In Search of Shamash

Lebanon

2010-09-02T12:43:00.001-04:00

Hezbozos

2010-08-25T10:35:00.004-04:00

The headlines read:

“Senior Hezbollah Member Killed in Beirut Clashes”

The first line read “Clashes erupted between Shiite and Sunni groups on the streets of Beirut…”

But the argument allegedly started over the lack of a parking space. The guys who wanted the space happened to be a Hezbollah official and a Sunni from Al-Ahbash. There was, as far as we can tell, no political reason for the parking space; it was simply a squabble – a daily occurrence in Beirut due to the dearth of space for parking – that escalated into death. The tribalism that characterizes much of the planet took over from there – a family was pissed that someone killed a member and sought to exact revenge on the killers. The story is as old as time – think Montagues and Capulets. The only difference between this situation and one of the McCoy-Hatfield American variety is that RPGs are regularly available in Lebanon.

Yet the media somehow turned this into a battle of Hezbollah versus a Sunni sect, as if using “Hezbollah” had any relevance. This is the same type of ignorant paranoia that blinds the West every time it deals with Lebanon. It is the same reason Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Howard Berman ordered a hold put on US military aid to Lebanon out of fear it would fall under Hezbollah’s control. Not once did anyone take into consideration that Iran would rush to fill the need or that without that aid to the Lebanese military, it is weaker to counter Hezbollah. Everything is HEZBOLLAH, HEZBOLLAH, HEZBOLLAH! Give it a rest.

The same blind mentality that the West uses in dealing with Lebanon is also the same blind mentality that Hezbollah and likeminded militia idiots use in sticking to their retarded ideologies. Yes, resistance against Israel is needed. But it shouldn’t be up to the undereducated morons that populate the ranks of Hezbollah, morons like Mohammed Fawaz who are stupid enough to die over a parking space.

Why are they protesting the Ground Zero community center?

2010-08-24T21:29:00.007-04:00

I'm doing some writing right now but I couldn't stand the quiet, so I have flipped on the television only to discover there is nothing of interest on. I selected some cop show with Chris O'Donnell on CBS (when did he stop doing movies?) I would have paid no attention to it except I caught a glance of some Arabic writing and I watched a bit more to see what it was all about. Aside from it being a terribly written script with bad dialogue and bad acting, the show is bothering me for another reason. Really bothering me.

The plot is this: one of the agents is being held by Islamic terrorists somewhere in North Africa who are threatening to behead him. The agents who are trying to find him investigate an Islamic youth center in LA. When they go to the center to ask questions, they see a guy carrying a laptop start to run, so they run after him. The guy throws the laptop into a pool at the center and after pulling a knife on one of the agents, is arrested. When they take him for interrogation, he gives the whole "I wanna be a martyr" cliche. Yadda yadda turns out the youth center's funder was recruiting kids as terrorists.

I have been working in the Middle East field for a decade now. I just spent four months in Lebanon. I've visited Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. I am proficient in Arabic. I know Arabs. I know Islam. I find the call to prayer from the minarets of a mosque among the most spiritual things one can experience in life. (For the record, I hate all religions equally, so don't go all Barack Hussein Obama on me.)

I also know America. I know American foreign policy. My exposure to the Middle East has given me firsthand experience in the receiving end of American foreign policy. I have seen the consequences of my country's actions. I have been the recipient of generalized hatred for those actions. I have been a diplomat for America. I have been angry at the constant criticism. I have volunteered for an American political campaign every two years since 1996, too, more than what most Americans do for their country.

American understanding of the Middle East is non-existent, and this kind of stereotypical cliche, this constant portrayal of the bad guys as Muslims, it is fueling the fire. Think about our television shows, our movies. The show 24 was all about Islamic terrorist plots. We are constantly bombarded with images of Islamic militants waving guns and wearing scarves around their faces.

Television is poisoning America. While researchers are saying too much digital is warping our brains, no one is focusing on television. But as our schools get shittier and people get dumber and the Tea Party rages on, the hatred for Muslims in America grows.

What type of American is outraged over a "Ground Zero Mosque?" (Nevermind that it isn't a mosque, or that it isn't even at Ground Zero, or that there's already a mosque closer.) GZM protesters are white flagwaving conservatives who get their news from Fox. These people tend to watch more television than their more liberal American counterparts (whom they don't call "real Americans.")

If things don't change soon, I fear violence. Already a mosque was bombed in Florida and a cabbie was stabbed in New York after he was asked if he were a Muslim.

It turns out the agent in the show was never taken out of LA. One of the terrorists put a key to his handcuffs in his breakfast food so he could escape. He ended up dying in a shootout anyway.

And so on.

Bang bang

2010-08-24T17:28:00.002-04:00

Violence broke out in Beirut today. Again. Hezbollah was involved. Again. They were fighting with some militant organization posing as a charity or something to that effect. Retards.

I tried to follow it all through Twitter. The Western media had nothing about it and Twitter was the only thing being updated. But Twitter is so full of rumors and misinformation that it was difficult to determine what was going on. What good is social media if those who use it don’t bother fact checking before they spread it?

Then again, a major Lebanese news channel reported false information throughout the five hour ordeal (it seems to have stopped now), so who knows what was going on?

One thing I know is that two people died, including one Hezbollah official. That seems to be legit (it was reported in AFP).

And bless those Lebanese folks – conflict is breaking out and they make sarcastic and funny comments about it, because what else can they do? What a terrible life – every time some idiot does something criminally stupid, they have to worry about the whole country breaking out into war. I mean, here you have one of the most beautiful places on the planet and it’s chock full o’morons with RPGs and inferiority complexes.

The rumor is the clashes broke out after an argument about a parking spot got out of hand.

This House Is a Circus

2010-06-29T10:34:00.005-04:00

In response to Hezbollah MP Nawwaf Moussawi's retarded claim that USAID is a CIA front, Future Bloc MP Mohammad Hajjar told New TV on Tuesday that Lebanon should not reject US foreign assistance if it is in Lebanon's best interest.

Hezbollah's retardedness doesn't stop at that. Today MP Hassan Fadlallah accused Israel of having control over Lebanon's telecommunications sector after an employee at a mobile phone network was arrested on suspicion of spying for the Mossad.

Seriously, is everyone in Hezbollah on drugs?

Let me start on the USAID thing. Anyone who knows anything about USAID knows that it is one bureaucratic nightmare that is barely capable of achieving anything with a lasting impact. How in the heck is it supposed to have an efficient and functional spy element to it?

Granted, the folks who currently work for USAID in Lebanon are much more capable than their predecessors, who built a bunch of waste management plants with no consideration for the fact that there was no network being constructed so those plants could actually be used. Now they sit empty while the US Congress and the State Department struggle to revise the foreign assistance system, and these morons think it's capable of elaborate plans to undermine their pathetic operation they have going on? This is just part of the conspiratorial nonsense that is typical in the Middle East.

You know, you have to be pretty fucked up to be suspicious of someone every time they exhibit altruistic behavior. I mean, can you genuinely not understand that there really are people out there who just want to help, who really do want to live in a peaceful, democratic world where everyone is equal? If you can't understand that, you must be evil to the core.

Look. Yes, the United States government is obsessed with Hezbollah. We have our own retards in government who think Hezbollah is like SPECTRE and that they're walking around with poisoned blades in their shoes. Is Hezbollah responsible for the murder of 241 Marines in 1983 in Beirut? Yeah, probably. But that was 1983, and the Israelis had just invaded Lebanon with US support, and the Great God Ronald Reagan was a platinum member of the Israeli Fan Club, and it was a brutal, nasty, horrific apocalypse of a war. It's 2010. Hezbollah has "democratically" elected members in the Lebanese parliament. Hezbollah provides vital services the dysfunctional Lebanese government can't provide. And Hezbollah is a necessary shield against Israel, although if Hezbollah truly cared about Lebanon, it would integrate its militia into the Lebanese army to become legitimate.

But it won't, because it's an organization full of nutjobs, whackos, and cowards. Why don't you guys get some balls and work towards peace? Be the bigger men, make peace overtures towards your enemies instead of making up wild conspiracy theories? This applies to all of you - Hezbollah, Lebanon, other Arabs, USA, the West, and Israel. Bunch of cowards. Warmongering is for insecure sissies.

Strange Days

2009-03-22T21:08:00.002-04:00

Lebanon 'immune' to financial crisis

The world maybe in meltdown but Beirut is booming. The country best known for wars, turmoil and instability has not just survived the global financial crisis, it seems to be thriving because of it.

A silver lining?
___

Algerian Grand Strategy and the United States

2006-11-10T20:59:00.000-05:00

The Democrats should drive the Administration to more carefully consider the interests of Third World allies
President Bouteflika has left Bejing with a package of diplomatic and ecnomic agreements, following the Beijing Summit on China-Africa Cooperation earlier this week. The agreement reflects in part, Algeria's grand strategy, and opens the door for forming a new American policy towards Algeria in the wake of the Democratic coup.

According to The People's Daily, China has supported Algeria's quest towards joining the WTO, as of Monday, after a gushing session between the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and the Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

Additionally, the meeting resulted in the extension of Approved Destination Status in Algeria to Chinese students, and included "agreements covering economy, taxation, civil aviation, judicial services, quality inspection and quarantine after a joint statement was signed by leaders of both countries to facilitate strategic partnership."

Both countries further pledged to enhance their strategic relations in the political and cultural realms. Building on a tradition of warm Sino-Algerian relations, it should be easy for these efforts to come to fruition.

Bouteflika took to praising the Chinese model of global integration, and encouraging continued co-operation between the two nations, whose diplomatic, military, and political ties reach back to the years of the Algerian revolution. China was the only communist nation to recognize the Algerian Provisional Government when it was announced in 1958, and official Algerian delegations visited Beijing no less than five times that year. Indeed, these delegations

detailed arrangements both for the financing of Algerian arms purchases in the Middle East and Europe by an interest-free loan ("to be repaid after independence") and for the training of selected Algerian officers in China are believed to have been made as early as the spring of 1959. (Ed. Brezinski, Zbigniew, Africa and the Communist World, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1963, pp.162-63)

I should add that the agreements make little mention of arms. This, as Liberte put it, leaves China "jostling among the great powers regarding the sale of weapons." Algerian grand-strategy seems to be centered around diversifying the sources of Algerian arms and diplomatic resources. Last year, when the now jobless Donald Rumsfeld visited the Maghreb, Bouteflika's requests for American fighters and other weaponry was handedly denied, probably as punishment for Algeria's then recent arms deal with Russia, and for fear of triggering a North African arms race between Algeria and Morocco (traditionally, Morocco has used American jets, while Algeria's have been purchased from the old Soviet Union, its satellites, and more recently from China; many of these are outdated, and Algeria has been looking to modernize its air force).

Liberte also notes that Bouteflika has been itching the scalp of the US since his visit to Cuba in September, where he chaired the G-15 meeting, met with the ailing Cuban president, and made "certain burning declarations". This meeting with the "l’antiaméricain chronique," has irritated some of my sources inside Washington who had hoped to incorporate Algeria into the anti-neo-Third Worldist camp (my wording, not theirs). Chavez has made many overtures to Algeria in the field of gas and anti-Americanism, much of which have been met with a luke warm feeling, but have been embraced nonetheless. Bouteflika has rejected American plans for the Greater Middle East, and the parliament has strengthened state control over the energy sector in recent months. Again, as Liberte mentions, Algeria has become in recent years a "pivot state," a nation of supreme importance in the War on Terror and somewhat sympathetic to American security concerns, but by no means a rainy day ally.

The material effects of Algeria's relationship with the anti-Americans, for lack of a better term, are difficult to discern. Economically, the US has not taken measures contrary to Algerian interests with the aim of coercing Algeria into co-operation. The only visible sign is the refusal of the United States to provide Algeria with next generation military supplies in the manner that it does to its traditional allies, Morocco, Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf States. Hawkish American policy has turned many -- if not most -- Algerian off to the idea of being allied with the United States, and if Bouteflika were to form such an alliance, it would most certainly be met with objection. The American invasion of Iraq, as I have written previously, has greatly harmed its relationship with its allies, both traditional (Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia) and fair weather (Algeria, the post-Syrian Lebanese factions, etc.). The Algerian case shows the necessity of a new American policy as a new American government comes into office. If the Americans plan on cementing friendships with the nations of the Third World, it should regard the interests of these states.

While the spread of democracy like a great wild fire may be rhetorically appealing, it is indeed contrary to the notion of an alliance in this modern world. One of the primary purposes that nations enter alliances, besides the fact that they share a common security concern, is that they wish to preserve themselves. A nation does not enter a pact with another nation for the sake of stirring a revolution within itself. It enters that alliance to strengthen itself.

If the United States wishes to make an ally out of Algeria, and conduct effective statecraft among the other states in the Middle East and North Africa, it ought to reevaluate the manner in which it goes about voicing its policy. Regime change in Iraq opened a regional power vacuum, which added an extra variable to the region’s security complex that did not exist there today. This vacuum has been filled by Iran, which has introduced other variables, such as Venezuela and an even bolder Russia, the region.

Those regimes whose policies were up for grabs before the war, have been forced to make and choice, and by now most have. Algeria is still attempting to pursue an independent foreign policy, but in a region and world whose new, post-Pax Americana poles are taking shape ever more clearly each day, this cannot last for long.

The current climate serves Algeria’s grand strategy well, though. Algeria has long held a policy of non-Alignment. While it has typically leaned towards the camp of the global left, the anti-colonialists, and the revolutionaries, there are more than a few instances where Algeria has cooperated with Western nations where their interests were congruent. The new international system allows Algerian to oscillate between East and West, and to more effectively push its interests. The greater and lesser powers must compete of Algeria’s (and much the rest of the world's) diplomatic and economic support (in exchange for energy) in exchange for arms, investment, and all the rest.

This should not be viewed as a threat. While Sino-Algerian and Russo-Algerian relations have historically been rather warm, American-Algerian relations have been cordial, though mutual suspicion has always existed as a result of Cold War mentalities and issues, not to mention the Palestinian matter. But, there is no intrinsic gaffe between the two nations.

The United States was one of the first international stops made by Ahmed Ben Bella, though this visited was immediately followed up by a visit to Cuba (which aroused the suspicion of Washington). Algerians have sided with the United States in several key votes at the UN, and have rarely taken or supported actions that were antithetical to American national security. Cooperation between Algeria and the European nations on terrorism, especially since the 1980’s has been extensive. Algeria has supported the American Pan-Sahel initiative, and has even allowed American forces to train Algerian troops. President Bouteflika was the first head of state to send his condolences to President Bush on the occasion of 9/11.

There is no reason that the United States and Algeria should have hostile relations; the US must understand that Algeria’s interest lie in diversification and not in subservience or preemptive strikes. The interests of Algeria, and other states like her, are primarily economic and structural, that is, primarily interested in modernizing their domestic infrastructure, economy, and military. In some cases, such as Algeria's it is somewhat of a reconstruction. While the interests of the US and the non-Allied camp may not always coincide exactly, they do not have to for a healthy working relationship to take shape. The non-Allied are non-allied for exactly this reason. The new American leadership should take this into account when formulating its policy towards the nations of the Third World.

blog added to sidebar

2006-09-20T11:42:00.000-04:00

Visit The Thinking Lebanese.

Thank you, Syria

2006-09-12T13:12:00.000-04:00

Syria didn't have to stop the attack on the US Embassy in Damascus. If the country is the rogue state this administration portrays it as, would it not have let the attack happen?

Certainly Damascus is concerned that it is in US war plans and any failure to stop such an attack would be seen as complacency. But they could have let it happen and did not. I wonder what the Arabs-aren't-human crowds in backasswards America think about Arabs saving Americans now?

Now that we've destabilized the whole Middle East, we can't afford to destroy an oasis of stability. I hope this cooperation will help to keep Syria intact when the war moves past Iraq.

To the Syrian security guard who died protecting America, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. To the murderous thugs who died in the attack, have fun in Hell, swine.

September 11, 2∞

2006-09-11T17:31:00.000-04:00

The morbidity of this nation's memory once again presents us with images and empty reflections of a day when 3000 people died for no reason. Ours is a culture that worships violence and destruction; it's no wonder you can go to a righty's blog and see video repetition of the planes crashing into the towers.

Never forget - that's what they say. But we've already forgotten. We've already forgotten the unity we had after that moment. We've forgotten the books that we bought to try to understand, even those of the infamous orientalist Bernard Lewis. (Hey, at least people who bought his books after the event were trying to understand.) What's left is only hatred, vengeance, and a morbid desire to keep watching the towers fall, to keep thinking about it, dwelling on it, and refusing to believe that there is more than pure hatred to fundie Islam. Nobody knows history, nobody knows colonialism, nihilism, corporatism, materialism, existentialism, communism, fascism...every single one of these isms contributes to what we are seeing now. Contrary to popular ignorance, fundie Islam isn't some mindless random violence. There is a philosophy behind it. It's a pretty shitty philosophy, but it exists, and until we attempt to understand it, perpetual war is what we get.

Why don't we watch Pearl Harbor get blown up every December 7th?

You can put up all the ribbons you want, sing as many meaningless patriotic songs as you can, and say September 11th as often as your mouth will let you, but what does that do? Nothing. Empty slogans like "Never forget" and "United We Stand" are garbage if you aren't paying attention to the news and you don't know what's going on. Why is it so difficult for people to read the news? Why do they resort to empty slogans and garbage propaganda? Sieg Heil, America, sieg heil.

I'd prefer to keep September 11th as a remembrance of my grandfather's birthday or the day when Pete Rose hit 4192, not to recall with anger, disgust, and horror at watching people jump to their deaths from the edge of Heaven.

Bullet the blue sky

2006-08-03T16:00:00.000-04:00

I am sick. The vile champions of hate produce another generation who know not peace, forgiveness, compromise. These are Israeli children in this photo, writing messages on bombs like murder and destruction are a happy part of childhood innocence, mere chalk on a sidewalk. They don't know it yet, but hatred already pollutes their blood and rage runs through their veins. They will never know Justice, only the eternal cycle of barbaric vengeance.

As bombs like these pour from the sky like blood from a never healing wound, as children like these are murdered, maimed, psychologically tortured for life, blame spreads like wildfire, and it doesn't care who it takes down in its path of destruction.

You plant a demon seed, you raise a flower of fire.

The Fire That Is Lebanon

2006-07-27T16:45:00.000-04:00

I was too young to understand the chaos. CNN and cable media weren't ratings whores back then, and people still watched the evening news on network television. News was news, not what Paris Hilton ate for lunch.

I have faint recollections of images on television. I knew that the word "Lebanon" meant something bad. But I was the kid who looked at Russian script and thought it all was about nuclear bombs. (To this day I often refer to printed Russian as the "nuclear letters" just for fun.) Why did the Marines die? Why was the President on television so much? They never taught us these things in school. I didn't even know what the Middle East was, and no teacher ever attempted to explain that there was a war on. Why? Were they sheltering us? Were they trying to avoid having to explain why Lebanon was a mess, avoid talking about Israel or the Ottoman Empire? Or was it just too complicated for them to understand, let alone some eight year old kids trying to wrap their little minds around it?

I learned about the Lebanese civil war from Thomas Friedman. Don't groan - he wrote From Beirut to Jerusalem way before his ego inflated to the size of Beirut and Jerusalem put together, and it's quite a good book. Since then, I've been employed in the Mideast field and have come to learn much about what used to be an enigma to me. Still, keeping track of the factions and the alliances over Lebanon's recent history is difficult to do. I wish those who say Americans don't care about Lebanon could understand why that just isn't true. Lebanon is a confusing place, and I don't think many Americans comprehend what is going on, especially in light of the fact that American media is a multibillion dollar industry. The Fourth Estate has burned to the ground. It's dead.

I've been reading as much as I can about the current situation. I don't want to have an uninformed opinion about it, although that's pretty much what all of the opinions are out there. I've read some real hate in the last few days - Arabs blaming Jews, Jews blaming Arabs, Arabs blaming Americans, Americans blaming Arabs, Americans blaming Jews, Jews blaming Americans, Arabs telling Americans to clean up the mess, Jews telling Americans to stay out of it...it's all so maddening! Get a grip people! I did discover a blog today with some sense (and a sense of humor.) Go to The Lebanese Bloggers for some rational insight into what's going on.

Iraq: the light at the end of the tunnel is a flamethrower

2006-05-30T16:01:00.000-04:00

More violence in Iraq.

A car bombing leaves over 20 dead
The prime minister is visiting the city of Basra to try and calm to sectarian militias that have sprung up.
US marines are alleged to have shot without reason 25 people in the west. A report by the US, expected to be whitewash, will be published this week.
Two journalists and 2 British soldiers have died in Basra
In the whole country only 3 provinces are counted as stable, all in the Kurdish north. The rest are either dangerous or in anarchy.

What can be done to solve the situation?

A withdrawal of coalition troops might work - but it might create a vacuum of power that would be filled by theocratic totalitarianism - a la Iran, which would be covertly opposed by Sunni governments such as Saudi Arabis, to the point where they might send troops undercover to destabilise the country. Somalia mkii, anyone?
Democracy could be helped if the cabinet could actually form properly. This means that the defence and interior posts, the most important jobs, were occupied. Otherwise, legislative and political gridlock will deprive democracy of any momentum and we will return to Square 1.
The execution of Saddam Hussein. With him gone, Iraq could be seen to have reached a 'turning point'. This may take some time though and it is not certain how valuable a figurehead Saddam remains.
The purging of Shi'ite and Sunni militants from the civil service, most notably the police force. This is easier said than done, and relies on excellent loyalty values being installed by the police towards Iraq. This requires a more long-term solution, namely:
The distinction between religion and politics. At the moment there is none and never has been in an Islamic country. This could take generations to eradicate. Look at Iran. ostensibly a democratic government - but then look further to see the ruthless Ayatollah excising anything that doesn't fit with Islamic custom. This neutralises free speech, democracy and effectively opens up to be a militaristic, mercilessly autocratic and deplorable state, with homosexuals being hanged from cranes and shot in football stadiums.
A sense of personal responsibility amongst Iraq i people .Many do this already - and it is hard to stand up against armed militias. But US trying to rid them off the streets will not destroy them; it will have the opposite effect. Rejection of sectarian values in favour of a secular Iraq can be only be a good thing, along with a rejection of revenge violence as a whole

These are my ideas. Does anyone have any others?

Genocide Here, Genocide There

2006-05-12T22:13:00.000-04:00

President Bouteflika's recent comments regarding the French colonization of Algeria have caused quite a stir. His fuss holds the potential to accomplish a great deed; placing such a burden on the world community's conscience that they feel moved to take meaningful action in Darfur, or at least to make them seriously contemplate it. But it does not seem to be the case that Mr. Bouteflika, or any one else, is going to use this tremendous opportunity to do good.

His comments have been a source of reflection for me over the past week or so. Firstly, I am inclined to sympathize with his postion; I do believe that the French occupation of Algeria, and its methods of rule had genocidal tendancies. He's on the money in that respect. I am also glad that someone is bringing this issue up, as it is common for historians and politicians to over look not just the massacres at Setif and Gulema in 1945 (on V-E Day no less), but the overall French presence in Algeria and its intentions. It seems that there has actually been a resultant of Bouteflika's angry speeches: historians, not just Algerian ones have come out in support of the label of genocide. Most of the historians that have used the term "genocide" in reference to the French experience in Algeria have been Algerians, or other Arabs, and often have drawn paralles between the French occupation of Algeria and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. But a British historian of Armenian origins, Aza Sarafian, has spoken up in favor of Bouteflika's appellation,

criticising the French draft law that will punish the deniers of the Armenian genocide, said France should first start with its role in Algeria and Rwanda. (Note, this quotation comes from Zaman Online, a Turkish paper that seems to deny the fact of the Armenian genocide)

Sarafian is a prominent publisher of primary sources on the Armenian genocide, and his calls for France to recognize its past are quite interesting. This could lead to a wider recognition of France's brutal history in Africa, and perhaps for pressure from foreign academics and leaders for the French state to take responsibility for its actions. There is little doubt that the French colonial forces and settlers were aiming to eliminate all that was remotely Arab from Algeria; they often said as much in their communal newspapers and journals. The French even had a term for the removal of natives from the coastal and fertile regions to the dry and arid back country: refoulement. (More on the French colonization of Algeria can be found here, the second part of a two part essay published on my other blog.)

However, I disagree with Bouteflika's belief that Algeria has a "'fundamental right' to a 'public and solemn apology for the crime of colonisation committed against our people'". State apologies are insincere and produce nothing of value. The perpetrators of this genocide no longer walk the earth or sail its seas, and for the men of today to apologize upon their behalf is a ridiculous notion. If a heart felt apology could be levied from Bertrand Clauzel or the Governor-Generals, I would be all for such action, and for bringing them to international authorities. But it is not. None of them are alive today, save for the most elderly of soldiers who massacred hundreds at Setif and Gulema in 1945 and those who tortured members of the FLN during the War of Independence. Is it truly realistic though, to think that Jean-Marie Le Pen, or Jacques Chirac will sincerely apologize for their actions during that hairy sally?

No. Algerians can at best hope for a strong recognition and condemnation of the genocidal practices that took place from the time of Charles X to De Gaulle. But a formal apology is unlikely and undesirable. After the apology, the French nationalists may ask, "Why should we write or read about this now? We've apologized, get over it." An apology would do more harm to the Algerian historical cause than good. Recognition would allow for the French people of today, most of whom had little to do with the colonization of North Africa, to not have to assume responsibility for the horrendous crimes of their forefathers, and Algerians recieve due respect from the French state.

My second thought is less positive. It is clear that Bouteflika is using the issue of genocide as the "nationalist card," in a way similar to how Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used the nuclear issue in his country. In hopes of showing to the people of Algeria that he is a true patriot, and not just a corrupt thugg, Bouteflika is banging the drum of Algerian nationalism, appealing to the sensitive emotions that are attached to Algeria's colonial history. In doing so, Bouteflika mainly appeals to the older generation; pensioners, verterans and their ilk. But could Bouteflika's efforts have a more sinister motivation behind them than cheering up the toothless crowd?

While President Bouteflika is ranting and raving about tribulations gone past, a real genocide is taking place on Algeria's own continent, and within its cultural and political realm. Violence in Darfur, Sudan have taken hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced milions. Bouteflika's coments have not called attention to this; in fact, they have the serious potential of distracting certain individuals away from the hellish state of affairs in Sudan as of late.

President Bouteflika, having lived during an era of colonization and under the pauperized Algeria of the 1940's and 1950's should know that it is not a good feeling to be left all alone to jackels. Algeria needs to take a vocal stance against the Islamist and misanthropic policies of the Sudanese government. Algeria, a nation supposedly seeking to rebuild its world wide reputation as a dealer in peace (Algerians worked to ease tensions between Iraq and Iran during the 1970's, to negotiate the release of American hostages from Iran in 1979, and Mr. Bouteflika himself aided in settling the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea) and cooperation, has seemingly ignored the crisis in Sudan. It would do Algeria's reputation a great deal of good internationally if it were to come down hard on Sudan, if even rhetorically.

Algeria's silence is not out of place though. Leaders of Middle Eastern and North African states frequently lament the trials and conspiracies of the past while ignoring those of the present. How often, for example, does one hear Iranian leaders admonishing the UK and the US for Operation Ajax? It is common to hear Arab leaders shouting cries of "colonialism" or "imperialism" while they have no foriegn troops, and quite often very few foreign embassies, on their soil. Algeria is simply following along with its peers. The root of Algeria's indifference may be that the government truly is not concerned with the happenings in Darfur and in Chad. It is more likely, however, that the government does not wish to irritate its long time military patrons, Russia and China, and its odd new bed fellow, Iran; all of whom are against military or otherwise decisive action in Sudan at any level outside of the Sudanese state. An other fear is most certainly that if a given Arab state takes its own position, out of step with the main steam of "Arab" opinion, it will be marginalized by other states in the region. None of the Arab League states support action to end the genocide in Darfur.

It is then a pitty that President Bouteflika's comments will likely have no value other than that of the sentimental. What a sight it would have been, to see Algeria, a country whose national character and social mannerisms were formed by an uncivilized and ostreperous genocide, among the leaders of the crusade against genocide. But it would seem that the leaders of that great nation are lacking in their ability to connect the events of the past to those of the present. So too are they lacking the manliness to step up and challege those who are committing the same sort of refoulement today that was enforced upon their forefathers.

And so the crackdown begins

2006-05-11T14:49:00.000-04:00

Six journalists were detained at a protest in Cairo today in support of judges who are facing a disciplinary committee for criticising election abuses. The arrests are the first since the Egyptian Parliament voted to extend the emergency laws for two years last week.

Egyptian journalists have become increasingly bold in recent years as President for Life Mubarak seemed to be tolerating a somewhat more open government. Articles criticizing the regime began to appear in Arabic language papers. Before, there was some room for criticism in English language papers, as Mubarak's thugs knew articles in English couldn't arouse the Arabic speaking masses. A group of reformers drafted the Alexandria Declaration in 2004 stating the need for reform of the oppressive regimes in the region and calling for more transparency in policymaking. In Egypt, there have been two follow-up forums since then organized by Ahram Regional Press Institute and the Center for International Private Enterprise in which writers engaged in drafting recommendations for reform.

It appears that Mubarak's thugs are content to end that period of increasing openness.

I say to the US administration - PUT THE PRESSURE BACK ON MUBARAK NOW. He feeds on gifts from our treasury; we should not let these human rights abuses continue.

Some thoughts on religion and politics

2006-05-10T16:08:00.000-04:00

I was passed a copy of the political platform for the Justice and Development Party in Morocco today. The JDP is the Islamic party of Morocco that wants to establish an Islamic state in this fairly liberal MENA country.

As soon as I realized the document was from this party, a red light went on in my occidental head. Here is a party that exists to tear down the barrier between religion and state, one of the fundamental tenets of democracy. Isn’t it? What is democracy, exactly? One could say, in very simple terms, that democracy is government by the people, right? So, if JDP represents part of the people, who cares what their ideology is? Yeah, that’s an idea in a vacuum.

The problem arises when other people begin to be marginalized, even persecuted, something that happened in places like Iran and Afghanistan. The reality is that these governments, like many fundamentalist ideologies, don’t understand their own beliefs. You can’t force someone to be religious; it must come from his heart and mind.

I won’t pretend to understand the irrationality behind fundamentalism of any kind. I’m not sure I even understand the idea behind having religious political parties. If anything, they are a kind of socialist party, one that believes it is serving the “common good” by banning everything it deems unwholesome, but by banning things they don't like, they've already taken away the rights of those who like them. (It's incredibly annoying to me to go to restaurants in Cairo and not be able to have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner.) I'm talking about all religious parties, not just Islamic parties. By calling yourself the "Christian Democratic Party," for example, you've already marginalized everyone who is not a Christian. It shows your intent to marginalize. That isn't democracy.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Comments are appreciated.

More clashes between Fatah and Hamas

2006-05-09T13:26:00.000-04:00

Palestinians hurt at funeral clashes

This is the second clash in the past couple of days, intensifying an already dangerous division as Fatah suffers from the old green eye syndrome.

The uh-oh factor: Abbas and Haniya are vying for control of security forces.

What's worse?

Adding to the tension is a financial emergency caused by the freezing of aid to the Palestinian Authority by donor countries until Hamas renounces the armed struggle against occupation, recognises Israel and signs up to existing peace deals.

I reread a post I wrote after the Hamas victory about taking a wait-and-see approach before withdrawing aid to Palestine, pondering why (probably rhetorically) aid was so hastily withdrawn. Now look what the irrational decision is doing. A country in a dire finanical situation is one in which violence is a timebomb. In the past couple of days, we've seen Fatah-Hamas clashes, albeit relatively minor ones (though with deaths.) Will the violence escalate? Will it develop into a factional war, ripping the country apart much like Lebanon? Will Israel get involved, imprisoning Palestinians in their homes or sending random missiles into towns to kill the "militants"? Will Palestinian youth, strapped with explosives, once again make their ways to Israel cafes? What will come of this situation?

New post: Frank Gardner, Bullets and Sand

2006-05-08T15:32:00.000-04:00

First off, may I just say hello. I'm Shamash, the latest addition to this blog. My name, ironically, was chosen before I stumbled upon here and it was chosen for precisely the same reasons as put in the sidebar. Just a quick disclaimer: I don't live in the Middle East (Scotland if truth be told, but have always found it a source of fascination, partly from the massive amount of change and difference it has from the western world and partly because when I was five I watched Lawrence of Arabia non-stop for at least a fortnight (though my brother asserts it was a month). I hope to provide the western view off events of things unfurling in the Middle East over the coming times.

Anyway, the BBC correspondant, Frank Gardner, having recovered from being shot in Riyadh in 2004, has recovered sufficiently to be able to work again (albeit from a wheelchair, such was the damage he sustained) and has now written a book upon the subject. It was published in a few excerpts in the Sunday Times section (part one, two, and three - the review is here) In it he details not only the time that led to that fateful incident, but his previous years in the Middle East, most notably as a banker.

In it he details in particular the kindness of his hosts, the generosity that they always welcomed him with - the foods they plied him with and the general happiness they had towards him. So when the Al Qa'eda gunman shot him down and killed a fellow cameraman, simply because he was a white face in an Arab neigbourhood, he was shocked. He had encountered nothing like this before. Understandly Gardner is more than a bit miffed about this - during his time in the Middle East he learnt fluent Arabic and was considered one of the foremost Western experts on the region. But in his novel, he warns us in the west not to associate extremists as the yardmark by which normality is measured; he says they are a dangerous minortiy that could be associtaed with Northern island paramilitaries or the Basque separatist group ETA.

So what does this have to do with Middle East reform. It is simple. I bang on about this many times in my own blog (shameless self-plug here - Honorary Jock is its name. Western countries asssociate the frothing fundmentalist with Islam because the majority of moderates do not denounce them severely enough. Whether it is clerics in the UK saying they can understand the 7/7 tube bombers or taking a harder view on Afghanistan's views on apostasy, it conveys the feeling that Arabs (sorry - have no better idea for a word) are happy to allow people who wish the overthrow legal nation-states for the simple fact their views do not concur. West Bank and Baghdad aside, the simple eagerness to indoctrinate others to blow themselves up, killing even fellow muslims for a dubious goal is alien and repulsive to many - and please do no targue with me that America use the same methods, I am simply telling you the mentality of those who I live with, not my own opinion.

So, what can be done? Fundametalism is a virulent monster, a many-headed hydra. To stamp it out might be to injure thy own boot, in this case Islam. it should not be tolerated, but not eradicated with a zeal that alienates many and makes them turn to the other side. perhaps the new cartoon starring an American and an Arab, will perhaps repair fractures across the divide. But how to determine fundamentalism? Easy - something which is not so much islamic as political islam - quoting the Qu'ran out of context simply to advance your own goal. We cannot translate texts 1400 years old as though they were written yesterday - that goes for Christianity as well. This is the war against Terror America blithely refers to - a war against ignorant bigotry and paranoia fear of legitimate reform and suppression of political and democratic rights. Anything which goes against these is fundamentalism and should be slowly (or quickly depending upon the place and time) be wiped away. The progress may be slow, but it'll be worth it.

Thank you and I hope you like my posts!

Kurds unite, but for whom?

2006-05-08T13:31:00.000-04:00

Iraqi Kurds voted to unify the Kurdish factions on Sunday. Previously, the PUK and the PDK had divided rule of Kurdistan. The move is said to bolster the Iraqi government as it tries to stabilize the country.

The Kurds, who have had their own semi-autonomous state for years now, could bring their experience to the new government, one that is said to be "democratic" but is barely functional. Purple fingers aside, just because a country votes for its leaders doesn't make it a democratic country. There doesn't seem to be enough emphasis on institution building in the country, save a few organizations like the Center for International Private Enterprise, which is working to build market institutions in a country that barely has a functioning economy. (The organization is having some success, however. These things take time.)

I suppose when you are having to worry about being blown up on your way to work, it's difficult to think of the bigger picture. However, the Kurds, in the relative stability they live in, are succeeding in building something resembling a true political party by putting aside their differences and working for the good of the country. Or are they setting up for succession???

Major setback in Egyptian political reform

2006-04-30T17:09:00.000-04:00

The reform momentum gained in Egypt in the past few years suffered a major setback Sunday as the Egyptian Parliament voted to extend the country's "Emergency Laws," effectively consolidating power for President Hosni Mubarak for another couple of years.

No reform measure was more anticipated than cancellation of the emergency laws, which permit indefinite detention without trial and hearings in civilian cases by military courts. They also prohibit gatherings of more than five people, limit speech on vague grounds (like damaging Egypt's image) and restrict free association.

Seriously, what will it take for Mubarak to lose power? Like many others, he has played Bush as a fool. As much as I think Bush's "democracy" promotion is a load of crap, I do think he was right to push Mubarak to reform. Why? Not for democracy's sake; rather, the US gives more aid money to Egypt than any other country save Israel (that's a whole other issue.) If we are going to continue to gift money to this "President for Life," we ought to force his hand, make him treat his people as human beings should be treated. You wouldn't spend money on a broken refrigerator, would you? Why spend money on a broken government?

Despite the restrictions in the country, Egypt's private sector has made significant gains in economic institutional reform, succeeding in advocating changes in tax laws, construction licensing fees, and other barriers to economic growth. In countries where oppressive regimes can seemingly suffocate political reform, the private sector must step up and and continue to push for reform of democratic, market-oriented institutions. The idea is that a market-oriented economy with fully functional institutions will succeed in creating a middle class, an inherent part of any democracy. The wealthier (or less poor) people are, the more they are inclined to pressure their government for laws which support their interests.

Egypt's setback is not the end of the reform movement, but the road to a fully functional democracy just became a bit bumpier.

The Railroad of the Middle East

2006-04-29T23:52:00.000-04:00

Anthony Shadid's article on Dubai

Anthony Shadid is my favorite journalist, one of the last true journalists with guts out there. However, this front page headline article that appeared in today's WaPo was one with which I was not impressed. What could have been a champion exposure of the deep human rights abuses that pervade Dubai came off sounding like Dubai is the land of Oz and despite it's flaws, everything is peachy there.

The Dubai model boils down to a self-consciously corporate approach to government: a can-do attitude that appeals to business, speed in decisions possible under an authoritarian system and achieving results that create momentum.

The United States under the Bush administration has a corporate approach to governing, and look where it has us. The corporate approach only works under an authoritarian regime. Corporations froth at the mouth when the name "Dubai" is mentioned. Nevermind that the people who make Dubai possible are pretty much slaves. Yes, technically they are free to leave, but corporations seize their passports and they have no option but to work for one employer or go home. It fits the definition of indentured servitude to a tee.

The kicker in this article? The people only care about money and materialism. It's the reason Sayed Qutb became disillusioned with Western society, Qutb being the founder of modern terrorism. As Mohammed Al-Roken says in the article, it's only a matter of time before violence comes to Dubai.

What do you think?

Welcome, Kuwait, to the 20th Century!

2006-04-04T12:27:00.000-04:00

Kuwaiti women vote for first time

Kuwaiti women cast votes for the first time in a by-election for a municipal council seat, less than a year after winning full political rights in the oil-rich Gulf state.

Two women are among eight candidates running for the seat in the district of Salmiya, about 15 kilometres (10 miles) southeast of the capital.

Official figures showed that until 4:00 pm (1300 GMT) a 17 percent turnout was recorded with only 15 percent of eligible women voters, or about 2,500, having cast their ballots.

The low turnout is a little disheartening, but this is a huge step in the right direction and in the progress of self-determination of peoples. (I'd use the term democracy, but some jerk kind of ruined the word.)

It's one small step for woman, one giant leap for...ok, that's cheesy.

Qaradawi in Tizi-Ouzou

2006-04-01T16:22:00.000-05:00

The Egyptian immam Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi made an appearence in Tizi-Ouzou, Kabylia (in the Tizi-Ouzou wilaya) today. Qaradawi, who has a television show on Al-Jazeera (esh-Sharieh wal-Hayat) and founded IslamOnline, recently debated Amr Khaled on the Dansih cartoon controversy (he took the "let us show rage" side of the debate), and openly supports suicide bombings, and jihad against Israelis. He believes strongly that

"Everything will be on our side and against Jews on [Judgment Day], at that time, even the stones and the trees will speak, with or without words, and say: 'Oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim, there's a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'"

Qaradawi is one of those angry, old, crusty and Jew obsessed Muslims from the Middle East; you know the sort, the kind that tells young boys that if they clear a mine field with their bodies they will be sent to rest with Allah, and that when asked about suicide attacks says that"I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice." He is similar to Algeria's own Ali Benhadj and Abassi Madani. Take for instance his position on the American forces in Iraq. Qaradawi is believed to have issued a fatwa calling for the killing of both American soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Qaradawi denies this however. He has said that

I was asked about the permissibility of fighting against the occupation in Iraq, and I answered that it is permitted. Afterwards I was asked concerning the American civilians in Iraq and I merely responded with the question – are there American civilians in Iraq? It is a matter of common knowledge that in Fatwas such as these I do not use the word "killing" but rather I say "struggle," which is a more comprehensive word than the word "killing" and whose meaning is not necessarily to kill.

This controversy prompted Shaker en-Nabulsi called for the U.N. to put Qaradawi and his followers on trial for supporting terrorism.

Mr Qaradawi has had a lot to say. He has written more than fifty books on various topics. What did Mr. Qaradawi have to say in Tizi-Ouzou today?

He was glad to be there, for sure. But he was not able to spout his usual rhetoric, because Algeria has laws against publicly supporting violence and/or terrorism (recall this past summer when Ali Benhadj applauded insurgents in Iraq for their attacks on American personel). Instead Mr. Qaradawi discussed the history of Kabylia and his opinion that Kabylia "will not sell" its religion (Islam).

Mr. Qaradawi believes that Kabylia will never and can never be converted out of Islam. According to the Angry Sheikh, "La wilaya de Tizi Ouzou a toujours été la région du Coran, des zaouïas, de la science, du soufisme et du djihad” ("The province of Tizi-Ouzou was always the region of the Qur'an, of the zaouïas, of science, and of jihad") Mr. Qaradawi appearently has not read anything about Tizi-Ouzou before the Zirids. Certainly all of the things that Mr. Qaradawi identifies with Tizi-Ouzou have been present there, but none of these, except perhaps for science, are native to Tizi-Ouzou. Mr. Qaradawi's belief is that, because Islam has such a long history in Tizi-Ouzou, the people of that wilaya, and Kabylia in general, will not convert to non-Islamic religions or faiths. Kabylia is nothing but Islamic to Mr. Qaradawi, “La Kabylie est la terre d’Islam. elle ne peut se dissocier de l’Islam comme l’Islam ne peut se dissocier d’elle. Ceux qui tentent vainement l’évangélisation de cette région se trompent de société." (The Kabylie is the land of Islam. She cannot dissasociate herself from Islam and Islam cannot dissasociate itself from her. Those who vainly attempt to evangelize this region are a mistaken coroporation.")

Mr. Qaradawi uses big words, for someone who is native neither to Tizi-Ouzou nor Algeria. His statements are meant to reenforce the government's descion last week to regulate the free excersize of religion in Algeria. The measure, which is primarily aimed at stemming the proliferation of non-Islamic faiths in regions like Kabylia, where many "house churches" have sprung up, was passed in parliament with backing from Islamic parties.

But Mr. Qaradawi was not in Algeria to merely ignore the non-Islamic history of Kabylia, strike fear in the hearts of missionaries, or to simply sing the praises of President Bouteflika. Mr. Qaradawi also had to comment on the "astonishing" outfits of young Algerian ladies on the streets of Tizi-Ouzou, and his disapointment at seeing signs on the streets in French and notArabic. The Angry Sheikh thought that the people of Algeria were closer to the Arabs than to Molière, but did not stop to think that the people of Kabylia might perhaps be closer to the Kabyles than to the Arabs, and that the usage of Kabyle language signs is not encouraged by the government. But his visit to Tizi-Ouzou unpleasently surprised him. Appearently, Algerians want to be Frenchmen, and have been "colonized" once again. Mr. Qaradawi called for Algerians to "safeguard" themselves constantly so that Algeria stays a society based on Islam, and not foreign European (or otherwise non-Islamic) decadence.

I find it odd that a preacher like Mr. Qaradawi could draw a large crowd in Tizi-Ouzou, the cultural center of the secular Berberist movement and the hearth of the 2001 riots. Kablyes are among the most secular of all Algerians, often viewing modern "Arabized" versions of the faith as little more than Arab imperialism or colonialism. Kabyles often remind their country men that Kabylia, and Algeria as a whole, has a history that is much deeper and much longer than that of Islam. And it is not odd that Kabylia would be home to the Algerian diversity movement, being one of the few areas that can claim its own language within a set geographic area. Kabyles were among the first Algerian communities to call for the creation of an individual secular Algerian national identity, separate from the `ummah and the Arab nation. Kabyles have rarely supported Islamist parties, relying mainly on the FFS and RCD for political representation (though other parties from the region do exist, and some Kabyles did and do participate in Islamist movements). The Kabyles that I have met have been either indifferent to Islam or very secular, which is what I understand to be reflective of the opinion of most Kabyles.

It is very likely that Mr. Qaradawi's banter fell upon deaf ears. But it is quite strange to see such a supposedly erudite man display such unstinting ignorance of his audience. His visit is certainly part of a political move by the Islamists, seeking to put on the podium a speaker that would tell a audience Kabyle about its "history" and deride this audience as to its modern mode of like and thinking, by identifying this with colonialism and France. I doubt that Kabyles (Muslim ones or converts) will be "wooed" by his remarks, which come off more like a rejection (perhaps made in ignorance) of the Kabyle culture in favor of that of the Middle East/Arab world, something that the government has done for many years to the irritation of most Kabyles. It further seems to come off as an attack on the new Algeria, that is liberal (to an extent), increasingly free, over the jihad, and modern. Did Mr. Qaradawi read the wrong pages for homework on his plane ride to Algeria? Perhaps he read the Muqaddimah instead of a text on modern Algeria? We will perhaps never know. But it is sure that, as is usually the case, an Islamist has missed the point of his setting in the modern world.

Introducing Nouri

2006-03-28T18:00:00.000-05:00

Hello, I'm Nouri and I will be posting here at In Search of Shamash periodically on the topic of reforms in Algeria. I am an Algerian living in the US, I go to school, write and other things like that.

I usually post at my own blog, The Moor Next Door, and "Myrtus," but I have joined on to post here. So I hope you enjoy what I've got to say and please comment!

Top and Bottom Sets of Algerian Reforms

2006-03-28T17:53:00.000-05:00

Here is a set of lists of what I believe to be the three best political and economic decisions/reforms, and the three worst of both, in Algeria since President Bouteflika came to power in 1999 (so far).

Top Three Political Decisions
1) The declaration by president Bouteflika that the "era of revolutionary legitimacy" is over (in a speech to the Congress of War Veterans on December 1, 2004). Though somewhat abstract, this has numerous potential benefits. Firstly, it emphasizes official support for meritocracy in government. Since independence, most government jobs have been allocated on the basis of two things; 1) an individual's connections to and/or participation in the Revolution of November 1 (Was he/she a mujahadid? Was their husband? Was their father? etc.) and 2) how willing the state was to expand its bureaucracy for the sake of creating jobs. This was unsaid but widely understood by most. If one looks at most of the government ministers and those who were given managerial positions in government corporations, it is clear that the mujahadine were well placed and taken care of. They were given other privileges that ordinary Algerians were not, for example, they were allowed to import new cars and other luxuries that non-mujahadine could only dream of. This situation was perpetuated by the state and allegations of the corruption that it caused were muffled. Now, there is at least official support for merit based appointments and nominations, not simply who was in whose brigade during what stage of the Revolution.

That situation also left the younger people (who were too young to have participated in the Revolution) out of the game, as older people were placed on high and created a road block to progress (for the youth). Bouteflika's declaration that this period is over is not just philosophical (in the sense that now the Revolution has ended and we can now get on with our lives), but it also ushers in the new generation of Algerians born in post-Revolutionary Algeria who must be brought into the life of their country. It is similar to John F. Kennedy's speech where he declared that it was the time for a new generation of Americans, "born in this century" to lead their nation forward (he was of course talking about the twentieth-century).

It also debases the Islamist claims to power. One of the main reasons that the FIS believed itself to be more fit to run Algeria than the FLN was that it supposedly had a more "authentic" vision of the Revolution, rooted in Islam. Abbasi Madani was a revolutionary, as were numerous other FIS chiefs. Since the FLN had always ruled because "the Revolution willed it," if a challenger rose he would have to show that his legitimacy was superior in Revolutionary terms. The state's reason for being was the Revolution not 10 years ago, and if the FIS had their way it would have been Islam that justified the state's existence. However, Bouteflika's declaration made the will of the Algerian people the state's reason for being and, consequently, did two other things. First was that he established a social contract for Algerians which previously did not really exist, outside of a few circles (the state was not in the people's service, it was in the Revolution's service). Second was that he essentially gave his support to a pluralistic Algeria, because if Algeria operated on a system of Revolutionary legitimacy only the FLN would be able to rule, and the one party state would be justified.

Another thing that this did was that it de-emphasized the military's claims to a right to meddle in government and civilian affairs. For many years, most of Algeria's independent history as a matter of fact, the military ruled by default and forced its will on the legislature and people. Only one Algerian president has been a civilian thus far (Bouteflika, though he came into power with the military's backing), and the reason for this has mostly been that the military secured Algerian independence and thus knows best how to safeguard the Revolution (i.e. the state and all that is related to it) from a "deviant path." This basically delegitimizes a military dictatorship. (Also here, I would add the fact that he sacked many of the military hardliners that had backed his bid for the presidency, like Mohammed Lamari, former head of the Army retired and the new Army head, Salah Gaïd, all of whose top choices for his own replacement as head of the Land Forces were forced to retire and many of the military commanders for the major military districts were rearranged. Lamari was a major éradicator during the Civil War while Gaïd is considered to be mostly apolitical in this sense. The hardliners that had put Boutef in office have mostly become sideliners.)

Lastly, since the government had operated for many years on a "Revolutionary" basis, it took socialism to be a matter of doctrine. Socialism was part of the Revolution's platform (especially that of the FLN) and was declared to be the rule of the state in the Constitution until all references to socialism and the FLN were removed from the Constitution in the 1980's and 1990's. By declaring that the Revolution is no longer the source of the state's legitimacy, Bouteflika has basically said that Algeria can experiment with different economic philosophies.

2) The rebuilding of Algeria's international prestige and the creation of new partnerships and alliances abroad. Bouteflika has rebuilt Algerian relations with Africa, the Arab world, Asia, Iran, the United States, Europe and other countries by reaching out and making smart diplomatic moves. Seeing as he was the Algerian Foreign Minister under Boumediene, it is only logically that he would excel at this task. Since Bouteflika has been president and ended the major parts of the Islamist conflict, Algeria has held the presidency of the African Union, the Arab League and has made many diplomatic breakthroughs, bringing Algeria back as a world leader in African and Southern geo-politics. Algeria has been able to become associated with NATO in the Mediterranean (strengthening the Navy), and participated in US efforts to fight terrorism in the Sahel, while at the same time maintaining its old friendships with countries like Russia, Romania, the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East. He has taken a truely "Third World" approach to foreign policy, not affiliating himself with radical regimes or becoming a client regime. His pragmatic approach is really in Algeria's best interest. Not to mention that it has encouraged investment and aid from Japan, the US, Belgium (the first international franchise in Algeria recently opened, a Belgian fast-food chain called "Quick"), and even Iran. His foreign policy has allowed Algeria to break free from the confines of traditional Arab foreign policy, which is seldom independent (usually Arab states act as clients to a foreign Western or regional power, for instance the way Syria is subordinate to Iran or Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf to the United States, or the way Syria, Egypt and Algeria were once subordinate to the USSR, as were many "Third World" states).

3) The first amnesty. The first Bouteflika amnesty ended the Algerian Civil War which is very commendable. Attacks have decreased and life has gotten easier and back to "normal" for the most part. Reconciliation is a wonderful idea, and it allows for progress to be made in the improvement of everyday life. The first amnesty was great; the second not so great. The second one just pardoned criminals and didn't really establish any basis for healing or justice. It let's the security forces off scott free, the Islamist militants, about 2,000, off scott free, and does not force them to make amends. I would have prefered a more South African or Norther Ireland sort of reconciliation, rather than this fake reconciliation.

Top Three Economic Decisions
1) Ending the state monopoly on the energy industry (SONATRACH). SONATRACH was huge, largely inefficient and corrupt. Sure, it provided jobs, but it didn't perform as well as it should have. Opening up the industry to competition will allow for more growth, though I would prefer some regulation to see that Algerian benefit from the gas.

2) The proposed privitization of about 1300 state owned industries. Again, this breaks of state monopolies on drugs, agriculture, health services, construction and the like. This will make more competition and hopefully, more innovation and progress in the economy. Already about 130 have been bought by Algerians and foreigners alike and more are being sold off as I write this. This is important to Algeria's structural reform because it takes apart the old statist/socialist system that for some many years refused to work.

3) The general reform minded condition that has attracted foreign investors and banks to Algeria. A new airport in Algiers is being built and the first ever metro in Algiers is due to open soon. In addition, there are other transportation related projects underway which is wonderful, and more and more foreigners are training Algerians and establishing offices there.

The Three Worst Political and Economic Decisions
1) The second amnesty, for reasons mentioned above.

2) The slow pace of privitization and general reform. A lot of the promises, for instance the creation of new housing units, have not been met and the government has not been able to effectively deal with urban decay and has refused to seriously take on the matter. This has caused riots and unrest in many quarters.

3) The poor handling of dissent. Firstly in 2001 there was the uprising in Kabylia, mostly of neglect and a lack of housing units. The revolt was viewed by many foreigners (especially in France and on the BBC) as being "cultural" in nature, with the Kabyles rising up for language recognition. This was also the perception in much of Algeria. This was not so much the case however as most of the rioters expressed no phiolosophy or ethnic montra and were mainly rioting because they had no legal means of expressing themselves (that would be heard at least) and their frustration with poverty and the impunity of the police. The riots started after a young man named Massinisa Guermah was killed in police custody. The protests soon became protests over the lack of jobs, food and housing in the region. What was the government's response? Brute force, just like in 1963, just like in 1980, just like in 1988. Bouteflika would not (or could not) break from the cycle of state violence against Algerian citizens for whatever reason. This has just further alienated many in Kabylia and has not helped to bring the country together. In addition to this, the legislature passed laws that make it illegal to criticize the president, the military and law makers, in vague language. This makes it very easy for journalists to be locked up and held without cause, for printing offensive articles or cartoons (as we recently saw).

This blog is looking for contributors!

2006-03-12T10:50:00.000-05:00

Looking for people with informed opinions about reform in the Arab world. If you are interested (even in cross-posting your articles with your regular blog), please leave a message. I'm looking to create a sort of forum for news and debate here.

(The 2007 date is to keep this post at the top for a bit. See below for new posts.)

Update: Please welcome Revised to In Search of Shamash.

Lebanon united?

2006-02-16T14:36:00.000-05:00

On February 14th, thousands of Lebaneses gathered in the Martyr Square to commemorate the death of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Rafiq Hariri was loved by all Lebanese despite their diverse religious and political inclinations for boldly undertaking the physical and economic reconstruction efforts in Lebanon after the devastating 17-year war.
On Tuesday, Saad Hariri, Rafiq’s son and head of leading party Future Bloc, spoke to a crowd of anxious Lebanese. Saad was joined by Walid Jumblatt and Samir Geagae and together from behind bullet proof glass, they spoke of justice, freedom, and a united Lebanon. This highly politicized rally, which eventually turned into a protest against Syrian intervenient in Lebanese, excluded several parties such as Pro-Syrian Hezbollah.
It seems that Saad’s attempts to unify Lebanon are having the opposite effect. His tactics to secure peace and stability in Lebanon may not be the most sound. Such outbursts against Syria are not only worsening the relations with Syria; they are also causing a bigger divide within Lebanese politics. A better alternative for Saad and his coalition would be to find more concrete ways of engaging the different political parties and securing their cooperation. Lebanon is faced with several economic and political challenges today, more so than it did a year ago. The Syrian pull out was a double edged sward, while creating more economic and political freedom in the country it also created a security void which is aggravated by the growing political divide, and will certainly be hard to overcome.

Freedom of Speech in Morocco

2006-02-12T18:12:00.000-05:00

Feud With King Tests Freedoms In Morocco

This week, Moroccan prosecutors are scheduled to resume a criminal trial against Nadia Yassine, a leader of Justice and Charity, an underground Islamic movement that has become increasingly aggressive in testing the rule of King Mohammed VI. Yassine, 47, was charged last June with publicly criticizing the monarchy after she stated in a newspaper interview that the country would be better off as a republic than as a kingdom.

"I don't think we'll die if we no longer have a king," Yassine said then. She could be sentenced to three to five years in prison and receive a stiff fine if she is convicted.

Here we have yet another example of an ~~reformer~~ activist in the MENA region who is fighting her authoritarian regime. Finally, a major Western paper gives this issue some ink, a rarity in this day of Hate Muslims First that is prevalent in Western rhetoric. What's more, Nadia's group, Justice and Charity, is an Islamic organization. (What's that, did I hear rightwing minds shudder?) Of course, we hear the usual "they won't tolerate democracy if they are elected to power" rhetoric. How do we know? Islamic governments in more liberal and developed societies have never been given the chance to govern, unless you count Turkey, which has done a fine job of balancing Islam and government.

I'm not saying I don't believe that secularism is not the best way to go. I simply think that giving Islamic groups the chance to speak would be a stepping stone to a more progressive form of democracy. Democracy can never flourish if some groups are oppressed.

On a side note, the constitution of Morocco makes it illegal to criticize or insult the king. Doesn't the American right want to see the same thing?

Nadia's website has contact info. Why not write her and give your support?

cross-posted at washingtonrox

Update: I realized that a single word in this post completely made this woman sound like a saint, when in fact I don't believe at all in her cause. However, I strongly believe in her right to say what she wants and don't believe she belongs in jail. If a majority of Moroccans truly object to her platform, the opposition to her group would be more than enough to stop her nonsense from threatening anyone. (Putting the contact info was more of a message to righties who have been blubbering about freedom of speech over the cartoon issue. Guess it wasn't clear. Man, I've been blog sloppy lately, haven't I?)

On Palestine

2006-01-28T15:21:00.000-05:00

Since most Americans have now gotten over their initial shock and outrage at the outcome of the Palestinian elections, I feel it is safe to write about it now. Given that democracy in the Arab world is my field, it was difficult for me to not write a bit about it, especially in light of the fact that so many Americans, even many on the left, considered the vote for Hamas as a vote "for terror." Some of the things I have seen written over the past two days have shown a willful ignorance and incredible lack of understanding of the situation. I suppose that is to be expected, as even Israelis and Palestinians are trying to figure out what the consequences of this will be. The first reactions I received were from the two co-CEOs of the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, a non-profit center dedicated to the peace process. Gershon Baskin, an Israeli, was gravely pessimistic, saying "The election of Hamas put the final nail in the coffin of the peace process...The people also voted for Hamas because of its political agenda." I am more inclined to agree with the Palestinian co-CEO, Hanna Sinora. His piece in the Jerusalem Post is optimistic. He says:

"The Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections may be a blessing in disguise. Now that they are in power, Hamas will have to take responsibility for the future. They will have to become more moderate. Now they are part of the democratic game and they will have to play by the democratic rules."

There are several reasons why he is right. The first is history. The West freaked out when Turkey elected the AKP in 2002. Reactionaries were running around screaming that Turkey was going to become an Islamic fundamentalist state. Now, Turkey is not without it's problems, but PM Erdogen is a buddy of the American right, and the AKP has proven a moderate force in the country. Granted, AKP does not have the history of violence that Hamas does (although there is something to be said for their oppression of Kurds in the east,) but the "Islamic threat" that terrified Americans turned out to be no threat at all. A second piece of history to examine is Northern Ireland. Again, Ulster is not without its problems, but something that resembles peace has enshrouded the region since Easter 1998, Omagh being the notable exception.

The more important point is to make the distinction between a vote for Hamas and a vote against Fatah. Palestinians did not vote for terror. They voted Fatah out of power because it was corrupt and couldn't get anything done. Hamas ran under the slogan "Reform and Change." Palestinians are sick of living in third world conditions, and most of them have resigned to the fact that they are never going to get their land back and that Israel is there to stay, so they have to make it work. They want a functional economy. They want jobs. They want a place to live where they can be sure it won't be bulldozed to the ground.

Hamas itself has been forced into moderation, and will become more moderate in power. They were responsible for the cease-fire and were in better control of their people than Fatah, and face it, Fatah has its own militant terrorist group who isn't any better. Leaving Hamas out of the political process can only make them more radical. After all, terrorism is a product of exclusion. When the Muslim Brotherhood was persecuted in Egypt, they resorted to violence. When Israel was created, those who resisted occupation turned to violence. Exclusion is what causes the violence - it's that simple.

If any bad comes out of this, it will be at the hands of Israel, who is characteristically reactionary and paranoid. I'm not saying it doesn't have the right to be, but if it refuses to talk to Hamas, it is going to make happen what it says will happen, and peace will be dead. Only Israel can kill the peace process.

For the record, anyone who was shocked by the outcome of the elections hasn't been paying attention. Everyone who knows anything about Palestine knew this was a strong possibility, so those in shock obviously don't know what they're talking about.

No, righties, I am not happy that Hamas won. I just don't think it is the end of the world. All I'm saying is give it a chance.

Cross-posted at washingtonrox.

The Internet as a Force for Change

2006-01-15T10:52:00.000-05:00

In Tiny Arab State, Web Takes on Ruling Elite

Bahrain, long a regional financial hub and a prime example of the power of the Internet to foment discontent, bills itself as a leader of political change in the Arab world. It is a claim echoed in praise from the United States, which considers Bahrain crucial for its many regional military ventures because the American Navy's Fifth Fleet is based here.

But in Bahrain, as across the Arab world, those pushing for democratic change want to end minority rule by a family, sect or a military clique.

Some political change has occurred. Debate is growing through the Internet, satellite television and other forces, and elections this year will replace the Parliament and municipal councils first chosen in 2002 under a new Constitution. Members of the ruling Khalifa family describe this as a vibrant process that will ultimately establish a local strain of democracy. Yet some of its most senior members and their Sunni allies hint that the process is threatened because Bahrain's Shiites disloyally serve outside interests like the Shiites in Iran and Iraq.

Members of the opposition call this nonsense and accuse the ruling dynasty of questioning their loyalty to avoid having to share power. They say King Hamad and his Khalifa clan, descendants of Bedouins from the Arabian mainland who conquered this island, taking it from its Persian masters in the 18th century, will only make cosmetic changes, noting that almost nothing has been done to alleviate the entrenched discrimination faced by the poorest segments of the Shiite population.

"The problem with the royal family is that when they give us any democracy they think that it is a gift and we have to thank them for it," Mr. Abdulemam said. "The time when they were the lords and we were the slaves is gone. The new generation is well educated. They won't live like our fathers did in the past, when they said O.K. to whatever the royal family did."

Why, oh why does it have to be about Shiites verses Sunnis? Why can't it be about injustice verses justice? As long as this type of mentality exists, there will be no real change in the region.

The Private Sector as a Force for Change

2006-01-06T16:25:00.000-05:00

"Found" a post about political change in the Gulf on the CIPE Development Blog. It talks about how people in the Gulf are using business associations and civil society organizations as engines for change because political parties are technically banned. What is happening is that political parties are forming as associations and acting as NGOs to circumvent the ban.

The Gulf region is the leader in the Arab world in terms of democratic reform, and this is clearly evident in the fact that elections for various positions have been held in Bahrain and Kuwait and will be held in UAE this year. Even the Saudis have gotten into the trend by holding municipal elections and letting women run in elections for the board of the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce. (Two even won!) Meanwhile, Iraq is a mess. Sanctions destroyed any hope of democratic development during the Saddamn era (just like they have done for Iran, and yes, I know Clinton kept the sanctions,) and obviously bombs have done nothing to aid democracy in post-Saddamn Iraq. Purple fingers do not make a democracy.

Just goes to show that bombs aren't necessary for democratic development. In fact, they hinder it. What Iraq needs is a strong private sector pushing for change.

Cross-posted at Washingtonrox.

2005-12-20T19:50:00.000-05:00

Arab Media Asks Tough Questions - of Itself

Arabs are no longer blaming external forces for giving the region and its media a bad name. As debates at the 'Arab and World Media Conference' revealed, they are also attempting to identify the deficiencies in their own systems and demanding remedies to overcome them.

Organised by the Arab Thought Foundation (ATF), the two-day fourth annual meeting was aimed at bridging the gap between the Arab world and the West by holding free and open discussions between media representatives from around the world.

At the same time, as a product of the realisation of the media's influence on political, economic and social variables, ‘Getting it right’ was also about trying to bridge the gap between Arab politicians and intellectuals. Thus, there was a strong case for a free press, as well as for overcoming the lack of transparency and corruption in the regional media.

The Arab media is still largely state-owned and greater privatisation is needed. The way forward "is to break the shackles of the state with privatisation, including many groups", said Anwar Gargarsh, a professor at UAE University, adding that governments should let the markets decide on the media licensing process.

Though the region boosts over 200 satellite TV channels, the Arab media is still in its infancy and urgently needs more professionals. But there is evidence that change is on the way and that the local media is refashioning itself to meet global demands. In particular, journalists are experiencing a new wave of freedom due to the influence of foreign media bodies setting up shop in the region.

At present, "there is no option for the media in the region but to become free and test its boundaries if it is to survive in the market", said Dawood Al-Shirian of Dubai TV.

One small step, one giant leap. Accurate and timely information is vital to reform efforts.

The problem is that the Arab media has to deal with meddling by the United States, or worse, the murder of its reporters at the hands of the US military. Al-Jazeera was lucky Blair was able to talk Bushie out of bombing its HQ.

More on UAE elections

2005-12-13T19:47:00.000-05:00

On the Road to Democracy

Modest as they seem, new policy changes announced by the President of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, favouring greater citizen participation in governance, are being hailed as the first steps towards full-fledged democracy.

Under the announced plan, half the members of the Federal National Council (FNC) will be indirectly elected by a college of councillors while the rest would be appointed by the rulers of the seven tiny emirates that make up the UAE.

In keeping with the democratization trend, on Monday, the first ever polls were held for the board of the Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce and Industry, while new guidelines were announced by the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry to allow elections to its board.

The chambers are powerhouses within Dubai and Abu Dhabi which lead the other five emirates that form the UAE , namely, Sharjah, Ajman, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah and Umm al-Qaiwain.

These small steps toward democracy have not been forced upon UAE by the United States, these are true internal evolutionary steps toward democracy. The entire Gulf region is taking these baby steps, more rapidly these days than before. Bahrain had elections for the first time; Kuwait let women run for the legislature; and even Saudi Arabia let women run for the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce board elections- and two women won!

The elections to the Chamber board are important, as reforming the private sector is equally as essential to democratic development as political reform. One of the reasons recent efforts to bring democracy to the Middle East have not been effective is that the focus has been mostly on reforming the government. Elections do not bring about democracy. Democratic institutions bring democracy. As business and attracting foreign investment in UAE have been the focus of recent reforms, businessmen in the region have become a force for political change, and the change is empowering the people.

It remains to be seen how long it will take these countries to achieve full democracy- they are decades away- but these little steps are finally progress in what was stagnancy.

UAE elections

2005-12-01T12:30:00.000-05:00

UAE head announces first election

The president of the United Arab Emirates has announced plans for the country's first elections. Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nuhayyan said half of the consultative Federal National Council would be elected, but did not give a date for the vote. The 40-member council serves only in an advisory capacity and has no legislative powers. Sheikh Khalifa hopes the reforms will encourage political participation by citizens of the UAE.

Kind of a farce, isn't it? They don't have any power to do anything.

This is Mideast "democracy"

2005-12-01T11:16:00.000-05:00

Violence mars Egyptian elections

Egyptian opposition activists and police have clashed during the final round of parliamentary elections.

An Egyptian human rights group said an opposition supporter was shot dead and another wounded north of Cairo.

Reports say riot police have blocked entry to polling stations in Muslim Brotherhood and opposition strongholds.

Mubarak's thugs are out and about, as he didn't like the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood received such strong support in the first round of elections. These elections were supposed to be a test on Mubarak's commitment to reform, and now we see how strong is that commitment. So much for all that gibberish about Egyptian democracy coming from the mouths of the bushies, although anyone with half a brain could say that Mubarak has no intention of bringing democracy to the people.

Democracy is about inclusiveness. Despite the fact that I find the Muslim Brotherhood ideology horrifying and contrary to progress and modernization, they cannot be excluded from the political process, especially in light of the strong support they have in the country. Mubarak isn't the only one excluding them. American NGOs that work in the democracy realm are not allowed to even speak to members of the Muslim Brotherhood, let alone participate in democracy building training.

Let the people vote for whom they would; history is on the side of democracy. When Jordanians and Turks voted Islamic governments into power, they governed so poorly that they were voted out. It is one thing to have an ideology, but when it comes time to do the actual governing part, if you've done nothing but spout out rhetoric, the people won't stand for it. It is a universal trait of democracy.

Cross posted at washingtonrox.

Digging his own grave

2005-11-02T22:34:00.000-05:00

Iran Removes 40 Envoys in Shake-Up

The moves give the new government of ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the chance to purge pro-reform figures brought in by his predecessor, moderate Mohammad Khatami, and install its own supporters... Ahmadinejad's victory in June elections sealed the decline of Iran's reform movement and solidified the control of hard-liners over the government. Some Iranians fear Ahmadinejad _ a longtime member of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards _ will bring back the policies of restrictions at home and confrontation abroad seen after the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

What a shame. The "election" of Ahmadinejad was a major setback to reform in Iran. He's digging his own grave, though. The demographics of Iran, especially the exploding youth population, are going to destroy any grip he has on the country. Iranians are great people, and they aren't going to sit around waiting for their government to feed them when they're starving.

Unless Ahmadinejad is planning on nuking Israel knowing full well that he will be nuked back, I can't see the "rationale" in his political suicide. This is a bonehead move.

The Syria Question: More Complex Than US Policy Says

2005-10-31T11:50:00.000-05:00

Death of Syrian Minister Leaves A Sect Adrift in Time of Strife

In this scenic village, along terraced hills of pine and palm trees, the body of Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan rests in a coffin draped in a Syrian flag, a leather-bound Koran at each corner. His death on Oct. 12 was certain. Less so are the shadowy circumstances that removed from the scene one of Syria's most powerful men, an interlocutor between the religious sect known as the Alawites, who have long ruled the country, and a government they controlled but increasingly see as distant and corrupt.

Assad is an Alawite, and during the presidency of his father and predecessor, Hafez Assad, the sect emerged from behind the scenes to command the government's most sensitive positions in the military and security services. While the elder Assad was careful to give a Sunni face to portfolios such as the defense and foreign ministries and to forge alliances with other groups, his inner circle was drawn from his own community, often his own Qalbiyya tribe and family. In that sense, he was not only Syria's strongman, but also the leader of his sect, responsible for its fortunes.

The Alawite region is one of Syria's most secular, reflecting the imprint of a Baath Party that saw tribe and religion as barriers to modernization. The veil is hardly seen; missing are the most conservative Arab traditions that discourage interaction between men and women.

In the repercussions of Kanaan's death lies a truth about Syria and its government today: The younger Assad is viewed as less ta'ifi , or sectarian. His outlook is ostensibly more modern, possibly reformist; bucking tradition, he took for his wife a Sunni, not an Alawite. But as he struggles to put a more contemporary veneer on his rule, he faces a society still suffering deep cleavages that reflect unresolved questions of identity. The Baath Party offered one answer: The country is Arab. But other identities still compete -- Alawi, Sunni, Christian and so on -- in a zero-sum game of communal survival.

We can only hope that this death does not inflame sectarian violence in an already volatile country. God knows the US is ready to strike at the first sign that instability is allowing jihadists to control parts of the country.

This article gives us a brief glimpse into the composition of a complicated country, one whose situation is much more complex than the "evil dictator" mentality that the Bushie administration is so keen on promoting. I have my suspicions that we are already fighting in Syria in the name of "democracy," that once grand and proud idea that has become synonymous with bloodshed in Babylon.

The State of Reform in Oman

2005-10-01T12:25:00.000-04:00

Oman: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy

The Sultanate of Oman, a long-time strategic U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf, allowed U.S. access to its military facilities long before the 1990 Persian Gulf crisis. It hosted U.S. forces participating in recent major combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sultan Qaboos has been slowly opening the political process while trying to manage an economy that lacks vast oil reserves.

A rather interesting report on the state of reform in Oman, a fairly liberal country in terms of Gulf standards. Sultan Qaboos has been a strong supporter of women's rights in the country, and he has undertaken substantial political reform long before internal pressure forced him to do so, though political parties are still illegal as they are in all Gulf states. In addition, foresight has led to some privatization of economy, especially in the oil sector. Economic reform has been a priority in the country. Indeed, it was the first Arab country to establish a code for corporate governance for firms, though that code was not written locally.

The irony is that "qaboos" is Modern Standard Arabic for "nightmare." He is a dream compared to the rest of the dictators in the region.

What is this blog?

2005-10-01T09:22:00.000-04:00

In Babylonian mythology, Shamash was the sun god and god of justice and divination. His light enabled him to see every misdeed and also see into the future. Every morning the scorpion men opened a gate in the vast mountain of Mashu and Shamash slowly climbed the mountain and as evening approached he rode his chariot towards another great mountain and disappeared inside. During the night Shamash travelled through the depths of the earth back to Mashu. Together with his wife, Aya, he had two children: Kittu, justice and Misharu, law and righteousness.

This blog is about Middle East reform, a search for justice in the land of Babylon.

Reform in Saudi Arabia

2005-08-18T14:53:00.000-04:00

At a Crossroads, Saudi King Tests the Winds of Reform

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Ibrahim bin Abdullah Mubarak is a gruff man. On the phone, the lawyer forgoes florid Arabic salutations for a curt "thank you," then abruptly hangs up. At 61, he holds papers close to his eyes, his hand trembling. Defending cases in an often arbitrary system of justice has left him weary. But in the ascent of King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's sixth monarch, he sees change -- vague, perhaps gradual, but nevertheless hopeful. full

EU statement on Yemen

2005-08-04T14:54:00.000-04:00

Declaration on behalf of the European Union on the Economic Situation and Civil Disturbance in Yemen

Issued August 4, 2005

Egypt's Political Opening Exposes Frailty of Opposition

2005-07-28T14:55:00.000-04:00

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anthony Shadid has written an article about Mubarak and political openings in Egypt.

Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's president for 24 years, will announce his candidacy for a fifth term Thursday, officials say. The event will be carefully scripted: He will declare his intention in Shibin al-Kom, the gritty Nile Delta village where he was born 77 years ago. Protocol will be followed, they say, and his party will then nominate him to stand for election Sept. 7.

But as Mubarak looks past the barely contested vote, little else in the largest Arab country seems assured.

After months of expectations -- high hopes for change that followed this spring's protests in Lebanon and Mubarak's own hints at more political freedom -- the longest-serving ruler of modern Egypt today is struggling through a season of discontent. There is nascent dissent against him, and far broader frustration over decades of perceived stagnation. Three nearly simultaneous bombings Saturday in the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, which killed as many as 88 people, have undercut the mantra of his government -- security and stability. Beyond his election this fall is another for parliament in November that will be viewed in the United States and elsewhere as the barometer of whether Mubarak will inaugurate long-awaited reform.

full article

Lessons from a journey across the Arab world

2005-07-20T14:56:00.000-04:00

By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star

In the last seven weeks I have had the opportunity to make working visits to seven Arab countries and to engage in political and other discussions with local officials, academics, journalists and opposition activists. The experience has been instructive, and simultaneously heartening and depressing, suggesting obvious opportunities and dangers in the dual quest to respond to the rights of Arab citizens and defeat the global terror plague.

Based on my visits and discussions in Jordan, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine and Morocco, along with meetings with colleagues from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria and Kuwait, I sense a common mood across the Arab world: the prevailing status quo is neither satisfying to the majority of citizens, nor sustainable for the rulers in its current state; but neither is it on the verge of revolutionary or violent change. full article

Libya: Economic Reforms Anger Citizens

2005-06-27T14:59:00.000-04:00

As part of its emergence from political and economic isolation, Libya is converting to an open-market economy after decades of socialist-style policies. Among the most unpopular steps taken by the government so far has been cutting subsidies, which has triggered widespread anger among Libyans. more

De la misère des journalistes au Maghreb

2005-06-27T14:58:00.000-04:00

De l'Egypte à la Mauritanie, il ne se passe pas un jour sans qu´un journaliste ne soit inquiété pour ses écrits. L'affaire la plus récente restera sans conteste la kafkaïenne condamnation, par le tribunal de première instance de Rabat, à dix ans d'interdiction d'écriture du journaliste Ali Lmrabet, à l´issue d'un procès émaillé d'anomalies, qui marque la volonté des autorités de faire taire Ali Lmrabet alors qu'il attendait l'autorisation de publier un nouveau journal. plus

Rice Challenges Saudi Arabia and Egypt on Democracy Issues

2005-06-27T14:57:00.000-04:00

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, June 20 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, delivering a blunt challenge to the United States's closest allies in the Arab world, called on Egypt and Saudi Arabia today to embrace democracy by holding elections, releasing political prisoners and allowing free expression and rights for women.

"For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," Ms. Rice said at the American University in Cairo. "Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people." more

Paradox and Possibility in Iran's Presidential Election

2005-06-17T15:14:00.000-04:00

Arang Keshavarzian and Mohammad Maljoo

(Arang Keshavarzian teaches political science at Concordia University in Montreal and is an editor of Middle East Report. Mohammad Maljoo holds a doctorate in economics from the University of Tehran. They filed this essay from Tehran.)

Just a short time ago, the Iranian presidential election being held on June 17, 2005 was regarded as a non-event. The prospect that the election would advance debates over political reform and democratization appeared weak, in the shadow of the self-described defeat of Iran's parliamentary reformist movement and the increasing skepticism of the disappointed citizenry that voting for reform-minded candidates will in fact democratize the regime. In the past two electoral seasons, the reformist camp allied with President Mohammad Khatami had fallen victim to a hardline conservative backlash and voter disenchantment. In the 2003 municipal elections, hardliners took advantage of low voter turnout to sweep the open seats on city councils, especially in the capital of Tehran and other large cities. Then, prior to the February 2004 parliamentary elections, the conservative Guardian Council disqualified over 2,000 candidates from the major reformist parties, usually on the grounds of "lack of respect for Islam." The Guardian Council, an unelected supervisory body vested by the constitution of the Islamic Republic with the power to overturn acts of Parliament, had intervened repeatedly since 1997 to block reformist legislation. Popular faith in the parliamentary reformists' ability to change the system eroded, to the point that the Guardians' intervention to ban reformist candidates in 2004 did not elicit a strong reaction from Iranian civil society.

In the months leading up to the presidential election, the ninth such contest since the birth of the Islamic Republic in 1979, many observers expected that the conservative-engineered collapse of the reformist trend and the parallel decline of citizen support for the reformist camp would both continue. Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, a "pragmatic" conservative and a cornerstone of the Islamic Republic, appeared poised to return to the presidency he held from 1989-1997. As Iranians head to the polls, however, another trajectory seems possible. The 2005 presidential campaign has ushered in a new set of challenges and possibilities for supporters of democratization in Iran that, if those supporters reach across internal divides in order to withstand authoritarian backlash, could live on past the announcement of results expected on June 18.

CANDIDATES LOOKING FOR VOTERS

In late May, the Guardian Council reviewed and vetted the over 1,000 applicants to stand for the presidency, and disqualified all those who do not subscribe to the ideological and religious tenets of the regime, as well as several who do. A mere eight candidates were cleared to run, including four hardline conservatives, the ever present Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Mostafa Moin, the candidate of the Islamic Iran Participation Party, a constituent element of the reformist Second of Khordad Front that dominated parliament until 2004. (One conservative candidate, Mohsen Rezai, later withdrew.) Many still expect that Hashemi-Rafsanjani will be the eventual winner. Head of the powerful adjudicating body known as the Expediency Council since 1997, the ex-president spent a great deal of money and used the state-run media to position himself between Moin and the hardliners as the compromise candidate. His supporters argue that he is the person who can implement neo-liberal economic reforms while simultaneously managing domestic political disputes and ameliorating the long-standing conflict between post-revolutionary Iran and the United States. Hashemi-Rafsanjani used a rare interview with CNN to polish this "pragmatic" self-image, emphasizing the "fraternal relationships" he has cultivated with a variety of forces within Iran and promising "a policy of relaxation of tension" with Washington.

Having served as Khatami's minister of science, research and technology, Moin is the candidate representing "progressive reformists" who seek to revive the project of the Second of Khordad Front. The Guardian Council initially rejected Moin's candidacy, along with that of all women and all but seven other men. Moin told state-run radio that "people should judge whether the measure can be regarded as a coup d'etat or not." After much public criticism and intense back-room negotiations, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the successor to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and the ultimate authority on matters of state in Iran, stepped in to force the Guardian Council to allow Moin to run.

In a surprising development, the supposedly unified hardline conservative faction, made up of men who have served in the military and intelligence apparatus and who are closely allied with the Supreme Leader, splintered into several camps likely to split the base of conservative voters. This base is variously estimated at 15-25 percent of the electorate. Foremost among the hardline candidates is Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf, until recently head of the national police force, who has gained a great deal of attention from those seeking a new face for the conservative wing of the Iranian state.
Some Iranians feel that Qalibaf's restructuring of the police force, including the recruiting of women, made the force more efficient and disciplined, if not necessarily more humane. They take the restructuring as a sign that he would make an effective president.

What was once predicted to be a sleep-inducing electoral exercise, then, was transformed into an energetic and high-stakes campaign whose outcome at least appears to be in doubt. The campaigns of Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Moin and Qalibaf, in particular, dispatched legions of young campaign workers into the streets of Tehran and other cities to hand out flyers, brochures, bumper stickers and compact discs extolling the candidate's potential to bring Iran a brighter future. Knowing that turnout will be decisive, the candidates did not simply count on a predetermined base, but actively courted the support of the electorate, particularly among the young.

Given Iran's official unemployment rate of 12 percent and its inflation rate of 15 percent, economic issues infused the majority of the campaign slogans, but almost all of the seven remaining candidates also spoke at length of improving governance, expanding the roles of women and ethnic and religious minorities in government, and seeking warmer US-Iranian relations. With little in the way of direct debate among candidates and little publicity for specific platforms, however, it is difficult to predict how the specific policies of these potential presidents would differ from one another. By all accounts, the election will be close, with a strong likelihood that no candidate will win the required majority in the first round. If no one wins a majority, the presidential election will go to a second round runoff for the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic.

On the whole, the campaigning was peaceful, but some activities, especially those of Moin supporters, were met with hard-right vigilante violence.
Particularly disturbing were a series of suspicious (but possibly unrelated) bombings in Qom, Ahvaz, Tehran and Zahedan. The perpetrators of the bombings remain unknown.

RECENT ATTEMPTS AT ACTIVISM

Adding to the excitement generated by the campaign itself has been the appearance of new forms of the grassroots activism that, in tandem with the programs of the parliamentary reformists, had generated so much expectation of change in the late 1990s. While nothing on the scale of the student demonstrations of 1999 has occurred, the presidential campaign nonetheless presented an opportunity for a diverse group of small citizen organizations to unite and voice their independent claims in unlicensed gatherings.

Since the 1979 revolution, with a fleeting exception in 1994, the Islamic Republic has banned Iranian women from entering sports stadiums, ostensibly for fear that some fans would not be "able to conform to the Islamic-human norms of our system." But on June 8, some 30 Iranian women staged a sit-in in front of Azadi Stadium, Tehran's largest venue for soccer matches, demanding the right to enter the stadium to support the national team. While these women were not allowed to enter the main section of the stadium, some 200 other women entered with VIP passes to cheer on the Iranian national team as it defeated Bahrain to qualify for the 2006 World Cup. Another action in assertion of women's rights occurred on June 12, when several women's organizations and webloggers organized a sit-in in front of the University of Tehran and invited notable poets and activists to speak in support of equal rights, including the right of women to stand for election to the presidency.

Two days later, the Iranian Writers' Guild convened a gathering in support of Nasser Zarafshan, a prominent attorney who represented the families of intellectuals killed in suspicious serial murders in 1998-1999. Zarafshan, arrested in 2002 for "unveiling government secrets," has staged a hunger strike in protest of the treatment of political prisoners. His protest comes after another high-profile dissident, the journalist Akbar Ganji, also reportedly went on hunger strike to demand the release of all political prisoners. The state let Ganji go to seek medical care in early June, but took him back to jail shortly thereafter. Nobel Peace Prize recipient Shirin Ebadi has been working to secure his permanent release.

Tensions were high at the stadium, the sit-in and the writers' meeting, and there were reports of violence visited upon activists by vigilantes associated with the far religious right. However, and probably due to the campaign atmosphere and the glare of the international media, the police sought merely to contain the impact of the defiant gatherings, rather than trying to suppress them totally.

PARADOX OF PARTICIPATION

Notwithstanding these activist attempts to reclaim the public sphere, the most heated political discussions about the election in Iran took place in private. The quandary that faced many Iranians was not whom to vote for in the presidential election, but whether to vote at all. Staunch supporters of the Islamic Republic will vote solely to express support for the regime, while those who are radically opposed to the regime and never participate in formal politics long ago resolved to abstain. The many Iranians in the middle, who have participated selectively in past elections, were confronted with troubling questions about the function of their vote in the present circumstances. One the one hand, some groups inside and outside Iran advocated boycotting the elections altogether. The boycotters argued that voters' participation acts as a mechanism to benefit the regime, which uses turnout figures to demonstrate to Iranians and the world the continued viability of the Islamic Republic. In addition, these regime opponents said, the participation of citizens who want democratization in elections protects the system from opposition groups seeking more sudden and radical changes.
On the other hand, those who argued for participating in the election claimed that voting acts as a mechanism that protects the electorate from the victory of authoritarian military elites and allows meaningful, if limited reforms to take place. In the view of many Iranians, then, the act of voting will serve the dual and contradictory functions of saving the country from the worst excesses of the regime while keeping the regime firmly in place.

To address this paradox, supporters of the boycott needed to present a means of protecting citizens from the probable strengthening of restrictions upon civil society if a hardliner comes to power. At the moment, the pro-boycott groups are fragmented, and there has been little progress toward developing vehicles for political participation and debate after the collective abstention on election day. The hopes of some boycott advocates that a low turnout will kick off sustained civil disobedience and opposition to the regime seem naïve, given the public's preoccupation with economic concerns.
Even though a successful boycott may limit the regime's ability to claim legitimation, it may simply be a solitary show of protest that leaves people defenseless in the face of the government's undemocratic actions.

On the other side, those advocating participation in the election needed to provide a means by which voting will not simply legitimate the regime. They still need to redefine political participation in Iran so that it means something more than periodically casting a ballot in favor of self-proclaimed reformists. In the two weeks leading up to June 17, leaders of the reformist camp seem to have acknowledged the truth in this critique of their program. In early June, the Moin campaign invited Iran's so-called religious-nationalist forces to join them in a Front for Democracy and Human Rights, a term that is more specific than "reform." The religious-nationalists, represented by such groups and individuals as Ibrahim Yazdi's Liberation Movement of Iran and Ezzatollah Sahabi, were key participants in the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah, but were sidelined shortly thereafter by supporters of Khomeini's more radical vision of the Islamic Republic as they consolidated power in the 1980s. Even during Khatami's presidency, the religious-nationalist forces were never officially part of the reformist government. By extending its hand to Yazdi and Sahabi, the Moin campaign took a hopeful first step toward building a more pluralistic reformist movement. Moin's backers also reached out to workers by acknowledging their rights to strike and to establish independent unions.
Since the revolution, all unions have been organized under the auspices of the Labor Ministry. If it is not just a symbolic statement, this acknowledgement would signal a change in orientation by the reformist politicians toward the reality that Iranians will not simply trust them to be wiser and more just stewards of the Islamic Republic than the conservatives.

These overtures must be expanded and followed through after the election -- regardless of the results -- if voting in the presidential election is to be more than a rubber stamp for the status quo or a means of prolonging the painful deadlock of the past eight years. If events prove that the reformist camp is insincere in its outreach, then Iran will witness a reprise of the endless stalemates under Khatami and the act of voting on June 17 will have been fruitless.

-----

The winter 2004 issue of Middle East Report, "Iran's Clouded Horizons,"
explored in depth the reasons for the decline of Iran's parliamentary reformists and popular skepticism about their effectiveness. Order the issue or subscribe to Middle East Report via a secure server at MERIP's home page:
http://www.merip.org

Mideast reform in the news this week

2005-06-13T15:15:00.000-04:00

The Gulf
Kuwait has first female minister
Women's empowerment a top priority in Bahrain
Qatar calls for global development agenda
Arab Women's Organization second annual meeting

Lebanon
Aoun sweeps to victory in Mount Lebanon, Zahle
'The Syrian Presence': More than spies and laborers

Egypt
National Coalition for Democratic Change was born this week
163 Muslim Brothers released in Egypt
Change or Be Changed
NDP Urges Opposition to Run

Iran
Farewell, Khatami

Foreign Perspectives
The Right Path to Arab Democracy By Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber

A needed reform

2005-05-26T15:20:00.000-04:00

May 16 - Kuwait's Parliament granted full political rights to women on Monday, making way for them to vote in and contest parliamentary and local elections for the first time in the country's history. The surprise amendment to Kuwait's election law ends a decades-long struggle by women's rights campaigners for full suffrage, and promises to redefine the city-state's political landscape.

Full article here

Reform in Syria

2005-05-25T15:17:00.000-04:00

Syria's Voices of Change
Ruling Party Reformers, Emboldened Dissidents Debate Their Nation's Destiny, Despite Dangers. Interesting article by Anthony Shadid on reform in Syria in today's WaPo.

In other reform news:

Egypt votes on election changes
Egyptians are voting on possible changes to the constitution that would allow presidential elections to be contested for the first time.
The referendum and beyond
Lebanon votes on Sunday
Islamic financial institutions need strong corporate governance

Mideast democracy this week

2005-05-20T15:18:00.000-04:00

Regional
Economic reform a 'necessity' for Arab world

Jordan
World Economic Forum is underway in Amman

Forum to explore reform, job creation in Arab world
Defining Corruption

Does the US promote or retard Arab reform?

Nobel laureates end meeting with call for democracy to fight terrorism

Bahrain
A decision by small and medium businessmen to challenge leading business in the October Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) board elections is set to herald a new era, writes Salman Al Ajmi.

Egypt
Bush urges Egypt to hold free and open elections

No turning back for Kifaya movement

'An ISO certificate of democracy'
How the government will ultimately respond to US President George W Bush's suggestion for the international monitoring of presidential elections remains unclear. Gihan Shahine samples the intense debate

'Loud and clear'With independent media mushrooming by the day, Magda El-Ghitany speaks to two of the genre's pioneers -- the controversial Ibrahim Eissa, chief editor of two weeklies, and Adel Hamouda, a veteran launching a new venture

Lebanon
U.S. sees polls as path to Lebanese independence

Palestine
Palestinian electoral politics are confusing, and oddly democratic

Heeding the storm
The Palestinian parliament should this week clear the way for new elections in July.

Iraq
The legal factor
The only way Iraqis will be able to overcome violence and detract criminals is to establish a viable judiciary.