send drones after but not good or even competent enough to find a blatant compound and investigate via easily bribed Pakistani sources who are known for their corruption. It might be interesting to view US-Pakistani relations in the coming months to see if Pakistan gains anything. If relations improve, then it hints at ISI knowledge of bin Laden’s whereabouts and also that they were seemingly just waiting for the right indication from the US so that they could let the cat out of the bag. If relations degenerate, then it is a possibility that Pakistan intended to hold onto bin Laden to maybe bargain with the US, but were coerced by Washington into handing bin Laden over or else suffering consequences. As it stands, the Pakistani foreign minister has declared this operation a “great victory” while Obama has said that Pakistan needs to do more in the fight against terrorism which perhaps indicates Pakistan’s desire to ingratiate themselves with the US, but their overtures are receiving a lukewarm response at best.

Finally, the decision to kill bin Laden is interesting in itself. Although Washington has said that US forces tried to capture bin Laden but were forced to kill him after he resisted, this can probably be discounted as hogwash. US forces brought in combat helicopters and enough firepower to devastate the compound, as images show fires amidst the wreckage. Going back to Saddam, he was captured easily enough without significant infrastructure damage and reportedly via the use of gas to render him unconscious. Saddam was hiding in a rural farm where gas use can potentially be dissipated depending on wind conditions and relative density of the gas compared to the air. Could similar tactics not have been used for bin Laden? After all, he was in a compound that was enclosed by high walls which meant that the area could have been saturated with less risk. Perhaps he was killed to make sure that he was never able to divulge information. As is well known, bin Laden had a relationship with the CIA when they used to provide him with arms and expertise. The fact that the ISI appeared to have been hosting bin Laden – and also that it is difficult to believe that the CIA did not know this – perhaps indicates that his relationship with the US extended beyond what has been commonly reported. Saddam Hussein was put on a trial that can largely be considered a sham. Whenever he was about to reveal something interesting, audio and video would be cut under the weak excuse of Iraqi national security. As bin Laden is not a head of state like Saddam, this excuse cannot be recycled and he could potentially reveal many embarrassing details about US activities so therefore he had to be killed.

Did bin Laden outlive his usefulness because he was no longer really taken as a serious threat? After all, al-Qaeda is about as collected and organised as thin air, and do not operate from any known bases (evidently excluding bin Laden himself). Additionally, the new Arab revolutions show that many across the Arab world do not care about al-Qaeda’s ideological leadership, and instead cherish the idea of freedom and democracy. If Arabs appear to be more democratic in the public eye, demonising them and some of their leaders via scare-mongering and the threat of al-Qaeda becomes less credible and less workable. Saddam’s Iraq was accused of harbouring al-Qaeda, but it would have been difficult to believe that if Iraq had a leader who was considered to be democratically elected and who also engaged with other international democracies. Now, however, Obama can claim a major domestic political victory and will likely use it in his next election campaign. In terms of real gain, nothing has really been achieved with the death of bin Laden. As US military analyst Mark Kimmet said, bin Laden has not directly led al-Qaeda for many years and was more of a figurehead. This analysis is apt, though obvious, and shows that the “War on Terror” will likely continue unabated.

Edit: The picture above apparently showing a dead bin Laden has been revealed to be a fake. Check The Guardian's website.

In Defence of Superman

2011-04-30T11:51:00.002+01:00

By: Tallha Abdulrazaq

I never thought I’d be trying to save Superman, and least of all from some of his own “fans” in the United States. Superman’s latest story has caused surprising controversy, and even more surprising is the fact that people who don’t ordinarily read comics are even trying to wade into Clark Kent.

Action Comics #900, part written by famed Batman screenwriter David Goyer, has Superman fly to Iran’s capital of Tehran in a show of solidarity and in order to protect the Iranian population who are protesting against the Iranian government. The usually brutal, black-turbaned Ayatollah controlled and repressive Iranian government promises a harsh military response if protesters do not cease their demonstrations and go home.

Humanitarian that he is, Superman decides that he can’t just stand (or levitate) back and allow the Iranian people to be mauled by their government. Equally, he so abhors violence and views it as a last resort so much so that he decides that he won’t harm the Iranian military. Superman instead decides to act as a human (read: Kryptonian) shield and allows himself to be attacked, abused, and also showered with petrol bombs and roses alike. Obviously, the Man of Steel is impervious to such weak weapons, including roses, and after staying for 24 hours and saving the day, he flies off in a ponderous mood. Cleary, the Iranian Army should have invested in just ONE Kryptonite bullet; I’m certain Lex Luthor would have been more than willing to oblige them.

Back in the US of A, Superman finds himself being questioned by an American official as he learns that the Iranian government has accused Superman’s humanitarianism of actually being American interventionism. Frustrated and tired of being seen as a tool of American foreign policy, Superman decides that it might be best to serve humanity as a whole by renouncing his US citizenship in front of the UN so that no one can accuse him of serving US interests when in actual fact he serves the interests of all of mankind.

One would think that such world citizenship from the most powerful being on fictional Earth would be a good thing and highly commendable. Alas, Uncle Sam is mighty upset.

What’s incredible about the media coverage that Goyer’s small 9 page story has garnered is this; Superman is not real. If he was, believe me, the world would be a lot more peaceful because no one would want to mess with him, he IS a nuclear deterrent and a misbehaviour deterrent in general, and I’ve never seen Kryptonite before which means that he is completely impervious to all our efforts. Additionally, much of the criticism has come from people who don’t even read comics. Why do media hacks who only know comics because of a few pop-icon characters care about a comic book world? Surely there are real world problems to discuss and to disseminate, like rampant American support for dictatorships around the world, maybe?

The sheer brouhaha surrounding Superman’s intention and not actual renunciation of his US citizenship shows the staggering level that American paranoia and insecurity has reached. Apparently, everything these days can be said to be anti-American patriotism, even a fictional superhero having an opinion. Besides, since when was Superman born in America? He’s from the planet Krypton which may as well be Mexico to all the racist anti-immigration hawks in American politics. As he’s technically an immigrant, I’m surprised he hasn’t been branded as some sort of “wet back”. Oh no, wait; Kal-El (Superman’s real name) is a white naturalised American citizen! Phew!

Superman never said he was going to forget his farm boy Kansas roots. The character clearly loves his strong country principles, and represents all that is good about the American ideal. He espouses justice, liberty for all, and the democratic right to choose, as evidenced by him not interfering politically when his arch nemesis Lex Luthor ran for and won the US Presidency. Unfortunately for him, the American ideal has become just that, especially when it comes to foreign policy, and this is what he is rejecting, not America itself. When was the last time we saw the US government waging a war to save the Democratic Republic of Congo or other ravaged, strategically insignificant, countries? Never. Have we seen them promote true democracy in the Middle East? Anyone who points to Iraq as an example can go to hell. Iran runs that place now. Good job, Uncle Sam.

Superman is not uniquely an American symbol. He represents all that is good about humanity, and the irony is this; he’s from another planet. But it’s for that precise reason that his strong moral compass can be related to by a mass audience. He fights evil, stops injustice, strives to have hope and to believe in the best that people have to offer, even in mankind’s darkest hours. Besides, after all the good that Superman has done for fictional America, can’t real America cut him some slack when he decides he wants to save people all over the world, not just fight crime in Metropolis? Are apparently American ideals of truth, justice and liberty dependant on possessing US citizenship? I believe in all three, yet I’m not even American. Then again, I can’t fly or bench press the Empire State Building either, but the point stands.

As absurd as this whole affair has been, consider yourself “saved”, Superman!

The reconciliation of Hamas and Fatah and potential outcomes

2011-04-28T19:23:00.008+01:00

By: Tallha Abdulrazaq

The Egyptian intelligence brokered reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah have apparently finally bore fruit. On April 27th Egyptian intelligence announced that the two Palestinian rivals have finally agreed on forming an interim government, and have made such progress that they will now fix a date for a general election. In addition, it appears that both parties have agreed to release their respective prisoners with Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior political figure in Hamas, confirming that Hamas will release all who have a non-criminal background; a clear hint at political prisoners.

While this relatively under-wraps effort certainly surprised some and appalled others, namely Binyamin Netanyahu and other Israeli political figures, it also raises a suggestion that Hamas might be on the verge of ending its isolation and perhaps scoring a political success, but this time in a domestic move rather than an international one. As Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) are recognised by many international governments, Hamas would be making a move that would put many in the international community who claim to respect Palestinian self-determination in a difficult position.

Reports suggest that, as part of the reconciliation between the two Palestinian factions, the PLO will be restructured in order to allow Hamas’ admission into the organisation. This is interesting, as it now would place Hamas in a political forum internationally recognised by organisations such as the Arab League and even the United Nations. Although some might correctly argue that the PLO is dominated by Fatah and has not been very useful in recent memory, that could all change if Hamas use their political influence to exert more control over the PLO and therefore by default have a voice at the UN General Assembly. Essentially, this would compel obstinate members of the international community to either engage in dialogue with Hamas, find a way to have them removed from the PLO, or stop recognising the legitimacy of the PLO all together.

In either case, Hamas can gain significantly. If the international community begins to have dialogue with Hamas, it would likely begin to weaken the Israeli siege on Gaza in addition to effects already being exerted by the political upheaval in Egypt. If attempts are made to have Hamas ousted from the PLO, Hamas would then simply call foul to the Palestinian people which would probably further rally support for them as in the case of the botched US-Israeli-Fatah coup in Gaza. If the PLO as a whole is blackballed by the international community, then that could have the effect of finally sealing the deal for the Palestinians forcing them to unite, as well as completely alienating the Arab world apart from a few Arab state leaders who may utter impotent condemnations at best, or else stay silent as usual.

All of the above would certainly appear to be merely for the empowerment of Hamas, and so it raises the question; why did Fatah agree to reconciliation? A possible suggestion is that Fatah has had its legitimacy amongst its own people put in a dangerous position. There are even disillusioned groups who splintered off of the mainstream Fatah party and decided to campaign for a return to the “original” Fatah. Moreover, Fatah was trounced in the last real election, had their security forces made to look like rank amateurs by Hamas fighters, and their corruption and collusion with Israel was revealed to the Palestinians and the world via the release of the Palestine Papers. This plus the relatively withdrawn attitude of the United States have perhaps compelled Fatah to go it alone and try to restore some of their credibility. Although Hamas has faced its own popularity issues in Gaza, Fatah have a lot more legwork to do in the hopefully free, fair and transparent upcoming elections. In Fatah’s case, it is better for them to go all in now, than to wait a slow death as more and more Palestinians become disillusioned with their leadership.

Israeli government statements regarding this reconciliation deal have been almost typical. Avigdor Lieberman spouted his usual and limited right-wing “crossing a red line” vocabulary, but the response from Netanyahu was, inevitably and not surprisingly, more intriguing. Netanyahu explicitly said that Fatah could either have peace with Israel or peace with Hamas, and they cannot have both. As peace with Israel has not really materialised or even come close to manifesting itself, it is perhaps hopeful to believe that Fatah have learnt their lesson from their embarrassment at having been exposed in past deals involving Israel, and will instead embrace and unite with their other Palestinian brothers. Although Fatah have issued a statement suggesting that they will choose their fellow Palestinians over Israel, one should be careful in assuming too much from their statements. After all, agreements and deals have been hashed out with Hamas before, only to lead to a larger schism between the two.

Israeli policy in the region appears to be weakening. While it is not odd to see Egyptian intelligence involved in mediating talks between Palestinian factions, the timing of this announcement comes not long after the ousting of former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, a long time supporter of Israel, the defunct peace process, and even the siege on Gaza. Egypt is now a country that is almost an unknown variable in the Israeli equation; whereas before they could rely on Egyptian collusion, they now have to be wary of the state with a predominantly Muslim population who have anti-Israeli occupation sentiments. Indeed, a recent report by Aljazeera suggests that most Egyptians are not in favour of keeping the peace treaty with Israel. Could this Egyptian brokered deal be a portent of a significant cooling of relations between Egypt and Israel, and perhaps an end to the isolation of Hamas controlled Gaza? This remains to be seen, but one can be assured that it is playing on Israeli officials’ minds for certain.

Hamas, the Israeli siege, and the difficult choices ahead

2011-04-20T22:45:00.009+01:00

By: Tallha Abdulrazaq

When Hamas first came to power after ousting Fatah forces intent on preventing their democratic rise to political prominence, they had never been so popular. For decades since the First Intifada, Hamas had been undermining the increasingly corrupt and collaborative Fatah party who dominated and ruled the PA (Palestinian Authority). While Fatah was busy embezzling public funds that should have gone into the education and health of Palestinians, Hamas was equally busy setting up small schools and clinics, further endearing themselves to the Palestinian people. Under the leadership of Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, Abdulaziz al-Rantisi, and other popular figures, Hamas portrayed themselves as champions of the common Palestinian, not linked with the corrupt underhandedness of Fatah and the PA, and also as a direct manifestation of the implacable and indomitable Palestinian urge to resist and fight Israeli occupation.

But what are the contemporary issues facing Hamas, especially in light of the Israeli siege and the ‘Arab Spring’ revolutions?

Hamas has been under constant political and military attack since it first came into being, but at no point has it faced a more difficult situation than now. After the assassinations of Sheikh Ahmad Yasin and al-Rantisi, Hamas has seemingly adopted a different strategy. Hamas shifted from being an effective non-participant political opposition to Fatah and their corrupt collaboration with Israel, to a strategy of attempting to assert direct political prominence and power over Palestinian legislation. For one, they have taken steps to legitimise themselves as a political force, not only on the domestic scene, but also on the international arena. They campaigned for, and took part in, a UN regulated Palestinian legislative election and they not only did well, but they actually won and technically became the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people.

Internationally, this was not appreciated by the so called pro-democracy West, as represented by the United States, the EU, and even Israel, all of whom chose to ostracise Hamas for daring to embrace democracy. Apparently sore after their defeat, Fatah took their collusion with Israel and the US one step further and planned to militarily assert their control over the Palestinian Territories, thereby instigating a coup against Hamas. This did not work out for Fatah, who were instead soundly and roundly defeated by Hamas fighters who subsequently expelled Fatah from the Gaza Strip for their treason. The above events, minus the subsequent and some might say excessively violent anti-Fatah crackdown, only served to increase Hamas’ popularity not only amongst the Palestinians but also the wider Arab and Islamic world. They saw Hamas as the mistreated underdog, who tried to play by the West’s rules only to get slapped in the face when they did what was asked of them.

After Fatah were neutralised as an effective political force in Gaza, Israel decided to besiege the Gazan population with the stated aim of minimising arms smuggling to Hamas. However, even basic necessities such as medicines and building materials like cement were prevented from entering, so beginning a long and dreadful siege that has seen the common Palestinian punished for having the apparent audacity to cast a vote for a party not hitherto approved by the US, the EU and Israel. However, it was not all doom and gloom for Hamas. Again, rather than alienating Hamas from the population, this manoeuvre only increased their legitimacy and further de-legitimised Fatah, who did nothing and, according to the Palestine Papers released by Aljazeera, even knew what the Israelis planned and remained silent. Still, Hamas began a series of fundamental changes to the way Palestinian society had existed up until then. It disarmed the vast majority of the population, ended blood feuds between Palestinian families, made pacts with other resistance factions, and even prevented the previously rampant kidnappings, with even a well televised and reported rescuing of BBC reporter Alan Johnston from the hands of terrorists.

Although the siege initially served only to galvanise the Palestinians in their support of Hamas, things are likely to be taking a different turn unless Hamas makes some rapid changes. Hamas recognised early on that a continued siege would not only cripple Gaza’s economy, but would also erode the morale of the Gazan people and so decided that it had to maintain a strong base of support and entrench itself within the key infrastructures and bureaucracies of Gaza. Whilst Hamas have the ‘Izz al-Deen al-Qassam Brigades – fervently loyal and committed to Hamas doctrine – to call upon for serious military operations against Israel, they do not have enough of them to police the near 1.7 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. This compelled Hamas to hire anyone who was willing to don a uniform and pick up a gun to enforce peace and security, and this has obviously led to rampant corruption and even abuse of power by the local police forces. Considering the financial and military burden that is being inflicted upon Gaza – including the average citizen – the Hamas government has found it difficult to curb these police excesses as, frankly, they are reliant upon them and they have now become a powerful bureaucracy. This has led to Gazans resenting Hamas as they, just like anyone else, expect them as their government to protect them from such things. A possible solution is to scale down Qassam operations against Israel temporarily and have them oversee the police force. This would mean that they could nip any corruption in the bud before it occurs, and it would maintain their anti-corruption image.

Apart from the policing problem, there are also issues with Hamas doing their utmost to maintain party loyalty by providing ‘perks’ to those loyal to them. If you own an apartment or a house in Gaza, you had better make sure that you’re actually living there or have someone there on a permanent basis or else you might find that it has been requisitioned for ‘official’ purposes. This basically translates as Hamas officials giving their loyal supporters and their families’ real estate that does not actually belong to them. This is simply likely due to the fact that Hamas is finding it hard to pay their employees, and so they must find an alternative method of compensation for their troubles. Again, this has done nothing but harm to their image among everyday Gazans and, no matter how difficult, they should find alternate ways of keeping factional loyalty without reducing their support base that they are crucially reliant upon amongst the population.

Finally, Gazan society has experienced some unwelcome changes under Hamas’ rule. Women are actively discouraged from riding bicycles on the beach for some unknown reason, and they also cannot smoke shisha in public, even though it might be considered culturally unseemly even for men. Moreover, there also exists officially sanctioned interference with the private lives of the populace. The last thing a man taking his wife out to dinner wants to hear from a policeman hefting arrogance only a badge and a uniform can bring is, ‘Do you have a marriage certificate to prove that she’s your wife?’ This form of religious policing is also nothing to do with Islamic morality that teaches to mind one’s own business, unless there is a clear threat to the public and society. Even assuming that a person was having an extra-marital relationship; how does that affect anyone but them and perhaps their family? It clearly is not a threat to society at large, and any family issues arising from it can be dealt within those families inside the boundaries of the law, or in a court room itself to settle any disputes. The police should have nothing to do with investigating people’s private lives with religiously sanctioned, but not justified, voyeurism.

With the above in mind, it becomes clear that these fundamental problems have hurt Hamas’s standing amongst Palestinians. Not only that, but Palestinians are getting fed up with the divisive attitude amongst all the Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Fatah. Indeed, Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza held demonstrations calling for unity during March 2011. Unfortunately, these were hijacked and also violently suppressed by both Hamas and Fatah in their respective territories. Hamas could have handled this public frustration over a lack of Palestinian unity by allowing the demonstrators the freedom to demonstrate, particularly as the demonstrators had informed them that this was nothing to do with supporting Fatah, and everything to do with having Palestinians unite. Hamas could have portrayed themselves as being reasonable in the face of Fatah violence against Hamas members in the West Bank demonstrations, and further encouraged public fury to mount against Abbas and his government. Instead, they have become paranoid and see any demonstration as a potential attack against them, and so they crack down on all who don’t wear their colours. This has to change, as well as a public apology with the promise of an inquiry, for normal Palestinians to begin to take Hamas seriously again.

With the recent abduction and unforgivable murder of Italian activist Vittorio Arrigoni by Salafi terrorists in Gaza, Hamas have an opportunity to take advantage of the appalled reaction by Palestinians everywhere and bring those responsible to justice, as well as neutralising a potential threat to their rule on the way. This would certainly boost their credibility and then, with the aforementioned suggestions having been implemented, they need only to await the end of the Israeli siege to be able to claim a major political victory against Israel, further de-legitimise Fatah, and be able to restore Gaza’s economy and infrastructure. The Israeli siege could conceivably end very soon if the Rafah border crossing is restored to full operation in cooperation with the Egyptians. This could happen if a true Egyptian democracy that represents the will of the Egyptian people is born – and it may well do – as public opinion in Egypt is overwhelmingly against the siege on Gaza. Perhaps this will finally be Hamas’s ticket out; they need only to mend their relationship with their people, and victory is assured.

Bahrain: A New Front in the Battle between Sunni Muslims and the Shia

2011-03-27T15:47:00.000+01:00

By: Tallha Abdulrazaq

The wave of popular unrest that has engulfed the Middle East region in recent months has paved the way for opportunistic power politicking on behalf of certain regional powers. In Tunisia, decades of oppressive rule combined with corruption, lack of jobs and increased food prices began this chain reaction of events leading to the downfall of several of the Middle East’s ‘old guard’, including Tunisia’s Ben Ali, and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, we can now see from the UNSC sanctioned no-fly zone in Libya that the old Arab regimes are beginning to crumble one by one. It is in this sort of environment that players interested in exploiting the chaos are attempting to expand their influence and power via the use of religious ideology.

Case in point, the revolt in the Kingdom of Bahrain; the Shia who, depending on which figures and sources are consulted, represent 50-70% of the population began to protest against supposed state prejudice and lack of effective representation. This gripe surprisingly managed to manifest itself even following elections in 2010 that saw the Shia Al-Wefaq party win a majority of 18 seats in the Bahraini Council of Representatives. The Shia demands began with greater political freedoms without regime change, but that swiftly changed once the Bahraini government attempted to clear Pearl Roundabout, what protesters were hoping would be akin to the Egyptian revolutionaries Tahrir Square, and killed 3 protesters. As the government security apparatus is dominated by Sunni Arabs, this violent response was then capitalised upon by the Shia opposition who started to utilise sectarian rhetoric, which shall be discussed later. Since then, the Bahraini police and army has advanced and retreated in turn, before the Bahraini Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad requested the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to send troops to help guard key strategic sites.

Whilst it is obvious that the Bahraini government is not entirely democratic – by virtue of the fact that it is a monarchy with a Consultative Council appointed by the king himself – it is still more politically open than the absolute monarchy of neighbouring Saudi Arabia and other similar states. In fact, the Consultative Council even has representatives of Jewish and Christian backgrounds, as well as a sizeable Shia presence. Although one must be cautious not to say a state is just and fair just because its neighbours are far worse, there is clear evidence in Bahrain of progressive and incremental democratic change within state institutions. Indeed, as previously mentioned, the Al-Wefaq party recently won a majority in the elections for the Council of Representatives in 2010, which is decided upon by universal suffrage. At the time, Ali Salman, Shia leader of Al-Wefaq and MP, lauded the results but said that more steps needed to be taken. It is surprising indeed that in the space of not even a year, and after winning such an election, the Shia have decided that the democratisation process is taking too long and the next step should be to come out in mass demonstrations rather than to capitalise on their political victories. Evidently, there appears to be a not-so-subtle prodding of the Shia population to revolt from an external power, Iran, and arguably the protests have very little to do with democratic change and everything to do with Iranian power projection and sectarianism as evidenced by the burning of several Sunni mosques and attacks on the Sunni population who have, by and large, not taken to the streets.

A key player with much to gain if the Sunni Al-Khalifa family are toppled is Iran. Iran has been keen to expand its influence, especially amongst countries with large Shia populations, via the use of religious and ideological infiltration. Indeed, one can easily see this effect in post-invasion Iraq with Iranian supported Nouri al-Maliki and his Dawa party amongst others, and even in Lebanon where Hezbollah acts as Iran’s proxy and Hassan Nasrallah frequently makes fiery speeches strongly in support of Iran. The strategic gains that Iran could make by supporting the Bahraini Shia in their uprising are many. Geographically, by securing Bahrain via Iran’s ideological dominance over Shia society and politics, Iran would gain a strategically positioned island which would give it commanding presence over the Arabian Gulf, potentially threatening oil shipping of other oil rich states much as it did by attacking Kuwaiti shipping in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980’s. Moreover, it would then gain a better location from which to place its missiles and potentially its armed forces in order to more effectively coerce other Gulf Arab states, particularly regional enemy Saudi Arabia. Finally, the US 5^th Fleet that is stationed at Bahrain would either have to find a new home, or else barter and deal with the Iranians. The lack of response in Washington over the GCC intervention and the visit of Defense Secretary Robert Gates just prior to the decision speak volumes about US interests in the region.

Iranian influence, political and religious, can be readily viewed on many Iranian government statements in support of the Bahraini Shia, and even TV stations that show masses of protesters hefting pictures of leading Shia clerics, including the aforementioned Hassan Nasrallah, with even Hezbollah banners making an appearance. This inevitably leads one to question; what does Hezbollah and banners of “O Hussein!” – in reference to the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, a symbol of Shi’ism – have anything to do with democracy? That is akin to protesting about university cuts in Britain whilst exhorting people to convert to Christianity; the different causes have nothing to do with the other. One must then reasonably conclude that this revolution is primarily fired by sectarian interests and not misgivings with the current political organisation in the Kingdom. This is supported by the acts of the Shia demonstrators themselves. From the beginning they claimed to be partaking only in peaceful protests; however, Al-Arabia news channel recently showed footage of a Bahraini policeman, clearly wounded and not moving on the ground, being repeatedly and horrifically crushed by 4×4 cars. As if that was not enough, the demonstrators then descended upon his corpse and proceeded to mutilate him. If one was to draw comparisons with the other Arab revolutions, this type of savage violence did not occur. Even in the current Libyan civil strife, the revolutionaries have not partaken in the brutal mutilation of opposing Libyan soldiers or even mercenaries hired by Gaddafi; on the contrary, they have been shown on numerous news channels, such as Al-Jazeera, to have provided them with medical aid.

While Iran is keen to gain a stronger position in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and other GCC states are just as eager to see them fail. The Saudi’s problems with Iran are primarily sectarian in nature. After the Iranian Revolution, Khomeini began to actively criticise and attack the Saudi Arabian authorities, going so far as to question their religious credentials in being the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques. Saudi Arabia, in turn, supported Iraq during its war with Iran in the 1980’s and this only served to further deteriorate ties. In the modern day, Iran is considered a threat by Saudi because of its religious influence over Saudi’s Shia minority residing in the Sharqeya, or Eastern Provinces, and also the threat of possible Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. Additionally, while states such as the UAE have large Iranian migrant populations, they also have territorial disputes with Iran, such as the dispute over the islands Abu Musa, Lesser Tunb and Greater Tunb. This all serves to encourage GCC action against any possible Iranian power projection in Bahrain.

The GCC were all too happy to render aid when the Bahraini Crown Prince requested it. Saudi Arabia has deployed about 1,000 soldiers to Bahrain and the UAE has also lent the aid of 500 policemen. Their mission, according to public statements, is to protect key Bahraini state facilities and infrastructure. However, this move is incredibly interesting. Obviously, if the Shia in Bahrain were to succeed, Saudi Arabia may face a large scale revolt in its primarily Shia, and oil rich, Eastern Provinces. If a secessionist movement was to arise there, it could potentially turn to Iran for weapons who could now more easily supply them via Bahrain. Iran has had great experience and previous successes in funding and supporting dissidents in rival states, such as the funding of Kurdish rebels over the Shatt al-Arab dispute with Iraq leading to the Iraqi capitulation and signing of the Algiers Accord in 1975. With regards to the UAE, even with their strong economic ties to Iran having been considered, it is not in their interests to have Iran made even stronger by making Bahrain another one of their seemingly growing number of proxies, and yet another island to add to their collection. Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the Iranian government denounced the deployment of GCC troops by calling it an invasion of Bahraini sovereignty. This was then echoed by the Bahraini Shia in several interviews on Arabic news media, such as Al-Jazeera. Clearly, one cannot consider the deployment of GCC troops to be an invasion and violation of Bahraini sovereignty, as they only deployed at the behest of the rulers of Bahrain. Thus, it becomes ever more apparent that sectarianism fomented and encouraged by Iran is the primary factor behind the Bahraini revolt.

With the deployment of a primarily Saudi force, the Iranians are now hard pressed to respond. However, they have limited options. They could arm the Bahraini Shia to encourage violence against the Al-Khalifa, but this is unlikely as the Bahraini Shia would potentially run the risk of being isolated on the small island state and their willingness to die en masse for an increase in Iranian influence is questionable. The Iranians could also directly intervene, but this is even more unlikely as the world would perceive Iran as a true occupying force rather than the current Bahraini government sanctioned GCC deployment. Also, it would mean the use of naval forces which would more than likely engage the US 5^th Fleet who are unlikely to sit idly by. The most likely option is that the Iranians will retreat and wait for a better opportunity, which would inevitably mean the continued preservation of the Al-Khalifa dynasty and the end of the Bahraini Shia revolt, at least for now.

The Egyptian revolt: Repercussions and Possibilities

2011-02-03T20:39:00.001+00:00

By: Tallha Abdulrazaq

I confess that I certainly did not see the events that are currently unfolding in Egypt coming. I knew that one day it had to happen, but I certainly did not think it would happen so soon. A thirty year iron fisted rule by Mubarak, the pervasiveness of the ludicrously sized Egyptian security apparatus (some figures put the ratio at 1 security/intelligence officer to every 30 Egyptians) and a tired and downtrodden people are usually not the right ingredients for a popular revolt of this magnitude and ferocity. Similarly, the ousting of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, former disgraced despot of Tunisia, caught me off guard too. However, I console myself with the knowledge that nobody saw this coming. Who would’ve thought that the Arabs, normally so docile and willing to be ground into the dirt by their illegitimate governments, would rise up with such fury and attempt to cast down the masters imposed upon them? Human intellect is no match for God’s will, that’s for sure.

But what are the potential outcomes to what is happening in Egypt? Inspired by the Tunisians, they’ve taken to the streets in the hopes of finally getting rid of the man and the government that has been oppressing them for decades. The police confronted the protesters before pulling back and seemingly vanishing, and the Egyptian Army has yet to do anything decisive for either the protesters or the embattled Egyptian government. However, internationally, already we are seeing involvement and signals from significant world powers.

During Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, and whilst discussing Egypt’s problems, he never once said the word ‘democracy’. He used vague, flaccid terms such as ‘reform’ and ‘freedoms’, but not once did he ask for Mubarak to institute a true democratic system in Egypt. Obviously, this is because a truly democratic Middle East would pretty much spell the end for the facade of peace with Israel. Anyone who really thinks there is a peace process is, quite simply, blind (I won’t bother to explain the situation here. Suffice to say, go and read the Palestine Papers released by Al-Jazeera, a series of leaked “peace process” documents). Hamas was encouraged to join in the political process. They did. They also won a so called free and fair election, and were subsequently sidelined by the international community. Clearly, “Liberalism” and “democracy” take a backseat to real power politics. With regards to Egypt, democracy does not bode well for US or Israeli national interests.

In the meantime, Mubarak is trying to ingratiate himself further with the security services and the army by making appointments such as a new deputy to himself, former spymaster Omar Suleiman, as well as other government positions to former senior officers. This could be seen as a sign to curry favour with these key branches of Egyptian security. However, and one day before Tuesday’s ‘million man march’ in Cairo (February 1st 2011), the army has announced that it will not open fire on “the great Egyptian people” and that it recognises their “legitimate grievances”. This could be a sign that the end is nigh for Mubarak, particularly if the army makes good on its promise. If that’s the case, then even the return of the police, now also having been resupplied and rearmed by the Israelis, will have a minimal effect as the army has vowed to crack down on any trouble makers. One hopes that this includes the police who are mostly there to protect and to serve Mubarak’s regime, and not the people.

There is a high chance that a government in Egypt involving, but not necessarily run by, the Muslim Brotherhood could have potentially massive repercussions. The Brotherhood is the most popular and the largest of the many opposition groups of Egypt and likely represent a large swathe of the Egyptian populace. Even if not, the vast majority of Egyptians are against Egyptian complicity in Israeli actions against the people of Gaza, including the ongoing illegitimate siege. A new government involving popular forces could spell the end of the siege on Gaza, and provide Hamas with a significant political victory. They will be perceived as being steadfast, regardless of the hardships, and still a strong and viable alternative to the Palestinian Authority dominated by Fatah. This, in turn, could lead to Israel attacking the Gaza Strip again with even more force than before, perhaps even drawing an outraged and appalled Egypt into the conflict, and further de-legitimising Fatah leading to further instability in the West Bank which could also have further knock on effects in the wider region. This is one possible outcome.

Already, the Israelis are trying to rally global support for Mubarak to keep him on his shaky throne. Netanyahu has reportedly said that “Israel and Egypt have been at peace for more than three decades and our objective is to ensure that these ties be preserved”. One does not need to wonder why. The 1979 peace accord between the two states saw the first Arab (state rather than popular) act of recognition of the Zionist state, and ensured Israeli security on one of its borders. The above scenario would be a nightmare for Israel, and it is keen to avoid it.

These popular revolts started in Tunisia and have now spread to Egypt. Could we be seeing more countries rising up against their autocratic rulers? Not to jump the gun, but it is unlikely we will be seeing a similar phenomenon in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or other wealthy Gulf states. Indeed, the Kuwaiti government recently effectively bought off their people by providing every Kuwaiti citizen with 1000 dinars; no small sum. However, it is not completely beyond the scope of the imagination that this popular fury may carry over and occur in Jordan or even Syria. After all, it happened with Egypt and no one expected it. Who’s to say we won’t be pleasantly surprised again?