Burma: The ignored genocide

I have been reluctant to write about Burma (Myanmar) and what is happening to Muslims there. Many readers have told me that I should. My answer was always that I needed to know more before I could give my opinion. I then started following what was being written and said in the international media, like NPR radio and BBC, and here in Saudi Gazette. I found particularly useful the articles of Tariq Almaeena and Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdy. I also read the responses of the Burmese readers of this paper.

According to Dr. Al-Ghamdy (a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs), Arakan (Rakhine) province of today’s Burma was an independent kingdom for much of its history. “A vast region stretching from western Burma to the Bengal region, Arakan was weakened when war broke out with the Mughal rulers in India, especially when it lost the Chittagong region to the Mughals. The region’s weaker position and instability led to its annexation to the Burmese state.”

The British invaded and controlled the state, but after the end of World War II, they granted the state its independence, in 1948. The Arakan people demanded their own independence. They did not accept the “self rule” awarded to them by the Socialist government under General Ne Win in 1974. Arakan Muslim “mujahideen” led an armed rebellion to create an Islamic state. However, they were a minority among the people of the region, who belonged to various sections of the pluralist Burmese society. 

In retaliation, Muslims found their nationality abrogated and the majority Buddhists taking repressive measures against them with government support. Since the 1960s, they have been subjected to ethnic cleansing, and many have been driven to neighboring Bangladesh, where they live in refugee camps. Others fled to neighboring Thailand, and to Saudi Arabia. More followed, as frequent massacres continued. 

This year on June 3, according to Wikipedia, “11 innocent Muslims were killed by the Burmese Army and Buddhist mobs after bringing them down from a bus. A vehement protest was carried out in the Muslim majority province of Arakan, but those protesting fell victim to the tyranny of the mobs and the army. More than 50 people were reported killed and millions of homes destroyed in fires as Muslim-ethnic Rohingya and Buddhist-ethnic Arakanese clashed in western Burma.” 

Under intense economic and security pressure, the Bangladesh government decided to close its borders. World relief agencies, as well as UN and Islamic leaders and organizations, tried to convince them to reconsider, promising more aid and support. Among these were the UN High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Asian Human Rights Commission. 

However, with over half a million refugees already there, Bangladesh argued that the pressure should be on the Burmese government to stop the massacres and take back its own people. Allowing more refugees to enter Bangladesh, they pointed out, might create a misunderstanding in Myanmar.

To me, what is happening to the Rohingyas is similar to events in the Muslim south of the Philippines, Eastern China, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo. In all these lands, Muslim states were overtaken by larger non-Muslim nations. When they sought independence, they were suppressed by the stronger majority. Massacres and deprivation of essential and national human rights led to genocide and ethnic cleansing. 

The world stood watching while Russian, Serbian, Chinese and Filipino forces and militias exercised their “Final Solution” to the “Muslim Problem.” In Europe, they finally woke up as a result of coverage by the global media and public opinion pressure. Thanks to strong US leadership, the holocaust was finally put to an end, and Muslims were allowed to have their own states and live in peace.

Not so in Burma. Western media presence has been weak. UN focus has been even weaker. The US, the European Union, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, as well as the Muslim world, seem to have left the massive task of resolving the issue to nongovernmental organizations and charities. 

The Burmese government finally decided to interfere and sent the army and security forces to control the violence and to attempt to convince the refugees who escaped to neighboring provinces to return home. Fearing political interference, the military rulers allowed international help, albeit reluctantly, selectively and gradually. And the opposition leader, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi finally spoke out. 

Acknowledging that she might lose much of her popularity at home, she denounced the crimes committed against unnamed local communities. In her first statement to parliament, she called for laws to protect minority rights. “The majority of the people in a society should have sympathy for the minority,” she said. Some of her international fans expected her to take a stronger stand, but one should consider that she has to deal with the military junta ruling the country, and to consider her majority Buddhist constituency. There is an urgent need for immediate solutions, but in the long run much more is required. Burmese refugees in Bangladesh, and elsewhere, must be allowed to return home. Self rule should be given to Muslims in their own state. Help and guarantees from the Burmese government and international community must be granted to the the people in the affected areas of the country in support of resettlement and rebuilding efforts. After all that the world has gone through in the last century, we cannot afford to ignore genocides and holocausts. 

— Dr. Khaled Batarfi is a Saudi writer based in Jeddah. He can be reached at: Kbatarfi@gmail.com Follow him on Twitter: @Kbatarfi

 

       

  

Russia, Syria and Islamophopia

As Chairman of the International Relations Committee at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry, I met with the Russian delegation which attended this year’s Jeddah Economic Forum. I explained that Saudis were not very welcoming, due to Russia’s position on Syria.

They asked why Saudis would care about what is going on in another country. I asked, in return, why they supported the ethnically and religiously related Serbs against Muslims and Croats, and why they thought that the Muslim world supported Afghanis and their jihad against the Soviet invaders. Syria is an Arab neighbor with whom we have strong ethnic and cultural ties. In fact, Damascus was the capital of the Muslim caliphate for a long while. How can we ignore our brethren’s strife?

I reminded them of a time when Russia was very popular in the Middle East for its “apparent” support of the Palestinian cause. Few noticed then that Jewish immigration from Russia to Israel never ceased. Many of the immigrants were great nuclear scientists and industrialists who helped tip the balance in Israel’s favor.

A member of the Russian delegation later told me privately: “The reasons Russia supports the Syrian regime are strong. We do have great economic and military interests in Syria, but the most important reason is not known to all.”

He explained: “After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the loss of Eastern Europe to the West, we have been losing ever since. The Soviet Union was dissolved, many of its republics joined NATO and now threaten our borders. Our allies from South America to Eastern Europe to Southeast Asia were joining the other camp, one after the other. 

“In this region alone we lost Egypt, South Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Ethiopia and Somalia. Syria stands alone as the last base and ally. If we lose it, we would be saying goodbye to our global influence, and would be declaring defeat to NATO and the West. We cannot afford that.”

I told him that Russia was betting on the wrong horse.  Al-Assad and his regime are already losing. If Russia takes the right stand today it may cut its losses. The Syrians, Arabs, Muslims and the international community will never forgive or forget that Russia stood beside a genocide president until he dropped dead. Not only did Russia protect him from Security Council resolutions, but it actually supplied him with weapons and tools to kill his own people. History and the world will judge Russia for that. Is Russia willing to pay such a high price for supporting a regime that has already lost?

He promised to put my points in his report and take my message to the right people. He warned me, though, that more than cold calculations are involved in influencing the Russian public and politicians on this issue. When national pride is involved, it is hard to discuss passionate issues with pure logic. 

I maintained the above reasoning in my discussions and political analyses as the motive for Russia’s stand on Syria. But I later learned another vital reason. 

Russia has a growing minority of Muslims (16 percent, according to Reuters), not only in Chechnya, Dagestan and other Muslim republics in the Russian Federation, but also in Russia itself. Islam today is the fastest growing religion in the country, and some Russians are even following the extremist Salafi sect.  

While the general Russian population becomes older, with less marriages and fewer children, Muslim families are on average younger and with more children. Therefore, more Muslims are entering the army and the security agencies. 

The country’s southern borders are lined with Muslim countries, many of which have bitter memories of the anti-religious suppression campaigns the Soviet Union led against them for seven decades.

Knowing that the new government in Syria will probably follow the example of the Arab Spring revolutions, Russia may have decided to make an example of the Syrian revolt for its Muslim audience.

These reasons combined may explain why Russia is fighting to the end in an attempt to save the Syrian regime and prevent the Islamist revolution from succeeding. As usual they will lose. Putin can take this promise to the bank.

Secular-liberal Egypt on the offensive!

Secularism and liberalism are not new phenomena in the Muslim world. They came first with the colonists in the last three centuries. Secular liberals were among the elite in progressive countries like India, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon and Turkey. Political parties and movements advocating liberalism and secularism were on and off governments in these countries. 

Al-Wafd was the most popular and organized Egyptian party. Its founder, Saad Zaghlul Pasha, was highly respected as a world class leader. He led the Egyptian revolt in 1919 against British rule. The party was headed by the “delegation” (or “wafd” in Arabic) that negotiated in Paris with Great Britain for their country’s independence after the end of World War I. They failed, formed Al-Wafd party and won the parliamentary election. Saad Pasha became prime minister in 1923 and had to resign in 1924, under British military pressure. 

When the Free Officers ruled Egypt, they were secular-liberal dictators. Islam was not part of the government system. Courts employed a mixture of English and French law. Except in personal affairs, the laws were mostly non-Islamic. Judges, therefore, were largely liberals, many trained in Western law schools. 

While the judiciary in Egypt today is independent, many were hand picked by the former regime, especially those in the higher courts. So politically they belong to the former government, and ideologically they are anti-Islamist.  

This explains why it took the same Constitutional Court three years to dissolve the pro-Mubarak parliament and only one week to decide the same fate for the one that was pro-Morsi. 

The court could have waited until the new president took over, or stopped at announcing the verdict, as it should have, according to its mandate.

This would have avoided a major constitutional and political crisis.

Instead, the liberal, pro-military judges, chose to “order” the immediate dismissal of all, not just the disputed third, of the democratically elected members of parliament. The military was quick to implement the order and seize for itself not only the legislative powers, but some of the judiciary, budgetary and presidential authority, as well.  

Similarly, the media in Egypt has always been pro-dictatorship and secular-liberal. Under the headline “Egypt’s New President Is Being Undercut by State-Run Media,” the New York Times, on Saturday, explained how the press in Egypt has sided with the generals against the Islamist president. When President Morsi ordered the return of the mostly Islamist parliament, the media only published the Military Council statement, and described how Morsi’s decision negatively affected the stock market. While private television channels were interviewing defiant members of parliament, the state-run TV network was celebrating the achievements of the secret police!  

“Egypt’s state news media, the traditional admiring chroniclers of Egypt’s head of state, are at war with the new president,” the Times concluded.

It seems that the deep-rooted remnants of the former government (called “folool” by revolutionists) are resisting the tide of the populist president. They have already undercut the newly-elected president by dissolving the mostly Islamist parliament and taking away some of his powers. Now the “folool” are conspiring to strip him of his prestige. The make-fun-of-the-president campaign includes his hijab-wearing wife and conservative Muslim family. 

They are depicted as low class and stupid village people, even though they are better educated - in top Egyptian and American universities - than most of their detractors. 

Never in Egypt’s history has a head of state been the target of so many sarcastic and disrespectful cartoons, rumors and jokes. Mubarak would have sent them all to the torture chamber and turned them into clowns in his family circus, or silenced them for good. But the new president has told them, instead, they are free to express their own opinion.  It is not wrong to advocate freedom of speech, but I would advise him to sue those who cross the line, and misuse their new freedom to serve the military and former dictatorship in the name of liberalism and democracy. But then I must also remember that the courts are in their hands (and pockets).
  
The best course for President Morsi, therefore, is to go back, again and again, to the public, the source of all legitimate powers and authorities. The people should and will help him get justice. 
 

US double-standard justice

When Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy promised, during his Tahrir Square speech to free Sheikh Omar Abdulrahman, I knew he was heading for trouble with the mighty US.

I was right. Soon after, anger was boiling in Washington. Conservative Republican Representative, Chairman of House Committee on Homeland Security, Peter King, among others, warned against the new Islamic boss in Cairo. Reminding fellow congressmen that the Sheikh had been imprisoned since 1993 on charges of inspiring terrorism, and that he had been sentenced in a court of justice, he accused Morsy of tolerating Islamic Jihadists and interfering in US legal matters. A State Department spokesperson insisted that the US judiciary is completely independent. They all presume that the American legal system is square and fair.

But is that so? Let’s do some fact checking here. Sheikh Omar was accused of encouraging terrorism with his fiery speeches. But he has not, in fact, been part of any actual terrorist act. He did not plan, encourage, or participate in a particular crime. Other charges against him were based on his presumed “intentions” to assassinate former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and bomb American tunnels. No evidence was presented in court and he was denied access to lawyers. Former US Attorney General, William Ramsey Clark, attested that he reviewed 20,000 pages in the US case against the Sheikh and found not one piece of evidence.

There have been similar instances with evangelistic and right-wing American politicians and preachers. Didn’t a preacher threaten to burn the Qur’an, and didn’t a politician call for a nuclear bombing of Holy Makkah? Didn’t the George W. Bush administration promote “creative destruction” as the best way to reconstruct the Middle East, starting with Iraq? If hate speech and evil intentions are criminal acts punishable by life sentences, why were these criminals not charged and punished?

Sadly, all of this is not new. After its independence, the US tolerated hate speech as the holy right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Native Americans, blacks, Marxists, socialists, Jews and others had to endure and pay for the laws and actions resulting from such speeches. Today, it is the Islamists who endure the most.

If we are talking about justice here, it should start at home. Besides the hate speakers, there are the US soldiers convicted of horrendous crimes against civilians and prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, including rape, torture and mass killing. They escape true justice with a few months or years in prison, or with slaps on their wrists. Psychologists are hired to find excuses for them, such as that they cracked under pressure - but not so for the Muslim Egyptian Sheikh.

Sheikh Abdulrahman is blind, sick, weak and old (74), yet he is held  in solitary confinement  in a maximum security cell designed for young, strong and dangerous terrorists. He has been denied access to visitors, including lawyers and members of his family.

For a system built on serving and upholding passionate humanity, it is inhuman to treat a handicapped elderly person in this way. In a religious country that has strong faith and trust in God, it is wrong to treat a man of God with such brutality and humiliation.

Then what about the claim of so-called “interference in US legal matters”? The US government is never shy about interfering in the laws of other countries to free Americans. They have done it in China, Iran, and often in Egypt. Many Egyptian-Americans and Israelis convicted of espionage, drug trafficking and corruption were freed as a result of intense US pressure, including the threat of holding up US economic assistance. In recent cases, the accused were illegally smuggled out of the country.

Israel campaigned for years to free the most dangerous spy in US history. An American Jew, Jonathan Pollard, who worked as a Navy analyst, was convicted of selling over 1,000 top secret documents to Israel. Some of these documents dealt with American intelligence missions in the Middle East, others exposed American spies around the world, including the names of over 150 US agents in the Middle East, who were eventually “turned” into agents for Israel!

Documents related to the US nuclear deterrent against the Soviet Union and US agents operating there were given to the US arch enemy in exchange for increased Jewish emigration to Israel. As a result, all the American agents operating inside the USSR were “lost”.

Yet, no American politician dares question the right of Israel to defend its spy and demand his release. Never mind that (1) he was convicted in a US court of justice; (2) he endangered (not just intended to) high national security interests, including the loss of precious American lives; and (3) he is an American citizen - not an Israeli!

Mr. Morsy has every right to ask his country’s ally to free an Egyptian prisoner on humanitarian grounds. After all, Sheikh Omar has spent a long part (18 years) of his life term in tough, inhuman conditions, and his health is deteriorating. He cannot be of any future danger to the US, and the Egyptian president can and should guarantee that.

Morsi in charge?

In 1954, two years after their coup, the Egyptian Free Officers issued a decree promising a full return to democracy within four months. Days later, they reneged, dissolved all political parties and confiscated their assets. Accusing all parties of getting support and guidance from unnamed foreign anti-revolutionary powers, they punished the leaders of the parties.  In order to be able to include the Muslim Brotherhood, they upgraded it first to a political party, then dissolved it!
 

To protect the “revolution”, they gave their Revolution Leadership Council, made up exclusively of the 11 Free Officers, the power of both the Presidency and Parliament, until such time as the revolutionary goal of getting rid of the foreign occupier was achieved. They signed this in the name of their leader, General Mohammad Naguib, who was pushing for a return to full democracy and the abandonment of the Emergency Law. Soon after, they overthrew him and appointed the man behind the conspiracy, Gamal Abdel Nasser, as president for life. All who came after him, Anwar El-Sadat and Hosni Mubarak, were fellow officers. Both of them also meant to stay for life.
 

The process of a “quick return to democracy” took 60 years, and the Emergency Law lasted until the true people’s revolution in 2011. But it is not “full democracy” yet. The officers are still there, as in Pakistan and Turkey, giving up only what they really have to, and keeping a tight grip on everything else. 
 

Still, we now have a democratically elected president, albeit with less constitutional authority - as the military officers took some of it back. With that legitimacy and 80 million Egyptians insistent on taking back their democracy from the army, there is hope. 
 

The list of tasks before President Morsi is hard and long. Atop the agenda are security, economy and national unity issues. In the last 14 months it has been unsafe for people in Egypt to go about their daily lives and business in peace. The police seem to be either helpless or careless. No business can function in such an environment. Thousands of factories, farms and businesses are closing down. Jobs are lost. Investments, foreign and local, are drying up. Tourists, who help to fuel the Egyptian economy, especially from the Gulf, US, Japan and Europe, have almost stopped coming. Even state projects have been delayed.
 

It is no surprise then that the central bank reserve of foreign currency is close to zero. If there is no real and full return to business as usual in a secure and peaceful environment, the government could go bankrupt and hell’s gates could open in the land of the Nile. We all, in the region and free world, have an interest in preventing such a tsunami from flooding the volatile Middle East.
 

Egypt’s rich and powerful friends, together with the World Bank and other international financing and development agencies, should lend a hand to the captain of the sinking Egyptian ship. A technocratic, multi-party, non-ideological government should provide the right environment for such help with good and wise diplomacy, security, policies and attitude. It would greatly help to reinstitute or reelect the dissolved Parliament within the three months required by law.
 

It is a daunting list of tasks, I know, but if achieved, Morsi will enter Egyptian history, as the man who came out of prison and saved the nation. He will, then, be truly and fully in charge. 

Who is ruling the Land of the Pharaohs?

Finally, Egypt has chosen its president. But this time he is not a Pharaoh.  Democracy is all about the balance of power among different branches of government, namely the executive, judiciary, and legislative. The media is the fourth branch. Free media are the watchdogs of the people. They analyze and criticize the performance of the branches of government.

The military, however, stand to guard and serve the nation. Their role is never to rule or interfere. This has not been the case in Egypt for the last 60 years. Since the coup (not a revolution) against a democratic government and a patriotic king, the Free Officers presided over the free fall of a great, sophisticated nation to Third World status. They turned a country that had a huge surplus, giving over fifty million in loans to Britain, into one buried under tons of debts and living on charity.

Today, Egypt, after a true people’s revolution, has elected a president. But the military officers are not happy about sharing power. They have just dissolved a freely elected parliament. Their candidate, General Ahmed Shafiq, however, has lost the race. Many believe that the Military Council’s anti-revolutionary actions encouraged many reluctant, and even anti-Islamist, voters to cast their vote in the Brotherhood candidate’s favor.

Still, Dr. Mohammad Mursi is not going to be a powerful president; certainly not the way previous military representatives were. Gamal Abdul Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak were powerful dictators. It’s good news that the new president is not. The bad news, however, is that dictatorship still prevails. The Supreme Military Council has  its hold on the functioning of government. The constitutional extension decree gives them extra authority to control the budget and oversee the judiciary. That is too much power in one hand.

The Brotherhood were widely criticized for attempting to achieve a similar hold on power, albeit democratically. That was not acceptable. The Nazis did exactly that, and used their power to change the constitution in their favor.  The product was a dictatorial regime that led Germany and the world to World War II.  Egypt and its neighbors deserve a better fate.

The lessons here are what Turkey and Pakistan learned the hard way. The proper place for soldiers is in the barracks doing their job to protect the nation under the supervision of an elected civilian government. They should have no hand — or foot! — in politics. Also, the party in charge should use its power wisely.

When the newly elected government of the late Turkish Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan (1996-1997) tried to push through its Islamic agenda with little regard for the opinions of others, the secular army used it as an excuse to intervene, overthrow the government, and put its leaders behind bars.

Three-term Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, however, has learned from his former master’s mistakes. Unlike Erbakan, he has worked with other parties to further a mainly development and economic agenda. Results speak for themselves. After turning the country from debt-bearing to one of the top ten economic achievers in the world, he has enough power to put rogue, conspiring generals behind bars.

The Brotherhood, and their Development and Justice party, should learn from their Turkish brothers’ experience. They should work with all those who did not vote for them as much as with those who did. As their Tunisian and Turkish associates have proved, diplomacy, cooperation, good faith, and open hands do win hearts and minds.

United States of Arabia

In the early 1980s, I attended the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit in Bahrain, as a reporter. It was my first visit to a Gulf country. Hopes and expectations of the council, born in Riyadh in 1981, were sky high. The peoples of this region are united in all aspects — geopolitically, historically and socially. All I heard at the summit, however, was political and media talk.

Suddenly the silent majority spoke. I was trying to stay a couple of days longer in Bahrain. The flights were fully booked. An elderly Bahraini lady was behind me in the line and heard the travel agent telling me the bad news. Without hesitating, she said: “My Saudi son wants to stay a few days longer, how can we deny him such a wish? Please give him my seat. I will wait and celebrate his visit.”

I kissed her head and could not but accept her gift. In my final report about the mega event for my magazine, Iqra, I relayed the story and announced: “My Bahraini mother said it all much better than any politician, writer or poet could: We are all one family.”

The moral of the story is that the Gulf Cooperation Council is all about people. It is fine to do all the necessary government to government cooperation, but if citizens cannot feel it in their day to day life, it won’t matter much.

Thirty years later, so much progress has been made. Not yet as much as the European Union, but better still than similar efforts and projects in modern Arab history.

Sentimental unifications like the Egyptian-Syrian United Arab Republic in the 1960s, and the unity project between Egypt and Libya, in the 1970s, ended in disaster. The Arab Cooperation Council that embodied Egypt (again!) and Iraq, Jordan and Yemen, in the late 1980s died, soon after, with the Iraqi invasion of  Kuwait, in August 1990. The Maghrib project of Libya, Algeria and Morocco, in the 1980s, suffered from the uncompromising rivalry between Morocco and the socialist People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. It didn’t help to have “Malcolm in the Middle”. Muammar Al-Qaddafi would not accept less than a total unity, if not among Arabs, then with African nations.

To its credit, the GCC has survived a lot of bad weather — externally and internally. Its wise conservative leaders have managed to smooth out their differences, and stand together against political, economic, social and military challenges. Their support of Bahrain and Oman, last year, with prompt and strong security and financial aid, helped these governments weather the worst of the Arab Spring challenges.

The GCC could do even better with closer cooperation, and more solid steps on the road toward some sort of, possibly federal, unification.

However, before we go further, let’s go back to my Bahraini mother and what Gulf unity really means. The United Arab Emirates project is the most successful model in Arab history. The seven emirates have been federally united, since 1971. Yet, two geographically connected, Dubai and Sharjah, can have different regulations regarding anything from tobacco sales to rules governing foreign investments.

Following the same model, we could have the more conservative integrate socially and economically with the more liberal. States could keep their unique governing systems, while acting as one in strategic foreign, military and economic issues.

A citizen-centered United States of Arabia, which includes Yemen as a strategic partner or non-voting member, would well serve an already united Muslim Arabian Gulf family.

Winning back a peaceful Iran

In its last 1400 years, “Bilad Faris” (old Persia) has been controversial. It went from a fire-worshiping nation to one of the largest Muslim countries, with a new name — Iran.

During its long Islamic history, it fought with and against other Muslims — namely Arabs and Turks. During the expansion of the Muslim Caliphate, Persian soldiers fought alongside their brothers in faith against Indians, Mongols, Chinese and others. Some of them, like Abu Muslim Al-Khurasani, were larger-than-life generals. He helped bring down the Umayyad Caliphate and found the Abbasid Caliphate in its place. However, he was so successful and popular with his soldiers, so full of pride and vanity that the new Abbasid caliph was distrustful of him.

Unlike his predecessor, Abu Al-Abbas, the founder of the Abbasid caliphate, Caliph Abu Jaffar Al-Mansur thought of his Persian general as a threat rather than a loyal war minister. It didn’t help that the Persian asked for the hand of the Caliph’s sister, a direct granddaughter of Abdullah Ibn Al-Abbas, the cousin of the Prophet (pbuh). This was regarded as an insult since Al-Khurasani came from a humble background and was not an Arab. Angry at the rejection, he went to Haj at the same time as the Crown Prince, showing off his wealth by giving away gold and silver to Arab tribes on the way to Makkah. Al-Mansur was furious.

Al-Khurasani’s end was tragic. Al-Mansur invited him for a private audience, and after telling him why, ordered his soldiers to cut him to pieces and throw them into the river. Persians never forgot or forgave the Arabs for this treason.

History keeps repeating itself, not because we forgot its lessons, but because we remember them too well. Distrust on both sides continues today. Unlike the love-hate, up and down relations with Turks, the Arabs and Persians have always seemed inclined to fight until the last drop of blood. And there have been rivers of such drops.

Even Islam that united the two proud peoples is used by merchants of hate to divide them. Extremists on both sides are inflaming old fires, and fighting millennium old causes. The Shia sect is all about supporting the Prophet’s family — the direct descendant of his daughter, Fatima, and her husband, Ali, the Prophet’s protege and favorite cousin. The irony here is that the holy family comes from Arabia.

In modern history, Iran has gone from bad to worse in its relations with its Arab neighbors. The Shah was prouder than both the Abbasid Caliph and his Persian general.  He tried to dominate his Gulf Arab neighbors and to act as the region’s policeman on behalf of Western superpowers. The Islamic revolution went even further. The mullahs announced their intent to export revolution.

Today, Iran has a hand in almost every Middle East situation. It interferes in the affairs of Arab countries from Syria, Iraq and Lebanon in the north to Yemen and Sudan in the south, and from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates in the east to Egypt and North Africa in the West.

With Western superpowers against it, Iran needs less enemies today, and many more sympathetic and supportive friends, especially in its immediate neighborhood. Ideological differences should be smoothed and worked out, not exaggerated and inflamed. They should not stand in the way of cooperation and partnership, as well as good neighborly behavior and attitude.

In turn, Arabs should invite, initiate and encourage any positive Iranian steps. The US should not object. It needs such friendly influence. The world would be a better place if we could win back a peaceful Iran.
 

Lebanon: Civil War - again?!

My first visit to Lebanon was in 2002. Beirut had begun to recover a few years earlier after a devastating civil war. Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri was leading the comeback of what used to be called the Switzerland of the East. There were few signs left of the war. Some buildings bore the marks, some were still destroyed, but most areas of the city were flourishing.

The Solidere project of rebuilding downtown Beirut was a showpiece of Lebanese determination to recover its place in a better more peaceful world. It was a coordinated project between the state and the private sector which was said to cost billions of dollars.

Money was being poured into rebuilding the poor infrastructure of the country’s land, air and sea networks. Tens of thousands of boys and girls who had been sent to study abroad in badly needed specialties at Al-Hariri’s expense returned to help in the rebuilding efforts. In 2002, the country was a huge workshop at all levels.

The Lebanese are good at it. During the Civil War that lasted from 1975 to 1990, when a quarter of a million lives were lost, they used to rebuild during every ceasefire. They partied too, almost every night. Lebanese are very lively people.

Most Lebanese I met told me that the past was a lesson they had learnt only too well. They now knew that religious pride could deliver them to Hell. While political fighting and religious differences still existed, they said that they had learnt to compete democratically. Respect for each other’s right to their own faith and views was the country’s best warranty against another war that everyone would lose.

Enter Iranian-Syrian-supported, militant and armed to the teeth Hezbollah! Enter the assassination of Lebanon’s greatest rebuilder and unifier, Rafiq Al-Hariri. And enter Syria’s own civil war. Now the world is totally different. The commitment to peaceful competition in a democratic environment seems to have evaporated. The parties have shown renewed interest in militant and armed argumentation. The latest street fighting in Tripoli and Beirut shows how easy it is to forget past lessons and commitments to a peaceful resolution of differences and to go back to war. Amazing.

My Lebanese friend, Miriam Zgheib, who studies and works in TV production, told me last week she was reborn again into the country’s dark history. She was born after the Civil War, but the recent fight between the Sunnis and Alawites in Tripoli, then between the pro-Hezbollah Sunnis and Al-Hariri camp in Beirut introduced her to the horror of senseless family wars. She tried to explain what was going on, then gave up and confessed that she just did not know - and did not care to know!  All she and her generation want is to breathe freedom, seek happiness and live in peace.  “Is that too much to ask?!”
 

The Lebanese army is the nation’s best guard and ultimate security guarantor. It should stand apart from all differences and divisive political-religious issues. If the wolves of hate and merchants of war manage to tarnish its image as an honest force, or to drag it into their wars, then it will lose its widespread public support and trust. Without people’s faith, the army can no longer function as protector of the nation.
 

The president, government, parliament and all cool heads in Lebanon, together with the country’s partners and friends abroad, should unite to end this nightmare scenario and stop the acceleration into civil war.

Time is not going to heal the injuries. If the looming storms are not immediately calmed, a Lebanon doomsday scenario is upon us all.
 

Yemen: The road ahead

The Romans called it Arabia Felix (Happy Arabia). The Arabs called it Al-Yaman Al-Saeed (Happy Yemen). When I visited it for the first time, in 2005, it was amazingly secured and relaxed, if not happy. President Ali Abdullah Saleh met our Saudi media delegation on his country’s national day with a relaxed confidence. A former army colonel, he was very much the “Boss in Charge!”.  

It was a long way from his humble beginnings, as a soldier with less than an elementary school education, and over a quarter of a century from his high-risk gamble to fill the institutional gap after the assassination of his mentor, President Ahmed Bin Hussein Al-Ghashmi, in 1978. Al-Ghashmi, in turn, was accused of the assassination of his popular predecessor, President Ibrahim Al-Hamdi, with the help of Saleh, a year earlier. Lt. Colonel Al-Hamdi came to power after leading a coup, in 1974, against the revolutionary government of President Abdul Rahman Al-Iryani.

In such a treacherous gang-like environment, it may be understandable that Saleh would act as mafia boss, like Saddam Hussein, Hafez Al-Assad and Muammar Al- Qaddafi, who came to power after a bloody string of coups. Like those conspiratorial dictators, Saleh assigned his trusted relatives, over 30 of them, to strategic army and security positions.

Some of these relatives were in charge of our tour’s security. A nephew visited with us one night and attended our private singing party. I learned from the awed Yemeni organizer that the man was the head of the Secret Service.

During our week-long tour that took us from the capital Sana’a all the way to Aden, former capital of the southern Socialist Republic before unification with the North in 1990, we were well protected.

In later years, changes started to accelerate dramatically. The Houthi revolt that began in 2004 when the army killed tribal leader Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi, and their wars with the government were not the only storms rocking the boat.  There had also been the increasingly militant Southern separatist movement. In addition, Al-Qaeda had been evolving dangerously into a large, strong  and effective organization. Its military cooperation with the Saudi affiliate was causing troubles for both countries. Then there was the ever-present tribal competition for limited resources of money, arms and authority.

In my opinion the worst of all challenges was the dire economic situation. The country was still living in olden times. Its infrastructure, rules and development projects suffered from Third World illnesses.  Corruption and mismanagement were eating up most of the internal revenue and international donations and support. It was clear that sooner or later the poor and frustrated population would reach an explosion point.

Still, the president relied upon his old tactics. He bought tribal leaders with money, arms and prime properties in the rich, badly exploited South. Using a “divide and rule” policy, he managed to split the country along tribal, religious and business lines, pitting one region against the other.

Saleh created enemies, like Al-Qaeda, the Houthi and Salafi movements, to frighten the outside world into the political, military and financial support of his regime. The US and Gulf countries were his prime targets.  Like other Arab dictators, Saleh did not realize that this Internet generation was different. The “social network” generation was much smarter and more politically savvy than former generations. They were adamant, persistent and united above tribal, political and religious dividing lines.  The reactions and solutions of the regime were no different than those of other regimes in the Arab Spring: promises of reforms coupled with brutal force. As elsewhere, it did not work. Worried neighbors and international supporters were forced to interfere. It was no option to live with a failed state with a population that was hungry, angry, and armed to the teeth, with an estimated 80 million guns, including heavy artillery, tanks and anti aircraft weapons.  

The president finally gave up power. But unlike other Arab dictators, he returned to lead his still-entrenched family members and allies, as the head of the former ruling party. His relatives in the army and security apparatus are resisting the new tide. His partners in business are keeping their grip on the largest companies and controlling the corrupt economy. Tribes are still divided, and some continue to support their former leader.

Why does the former president who almost died in an attempt on his life on June 3, 2011, insist on continuing the bloody fight, instead of enjoying the riches he had accumulated, protected by the immunity from prosecution Parliament granted him and his family?

Pride and power addiction could be the obvious answers, but in Saleh’s case it is much more. With huge investments in lucrative businesses, from communications to the oil industry, family and friends have much to lose without the protection of their privileged political and security positions. The Godfather has to fight on till the last breath - it has always been a one way road!

The challenges facing President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Al-Hadi will not fade away anytime soon. Saleh and “Familia” will resist every corrective move that will result in decreasing their power, so will the usual suspects from Al-Qaeda to the Southern separatists to the Houthis. But with the determination and support of his people and the help of the UN, US, EU and the Gulf Cooperation Council, Al-Hadi has a good chance of pulling it off - safely. 

Bashar Al-Assad’s transformation

In 2007, when my last article was published and I took a break from writing, Syria was a country with two faces. One face was that of a dictatorial police state, allied with Iran against US and Israeli interests. The other was that of a young leader, trained as an eye doctor in Britain, with a clean history.  Unlike his elder brother, Bassel, and younger, Maher, Bashar’s hands seemed bloodless. Like Michael Corleone in the “The Godfather”, he was apparently disconnected from the “Family’s” dirty business.

The other brothers were heavily invested in the patriarchal, sectarian family-led regime. The heir-apparent, Bassel, created the secretive militia, known today as “Al-Shabbiha” from the sect’s youth. He prepared them to support the Alawite regime on a rainy day, like today. Maher is the heartless executioner who would drive fear into the hearts of any enemy or potential enemy.

Bashar instead chose to stay away from politics and action, and went to Britain to study medicine, hardly a profession suited for a future leader of his Ba’ath led country.

Then, again, like in “The Godfather”, the elder brother was killed in his car, and the second in line was called back from Europe to take his place, as the Crown Prince of the revolutionary, anti-royalty Republican President. Hafez “Al-Assad” (formerly "Al-Wahsh," which means “the beast”) was orchestrating a political position for his son, but fate disrupted his plans.

At 34 (six years short of legal presidential age), and before he was fully prepared, death again interfered, taking his father away, which put Bashar in charge of the “Family” and business.

He was a fresh, young and innocent face, who started with a few economic and political reforms that earned him some popularity home and abroad.

Not for long, however. The assassination of Lebanon’s Rafiq Al-Hariri was blamed on Syria. The Syrian reaction to the accusation cost them their economically profitable and strategically vital control of Lebanon. The situation got worse, as Syria’s relations with most of the world soured. It lost its preeminent position in the Arab world and strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.

Together with the global financial crisis of 2007, the effects on the country’s economy were dire. The harsh suppression of complaints and dissent ended a relative calm and peace in the country and hurt Bashar’s image as a kind leader.

Still Bashar was relatively beloved and his country was united behind him.  Later he managed to steer his country away from stormy waters, fixing relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world without sacrificing the strategic alliance with Iran. He also created a new lucrative alliance with historical enemy and superpower neighbor, Turkey. The future looked brighter for his country and leadership.

Then came the Arab Spring. Arab youth revolted across the Arab world. Syrians were encouraged. As elsewhere, what started as demands for certain reforms, including the abolishing of the half-century old Emergency Law, turned with the military crackdown into a full-fledged revolution. The true colors of the Godfather showed. When the dominance and survival of his “Family” were in danger, he called on his mafia soldiers, the “Shabbiha.” Supported by the elite Maher-led Fourth Division of the army, they used the worst tactics to frighten the dissidents, including rape, torture and mass killing.

Syria, in five years, went from a stable, united, secured country, to a failed, isolated, condemned state drawn into a bloody civil war.  And Bashar, who had been a relatively popular leader, became a war criminal, using his armed forces to bomb his own cities, killing his own people.

What happens next is in the hands of God, the army and a sympathetic, but reluctant to interfere, world. 

Arab Spring .. Dreams (to be) realized!

In spring 2007, when I took my political writing sojourn, the world looked much prettier. Stability, security, and business were better than usual.

Then the wheel started to turn. Commodities became more expensive, life was harder for the poor, brighter for the rich, and unemployment was at its worst in decades. But money, for investors and stock market gamblers, was aplenty!


Few months later, the global economy suffered a downturn. The Arab world, which had just started to breathe hope of a better day, looked like a balloon punctured once more. The youth, who made more than half the population, were the worst affected. But few paid heed.


Less than five years later, business, at the top, was normal ... or so it seemed. The aging dictatorial regimes were still screwing the lid on the pressure-resistant pot. The noise of the steam was not loud enough for the heavy old ears of Arab dictators. The clock-ticking became familiar and part of the noise pollution. It seemed so normal that Ben Ali of Tunisia was on a family vacation, Mubarak was relaxing in his permanent vacation retreat, and Ali Abdullah Saleh was busy ‘preparing’ his son to become the next “revolutionary” president when Arab streets revolted.


The “three musketeers,” Ahmad Ali, Jamal Mubarak and Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, were rehearsing their future cooperation. In Aden, for example, they were building a huge hotel compound, among other mega luxury and profitable projects planned in their fiefdoms. So was the picture in these countries before Bouazizi decided to take his life in protest for his diminishing hopes of a decent life in Tunisia.


The economic time bomb finally exploded. The sleeping dictators were taken by awakening and annoying surprise. Their response was typical: Fast and strong in punishment, slow and weak in reforms. They treated the Facebook and Twitter generation the same way the pre-net and satellite generations were subjected to.


Between denial mode and panic attack, reactions were just “reactions”. The similarities were astounding. The Arab dictators showed no creativity and brilliance even in deception.


Except in Syria, Arab streets now rule. The scenes are not rosy, yet. Sometimes you may be tempted to be nostalgic. Egypt, for example, behaves like a genie out of a box. The masses, which only demonstrated in celebration of dictators for 60 years, are going out for any and every cause one may imagine. The attack on the Saudi Embassy and consulates in support of an Egyptian lawyer accused of drug trafficking, was a vivid example. It showed the extent an agitated street could go, shooting themselves in the feet, hurting their country’s relations with its biggest Arab ally and strategic partner. I am so glad we are back on track.


Five years later, we still don’t have a Spring, except in Tunisia where it all started. The search for freedom that began, since the European colonists left, continues. However, light shines brighter now at the end of the confused and noisy tunnel. Let’s keep praying and working .. That’s how dreams are realized. 

The Middle East: 5 ‘US’ years later!

It is useful for writers to take a break every now and then, and come back with fresher outlook and perception.  

My break was not volunteered, however. Since mid 2007, I was advised, by wise heads, to take back seat in the political arena and keep my critical mouth shut.  Now, Khaled Almaena, the new Editor in Chief of Saudi Gazzette, is telling me: open up .. your opinion is requested.

It's amazing how much things have changed .. and not .. in the past five years. Take Iraq, for instance. Five years ago, it was still debated weather US meant what it said, and said what it meant, regarding the future of Iraq. 

Today, it is obvious the US failed in all tests of sincerity and competence. Iraq was obediently delivered in a silver plate to Iran and its Iraqi stooges. It's no longer united, stable or safe. The promise of freedom, prosperity and democracy is almost forgotten. The immediate and foremost concern, now, is security. 

My Iraqi friend, Ibtehal, was telling me in "Whatsapp" chat today about her trip to the Kurdish north, and how different it was from the rest of the country: secured, stable, prosperous .. and well governed. She is looking for investment opprtunity among waves of multinational investors. Good for her, I said, but what about the rest of the country? Her answer was prompt and heartbreaking: What country? I don't have one! 

America's foot soldiers are finally leaving, its footprints are not. For obscured political and economic reasons, US decision makers still shoot themselves in the foot. They brought Nori Al Malki back from Iran, together with his exiled Aldawa party comrades. Knowing their slave attachment to Iran's mullas, vandeta against the Sunnis, and ideological entrenchment, US still gave them the reins and supported them economically, politically and militarily. 

Now, with diminishing power and influence, America cannot even convince al Malki government to adopt US and allies position on Syria.  

Prophet Mohammad PBUH says those who supported the aggressor will be hunted by him. The US may feel safe for now, but once the last soldier leaves, and more Hezbollah soldiers (and commanders) take their place, the hunt will begin. America cannot change its fundamental blind support of Israel, the arch enemy of Iran, and the latter cannot stop its appetite of more gains in and influence in the Middle East. Therefore the final face off is guaranteed. With the military and nuclear capabilities/aspirations of  both powerhouses, and the vulnerabilities of the oil rich region, the disaster would be global Tasunami. America's interests and friends are the first getting the punch.  

For us, the residents of the Arabian Gulf, the stakes are much higher. The battle grounds for any conflict may include neighbors like Turkey and Pakistan, but it would be mainly fought on our backyard. Our oil fields and export ports are all concentrated between the coasts of Iran and Saudi, Kuwait and UAE.  The oil tanks all go thru the Strait  of Hormuz, with much of world's oil needs. It's frightening to imagine a fire, let alone a battle among nuclear powers on such volatile grounds!

Let's hope that cool heads prevail, especially in the US.  With new administration soon to take over, I pray that new policies will reposition and reengineer US stands towards regional players and conflicts. Till then, I wish my return to active commenting will be a happier .. and safer one!

Readers’ Take on Best Model for Arabs

My last article, “Best Model for Arab World?” has generated a passionate debate. Many disagreed with my view that Turkey and Dubai can’t be taken as the best model to follow. I appreciate their perspective and understand their concerns. Most opponents come from the New World (USA). Heritage-aware secular Europeans were more concerned with the religion aspect.

I agree that progress carries a hefty price tag. We cannot stop the time machine or turn its clock backward. Economics dictates ways and means that might not suit every soul and please every heart.

The question is: Should it be either or? Do we have to choose between modernity and civilization; prosperity and identity; progress and heritage? Does globalization mean the death of cultural diversity? Can’t a nation be progressive as well as proud of its past achievements and committed to its value system?

My stand is: Yes, we can be proud Arabs, good Muslims and great civil builders. We did it in the past and can do it again. Great civilizations, like China and India, are doing it today.

Yes, culture and heritage do matter. Lose your identity and you lose your soul, relate to your roots and you stand taller. That is my perspective; here are other points of view from dear readers.

— Why try to imitate anyone else? Arabs should simply decide for themselves what sort of society they want and build it.

Gordon

— Malaysia is an Asian, not Arab country. Its progress was achieved mainly by the Indian and Chinese communities. Turkey and Dubai have the right attitude toward humanity that is more important than any religious attitude.

Bulbul

— Turkey is a country with identity. It didn’t join the European Union because it must adhere to certain standards. Kemal Attaturk’s revolution is effective and sooner or later they will be in the EU.

I lived in Dubai and found it a role model. Its leaders work according to a plan and know exactly what they are doing. Yes, laborers are foreign, but managers and planners are locals.

Najat

— The advocates of Turkey-Dubai model do not share your frame of reference. Put the question to those who are on the same plane like me.

While I respect your search for near-best, why look for models at all? We have the Qur’an and Sunnah. Let’s take an overdose of learning and knowledge and set about building our own new model, better than Malaysia.

Anis

— Dubai is an excellent example of how to blend the best of East and West and tolerance in action. Yes, on the surface you will find it more West than East, but dig deeper and you’ll find that the Eastern heritage, cultures and values remain intact.

Carol

— Most of Muslims in the world are not Arab. Arabic as a language has a limited vocabulary, so it is not practical for scientific pursuits without adding English, French, or German derivatives.

Modernity is not a problem for Arabs, but it is for fundamentalist Muslims. Arabs must get over the habit of indexing every human event to Israel. You should just recognize it and move on with your lives.

An attachment to heritage and identity is valuable only if it moves you forward. So the best model for the Arab world is to separate religion from government and politics. This will lead to peace and progress, without sacrificing your identity.

Chris

— Turkey is a great nation but still hopelessly poor and cannot be bracketed with UAE or Qatar. It is a hope and possibility that they will be admitted into the EU, at which time maybe Attaturk experiment will have finally paid off.

Peter

— “Hollywood” is the model that is now banging on the doors of the Arab world. It is not the best model but hard to stop because it attracts the young.

Ferdinand

— If you want to build skyscrapers you have a choice: School the builders, or import them.

Heidi

— Similar worries exist in my country. Some fear we are going to be Islamized by the growing number of Muslim immigrants. Others fear a EU attempt to replace national identity with European.

I won’t give up my identity easily for another, especially when the present culture and lifestyle have such a good track record in terms of stability and low poverty. On the other hand, I am open to changes. If not, we would still be living like the old Vikings, 1000 years ago.

What is a culture, a religion or an ideology and what is its purpose? They are all strategies for survival — to make money, to prosper. So if your own society isn’t good at making money then it is high time to adjust your culture a little.

David

Best Model for Arab World?

In my last column, “Why Arabs Lost Past Glories?” I cited Malaysia as an example of how we could develop a progressive model based on Islamic and indigenous heritage. Some of you reminded me of other successful examples, like Turkey and Dubai. With all due respect, I disagree. There are elements of success in both experiments, but I could point out failures as well. Let me explain:
Turkey at one time was a nation that unified the Ummah under its Islamic banner. They revived the caliphate, this time under non-Arab sultans.
For centuries, they spread civility, modernity and peace over a vast empire. Most of the Arab world was part of the map that expanded from 1326 when the empire was founded by the Muslim warrior Osman, from Istanbul to the borders of Iran, East, and Austria, West; and from Russia, North, to Africa, South. The empire was finally dissolved at the end of World War I and modern Turkey born.
Turkey, then, took an opposite turn. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the Republic of Turkey in 1923 on Western principles. Ataturk (Father of the Turks) abolished the sultanate in 1922. Before his death in 1938, he managed to change the Turkish alphabet from Arabic to Latin, imposed an anti-Islamic constitution, and put the army as the ultimate guardians of the secular state.
His successors kept Turkey forcefully and adamantly on this track. The hope was the country would eventually join the secular Europe, leaving its Islamic heritage behind. It achieved neither. The Muslim population kept Qur’an at heart, as did their brethren under oppressive Communist rule in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Chechnya.
At the same time, the Muslim world didn’t trust the first Islamic country to recognize Israel and join the NATO, while Christian Europe wouldn’t let them in. Halfway here, halfway there, Turkey now seems to have lost the sense of direction and belonging. You can’t buy tomorrow if you sell your yesterday and lose your today. Without a character to face the world with, you can’t face even yourself.
Dubai and its copycats like Qatar seem to be going down a similar road. Worse, with tiny population, they had to call for massive help. Only they chose mostly non-Arab, non-Muslim work force. Some 90 percent of residents in Dubai are foreigners. English, Hindi and Farsi are dominant.
You can live in this Arabic, Muslim emirate without the need to learn a single Arabic word. And you could live an entirely Western life in ultra-modern skyscrapers, visit malls and resorts without much of a reminder or an exposure to the original culture.
The same can be said about other Gulf countries. With the indigenous population down to 10 percent in some states, and the majority made up of one or two foreign ethnic groups, the demography of these countries is fast changing. Soon, many foreigners will be granted citizenship and have a say in its decision-making process. Naturally, they would advocate policies favorable to their countries of origin and cultures. Then what will become of the nations we call Arab and Muslim?
I discussed these concerns with an influential Gulf minister. Smart and highly educated, as he is, he was mostly dismissive. Progress has a price, he explained. We don’t have enough talent to build this miracle you witness around you. They had to be imported. And since there are great pools of labor in our immediate neighborhood, like India and Iran, they come first. We provide them with good work and business opportunities, so they are too happy and would not think of creating trouble. As long as we are fair and kind to them, they won’t be a security threat. As for the effects on our culture, it is unavoidable.
The world today is one big village. Cultures are melting and a mixed global heritage is being formed. Yes, we might lose some identity, but that is the price we must pay.
I told him that it was a very hefty price. Identity cannot be traded. Identity is who you are, what you are and why you exist. Identity is your today’s security and tomorrow’s warranty. If you lose your face and change your genes, you not only endanger your present, but forfeit your future, too.
And what for? You don’t need all the brand new towns and inflated economy made by foreigners for foreigners. You could live happily with one fraction of all that, and keep your country, too.
My Turkey-Dubai admirers disagreed with my logic. Live facts and numbers, they argued, are better measurements of achievement and a more accurate indication of the future than history lessons and romantic attachment to heritage and identity.
Well, that was my position, and that is theirs. What is yours, dear readers?

Peace in the Middle East? Why Not!

This week Arab leaders meet in Riyadh to discuss a number of burning issues, including Iraq, Lebanon and Iran as well as the Arab peace initiative.
An American reporter asked me when I think the Middle East will get over the current turbulence. Soon, I told him. And I have my reasons. Let me explain.
Conflicts over interests stop when the parties reach a point beyond which more fights mean more loss to all and everybody realizes that only negotiations offer any chance of better deals.
Let’s start with Iraq. The US, Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Gulf nations are losing out as a result of the continuing turmoil in Iraq. Without peace, America cannot deliver any of its promises to Iraqis. No security means no freedom, democracy or prosperity.
Failing on all these counts and eluding stability will present the US administration with a host of no-go options. To withdraw now and leave Iraq in chaos will certainly mean a near-future return to save “the World’s Gas Station.” Staying the course and playing the role of fireman means unbearable cost in souls and dollars. Add to this the long-lasting stains on the US image and the loss of business contracts for oil, arms, and construction corporations. Peace, then, is a must.
Iran, too, has hit a bottom. More war means more American, Turkish and Arab involvement in Iraq and too many threats. The Iraqis are cutting each other’s throats, almost equally. To achieve its goals in Iraq, including political influence and Shiite dominance, Iran now needs peace.
Turkey will have to interfere militarily if Iraq is broken and the Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey pursue their dream of a united Kurdistan. A strong central government running a peaceful country is the best guarantee against such a project.
Syria is under tremendous pressure — from Lebanon and Israel to the west and from Iraq to the east, plus America and company from all over. Peace and quiet on all fronts is urgently needed to survive the day.
The Arab Gulf nations have most to lose if chaos continues in Iraq. Theirs is a volatile region. You cannot play with guns or fireworks in a gas station! Besides, with similar religious and ethnic demographics in each country, similar fires may break out. Tribes and families are split over borders. How can you prevent help going from one part to another? Besides, nuclear Iran and fiery Iraq will still be there long after America leaves. Grab peace as long as a strong power is in place, or lose it for ages.
The Iraqis, too, cannot win in a prolonged sectarian war. Their country will turn into another Lebanon: A free arena for neighbors’ disputes and fights. Development will be postponed, peace and prosperity forsaken. Their best and brightest are being killed, turning into militants or immigrating. More of such loss and the country’s future will be left in the hands of hooligans.
In Lebanon, all parities have reached a dangerous stalemate. An unfortunate accident or event, like the recent student fight in the Arabian University, might trigger a civil war. No Lebanese will benefit from more wars in a country that was finally edging toward normality, stability and economic prosperity.
Syria cannot sustain its isolation. It has never been so cut off from the world. Except for Iran, it is now estranged from all. Peace in Lebanon is its return ticket to the world.
Even Israel, if cool heads prevail, cannot benefit from this state of affairs. The situation in the occupied lands and Gaza is getting more dangerous. More pressure on the Palestinians is delivering more militants and suicide bombers to the resistance. The situation in Iraq is similarly hazardous. If Americans leave, chaos will produce more anti-Israel forces that will make life harder for Israel. An extremist Shiite government will bring a powerful anti-Israel Iran closer to the border. Peace promises a much better deal to the Jewish state.
That’s why I believe we have a good chance of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The good omens are plenty. Saudi Arabia is leading the march toward reconciliation — King Abdullah is meeting with Arab leaders, Prince Bandar undertakes frequent trips to regional capitals and Dr. Abdulaziz Khojah (Saudi ambassador to Lebanon) continues mediation efforts in Beirut.
The Makkah Agreement ceased the bloodshed in Palestinian territories and paved the way for a unity government. Now comes the Arab Summit in Riyadh and the revisited Arab peace initiative. If all parties played their cards right, the peace cake will serve all a good feast.

Muslims Mute on Terrorism?

It is very easy to give simple answers to difficult questions. Anyone can do it, even George W. Bush. Why do they hate us? Because we elect our leaders. Why Muslims kill Muslims? Because they hate each other. Why young Muslims turn into suicide bombers? Because they hate life. Why no progress in the Middle East? Because Arabs are born lazy and backward. Why Islamic terror? Because Islam inspires violence and condones terrorism. Where is the Muslim outrage? Don’t hold your breath! They all support terror.

Past victims included Jews, blacks and Native Americans. Jews were demonized to justify discrimination and extermination. The African brain was “found” to be less capable. Millions were enslaved, misused and killed because they were lesser humans. “The only good Indian is a dead Indian,” the invaders discovered. So genocide claimed the lives of millions of natives in North America.

Now it is the Muslims’ turn. Push them to the limit; if they fail it is because of their religion and race; if they react stupidly or violently, it must be their faith and genes. Either way, you win.

Since those who fight back follow the same faith or come from the same race, we are all responsible. We should not only dissociate and condemn them, but also fight them along with the invaders. Neutrality is no longer an option. The problem is if we do so our people will curse us, if we don’t the crusaders who are looking for an excuse to oppress us will find one.

The bottom line is we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

American columnist Thomas Friedman, in a recent article, wants to know why Muslims are mostly mute toward suicide bombing. He fully knows why 1,300 million Muslims are angry, and he also knows that only a few thousand Muslims are in a violent mode. As an “Israel-First” American, he must have known that his uniformed terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan kill thousands of civilians for every enemy combatant they eliminate, and destroy towns and villages for every enemy cell they demolish.

The terrorists in nice suits and cool uniforms are the ones who drive young men and women to so much desperation that life equals death to them. Some find no weapons to fight back the superpowers of the day but their own bodies. In World War II, the European resistance fighters were called martyrs when they jumped the enemy’s guns. The Japanese, who did similarly, were called maniacs. In our case, they are called terrorists. Victor’s justice includes name-calling.

“Where is the outrage?” Friedman “innocently” asks. Answer: The public outrage due is against your wars on Islam and Muslims. Our terrorists fight us as much as they fight you, and we are fighting them back. Listen to our mosques and follow our media and you will find lots of battles, speeches, fatwas and articles against them — that is if you don’t limit your readings to Israeli MEMRI (founded and run by a former Mossad colonel).

This is our outrage, but where is yours? Where is the outrage against the US soldiers who randomly shot and killed 16 Afghan civilians on a highway in revenge for an earlier Taleban attack? Or against the Marines who raped innocent Iraqi women and killed family members in retaliation for a roadside bomb? Or against the killing, maiming and displacing of a million Lebanese civilians in response to the capturing of two Israeli soldiers?

We are fighting our terrorists, but are you fighting yours? Our bad and ugly are taken to court, humiliated and hanged; when are yours going to be tried and punished? We call our terrorists “terrorists,” you call yours presidents, prime ministers and patriotic “men and women in uniforms.” We don’t blame your religion and race for the crimes against us, but you blame ours to justify collective punishment.

Yes, we have our hate speakers and fear merchants, but they are mostly in caves and prisons, hunted and doomed. Yours, however, are members of legislative bodies. They lead legitimate governments, businesses, churches, synagogues and media organizations. Friedman is trying to compete with a league of villains like Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James C. Dobson, and Franklin Graham. Google them out and see what kind of hate speeches they make against Arabs and Muslims every day. Our extremists are civilized in comparison. If you want us to go out of our way to denounce our extremists, you should show us the way by denouncing yours. It takes two to tango.

Wrong Comparisons, America!

I asked two US officials the same question on two different occasions and received the same response. They were Liz Cheney (Dick Cheney’s daughter), assistant secretary of state for Middle and Near East, and Lorne W. Craner, assistant secretary of state for human rights, democracy and labor. Both were supposed to explain why America’s human rights record today is so poor; how the American conscience tolerated Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib; why the leader of the free world sends prisoners to dictatorships for torture; why the US kidnaps suspects, ships them to secret prisons in bases around the world, even without the knowledge of host countries.
Without flinching, the two top officials started by pointing to Arab police states and human rights records. They were basically saying: “You are in no position to criticize us on such issues because you fared worse!”
Lorne Craner went further to compare the American justice system with that of the worst Arab and Muslim countries in his defense of his administration’s treatment of Muslim and Arab prisoners. He also compared citizen rights in America to ours.
The argument goes like this: “Before you point a finger at our systems take a minute to examine yours! We are still way ahead of you. Learn and follow. Once you are our equals, then you may be qualified to discuss our shortcomings!”
This was so disturbing because I might accept it from an ignorant demagogue, but not from high-level representatives of the Land of the Free.
“So now you are comparing your superpower, world-leader nation with our Third World countries?” I answered in disbelief. “If so, who are you to preach to us? If we now refer to the same value system, then please come down from your high moral ground and stop showing us the way?”
When I asked about the colossal collateral damage American forces caused in Iraq and Afghanistan, Craner made another comparison, this time to World War I and II. Imagine that! After 60 years of progress, after the UN, the Geneva Conventions and all the rules governing war and occupation, comes the representative of the great nation that led that progress to take us back to square one!
I also asked other American officials about the phenomenal corruption in Iraq. Again, the comparison was made to our corruption. And whenever I mentioned the propaganda campaign in Iraq that involved bribing writers and journalists to publish “made in USA” editorials and stories, I am reminded of Arab propaganda.
Even when I ask about the slow process of visa issuing or the way some Muslims are treated in US airports and FBI custody, a comparison is made to the situation in Arab embassies and countries.
“Look at your press! Look at the way Arab governments are using the media for propaganda. At least, in America, the government cannot directly use or abuse the media. We are free to criticize the president and his administration any time. Can you?” the argument goes.
When I wrote the column, “The Myth of US Freedom of Press” two weeks ago, many American readers reminded me of the Arab record in this area. I anticipated this familiar reaction and ended my article with this loud and clear statement: “We, in the Arab world, never claim to have true free press, but American media brag about it.” Still many missed the point or insisted on missing it.
Sorry, but I refuse, on behalf of the admirers of the American Bill of Rights, to accept this lowering of a flag that has been for centuries a symbol of freedom, democracy and justice. America and the world deserve better!
US officials are not the only ones making this kind of argument. The French did it, too.
When they banned the hijab for schoolgirls, they pointed to a similar ban in two Muslim countries, Tunisia and Turkey. Wasn’t the human rights the biggest concern France cited for voting against Turkey’s membership of the European Union? What moral difference is there if we now compare records of human rights abuses in a leader of the civilized world and that of Third World countries? Besides, we hold up France to its great constitution, secular traditions and freedoms, not to the value system of lesser nations.
What a shame! Where are we going to look for inspiration and enlightenment if the guardians of the City of Light and the Statue of Liberty are acting like the worst of us?

Miscalculation, the Middle Eastern Curse

It seems miscalculation is a Middle Eastern curse. This has been the case throughout history.

In the last century we kept the tradition alive. Conflicts, like Iraq-Iran and Gulf wars, were born out of Arab, Iranian and Western miscalculations. This and other ones left millions dead, maimed, poor and homeless.

Our best and brightest went either down with desperation or immigrated. Some of the most successful ethnic groups in America today are Arab-Americans. Arab immigrants achieved similar success in the rest of the world from Australia and Indonesia to Africa and Brazil, but not in the Middle East.

Here we go again, as Ronald Reagan would say, in the new millennium.

Even though the century has just begun, we are already caught up in vicious circles and circus of dire miscalculations.

The party began in 2001 with an attack on America that was as foolish as it was criminal.

As intended, this action provoked a chain of disastrous reactions. The neocons were looking for an excuse to jump-start their plan to rule the Middle East.

The 1996 “Clean Break” scheme called for invasion, regime change and map redrawing. To put the plan to work, a powerful alliance led by the neocons was made with the Christian right, the Zionists and the arms, oil and construction businesses.

Everything was ready, only a good pretext was missing. Enter 9/11. Enter the nonexistent link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Enter the manufactured scare of nuclear mushrooms over New York and Washington. Enough! Ready. Set. Go.

However, this was a colossal and embarrassing miscalculation. The “cakewalk” turned into a quagmire.

The Iraqi population, instead of throwing rose petals and “hurrahs” at the “liberating armies”, welcomed them with roadside bombs and suicide bombers.

The “Iraq-first, neighbors-later,” became “please, neighbors, Get Me Outta Here!”

Saddam’s regime miscalculated, too, when it underestimated the American threats. True, it didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but it didn’t do a good job of convincing the world of its innocence. Hezbollah and its backers in Tehran and Damascus miscalculated when they provoked Israel. They expected a reaction, but not on such massive scale.

The Israeli and their allies miscalculated, as well. They thought Hezbollah could be erased; and Iranian and Syrian business in Lebanon could be shutdown with one masterstroke. Instead, their political and military cards were burned. Hezbollah and backers came out singing and dancing.

Today, both Iran and USA are miscalculating their face-off. The Iranians went way beyond what would be tolerated in their intervention in Iraq. The Americans went extreme with their reaction to the Iranian nuclear program. With a blind eye to the decades-old Israeli program that produced hundreds of nuclear heads and a network of advanced delivering systems, America exaggerated the danger of the Iranian program as they did with the Iraqis’.

Experts, including Americans, reached the conclusion that Iran would not be able to make a bomb in ten years. So, why all the fuss, now? And why it was OK when the American ally, the Shah, was starting this very program with Western assistance?

Iran, too, is miscalculating when it thinks that having over 150,000 American soldiers under its thump in Iraq, and an overextended US military will prevent a gung-ho administration from hitting it. What Iran fails to understand is that this US president is badly in need of refocusing his peoples’ attention on a new enemy, new danger, new justification for more wars and war expenditures. And he is badly in need of a legacy — something that has eluded him so far.

Neglecting the Palestinian problem is another US miscalculation. This administration thought they could win both the war on Muslim countries, and the hearts and minds of 1,300 million Muslims without giving them back their Holy Mosque in East Jerusalem.

The result is the lowest-ever approval ratings for US in its history.

Mirroring a similar global trend, the US that was among the world’s most popular nations only six years ago is now bracketed with Israel as the most dangerous country threatening world peace and stability. The so-called Axis of Evil — North Korea, Syria and Iran — fared better.

The Arab leaders miscalculated when they relied on corrupt regimes, police states and Western support for survival.

Instead of winning their constituencies with true democracy, better education, economic development and political reforms, they played for time with fake, reluctant and half-hearted, half-baked reforms.

Yes, they succeeded in riding out Western resolve and pressure; but they lost what’s left of their people’s trust, support, respect and loyalty. Now, that is the “Mother of All Miscalculations!”