Jawad: In DHD

Book End to Last Post

2011-10-21T09:42:00.000-07:00

It's Over!

The Barbarian in Tripoli

2011-02-20T10:05:00.000-08:00

Of all the tyranny in the Middle East, there is none uglier than that personalized by Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi. This tyrant is not only a cruel dictator who has robbed a resourceful nation of its future, but he is also a bona fide thug with a long resume in international murder. Even Hollywood could not make up such an evil character had it not sadly existed. This incoherent, and clearly ignorant, tyrant has been permitted for far too long to hijack the aspirations of the Libyan people, serve as an embarrassment for the Arab World, and pose a clear and present danger to the security of the world. His time is up!

For the past week, the Libyan people have been demonstrating remarkable courage in the face of atrocious acts of murder committed against them by regime elements and their mercenaries. Their determination is growing stronger with every bullet that is fired by this cowardly regime. This is confirmation, yet again, that the barrier of fear in Libya and across the Middle East has been shattered. No longer will a brutal tyrant like Gaddafi terrorize his people into perpetual subservience. This new generation will not permit it!

In Libya, for "justice to rain down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream", it is not enough that Colonel Gaddafi be deposed. He must face justice at home or join Charles Taylor in the Hague for his crimes against humanity. The international community, specifically Europe, should be ashamed of its support for this ugly regime in the last few years. Time has come for them to cleanse and redeem themselves; time has come for them to renew their commitment to human rights and stand forcefully with the Libyan people against this notorious killer and his kin.

Time is Now!

Congratulations Egypt - Mabrouk!

2011-02-11T15:08:00.001-08:00

Suleiman the Terrible

2011-02-09T19:15:00.000-08:00

The man whom the Pharaoh designated as his Vizir to the delight of many in the West became NOT the "transitional" shepherd they hoped for, but the very embodiment of what is old and wrong about the Middle East.

The indignant Vizir wielded his cane at the crowd and demanded subservience to the rule of their all-knowing Master. He told them that they are incapable of deciding for themselves what the Court can decide for them; that they are unworthy of freedom because they are too uncultured to know what to do with it. As he began to receive a standing ovation from anti-Arab bigots the world over, he warned the 'impertinent' crowd in the town square that disobedience of the Pharaoh "will not be tolerated".

What a shameful display!

Suleiman the Terrible embodies the story of an old elite in the Arab World that suffers from a serious deficit of self-respect. They carry around a complex of inferiority that they contracted from a bygone era. An era of colonial conquest that told them of the helpless inferiority of their minds and the uncivilized ways of their kind. They came to believe that, in the Arab World, to rule is to to dominate their fellow man like a Master would his mule. They went on to oppress their fellow citizens and deny them their essential dignity. They denied them both liberty and opportunity for fear that the 'uncivilized' mind may grow to challenge their authority.

The clock has now run out on this self-hating tyrannical class. After half a century of abject failure, gross injustice, and lost opportunity, the time is up for the likes of Omar Suleiman and Hosni Mubarak.

Not your Daddy’s Middle East

2011-02-04T13:05:00.000-08:00

The persistence and courage demonstrated by the Egyptian people against Government-sponsored intimidation and violence in the past two days should quash any doubt on this side of the Atlantic that this is for real. There is no turning back, the Pharaoh is dead, and the people are resolutely in charge of their own destiny. One man at Tahrir Square summed it up this way: "Even if I have to die tomorrow, I have lived today as a free man. Mubarak's not gone yet, but we're the ones who are directing events, not him. These people all around us are the ones who are going to determine the future of the Middle East”. The level of commitment and conviction expressed by that one protester at that moment is, simply put, transformational.

As one might say: This ain’t your Daddy’s Middle East no more!

Yet, some pundits and lawmakers beg to differ. Predictably, it's all about them and their 'strategic considerations'. Their arguments make up a giant piñata of egotism and hypocrisy that betray the very ideals they proclaim to hold dear. One conservative pundit wondered “which revolutions ever led to democracy”. He must have forgotten that his own nation was founded on one (someone should send him a license plate from New Hampshire). Some worried out loud about the price of oil, which…well, let’s just say that their priorities need rebalancing and a visit to the head doctor would be a good idea. Others dished out boilerplate propaganda to warn about anti-western takeovers and policies.

First, the facts on the ground do not support these scare-mongering theories, unless we make them into self-fulfilling prophecies. Though there are many risks and hardships ahead, the scenes, signs, and faces on the streets of Egypt tell the story of a broad-based movement of people determined to free themselves and their nation from autocratic bondage. It is not a monolithic group worked-up in some hate-filled march against the West. If anything, their conduct is really remarkable given the barrage of violence directed at them by pro-government forces. Second, to make support for other peoples’ freedom conditional on whether or not we agree with them reeks of hypocrisy and, ironically, autocratic tendencies.

One heartening moment this week, nonetheless, was the scene of an attentive crowd in Tahrir Square watching and applauding President Obama’s speech on Wednesday. To be sure, that is not a final judgment on US policy by the Egyptian street—We have a long way to go and much more to endure, but it sure was a good sign.

On Egypt: If I can offer some advice...

2011-01-30T15:00:00.000-08:00

If I could offer some friendly advice to the Obama Administration it would be to get with the program—quickly and in unequivocal terms. They simply cannot put a dead fish back in the water and pretend all is well with the world. The risk they run by doing so is seeing disappointment with their position quickly devolve into outright hostility. The Administration needs to understand that what is happening on the streets of Egypt is NOT like a negotiation for Health Care or Tax Cuts here in the U.S. This is a moment of truth that requires a strong stand on the side of righteousness and justice for a people who have been oppressed and abused by illegitimate rule.

If I could offer some friendly advice to U.S. lawmakers, it would be to say that this is not about you—Not everything is about you. This is about the people of Egypt and the people of the Middle East who have long suffered under autocratic rule. If some of you are going to complain that mandated health care coverage here in the U.S. is government overreach, then how can you reconcile that with the excuses you make for a police state? And please let us stop with the fear-mongering and the dire predictions of ‘Islamist takeovers’ and ‘war with Israel’. Unless you want the so-called ‘war on terror’ to be permanent, this is an opportunity to steer the Middle East on a new course—one that can lead to societies that are busy building a future for themselves rather than plotting insurrections against the status quo.

If I could offer some friendly advice to Arab rulers, both present and future, it would be to learn to govern with humility and passion for the common good of their people. Instead of loading up fleets of airplanes with luxuries on vacation getaways or building extravagant palaces where obnoxious waste abounds, strive to build your nations up to earn a respectable place on the world stage. Labor to lift your people up from what has sadly become the scourge of the world. Live up to the example of Omar Ibn al-Khattāb and not that of Hārūn ar-Rashīd. Doing so will earn you a legacy far more rewarding than the luxuries you enjoy in the present at the people’s expense.

To be sure, revolts can liberate and transform entire societies, as was the case for a number of Eastern European nations following the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, those who ride the wave to power in the aftermath of the current uprising must know that democracy is not merely a slogan. It is the foundation for sustainable government; it is a central pillar to a truly new, peaceful, and prosperous Middle East. So, unless the emerging leaders hold those truths to be self-evident, they ought to spare the people of this battered region further turmoil OR eventually meet the fate of those whose fall they seek today—Just as the Iranian theocracy will soon find out.

An Opportunity for Change that Can NOT be Squandered

2011-01-28T07:10:00.000-08:00

As I am looking out my window this morning watching the aftermath of a snow storm in Washington DC, my ears are glued to a live news feed from the streets of Egypt. So, I wonder whether these gathering winds in the Middle East are as temporary a phenomenon as what is outside my window or if this is truly the long-anticipated day of reckoning for the post-colonial oppressors of the region. The fall of Ben Ali in Tunisia gave us 10 million reasons to hope that that day has indeed arrived. And the Tunisian people are owed a debt of gratitude for shattering a thousand myths about the region and its people. They are owed much more for showing through a level of conviction and persistence, not seen since the colonial days, that the Middle East is capable of freeing itself by itself and that ‘stability’ through oppression will not stand.

The status quo is a sham: The false choice given to justify support for secular oppressors to guard against Islamist rule is a lame punt and poor policy choice for the West. For one, the U.S. must always stand firmly on the side of freedom and never cease to demand justice for those who have none. It is not only a moral imperative , but also the right policy—one that does not cower to boogey-man fears and does not search for what is convenient, but rather for what is right. Second, the realities of the Middle Eastern Street make support for the status-quo a policy devoid of material facts: The demographic realities of the region will invariably force a change. The growing frustrations of a young, unemployed and oppressed generation cannot find resolution through the status quo in a region with perverse deficits in human development and global competitiveness.

To be sure, we do not know how all of this will play out, but something new and different is happening. Tunisia gave us the example and inspiration, but Egypt is the country that can set an irreversible course to a real transformation. So, let’s hope that the people of Egypt will be as persistent as their Tunisian brethren to force change through non-violence and civil disobedience. The world, in this era of instant media coverage, will stand behind the people of Egypt and will not tolerate the repression of peaceful demonstrators. If the people of Egypt succeed, then a new Middle East will be truly in action. In the heat of current events, however, one hopes that the people will constantly remember that once the old regime is out of the way, they will have to come together and get to work on building free and prosperous nations.

A revolution may only take weeks or months to achieve its political ends, but nation-building will take decades for the people of the Middle East to achieve their aspirations and command the respect of the world.

Show me an Investment Plan

2008-12-31T08:19:00.000-08:00

When the Detroit big three came to Washington asking for a loan to rescue their companies from pending bankruptcy, the Congress was steadfast on demanding a business plan. And they were right to do so.

Now, Congress and the incoming administration will ask the taxpayer to spend what some have reported to be close to a Trillion dollars on a new ‘stimulus package’. Taxpayers must demand an investment plan. They will be in their rights to do so.

It is undeniable that the economy needs a big shot in the arm to boost job creation, generate sustainable opportunities for investment, and stop deflation in its tracks. So, the issue is not whether we need a ‘stimulus’, but rather the kind of ‘stimulus’ we are going to get.

It would be a grave mistake if Washington just bundled up lawmakers' favorite projects and threw the people's money at them. I do not have any reason to believe that President Obama will allow for such an approach, but the usual deal-making in Congress may produce just that: Throwing money into the wind.

The so-called ‘Stimulus’ must be managed as both a public trust and a capital investment venture (irony noted!). First, I would not call it a ‘Recovery Plan’ or a ‘stimulus package’. Instead it should be designated as a National Investment Plan (NIP). The short-term goal, of course, is economic recovery, but the core objectives of this plan are the reinvention of American competitiveness and the retooling of the nation’s market institutions. Second, I would demonstrate and quantify every initiative in terms of Return on Investment (ROI) to the taxpayer and report on benchmarks along the way. The country needs smart investments in new technology, renewable energy, scientific discovery, and education.

There is no doubt that American universities are the best in the world, but let there be no doubt that the state of our primary and secondary school system is a national emergency. The only way forward for the US economy is for it to be a hi-tech economy. So, without a reliable farming system that produces the hi-tech skills needed to maintain US global leadership in the world, we may have to grudgingly resign ourselves to being a nation in decline.

Furthermore, if the country does not move aggressively to invest in technology and scientific discovery, others in the world will beat us to the punch in fields such as biotechnology, energy, aeronautics, and—yes dare I say— even information technology. The long-term implication here is that we slowly become costumers of new ideas as opposed to producers of breakthrough innovation.

So, to Washington: Seize the opportunity and think of those who will inherit this country after you are gone. Have your metrics for the short-term (market stabilization, job creation), but make sure you focus on reseeding the economy so that this country continues to be a place of both opportunity and innovation.

Oh yes – and we would like to see an investment plan before spending the people’s money this time around.

The Absurdity of Rovian Politics

2008-10-22T09:11:00.000-07:00

Governor Palin has declared the "small towns" of America that she and her running mate "get to visit" to be "the real America" where the real "patriotic" and "pro-America" citizens of this country live. Almost robotically, their campaign surrogates started falling in line.

One campaign adviser unashamedly declared that Northern Virginia was not “the real Virginia" – suggesting that immigrants and liberals somehow taint the ‘realness’ of this region of the Commonwealth. Another, a Congresswoman nonetheless, asked the news media to do "a penetrating expose" on Congressional Democrats in order to "find out" if "they are pro-America or anti-America?" Another Congressman, speaking at a recent McCain-Palin event, roared that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."

This detestable campaign rhetoric is an affirmation of the intellectual deficit that has plagued the GOP and the McCain Campaign for months. They have no new ideas on addressing the country's problems and no awareness of the damage they are inflicting upon their party brand with their 'Rovian' politics. Their stubborn attachment to a "divide-and-conquer" strategy at a time of national crisis is patently absurd.

People in this country need answers to their mortgage problems; they want solutions to health care, retirement pensions, education reform, college affordability, and job creation in an increasingly globalized economy. A case in point: While Barack was moderating a high-octane economic panel in Florida earlier this week, the McCain-Palin campaign was out on the trail playing wedge politics with no substantive contributions to the nation’s current state of affairs.

They say facts are stubborn things. Yet, the GOP operatives are hell-bent on ignoring them.

It is hard to understand the strategic motivation of this masachist posture not just because it harms them down-ticket during this electoral cycle, but also because they are significantly eroding any chance of having a sustainable governing coalition in the future. They are alienating minorities including the country’s fastest-growing demographic group; they have no appeal to a majority of young people and, as it has become clear in recent days, they are pushing away their own moderates. Is anyone—anyone sane that is—in charge at the Elephant Zoo?

They say: If you’re in a hole, stop digging. Yet, the GOP just keeps digging and digging

Separating Leadership from Demagoguery

2008-10-20T09:51:00.001-07:00

When Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama this morning, he did so in primetime with a full explanation. He pointed to the intellectual deficit of the GOP and the disappointing tactics of the McCain Campaign. He contrasted the erratic decision-making style of Senator McCain to the impressive temperament and intellect of Senator Obama. It was a clear-cut decision: For a nation battered by short-sighted and ill-devised policies, Colin Powell opts for the transformational leadership of Barack Obama.

In discussing his discontent with his Party and with the McCain campaign, Gen. Powell got specific. To my delight, he picked on an issue I raised in a recent blog: Gratuitous right-wing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice. He explained:

...It is permitted to be said such things as, ‘Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’ Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? (NBC, Meet the Press, 10/19/2008)

The General, then, illustrated his point with the moving story of a young Muslim-American soldier who gave his life in defense of this country, earning a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star along the way. In a matter of seconds, Colin Powell showed more wisdom and leadership than Senator McCain was able to show during weeks of campaigning as he gave audience to blatent anti-Muslim rhetoric at his rallies.

The heart-felt wisdom of General Powell this morning may be heresy to right-wing demagogues, but it is a fresh breeze of hope for the rest of us - those who believe that this nation is far better than the remnants of its darker history.

We are ready for change. And we can not wait for the transcendent leadership of Barack Obama.

The Offense No One Is Talking About

2008-10-13T14:02:00.000-07:00

When a woman stood up at a recent McCain campaign event and said that she does not trust Barack Obama because she thinks that "he's an Arab", I certainty was not surprised. I believe this nation has made great progress since the civil rights struggle, but I am not so naive as to think that America has done away with the unconscionable disease of racial discrimination.

What surprised and shocked me, however, was McCain's response to the offense. In addressing that same supporter, he said: "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions." Now, that sounds like a sensible statement and the media has certainly hailed it as such with some even calling it "courageous" and "commendable".

The problem with the statement—and the lack of substantive coverage it received—is that it legitimized a contemptible choice between being an "Arab" and being "a decent citizen". To Arab Americans, this exchange further confirmed the mainstream acceptance of anti-Muslim and Anti-Arab bias in America. Here, John McCain had a double-dip opportunity to (a) pull back on the dangerous vitriol directed against his opponent and (b) address in swift terms the larger issue of racism, which in this case was directed against Arab Americans. He addressed the former and completely ignored the latter. And everyone else did too.

To my knowledge, no one in either campaign has come out to explain that such statements are not just about some false rumor designed to attack the character of Senator Obama. These statements are injuring fellow Arab and Muslim Americans whose loyalties, decency, and contributions to our nation are unquestionable.

Would McCain’s response be called “courageous” had he reacted in the same manner to a supporter who might have said that they don’t trust Obama because ‘he’s a Jew’ or because ‘he’s black’. Would the “decent-citizen” response be deemed sufficient? The answer is No and righfully so.

It is offensive that John McCain has not even thought about reacting to his supporter by adding that beyond her false characterization of Senator Obama, Arab and Muslim Americans are decent, hard-working and patriotic citizens, no different from anyone else.

It is unconscionable that the leaders of this country continue to allow anti-Muslim and Anti-Arab sentiments to simmer above the surface and in plain sight.

The Knee-Jerk Politics of John McCain

2008-08-30T13:45:00.000-07:00

You can say a lot about a person's leadership ability based on how they think and act under pressure. On the first and most important decision either candidate had to make (VP selection), Barack showed strength and wisdom despite immense pressure from within his own party, while John McCain shot from the hip with a reactionary political move that grossly misunderstands the electoral base of his opponent.

Mr. McCain knows that he is in trouble. He too watched the DNC convention and must have come to the conclusion that: (1) The Change banner is too powerful to defeat with a conventional Republican message; and (2) The connection made between him and the sitting president is too powerful to ignore - In Barack's words: "8 Years is Enough!".

So, when time came to select his running mate, he went with a knee-jerk move based on panicked punditry and unsettled polling. He now has a running mate that he himself hardly knows - He only met Governor Palin once and has never worked with her in any capacity. And she, a heart-beat away from the top of the ticket, has zero experience in national and international affairs. As a result, he now undercuts his central critique against Barack, brings concerns about his age and health back to the forefront, and provides the electorate with an unsettling preview of how he intends to make big decisions if he ascends to the presidency.

People across this nation surely disagree about a wide range of issues, but I don’t think many of them want another president who will shoot from the hip on matters of national significance.

Sweet Beginnings

2008-07-27T15:53:00.000-07:00

Every American who watched Barack Obama draw a cheering crowd of 200,000 in the heart of "Old Europe" must be immensely proud. Anything short of that is just plain bitterness and senseless rancor. Senator Obama has lifted the curtain on a "known-known" that has been obscured by eight years of combative politics: That the world longs for an America that awes the soul with inspirational possibilities rather than one that shocks the mind with threatening postures and bullying propositions.

The world is excited and America should be proud. The dark cloud of fear and anger is moving away despite the troubled souls who want to hold it back; despite the cynical voices who do not believe we can finally chase it away.

When I decided to support Barack Obama I had already read his first book and was anticipating his second. I had already related to his personal story and intellectual journey through my own experiences. I knew what he talked about when he openly discussed his early struggles with identity and loss. I knew what he meant when he described his intellectual evolution from arid confusion to buoyant illumination. Like him, I see the world for the good it is capable of and not for the harm it occasionally inflicts upon itself. Barack’s sense of hopeful idealism is something I can remember to have struggled for and not to have inherited; something I know was difficult to attain when early indicators of my circumstances pointed instead towards cynicism and doubt.
I know why I support Barack because I know where he is coming from.

So, I will no doubt disagree with him on various policy approaches to issues both large and small. I can disagree with him on FISA, discourage him from adopting a protectionist stance on trade, argue with him over the role of government in the economy, and urge him not to delay the next-generation space vehicle program. But, I also know why I support Barack Obama. I support him because I believe him to be the most inspiring political figure to appear on the world stage in several decades. I support him because I believe him to be the person who will reclaim the America that kids around the world can close their eyes and dream about. I support him because I know that what shaped his heart and molded his mind is a longing for the betterment of both self and the other in the face of cynical odds.

America has again produced its best and brightest at a time when skeptics are writing it off as ‘a nation in decline’; an affirmation of both its history and destined trajectory.

Veep Choices for Obama: There Are Only Two

2008-05-30T08:20:00.000-07:00

There is much speculation about who Obama should pick as his running mate. There is of course talk about a unity ticket with Clinton. Some argue that the presidential candidate should pick one of several governors, including Kaine of Virginia, Napolitano of Arizona, and Sebelius of Kansas. Others advocate for one of Obama's senate colleagues including Dodd of Connecticut, Biden of Delaware, and McCaskill of Missouri.

That's all well and good for filling the 24-hour news cycle with unsubstantiated political speculation, but in my opinion Obama has only two real choices that he should spend his scarce time evaluating:

1. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. A senior Republican senator, Vietnam veteran, and experienced legislator on defense and foreign policy issues. His selection will give Obama an enormous political advantage both in terms of competitiveness in the general election and in reinforcing the historical character of his candidacy. With Hagel, Obama would be following the example of his fellow Illinoisan, Abraham Lincoln, by selecting a VP from the opposition party and moving to unite the country during his presidency.

2. Jim Webb of Virginia. A freshman Democratic Senator from a key swing state. He is also a blue-dog democrat with honorable military service and extensive experience in Defense. He served in the Reagan administration as Secretary of the Navy and defeated a strong Republican incumbent in a red state. Webb will give Obama much needed muscle on Defense issues and will deliver the state of Virginia and much more given his centrist approach to politics.

The Bizzaro World Legacy of George W. Bush

2008-02-12T09:38:00.000-08:00

It is now safe to say that the Bush presidency has effectively arrested the Reagan revolution and has decidedly thrown the 'permanent majority' fantasies of the Gingrich movement into oblivion.

In fact, it is safe to say that the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in recent years is George W. Bush. The latter has now galvanized the center of this country against Republican politics and has motivated the youth in opposition to the GOP agenda.

A Center-right Republican is now poised to win the GOP nomination to the dismay of the conservative wing of the party. The statistical counts of primary votes show that millions more are voting in the Democratic contests as opposed to their Republican counterparts. The exit polls show meager minority participation in GOP contests - and that includes the largest growing minority in the country; the Hispanic population. Alienated by Republicans with hateful rhetoric on immigration and nationalistic nonsense about language and identity, this group is migrating fast to the Democratic Party, like the African-American community before them.

The GOP is following its 'agents of intolerance' to the abyss and the president is helping it along with the miserable legacy of bombs and credit card bills.

A Headless Party is Expectedly Brainless

2007-09-28T07:21:00.000-07:00

This US election cycle is unlike others in the past in so far that an incumbent President or Vice President is not their party’s automatic presidential nominee. To make things worse for the incumbents, we are now in the “last throes” – pun intended – of a rather inept presidency; one that has produced very little on the domestic front and much drama on the international scene. Unless you like government expansion and subscribe to some odd twist of Keynesian economics that "deficits don’t matter”, the incumbents will not find much to brag about domestically and, as it is becoming more evident, nothing at all to brag about internationally.

So, in a so-called ‘lame-duck’ presidency with no incumbents on the ticket, the president’s party is simply headless. As a result, the GOP is starting to exhibit signs of the rather logical consequence of being headless; that of being brainless. The party that once prided itself as being the ‘party of ideas’ is now a single-issue political block: They’ll-kill-us-all-if-you-don’t-elect-me message is all the party seems to broadcast these days. There is nothing more effective in politics than inciting fear, that is indeed true, lest you forgot about one Joseph McCarthy. But, today’s GOP is making an enormous strategic mistake for which future party contenders will pay dearly at the polls.

The Party is, for one, alienating the fastest-growing demographic group in the US through its politically-charged anti-immigration message. This will get them votes today but will get them nowhere in the future. The party is also inexplicably deepening its rift with the African American community – a constituency that was once firmly Republican and today votes in the 90-percent range for Democratic candidates. The strange thing is that both Hispanics and African Americans, when one examines matters of faith and social outlook, are natural allies of the GOP. However, Republican leaders seem resigned to losing both demographic groups to the Democrats in order to hold on to their white southern coalition. This is reflected in the candidates the party is fielding for this election. In contrast to the Democratic candidates, the GOP contenders are all old, white males.

Let’s hope that the GOP is not brain-dead because I, for one, do not look forward to either a ‘one-party system’ or ‘a permanent majority’ in this Republic. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton have warned of the dangers of 'faction' and the 'tyranny of the majority' in the Federalist. Under no circumstances should either Party be able to achieve exclusive dominion over the political landscape in this country. We have seen what that has done for us lately.

Competence, At Last!

2007-05-30T08:56:00.000-07:00

It is always good news, although increasingly scarce, to see competent candidates get the nod for positions of importance in this world. I say this with the sour bitterness that the cronyism of late has left in my mouth. Recently, it seems, punditry and clan loyalty have become the go-to features for upward mobility in this country.

So, at last, a competent professional like Robert Zoellick gets the nod to head the WB. Yes, he was a member of this administration as USTR and served as the number two at the State Department. So, one can venture that he's on the "in" with the current ruling clan. The difference, however, is that Mr. Zoellick is actually qualified, objective, and....yes, competent.

Got A Problem? Build A Wall

2007-04-23T13:30:00.000-07:00

What has the world come to when the nation that advocated tearing down world barriers for the last five decades is now looking for big sturdy walls to solve its problems?

Immigration problem? No worries, build a wall.
Violent uprising in the Palestinian Territories? We like your idea, build a wall.
Mounting violence in Baghdad? mmmhhh....Got it! build a wall.

In the latter case - in contrast to the first - one wonders what the US is thinking to erect a separation wall in someone else's country.

I can still hear him call out: "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Where is the old Gipper when you need him? Or is that so last century!!

Lost In Translation

2007-01-05T11:23:00.000-08:00

I was on vacation when the news of Saddam's execution hit the airwaves. The news networks showed a censored government tape with Saddam being asked by one of his executioners whether, 'for added comfort', he wanted his neck to be protected with a cloth before tying a noose around it! One of those ridiculous absurdities that the death penalty offers in its moment of cruelty - Something like applying an antiseptic swab to the condemned's arm before lethal injection.

Shortly after the initial news stories, as millions of our Gen X and Y contemporaries come to expect in this age of technology, an unedited cell-phone video hit Google video. I hesitated several times before finally deciding to watch it. When I did, I was not prepared for what was to come. To be sure, I have no sympathy for Saddam. But what transpired in that execution chamber was deeply disturbing, not only because I firmly oppose capital punishment.

The news media reported on the taunts and the sectarian slogans – so there is no need to play that record yet again. However, what the media did not report and what was lost in translation is Saddam’s own words as he awaited the fatal drop. He pronounced the shahada (a declaration of faith and redemption). Saddam pronounced it once and was dropped in the middle of the second. The absent regard for the man's religious declaration by his executioners is certainly not warranted, especially on the eve of Eid el Adha.

Morocco in Second Life

2006-12-21T09:52:00.000-08:00

Today is grand opening day for the Morocco island in Second Life. For those of you who do not know about SL, you may be missing out on an exciting virtual platform that is transforming the very nature of web-based interaction and development.

I would urge you to catch up, sign up, and teleport to the Morocco island, which features exciting landmarks such as the country's biggest mosque, the medina (old town), a souk (market), a Cafe-Restaurant, and a beach complete with surf boards and jet skis.

The development team is also conducting a treasure hunt today for Moroccan artifacts. You find it in second life and get it in the mail in real life. Don't miss it. Its way too cool.

American Exceptionalism

2006-12-14T11:21:00.000-08:00

Ever wondered about American Exceptionalism? What makes the people of this country different from those in Europe or other parts of the world? There are many considerations of course, but one good place to look is the hierarchy of needs in consumer behavior.

Here is a new survey from the Pew Research Center that would give you a glimpse of what Americans consider to be essential to their daily lives. Things Americans things say they can't live without.

The Monkey & The Duke

2006-12-13T06:09:00.000-08:00

Iran's regime is playing host to a conference on Holocaust denial, inviting outrageous characters to take part in a despicable display of human ignorance. David Duke, the former leader of the Klu Klux Klan was there of course, proud as can be.

Where is the civility? Where is their sense of dignity?

Once again, the dismal human development condition of the Muslim World is for all to witness. Long gone are the days when the Muslim world was a beacon of intellectual excellence and civility.

Now, one wonders why oxygen continues to be sucked out of legitimate struggles in the Muslim World, including the plight of the suffering Palestinians.

Heart-breaking.

The Vice of Power

2006-11-17T09:23:00.000-08:00

When English historian Lord John Acton wrote in an 1887 letter to Bishop Creighton that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", he did so in protest of the promulgation by Pope Pius IX of the dogma of papal infallibility. This he saw as an affront to the progressive notions he championed on liberalism and limited government.

Although much of what Lord Acton had advocated during his life in the 19th century would still be disagreeable to some in this century, his assertion on the wicked tendencies of power offer an enduring equation whose implied correlations are of near exact predictability. This demonstrable truth of power waltzing with vice and conceit is perhaps a topic that can be further explored by our contemporary neuroscientists.

The culprit, I say, is Dopamine. This chemical, which is produced in the primitive (animal) part of the human brain, regulates our appetite for rewards and our perception of how well those rewards meet our expectations. This is responsible for the brain’s attraction to pleasure-seeking substances and activities including sex, drugs, and Rock&Roll.

So, when the newly elected members of the US Congress assume their responsibilities early next year and when those who were defeated return home to consider their futures, they may want to first consider how to regulate their Dopamine before regulating the people’s business.

The Healing Power of Forgiveness

2006-11-09T12:52:00.000-08:00

The South African leadership continues to astonish the world with its stubborn insistence on reconciliation and forgiveness - and that is a rare example in a world where many are determined to exact vicious revenge onto those who once oppressed them.

This week the president of South Africa Thabo Mbeki attended the funeral of one of the most vicious leaders of Apartheid who, even after his racist regime had fallen, refused to take part in national reconciliation. Well, in death, the black leaders of South Africa offered him a state funeral to bid him farewell.

Now if only others in distant places like Iraq, Palestine, Sri Lanka, and Kashmir can learn half of the lesson the likes of Nelson Mandela are trying to teach, the world would be so much better for it.

From Lincoln to Obama

2006-10-27T08:40:00.000-07:00

The fact that a black man with a name like 'Obama' can be considered to be a serious contender for the presidency of the United States is enough to revive my belief in a pending victory of logical humanism over the irrational evil of bigotry.

This is quite a remarkable achievement for a nation who defaulted on a basic promise to its black citizenry for two centuries. The most remarkable thing about it is that the last president to hail from Mr. Obama’s home state, Illinois, is the one who went to war to free America’s salves about a century and a half ago. Abraham Lincoln sought to correct an evil wrong and give the black citizens of this nation not only their freedom but also their dignity. Yet, a conditional freedom they got and not much dignity for yet another century.

Now, if Barak Obama even comes close to winning the presidency of this country, it would be a wonderful irony: That it is a black man from Illinois who would be destined to run the anchor leg of a long relay marathon against prejudice and injustice – One that his fellow Illinoisan started some 150 years earlier.

The Making of A Regional War

2006-07-12T12:58:00.000-07:00

There is no question that the seeds of a wide regional armed conflict in the Middle East have been soaking on fertile ground for centuries. But, it is to the last quarter century that I would give the grand prize for the largest blunders, as well as biggest missed opportunities, in modern Middle Eastern history.

Suffice it to say that in 1979 alone - ironically, the year of the first Arab-Israeli peace agreement - the soviets invaded Afghanistan, Saddam rose to power in Iraq and the Khomeini revolution in Iran sent the Shah packing into exile. Saudi Arabia also spearheaded the Wahabi cult assisted by the the West's rising thirst for the region's only true export: Oil.

Since then, the West's short-sighted, one-dimentional policies in the region made it the reliable friend of repression instead of the steadfast ally of the aspirations of the masses across the region - the same masses who today suffer from an enormous human development deficit (notice recent UNDP Arab Human Development reports) coupled with the lack of economic development capacity and closed, elitist, and autocratic political systems. The West has become in the eyes of a great majority of these masses complict in the ruin of their societies, hence, the nostalgic appeal of several Islamist trajectories. The Pew Global Attitudes Project also reported recently a widening gap between Middle Eastern and Western public perceptions of each other and the world.

One thing is certain, since 1979, the degradation of the Middle East, and frankly its people has widened and the seeds for a catastrophic conflict in the Middle East have been sown with consistent regularity- a recipe for a perfect storm of catastrophic proportions. To make matters worse, scattered brush fires have been introduced into that theatre and plenty of gun powder thrown in for good measure. We were able to contain much of it in the last two decades because we somehow managed to isolate the ignition points and keep the scattered fires from joining up into a massive explosion.

Today we stand upon a situation where the ignition points have indeed multiplied and some of the formerly-contained fires in the region are increasingly finding ways to merge and prosper. The Israeli-Arab issue has been set back 20 years this week with the widening of that conflict into Lebanon, Iraq is at the brink of civil war if not already there, Afghanistan is falling apart (again!), and Iran is well on its way to becoming a regional power. In addition, 75-dollar oil is empowering a collection of Middle Eastern governments to sustain the status quo and the Arab street is more dejected, angry, and unemployed than in any time I can recall. All of this while the legitimacy of international law and institutions is seriously undermined.

Countries like Iran and North Korea wonder aloud what good international law is when the United States discards it in the name of national security by invading Iraq and undermining various international treaties. Sadly, these rogue nations obtain license to cause harm by frankly using US arguments about “self-defense” and “national interest”. The world wonders aloud what democracy really means when we proclaim it to be a universal right but oppose and undermine it when it does not suit our interests.

All of these new ignition points and their combined synergies have now made the situation in the Middle East in particular and the world in general a whole lot more dangerous. This has now become so messy that perhaps only a totally new and radical approach may be required to manage it. But, what exactly? I completely and utterly do not have any words to offer on this at this time, except that...

In the meanwhile we can only watch and hope for the best because we have some fairly terrifying days ahead of us. This now, although I pain to admit it, is the start (or return) of a wider armed conflict to the Middle East.

Take The Deal

2006-06-02T09:23:00.001-07:00

The deal that has been offered by the UN Permanent 5 plus Germany (P5+1) represents a markedly improved offer received to date by the Iranians. The offer currently on the table recognizes Iran's right to civilian nuclear power - something the US was not prepared to accept even a few months ago. It also opens the door to direct talks with the US on a wide range of issues including regional security, trade, investment, and the possibility of diplomatic normalization (taking note of the dramatic shift with regard to Libya), although highly unlikely in the short term. The offer provides a sufficient basis for Iran to engage in negotiations and further advance its economic and diplomatic interests.

The current P5+1 offer is something Tehran should not dismiss, lest it seeks to sustain itself on a path of misery and decay

The argument that Iran pursue peaceful nuclear energy as a way to enhance its global competitiveness through maximizing the revenue potential of its oil exports is not only valid, but also crucial for the country's development. This is something that we ought to recognize and fully acknowledge. Let us remember that the US Congress has itself recently issued a policy statement that aims to have the majority of US baseload electricity generated by nuclear power - a goal that will require building 50 or more nuclear power plants in the medium term. In fact, the US is planning construction of some 20 plants in the short term. The US has also recently signed a significant agreement with India encouraging the latter to build more nuclear power stations and offering a wide range of technical and trade assistance in this area. So, it is undeniable today, even by those environmentalist groups who once opposed it, that civilian nuclear power ought to be a key element of a sustainable strategy for global energy resource use.

Civilian energy is a public good and a vital tool for any nation seeking to enhance its global competitiveness

Nonetheless, the pursuit of nuclear weapons is another matter. Unlike civilian energy, a global public good and right of nations, nuclear weaponry is a global threat. It is a technology that we should not look forward to expanding or developing anywhere. There is no such thing as a "responsible" use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are tools of massive terror employed to secure victory by devastation in an asymmetric war. Their mere existence is a danger to all. We should not forget that it is the US, the leader of the democratic world, which is the only country to have employed this technology as a weapon of war. The excuse of willingly mass murdering scores of civilians in order to gain asymetric advantage and secure victory by any nation is frankly not that different from the notion advanced by terrorist groups who justify their random and despicable murder of civilians as a "necessary" action taken in an asymmetric conflict with the sophisticated and powerful armies of the world.

The ends do not justify the means

The world should cooperate in good faith to eliminate the threat posed by the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. This applies to India and Pakistan as it applies to Israel and Iran. It applies to the US and the UK as it applies to China and Russia. The democratic excuse does not hold water because history shows otherwise. Interestingly enough, when Saddam was employing an arsenal of chemical weapons against this same Iranian regime, the latter never retaliated in kind, although capable and arguably justified in the context of international law. This is not to say that Iran would not employ nuclear weapons if given the opportunity to acquire them. Indeed, all efforts must be deployed to prevent a situation where we even have to entertain this awfully disturbing question. What it means is that history shows that both democracies and dictatorships are capable of committing mass murder in the name of a “just cause”.

No nation, democracy or dictatorship, is justified in threatening humanity with weapons of mass murder

Iran has played a gutsy and tricky game of poker with the West until now. It skillfully took advantage of the changing geostrategic environment created by recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has cashed in on political developments in Iraq and succeeded in frustrating US efforts in that country. It is taking advantage of reduced US credibility on the international scene following the Iraqi WMD fiasco and it is empowered by the global energy situation with increasing demand for oil and natural gas by the world's emerging economies, most notably, India and China. Iran’s regional power is today at its strongest point since the clergy came to power in 1979.

However, this is where Iran, if anything, ought to learn a lesson from the recent American experience in Iraq. The lesson is not to overplay your cards and be fully aware of your strengths, limitations, and handicaps. Make sure that you remain within the scope of your limitations and be flexible enough to adjust your strategies when the facts on the ground no longer support your theories. Don’t search for an adrenaline rush by playing high-stakes poker with the peace, security, and prosperity of nations. Personal, ideological, and nationalistic ego can be a dangerous threat to enlightened pragmatism and the long-term security of the world.

Iran should not waste another 27 years by stubbornly isolating itself into misery and decay. It should take the deal and come to the table – there is more to gain from further negotiations. Lest, it seeks a path where it will lose all leverage gained to date and have much more to lose than to gain.

Vote Them All Out

2006-05-25T13:05:00.000-07:00

Nothing these days could bring two polarizing political opponents together faster than the threat of an "out-of-control" executive "trespassing" into the "sovereign" domain of a Congressman’s office.

In the aftermath of the raid conducted by the FBI on the Office of Congressman William Jefferson (D-Louisiana), Dennis Hastert, the Republican Speaker of the House, and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Minority Leader, came together to demand the immediate return of materials seized by federal agents from Congressman Jefferson's Office and declare:

"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years."

I love it!!….. (Metaphor for: I really hate this and hope that they all get voted out of office soon - Taking note, with added optimism, of what happened in Pennsylvania recently)

How convenient it is for these big egos to call upon the founding principle of “separation of powers” to resist and shun oversight upon their activities when they are so eager to vehemently invoke the equally important principle of “Checks & Balances” in order to call the other two branches of government to account. You can't have it both ways and the founding fathers of this nation certainly did not mean for you to have your cake and eat it too.

The founding principles of the constitution are not divisible and can not be cherry-picked for political or personal convenience. You get one constitution indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Yes, justice as in Department of Justice in this case. Get this: Members of Congress are not exempt from the laws of this land nor are their offices the sovereign sanctuaries and safe-heavens that foreign diplomatic missions are.

Having gotten that out of the way, let me say something else - This time directly at Louisiana’s 2nd district representative, William Jefferson: NO, you do not get to claim “Separation Of Powers” when you are videotaped taking bribes; when you are found to hide $90,000 (3 times the annual salary of a middle class American) in your freezer. On second thought, maybe you should have used the “separation of powers” tool to hide the money in your congressional office after all, hey?

One other thing: No, sir, you do not get to imply racism as a motivation for the probe against you. You do not disgrace the memory of Dr. King by trying to put your criminal self in the company of those who have truly struggled against injustice so that one day you, sir, can be Congressman. As they say around here: Are you freakin’ kidding me??!!

The American people need to clean house. They, and only they, in this democracy can have the final say. And it is time for the people to reclaim what is rightfully theirs: The political destiny of this republic. If the name says "incumbent" next to it, that's the guy you should NOT vote for.

Vote them all out.

Radical Republican: Old Vs. New

2006-05-09T11:44:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, the term 'Radical Republican' referred to principled Americans who, despite great threats to their personal safety, labored against slavery and fought for the civil rights of all Americans, black or white.

There was a time when 'Radical Republicans' strong-armed the racist Democrats of the South to ratify the fourteenth (14th) and fifteenth (15th) amendments of the constitution, which granted former slaves citizenship and voting rights and guaranteed them equal protections under the supreme law of this republic.

There used to be a time when the first emancipated slaves, like John Roy Lynch, sought political office under the Republican banner, grateful to those 'radicals' who not only secured the physical freedom of their black citizenry but also their unalienable rights to equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There used to be a time, when the Republican campaign of a General-turned-President was placed under the compassionate slogan: "Let Us Have Peace". This, at a time when the Democrats were campaigning under the hateful slogan: "This is a White Man's Nation".

There used to be a time when 'Radical Republican' was a term that inspired compassionate service in the name of justice and brave defiance in the face of intolerance, hate, and injustice.

There used to be a time when...Then:

Over the last half century or so, the African American community was literally driven away into the oblivious arms of the Democratic Party because Republicans were too eager to turn blue into red and dominate the political map of the nation. Blacks became a dispensable casualty of the republican re-engineering of the American political landscape. As a result of this methodical, often clever, re-engineering, the Republican Party gained dominant constituencies in the South and gained the loyal support of the white protestant communities.

Today, over 90 percent of black voters consistently vote for the Democrats. As is always the case, it is the members who make the party and not the other way around. So, the Republican party became the party of a few minorities and large white protestant constituencies. It became the party of God, Guns, and Bullies. The party that has allowed its success to get to its head in record times and could not stop, if only for a second, to hear itself: arrogant and intolerant - A party that is slowly, but surely, driving the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community, into the arms of their political rivals.

The Washington Post has just reported that "nearly half of the nation's children under 5 are racial or ethnic minorities, and the percentage is increasing mainly because the Hispanic population is growing so rapidly, according to a census report released today." Yet, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center finds that "predominantly Republican 'red' counties were significantly more opposed to immigration - both legal and illegal - than are predominantly Democratic 'blue' counties, where immigrants are far more populous".

Recently, the new 'Radical Republican', a far cry from his predecessor, enacted legislation in the House of Representatives to turn the 12 million or so illegal immigrants on US soil into felons. The Republican Party better pay attention and sober up to the demographic trend in this country and be reminded of how the blue ballot ended up in the hands of the African American community. The new so-called 'Radical Republicans' are driving their party right up to the edge of a cliff because they have no sense of history and, most importantly, no practical vision of the future. Michael Powell of the Washington Post wrote a timely essay contrasting old and new immigration. He notes: "The bitter arguments of the past echo loudly these days" and adds: "Most of the concerns voiced today -- that too many immigrants seek economic advantage and fail to understand democracy, that they refuse to learn English, overcrowd homes and overwhelm public services -- were heard a century ago."

The Republican Party, which is surely not lacking in intelligent and responsible leaders, better pay attention and sober up from the drunkenness that its recent successes have permitted. Sensible and visionary party leaders must limit the overreach of their extreme and ideological offspring and steer the party away from the hateful fear-mongering agendas of the day. They must lead a multi-dimensional future of global unity and global perspective if they are to get it right in the next few decades. They must understand that simplistic, one-dimensional ideology can not and will not prevail as a driving force for an America that seeks to lead in an era of unprecedented global proximity; an America that will increasingly need decisive domestic support and convincing international coalitions to tackle the great challenges and threats that lie ahead.

If not, then, they better ready themselves for a future when 'American Conservative' would increasignly turn-off world opinion and effectively trigger undesirable responses in the subconscious memory of a large group of the American electorate.

A Display of Prejudice Veiled in Concerns About Security

2006-02-21T19:33:00.000-08:00

I will start this post by first expressing my disappointment at those Americans who are exercising their prejudice in opposition to a global free market transaction this week. Those who are coming out swinging on the Dubai port story are at a minimum misinformed about the state of today's global business. But I refuse to believe that the leaders of the United States Congress are misinformed - On this issue, it is safe to say that their "outrage" and fear-mongering is at least partly rooted in xenophobia and driven by political opportunism - one that seeks to tap into latent prejudice (what Dr. King once referred to as a societal sickness) and post 9/11 fears and protectionism.

The president is doing the right thing on this issue. He is standing up against his own political party to make a strong statement against prejudice in contemporary America. He is sending exactly the right message, which America desperately needs in order to start the healing process for its image overseas while democrats and republicans in Washington are busy sending the wrong message to the world - a message that would invariably validate the cynicism and anti-Americanism of many around the world.

Those who are rallying the wayward train on this issue know very well what the other side of the coin to their rhetoric is. They know that US companies are earning millions of dollars in Dubai construction and expansion projects. They know that US firms manage major oil infrastructure in Gulf countries, which by American standards are of special national security interest to local Arabs.

If security is their only concern, then it would be helpful for them to remember that General Abizaid and CENTCOM are sitting in Doha, Qatar and that a network of US military support services are based in the Gulf, including in the UAE where US Naval ships dock quite frequently.

If foreign control of US strategic assets is their concern, then maybe they ought to know (and they do) that Toshiba, a Japanese company, is on the verge of buying Westinghouse Electric Co., a builder of nuclear power plants, and that government-owned Chinese companies are currently managing a container port in long beach, California, as well as both sides of the Panama Canal.

These same critics are also aware of the fact that Dubai Port World operate port facilities in three continents already, with presence in countries like Australia, Romania, Germany, China, India, Venezuela, and the Dominican Republic. The present contract for the six US ports was managed by Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company, until the takeover by DP World. The same union workers and the same procedures used under the Peninsular contract would be used under the DP World contract. DP is not going to ship in thousands of workers from Bangladesh. Even if you believe that U.S. customs and immigration authorities are utterly blind, you have to concede that American labor unions will raise hell at the slightest change in job conditions and/or suspicious cargo activity - they are, after all, American citizens before being American workers.

Globalization is not the sole property of American enterprise. It is called 'globalization' for a reason - it is why a government-owned Spanish company (AENA) is managing several airports in Mexico; why private foreign companies control some 45% of Algeria's crude oil production; and why private Indian firms are competing for major stakes in the U.S. software industry.

The "uproar" does not have much to do with security. The contract in question is about operation and management of port facilities. The security function is the responsibility of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Yes, the topic of port security is deserving of much attention. There are many things the government can do to enhance port security by developing and deploying advanced sensor technology and increasing staffing levels of security and customs personnel. They can also greatly improve their intelligence capability in order to deal with threats in a non-intrusive, yet effective fashion.

American lawmakers will be betraying their own history if they shut down global trade transactions or discriminate based on national origin - because it is protectionism and the old beast of discrimination which pose a much bigger menace to American economic and national security than the inherent risks of open trade and open societies.

'Clash Over Cartoons Is a Caricature Of Civilization'

2006-02-10T08:03:00.000-08:00

I strongly recommend reading the following Article by Philip Kennicott, a Washington Post Staff Writer. I find his analysis, unlike others in the press, to be objective and intellectually stimulating. Here is an excerpt:

Religious fundamentalism forced the issue; political fundamentalism inflamed it. An apology for giving offense is now capitulation to religious tyranny; the basic instinct of moderation is equated with cowardice. A little ink on paper is inflated to proof of a basic cultural incompatibility. So political leaders here speak of "the long war," a conflict with no sign of hope on the horizon between East and West. Now, rather absurdly, these cartoons may become part of the intellectual hardening of thought that will sustain the idea, on both sides of the cultural divide.

Read more

Cartoonish, You Say?

2006-01-29T10:49:00.000-08:00

What offended me was not that some Danish newspaper published a silly cartoon depicting prophet Mohammed, but rather that he was illustrated with a bomb on his head. This particular caricature carries a conscious and purposeful offense. Namely that 'Muslims are fundamentally wired to be terrorists'. That is what I find to be extremely hateful and offensive.

A proper analogy, here, would be if some newspaper published a cartoon of Jesus Christ molesting a child in the aftermath of the sexual abuse allegations involving a few Catholic priests. The implication of such caricature would be that "Christians are child molesters". This would be considered, and rightfully so, an assault on the dignity of the Christian faith. It would also, by the way, seriously offend Muslims who consider Jesus to be a prophet on equal footing with Mohammed.

Now, do people have the right in a free society to offend and hate? – Sure they do. But democracy has never been synonymous with anarchy and with freedom comes responsibility.

As such, governments have an obligation to protect the dignity of all their citizens and ensure their security against enemies both foreign and domestic - that is in fact an oath that U.S. government officials swear to before taking office. Democracies also enact laws and regulations to guard against excesses of freedom that threaten public safety and order: One does not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theatre nor does he or she have the freedom to urinate in a public space. Hateful propoganda dispensed for public consumption, one would argue, can be subject to the same limitations as litter laws that are in full force in the most democratic of democracies, including Danemark.

However, it is never excusable to condone violence no matter what the reason. Dr. King's civil rights movement is certainly a vivid example of how non-violent civil action can be effective even in the face of violent oppression. We now have a region where anger and resentment have been gathering for a long while, producing a collection of on-call hateful hooligans who come out shooting their guns at the slightest provocation. The violent protests we are seeing in places like Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, although all deeply troubled countries with a long history of conflict, are simply shameful. This is ultimately a Muslim problem that needs a Muslim solution. Muslims have a lot of house cleaning to do – there is no doubt about that. But, they do not need to be offended and humiliated into reform. Millions of Muslims are laboring to wrestle control of their faith from oppressive radical elements. They need to be supported, not offended.

Finally, beyond the headlines, the debate over the offensive caricatures has much to do with a few fundamental questions of vital importance to the future of the world:

(1) How will the Islamic world re-appraise its core values for a new revival? What will it take for it to dismantle religious monopoly, break old taboos and open new gates to independent thought?

(2) How will Western democracy cope with demographic and global change? How much will it resist the inevitability of change and how properly is it equipped to prevent the tyranny of its own majority?

(3) Is liberal democracy the exclusive partner of secularism or will mounting resistance to the latter thrust religion into a more expressed role in the shaping of the future countours of democracy?

Palestinian Election: Whose Wake-Up Call?

2006-01-27T11:59:00.000-08:00

Sincere commitments to democracy and the rule of law stand on the untiring respect for democratic outcomes – otherwise such spoken commitments could not be at all too sincere. Great and enduring values survive because those who claim them do not give them up solely because, at one time or another, it was convenient to do so. We dare not subtract or cheat on our commitment to the liberty of man, for we do so at our own peril.

When Hamas won the Palestinian elections this week, expressions of outrage and outright disbelief have marked the headlines of the western media. President Bush explained that he found the Palestinian election to be “interesting”. That it was “a wake-up call to the [Fatah] leadership” in that “the [Palestinian] people are demanding honest government” and that “they want services to get decent education and health care”. In other words, President Bush, was conceding that the reputation of Hamas for honest governance and for delivering essential and reliable public services stood in stark contrast to the corrupt and unreliable leadership of Fatah. The president was right to draw such a conclusion – but life would be a lot simpler if answers to such momentous issues were so clear and definite.

This is not a wake-up call for the Palestinians – perhaps a shake-up call. But, this is a wake-up call for the West. What President Bush and American lawmakers need to wake up and understand is that the Palestinians are also demanding an end to settlements, road blocks, assassinations, incursions, and collective punishment. They demand freedom, dignity, and respect. Excluding these fundamental conditions from our definition of the Palestinian aspirations is at best blind if not entirely ignorant. After all, the Israeli democracy did vote the Likud party into power in 2000 although the latter did not recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Was that an expression of Israeli frustrations with the Labor party’s handling of the economy? Maybe so – But, at the time, observers were quick to point out that the Israelis were expressing their frustration with Labor’s “soft” stand on Palestinian terrorism and “failed” Oslo/Camp David peace negotiations.

The president was sure to note in his remarks that “one can’t be a partner in peace if your party has an armed wing”. That should come as a surprise to the Shia and Kurdish coalitions that together won more than two thirds of the vote in the last Iraqi election. The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) maintains a fully armed and trained militia called the Badr Brigade. Moqtada Sadr’s group maintains its own militia, the Mahdi Army, and the Kurds have their own defense establishment, known as the Pesh Merga - All outside the control of the central Iraqi army that US tax payers are currently funding. Now, I agree with the core meaning of the president’s statement, but I find it to be disingenuous given what is happening in Iraq under US supervision.

Another issue the president raised regarding Hamas was that the US will not do business with a “political party that advocates the destruction of Israel”. I believe Mr. Bush would be surprised to hear the position, for example, of Abdul Aziz Al Hakim, the leader of Iraq’s SCIRI, on the matter. The US is right to ask that Hamas accept the right of Israel to exist peacefully aside a Palestinian state. However, they would be well advised to know that democracy in Arab countries does not automatically lead to a peaceful resolution of the Arab/Israeli conflict. There has been growing gap over time between Arab, US, and Israeli definitions of what constitues a "just" resolution to the conflict and there is a difference between what some see as "resistance" and what others view as "terrorism". The democracy-to-peace theory is, at least in the short-term, an illusion produced by a lack of understanding of Arab popular sentiments and excessive expectations tagged to the movement for democracy promotion. Democracy is not without risks, tribulations, and consequences. It is indeed a noble and vital endeavor, but it is not the answer to everything - it is not a cure-all for humanity’s terrible track of bad decision-making.

Nonetheless, to be sure...

Democracy is undoubtedly a far better proposition than tyranny and autocratic rule. It is a megaphone for the aspirations, hopes, and beliefs of man and a palpable mirror for his frustration, rage, and dejection. Hamas will be well advised to know that democracy is not an instant soup of voting rights and majority rule. That it is a vigorous market of ideas and the collective expression of faith in equal opportunity and protection for all under the law. That it is the reason why free minds excel and feeble souls prosper.

Yet, one would be reminded that it is when feeble minds prosper that free souls struggle.

2006-01-13T13:28:00.000-08:00

When the sun rises on Sunday, a nation will wake up to the memory of your birth. Some will wake up to the memory of forty three years ago, when on the steps of the Lincoln memorial, you professed your dream for a just and righteous nation; a nation that "will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

I will wake up on Sunday a better man because your words continue to heal my soul from the trials of time and the ills of my fellow man. You taught me not to satisfy my thirst for freedom and justice "by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred". When adversity knocks me down, I hear you say that “unarmed truth and unconditional love shall have the final word”. So, I rise again.

Years have rolled past, and so I know that we have a finer land, a more noble future because you, the humble child of God, were willing to suffer for the sake of righteousness, peace, and genuine brotherhood.

Sapere Aude!

2006-01-02T13:46:00.000-08:00

When they went to Annapolis and later to Philadelphia, each had their own idea of what should become of America, but all were convinced that what they had in the Articles of Confederation was neither desirable nor sustainable. They advocated, disagreed, deliberated, and finally compromised. They concluded that liberty is an inalienable human right and that tyranny, even when it is commanded by the majority, is the enemy of man. They resolved that the rule of law must reign supreme if the republic were to withstand the test of time.

Those men who founded this nation were surely not perfect. They were neither Gods nor demi-Gods as Thomas Jefferson once ascribed to the attendees of the constitutional convention. They were, however, some of the most impressive political minds produced by the age of enlightenment. Their brilliance was impressively unselfish because they trusted that the human mind can perceive of a reality that rests beyond its direct experience. They did not seek perfection in the summer of 1787 because they did not claim such pretension. Instead they set out to forge, for others to follow, a pathway to a “a more perfect Union” that seeks to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”.

They hiked to the hilltop, looked over, and sought a land where vigorous debate would yield a durable process of institutional reform that would one day abolish slavery, promote civil liberties, and enforce the equal protection of citizen rights. Clearly, enlightened men have the courage to exercise their own intelligence in pursuit of liberty and justice. As Immanuel Kant would write in 1784:

Enlightenment is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity...Such immaturity is self-caused if its cause is not lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own intelligence!

That was 221 years ago!!

Today, one wonders if Alexis de Tocqueville was right when he wrote: "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." Some of America's leaders claim to hold truths that are not theirs to claim and others seem to have aquired a strong taste for self-interested ambition. They inspire based on fear not hope, fueling resentment and discrimination, and they state their fondness for the rule of law while working secretly to undermine it both at home and abroad.

The best idea brought forth by constitutional democracy is the primacy of the rule of law. When the founding of this nation was underway, James Madison and his peers were wholly preoccupied by the dangers of tyranny posed by the vulnerability of democracy to arrogant, all-knowing leadership. They worried that an individual, faction, or even a majority would rise to undermine liberty and the rule of law by wielding the banner of security and/or moral superiority.

They were right to worry because from slavery to the internment of the Japanese-Americans to the civil rights movement to current discriminatory policies against Muslim Americans and immigrants, some representatives of this nation never fail to answer the hate call. Yet, over time, they have never succeeded because other Americans rise to oppose them in defense of the founding spirit which started this nation down a path not even the boldest and strogest of forces could reverse.

The struggle continues at a time when government is undermining human rights and privacy protections in the name of security and when factions in congress are laboring to reverse the historic course of constitutional amendment. They wish to infuse prejudice in the constitution under the pretext of “protecting families” and they are even advocating for the denial of citizenship on the basis of birth rights - an affront to the 14th amendment.

Fortunately, history is not on their side. It is not on their side because this nation has moved throughout its history to expand individual freedoms and strengthen civil liberties, not to curb them (Bill of rights and subsequent 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments). America has committed the shameful crime of slavery - yet Americans led by Abraham Lincoln went to war, civil war and a bloody reconstruction, to face this wrong. Slavery was abolished but the evil of racism remained and persisted. America was dishonored by its treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII – for that, Congress later apologized saying it was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership". America, as Martin Luther King cried out in 1963, gave “the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’” – It turned out that the check was over a hundred years overdue. Congress and the Supreme Court faced their wrongs by finally making good on the century-old promise that were the 14th (equal protection clause) and 15th (voting rights) amendments and declare racial segregation unconstitutional. The Civil rights movement came and went but discrimination and socioeconomic injustices remain in current-day America.

So has been the general hard-fought progressive trend of this nation - the American story of 'path dependence' - despite the utter disregard of this fact by political radicals and extremist media pundits. Arrogance and hate is not what brought about the success of this nation. America rose to greatness despite the arrogance and hate that plagued its history. It has continuously struggled within itself because while its soul is permanently clad in the inalienable right of man to liberty and justice, some of its own limbs never tire about leading it astray.

I remain confident that this nation would once again find its soul and return itself to righteousness, pragmatism, and humble leadership - I know this because I believe in this country's history and its irreversible dependence on the path forged by its fathers.

May 2006 nudge even so slightly that old motto of enlightenment: Sapere aude! (dare to think) - both here and abroad.

HRW Report on Morocco's Truth Commission

2005-11-28T15:14:00.000-08:00

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has released a report urging the government of Morocco to end impunity for the security forces and enhance judicial independence in order to cement the legacy of the country’s Equity and Reconciliation Commission (ERC). The report entitled Morocco's Truth Commission: Honoring Past victims During an Uncertain Present, praised the process that led to the creation of the ERC, but emphasized that the truth commission is only one phase in a longer process and that the state must act on the letter and the spirit of the ERC’s recommendations and provide for a judicial and administrative process that holds those responsible for past abuses accountable within the realm of the rule of law.

Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Commission, was set up by King Mohammed VI in January of 2004 in order to investigate forced disappearances and arbitrary detentions carried out by the Moroccan authorities in the last half century. The commission is to recommend forms of compensation and reparation for the victims, including measures of rehabilitation and social, medical, and psychological assistance. After nearly two years of investigations, the ERC has recently submitted its final report and recommendations to King Mohamed VI.

My position on this issue happens to be largely in line with that of HRW. This is because I do not believe that our people can fully reconcile with a brutal past and look forward to a brighter future when those responsible for past abuses continue to enjoy total impunity. King Mohammed VI is innocent of the crimes that his father's regime committed against the people of Morocco. However, if he does not act to at least dislodge the abusers from positions of power; if he does not move to cleanse the state's security and political institutions from the dark forces of the past; if he does not place the rule of law at the very center of his reign, then his legacy will eventually become tainted by that of his father and the forces of resentment and anger within the country will largely outweigh those of hope and optimism to the detriment of the next generations of Moroccans.

Shall we be reminded that the optimism of a whole nation was spurred by the King himself when he bluntly stated to the Nouvel Observateur, a French magazine, on the eve of his ascent to the throne in 1999:

« Je sais que pendant que je vous parle, vous n'allez pas manquer de regarder le portrait de mon père accroché au-dessus de ma tête, et vous n'éviterez pas de faire des comparaisons entre lui et moi. Eh bien, les uns et les autres, vous devrez vous y faire : je ne suis pas Hassan II. » - King Mohammed VI.

Report in English

Rapport en Francais

Report in Arabic

Les Marchands de La Prostitution

2005-11-18T14:59:00.000-08:00

Pour beaucoup de gens, à la fois citoyens et visiteurs, le taux de prostitution au Maroc a grimpé de façon inquiétante ces dernières années. Certains s’inquiètent que le degré d’affairisme et le réseau de support de ce commerce de la chair a bénéficié d’une certaine dilatation dernièrement. D’autres raisonnent que la visibilité ‘osée’ ou, même, ‘insolente’ de la prostitution dans les lieux publiques et sa permissivité dans la conscience collective de la société marocaine est devenu un phénomène rudement imposant.

Certains, frustrés par ce phénomène, lancent que la croissance du taux de prostitution témoigne d’un fatalisme collectif au sein de la société marocaine servi par la légitimité d’un raisonnement socioéconomique que nul ne peut disputer. Néanmoins, la condition économique et le niveau d’éducation, certes importants intervenants dans la propagation de la prostitution au Maroc, n’expliquent pas tout de même toute la mosaïque qui fait de la prostitution un des sujets les plus complexe à traiter.

Avant de lancer ce débat, je précise que mon intention est de traiter le sujet de façon académique . Ainsi, j'essayerais d’éviter le plus possible de passer des jugements moraux ou des arguments fondés sur des interprétations traditionnelles ou religieuses. Les filles qui s’engagent dans la prostitution sont a mon avis des citoyennes qui méritent une considération respectueuse ainsi que d’être traitées avec dignité. Certaines sont exploitées par des conditions économiques désespérées et même forcées par des membres de leurs familles de se prostituer. D’autres, originaires du monde rural, commencent une vie rude comme des petites bonnes dans les grandes villes ou elles sont abusées ou même violées. Elles sont par la suite rejetées par la société ainsi que par leurs familles – ce qui les force dans le monde de la prostitution. Mais il y a bien aussi une catégorie qui choisi la prostitution comme profession légitime – même si la grande partie de la société rejette leur raisonnement.

Au Maroc le réseau de support des prostituées varie en fonction du degré d’amateurisme ou professionnalisme exercé, ainsi qu’en fonction des spécificités du marché (Le touriste originaire du Golf par exemple a des exigences particulières qui différent des spécificités du touriste européen ou du client marocain). Le réseau de support peut atteindre une sophistication étonnante chez la prostituée de haute gamme puisqu’il y a bien une hiérarchie d’offre et de demande dans ce marche. Ceci dit, en général, les prostituées au Maroc, comme celles dans d’autres pays inclus aux Etats-Unis, exige un marche physique ou exercer. Quand la culture et la loi d’un pays ne leur permettent pas un espace légitime et formel comme les Red Light Districts, la prostitution se déchaîne partout ou la demande peut accéder à l’offre. Notez quand même que si le Maroc ne dispose pas de Red Light District comme est le cas dans plusieurs pays en Europe et en Asie, il dispose bien d’un certain nombre de centres de prostitutions connus dans quelques banlieues et milieux ruraux.

Concernant les milieux urbains, pour une grande partie des prostituées, les restaurant/bars, les cafés/cabarets, et les boites de nuit constituent les grands contours du marché physique ou elles exercent (la majorité de ce marché se situe dans les hôtels). Bien que la prostitution se négocie dans d’autres espaces inclus dans la rue tout court, en général c’est les espaces de divertissement nocturnes qu’une grande partie des prostituées dans les villes marocaines (surtout les villes touristiques) considèrent comme leur « lieu de travail ». Pour accéder à ce « lieu de travail » ou en d’autres termes, au marché, Il y a bien un système dont les règles sont à respecter - Et c’est la ou le réseau de support et les moyens d’accès deviennent extrêmement importants.

Le degré d’affairisme dans ce commerce n’est pas aussi différent des autres secteurs de l’économie formelle. En effet, le commerce de la prostitution fonctionne d’une façon assez conforme avec les lois naturelles des marchés libres - souvent sans les distorsions que peuvent provoquer les interventions de la réglementation et de la taxation : La compétition y est nombreuse – plusieurs acheteurs/vendeurs - et l’accès au marché n’est pas prohibitif. Tant qu’il y a une demande, exprimée ou masquée, et la promesse du profit, les fournisseurs des services demandés trouvent leur chemin vers le marché parfois en dépit de risques assez importants. Ceci dit, l’offre a tendance de s’épanouir quand la structure/réseau de support et de production est élargie dans un marche ou la demande est affamée.

En plus, la nouvelle technologie a introduit une certaine sophistication dans ce marché - ceci de la même façon que dans d’autres secteurs de l’économie formelle en révolutionnant les modes de communication, marketing, distribution et logistique– L’Internet et les téléphones mobiles sont devenu indispensable pour la prostituée marocaine. Sans le portable en particulier, la prostituée souffre d’un handicape significatif côté marketing et logistique – C’est d’ailleurs pour cette raison qu’elle en prend bien soin.

Quand on parle de la structure ou le réseau de support de la prostitution au Maroc, de quoi s’agit-il exactement?

Sans compter certain intervenants influents dans le cercle familial et relationnel de la prostituée, les acteurs les plus visibles dans le réseau de support de la prostitution au Maroc sont : Les chauffeurs de taxi ; les videurs et les gérants des bars et des boites de nuit ; les agents de réception et les gardes des hôtels ; ainsi que les agents de sécurité, autrement dit, les flics. Avant de décrire le rôle de chaque un de ces intervenants, je dois préciser que ceci ne constitue en aucun cas une condamnation universelle de tous les membres des professions citées. En effet une grande partie de ces derniers continuent de pratiquer leurs métiers avec fidélité aux principes de l’intégrité professionnelle et ne prennent pas partie dans les fonctions informelles et le comportement corrompu que je décris ci-dessous.

Les Taxis : The Pimping Cabbies

Certains chauffeurs de taxi sont tout simplement devenu les agents de promotion de la prostitution au Maroc. Ils ont une grande valeur aux prostituées vu qu’ils fournissent un grand nombre de services au delà de la simple fonction du transport. La prostituée a bien besoin d’être mobile vu qu’elle exige de se déplacer pour d’abord se préparer (coiffeur, hammam, shopping, etc.) et puis accéder au marché (resto/bars, cabaret, boite de nuit, hôtel, etc.). Elle a aussi besoin d’être conduite chez elle en sécurité a la fin de sa sortie. Son chauffeur de taxi lui fournit ces services de façon quasi-gratuite – pour le taxi ceci est la partie investissement de son affaire. Il se fait son argent quand sa protégée atterrit un client. La, soit le client est motorisé et donc la prostituée doit s’arranger pour payer une taxe (environ 100DHS) au taxi ou bien encore mieux, le taxi fournit le service de transport a la prostituée et a son client en taxant les deux. Cela est presque toujours le cas des touristes qui sont rarement motorisés.

Les chauffeurs de taxi rendent aussi d'autres services valeureux aux prostituées. Ils leurs fournissent des informations et des renseignements assez importants sur la condition du marché – Par exemple des informations concernant les lieux des clients potentiels et de la compétition, des faits divers et des rumeurs, ainsi que le coaching dont la prostituée a besoin pour éviter les décentes ciblées des flics et gagner des faveurs avec les autres intervenants (gérants des bars, managers d’hôtels, etc.). Ils leurs garantissent aussi un certain degrés de protection. Le chauffeur de taxi est devenu indispensable pour la prostituée marocaine et le téléphone portable est le gadget le plus important dans la gestion de cette relation. Une nouvelle fille sur le marche est vite croquée par un chauffeur de taxi qui lui passe sont numéro de téléphone portable, lui promettant ainsi de devenir son personal coach, chauffeur, et bodyguard.

Les Videurs et les Gérants: The Gate-Keepers

Les gardiens des portes du marché sont ceux qui contrôlent et gèrent l’accès aux lieux de divertissement nocturne ou la prostitution est licite et encouragée. Les videurs et les gérants des bars, cafés, cabarets, et boites de nuit gardent le seuil par voie d’un système de rent-seeking qui est digne des pratiques Makhzeniennes gestionnaires de l’économie nationale – c’est ainsi la ou le formel est l’informel se confondent. Ces agents de la prostitution imposent un régime de règles et de taxes aux prostituées. Pour eux le grand intérêt est dans les affaires. Les filles peuvent accéder au marché, consommer a un prix réduit ou même gratuitement dans certains cas tant qu’elles continuent d’entretenir une clientèle consommatrice ; tant qu’elles payent leur taxes ; et tant qu’elle ne causent pas des problèmes a l’établissement (disputes, vol, drogues, etc). Il y a bien une exception a la pratique des discounts surtout quand il s’agit d’un établissement bien fréquenté (e.g., clientèle riche du Golf) ou les filles sont exigées de payer une taxe d’entrée équivalente au prix d’admission (100 – 200 DHS).

Les videurs imposent aussi une taxe d’exit qui varie entre 50 a 100 DHS a celles qui atterrissent un client a l’intérieur de l’établissement concerné. Cette taxe est vite passée au client puisque la fille lui demande de payer cette taxe avant même de quitter l’établissement en question. Si cette taxe n’est pas payée et la fille quitte quand même avec son client, les gate-keepers lui imposeront une punition. Dans un cas pareil ou bien dans le cas d’une dispute/bagarre impliquant les prostituées, les gérants leur imposent des sanctions proportionnelles au délit commit. Cela varie entre un arrêt d’une semaine et une amende équivalente au prix d’une bouteille a un arrêt complet. Donc la prostituée a intérêt de payer et ne pas trop semer l’antipathie si elle veut bien retourner au marché. Il y a certes des petites exceptions a ces règles surtout parmi une proportion limitée de prostituées qui bénéficient d’un statut privilégié chez les patrons des établissements – mais rien ne dure pour toujours et les choses ont tendance a changer assez brusquement dans ce marché.

Les Flics: The Enforcers

Si les gérants et les videurs des lieux de divertissement menace la sanction économique envers les prostituées, les flics de leur coté menace la sanction juridique. Ces derniers (ceux a tendance corruptible) grignotent ce qu’ils peuvent en maintenant la surveillance du périmètre du marché et imposent des taxes de passage aux prostituées et leurs clients. Ils travaillent parfois de façon indépendante et d’autres fois en coordination avec les videurs ou même les prostituées surtout pour extorquer des touristes ou des clients insouciants. Ils roulent, surveillent, et ciblent leurs proies de façon judicieuse. Ils ne sont jamais timide d’user (ou d’abuser) de leur fonction pour recevoir leur partie du cash émanant des transactions faites sur le marché de prostitution.

Les Hôtels – The Accommodators

Les hôtels sont souvent les lieux de consommation de l’acte finale de la prostitution pour les touristes, surtout les touristes occidentaux. C’est aussi le cas pour certains visiteurs des pays riches du Golf. Mais une partie de ces derniers s’arrangent aussi pour louer ou même acheter des appartements dans des villes marocaines comme Casablanca, Agadir, et Marrakech. Certains laissent ces appartements à leurs prostituées préférées pour en prendre soin. Quand ils ne peuvent pas faire le déplacement au Maroc, Ils envoient leurs amis leur permettant sans scrupule l’usage de l’appartement et de la fille. Ceci étant une méthode beaucoup plus efficiente et moins risquée puisque c’est normalement illégale pour les hôtels d’accommoder ce type d’activité.

Le fait que c’est illégal de transactioner dans la prostitution dans les chambres d’hôtels n’en fait pas un acte inédit. En effet, c’est bien courant tant que c’est fait dans la discrétion. La fille et le client se présente à la réception à une heure tardive de la nuit et le dernier passage a l’acte final est négocié. L’agent de réception et l’agent de sécurité s’en mêlent et, après une courte négociation, collectent la taxe de consommation qui peut s’élever à l’équivalent du prix d’une chambre. La chambre n’est vraiment jamais enregistrée au nom de la fille, et donc cette taxe est partagée par les fonctionnaires de l’hôtel qui participent dans ce type d’activité – présents au moment de la transaction ou pas. Une partie de ce revenu peut aussi être partagé avec les flics. Normalement, la prostituée informe le client bien avant cette négociation des détails et de la procédure a suivre.

....A Suivre

Un Couteau de Boucher Pour Sauver Votre Vie Selon la RAM

2005-11-04T12:38:00.000-08:00

Lors de ma visite au Maroc le mois dernier, j'ai pris le vol liant Casablanca a Agadir abord d'un Boeing 737-500 de la RAM. Assis confortablement dans un siège couloir avant le départ, je me suis mis, comme je fais d'habitude, a consulter les instructions de sécurité ( La carte que vous trouvez dans la poche devant votre siège) - Je le fais parce que c'est quelque chose qui releve de ma profession.

Les instructions sont étalées sur une carte a six cotes - disant six pages - format standard pour de tels documents. Les 5 premières pages ne comportaient rien d'étrange - tout était normal: défense de fumer, position accroupie en cas d'urgence, usage des masques d'oxygène et des gilets de sauvetage, fonctionnement des issues d'urgences - Bref, tout était en ordre, sauf…tournant vers la dernière page qui donne des instructions sur les mesures a prendre dans le cas d'un atterrissage forcé sur eau, j'ai vite remarqué quelque chose d'intéressant. J'ai d'abord sourit, puis j'ai appelé l'hôtesse de l'air pour demander plus d’information.

Ma curiosité et mon humour sarcastique ont pris pour cible l'illustration no.6 (voir image ci-contre) de la dernière page d'instructions de sécurité. Avec la semblance d'un air sérieux, j'ai pu aborder la chose à l'hôtesse.

Moi: Bonjour mademoiselle, J'ai bien révisé toutes vos instructions et je comprends tout sauf une petite chose - un détail autrement dit. Ou dans cet avion est ce que vous garder ce couteau de boucher? Parce que, comme disent vos instructions de sécurité, il faut bien un tel couteau pour se détacher de l'avion si on plonge dans l'Atlantique.

Elle: mmmmhhhh...je ne...belati je vais demander.

International Migration, Remittances, & The Brain Drain

2005-10-26T14:09:00.000-07:00

The World Bank released a timely report this week on the topic of migration and its effects on world development. The study's findings point to a worrying pattern of "brain drain" - In other terms, the flight of skilled middle-class workers who could otherwise help lift their countries out of poverty. Although the exact effects are still not completely understood, there is a growing sense among economists that such migration plays a crucial role in a country's ability to pursue sustainable development.

From the NYT:

The study found that from a quarter to almost half of the college-educated citizens of poor countries like Ghana, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda and El Salvador lived abroad in an O.E.C.D. country - a fraction that rises to more than 80 percent for Haiti and Jamaica. In contrast, less than 5 percent of the skilled citizens of the powerhouses of the developing world, like India, China, Indonesia and Brazil, live abroad in an O.E.C.D. country.

These patterns suggest that an extensive flight of educated people is damaging many small to medium-size poor countries, while the largest developing countries are better able to weather relatively smaller losses of talent, and even benefit from them when their skilled workers return or invest in their native lands.

Most experts agree that the exodus of skilled workers from poor countries is a symptom of deep economic, social and political problems in their homelands and can prove particularly crippling in much needed professions in health care and education. But some scholars are asking whether the brain drain may also fuel a vicious downward cycle of underdevelopment - and cost poor countries the feisty people with the spark and the ability to resist corruption and incompetent governance.

Devesh Kapur and John McHale argue in their book, "Give Us Your Best and Brightest," published last week by the Center for Global Development, a research group in Washington, that the loss of institution builders - hospital managers, university department heads and political reformers, among others - can help trap countries in poverty. "It's not just the loss of professionals," said Mr. Kapur, an associate professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. "It's also the loss of a middle class."

"The labor forces in many developed countries are expected to peak around 2010. Conversely, the labor forces in many developing countries are expanding rapidly. This imbalance is likely to create strong demand for workers in developed countries' labor markets, especially for numerous service sectors that can only be supplied locally." - International migration, remittances, and the brain drain, World Bank, 2005.

CLICK FOR REPORT

Lebanon: Report of the Commission Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1595

2005-10-21T09:43:00.000-07:00

Published October 19, 2005
Author: Detlev Mehlis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The Security Council, by its resolution 1595 of 7 April 2005, decided to establish an international independent investigation Commission based in Lebanon to assist the Lebanese authorities in their investigation of all aspects of the terrorist attack which took place on 14 February 2005 in Beirut that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and others, including to help identify its perpetrators, sponsors, organizers and accomplices.

2. The Secretary-General notified the Council that the Commission began its full operations with effect from 16 June 2005. The Commission was granted an extension to the initial period of investigation mandated by the Council, until 26 October 2005.

3. During the course of its investigation, the Commission received extensive support from the Government of Lebanon and benefited from expert inputs from a number of national and international entities.

4. The main lines of investigation of the Commission focused on the crime scene, technical aspects of the crime, analysis of telephone intercepts, the testimony of more than 500 witnesses and sources, as well as the institutional context in which the crime took place.

5. The full case file of the investigation was transmitted to the Lebanese authorities during October 2005.

6. The present report sets out the main lines of enquiry of the investigation conducted by the Commission, its observations thereon, and its conclusions, for the consideration of the Security Council. It also identifies those matters on which further investigation may be necessary.

7. It is the Commission’s view that the assassination of 14 February 2005 was carried out by a group with an extensive organization and considerable resources and capabilities. The crime had been prepared over the course of several months. For this purpose, the timing and location of Mr. Rafik Hariri’s movements had been monitored and the itineraries of his convoy recorded in detail.

8. Building on the findings of the Commission and Lebanese investigations to date and on the basis of the material and documentary evidence collected, and the leads pursued until now, there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act. It is a well known fact that Syrian Military Intelligence had a pervasive presence in Lebanon at the least until the withdrawal of the Syrian forces pursuant to resolution 1559. The former senior security officials of Lebanon were their appointees. Given the infiltration of Lebanese institutions and society by the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services working in tandem, it would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination plot could have been carried out without their knowledge.

9. It is the Commission’s conclusion that the continuing investigation should be carried forward by the appropriate Lebanese judicial and security authorities, who have proved during the investigation that with international assistance and support, they can move ahead and at times take the lead in an effective and professional manner. At the same time, the Lebanese authorities should look into all the case’s ramifications including bank transactions. The 14 February explosion needs to be assessed clearly against the sequence of explosions which preceded and followed it, since there could be links between some, if not all, of them.

10. The Commission is therefore of the view that a sustained effort on the part of the international community to establish an assistance and cooperation platform together with the Lebanese authorities in the field of security and justice is essential. This will considerably boost the trust of the Lebanese people in their security system, while building self-confidence in their capabilities.

Download Complete Report

Excerpt from the Report:

Rafik Hariri, taped conversation with Walid Al-Moallem on 1 February 2005:

“In connection with the extension episode, he (President Assad) sent for me and met me for 10 to 15 minutes.”

“He sent for me and told me: “ You always say that you are with Syria. Now the time has come for you to prove whether you meant what you said or otherwise.” (…) He did not ask my opinion. He said: “I have decided.” He did not address me as Prime Minister or as Rafik or anything of that kind. He just said: “I have decided.” I was totally flustered, at a loss. That was the worst day of my life.”

“He did not tell me that he wished to extend Lahoud’s mandate. All he said was “I have decided to do this, don’t answer me, think and come back to me.””

“I was not treated as a friend or an acquaintance. No. I was asked: “Are you with us or against us?” That was it. When I finished my meeting with him, I swear to you, my body guard looked at me and asked why I was pale-faced”

Global Competitiveness Report

2005-10-01T07:01:00.000-07:00

Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006 (Click for Report)

Europe's largest economies – Germany, the U.K., France, Italy, and Spain – are all losing ground in an annual survey on global competitiveness, dragged down by concerns of sluggish economic growth and high budget deficits.

The rankings, published by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum, pit Italy and Poland as the least competitive members of the European Union. Italy has slipped steadily to 47th of the 117 nations measured this year from 26th in 2001. Italy is burdened by perceptions that its government is interfering in the private sector, as recently alleged in the Bank of Italy's intervention in banking mergers. Finland for the third consecutive year and the U.S. for a second straight year, respectively, once again top the international organization's list of most competitive economies in the annual survey, though the U.S.'s image is tarnished by the health of an economy posting large budget deficits and near-record trade deficits.

Along with Finland, the Nordic European countries of Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway hold five of the top 10 spots, as they did last year.Other stars include Taiwan and Singapore, ranking fifth and sixth, respectively, ahead of 12-seated Japan, which is still suffering from years of deflation.

China and India, often cited as the greatest competitive threats to western economies as they flood markets with cheap products and labor, ranked 49th and 50th. Despite their high growth rates in recent years, the survey found that both countries need to cut red tape, educate their people and improve infrastructure in order to continue to compete in the years ahead.

The World Economic Forum defines competitiveness not just on the basis of productivity and exchange rates. It also looks at policies and institutions that can affect productivity and prosperity.

Western Europe's slip in competitiveness from the beginning of the decade – though from fairly high levels -- reflects the region's economic development of late. Gross domestic product in the 12-nation euro zone that forms the bulk of the region's economy is projected to have expanded on average at just 1.3% during the first five years of this decade, compared with more than 2% during the previous decade. The euro zone is forecast to grow just 1.2% this year, behind 3.5% growth in the U.S. and 4.3% growth globally, according to recent forecasts by the International Monetary Fund. The region's budget deficit has risen to 2.7% of GDP in 2004 from 1.9% of GDP in 2001.

The United Kingdom slipped to 13th place from 11th last year; Germany to 15 from 13; and France to 30 from 27. The dimmer outlook for nations such as Germany and France, which the IMF expects to grow this year 0.8% and 1.5%, respectively, is even beginning to harm the outlook for relatively robust Spain, which has been one of the euro zone's fastest growing economies in recent years. Spain's overall ranking dropped to 29 from 23, and the indicator ranking Spain's economic outlook has dropped to 65 this year from 29 in 2001.

Country Rankings (World):

1. Finland 2. USA 3. Sweden
4. Denmark 5. Taiwan 6. Singapore
7. Iceland 8. Switzerland 9. Norway
10. Australia 11. Netherlands 12. Japan
13. UK 14. Canada 15. Germany
16. New Zealand

The Arab World Competitiveness Report 2005 (Click for Report)

The Arab world finds itself at a critical crossroads.Population growth has pushed unemployment rates to some of the highest levels in the world, and brought into sharp relief the urgent need for a reorientation of economic policies. Reforms are essential to engender a process of sustained job creation, well into the next decade, if the region is to avoid the inefficiencies associated with poor utilization of human resources, to say nothing of the social and political costs.

The call for urgent action is underscored not only by the burgeoning pressures on labor markets, but also the resurgence of other major emerging economies—in China, India, and central and eastern Europe, to name a few—whose presence in the global economy is quickly expanding, against a background of sustained improvements in per capita incomes, institutional development and international competitiveness.

To remain viable in the global economy in areas other than the energy sector, it is vitally important that the Arab countries improve the overall quality of governance, significantly raise their levels of competitiveness, improve macroeconomic management, institute reforms to enhance the efficiency of public sector institutions and, facilitate the absorption of new technologies.

Country Rankings (Arab World):

1. Qatar 2. UAE 3. Bahrain
4. Oman 5. Jordan 6. Tunisia
7. Saudi Arabia 8. Morocco 9. Egypt
10. Algeria 11. Lebanon 12. Yemen

Le reportage d'Envoye Special sur les enfants-sauteurs

2005-09-19T11:28:00.000-07:00

Vous avez vu "Envoye Special" de la semaine derniere? Il vient de repasser sur TV5 Orient lundi soir. Au debut, je voulais parler du reportage sur les "enfants-sauteurs". C'est absolument horrible! Des enfants au Tchad qui sont enchaines en guise d'education, pour ceux consideres "recalcitrants"! J'etais revoltee avant meme d'avoir vu le reportage, juste avec les extraits. Ils sautent parce qu'ils ont des chaines au pieds qui les empechent de marcher. Leurs mains aussi. Le reportage a finalement montre des images d'enfants envoyes dans des ecoles dites coraniques. En fonction de l'ecole, le pourcentage d'enfants enchaines varie (de 0 a plus des 2/3 des enfants). Puis au fur et a mesure que je voyais le reportage, je me suis peu a peu detachee du sujet (que je croyais etre) originel, pour me rendre compte que le reportage etait une parfaire recette de cuisine pour traumatiser le telespectateur occidental.

Je m'explique: plutot que de vraiment se concentrer sur la problematique des enfants enchaines (qui etait censee etre le coeur du sujet), le reportage mentionne que ce sont la des ecoles "coraniques" ou les enfants passent le journee entre recitation/ psalmodiation du Coran et mendicite, sont maltraites physiquement, qui se developpent proportionnellement aux mosquees qui gagnent du terrain, mosquees elles-memes financees par l'Arabie Saoudite, et qui convertissent contre leur gre des enfants nes chretiens... L'apocalypse quoi! Ah oui, plus un zest d'incompetence evidente du gouvernement tchadien, demontree par une interview de la Ministre tchadienne des Affaires Sociales qui affirme ne pas etre au courant que des enfants dans de telles ecoles, sont enchaines, et aussi un peu de "retard civilisationnel" en termes de mentalites, avec le chauffeur du reporter qui dit ouvertement que ce n'est pas une mauvaise chose que d'enchainer un enfant s'il a la tete dure...

Ce qui me gene, ici, c'est la maniere dont le reportage a ete monte, en reprenant purement et simplement tous les ingredients actuels pour choquer et faire peur les Occidentaux. Je ne dis pas que l'analyse de la situation sur le sujet est necessairement fausse. Mais elle est guidee des le depart par le reportage et son objectif, et empeche le telespectateur d'analyser la situation. Car, il ne faut pas l'oublier, a l'origine, le sujet est serieux: maltraitance des enfants! Ce n'est pas un sujet qu'on aborde avec de l'emotionnel, mais avec du sang-froid et de la rigueur.

Par contre, on append brievement au cours du reportage que le succes de ces ecoles est egalement lie au fait qu'elles sont gratuites (ce qui n'est pas le cas de l'ecole publique au Tchad, si je me souviens bien)! Et que c'est un moyen pour les familles pauvres d'eduquer leurs enfants. On peut alors comprendre qu'un des facteurs de developpement de ces ecoles est leur gratuite, et non pas l'expansion d'un mode de pensee extremiste, dans lequel il n'y pas de place pour les droits de l'Homme, de l'Enfant ou de la Femme. Mais cela est tres brievement dit dans le reportage, trop brievement.

Et pour couronner le tout, le reporter qui interviewe un "marabout" (ou directeur de ces ecoles dites "coraniques" ou encore "centre de dressage") d'une des ecoles les plus dures, en lui demandant s'il a l'intention d'accueillir egalement des filles (parce que jusqu'a aujourd'hui, il n'y a que des garcons dans ces ecoles). Le marabout: oui, mais pas tout de suite, car il n'y a pas assez de place. Et le reporter d'enchainer: "Alors si je suis musulman, et si ma femme n'est pas tres fidele, euh??...", et le marabout qui repond aussitot: "Oui oui, on peut la prendre, 3 mois, 6 mois, formation rapide..." Et voila les droits de la Femmes bafoues! Le probleme c'est que c'est cousu de fil blanc: le reporter a vraiment cree les conditions afin d'obtenir une telle reponse, propre a lever un tolle en Europe sur les droits de la femme. Et cela serait justifie, en soi. Ce qui l'est beaucoup moins, c'est la manipulation du reporter afin d'utiliser tous les ingredients, a bonne dose, pour engendrer une image panique sur le Tchad, l'extremisme musulman et son internationalisation.

Au final, plutot que d'etre revoltee par le sujet des enfants enchaines soi-disant pour leur education, j'etais enervee contre le parti-pris du reportage. Et cela me pousse a me questionner sur l'ampleur immense du pouvoir des medias, la deontologie, les droits et devoirs du journalisme, des citoyens... C'est effrayant! En tant que citoyenne du monde, je me sens bien petite et demunie face a un tel pouvoir...

Pour info, j'ai egalement trouve cet article:
Africatime

Latest Pew Research Poll on Bush’s handling of Katrina

2005-09-09T11:27:00.000-07:00

Two-In-Three Critical Of Bush's Relief Efforts. Huge Racial Divide Over Katrina and Its Consequences

The American public is highly critical of President Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Two-in-three Americans (67%) believe he could have done more to speed up relief efforts, while just 28% think he did all he could to get them going quickly. At the same time, Bush’s overall job approval rating has slipped to 40% and his disapproval rating has climbed to 52%, among the highest for his presidency. Uncharacteristically, the president’s ratings have slipped most among his core constituents – Republicans and conservatives.

The disaster has triggered a major shift in public priorities. For the first time since the 9/11 terror attacks, a majority of American say it is more important for the president to focus on domestic policy than the war on terrorism. And the poll finds that Katrina has had a profound psychological impact on the public. Americans are depressed, angry and very worried about the economic consequences of the disaster. Fully 58% of respondents say they have felt depressed because of what’s happened in areas affected by the storm. In recent years, this percentage is only surpassed by the 71% that reported feeling depressed in a survey taken just days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 6-7 among 1,000 Americans, including an oversample of African Americans, finds a huge racial divide in perceptions of the disaster and lessons to be learned from Katrina’s aftermath. For example, 71% of blacks say the disaster shows that racial inequality remains a major problem in the country; a majority of whites (56%) feel this was not a particularly important lesson of the disaster. And while 66% of blacks think that the government’s response to the crisis would have been faster if most of the storm’s victims had been white, an even larger percentage of whites (77%) disagree.

View complete report

A Different Tune For An 'Act of God'

2005-09-05T10:54:00.000-07:00

When we wake up from the nightmare that the first decade of the third millennium has turned out to be, I suspect that many of us would be happy that we survived at all. In the first five years of this new century alone, we have witnessed both human cruelty and nature's fury in a grand scale. Pictures of gruesome brutality have become a 'fact of life' for this generation of mankind - a never-ending reality show of death and inhumanity proliferated with greater ease through new media, communication, and information technology. Man's darkest nature has been more readily exposed in these last few years through violent conflict, shameless criminality and pronounced incompetence. Terrorism, war, and natural disasters are what will undoubtedly mark our collective memories of this treacherous decade.

As the sun sets on these difficult times, those who claim great leadership in the face of man-made brutality may very well end up exposed by nature as nothing but a falsehood - a lightening rod that promises to deliver light to our dark alleys but ends up setting fire to our neighborhood trees. Men become entrapped in the incompetent and arrogant clutches of false leadership because they desperately fear and selfishly hope. Yet, it is always that invincible cruelty of nature that returns to fully expose the true disposition of the ability, sincerity, and character we claim to possess.

In the aftermath of this latest human tragedy in the Gulf Coast of the United States, many, including some close allies of the current administration, have loudly criticized the federal response to Katrina, especially in New Orleans where the storm left behind a sea of devastation, death and desperation. As the recovery efforts continue, I have no doubt that such criticism will intensify and congressional inquiries into leadership failures pre- and post-disaster will follow.

This is now a whole different situation politically than post-9/11, when a full and honest critique of leadership was unattainable. Criticism at the time was immediately labeled by the rabid pundits of the new political elite as "sympathy and apology for terrorism" - The slogan was: "Blaming the preparedness and response of the government to 9/11 is tantamount to siding with the terrorists". This blackmailing tactic worked beautifully in that it silenced even the most daring of critics and turned the US media - with a very few exceptions - into a lap dog of the reigning political elite for the better half of this decade - repeating scripted 'Talking Points' at nauseam so as to manufacture public consent for incompetent, self-interested, and arrogant policies - This in a democracy where the sacred duty of journalism is supposed to be monitoring the centers of power on behalf of the citizens of this republic.

Now, things are different. Natural disasters have a way of making pro-government arguments made in the aftermath of criminal acts like 9/11 difficult to repeat. What will they say this time? "Blaming the preparedness and response of the government to Katrina is tantamount to siding with GOD"!!?? Things are different now, because Americans died (possibly in numbers superior to those of 9/11) and there is no foreign force to blame for that - no terrorists and no "axis of evil" governments - Just "God", and no one likes to blame God especially within the political base of the current administration. It is after all an irony of life that those who assert monopoly over divine inspiration and mission find themselves often contradicted by the same force whose truth they claim to hold.

The political landscape is surely going to see a readjustment in the next few months and years although the extent of such change remains unclear. But it is certain that things are different now and that the political supremacy some current elements have enjoyed during recent years, especially since 9/11 is bound to crack. Some leading senators and political figures are already recognizing this and they are gradually shifting positions - moving chess pieces - whether it is on Iraq or domestic policy.

Katrina exposed more than the unpreparedness of the bureaucratic child of 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security, and the lack of leadership at the executive level of government. It also exposed the failure of this nation to eradicate poverty within its own borders and to fully integrate its African American community some 42 years since Dr Martin Luther King professed his dream on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. In fact, all members of Congress have to do is take a 10-minute cab trip from the Capitol to South East DC to find this out for themselves. The images of Katrina's aftermath will affect the short-term political discourse in this country at least until forgetfulness returns to condemn anew the less privileged and the most vulnerable to the cruelty of neglect.

An economist once said that risk in politics is the combination of hazard and outrage - the latter being the main driver. When outrage is high, then risk is perceived to require immediate and bold action. The outrage of Katrina's aftermath is surely going to command some changes, although one can only speculate as to the extent of those changes. Will there be an end to Pork in the legislative process? Will congressional funds be finally allocated to sustainable programs that bring about real change to this country's most vulnerable communities? Will impulsive foreign policy moves be accounted for and restrained? Will bureaucratic waste and incompetence be curtailed? Will there be accountability for poor leadership?...Probably all wishful thinking, but if anything, we are entitled to dream just a little longer.

THE BEST ATHLETE EVER

2005-07-24T12:03:00.000-07:00

Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics

2005-07-14T15:31:00.000-07:00

From The Pew Global Attitudes Project, co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and by former Senator John C. Danforth.

Support for Terror Wanes Among Muslim Publics

Concerns about Islamic extremism, widespread in the West even before this month’s terrorist attacks in London, are shared to a considerable degree by the publics in several predominantly Muslim nations, most notably Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia. Most Muslim publics are also expressing less support for acts of terrorism in defense of Islam and less confidence in Osama bin Laden.

Yet, the latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted this spring among more than 17,000 people in 17 countries, finds that Muslim and non-Muslim publics have very different attitudes with regard to the impact of Islam on their countries.

While publics in predominantly Muslim countries voice concerns that Islamic extremism can lead to violence, fewer personal freedoms, internal divisions, and retarded economic development, the balance of opinion is that Islam is playing a larger political role in their nations, and most welcome that development. Turkey is a clear exception: there the public is divided about the desirability of a larger political role for Islam.

In non-Muslim countries, fears of Islamic extremism are closely associated with worries that Muslims living there do not want to adopt their nation’s customs and way of life. There is also a widespread perception, including among Americans, that resident Muslims have a strong and growing sense of Islamic identity—a development that is viewed especially negatively in France, Germany and the Netherlands.

Other findings detailed in this, the second release based on the survey, include:

* Large and growing majorities in some predominantly Muslim countries—notably Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan and Indonesia—continue to say that democracy can work well in their own countries. Yet, except in Indonesia and Jordan where views are divided, Muslims in these countries are far more likely to think of themselves first as a Muslim rather than as a citizen of their particular country.

* Further ambivalence with respect to the role of Islam in political life is seen in the tendency of Muslims who see Islam’s role increasing also to be more likely to say that Islamic extremism poses a threat to their home countries.

* Support for acts of terrorism in defense of Islam has declined significantly in all majority-Muslim countries surveyed. Only in Jordan does a majority (57%) still find such acts justified. But opinion is divided over suicide bomber attacks on Americans and other Westerners in Iraq: Substantial majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia find such attacks are not justifiable, but nearly half of Muslims in Lebanon and Jordan, and 56% in Morocco say they are. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has also fallen to low levels in most of these countries with the exception of Jordan and Pakistan.

* Among predominantly Muslim countries, nearly three-quarters of Moroccans, who witnessed a devastating terrorist attack two years ago, and roughly half of Pakistanis, Turks and Indonesians, see Islamic extremism as a threat in their own countries. Views are mixed on the causes of such extremism with U.S. policies and influence most frequently cited in Lebanon and Jordan, poverty and lack of jobs in Morocco and Pakistan, immorality in Indonesia and lack of education in Turkey.

* In the non-Muslim world, concerns about Islamic extremism—both within their own borders and around the world—is most intense in Russia, India, Spain and Germany. However, worry also runs high in France and the Netherlands. Before this month’s terrorist attacks in London, Britons and Americans expressed more concern about extremist attacks around the world than in their home countries.

* Europeans attitudes toward the admission of Turkey into the European Union appear to be associated to some degree with concerns about Islamic extremism but even more strongly with negative views about immigration. Opposition is strongest in Germany and France as well as the Netherlands, while support for Turkey’s admission is strongest in Spain and Great Britain.

* Despite concerns about Islamic identity and extremism, majorities of the publics of most countries in Europe and North America hold favorable views of Muslims; only in the Netherlands and Germany do opinions tilt to the negative. However, people in predominantly Muslim countries hold mixed views of Christians and strongly negative views of Jews.

* Bans on the wearing of head scarves by Muslim women are heavily opposed in majority-Muslim countries (including Turkey), but are favored by large majorities in France and India and small majorities in Germany and the Netherlands.

* While majorities in five of the six Muslim countries surveyed still hold unfavorable views of the U.S., a majority of Moroccans now report having a favorable opinion. In Morocco, as well as in Lebanon, Pakistan and Turkey, young people are more likely to give favorable marks to the U.S. than are older people. In most Muslim countries, women are also somewhat more likely than men to look positively on the U.S. although they are also less likely to offer an opinion.

View Report

They Do Not Need To Win

2005-07-11T18:56:00.000-07:00

The terrorism that struck London last week is not some attack on 'the Western way of life'. It is not because of Big Macs, Reality TV, and beach thongs that hoards of terrorist recruits are lining up to join this new multinational criminal enterprise or global insurgency, if you prefer. Yet, almost four years after 9/11, we continue to hear the same old garbage from the same old people. They just don’t get it or don't want to get it and as long as they don’t, we shall continue to fail on this issue. The same terrorists that struck London, also struck major Muslim centers since 9/11, namely Casablanca, Istanbul, Cairo, Doha, Karachi, Jeddah, and Riyadh- not to mention their killing spree in Baghdad. They have attacked far more Muslim cities than they have Western cities. So, why is it that only when these murderers attack a Western city that Sam Huntington’s washed-out theory of clashing civilizations becomes gospel again? Were those civilizations clashing when innocent Moroccans, Turks, Egyptians, Qataris, Pakistanis, Saudis, and Iraqis were maimed and killed? I am tired of false theories and flat-out incompetence on this issue, and there is plenty of blame to go around, believe me.

First, I blame us. When I say us, I mean the Muslim world. Whether we like it or not, these murderers are our responsibility. They are our cockroaches and they are infesting the world with poisonous murder. We allowed them to take charge of our future while we were busy sipping coffee at the corner store. These criminals can never prosper without a “cause” and we allowed them to shape that “cause” to their liking and usher our children into the battlefields of hate and murder. Thomas Friedman recently wrote a column in the New York Times calling for the Muslim world to shame the terrorists. He is right to suggest that the likes of Al Qaeda can only be defeated by “the Muslim village”, because Friedman, I suppose, has gotten to understand what others in the West continue to ignore: It’s the cause, hence recruitment, stupid. That’s what allows these organizations to thrive and the only group that would be able to choke the ideological lines that lead to terrorist recruitment are Muslims. Muslims have to pry their grievances from the clutches of the terrorists and claim ownership of Muslim advocacy. Where Friedman falls short is in his apparent failure to recognize the generation gap that now exists in the Muslim world. Condemnations by "village elders", so to speak, are no longer enough because the al-Zarqawis of the world do no give a hoot what the old scholars at Al Azhar say or do. It will take the whole village.

Second, I blame us again. This time by us I mean the West, most particularly the US. We have become in this new era of Paris Hilton TV stubbornly selfish and decidedly stupid. See, the 'way-of-life' argument I raised in my opening paragraph is grossly misplaced; it is not a causal component at the source but rather a problematic element of the response. We have outsourced our intellectual capacity to the guy on the TV screen and allowed the politics of fear, incompetence and arrogance to dictate the course of policy in this country. It is still the Policy Stupid. We sit and listen to mouth-foaming ignoramuses like O’Reilly and company and never take the time to research, analyze, and construct – hence, denying our brain its most basic functions. It’s whatever that guy says!! In the meanwhile, new recruits are being trained in urban terrorism in Iraq and it is a matter of time before the Al-Zarqawi brigades, which are a whole lot stealthier and far more dangerous, reek havoc around the world (so much for "fighting them over there so that we don't fight them here" nonesense). With our vulgar mismanagement of post-war Iraq, we have handed Al Qaeda a second base there and a new cause to expand their recruitment. We have not yet come to understand that the likes of Al Qaeda do not need to win. Their whole existence is predicated on conflict and terrorism. They feed off military responses like maggots on rotting flesh– that’s their fuel, their best recruiting tool. You bomb Iraq, they say: “Thank you very much, we’ll take that. What else have you got for me? Abu Ghraib? Fallujah? have you considred bombing Tehran or Damascus?”.

Global attitude surveys (see my previous post) show widespread resentment of American policy including in countries considered to be this nation's closest allies. Such mounting resentment can provide fertile ground for terrorist recruitment (providing unity of purpose for anger). As Alexis de Tocqueville once said: “Shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships.” Secretary Rumsfeld has acknowledged in a leaked memo last year that there was no way to measure Al Qaeda recruitment across the globe. Have you asked why that is?

When we do try to answer that important question fully and honestly then maybe, and just maybe, demands for correct attitudes, sound policies and more accountability on the issue of terrorism would become the new fashion, or shall I say "the new fad". In the meanwhile, turn that TV off, would ya?

An Update on Al Qaeda From A Field Researcher

2005-07-11T07:54:00.000-07:00

The first I heard of the London bombing last Thursday morning was at a speaking event in downtown Washington DC. The speech that morning was delivered by a friend who had just returned from Pakistan where he was investigating the trail of Bin Laden and his sidekick, al-Zawahiri. I was looking forward to his presentation because when I spoke to him a few days earlier, he had promised that he would share some new facts and details on Al Qaeda movements in and around the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I listened very carefully to the findings presented that morning as a result of the investigative work done by the presenter and his team in Pakistan and along border areas in Eastern Afghanistan. Many of the details shared that morning did not shock or surprise me, although I found some to be rather peculiar.

1. Al Qaeda is not a centralized operation. It relies on autonomous and semi-autonomous groups to plan and execute terror attacks around the world. Attacks such as those executed in London last week do not require the approval nor the knowledge of Bin Laden and his Lieutenants. The Al Qaeda leadership has completely decentralized its decision-making to local terrorists after having provided blanket approvals for a wide range of attacks on a large number of targets.

2. Al Qaeda is still very successful at moving both information and money around. They rely on human intelligence and couriers to transport messages, supplies, and money in and around their areas of operation.

3. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri do not travel together. In fact, they move separately, each with his following of terrorists, through various networks of safe houses and camps depending on time of the year. They both have a winter and a summer itinerary, which on second thought is expected given the fact that weather conditions in remote areas of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border require serious adjustments.

4. The Arab regiments of Al Qaeda, who have nurtured blood ties to local tribes through marriage since the Jihad days of the 1980s, are more or less centered around Bin Laden, while the Uzbek/Chechens are under the control of al-Zawahiri.

5. The Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami and elements in the Pakistani military and intelligence services (ISI) continue to provide significant logistical support to Al Qaeda, including information, safe houses and a host of communication equipment. In fact, many of the safe houses where AlQaeda operatives like Abu Faraj al-Libbi and Khaled Sheikh Mohamed were captured were owned and/or operated by Jamaat-e-Islami officials.

6. Searches of safe houses used by Al Qaeda in Pakistan turned up a variety of sophisticated media and communication equipment. The findings from a raid conducted recently into a safe house in a remote area of Pakistan included high quality video and audio equipment, computer stations, communication gear and propaganda equipment. Al Qaeda also obtains weapon supplies from a wide number of local manufacturers in the area (small Pop&Mom shops of death). These shops make everything from mines, mortars and IEDs to refurbished rifles and stingers.

7. There appears to be an ideological or tactical rift between Bin Laden, supported by the Arab militias, and Al-Zawahiri who mostly commands Uzbek/Chechen rebels. The former allegedly favors a strategy that focuses on attacking the West first and not to provoke Arab regimes into the fight. The latter reportedly believes that the fight should be waged from within Arab and Muslim Lands. They believe in two different sides of their own version of the Domino effect.

8. Precision-guided bombing is conducted within Pakistan against suspected Al Qaeda targets. This may sound like a fact of very little value, except that Pakistan does not own or operate precision-guided ammunition.

Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2005

2005-07-06T14:17:00.000-07:00

The Pew Research Center has recently released a 16-nation Global Attitudes Survey that gave America mixed reviews amid what still remains a very negative world view of U.S. policy. Among the many interesting findings of the survey, I would like to make the following observations:

1. India is the most pro-American nation in the survey sample. Almost three out of four (71%) Indians expressed favorable opinions of the U.S. The majority of Indians (63%) believe that U.S. policy considers the interests of other nations.

2. Opinions of the U.S. in Indonesia have improved significantly since 2003 (from only 15% in 2003 to 38% in 2005). This improvement is undoubtedly linked to the relief efforts conducted by the US following the Tsunami. Although the majority of Indonesians still hold negative views of the US, it is clear that US efforts to provide relief to Tsunami victims in that country have been of significant value.

3. Strong majorities in Indonesia (59%), India (63%), and China (53%) believe that U.S. foreign policy considers others' interests. Note that only 25% of Indonesians believed that to be the case in 2003. This is clearly a vote of confidence for U.S. humanitarian relief in the case of Indonesia and trade/globalization in the case of China and India.

4. Strong majorities in the surveyed countries of Western Europe and the Muslim World (except Indonesia) believe that U.S. foreign policy does NOT consider the interests of other nations. This is clearly an expression of distrust and frustration with U.S. efforts in Iraq and post 9-11 policies.

5. Favorable ratings of the US have been steadily slipping in both Canada and Britain. Although majorities there (59% and 55% respectively) still have positive views of the U.S., note that those ratings were much higher only five years ago (71% and 83% respectively in 2000).

6. Favorable ratings of the U.S. in Lebanon have improved since 2003 (from 27% in 2003 to 42% today). One can only speculate about the contribution of US pressure on Syria to this unexpected improvement. The survey also shows that Lebanon remains a very sectarian country with deep divisions along religious and ethnic lines.

7. Favorable ratings of the U.S. in Morocco have plunged from 77% only five years ago (2000) to a miserable 27% in 2004 (data for 2005 was not yet ready for publication). However, the Pew Research Center explains that preliminary results from Morocco suggest significant improvements in the U.S. image there.

8. Most surveyed Western European countries (except Poland) find the US to be too religious. All surveyed Muslim countries find the U.S. not to be religious enough. Americans (58%) agree with the assessment of Muslims on this issue.

9. Majorities in all surveyed nations, except Russia and Poland, believe that the problem with the U.S. is “mostly Bush”. Only in Poland and Russia (49% and 58% respectively) believe that the problem with the U.S. is “America in general”. Remember that the majority of Poles (56%) find the U.S. not to be religious enough. President Bush is very unpopular in all surveyed countries except in India where 54% of those surveyed view him favorably.

10. Strong majorities in all of the countries surveyed believe Americans are “Hardworking” and “Inventive”. Majorities also believe that Americans are “violent” and “Greedy”. In fact 70% of surveyed Americans think of themselves as “Greedy”. The French and Germans are the least likely to associate that term with Americans.

11. The majority of surveyed Canadians believe that Americans are “rude”, “violent”, “dishonest”, and “greedy”. But, they also find their neighbors to be “Hardworking” and “Inventive”.

12. France and Germany love each other more than they love themselves. 89% of the French think highly of Germans (they only gave themselves a 74% favorability rating), whereas 78% of the Germans think highly of the French (they only gave themselves a 64% favorability rating). Get a room you two!! :)

13. Most surveyed countries including Canada, Britain, and Russia expressed markedly higher favorability ratings for France and Germany than for the U.S. Majorities in the surveyed Muslim countries give markedly higher marks to Western Europe, Japan, and China than they do the U.S. Only India reserved its highest favorability rating (71%) for the U.S.

14. Of all the surveyed nations, Indians are the only ones who still view the US as the land of opportunity. Australia has become the land of opportunity for most Western Europeans and China and Japan have become attractive destinations for Pakistanis and Indonesians respectively.

15. The Chinese are very happy with the way things are going at home. 88% of Chinese rated their country favorably, which is possibly an endorsement of pro-growth strategies in China – also reflects high hopes among the Chinese regarding their economic and political future.

16. Majorities in the U.S., Turkey, and Russia believe that they are disliked by the rest of the world. Strong majorities in all other surveyed nations believe that they are liked.

Favorable Opinion of the U.S. (Click on image)

Source: The Pew Global Project Attitudes, June 23, 2005.

Last Night With Cheb Khaled

2005-07-01T12:44:00.000-07:00

Last night, I attended a diplomatic reception honoring the Algerian pop star Cheb Khaled. The Party was held at the Jordanian Embassy, which I thought was a very kind and generous gesture by the Jordanian government in general and the Jordanian Ambassador in particular. But, I could not help but ask: Why the heck was the party not held at the Algerian Embassy? Khaled is only one of the biggest artists to ever come out of Algeria. It appears that the Algerian Embassy was asked to host the event but turned it down. To be fair, though I remain skeptical, there may have been logistical or scheduling conflicts that made it impossible for the Algerians to host the party. But, again I remain unconvinced as to the explanations I received so far.

At any rate, it was good fun and the hundred or so people in attendance were treated to some great food from a local Algerian restaurant and an upbeat speech by Khaled. Tonight, Khaled will be singing at the George Washington University Lisner Auditorium.

World Bank To Support Morocco In Developing The Housing Sector

2005-07-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

World Bank Announcement:

The World Bank's Board of Directors approved today a US$150 million loan to support the efforts of the government in the process of reforming an enabling environment for the housing sector and significantly expanding the access of the urban poor to decent housing.

The Housing Sector Development Policy Loan (HSDPL) supports the implementation of the Government of Morocco policy reforms and programs in the housing sector. It seeks to contribute to the improvement of the overall functionality of the housing sector, reducing the current market distortions and enabling private sector companies to participate more fully in the production and commercialization of housing goods. At the same time, the new project will assist the Government with the definition and implementation of specific policies and programs targeted to the urban poor, and especially the slum-dwellers, that would continue to benefit from public subsidies.

The reforms supported by the Loan aim to Strengthen the institutional, regulatory and fiscal environment of the housing sector, through :

modernizing urban planning standards and regulations;
restructuring and refocusing public sector housing agencies and enterprises; and
rationalizing and simplifying real estate taxes and subsidies.

The project aims also to increase access of low income households to more affordable and higher quality housing, through :

expanding urban slum upgrading and social housing programs;
improving the efficiency of the residential rental market; and
expanding access of informal sector and low-income households to housing finance.

The proposed operation supports the second strategic objective of the new Morocco Country Assistance Strategy (CAS 2005-2009), recently approved by the board of directors last May 19, of providing improved access to quality services for the poorest and most marginalized parts of the population. It directly supports the CAS specific goal, under the second strategic objective, of reducing slums and increasing access to affordable housing for the poorest segments of the population.

The Iranian Case: Another Look

2005-06-25T10:36:00.000-07:00

Since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 and the hostage-taking ordeal that ensued at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, we have come to expect nothing but ill will and strong rhetoric between the US and Iran. The US-Iran dossier has been effectively reduced to two headlines diffused by each side for public consumption: For the US, Iran is an "axis of evil", whereas for Iran the US is "the great Satan". In the midst of such expressed hostility, there is no room for objectivity from either side. Indeed, any objectivity on the matter draws fierce condemnations and accusations of appeasement, if not outright betrayal, from both sides. In other words, if there is anything that these two enemies seem to agree on is that a center, reasoned approach is an undesirable position of weakness that is to be avoided at all costs - and that is not about to change any time soon, although everything else around the issue itself including its regional and global context is dramatically changing.

A major hindrance to reasoned debate on this issue is the central role each side has reserved to propaganda in their respective policies towards each other. In other words, each side has gotten over the years to believe its own propaganda (or BS if you prefer). Nonetheless, I do not advocate that all the arguments thrust into the sphere of public information by partisan elements regarding this issue are entirely baseless. But rather that some major arguments advanced by both sides remain at best misinformed and erroneous, if not flat-out disingenuous. The lack of any willingness to think beyond slogans and symbols is further exacerbating the conflict, hence, adding fuel to a very unstable and potentially dangerous situation. Yet, the dimensions of the issue extend into many fields of great relevance to global security, stability, and economic well-being, hence, not only calling for our attention, but also the full engagement of the international community. The multiple dimensions of the issue on hand include, among others, nuclear weapon proliferation, terrorism, strategic energy (oil and natural gas) supplies, poverty reduction, governance, human rights, and global trade. Therefore, no strategy can be endowed with a reasonable probability of success if either party continues to ignore the multi-dimensional aspect of their conflict with the aim to solely gain for oneself in some ‘zero-sum game’. To further this discussion of the great divide that exists between the two countries and explore some of the misconceptions and misunderstandings that continue to poison any chance for some future resolution of the conflict, let us review some of the main topics/charges that recently made headlines.

Iran recently held presidential elections that saw the accession of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the young conservative mayor of Tehran, to the second-highest post in the country. Before a single vote was cast in this election, President Bush condemned the vote as illegitimate by specifically charging that "over 1,000 candidates were disqualified from running”. Now, while the undemocratic nature of the Iranian revolutionary council is a legitimate issue that throngs of Iranians are themselves unhappy with, the US argument loses credibility due to three particularly obvious facts:

(1) Even democratic countries have a variety of institutional limits that act as filters for the selection of eligible presidential candidates for reasons of simplifying the electoral process. It is unpractical for any country to field a 1,000 candidates in a presidential election. In fact, in the US, many election rules are negotiated and set by a bi-partisan commission limiting the participation of independent candidates in national presidential debates. Indeed, many argue that U.S laws governing most elections are either specifically designed to limit the prospects for independent candidates or to work to the advantage of the two dominant parties. A recent example would be the exclusion of third-party candidate Ralph Nader from the 2000 presidential debate to which Present Bush was party.

(2) The Iranian election fielded seven candidates, at least two of which are clearly at odds with the conservative agenda of the ruling theology. Thus, even if we accept the notion that the outcome was pre-determined, Iranians were still able to benefit from the programs of seven different campaigns with a variety of views ranging from the conservative to the moderate. In fact, the runner-up in the election, Hachemi Rafsanjani, ran on a platform that promised social changes, privatization and better relations with the United States.

(3) Iran has a tradition of elections and political campaigning. It is a country where everyone can vote, man or woman, poor or rich, young or old. Yes, the system is undermined by undemocratic processes put in place by the clergy, but one can not ignore the fact that unlike Saudi Arabia, both Iranian men and women can vote and stand for election. There are women in parliament and in public service in Iran. By contrast, women are not even allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. By the way, this year’s national car racing champion in Iran is a woman – her name is Laleh Seddigh, a feat still coveted by women like Danica Patrick in the US. In addition, the new Iranian president, the son of a blacksmith, hails from poor origins unlike in Saudi Arabia where one rules based on his royal pedigree.

The US is not wrong when it criticizes the undemocratic dominance of the clergy in Iran. That is a legitimate issue and legitimate criticism. But, the US does a disservice to what otherwise is a credible argument by spewing out a collection of contradictions that are rather motivated by resentment than reason. It also exacerbates the problem with its praise of the so-called Saudi “reforms” when every sane mind knows that Saudi Arabia is far more undemocratic and repressive than Iran especially vis-à-vis women. This simply shuts down the ability of interested parties to take US arguments seriously as well as burdens and undermines the credibility of reformers in Iran who are accused of being the agents of an “ill-intentioned” U.S. Furthermore, the chaos and violence of Iraq following the US invasion effectively erased all of those dissenting Iranian voices that once advocated for US involvement in Iran. Even the son of the deposed Shah is now cautioning that any US interference in Iran would have disastrous consequences. The “they-will greet-us-with-flowers” fantasy is all but gone now, especially in the aftermath of Iraq.

One thing we also often forget to include in our discussions of another country’s election process is its domestic politics. To believe the US media, the only major items of concern to the Iranians were: (1) relations with the US and (2) the ongoing negotiations on the country’s nuclear programs (I will come back on the nuclear issue shortly). This notion that the Iranians attached any more importance to those two issues than, let’s say, their economic wellbeing, unemployment, education, and government administration is simply ridiculous. In fact, despite his conservative ideology, the appeal the new president, Mr. Ahmadinejad enjoys among many Iranians is his domestic programs to combat corruption and his reputation as an honest mayor of Tehran. Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a former vice president and chief aid to the departing president, recently wrote that Mr. Ahmadinejad won in part because of mistakes by reformists, including offering unrealistic campaign promises and losing touch with average people. Mr. Ahmadinejad, focused exclusively on the nations economic needs, he played to the mounting resentment among many voters for the Iranian elite, and he appealed to Iranians' national pride – If you do not know this by now, there is a lot of national pride in the old tradition of the Persian people...and, Yes, Tip O'Neill's old phrase "All politics is local" applies in Iran too.

Regarding the Nuclear issue, I believe the US has legitimate reasons to distrust the intentions of the Iranian regime. There is no doubt that Iran lied in the past to the IAEA on various elements of its Nuclear programs - The Iranians themselves admitted to this. I also believe that Iran does indeed seek to have a nuclear weapon. But I believe it wants to acquire it for deterrence and not to employ as an offensive capability. Here is why: (a) the Iranian government knows very well that if it uses such a weapon, it will be immediately erased from the face of the earth. (b) Iran showed tremendous restraint against Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons against them for eight years under the watchful eyes of the international community. Despite that, the Iranian Ayatollahs did not used WMDs against Iraq and it was not for lack of capability. Yet, the Iranians see great benefit, in lieu of a non-aggression pact with the US, from having a nuclear weapon – they have learned a valuable lesson from their “axis-of-evil” mates. They concluded that the US would not attack a nuclear-capable nation (i.e., North Korea) preemptively, and that the US is more likely to attack a non-nuclear regime (i.e., Iraq) - Once again, a glaring example of how a foreign policy failure by the US can give energy to a number of dangerous consequences. So, the Iranians are trying to hedge their bets with a nuclear weapon as long as it faces the hostility of the US.

Nonetheless, in arguing against nuclear weapons, the US, once again, loads what can be a reasonable argument with contradictions that further compromises its overall credibility, especially after emerging from the WMD disaster in Iraq. First it argues that Iran has no need for civilian nuclear energy since it has oil. This is a very weak argument because Iran’s energy consumption has grown by 50% in the past six years alone. Its electricity generation has doubled over the last ten years. It is true that Iran sits on the second-largest proved oil reserves in the Middle East, but their reserves account for only half of those of Saudi Arabia. If Iran were to ever be able to trade double its production of 4 million barrels a day (note Saudi Arabia produces 10.5 million barrels a day), it would run out of its reserves in about 45 years. Therefore, when Iran argues for civilian nuclear energy on the basis of satisfying domestic demand while maximizing the trade benefits of its oil sector, it is the best part of its argument – not to forget that it is a right guaranteed to them by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Iranians say: It is our right to become self-sufficient in terms of domestic energy and sell every drop of oil we can to others for profit. That makes sense. In fact, it is what the US should be doing in terms of forging an energy plan that minimizes its reliance on foreign sources of energy. Furthermore, the NPT guarantees are not some loophole as some like to repeat. It is a clear right granted to the signatories of the agreement. Article IV of the treaty explicitly says:

“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.” (Articles I and II specify limits and prohibitions on military use of nuclear technology). Click HERE to read the full text of the treaty.

Look, the US has legitimate reasons to worry about a nuclear-capable Iran and the latter’s support for subversive elements in the Middle East. But, the case as it is being made especially in light of the WMD failure in Iraq is neither coherent nor convincing. On the other hand, yet another thing worthy of mention is that one of the unintended consequences of the US intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq is that it strengthened Iran’s leverage and influence in the Middle East. Iran has been a long-time ally of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and the Shia factions opposing Saddam in Iraq – and if one knows anything about the Middle East, they surely will know what old loyalties are worth in that region.

Finally, let us remember that the growth of China and India is making the already-scarce oil and natural gas resources even more scarce. China, a permanent member of the UN security council and itself not a very democratic nation, has signed a strategic energy agreement with Iran. In fact US policy towards Iran is throwing Iran in the lap of China. This is because Iran needs trade and China needs oil to sustain its growth. This is why I was stressing the centrality of domestic issues in Iran. The economic outlook for Iran is grim despite high oil prices. Iran needs trade and investment – lots of it – in order to create jobs and economic opportunity for a very young population (70% under the age of 30). If Iran had to really choose between a nuclear bomb and trade, it will take the latter. Because at the end of the day, the ruling regime knows very well that it is the economy stupid - Yes, even in Iran.

"From Conflict To Cooperation: Writing A New Chapter in US-Arab Relations"

2005-06-11T11:00:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released a report summarizing the results and recommendations of an advisory committee it brought together to address the current challenges facing America's relationship with the Middle East. The committee was headed by former Defense Secretary William Cohen and former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco, Edward Gabriel.

What makes this report different from other academic exercises that have been thrust into the public domain since 9/11 is that it willingly accepts that no advocacy could be successful without attentive inquiry; that good ideas and effective solutions can not possibly emanate from minds that do not know how to listen. This makes me recall something my own mother once told me at a young age. She said that an important part of a person's brain is its ability to recognize good ideas and that without the ability to observe and listen, one can not exercise the full scope of their intelligence. Nelson Mandela wrote in his autobiography, "Long Walk to Freedom", about how he often received credit for advancing intelligent positions, when he was merely condensing several ideas expressed by others into a concise position. Observation is after all the basis of all scientific study, except that in policy advocacy lately it appears that one knows better solely because they say so. The increasing willingness of the public to outsource their independent intellectual capacity to ill-informed, non-listening media "experts" does much to exacerbate the problem.

As to the report, many questions still remain unresolved and I still believe that it did not quite capture the divide that exists between ruling regimes and ordinary citizens of the Middle East; that it did not yet appreciate the deep ethnic, tribal, and economic divides that separate the people of the region; and that it did not fully address how its recommendations, which carry institutional impacts, can be put into practice both here in the US and in the region. In other words I did not detect an aggressive action-item agenda for implementation and a follow-up plan - nothing to give me comfort as a reader that a serious action plan is forthcoming, especially that this initiative has received almost no serious attention since the release of the report in March of this year.

Furthermore, although the report briefly cruises past the issue of American perceptions of the Middle East, I believe that not nearly enough is being done to educate Americans about the Middle East and its people. There is much talk about educating the Middle East about America, but very little on the other way around. This is possibly because we expect the free market of ideas to resolve that question for us without any need for direct intervention. I am a staunch believer in that free market of ideas but I also know that it is prone to failure and that it did much to foment hate rather than understanding in the recent years since 9/11. Therefore, responsible lawmakers in the US need to acknowledge that negative and uninformed press coverage of the Middle East and the propagandist agendas of some political actors and media mouthpieces are harmful to a strategy of rapprochement between the two peoples and do much to condone discriminatory behavior against Arab and Muslim Americans. America needs to show its goodwill towards the Middle East by first and foremost improving its treatment of those Arabs and Muslims it houses, as well as condemning hate speech in its midst.

Nonetheless, I believe that the recommendations advanced by the report including the Arab GDP Initiative, a presidential Advisory Committee on Arab Development and Growth, Private sector involvement, and education and human capital development are positive ideas that require dedicated institutional and policy resources. Yet, I can't help but be skeptical about the ability of policy makers to fully embrace such initiatives, because among other things, lawmakers have learned well how not to listen. If they are not listening to the calls of the likes of Bill Gates regarding needed education reforms to maintain U.S. global competitiveness, as well as the pleas of the US Council on competitiveness, then I doubt very much that they can let themselves accept that they have much to learn about the Middle East. Ironically, both issues (U.S. global competitiveness and the Middle East) are of critical strategic importance to the next generation of Americans, and a public obsessed with media-circus trials and reality-TV consumerism does not help either.

Click on the picture below for a full copy of the CSIS report.

Thoughts On The EU Constitution: The French Vote

2005-05-28T09:04:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, the French will vote in a national referendum to either accept or reject the project for a unified European constitution. The news coverage about the vote has been sounding off in recent weeks on the strong anti-treaty feelings in France and the seemingly "certain" victory of the 'NO' vote.

Despite all the polls and predictions speculating that the ‘NO’ camp is ahead several points in the eve of the referendum, I suspect that political observers are in for a surprise tomorrow. I am not dismissing the fact that the nationalist anti-Europe elements in France are strong and that large numbers of independent voters continue to be largely dissatisfied with the current state of the French economy and the political programs of the Chirac-Raffarin administration. Those are realities that no one can contend with, but I believe that somehow, the French will come to get the bigger picture and vote in a manner that is actually inconsistent with the way they have been publicly expressing themselves in the past few months. That is, they publicly express reservations about the constitution, but once alone in the voting booth; they would, although reluctantly, drop the ‘YES’ ballot in the box. Furthermore, one needs to also note that in the eve of the referendum, twenty percent of potential voters are still undecided. The fact that their neighbor and largest partner in the EU, Germany, voted on Friday to accept the treaty may have something to do with how the French vote tomorrow.

What is important to note about Europe in my opinion is that its biggest global impact will always be measured in terms of its economic and market significance. The enlargement and consolidation of Europe guarantee its continued development as a major market and economic player on the global stage. Europe, at least in the short and medium terms can not and will not be able to come together as a huge cohesive political force that would, as some in Europe hope, counteract the US as a second pole in terms of global affairs. Issues such as common foreign and defense policies for Europe are not within reach for the time being and much is yet to be done to resolve the question of national sovereignty versus continental unity in Europe. A good example of that are the nationalist passions raised by the ongoing EU-wide vote on the constitution.

Let us see what happens tomorrow. The vote in France will be close and if the 'YES' vote prevails, the constitution will still have to face a likely 'NO' in Holland and Britain. But either way, let us remember that the EU’s biggest achievements will continue to be economic and market integration and that the political integration still has a long way to go even if the constitution is ratified by all members.

A Word On Egypt Before I Run

2005-05-24T10:36:00.000-07:00

The election “reforms” announced by President Mubarak weeks ago have drawn the interest of many around the world including within political circles here in the US. Initially, I thought President Bush reacted well to the announcement by describing the move as encouraging but cautioning that more needs to be done in order to ensure free and transparent elections in Egypt. The president repeated that theme as he prepared to meet with the Egyptian Prime minister last week. President Bush insisted on independent international monitors , guarantees for equal access to media and a halt to intimidation tactics used against opposition candidates. Several weeks ago, Secretary Rice delayed a planned visit to Egypt in order to protest against the jailing of an opposition leader by Egyptian authorities. Signs were emerging for the first time that the US government was willing to openly challenge one of its closest authoritarian allies in the region. It was great news for those of us who are hoping for a new beginning in the region; a new US policy direction that would stress justice and democracy over short-term US interests.

Today, the first lady called the "initiative" taken by Mr. Mubarak both "wise and bold". This, obviously, shocked me. It shocked me because the first lady should have known better. But, maybe she was just repeating what her aides told her to say. If this is the case, then I would be even more disappointed. See, I think the world of Laura Bush. I think she is the jewel of the Bush White House; the classiest first lady since Jackie Kennedy. That is why her statement is so frustrating to me. Therefore, I think she would pardon my intransigence when I say that her statement about Mubarak’s plan is extremely ill-informed. Here is why.

First, the so-called Mubarak "initiative" is a political trap that seeks no immediate opening up of the electoral system. In other words, it is smoking mirrors or, if you wish, a delay tactic used to extend the power grip of the ruling party under the guise of reform and democracy. Ninety percent of the current parliament in Egypt is controlled by the ruling party. Let me repeat that, 90%!! The proposed amendment to "reform" the electoral system requires presidential candidates to collect 300 signatures from "elected" officials in the "People's Assembly", the Shura Council and local assemblies. It further restricts nominations to members of party politburos. Good luck getting anywhere if you are an independent candidate - it simply won't happen.

Furthermore, this is an authoritarian regime whose ruling party controls all the political, security and defense institutions in Egypt. Now, have you heard of the vetting process used by the Ayatollahs to approve presidential candidates in Iran - it has been in the news lately. Well, what Mubarak and his party are proposing is not that dissimilar from that. Even when we assume no election fraud and no vote manipulation, how would anyone opposed to them obtain 300 signatures from them to run against them!!

Then, there is the issue of intimidation and vote fraud, which have been a fixture in every Egyptian "election" so far. The ruling party will flood the parliament with its agents (as has always been the case), require in the next election that presidential candidates must hail from a party that has at least 5% of the seats while they themselves control 90 percent and lock themselves institutionally, through something they sell to the west as "reform", into a position of power for many years to come. Nicely done!!

Look, this just can not go on the way it is. People's intelligence can not continue to be insulted in this manner by power-hungry dictators and our complicit silence about it. Now, I do not care how popular a government or a political party is, but there is no way, and I say no way, to consistently "win" over 90% of the vote when, among other things, the daily situation of ordinary citizens is by all indicators worsening. It just defies all sorts of logic unless Egyptians are into self-punishment, which I highly doubt. In fact, Egyptians have a long tradition of intellectual brilliance, which is the reason I truly believe that an internal victory for democracy in Egypt would have an immensely positive impact on the region as a whole -- the ever-ellusive Domino effect theory.

So, Madam First Lady, with all the respect that I have for you, I wish you could reconsider your statement. Even if we actually believe that Mubarak has had a call of conscience, which is highly unlikely, and decided to fly straight and grant freedom and democracy to the people of Egypt, wouldn’t we be excessive in describing him as “wise and bold”. Would you ever describe a decision by an abusive parent to beat their children less frequently as “wise and bold”. Don’t you think that would be insulting to the victims in this case? I do. Unless of course you are trying to use the negative image of the US in the Middle East to give Mubarak the ‘Kiss of Death’, hence, achieving the opposite of the impression you gave – Then, as the English would say: Brilliant!!

A Date with An Old Dream in Prague

2005-05-20T08:24:00.000-07:00

I arrived in Prague this weekend, having looked forward to this trip for some time. This is because about three years ago I came here for the first time and enjoyed it so much that I promised myself I'd return. Last night, I had an incredibly magical moment on the Charles Bridge (Karluv Most) near old town Prague. As I strolled onto the bridge, I was overcome with emotion when I came upon a solo guitarist who was playing an old Pink Floyd song that, for me, carries so much childhood memory. There I was standing on this magnificent pedestrian bridge on a perfect night (75 degrees, no wind, and clear skies), watching an unbelievable picturesque scene and listening to a tune that I had listened to so many times as a child not knowing what my future held.

Fifteen years ago, my closest friends and I used to listen to that particular song at a gathering spot in our neighborhood in Morocco wondering what was there beyond our reach, in those far cities that we only see in frozen pictures. One of my friends used to dream aloud about driving freely on Route 66 with that Pink Floyd hit playing in the background. I too dreamt that scene along with him, but I also dreamt countless other scenes putting me in places the world over. Nonetheless, unlike my friend, I mostly dreamt in silence mainly because I thought it was senseless torture to share dreams that, then, seemed to reside in the realm of the impossible.

Last night, my childhood came back to remind me that "all people dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their mind, wake in the morning to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous people, for they dream their dreams with open eyes, and make them come true" (Lawrence of Arabia).

I also realized that our personal achievements are worth nothing if we do not employ them to inspire the next generation to dream with open eyes and do great things for there is an ocean of opportunity awaiting them. To them I say that as you navigate through life in search of your dreams, be sure to carry these treasured tools with you: intellectual curiosity, personal integrity, modesty, perseverance, and hopeful optimism.

Last night made me wonder about my old friends. I have not seen them for over ten years now. I wonder if they too had found a way to see what we all once imagined together. I prayed that they have. In the meanwhile, however, I thought of them with that same old song playing in the background.

Get Your Vote On Sister

2005-05-17T07:46:00.000-07:00

Just two weeks after conservative lawmakers in the Kuwaiti Parliament had thwarted a measure that aimed to grant women the right to vote and contest city council elections, the parliament reversed itself on Monday, making way for women to vote and run for office in parliamentary and local elections for the first time in the country's history. The Kuwaiti prime minister, Sheik Sabah al-Jaber al-Sabah, is believed to have forced the measure through the parliament ahead of a planned visit to Washington.

However, because the legislation was passed too late for Kuwaiti women to run in the council elections next month, the soonest they will be able to run in any election is 2007, when parliamentary elections are scheduled. But, it is expected that the Prime minister will appoint a woman minister of Health in the near term.

Better late than never.

American School of Agadir

2005-05-16T08:59:00.000-07:00

Last year, while spending a few days in my hometown Agadir (southern coastal city in Morocco), I bumped into the administrator of my old primary school at a local supermarket. After exchanging a few words about our respective lives and families, he talked to me about an idea he had been entertaining for some time. The idea was to open an American school in Agadir, which would make it the first of its kind in the south of Morocco. I became immediately excited about the idea given my interest in human development in general and my desire to see Morocco's young be given opportunities for better and more meaningful education - not to forget my own personal journey. I immediately joined him in the planning process making various contacts and helping with bureaucratic matters, while he pushed to resolve important infrastructure and logistical issues.

A year after that supermarket conversation, I am pleased to announce that this important project will finally see the light of day this summer. The American school will open its doors in the city of Agadir, providing new education opportunities to local pupils between the ages of 3 and 10. I am extremely proud of the discipline and dedication shown by my friend in making this project come to fruition. I hope that the school, born entirely out of a private and local initiative (No government support), can benefit from the support of individuals in both countries. I hope that this new institution can become an effective platform for inter-cultural dialogue and an important engine for positive change.

BRAC 2005

2005-05-13T10:29:00.000-07:00

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the anxiously-awaited list of recommended Base closures and realignment public this morning. Find the detailed list on the DOD BRAC website HERE.

World Economic Outlook 2005

2005-05-11T11:46:00.000-07:00

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently released its World Economic Outlook report for 2005, making a series of interesting statements regarding needed actions to mitigate the risk of financial crisis and promote a steady transition to the emerging realities of the global economy. Please find below some summary points I extracted so far from my reading of the IMF conclusions and the WEO report, which can be found in its entirety Here:

1. Although projected global growth is forecast to be 4.3 percent in 2005, volatile oil prices and higher interest rates cause the world economy to face some downside risk. Further, the global economic expansion continues to rely heavily on growth in the United States and emerging Asian economies, while the Euro area and Japan continue to struggle (growth forecast for US is 3.6% compared to 1.6% for Europe).

2. China needs to show greater exchange rate flexibility in light of the fact that investment in China continues to increase - It now accounts for a whopping 45 percent of GDP. By contrast, India needs more investment, especially in its infrastructure, which will require a realignment of government budget priorities and the strengthening of the Indian private sector.

3. The forecast growth of the world economy faces three significant risks: (a) higher interest rates, (b) high and volatile oil prices, and (c) increasing current account imbalances.

4. Two important medium-term transitions that are taking place in the world: (a) the increasing economic importance of developing countries; and (b) the aging of industrial country populations. The IMF believes that the international community has done "too little to adjust to these transitions."

5. Over the next 25 years, China should see car ownership multiply 15 times, and India only slightly behind. The spectacular growth of these countries, although beneficial to all, will strain existing resources. One example of such consequence are high and volatile oil prices.

6. The rich industrial countries are aging. The IMF explains that "not only should they be restructuring their own work environment to make better use of the changing labor force, but also many should be sending capital to younger, poorer developing countries."

7. Rich countries should be saving more and running larger current account surpluses, while poor countries should be investing more, and running larger current account deficits. Yet, today, what we see is that emerging markets are financing the rich. Therefore, the problem is that the current direction of capital flows does not match the realities of global demographic trends.

8. The United States needs to save more. The IMF believes that the administration's pledge to cut by half the fiscal deficit in five years must be backed by "credible measures to achieve it"...and that "monetary policy could help if higher interest rates slow price growth and lead to greater household savings."

9. Regarding oil, the IMF concludes that "Oil price volatility can be reduced by disseminating more timely and accurate information on production and inventories. Unnecessary impediments to oil investment, ranging from uncoordinated environmental standards across the various states of the United States to drastic restrictions on private or foreign participation in the oil sectors of some countries, need to be removed. Energy efficiency can also be improved by raising the price of oil and gas to their true economic cost. In particular, countries that have not passed through oil price increases to consumers, or who do not impose sufficient taxes, should start doing so."

10. The foreign currency reserve build-up by emerging Asian economies is now undermining both global monetary control and the soundness of their own financial systems. IMF expects "greater exchange rate flexibility would slow reserve build-up and allow countries to regain monetary control."

'What They Need Is a Union'

2005-05-08T10:08:00.000-07:00

As I silently watched the heightened frenzy about immigration in the US and how some politicians along with media 'personalities' have successfully portrayed the very foundational basis of this republic as today's biggest threat to American national security, I could not help but note the irony. As I watched political pundits rattle America's fear and anger points over immigrants, I privately became distraught by the hateful speech and the senseless dehumanizing the anti-immigration drive is generating. It appears that some Americans today have conveniently misplaced the diaries of their own fathers.

Therefore, in an attempt to inform the ongoing debate on immigration, it may be of value to visit the attic or the basement and be reminded of who the fathers of this nation were, for you may find that they were not so different from those newcomers who are now seeking an American future for themselves and their children. Americans, today, can trace the origins of their ancestors and the motivations that led them to this country to any of four categories:

Those who fled famine and poverty

Those who fled political and religious persecution

Those who went in search of economic and entrepreneurial opportunity

Those who came against their will (Slaves)

America's new immigrants continue to fall in the same four categories, or combinations thereof, than those who preceded them. The overwhelming majority of America's new immigrants fall within the first category; they are mostly of South American origin escaping dire poverty in search of decent lives north of the border. Some are from shattered communities in Africa and Asia also fleeing pronounced poverty and famine just as did thousands of Irish and other European immigrants during the early days of the republic and at the turn of the 20th century.

The second group of immigrants that continues to seek refuge in America are those who are fleeing political and religious persecution. In the past 30 years, many came from the Soviet Union, South Asia, China, Africa, and the Middle East. They escape torture chambers, mass murder, genocide, and tyranny in search of a better, safer future in America. They continue to do so in the tradition of the early Puritans and the many Americans who once fled political and religious persecution in old Europe.

The third category of immigrants comprises those who continue to come to this country in search of the 'American dream'. They bring skills and ideas and hope to employ them in America for economic gain. Today, they are the agents of globalization; they are the many multinational businesses who seek market presence in the US; they are the many skilled and highly educated individuals who are employed in America's hi-tech and service industry. They come to America in the tradition of the early European industrialists, surveyors, explorers, and entrepreneurs who contributed greatly to the economic foundation of this country.

Finally, there were the slaves. Although we can find great comfort in the fact that slavery has been long abolished in this country, we must know that there are criminal organizations in our midst that continue to trade in human beings, bringing many from desperate surroundings to be enslaved into hard labor and prostitution. There were some law enforcement successes in combating human trafficking including the prosecution of perpetrators in sweat shop cases in New York. President Bush has also talked several times, including at the UN, about the need to combat the problem of modern human slavery, including the forced prostitution of thousands of young women.

Therefore, those who came before are, in a large part, no different from those who are coming now. That is, yesterday's John Doe has a lot more in common with today's Pedro Perez and that is an important comparison to make before objectively debating the merits of the concerns raised regarding the current situation of immigration in the US.

Now, let us discuss three of the main topics raised in this debate, which has undoubtedly become emotionally-charged and fast-drained from important historical and humanitarian considerations.

National security

Integration and assimilation

Economic impacts ('Job loss')

Some State Capitols are enacting laws to deny public services, including health and education, to undocumented immigrants and a Bill is advancing through Congress that would force all States to prohibit the issuance of Driver's licenses to those same immigrants. This is all because some of the 9/11 terrorists had valid drivers’ licenses at one time. The idea is that if terrorists coming to America illegally can not obtain Drivers' licenses, then they won't be able to access planes and secure sites. Now, this misses two important points:

First, any American teenager under the age of 21 would probably point you to where you can get a fake ID that is just as good for a beer in a New York bar as it is for boarding a plane at JFK airport.

Second, none of the 9/11 terrorists came to America illegally. They all had valid visas, although some overstayed them, and would have been able to obtain Drivers licenses even if the proposed restrictive measures were in place.

Therefore, this is a senseless excuse for denying undocumented immigrants driving privileges and other public services. The cost of such legislative actions can be measured both economically and in terms of public safety. An undocumented immigrant who came to this country to escape poverty in his/her homeland works hard to earn a living in America. He/she crossed a desert in desperation and risked death to get here. I do not think that not having a Drivers license, will dissuade them from living here. If some politicians think that denying driving privileges and public services will turn immigrants away, then they do not understand poverty and economic desperation.

Regarding border control, there is so much the government can do within reason to control the flow of immigration. Border actions in California and Texas did not dissuade immigrants from taking a longer, harder route to get here. As long as the north-south economic divide continues, poor people will risk their lives and that of their loved ones for a tiny shot at a better future.

The point I argue is that we are talking about human lives here; about desperate hopes and dreams that some in this country are dismissing outright in this debate. I do not argue that there can not be improvements to border control but rather that the issues are bigger than the simplistic notions we hear. Those issues have to do with international development and poverty reduction at a global scale; they have to do with human suffering and the desperate hope to overcome it.

On the second point often raised - integration or assimilation of immigrants in American society - let me say this: Did any of America's immigrants ever integrate or assimilate? If so, then integrate what? Did the European immigrants assimilate themselves into America when they came here. Well, if they did, they would be speaking Native American languages and celebrating Native American traditions and belief systems today. It is just ludicrous to talk about integration and assimilation in America. This may be a valid argument in Europe, but not here. The very founding of this nation rests on the idea of diversity. The founders insisted on a republic that houses as many cultural groups, religions, political affiliations, and social orientations as possible so as, in the words of James Madison, "to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers”, as well as “guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part.”

Lastly, many talk about undocumented immigrants taking 'American jobs' at low wages. One advocate of anti-immigration boasted: "There is no such thing as jobs Americans don't want, but there are jobs Americans won't do at low wages." This statement shows a flat-out ignorance of the current realities of global markets and the US economy. This is a classic example of the law of supply and demand. In other words, you can't have it both ways - get over it. You can't demand low prices in a free market economy all while asking for high wages. In addition, the US economy has to compete with rising export-led economies such as China and India. So, we can not reasonably ask US companies to compete with Chinese goods on the basis of high American wages - a realignment of popular thought on this issue is in order because as, Thomas Friedman correctly points out in his latest book, the earth is being flattened; the playing field is being leveled as a result of globalization and information technology.

In one of the rare TV shows I watch, The Wire, a state patrol officer, after coming in contact with the suffering of Eastern European girls who are smuggled into the port of Baltimore in ship containers, said: 'What they need is a Union'. Sadly, that is what the voiceless and faceless undocumented immigrant needs to fight for his dignity in this country. Many would argue that there are many lobby groups and organizations that speak on behalf of immigrants in this country. I beg to differ. What those groups speak for are business interests who employ or profit from those immigrants. So, what interests them the most is the status quo. They are happy as long as the government does not crack down - an alternative everyone knows is far-fetched given the fact that in an era of budget deficits, no government will venture into bankruptcy conducting manhunts across the country.

It would be quite a statement to see undocumented immigrants demonstrate their economic power by collectively declaring a strike or slow-down for a 30-day period. This is also far-fetched because immigrants live in constant fear to be found out and, hence, discontinue the improved lives they have built. But that is what it will take for undocumented immigrants to be recognized for the hard work they do every day in this country as opposed to the slander they now face.

Either that or the dogged leadership of the presidency, at its own political risk.

'We Are Technically the Head of the Nation Here'

2005-05-05T16:05:00.000-07:00

On the day commemorating World Press Freedom Day (May 3rd), the Kuwaiti parliament moved to effectively kill a measure that would have allowed women to participate in municipal elections for the first time this year. In effect, this ends any chance that women will be able to vote or run in elections for another four years. On a day commemorating freedom, the Kuwaiti parliament confirmed that when it comes to women, political freedom is a man-controlled privilege not a universal human right.

The head of Parliament's "human rights committee" (note the irony) and a fervent opponent of the measure explained: "We have no problem with women voting, but we do have a problem with women standing for elections. Islam dictates that the head of the nation must be a man, and we are technically the head of the nation here."

This nauseating statement illustrates the level of ignorance that is rampant at high levels of government in the Middle East and the challenges facing human rights in general in the region. To this kind of vicious ignorance, one can not stay silent. To this kind of stubborn arrogance, one must resist. Women have long served in the political affairs of Muslim societies starting with the wife of the prophet himself and on to contemporary Pakistan and Indonesia, where women served as heads of state. It is true that the main problem in Muslim countries is one of governance and human development regardless of who rules (man or woman). But a society that discriminates against half of its population can not move forward.

Furthermore, the holy words of the Qur'an warn:

"O mankind! Be mindful of your duty to your Lord, Who created you from a single being, and from it created its mate, and from the two of them has scattered many men and women. Fear God, in Whose (Name) you demand your rights of one another, and (be mindful of your duty) towards the wombs that bore you. God is ever Watching over you." (Qur'an 4:1)

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُواْ رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالاً كَثِيرًا وَنِسَاء وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءلُونَ بِهِ وَالأَرْحَامَ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًا

It is time for the women of the Middle East to march onto the streets and demand their civil rights from the clutches of the arrogant, ignorant men who desecrate the name of Islam so as to justify their abuse. It is time for the enlightened men of the Middle East to walk onto the streets alongside their mothers and sisters, their wives and daughters, in defiance of ignorance and bigotry. It is high time for a Muslim Dr. King to surge and lead a Civil Rights Movement across the Middle East and show the way towards an enlightened, free future for the good people of the region.

Iraq's New Government: A Few Brain Teasers

2005-04-28T11:09:00.000-07:00

The government lineup that Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, head of the Daawa Party, presented to the presidency council, was approved today by the Iraqi National Assembly. The government will include members of the main Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions, although it appears that most of the positions went to Shiites, who make up the majority of Iraq's population.

PM Jaafari will also serve as the acting Defense Minister, a post that was coveted by Sunnis and the political coalition of the outgoing prime minister Iyad Allawi. The latter was left out of this new cabinet because he demanded several key posts including deputy premiership and several key minesterial positions (Interior and Defense) and clashed with Jaafari's Shiite coalition on "de-Baathification".

Now that an Iraqi government has been formed, I would like to point out a few interesting things that may or may not have made the news coverage. The news media has already emphasized the democratic process that is a work in progress in Iraq.

The current PM, Ibrahim Al Jaafari, is the head of the Daawa Party, an Islamist organization founded in 1957 by Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr . The Daawa party was accused of terrorist activity including a series of bombings in Kuwait targeting the US and French embassies in the early 1980s.

Muqtada al-Sadr is the nephew of the founder of Daawa party, the party of the new Iraqi PM. For those of you who do not know Muqtada Al-Sadr, he is the Shiite cleric who opposes U.S. presence in Iraq and who led a bloody uprising against US troops in southern Iraq last year. He commands an army of Shiite militiamen who call themselves: the Mahdi Army. You can also read a Previous Post I wrote on Muqtada Sadr.

Muqtada al-Sadr has declared after the Iraqi election that the only way any Iraqi government would be legitimate is if it asks for the immediate withdrawal of US troops. His supporters marched in the thousands last month calling for US troops to leave Iraq.

Ahmad Chalabi will have the Oil Ministry and a Deputy Premiership in this new government - two very powerful posts. If you do not know who Ahmed Chalabi is, then you should read this Post I wrote a couple of months ago. This man is as cunning a politician as they get and his political journey so far is an ivy league case study.

Even a visit by Secretary Rumsfeld (and Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick) to Iraq could not buy outgoing PM Allawi his place in the new government. Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq to basically side with Allawi's position regarding former Baatists in Iraq's security and defense establishements. But, Rumsfeld's good friend Chalabi is now the Iraqi Minister of Oil and Deputy PM.

Iran wins again. First, the outcome in Afghanistan was favorable to Tehran because Iran supported the northern alliance and the Pashtun factions allied with Hamid Karzai against the Taliban. They win again in Iraq, because they have long supported the shiite factions of southern Iraq (the winning coalition in government today) against Saddam Hussein.

The Kurds have the presidency and several key posts in the government. They also command a very well-armed and well-trained militia, the Pesh Merga. It will be interesting to see how this issue is dealt with as the Iraqi assembly debates a new constitution. In addition, the new Kurdish influence in Iraq does not sit well with Turkey, Syria, and Iran, each of which have their own Kurdish populations.

...and last but not least, the US may have just learned a valuable lesson in how to integrate organizations, like Daawa, once viewed as "Islamist/extremist/terrorist" into the political process. Ibrahim Al Jaafari says: "We have a very strong, warm and close relationship with the US...It's not a sign of weakeness to change our world view." Will that lesson play a role in how the US deals with Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine??

A Giant Bird Takes Off

2005-04-27T08:39:00.000-07:00

The Airbus super-jumbo aircraft, which is the largest passenger airliner ever built, took off on its maiden flight today in Toulouse, France. The A380 is designed to carry 555 passengers in three classes and can be expanded to accomodate 800 seats. It features a double-deck cabin and is about one-third larger than the Boeing 747, its next-largest competitor.

So far, Airbus has 154 firm orders for the A380, 43 of which from Dubai's Emirates Airlines. The plane is scheduled to enter service for Singapore Airlines in the second half of 2006. No American airlines have ordered the A380 to date nor are they expected to do so in the near future.

Airbus stresses the plane's fuel efficiency and low noise emissions in comparison to the Boeing 747 but recognizes that new terminal and airport redesign are needed to accomodate the new Jumbo jet. Airbus executives say that in the next 20 years the number of airports that could support A380 flights will grow substantially.

Today at the National Press Club

2005-04-25T16:11:00.000-07:00

Today, I attended an event at the National Press Club organized by the Middle East Institute. The topic of discussion was: "Lessons of Arab-Israeli Peacemaking: Four Negotiators Look Back and Ahead". The speakers at this event were:

Martin Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs

Dennis Ross, former US Ambassador and Special Middle East Coordinator

Robert Malley, former NSC Advisor for Arab-Israeli Affairs to President Clinton

Aaron David Miller, former Deputy Special Middle East Coordinator

I will write about the perspectives presented by each of the speakers when I get them all straight in my head later on in the evening. But, first, I would like to share a short essay written by the moderator of this event, Edward S. Walker, who is a former US Ambassador to Israel and Egypt and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. You decide whether he and I agree or disagree (see my previous post, "It's the Policy Stupid", which I just posted yesterday).

Ambassador Walker writes:

"Our Arab friends said, 'It's the policy, stupid.' There is no doubt that our way was complicated by our active policy in Iraq and our passive policy on the Palestinian issue. But while policies play a part in the estrangement, they are only a part of the problem and not really the most important part." Read more

It's The Policy Stupid

2005-04-24T10:09:00.000-07:00

...and Better Communication Too

What we have consistently heard from high levels of the US government regarding the Middle East is that the biggest problem facing America in the region is overcoming a rampant disinformation and propaganda campaign led by unfriendly governments, non-state actors, and Arab media. We have heard several US officials and members of Congress insist on how “bad” and “irresponsible” Al Jazeera is to the point of accusing it of being a “mouthpiece for Al-Qaeda”. The US conservative media machine became the firing pad for this message. Recently, they went so far as to call the satellite TV station a “terrorist network”. The argument goes: “If only the people of the Middle East were able to hear our side of the story and understand our policy away from the incitement and hate speech practiced by the likes of Al Jazeera, everything will be just fine.”

In response, the US Congress authorized funding for a radio station, Radio Sawa, and a satellite TV station, Al Hurra, in order to carry an alternative message to the Middle East and act as a medium for ‘objective reporting’ on US policy. Several news websites such as Magharebia were also started by the US Department of Defense, and the US state Department is sponsoring a lifestyle magazine for young men and women across the Middle East called Hi Magazine. At the executive level, a new position of Undersecretary of State was created to carry out US public diplomacy efforts and formulate strategies for improving the image of the US abroad.

Three years after those specific media and public diplomacy initiatives were taken, it is time to evaluate the American strategy to reach out to the people of the Middle East and even revisit the overall assumption that America’s problems in the Middle East can be mainly settled with public diplomacy and media outreach.

On the media front, Radio Sawa did fairly well in terms of attracting an audience especially among young Arabs because it put forth a nice format alternating Arabic and Western music hits. Once, I caught a ride in a taxi in Casablanca and noticed that the driver was listening to Radio Sawa. However, as soon as the news report came on, he quickly switched to the local station.

I asked: Why?

He said: “They [the US] think we are stupid”.

I probed further by asking: But why listen to it at all if that’s how you feel?

He quickly replied: "I like the music they have on".

In October 2004, a report by the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that, although Radio Sawa was able "to attract a large audience in key Middle East countries, the station has been so preoccupied with building an audience through its music that it has failed to adequately measure whether it is influencing minds." My exchange with the Taxi driver in Casablanca hints that the challenge Radio Sawa faces is one of legitimacy and credibility as long as it is viewed as an instrument of the US government. I think objectivity dictates that we at least consider the fact that the station is presented with a hard task in abnormal circumstances with the shroud of US government propaganda hanging over its head.

While Radio Sawa can at least be credited with attracting a large audience, we could not say the same for satellite TV station Al Hurra. The station, for which Congress did not authorize funding until summer of 2003, is far behind the sophistication and programming of any Arab satellite TV station including Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Abu Dhabi. Unlike my taxi experience in Casablanca, I have yet to meet anyone who watches any of Al Hurra’s programs. If and when Al Hurra overcomes technical and programming hurdles to at least be in the same league as the Gulf satellite TV stations, then it will also have to overcome the fact that it is seen in the Middle East as a US propaganda instrument.

On the other hand and in the area of news publishing, Hi Magazine faces obstacles similar to those faced by Radio Sawa and Al Hurra (legitimacy, credibility, market penetration, etc.), but it also faces obstacles that are unique to published media. There is no additional cost (other than opportunity cost) for a resident of the Middle East to listen to or watch the US-sponsored stations if he/she so chooses. But with Hi Magazine, the Arab reader is asked to pay a per-unit price for a publication that he knows is sponsored by the US state Department. This is a huge socio-economic obstacle for the publication to gain market penetration even if it manages to overcome the other perception problems it faces. The magazine, however, has a website on which the contents of the Magazine are freely available. But that does not get rid of the economic disincentive entirely because TV and radio penetration far exceeds that of the internet in the Middle East (the region has been missing the train of globalization for years). This latter statement also points to problems faced by US news websites such as Magharebia.

On the policy front, the newly-created position of Undersecretary of State in Charge of Public Diplomacy has already seen two unsuccessful and short-lived appointments. Last month, President Bush nominated his close adviser Karen Hughes to the post. He also nominated an Egyptian-American, Dina Powell, to the number two spot in that office. In response to that appointment, I wrote that Karen Hughes must know that a propaganda campaign will not do the job. In regards to the Middle East, she should not make the mistake of following Arab regimes into the habit of insulting the intelligence of their people with blatant propaganda. What will cut it here is a concrete change in policy for which she will have to lobby relentlessly in the White House. I also believe that Mrs. Hughes should move to get the Arab Muslim community in the US to be more involved in U.S. public diplomacy efforts, because the American administration will not find better messengers to carry its goodwill to the Middle East than its own Arab and Muslim community.

The good news is that Karen Hughes enjoys direct access to the president, something her predecessors lacked. It is also a positive development that an Egyptian-American will be the number two official in charge of US public diplomacy. But, there is still a major lack of Muslim Staff in the administration’s main programs directed at the Middle East - and there in lies one of the problems of the current US strategy for public diplomacy. Administration officials admit that there is confusion about what public diplomacy means in the first place. Is it a communication job or is it an active policy-making job? I think both if you ask me, but the confusion looms and with it comes stalled progress and poor results. Furthermore, when you do not have the right people to help explain the problems you face, then you can not possibly come up with effective solutions – That is because you do not fully understand the problem. The US administration must stop to consider at least partly that the real problem it faces in the Middle East has to do with America’s own policy failures in the region and that America seems too distracted to realize that the fish it is trying to put back in the water is already dead.

How, you may ask. Well, let us consider a few realities:

1. US criticism has now become a blessing in the Middle East. The more US officials demonize an Arab media outlet, the more popular and credible the latter becomes among Arabs. Al-Jazeera, for instance, can effectively ignore US criticism as long as the Qatari government does not pull its funding. All it has to do is continue its programs and count its blessings. Actually, what they should probably do at this time is write the US administration a nice ‘Thank you’ note and encourage it to continue on its current track. By the way, calling on Arab governments to censor Al Jazeera all while defending the first amendment right of the conservative US media to desecrate the image of Muslims sends the message that America is only interested in the kind of freedom that serves its interests. It does not help either when US officials try to explain this contradiction by suggesting that Arabs are not sophisticated enough to make ‘intelligent use’ of freedom of the press.

I also think that it is incredibly flattering for a single media network to be credited with influencing the minds of 200 million Arabs. It is also unbelievably insulting for Arabs to be indirectly accused of not being sophisticated or intelligent enough so as to be enslaved by the ‘hypnotic force’ of a single TV station.

2. The images broadcast by Arab Satellite TV are not made up in a basement studio. They are real images of suffering brought on by war in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. The question becomes one of spin, context, and focus. The tilt and bias is introduced when there is a deliberate disregard for other information that is important for the objective and complete presentation of a news story. There is no doubt that Arab media is guilty of this conduct. The reason for this is actually simple to explain: Bad news sell - good news, not so much. You can show Arabs as many pictures of American goodwill in Iraq as you can, but they will still see Abu Ghraib. The American media is just as guilty of such bias. When was the last time you heard the words “Arab” or “Muslim” attached to anything positive on this side of the Atlantic. You can show Americans as many pictures of Muslim goodwill as you can, but they will still see 9/11.

3. American officials continue to equate talking to Arab leaders to having a “constructive” dialogue with the Arab World. Someone needs to remind them that there is a huge canyon between Arab ruling regimes and the Arab people. In addition, American policy regarding the Middle East is full of contradictions because American values have seldom been aligned with American interests in the region – contradictions the US has never corrected nor explained to the satisfaction of the people of the Middle East. US officials must simply understand that having “an understanding with Arab governments” is not enough. They need to forge an understanding with the people.

By the way, it is worth mentioning that it is not particularly heart-warming for Iraqis in particular and Arabs in general to hear President Bush say: “We are facing terrorists in Iraq so that we don’t face them here at home.” - Nice thing to say at a pep rally in America but someone needs to remind US officials that there is a thing now called satellite TV and internet media that beams those messages to the Middle East in mere seconds, reinforcing the perception that America considers the lives of Iraqis to be inferior to that of Americans.

Although I believe that an active public diplomacy effort must be undertaken by the US in order to promote understanding of US policy, I also believe that this can not just be about advocacy but also about inquiry and a great deal of listening . Although I believe that a big part of the problem in US-Middle East relations has to do with poor communication on both sides, I also believe that the crux of the problem remains one related to poor policy planning.

In other words, better communication and media outreach are very important although many more steps need to be taken in that regard as I described earlier. But as the former president would say: It's also the policy stupid.

A First Step for the Women of Kuwait

2005-04-20T10:39:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to the women and men of Kuwait who marched into the Kuwaiti Parliament building last month demanding political rights for women in this tiny Gulf nation (see picture). Yesterday, the Kuwaiti National Assembly voted to grant its provisional approval for women to vote and contest municipal council elections. Twenty six MPs, including 12 ministers present in the session, voted for the law while 20 voted against and three MPs abstained. Eight MPs did not take part in the voting because they did not attend the session. The vote was divided along partisan lines in that liberal lawmakers voted for the law while almost all tribal and Islamist MPs opposed it.

The second and final round of voting on the law is scheduled to take place on May 2nd. MPs also approved a second bill to delay municipal council elections until October to allow women to register as voters and participate for the first time in the upcoming election. The Municipal Council consists of 16 members, 10 of them are elected the same way Assembly elections are done while the remaining six are appointed by HH the Amir Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah. Its main powers are to organize and regulate civic affairs like construction, land distribution for different uses and issuing decisions regarding urban development.

The Kuwaiti Prime Minister, Sheikh Sabah, told reporters after the session: "Thank God, because the first step towards women's rights has been taken" he added : "I would like to congratulate my sisters for obtaining their rights in the municipality and they will get their other rights in voting and contesting National Assembly elections too" .

Women activists gave a cautious welcome to yesterday's decision, saying more was needed. Head of Kuwait Economic Society, Rula Dashti, who was present during the vote, thanked all ministers and MPs who voted for the law and urged a number of MPs who opposed it to change their mind. "We were worried that women may not be able to participate in municipality elections. What happened today is a major gain for Kuwait and democracy. I hope some women will contest the elections," she said. "I hope the major step of women reaching parliament will happen. Our aim is to broaden democracy in Kuwait," she added. But rights activist Naima Al-Shayeji was afraid yesterday's win would cause supporters to lose momentum and women will have to wait for years to get full rights. "Why do Kuwaiti women have to get their rights in doses?" she exclaimed.

Nonetheless, Faisal Al-Muslim, a fundamentalist lawmaker, who voted against the measure warned: "This is just a first reading, most of those who were absent today oppose women's political rights." He added: "People still reject women's participation in politics."

US Global Competitiveness: In Search of a Strategy

2005-04-15T14:22:00.000-07:00

Worsening US budget and trade deficits along with the declining interest in U.S. equities by private investors have raised a lot of eyebrows recently. When some thought that a depreciated dollar would improve the competitiveness of U.S. exports, the trade balance continued to move into the negative.

The problem that concerns me is not so much the trade deficit itself but rather the increasing reliance of the US economy on foreign central banks (official capital inflows) to finance it. I believe the bigger problem that needs focused attention has to do with the current and future state of US global competitiveness. The U.S. lawmakers need to lend serious thought to this long-term and strategic issue and pass forward-looking legislation in the areas of innovation, job creation & training, education, and immigration.

Recently, the US Council on Competitiveness whose members include corporate chief executives, university presidents and labor leaders, released a bipartisan Report on the need for a coherent strategy to promote future US global competitiveness. This report presents an opportunity for further debate and can serve as a starting point for a comprehensive strategy that aims to secure a competitive US economy. The recommendations of this study known as the National Innovation Initiative are organized into three broad categories: Talent; Investment; Infrastructure.

..Talent..............

The human dimension of innovation, including knowledge creation, education, training and workforce support. Recommendations support a culture of collaboration, a symbiotic relationship between research and commercialization, and lifelong skill development.

Recommendations:

1. Build a National Innovation Education Strategy for a diverse, innovative and technically trained workforce

Establish tax-deductible private sector 'Invest in the Future' scholarships for American S&E undergraduates
Empower young American innovators by creating 5,000 new portable graduate fellowships funded by federal R&D agencies
Expand university-based professional science Masters and traineeships to all state university systems
Reform immigration to attract the best and brightest S&E students from around the world and provide work permits to foreign S&E graduates of US institutions.

2. Catalyze the next generation of American Innovators

Stimulate creative thinking and innovation skills through problem-based learning in K-12 community colleges and universities
Create innovation learning opportunities for students to bridge the gap between research and application
Establish innovation curricula for entrepreneurs and small business managers

3. Empower Workers to succeed in the global economy

Stimulate workforce flexibility and skills through lifelong learning opportunities
Accelerate portability of healthcare and pension benefits
Align federal and state skill needs more tightly to training resources
Expand assistance to those dislocated by technology and trade

..Investment.......

The financial dimension of innovation, including R&D investment; support for risk-taking and entrepreneurship; and encouragement of long-term innovation strategies. Recommendations seek to give innovators the resources and incentives to succeed.

Recommendations:

1. Revitalize frontier and multidisciplinary research

Stimulate high-risk research through 'Innovation Acceleration' grants that relocate 3 percent of agency R&D budgets
Restore DoD's historic commitment to basic research by directing 20 percent of the S&T budget to long-term research
Intensify support for physical sciences and engineering to achieve a robust national R&D portfolio
Enact a permanent, restructured R&E tax credit and extend the credit to research conducted in university-industry consortia

2. Energize the entrepreneurial economy

Build 10 innovation Hot Spots over the next 5 years to capitalize on regional assets and leverage public-private investments
Designate a lead agency and an inter-agency council to coordinate federal economic development policies and programs to accelerate innovation-based growth
Increase the availability of early-stage risk capital with tax incentives, expand angle networks, and state and private seed capital funds

3. Reinforce risk-taking and long-term investment

Align private-sector incentives and compensation structures to reward long-term value creation
Create safe-harbor provisions to promote voluntary disclosure of intangible assets
Reduce the cost of tort litigation from 2 percent to 1 percent of GDP
Convene a Financial Markets Intermediary Committee to evaluate the impact of new regulations on risk-taking

..Infrastructure..

The physical and policy structures that support innovators, including networks for information, transportation, healthcare and energy; intellectual property protection; business regulation; and structures for collaboration among innovation stakeholders.

Recommendations:

1. Create national consensus for innovation growth strategies

Enact a federal innovation strategy through the executive office of the President
Catalyze national and regional alliances to implement innovation policies and innovation-led growth
Develop new metrics to understand and manage innovation more effectively
Establish national innovation prizes to recognize excellence in innovation performance

2. Create a 21st century intellectual property regime

Build quality in all phases of the patent process
Leverage patent databases into innovation tools
Create best practices for collaborative standards setting

3. Strengthen America's manufacturing capacity

Create centers for production excellence including shared facilities and consortia
Foster development of industry-led standards for interoperable manufacturing and logistics
Create Innovation Extension Centers to enable SMEs to become first-tier manufacturing partners
Expand industry-led roadmaps for R&D priorities

4. Build 21st Century innovation infrastructures - the health care test bed

Expand electronic health reporting
Establish and promote standards for an integrated health data system
Establish pilot programs for international electronic exchanges on healthcare research and delivery
Expand use of performance-based purchasing agreements

Deadly Perceptions: Mankind's Failure to Coexist

2005-04-12T16:51:00.000-07:00

"If our contemporaries are not encouraged to accept their multiple affiliations and allegiances... then we shall be bringing into being legions of the lost and hordes of bloodthirsty madmen." - Amin Maalouf.

First, allow me to pose these questions to you as a prelude to this discussion: What is your identity? Is your identity what makes you similar to people around you or is it what makes you different from everybody else?...and by the way, where are you from?

The concept of ‘identity’ has been debated by great philosophers and thinkers throughout human history and it is in that tradition that we must continue to actively pursue a deeper understanding of what leads humanity into a path of conflict and mutual destruction.

Identity is not a predefined state that is either innate or permanent, unless we limit our definition of it to elements such as race, ethnicity, and/or gender, and even then it is not so much those fixed elements that shape our identity but rather their significance within our living environment.

Let’s take me for example. If you were to have asked me 15 years ago what my identity is, I would have thought that my nationality, ethnicity, and religion (Moroccan; Amazigh; Muslim) are the only elements comprising my identity. Ask me again today and my answer would be a tad more complicated. Since my seventeenth birthday, I have lived in Europe and spent all of my adulthood to date in the United States. I am a Washingtonian insofar that I consider this nation’s capital to be my home, not to forget that I am an avid Redskins fan. Yes I said it, I love American football. I also love the constitution of this nation and I never tire of reading ‘The Federalist Papers’.

So, am I American and no longer Moroccan? Wait a second…

I also love my Moroccan heritage. I love my Middle Eastern culture and Arabic music is my favorite. Identity, I gather, is three-dimensional. There is the vertical plane that carries our heritage from our ancestors and there is the horizontal plane that carries elements transmitted to us through our living environment. It appears that it is the horizontal plane that makes our identity so dynamic. It is also supposed to be the dominant one, although many still scourge the vertical plane for elements that focus their ‘need to belong’.

I found out that what I have is a ‘Composite Identity’. I thought it must be because of the particular experiences I have had in my life, until I realized that every human being lives through a unique set of circumstances. Even two identical twins would grow up to have two different identities because not all of the elements contained in the horizontal plane of their identity would be similar. Therefore, we all have composite identities. The problem is that we often look within ourselves for specific allegiances in which we can recognize ourselves as opposed to looking for all the ingredients comprising our identity.

Ok, I have a composite identity, but where am I from?

To a fellow Moroccan, I would say that ‘I am Soussi (Amazigh from Southern Morocco)’. Yet, to an American, when ‘from Washington’ draws a skeptical look, I hastily add: ‘Originally from Morocco’. See, in my native land, it matters that I am Amazigh for it is an integral part of the vertical plane of my identity. But in America, I am only ‘Middle Eastern’ (despite the fact that Morocco is in Northwest Africa) or ‘Muslim’. Both of these labels are used interchangeably and they both trigger a consistent set of perceptions and responses. It matters not that my last trip to a place of worship was to a Synagogue nor does it matter that the two most influential people in my life are his holiness the Dalai Lama (a Buddhist) and Dr. Martin Luther King (a Christian). Finally, it matters not that my political heroes are the founders of these very United States of America.

Once, I met a nice woman who tried to 'console' me after I had told her that I am originally from Morocco by saying: "Well, there is nothing wrong with that!" suggesting that there was, in fact, something wrong with it. She was a well-intentioned lady. She was just exercising her memory and produced a response that reflected her built-in perception of my place of origin all while trying to be courteous and nice at the same time.

After 9/11, America’s negative perception of the Muslim World went into overdrive. The words ‘Muslim’ and ‘Middle Eastern’ have, in the collective memory of Americans, become attached to words such as ‘terrorism’, ‘insurgency’, ‘suicide bombings’, ‘Bin Laden’, and ‘Al-Qaeda’. The US media and the Movie Industry have streamlined those stereotypes into mainstream America. They do so for the sake of public consumerism and market economics. This is the theory of the ‘Boogy Man’. The media loves the ‘Boogy Man’ because it sells. Apparently, people consume more media when they feel anger, fear, and hatred of the other.

The Pew Research Center found in a 2003 Survey that a third of Americans say media coverage of the Middle East has had the biggest influence on their thinking about the issue, followed by education (21%) and religious beliefs (20%). The same survey found that American views about Islam have worsened since the previous year (2002). A majority of Americans now believe that Islam encourages violence, a 20-point jump from a year earlier, and that nearly half of Americans now think that half or more Muslims worldwide are 'anti-American'. The survey points out that this opinion is as prevalent among better educated Americans as among the less educated and that there are few differences among other religious groups in the US regarding this opinion (Evangelicals and mainline Protestants have the same opinion while the negative opinion of white Catholics, black Protestants, and seculars has grown).

On the other side of the divide, a 2004 Survey also conducted by the Pew Research Center found that in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, anger toward the US remains pervasive. People in Muslim nations strongly doubt the sincerity of American anti-terror efforts and see the motives behind US actions to be Mideast oil, support for Israel, and targeting unfriendly Muslim countries. Majorities in Middle Eastern countries considered to be US allies (Jordan, Morocco) viewed Americans unfavorably in 2004 when majorities expressed the opposite opinion only two years earlier. The decision to go to war in Iraq has clearly worsened Middle Eastern perceptions of the US. Furthermore, Arab media, especially satellite-based television, plays a prominent role in shaping opinions in the Middle East similar to the role played by the media in the US. The US and Arab media perspectives may be diametrically opposed, but it is the same old market theory that governs both.

As I witness these hardened perceptions on both sides of the information divide, I can not help but be reminded by Amin Maalouf, who writes: “If our contemporaries are not encouraged to accept their multiple affiliations and allegiances; if they can not reconcile their need for identity with an open and unprejudiced tolerance of other cultures; if they feel they have to choose between denial of the self and denial of the other – then we shall be bringing into being legions of the lost and hordes of bloodthirsty madmen.”

Report From Bishkek

2005-04-12T06:40:00.000-07:00

Melissa reports:

Update as of April 11th - President Askar Akaev submitted a formal resignation a week ago from Moscow, where he has political asylum. The current Kyrgy Parliament is comprised of the deputies with seats won in the recent elections over which there was only limited controversy -- the most contested seats remain unrecognized pending a new round of voting which hasn't been scheduled yet. Akaev's daughter, Bermet, must wait for a new election but I believe his son, Aidar, could attend Parliament if he chose because his seat isn't being contested. I'm not sure, but I believe both children are still in hiding. If Aidar is here, he has been very quiet.

The sitting Parliament debated for a week over whether or not to accept the resignation. The problem was that the resignation included provisions for immunity from prosecution for Akaev and his family, as well as guarantees for a financial package and access to media outlets whenever he wanted them. Many of the deputies in Parliament rejected these provisions. The public rejected them harshly, of course, and deputies who are thinking of their future political positioning want to be able to portray themselves as hard on Akaev. So, there was a serious discussion of moving forward with impeachment instead of accepting the resignation. However, on April 11th, Parliament finally accepted the resignation but trimmed the conditions so that Akaev has immunity (but his family doesn't) and he has a "modest" retirement package. I'm not sure what that means and we should reserve judgement of this settlement until we see the facts. Also, access to media outlets was curtailed so that Akaev can't meddle in public affairs.

Meanwhile, the most well-known oppositionist, long-time Akaev foe Felix Kulov (former vice-pres, head of state security, governor of Chui Oblast, and mayor of Bishkek) was freed from prison on March 24th as part of the uprising. He immediately took control of security in Bishkek and did a good job of bringing some sort of order to the streets after the looting. By virtue of his popularity, he is a serious contender for the presidency, which is why Akaev tried to keep him in prison, beginning with the 2000 elections. However, his criminal convictions make him ineligible to run, according to the Kyrgyz Constitution. So, the Supreme Court has recently overturned his politically-motivated convictions, and he is now free to run. Sources here in Bishkek say that he is quite authoritarian and is not a true friend of democracy, despite his insistence on following the rule of law in recent events. Apparently, he and the current acting President, Bakiev, have agreed that which ever one of them wins the Presidency next, will make the other guy the Prime Minister. Nice little arrangement, if it holds up to the pressure of the political battle. Due to the delay in deciding what to do about Akaev, the presidential elections have been rescheduled from June 26th to July 10th (as of today, anyway).

In other news, as khalij-khazar [see comments to 'More from Central Asia'] said, things in the south of the country are a little less stable. There are reports that several different people claim to be the legitimate governor of Jalal Abad Oblast -- I've heard both 3 and 5 as the number of claimants. Of khalij-khazar's other concerns about religious fundamentalism, that currently seems to be less of a threat than the opening that political instability will give to the narco-barons, at least one of whom is serving in Parliament right now as a deputy. We all know that the tonnage of narcotics coming out of Afghanistan is the highest in years. Much of that comes directly through southern Kyrgyzstan, with a significant impact on the economy and society of Osh. With peoples' attention diverted to protests in front of the government buildings, or to events in Bishkek, drug traffickers can operate with much more freedom. This is one of the things that concerns the world powers the most about the current instability. This also bears watching.

One of the things that has given people a sense of relief in the south is that the anti-government protests in Osh and Jalal Abad were supported by all ethnicities -- Kyrgyz, Uzbeks and Russians -- rather than polarizing them in different camps. As khalij-khazar says, there is the potential for Kyrgyz-Uzbek strife there, so unity in the recent mobilization was an encouraging sign.

Overall, people here in Bishkek are watching and waiting. The optimists are encouraged, the skeptics are doubtful that anything has really changed. Maybe this was just a shuffling of existing elites and none of them really cares about authentic democratic reform. On the other hand, any improvement in transparency (and there has been some recently) has to be beneficial. The test now is to see if the new leaders follow through on their promises.

Iraq: What Now?

2005-04-10T10:17:00.000-07:00

Following the Iraqi election and statements by the US administration that no timetable would be set for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, I wrote that as soon as the new Iraqi government is put in place, the Shiite militia of Moqtada Sadr will be mobilized to demand a full US withdrawal.

The new government has now been agreed upon after grueling debates among the various Iraqi factions represented in the elected national assembly. The Kurds get the presidency while the Shiite coalition of Ayatollah Sistani gets the premiership. The Arab Sunni factions are still severely fractured although the Assembly selected an Arab Sunni as speaker and another Arab Sunni as Vice president. There is also talk that some key ministerial posts (i.e., Defense) would be headed by Arab Sunnis. Recall that most influential Arab Sunni factions had boycotted the election and have long called for a U.S. withdrawal. Moqtada Sadr and his Mahdi Army in the Shiite south are about to add more gun to that call.

Read my previous post on Moqtada Sadr

Arab Human Development Report

2005-04-06T12:16:00.000-07:00

"Freedom in its comprehensive sense, incorporates not only civil and political freedoms (in other words, liberation from oppression), but also the liberation from all factors that are inconsistent with human dignity"

After a six-month delay, the Arab division of the UN Development Program (UNDP) released its annual Arab Human Development Report. This followed a series of squabbles with the Bush administration who objected to some of the language included in the report. The administration particularly objected to references made in the report about the deteriorating human development situation in Iraq caused by the US invasion and subsequent occupation. The US administration even threatened to withdraw funding for the program if the language it objects to were not removed. This fits the pattern of an administration that can not and will not admit its mistakes nor will take responsibility for its actions. The administration is happy to fund critical appraisals of other governments and support unambiguous calls for reform as long as it is portrayed as the perfect messenger of God who is always right and hardly ever at fault.

Ironically, the attitude of the US administration, which played into the overwhelming perception in the world that this administration is trying to manipulate and control international institutions and programs to its advantage, strengthened the credibility of the report within the region. The authors of the report explained that the controversy may have actually given them a degree of legitimacy among Arabs, who might have otherwise dismissed them as apologists for American views. I also would like to add that this report was researched and written by some of the most forward-thinking and progressive intellectuals in the Arab world. If the US administration is at odds with their views, then one can safely say that no amount of public diplomacy by this administration can reverse its negative image in the Middle East.

Nonetheless, the UNDP finally released the report under its own name, after threatening to publish it through a private company. It did so with a disclaimer stating that the original language was essentially intact, although some terms may have been softened.

The Report concludes that:

"The situation of freedom and good governance in the Arab world ranges from deficient to seriously deficient. Despite sporadic improvements in the human rights situation in some Arab countries, the overall human rights picture in the Arab world is grave and deteriorating. The freedom and human rights of Arabs under occupation, particularly in Palestine, are being seriously violated. Even in independent Arab countries, there is a serious gap in freedom and good governance.

Authoritarian regimes severely restrict freedoms and the right to political participation and civil activity to ensure that no opposition arises to challenge their unrepresentative form of government. Constitutional rights are also violated as authoritarian regimes take control of the law and manipulate it to reinforce their grip on power and serve their own interests.

At the regional level, the Arab populations under occupation, particularly in Palestine, are deprived of many of their basic freedoms and their human rights. This has a direct impact on the situation in other Arab countries, and provides authoritarian Arab regimes with the excuse of an external threat to postpone reform and movement towards more representative forms of government. Also at the regional level, authoritarian regimes form a mutually reinforcing network that helps each of them to maintain its political control.

At the international level, the privileges enjoyed by some of the major powers allow them to preclude the adoption of international resolutions that would uphold provisions of international law, thus contributing to the violation of human rights in the Arab region. Moreover, some of those powers have helped authoritarian regimes consolidate their positions by striking alliances with them if the regimes are perceived as useful in ‘war on terror’.”

The Report recommends:

"Arab countries must sign declarations, covenants and treaties that together make up international law, and incorporate these provisions into their constitutions and reflect them in their legal systems.

A gradual and negotiated transition of power to representative forms of government. The first step in the process would be to unleash civil society forces and allow the three key freedoms of opinion, expression and association—a move that would generate a dynamic debate on how to achieve the transition.

Arab intellectual, political and civil society vanguards must shake off their apathy and contribute towards creating an intellectual framework and atmosphere conducive to freedom and good governance. This should lead to the emergence of an elite representing all sectors of society to spearhead the movement towards an Arab renaissance.

Reforming the political system to allow full participation through free and fair elections, the results of which must be fully respected.

Separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, with the independence of the latter institutionally guaranteed.

Basic freedoms should be enshrined in constitutions and legally safeguarded so that they cannot be diminished or even abolished by legislatures, which may reflect a “tyrannical majority” seeking to oppress a minority."

The Report's most pressing priorities:

The Report suggests immediate action to be taken to reform governance practices, addressing three key priorities: (1) abolishing the state of emergency; (2) ending all forms of discrimination against any minority group; and (3) guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary.

Click HERE for a PDF version of the Executive Summary of the 2004 Arab Human Development Report (AHDR2004).

Jordan's King Sacks Cabinet

2005-04-05T14:56:00.000-07:00

The BBC has just reported that King Abdullah of Jordan dismissed the current government and asked former minister Adnan Badran to form a new government. The King is apparently unhappy with the performance of the outgoing cabinet regarding its "mishandling" of a series of matters including:

* The failure of a Jordanian peace initiative at the Arab summit
* A diplomatic row with Iraq after the Hilla bombing in February
* The resignation of Planning Minister Bassem Awadallah

It appears that the last straw, however, was the government's last performance at the Arab Summit. Last month's Arab summit in Algiers rejected a proposal put forward by Jordan whereby peace negotiations with Israel would resume before final status issues are resolved with the Palestinians.

In Jordan, as is the case in other Arab monarchies, most powers lie with the king, who appoints governments, approves new laws and is able to dissolve parliament.

Every once in a while, a great human being comes along

2005-04-03T11:46:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, a great human being comes along to remind humanity that despite our perceived differences, we are but one. Pope John Paul II was such a man. He was a great man and the world will miss him. I can not mourn his death, though painful is his departure. I celebrate his life because he came; he enlightened many souls; he did his duty towards humanity; and he left in the grace of the Lord. – Jawad.

Kais & Layla: Understanding Sufism Through a Love Story

2005-04-02T14:03:00.000-08:00

One upon a time, there was an Arab boy, named Kais, of both great intelligence and stunning beauty. He lived in a village far into the desert dunes of Arabia and was a source of great pride for his family, which hails from the tradition of tribal nobility. In his village, he was like the sun rising upon a dark alley. He possessed impressive wit and articulate speech. He was pride; he was inspiration; he was hope.

One day he came upon a beautiful girl named Layla, meaning ‘night’ in Arabic. She was also from a noble family but belonging to a competing tribe. The first time they looked upon each other, it was like the miracle of a shining sun in the middle of a moonless night. They fell in love immediately and vowed to keep their love secret. However, their love for each other was so intense that very soon murmurs filled the air revealing their secret to the world.

Layla’s family who held Kais’ tribe in contempt were furious upon hearing the news. They forbade her from leaving her tent and threatened to kill Kais if he ever were to approach Layla or come near her tent. Separated from his beloved, Kais felt as though he was deprived of the food, water, and air that nourish his soul. He walked helplessly through the village reciting poetry about Layla’s beauty. ‘Kais is mad (Majnun in Arabic)’, the villagers said. He was now cast out of his family and tribe for he no longer represented the hope and pride he once inspired.

Soon after, Kais drifted into the desert dunes looking for answers from the compassionate and merciful force up above. He searched for love where answers are true and final beyond the cruelty of this physical world. He traversed the desert and leaned upon the Ka’aba (in Mecca) shouting amid dismayed pilgrims: “O Lord, let my love grow. Let it blossom to perfection and endure. Let me drink from the wellspring of love until my thirst is quenched. Love is all I have, all I am, and all I ever want to be.”

Although many believed him to be Majnun (mad), a few still believed in his wisdom and sought him out in the desert for inspiration. They admired his love for Layla. One night, as he recited poetry to a few captive onlookers, a piece of paper born by the wind landed on his lap. It read: ‘Kais and Layla’. To the surprise of his audience, he tore the paper in half, throwing out the part bearing Layla’s name and neatly folding the part carrying his name for safe-keeping.

Shocked, a man shouted: “Kais, you are indeed a madman. What is the meaning of what you have just done?” To which Kais replied: “If only you knew the reality of love, you would see that when you scratch a lover, you find his beloved”

The man persisted: “But why throw away Layla’s name and not your own?”

Kais answered: “The name is a shell and nothing more. It is what the shell hides that counts. I am the shell and Layla is the pearl; I am the veil and she is the face beneath it.”

Some time later, Layla was forced by her family to marry another man while Kais continued to live among wild beasts in the desert. She too longed for the desert for it is there that her love was stranded. She too suffered greatly, but she suffered in silence.

Once, a merchant told Layla that he could take her to see her beloved if only for a brief moment. He told her that without her, the soul of her beloved was like the ocean in a winter’s night, whipped up by a thousand storms. She cried that it was she who has set his heart on fire and reduced his being to ashes. She, then, urged the merchant to find Kais and arrange for her to look upon his face even if it were for a brief moment.

The Merchant raced to find Kais in the desert where he found him several weeks later. He told him that he should now break his vow of separation from the physical world if only for a moment so at to see his beloved. Kais could only shake his head and say: “Do they not see that while it may be possible for them to have their wishes granted in this life, my longing is something else entirely, something that can not be fulfilled while I remain in this transient world.”

Even as these words came streaming from his very core, he could not resist the opportunity to catch a brief sight of his beloved Layla. He accepted to accompany the merchant to a palm grove where he would be reunited with Layla. But when they were but a short distance from each other, neither could contain themselves. Layla pleaded with the merchant that she could not get any closer for she was like a burning candle that would be consumed completely if it were to get any closer to the fire. Kais, unable to contain the violent shaking of his inner soul, ran back into the desert vanishing like a shadow in a moonless night.

A few years later, Layla’s light dimmed amid her silent suffering and she finally took her last breath as she murmured the name of her beloved. When Kais learned of her death, he raced back to his native village and threw his body over her grave. He lay there motionless while the wild beasts of the desert watched over him and his beloved. No one dared approach them until Kais’ body decayed into dust and bones. It was only then that the animals guarding the grave returned into the empty desert.

On the grave was inscribed:

Two lovers lie in this tomb
United forever in death’s dark womb.
Faithful in separation; true in love:
May one tent house them in heaven above.

This story, which was written 1,000 years before William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, and is also known as the ‘Story of Layla and Majnun’ is one of the greatest stories told in the Sufi tradition. The narrative above is my own adaptation of selected readings (including Reza Aslan's recent adaptation) as well as an exercise in memory for I was told this story many years ago as a child.

Sufism is to Islam what Layla was to Kais: the pearl beneath the shell; the face underneath the veil. The Sufi tradition considers Islam to be a prelude to the attainment of spiritual unity with the creator beyond a physical and material world. In that, it bears striking similarities to eastern philosophies such as Buddhism, which use meditation and inner struggle to search for spiritual divinity.

I am also reminded by one of my favorite authors, Paolo Coelho, who in The Alchemist, recounts the story of a boy who comes upon a Sufi wise man in the desert. As they conversed about the meaning of life, the Sufi scholar offered the boy some wine. The boy then asked if wine were not prohibited by Islam, to which the Sufi man replied: It is not what enters a man’s mouth that is evil, but rather what comes out of it.

So is the underlying philosophy of the Sufi thought.

Togo: Seeking Ligitimacy Overseas

2005-04-01T11:59:00.000-08:00

This week, Mr. Faure Essozimna Gnassingbé, the son of the late President of Togo and president of the 'Rally of the Togolese People Party (RPT)' visited the Kingdom of Morocco, where he was received by the highest levels of the Moroccan government. The official Moroccan media made a brief mention of the visit and published Mr. Gnassingbé’s picture in the company of His Majesty King Mohammed VI. Prior to his travel to Morocco, Mr. Gnassingbé’s previous stops have included Libya and Gabon. If this sounds like a routine visit by an African leader to another, then let us review some background.

Togo's ruler for the past 38 years died earlier this year to a heart attack. Hours after his death, Togo's military high command installed his son, Mr. Gnassingbé, in power and nullified the country's constitutional order. Immediately after, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU) denounced such fait accompli by the Togolese military junta and demanded that the country be set on the course of electoral democracy. After much arm wrestling, the son of the deceased ruler accepted to step aside while "elections" are being organized by a parliament that is dominated by his father's political allies. In the meanwhile, Mr. Gnassingbé has been using government assets including official Togolese aircraft to hop on about the continent. The purpose of his travel, I suspect, is to garner official support from foreign leaders for the upcoming election. He is, in other words, in search of legitimacy, only not at home among the Togolese people for, I suspect, he already has his own designs for their vote come election time.

Now, let us forget that Mr. Gnassingbé tried to take power in a coup following his father's death. Let us even assume that he is only a presidential candidate in what would be a fair election in Togo. Furthermore, let us ignore the fact that he is using Togolese state assets to promote himself abroad - an advantage denied to his opponents. To add to that, let us forget that the military junta in power that supports him and his RPT party are imposing their will on the Togolese in a repressive manner. Ok, one more: Let us assume that Mr. Gnassingbé’s ruling party represents the majority ethnic group in Togo (it does not). Assuming all of that, what in the world are other countries doing by receiving him in the middle of an electoral campaign. Is that not interfering in the internal politics of Togo when a foreign government endorses a candidate by granting him an official reception and photo op?

The only explanation I find for this is the decision by some countries in Africa to play hanky-panky with the African Union and/or other strategic alliances within the continent. It is either that or some obscure economic interest that is at play beyond the comprehension of unsuspecting minds. Morocco has no visible or rational interest in endorsing Mr. Gnassingbé by granting him an audience with the King. Morocco needs to play a leadership role in Africa in regards to democratic reform and good governance. This visit by Togo's self-appointed leader does not serve that purpose, nor does it serve Morocco's image within the international community.

Mr. Gnassingbé is free to visit any country he likes, including Morocco. But, he may not use state resources (both those of Togo and those of his host countries) to tour the continent ahead of the elections in Togo, even though it is almost certain that he will be vote-manipulated into power. Mr. Gnassingbé is free to play tourist as much as he wishes, but he ought to consider seeking legitimacy from his own people, not foreign leaders, and to work on erasing the bloody stains left behind by his father's rule. They may choose to fool us, but we choose not to be fooled any longer.

"Expect nothing and you won't be disappointed"

2005-03-31T09:56:00.000-08:00

Today, I suggest that we take a small break from political analysis and enjoy some humor from a fellow Blogger who tells the story of her recent Birthday outing. Enjoy, and by the way, please wish Lauren a Happy Birthday while you are on her Blog.

Lauren's Birthday Story
.

Faiza's Barometer for Change in Saudi Arabia

2005-03-29T15:53:00.002-08:00

When I picked up the Sunday paper in my favorite coffee shop this past weekend, I had just had a discussion with an Iranian friend of mine about the state of civil liberties and human freedom in the Middle East. More specifically, we compared Saudi Arabia to Iran in terms of human rights, governance, and women's rights. I told him that I found it disturbing that Saudi Arabia where women are fully segregated; can not drive; can not share public spaces with men; and can not vote, receives docile criticism from the US when Iran where there is an electoral process (though circumvented by the ruling Mullahs) and where women are much less segregated; can drive; can share public spaces with men; and can vote is demonized and vilified continuously. We agreed that U.S. interests and American values are, after all, not as aligned as the president had claimed in his inaugural speech.

Not that we were exonerating the repressive regime in Iran by comparison to a more repressive regime. In fact, we both agreed that Iranians live under a theological tyranny that must be denounced for the decent and bright people of Persia to regain their freedom and dignity. But I was reminded by my reading of Alexis de Tocqueville that comparison is fundamental to all human thought; that comparison is, indeed, the methodological core of the scientific study of politics. So we compared Iran and Saudi Arabia and the more we did, the more agitated I became about the deafening silence on this side of the hemisphere about the cruelty of Saudi society.

My friend left and so I tried to relax myself by reading the paper. I came across an article on Saudi Arabia by Faiza Saleh Ambah and thought ‘how timely’. I must admit that it put my optimism about further Middle Eastern reform into perspective and as such I recommend that you too read this courageous and thoughtful article.

The Case The Saudis Can't Make (Click HERE for the full article)
By Faiza Saleh Ambah

"It's hard not to be intoxicated by the breeze of democracy wafting across the Middle East. An Arabian Spring, analysts call it, heralded by round-the-clock demonstrations in Lebanon, suffragists out on the streets in Kuwait, rare protests in Egypt, voting in Iraq and reform even here in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where limited municipal elections are being held this year. But just as I'm about to get carried away by the spirit of hope, my mind stops, does a U-turn and returns to three men -- two academics and a poet -- who've been behind bars in Saudi Arabia for a year. Their case, and not the ballot box, has become my barometer for real change in the kingdom."

More from Central Asia

2005-03-28T15:21:00.001-08:00

As we continue to monitor events spurred by last week's ousting of the ruling regime in Kyrgyztan, we ought to be wary of definitive statements about the future of this Central Asian nation at the present time. Many questions remain unanswered about the unity of the opposition that forced president Akaev into exile. Furthermore, it is not yet clear whether the opposition is attached to the values of democracy, nor is it clear at this time whether the obituary of the ousted regime has indeed been written. Therefore, in seeking some more answers about the emerging situation in Kyrgyztan, I asked my friend who is currently in Bishkek to provide me with some of her insights with regards to the following questions:

(1) What is the expressed intent of the opposition and their expressed political agenda?
(2) Is the opposition united?
(3) How does Russia fit in this story?

My friend was gracious enough to take time and provide me with the following answers, which I am sharing in hope that it furthers your understanding of a very delicate situation in what is undoubtedly a very unique region of the world.

"Part of the problem here is that the opposition didn't have much of an agenda besides getting rid of Akaev and his corrupt regime. The opposition is somewhat fragmented. It has never been clear to me which oppositionists were genuinely interested in democratic reform and which ones were merely upset that they were on the outside of a lucrative 'resource capture' system. I think there are some of each type involved.

Right now the oppositionists seem to be negotiating amongst themselves for who gets what part of the power. However, because of the speed with which the transition occurred, much has to be sorted out under pressure. It is also not clear to me that this new government is stable and that the previous regime is really vanquished. It is possible, in my mind, that Akaev and his people will try to retake power in some way - I just don't know. Fortunately, as far as I have been told, there's not a lot of military hardware lying around here so any power struggle will rely on limited means of force.

For now, the biggest danger is to retail establishments which are being looted by what appear to be very well-organized gangs (guys drive up in Mercedes and BMWs with trucks, break in, take the best stuff, and then quickly move on to the next place) followed by opportunistic criminals and ordinary people. The new government is pleading for people to behave responsibly, but I get the sense they can't really control the looting just yet.There have been no attacks on people, and no street fights between supporters of various sides (at least nothing I've heard of yet). Also, there have been no ethnic clashes or anything like that.

Regarding Putin's position, he has been very noncommittal. There was a report before all this happened (Monday or Tuesday) that Akaev had gone to Moscow to meet with Putin and had been denied an audience. On Friday(last week) he said on TV that he knows the leaders of the opposition movement and they are 'decent, responsible people' (sounds almost like an endorsement) but that 'everything must be done according to the constitution'. He also said he is open to discussing things with Akaev. My sense is that he is keeping his options open, since Russia was made to look so stupid in Kiev."

The UN Report on the Fact-Finding Mission to Lebanon

2005-03-27T10:30:00.000-08:00

The United Nations has released its fact-finding mission report on the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The UN team that conducted this inquiry was headed by Ireland's deputy police commissioner, Peter FitzGerald.

In one of the most vivid parts of the report, testimony given to the UN investigative team describes a meeting in Damascus at which Assad ordered Rafik Harriri to support amending Lebanon's constitution in order to extend by three additional years the presidential mandate of Emile Lahoud. According to that testimony, Assad told Harriri that "Lahoud should be viewed as his personal representative" in Lebanon and that "opposing him is tantamount to opposing Assad himself". Assad then allegedly warned that he "would rather break Lebanon over the heads of" Hariri and Druze political leader Walid Jumblatt "than see his word in Lebanon broken."

Furthermore the UN team also charged that in the aftermath of the assassination, Syrian-controlled Lebanese authorities tampered with evidence and showed a "distinct lack of commitment" to conducting an objective and credible investigation into Hariri's assassination. The UN team stopped short of directly accusing Syria and its agents in Lebanon for the murder of ex-Prime Minister Harriri although the report charges that Syria "bears primary responsibility for the political tension that preceded" the assassination. Click HERE to download a copy of the repot in PDF form.

Why Do So Many Young Americans Kill Themselves?

2005-03-25T09:32:00.000-08:00

According to the US Center for Disease Control (CDC), the rate of youth suicides has tripled since the 1950s in the US. Today, suicide is the third leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 15 and 24. More teenagers and young adults die of suicide in the US than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease combined.

The US National Institute of Health (NIH) explains that "suicide deaths outnumber homicide deaths by five to three." While 84 people commit suicide every day in America, still more alarming is that three suicides are attempted every two seconds in this country. The NIH says that "it has been estimated that there may be from 8 to 25 attempted suicides per every suicide death."

In the year 2000 alone, 29,319 Americans ended their lives in a single year. Among those are 9,084 teenagers and young adults. Also consider that a total of around 500,000 people (that's half a million!!) attempt suicide in America every year. Just to put these numbers into perspective, recall that some 3,000 people died as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that close to 1,500 soldiers died as a result of war in Iraq.

Suicide in America is a serious public health problem with devastating effects for thousands of families. It begs to ask: Why do so many people decide to commit suicide in one of the richest, most prosperous, and freest countries on earth?

Click on the chart below to see suicide statistics by age group and gender in the US.

An Update on the Situation in Kyrgyzstan

2005-03-25T07:19:00.000-08:00

As I explained in my previous post, one of my friends is currently in Bishkek to conduct research for a doctoral dissertation on conflict resolution. She had a front seat to the latest political developments there. She shared the following update with me, which I am in turn posting for your information.

"Yesterday afternoon there was a sort of a bloodless coup here, as you already know by now. The opposition took over the White House, which is the main government building here. Some stores are closed, though I can't tell whether this is out of fear of the instability or whether it is a show of "strike" solidarity with the protesters. Otherwise, everything seems quite calm. [my translator's] father, who had been downtown, said there was quite a bit of fighting overnight. But, things are completely quiet in my neighborhood and we heard no sirens overnight.

One of the problems during the elections here in February and March was that the government controlled all 3 TV stations as well as the radio(the only independent radio station was shut down by the government before the elections). However, yesterday afternoon one of the TV stations changed sides and made their studios totally available to the opposition movement. First, the TV people came on and apologized to the public for having given biased reporting and for having lied under government pressure. Then, they spent the rest of the evening broadcasting programs featuring opposition people.

On TV, the opposition people said that they had not intended to take over the White House yesterday, but only to hold a meeting. However, aggression on the part of government agitators so inflamed the crowd that it surged onto the White House grounds and overwhelmed the police there, who put down their equipment and either joined the protestors or fled. From what I saw myself yesterday, there was aggression on both sides. Following this there were some incidents of window breaking - particularly of a large store downtown - and other destruction nearby, which the opposition leaders pleaded with people to stop. After taking the White House, opposition supporters freed Felix Kulov, a key opposition leader who had been in prison off and on for the past 5 years on reportedly spurious charges. All last night, opposition leaders repeatedly talked about this being a historic day in Kyrgyzstan and how everyone must remain orderly and begin immediately to work toward the future.

They talked about doing everything according to law and the constitution (except, I suppose, what they themselves have already accomplished by taking over the government and freeing Kulov). There were definitely some rowdy guys in the opposition crowd yesterday, but most people were responsible and I believe the level-headed people are managing things now.

Regarding the government itself, as of last night, President Akaev was not in evidence and the Prime Minister, Tanaev, had resigned. There were rumors that deposed President Akaev had already left the country and a Chinese news source (Xinhua) reported that Akaev has gone to Almaty. Last night the 2 remaining state controlled TV stations were avoiding all news broadcasts and showing movies and MTV instead, so there were no official pronouncements from the government, as far as we could tell.

Reactions here are mixed. People such as my roommate/translator who were strongly pro-opposition are ecstatic. Others, families such as [a friend's], seemed frightened when I spoke with them last night. [a friend's] relatives are Akaev supporters but I never see them any more so I don't know how they're dealing with this situation.

For news, I would recommend the following two sites:

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?centasia_newslog/centasia_newslog_index.html

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarchive/country/kyrgyzstan.html

I just checked some other new sources and want to reassure you that looting has NOT engulfed Bishkek. That is sensationalism. Things in my part of town are very quiet."

Show of Force in Bishkek

2005-03-24T10:56:00.000-08:00

Over the last few weeks, Kyrgyzstan witnessed countrywide demonstrations by supporters of opposition candidates who felt that recent parliamentary elections there were manipulated by the government and its agents. The elections in question had taken place in two rounds on February 27 and March 13 of this year. However, as recently as last week, protesters in the south of Kyrgyzstan moved from condemning government manipulation of election results to an outright demand for the ousting of President Akaev ahead of the presidential election planned for October.

Amid the unrest, the opposition seized key regional government buildings in Jalalabad and Osh (two southern cities in Kyrgyzstan) despite an initial heavy-handed reaction by the government. The Special Police units that were sent in to regain control in those two cities were overcome by protestors only a few days after the initial assault that gave the government momentary control over government buildings there. Initial reports from Human rights organizations indicate that the government assault on those buildings sent 14 protestors to the hospital.

Following that unsuccessful bid to regain control through force and the fact that many local law enforcement officials joined the opposition, the government of President Akaev proposed a negotiated compromise. This was seen by the opposition as too little, too late. A prominent opposition leader explained: "The authorities have been trying the voters' patience for too long: they waited more than ten days, hungry and in the rain, for government representatives to come and see them, but no one did. Now we've realized what Akaev's vaccine is: to crush the people's will by exhausting their physical strength and nerves. I don't think the people will negotiate with him now."

It also appeared last week that the opposition may, after all, show some flexibility and accept negotiations, but only if they were to be had directly with the president and not with his ministers. But earlier this week, another opposition leader warned that "the situation in the south is changing rapidly and people are becoming less controllable, and that is causing grave concern to our representatives in Osh and Jalalabad. The situation is extremely explosive."

According to a friend of mine who is in Bishkek to conduct research for a dissertation on conflict resolution in Central Asia, the government closed all the universities in Bishkek on Tuesday this week and ordered the students to attend a massive pro-government rally in the city. She was told by her Kyrgyz translator that the government was making very strong statements against all international aid organizations, USAID, and the US Ambassador, Stephen E. Young. At the end of the meeting, the organizers handed out a newsprint copy of a forged statement they said was issued by Ambassador Young in which he says that the US goal is to remove President Akaev from power. The newsprint, which she says is clearly not written by a native English speaker, is likely to be seen by many in Kyrgyzstan as authentic, due to existing skepticism about US intentions in the region.

Nonetheless, today, protesters stormed the presidential compound forcing President Askar Akayev and his family to flee the Kyrgyz capital. Following the take-over, an opposition leader, former Prime Minister Kurmanbek Bakiev said: "We will establish order. We will not allow looting. We will hold our own elections to start our rule."

It appears that Russia has lost yet another of its strong men in a country it once controlled. This is now three in a row. First it was Georgia, then the Ukraine, and now Kyrgyzstan. This may very well serve as a turning point for the rest of Central Asia. It also may just send a reminder to those 'nostalgic soviets' in Russia that this is, indeed, a new world we are living.

The Crystal Ball of US Intelligence

2005-03-22T17:07:00.000-08:00

The following conclusions represent the 2020 global landscape trends reported by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in a recent report titled: 'Mapping the Global Future'. The NIC is the US Intelligence Community's center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking.

Relative Certainties:

Globalization largely irreversible, likely to become less Westernized.

World economy substantially larger.

Increasing number of global firms facilitate spread of new technologies.

Rise of Asia and advent of possible new economic middle-weights.

Aging populations in established powers.

Energy supplies “in the ground” sufficient to meet global demand.

Growing power of nonstate actors.

Political Islam remains a potent force.

Improved WMD capabilities of some states.

Arc of instability spanning Middle East, Asia, Africa.

Great power conflict escalating into total war unlikely.

Environmental and ethical issues even more to the fore.

US will remain single most powerful actor economically, technologically, militarily.

Key Uncertainties:

Whether globalization will pull in lagging economies; degree to which Asian countries set new “rules of the game.”

Extent of gaps between “haves” and “have-nots”; backsliding by fragile democracies; managing or containing financial crises.

Extent to which connectivity challenges governments.

Whether rise of China/India occurs smoothly.

Ability of EU and Japan to adapt work forces, welfare systems, and integrate migrant populations; whether EU becomes a superpower.

Political instability in producer countries; supply disruptions.

Willingness and ability of states and international institutions to accommodate these actors.

Impact of religiosity on unity of states and potential for conflict; growth of jihadist ideology.

More or fewer nuclear powers; ability of terrorists to acquire biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear weapons.

Precipitating events leading to overthrow of regimes.

Ability to manage flashpoints and competition for resources.

Extent to which new technologies create or resolve ethical dilemmas.

Whether other countries will more openly challenge Washington; whether US loses S&T edge.

WB Loan to Jordan

2005-03-22T09:42:00.000-08:00

"The World Bank today approved a $15 million loan to support the Government of Jordan to strengthen the capacity of the civil service to carry out the national program of reforms. The Public Sector Reform Capacity-Building will assist the government in strategic staffing in key agencies involved in administrative reform and providing training to ensure the civil service can actively manage the reform process."

"The proposed project seeks to advance Jordan's broad program of civil service reforms by hiring staff, providing goods and equipment, as well as technical assistance to government agencies responsible for carrying out an ambitious public sector reform program. The project will also support the timely implementation of reforms in range of areas from policy coordination to improved financial and human resource practice."

Arab Summit in Algiers

2005-03-22T08:48:00.000-08:00

In light of the ongoing Arab Summit in Algiers, I would like to share some thoughts on the Arab League, which I expressed in an article a few weeks ago. Please click on the following link to be redirected to that previous post:

The Inconsequential Existence of the Arab League

Rummy's Noodles

2005-03-21T07:44:00.000-08:00

.
Donald Rumsfeld has a new explanation for the ongoing failure to suppress the insurgency in Iraq, which he shared with Fox News on Sunday morning: It is Turkey's fault. Of course it is. They refused to allow the 4th infantry division to invade Iraq from the north. How dare they deny the US passage rights through their territory? The secretary explains that because US forces were not able to execute an assault from the north, ‘Saddam loyalists’ were able to disperse into hiding and cause the ongoing insurgency.

This sounds as ridiculous as the secretary's past 'wisdom' on body armor and Abu Ghraib. Blaming the insurgency on Turkey's sovereign right not to take part in the US military operation in Iraq is like blaming a missed field goal on Astroturf. It has, indeed, been long since President Truman placed a sign that read ‘the buck stops here’ in the oval office. Today, Secretary Rumsfeld would rather place another sign on his desk that reads: ‘the buck stops anywhere but here’. According to him failure to contain the insurgency is not the result of inadequate troop levels and force protection sent into battle. It is not the result of poor post-invasion planning which failed to secure weapon storage facilities and sensitive sites. It is not the result of the policy to disband the Iraqi army, which created a defacto resistance force. And it is certainly not the result of a failure to quickly restore public services, which fueled Iraqi anger and, hence, increased recruitment for the insurgency. The Secretary says it is all somebody else’s fault.

It is Syria although a large number of foreign fighters who are joining the insurgency are Saudis and Jordanians (two key US allies who also share borders with Iraq). It is Iran although the Mullahs there support the Shia in southern Iraq who themselves are the victims of bloody terrorist attacks by Sunni insurgents. Finally, it is Turkey because they refused the right of passage to the US military although Baatists would have behaved exactly the same way as they have to date. Iraq’s neighbors, indeed, cause complications for the US in Iraq. Syria and Iran are, indeed, subversive actors with regard to US policy in Iraq because they have a direct stake in the outcome of the political process there. The inability of the US to get the 4th infantry division in from the north did complicate the war planning effort. But, you don’t go to a war and think you will waltz into a perfect environment free of any external interference, unexpected setbacks, and operational risk. Contingency planning is certainly not an unfamilar term within the Pentagon.

Regarding this latest claim by the secretary, it is easy to speculate, as he once said, on ‘unknown unknowables’. But, the fact of the matter is that, regardless of whether the 4th infantry division was allowed to come in from the north or not, Baatists would have faded into the landscape and prepared to fight a guerilla war against US forces because that was their plan from the get-go. They knew from their experience only ten years earlier that a conventional war against the most powerful military in the world is out of the question. Therefore, the so-called ‘regime remnants’ who put their strategy into action several days before US troops reached Baghdad, never intended to fight US forces in the open. In addition, let us not forget that the Kurdish militia, the Pesh Merga, and US Special Forces did operate in the north in support of the invading forces from the South and West and that the US had total air supremacy during the entire campaign. It is also important to remember that it took US forces only about a week to enter Baghdad. Would it have mattered if they got there a day or two earlier? Maybe, but that’s highly debatable because the main policy failures that led to the current security situation in Iraq took place days if not months after the ground assault on Baghdad was completed.

Another element to consider very carefully is that the insurgency is not confined to ‘Saddam loyalists’ or ‘regime remnants’. Failure to properly identify the problem is the first sign that real, sustainable solutions are not forthcoming. The idea that all those who belong to the insurgency are trying to bring the Saddam regime back into power is ludicrous. It is a simplistic approach that may play well on US media, but misses the point entirely. Many in this insurgency today are diametrically opposed to the Baatists. They include regular Iraqis whose resentment of the US was fueled by lack of public services and by military offensives into Iraqi cities (i.e., Fallujah); they include Islamists (including foreign fighters) who are seeking to ‘martyr’ themselves; and they also include Iraqi nationalists. Furthermore, the Mahdi army of the Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has given US forces lots of problems in southern Iraq last year. The recent calm there does not mean that this militia is finished. In fact, we may very well see them take up arms again sometime after the new Iraqi government is formed. When that happens again, it would be mighty tough to blame Turkey and I suppose much easier to blame Iran instead, because according to Rumsfeld everything that happens in Iraq is always somebody else's fault.

By the way, Harry Truman has been dead for thiry three years now.

Presidential Appointments

2005-03-16T17:11:00.001-08:00

This week, two major presidential appointments were announced by the White House. The first caused a reaction very much like that caused by the nomination of John Bolton to the position of U.S. Ambassador to the UN, while the other drew a much more measured response from the president’s chief opponents. Be that as it may, both of today’s announcements are significant in that they confirm and solidify this president’s new strategy for international relations and public diplomacy.

Hawk in the Bank

President Bush hardly waited for the dust to settle down from his nomination of John Bolton to the UN, before striking again tapping another hard-hitting conservative, Paul D. Wolfowitz, to become the next president of the World Bank. Although there have been hints for about a week now that Mr. Wolfowitz was being considered for the job, many did not expect the president to hit yet again with another controversial appointment. The official announcement caused quite a stir in international circles and drew some pointed comments from the democratic leadership in the House. It is not surprising that any appointment that concerns a polarizing operator like Mr. Wolfowitz would produce a controversy. However, even die-hard democrats have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, they are happy to see Mr. Wolfowitz vacate the halls of the Pentagon, and on the other, they are worried that his political philosophy would deepen the rift between the US and the international community. Mr. Wolfowitz was after all one of the chief architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Wolfowitz will be in for some animated exchanges with democrats over his nomination, but he will be easily confirmed into the World Bank presidency. His impact in the World Bank, I suspect, will be more positive than negative. This is because he will bring the management style that is needed in the short-term to steer the bank into the direction of performance-based and results-oriented development assistance.

It is also helpful to note that although the U.S. hosts the bank and is its largest shareholder, the ultimate decision-making authority within the bank is held by a Board of Governors where the U.S. share of votes is 16.4 percent. The other 181 member countries collectively hold close to 84 percent of the vote. Other notable shareholders of the Bank are: Japan (7.87 percent), Germany (4.49 percent), the United Kingdom (4.31 percent), and France (4.31 percent).

The Lady from Texas

The White House also announced that the president nominated his long-time adviser, Karen P. Hughes, to the post of Undersecretary of State in charge of Public Diplomacy. This post, which was created after 9/11, has already seen two short-lived appointments. Mrs. Hughes will now have to pick up the pieces and formulate a comprehensive outreach policy to deal with mounting resentment of the U.S. in the Middle East and in the rest of the world. This is going to be an immensely difficult job. Karen Hughes must know that a propaganda campaign will not do the job. In regards to the Middle East, she should not make the mistake of following Arab regimes into the habit of insulting the intelligence of the people of the Middle East with blatant propaganda. What will cut it here is a concrete change in policy for which she will have to lobby relentlessly in the White House.

Mrs. Hughes should also move to get the Arab community in the US to be more involved in U.S. public diplomacy efforts. But for that to happen in a legitimate manner, the Arab community in the U.S. should not feel alienated and discriminated against. As such, an important aspect of Mrs Hughes job will have to coordinate with other government agencies to stop hate speech against American Muslims (especially in conservative media). Although, some may view this as beyond the scope of foreign service work, Hughes must push for a domestic strategy to educate Americans about their fellow Arab and Muslim citizens for it is they who will help her educate the Middle East about America. The American administration will not find better messengers to carry its goodwill to the Middle East than its own Arab and Muslim community. Karen Hughes has something her predecessors did not have: access to the president. She will need that access to influence policy change both domestically and internationally for her to succeed in her new job because words and TV programs alone will not suffice.

The State of Freedom in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

2005-03-13T16:48:00.000-08:00

The data presented below was extracted from the latest Freedom House survey data contained in the organization's annual 'Freedom in the World 2005' Report. Freedom House is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. The survey data rated a total of 192 countries and 14 territories. The ratings range from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free).
(Click on thumbnail below to see a larger picture)

The Hilly Side of Freedom

2005-03-12T10:35:00.000-08:00

When the sun peaked over the horizon of enlightenment, two wise men were vigorously debating the state of humanity, natural law, and the role of authority in addressing man's intentions and natural characteristics. They advanced two opposing views that helped shape the course of enlightenment and provided the impetus for the intellectual revolution that rippled through the West from the 17th century on. One John Locke preached an optimistic view of humanity for he sees man as being governed ‘according to reason’, hence, capable of coexisting with his fellow man peacefully. Thomas Hobbes on the other hand, was rather pessimistic and cynical for he sees man to be solitary and self-interested, hence, living in a perpetual ‘state of war’ with his fellow man. Both, however, agreed that all men are equal in nature. But as Hobbes believed that the equality of men exists in a ‘state of war’ where even ‘the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest’, Locke believed that the equality of men resides in the idea that all men are naturally in a state of ‘perfect freedom’, ‘equality’, and ‘liberty’. In other words, if Hobbes believed that natural law is a constant ‘state of war’, Locke believed it to be humanity’s state of equality and freedom.

Today, the debate between Hobbes and Locke remains largely unresolved. I suspect that it is because there is much of both Hobbes and Locke in humanity. The advance of human liberty, indeed, presupposes that the natural state of humanity is one of equality and freedom. But, is the drive to free man, in itself, not a struggle to rid humanity of the natural characteristic of man to be ‘selfish’, ‘nasty’, ‘brutish’, and ‘evil’? Is the role of government not to both preserve (Locke’s view) and control (Hobbes’ view) natural law for and against man? If so, then, both Hobbes and Locke have, indeed, argued two opposite sides of the same coin, whereby when Hobbes prevails entirely, one witnesses tyranny and when Locke prevails entirely, one risks anarchy.

The idea of freedom would be straight forward if it were not for mankind. Throughout history and into modern times, the world has witnessed many struggles against pronounced forms of tyrannical and evil authority. But history shows that man’s struggle for freedom does not end with the demise of any one oppressive force. In the last century alone, we have seen Europe fight the evils of Nazism all while millions in Africa fought against the injustice of European colonialism. We have seen the United States fight the oppressive forces of communism all while Black Americans marched to claim their own freedom from the evils of racism. At times, the words of Thomas Hobbes come into a life of their own as man stretches his cruelty over his fellow man. Yet, the inspiring words of John Locke sustain our hope for an endgame where a global state of freedom, equality, and good governance is attained. It is after all the same hope that led Francis Fukuyama to predict the ‘end of history’ following the demise of the Soviet Union. It is the same hope that is now driving the arguments advanced by the American presidency as it seeks to promote democracy in the Middle East.

The world’s most powerful nation on earth says that it is now at the service of the oppressed and at the helm of the free world. In speaking on behalf of man’s inherent desire to live in freedom, President Bush often projects the optimism of John Locke. But when he expresses his cynicism of the international community, he in effect sides with Thomas Hobbes. This is in itself an illustration of how man has come to believe but hardly trust. The belief in man’s predisposition to be good comes from a hopeful vision for the future, whereas mistrust and cynicism of human nature is rooted in the painful reminder that is our past. This is the all-too-familiar debate between painful realism and hopeful optimism.

The president’s impassioned speech about the promotion of democracy and freedom in the Middle East is necessary. It serves as a catalyst for change and renewed confidence in the forces of reform and democracy in the region. But it is ultimately up to the people of the Middle East to rise against the forces of tyranny in their midst and break with a past in which Thomas Hobbes was mostly right and into a future where John Locke is more discernible. The Middle East needs its own intellectual revolution whereby questions of freedom, natural law, and the role of government are debated in the tradition of enlightenment.

Every revolution needs an enabling force, a trigger, and a control mechanism. The U.S. by virtue of its leadership position can provide the trigger and assist with a control mechanism. But, it can not insert itself in place of the people as an enabling force for change in the region. As such, American policy must be directed to empower the people of the Middle East and shun the temptation to obsess over short-term interest. It is encouraging to observe that the U.S. is now willing, although hesitantly, to nudge its allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia into reform. It is way overdue that tyrants be placed under international siege for their internal strength is indeed overrated and their rule unsustainable. In a world far more interdependent and interconnected than that of Hobbes and Locke, the future should be far more hopeful than it used to be.

See Also Previous Posts:

Are Those Wings on Your Camel?

To Kill Or Not To Kill: That Is The Question

2005-03-06T14:20:00.000-08:00

.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States declared the execution of criminal juveniles unconstitutional this last Tuesday. This decision is apparently drawing the wrath of some conservative pundits who have recently declared war on the Supreme Court calling it everything from tyrannical to incompetent. It is odd that these conservative voices are professing love for human life by condemning abortion but are ready to zap people in execution chambers. Strangely enough, this contradiction goes the other way in Europe where abortion is acceptable but the death penalty is not.

The conservative commentator George Will wrote a column in the Washington Post today attacking Justice Kennedy on this latest court decision. Although he mentioned in passing that Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens have also joined the prevailing opinion, his target du jour was Justice Kennedy. George Will was apparently offended by Justice Kennedy’s explanation that “the nation's ‘evolving standards of decency’ now rank such executions as cruel and unusual”. Mr. Will projects what is a perfect stand by a perfect traditionalist who can not accept that societal ethics are dynamic in nature and, thus, evolve. He seems to forget that at one time segregation was defended and legislated on the basis of constitutional interpretation. He may have forgotten that the constitution at one time treated non-propertied men, women, and Blacks as inferior citizens by limiting their rights and participation in society. That changed of course because enlightened minds sought to rectify the wrongs of their times, as their standards of decency evolved, by passing amendments and giving new meaning to the constitution. Therefore, Justice Kennedy is not mistaken when he asserts that the country’s standards of decency evolve with time, hence, the need for a constant state of debate and pondering. Otherwise we can just read from the texts of those who came before us and continue to perpetuate their wrongs regardless of the realities we now live or the ethics we now espouse to.

No wisdom and no text are so sacred that they can not be re-thought and eventually altered. I shiver at the thought that we should do things just because someone said so a long time ago. That is certainly not the spirit that brought this nation into being. If it were so, the founders could have just modeled American democracy on European aristocracy. But they were better than that. They certainly recognized that they had an independent intellectual capacity to use in pondering the questions of their time within the contextual realities of their environment. They were brilliant because first and foremost they rejected intellectual laziness and embraced the insights of such greats as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Before they passed, they also told us that their logic was indeed a starting point, not the final destination, for the creation of a better, more righteous society. They would be stunned if they were to return to find us obsessing about their every word as opposed to being inspired by their wisdom. The genius is not in the words, George, it is in the application of knowledge for the advancement and betterment of society.

What we are told in every critical opinion directed at the court nowadays is that judges are now assuming a public policy role or 'legislating from the bench'. May we be reminded that the end of segregation was triggered by the bench, not congress and certainly not the segregationist state capitols of the time (Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954). I doubt that anyone would venture to call that decision a case of 'legislating from the bench'. The court plays its intended role by making rulings that generate public debate and spur new legislation when the legislative branch has been inept or slow in addressing social ills. This is not new although we are now urged to believe otherwise.

Nonetheless, a debate on the role of judges in the public policy process is warranted. I do not advocate that such debate is without substance for even the 'Men in Black' need to be reminded of their constitutional limits. This is a discussion that must continue even if it were to lead to a potential reform of the Judiciary. As I said earlier, nothing is so sacred as to escape the test of time. But let us at least recognize that we do not live the lives of those who came before us and as such we may not always find all of their deeds to be appropriate for our times.

The death penalty is neither an effective tool of judicial punishment nor is it something I find to be morally defensible today. If we are the true advocates that we claim to be for mankind, then we ought to walk the talk even when it comes to those in our midst who defile the value of human life. I disagree with the dissenting voices condemning this recent Supreme Court decision. I believe that the court actually got this one right, although I would rather welcome a complete ban on the death penalty all together.

See Also Previous Posts:

What Would Madison Say

A Whistleblower's Testimony

2005-03-04T13:28:00.000-08:00

.
Before the House Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and Internal Relations
March 2, 2005

Emerging Threats: Overclassification and Pseudo-classification

Good afternoon. I have been invited to provide you with testimony today regarding my direct experience with the use of excessive secrecy, rare privileges, and over-classification by the Department of Justice against me during the past three years. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I believe that my case clearly illustrates how the government uses secrecy laws and classification to avoid accountability, to cover up problems and wrongdoing, and to gain unfair legal advantage in court.

I began working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a language specialist for several Middle Eastern languages starting shortly after 9/11, and was granted Top Secret Clearance. During my work, I became aware of problems within the translation unit involving criminal conduct against our national interests, potential espionage, serious security breaches threatening our intelligence, intentional mistranslation, and blocking of intelligence. I was asked, and later ordered, to refrain from reporting these allegations. I reported them, together with evidence, to higher management within the bureau. They refused to take any action, and again, they asked me not to pursue them. I then took these issues and evidence to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and to the Senate Judiciary Committee, because I believed that according to our laws these were the appropriate steps to take in this situation. As a result, I was retaliated against, was ordered to submit to a polygraph, and had my home computer confiscated. Finally, in March 2002 I was fired. The only explanation I received for getting fired was 'for the convenience of the government.'

In March 2002, the Senate Judiciary Committee began investigating my case and allegations, and in June and July 2002, during two unclassified briefings with the staff of Senators Grassley and Senator Leahy, the FBI publicly confirmed all of my core allegations. These two Senators issued public statements and letters regarding these confirmations and my case, demanding expedited investigation by the Inspector General and response from the FBI. These letters and statements were widely disseminated in the media and on the Internet; including on the Senators' own websites. When the judge overseeing my legal cases asked the government to produce any unclassified materials that was relevant to the substance of my allegations, the government took a truly extraordinary step: it moved to retroactively classify these letters, statements, and news releases that had been public for almost two years. It is quite clear that the government's motivation was not to protect national security, but rather to protect itself from embarrassment and accountability. Senator Grassley characterized this retroactive classification as 'ludicrous,' and 'gagging the congress.' However, the Congress complied. Only after this highly unusual retroactive classification was challenged in court by POGO, a government watchdog organization, did the Department of Justice reverse itself and declare that this information was not considered classified and a danger to national security after all. I would like to request that these letters from Senators Grassley and Leahy be included in the record of today's hearing.

In March 2002, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General began investigating my allegations, and in July 2004, after almost two years delay, completed its investigation. The Department of Justice immediately moved to classify the entire report and its findings. Six months later, they allowed the Inspector General to release only an unclassified version of its executive summary. This unclassified version confirmed my core allegations; concluded that I was fired for reporting misconduct; and stated that the FBI had failed to investigate the reported espionage, even though other facts, witnesses and evidence supported my allegations. I would like to request that the Inspector General's report also be included in the record of today's hearing.

In the summer of 2002 I also began to pursue legal remedies to challenge my unjust dismissal, and filed cases under First Amendment and Privacy Act, and the Freedom of Information Act. Rather than respond to the merits of my claim, in October 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft asserted a rarely invoked 'State Secrets Privilege', arguing that the entire case must be dismissed in the name of national security, even if my allegations were correct. The Department of Justice asked the courts to throw out the case without any hearings, depositions, or discovery. Even though the Department of Justice's own Inspector General has confirmed the seriousness of my allegations and concluded that I was fired for raising them, the DOJ has continued to insist that my case cannot go forward because it would jeopardize national security. So far, the DOJ has been successful in this effort to silence me. In June 2004, the court ruled in favor of this far-reaching assertion of the "state secrets privilege". Currently I am appealing my case, and the Department of Justice is still invoking the "state secrets privilege" and arguing that everything about my issues is covered by classification.

The government invoked the state secrets privilege a second time in an attempt to block me from being deposed in a case brought by families of those killed on September 11 against Saudi individuals and entities alleged to have financed al-Qaeda. The government insisted that almost every single question that the families wished to ask me would require the disclosure of classified information.

The problems I have reported have serious consequences to our national security; and have already been confirmed by the Inspector General's report and the inquiry of Senators Grassley and Leahy. Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating, and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in a foreign language that will have to be translated. If an attack then occurs, which could have been prevented by acting on information in such a message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know, because we do know.

Yet, knowing full well the seriousness of these confirmed issues and problems, rather than addressing them the FBI and the Department of Justice spend time and effort to cover them up by over use of secrecy and excessive classification. Contrary to their claims, they seem to be far more concerned with avoiding accountability than protecting our national security. I believe that my case clearly illustrates the federal government's capricious use of secrecy laws and classification to cover up problems and wrongdoing, and to avoid accountability, regardless of the damage to our national security. It demonstrates as well how excessive secrecy and pseudo classification can be used as retaliation tactics against national security whistleblowers. This type of excessive classification and the effort to expand the "statesecrets privilege" does not increase our national security but actually makes us less safe and it impedes oversight of the executive branch, as part of the checks and balances demanded by our Constitution.

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. You are the first Congressional Committee after three years to request my testimony and hear my story. I believe this testimony is a good first step in examining this situation but what is really needed is an actual Congressional investigation. Therefore, with respect for your critical role in our Constitution's system of checks and balances, I request that you be the first Congressional Committee to investigate not just my case but what is going on over at the FBI and the Justice Department regarding the very serious problem of over-classification and the abuse of secrecy.

Thank you.

http://www.justacitizen.com/

Are Those Wings on Your Camel?

2005-02-28T17:46:00.000-08:00

.
I pinched myself twice and waited a few seconds to awaken from what seemed to be a very pleasant dream. Not that I dislike pleasant dreams but rather that I did not want to be so distraught upon waking up to an ugly reality. This time, however, I could not wake up although I tried to pinch myself one more time. First, it was Togo. The recently installed dictator announced that he was stepping down in order to pave the way for the restoration of the country's constitutional order. Then Mubarak, not to be outdone, announced that he was going to allow multi-party presidential elections for the first time in Egypt. Today, it was the pro-Syrian Lebanese government that stepped down amid pro-democracy protests. Can I ask you a question? What year is this? Did I just emerge from a long coma because it all happened so fast.

What we learned from the Togo episode is that Africa is no longer what it used to be. Today, the African Union (AU) has demonstrated that, unlike the Arab League, it is capable of resolving matters affecting the well-being and future development of its people. The AU's first move in that new direction has been Darfur where it sent a peacekeeping force, although it is a mission that remains largely limited in scope. As the Arab league stood silent in the face of mass murder committed, at least, with the help of one of its members, the African Union acted ahead of the United Nations and Western powers by sending military contingents to the area. It is, however, important to note that the AU mission is extremely limited and still needs international help if it is to succeed in saving lives, bringing the murderous Arab militias to justice, and breathing new hope into the refugee camps of western Sudan.

Earlier this year, another challenge came knocking and the AU seemed to take it in stride. When the Togolese military junta installed the son of the country's late tyrant as the new tyrant, the African Union refused to accept such fait acompli. The president of Nigeria who currently holds the presidency of the AU was particularly vocal about the need to restore constitutional order in Togo. Through tough diplomacy the Nigerian president and the AU forced the newly installed ruler to stand down and pave the way for elections in Togo. The African Union reacted well to both Sudan and Togo and clearly demonstrated that it is now capable of both unity and effective influence. Nonetheless, may we be reminded that there are still many undemocratic governments such as Zimbabwe, Libya, Gabon, Uganda, and Congo (Dem. Rep) that are sitting members of the AU and continue to escape international calls for democratic reform, human rights, and good governance. The AU must not be hypocritical as it forges ahead and must condemn the Mugabes in its midst. Another authoritarian regime that is a current member of the AU is Egypt, which brings me to my next point.

Mubarak announced in a dramatic TV appearance that he is ‘now convinced that more democracy and more freedom’ are needed in Egypt. It sounded like a Pharaoh had just had some divine inspiration to bestow upon his subjects, who in turn had to show their ‘infinite gratitude’ by shouting praise and flattering poetry. That’s what dictators are really good at. They lock you in a dark cell for years, then they announce that they decided to allow you to breath through a tiny hole in the wall and somehow we are all supposed to thank them and praise them as ‘visionary reformers’ and ‘strong leaders’. I usually do not allow my intelligence to be so insulted. However, the announcement that Egypt is now going to have multiparty elections is a positive development. It does not mean that they will have free and transparent elections. In fact, many observers think that the announcement was a political maneuver aiming to drown international criticism and act as a cover for the next electoral sham in Egypt. Those concerns are not baseless and may very well prove to be true before the end of this year. But let us hope that the tide is now pulling in the right direction and that undemocratic forces will eventually be swept away by the competent forces of democracy and freedom in Egypt.

Not very far from Egypt, another significant development burst into being this week. Tens of thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators defied a government curfew and poured into the streets of Beirut. Armed with only their red-and-white garments and the will to conquer their fear, they forced the pro-Syrian Lebanese government to call it quits. Whether inspired by what happened recently in Georgia and the Ukraine or by a boiling desire to finally say ‘enough is enough’, the Lebanese showed to their fellow Arabs that tyranny can not withstand popular will; it never has and never will.

One of the biggest frustrations often expressed by the educated Arab elite is that, while other people in other nations (Romania, Poland, Georgia, Ukraine, etc) brought their tyrannical regimes down by literally walking to freedom, the Arabs seem to always overestimate the strength of their tyrants. They have been made to fear Godzilla so much that they could not even entertain the thought of a Kiev (Orange revolution) or a Tbilisi (Rose revolution). Now that the Lebanese seem to have finally gotten it, one hopes that their neighbors do as well. My guess is that they will and when they do it will be, as Thomas Friedman said, like watching camels fly.

See Also Previous Posts:

The Inconsequential Existence of the Arab League

1979: A Year to Remember in the Struggle against Militant Islam

What Would Madison Say

2005-02-26T09:30:00.000-08:00

.
James Madison has long argued that the causes of faction cannot be removed from a system of governance that values liberty. He believed that removing the causes of faction can only be achieved by either destroying liberty or normalizing passions, opinions, and interests among the governed. However, he points out that the former is simply incompatible with the values of the republic, thus, impractical, and the latter would be unwise, if not grotesquely naive. Madison’s chief preoccupation had to do with the dangers that a majority-led faction pose to the preservation of public good and private rights. In Federalist 10, he explains that there are two means of securing public good and private rights: (1) preventing the existence of the same passion and interest in a majority at the same time, or (2) dispersing and fragmenting the passions or interests of the majority so that they are unable to coalesce into an effective force of oppression.

In Federalist 51, Madison argues that the structure of the federal government in the republican union of the United States should be firmly based on two uncompromising principles: (1) Separation of powers; and (2) Checks and balances. He calls for separate government entities with independent powers that are effectively balanced within a system-wide structure and explains that institutional fragmentation is essential to ensuring government accountability. He argues that only by pitting different entities against each other and arming them with constitutional remedies that ensure their independence from each other, that the power surrendered by the people be properly used. In fact, he writes that since men are not angels, “ambition must counteract ambition” in order for the government to control itself while controlling the governed.

In simple terms, James Madison offers institutionalized fragmentation as an antidote to the tyranny of the majority and the dangers of faction. To questions like "what should be the official religion of the republic" or "what should be the dominant political philosophy of the nation", he answers that a sustainable republic calls for as many interest groups, religious affiliations, political currents, and social orientations as possible for he believes that only amidst such diversity, that the interests of all society can be justly protected. As to the inefficiencies and complexity that the republican remedy to popular government holds, Madison counters by stating that the intended outcome is the prevention of an oppressive will that may “execute and mask its violence under the forms of the constitution.”

The proposal to amend the federal constitution in order to ban gay marriage, today, warrants a re-reading of the logic embodied in the U.S. constitution; a brilliant document written by some of the most brilliant politicians in history. A reconsideration of the Farmers’ intent is in order because this has ‘tyranny of the majority’ and ‘dangers of faction’ written all over it. Madison writes that the republic must “guard the society against the oppression of its rulers”, as well as “guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part.” So it is thanks to the intellectual brilliance of the founding fathers that such an amendment at the national level would be extremely difficult to succeed. It is thanks to: the built-in complexity of the legislative system especially when it comes to securing the passage of constitutional amendments; the principle of a nationally-distributed majority; the sovereign rights of states; and the separation of powers; that the wishes of a simple majority can not reverse the clock on minority rights in this great republic.

See Also:

Does Party Chairmanship Matter in the U.S.?

The Amazigh: Returning from the Ashes of Neglect II

2005-02-23T08:45:00.000-08:00

Part II - What the Amazigh (Berbers) Want

Note that the native people of North Africa call themselves 'Amazigh' (sing.) or Imazighen (plur.), which means 'Freemen'. They refer to their language as 'Tamazight' and their homeland in North Africa as 'Tamazgha'. The name 'Berber' was imposed upon them by the Romans who followed the Greek custom of designating speakers of unintelligible languages as 'barbarians'.

Five years ago, a group of Amazigh Intellectuals headed by a prominent scholar and former teacher of the current King of Morocco produced a document called The Amazigh Manifesto; a document that has come to symbolize the official rebirth of the Amazigh movement. The Amazigh people were finally intent to forego their silence and openly challenge the status quo in order to regain their rights and obtain redress for the many years of discrimination they have suffered under Arab regimes in their homeland of North Africa. It was finally time for the Amazigh people to denounce the unjust treatment they have suffered and the systematic repression they have endured.

What follows is a summary of demands outlined in the The Amazigh Manifesto. Since the publication of this document, the Moroccan Monarch responded favorably to some of the Amazigh demands. This includes the creation of an Amazigh Cultural Institute and the teaching of the Amazigh language at the primary level of the school system. However, many of the fundamental demands of the Amazigh people are still unsatisfied, including the recognition of the Amazigh language as an official language of the country, lifting the ban on registering Amazigh names, and the economic development of Amazigh-speaking areas. While some of the initiatives taken recently by the King of Morocco are positive, the Amazigh people of North Africa continue to suffer systematic discrimination and premeditated repression.

First Request

The government must make the issue of the Amazighity of Morocco the subject of a large-scale national debate. Some of the political parties have the duty of educating those of their followers who were brought up to be fanatical about Arab nationalism and the denial of the "Amazighity" of Morocco.

The government has at its disposal all the State’s financial and logistical means in the domains of mass media, education and culture and the freedom to act as the official organizer and moderator of the much needed debate.

Second Request

It is high time that the recognition of our original national language–Tamazight (i.e. Berber)–as an official language be enshrined in the country’s Constitution.

Third Request

There is no gainsaying the historical reality, which indeed can not be contested, that the economic and cultural marginalization of the Amazighs since 1912 has brought about their political weakness. Thus, they have been largely exploited by the political Right and Left alike.

Therefore, we demand that a serious planning for the economic development of the Amazighs- speaking areas take place, with the aim to give them momentary priority to get equipped with the necessary infrastructure.

Fourth Request

The Amazighs are strongly attached to their linguistic heritage, more so than to a material one. This is because they are Amazigh thanks to their language not to their race. They are completely aware of the fact that whoever among them exposes his language to loss is doing the same to his Amazigh existence.

Thus, we are asking the government to prepare draft bills aiming to enforce the teaching of Tamazight in schools, institutes and universities. Moreover, we request that it create the scientific institutions capable of codifying the Amazigh language and preparing the pedagogical instruments necessary for its teaching.

Fifth Request

In the last 40 years, the political trends that have adopted a fanatical stand about Arabism have exploited their effective hegemony and used their authority to orient historical studies on the Maghreb and the teaching of History in accordance with their wishes and ideological inclinations.

For these reasons, we demand that a serious reconsideration of the kind of history taught to our children take place. To achieve this objective, a "National Scientific Commission" must be set up, at the highest possible level, and charged with the task of devising the History syllabi, particularly for the primary, junior and high school levels. Our ministers of education shall not be given free disposal as concerns syllabi and curricula in the field of History.

Sixth Request

We call upon the government to make the use of Tamazight mandatory in public service, for the benefit of those of our fellow citizens who are not cognizant in Arabic.

The official mass media should be in the service of the Amazighs in the same way that they are for other citizens. This would be achieved only by the creation of a "Radio and TV station" where the linguistic medium used is mainly Tamazight.

The State has to create a training institution for translators and interpreters in Tamazight to be employed in the court system, the administrations, the hospitals and all the public services.

The government should allow the use of Tamazight in the proceedings of official meetings, at least at the level of local and regional councils.

The government must lift the ban on registering the Amazigh names in the Sate Registry Services as soon as possible, because in this ban lies a clear intention to provoke the Amazighs.

Seventh Request

The original Amazigh art is to be rehabilitated. This includes literature, dancing, singing, architecture and decoration. This art is to be modernized so that it will be improved and promoted. The Amazigh artists must be granted the same financial assistance and endowments as their Arab colleagues.

Eighth Request

The authorities must cease to intentionally distort the Amazigh names of places, villages, cities and regions, through their arbitrary Arabization, as this increases the resentment of the Amazighs.

Ninth Request

The Amazigh cultural associations are to be granted the status of "Public Interest" associations so as to enable them to benefit from State financial assistance.

The newspapers, magazines and all publications concerned with the defense and promotion of the Amazigh heritage of Morocco are to be given the same financial help as that made available for publications in Arabic and the foreign languages.

See Also:

The Berbers: Returning from the Ashes of Neglect (Part I)

Iraq: The Next Problem; Same as the Old Problem

2005-02-22T13:19:00.000-08:00

.
As soon as the new Iraqi government, likely to be led by Ibrahim Jafari, is in place, a familiar name will come back to make headlines. Moqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who led a bloody revolt against U.S. troops last year, will demand that the new government ask for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Although Jafari says that U.S. troops are necessary until the security environment in Iraq improves, calls for a U.S. withdrawal will likely rage sooner than some think.

Let us not forget that Jafari’s United Iraqi Alliance, the winning coalition in the recent election, ran on a 22-point platform which includes a demand for "a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq." This is something the U.S. president in his State of the Union speech said would be unacceptable. He said: "We will not set an artificial time table for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out". In response, Sadr declared that he sees the legitimacy of the new government resting on whether or not foreign troops remain in Iraq. He said: "If elections open the door for the occupier to leave Iraq then it is a good thing. But if that is not the case, it will not have a real effect on the country or on Iraqis". Who is Moqtada Sadr and why should the U.S. be concerned?

He is the youngest son of Muhammad Sadiq Sadr, a senior Shiite cleric who was assassinated in 1999 by the Saddam regime. Moqtada Sadr mixes both Iraqi nationalism and Shiite radicalism, making him a figurehead for many of Iraq's poor Shiite Muslims. His impact on the young and angry segment of the Shiite population is similar to that which Malcom X had on Black Moslems in Harlem in his early days as the spokesman of the Nation of Islam. He knows how to communicate anger. He knows what to say to get people ready to fight, convinced that their cause is just and that their means are necessary.

Many in the West have labeled Sadr a ‘thug’ or even a ‘terrorist’. But before they do this time, they should remember that the U.S. occupation remains unpopular in Iraq and someone like Sadr can cause U.S. troops a lot of problems. This is the leader of an army of dedicated fighters, (the Mahdi Army) with loads of both religious and nationalist zeal. This is the only Shiite figure who is celebrated in the heartland of the Sunni insurgency; the only Shiite whose portrait was paraded by insurgents in Fallujah. For those who take the time to read the graffiti that litters Iraqi cities, the writing is literally on the wall.

Furthermore, unlike last time, the influential Ayatollah Sistani can not and will not contradict Sadr. There is no way Sistani will openly disagree with Sadr on the issue of foreign troop presence in Iraq. Therefore, Sadr’s militant and potentially violent stance on demanding the withdrawal of US troops will force the new Iraqi government to ask the U.S. for at least a timetable. If it does not, the Shiite coalition will face a break up within its ranks and the insurgency will widen beyond its present scope.

The problem with American policy is that it often ignores some of the most basic truths about the environment in which it operates. The idea of being 'occupied' makes people, especially in the Middle East, feel shamed and undegnified. Regardless of the progress made in building democratic institutions in Iraq, so long that the 'occupation' continues, the likes of Moqtada Sadr will continue to attract willing volunteers and sympathizers among Iraqis.

Although concerned, we should also be reminded that on 30 January 2005, scores of Iraqis decided to show tremendous courage under fire and participate in their first ever democratic election. One hopes that the grass is greener from here on, but let us also be realistic and try to forego more conflict before it erupts.

See Also:

The Inconsequential Existence of the Arab League

1979: A Year to Remember in the Struggle against Militant Islam

The Improbable Comeback of Ahmad Chalabi

The Improbable Comeback of Ahmad Chalabi

2005-02-20T12:47:00.000-08:00

.
As the winning Shiite coalition of Ayatollah Ali Sistani debates who will be its candidate for Prime Minister, two names are being mentioned as strong contenders for the job. The first is Ibrahim Jafari, the head of the Shiite Dawa party and considered by many to be close to Iran, and the second is the notorious Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC). It may very well turn out that Jafari gets the nod for the PM post but Chalabi is now in a position of strength and will most likely play an important role in whatever government emerges following the recent election in Iraq.

This is major league politics all around. The surgical way in which Chalabi has maneuvered to position himself politically in Iraq is deserving of a salute from even the shrewdest politicians in the World. If you are not convinced, then consider the road he took to where he now stands. This is after all the same Chalabi who was practically left for dead in the political swamps of Iraq following some very damaging allegations of fraud and spying. But, first let us rewind the tape to pre-war Iraq. Chalabi during this period managed to become very popular within powerful U.S. policy circles through his friendship with prominent neoconservatives and his willingness to feed largely bogus intelligence information about Iraq’s weapons programs to the U.S. government. In return, he was able to receive millions in U.S. tax-payers money to build his Iraqi National Congress into a credible political force.

Once he had the U.S. committed to a military confrontation, he was already halfway to his ultimate political goal in Iraq. The problem was that he was less popular among Iraqis than Saddam at the time he was airlifted into Iraq by the Pentagon shortly after the fall of Baghdad. He was seen as a U.S. puppet by most Iraqis and could not win an election to save his life in that country. So, good old Chalabi had to find a way to gain legitimacy in Iraq and dispel the belief that he was indeed a U.S. puppet. That was right around the period when Moqtada Sadr (a Shiite cleric) launched his militant campaign against the U.S. It is then that Chalabi made his first move in what became his new political strategy in Iraq. He started to publicly contradict U.S. officials and to advocate that the U.S. should surrender more political control to Iraqis. He started slowly to build the perception that he was now at odds with the U.S. by becoming a pain in the side of Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administrator Paul Bremer and raising a few eye brows in the halls of Congress.

Then a leak hit Washington faster than a lightening rod. Chalabi may have shared U.S. intelligence with the Iranians. In addition, the CPA secured a warrant from an Iraqi judge to search Chalabi’s offices in Baghdad and leveled accusations of bank fraud against him. To make matters worse, Chalabi’s nephew, who had been put in charge of the tribunal that is to try Baatists including Saddam, was accused of murder. The media and some congressmen from both sides of the aisle went to town on the Chalabi story. Headlines such as “fall from grace” and “falling out of favor” started to describe Chalabi’s relationship with the U.S. government. The Pentagon, where most of his supporters are, announced that it was cutting off all funding to Chalabi’s INC.

When many seemed ready to condemn Chalabi, an old friend stayed adamant about defending him. That old friend was Richard Perle. It is a mystery why a prominent neoconservative insider would stake his position in defense of an Iraqi politician charged with breaching national security to benefit one of the most ferocious enemies of the United States. Maybe it was but a case of personal loyalty, or maybe there was something more sinister to it. A calculated leak to redefine Chalabi’s political identity in Iraq and rid him of the ‘U.S. puppet’ label in hope that he builds real political legitimacy among Iraqis, you may ask. Maybe on the surface some wanted to give the impression that bridges were being burned between Chalabi and his old allies in Washington all while doing just enough in the background to make sure things did not go too far. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, but if this were to be the case, it would be one of the most daring rounds of high-stakes political poker in recent history.

Following the scandal, Chalabi laid low as the UN envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, recommended with the blessing of the U.S. that Ayad Allawi be put in charge of the provisional government. Ahmad Chalabi did not like seeing his longtime rival Allawi in charge, but he did not fight the decision either. In the highly volatile situation in which the provisional government was asked to govern, he figured that there would be plenty of opportunities for him to maneuver politically in preparation for the 2005 elections. From outside a government that was facing the rising dissatisfaction and anger of Iraqis; from outside a government that was being seen by an increasing number of Iraqis as the enabling agent of the ‘US occupation’; from outside a government that was facing an increasing insurgency, Ahmad Chalabi maneuvered his way into the higher tier of the Shiite coalition blessed by the influential Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He is now one of two names considered for the post of prime minister following the recent elections in Iraq.

In politics of this caliber, things are never what they seem to be. Ahmad Chalabi is first and foremost a mathematician (he holds a PhD in Mathematics). He came, he adjusted and, at least for now, he defied reason to achieve some illogical outcomes.