View from the Middle East, 27 March 2011, What Al-Assad Allows

Rulers of the region who have woken up to a recurring nightmare in the morning are divided into two clear camps, depending on their reactions to the shock-inducing events: those who yield to the will of the people and those who choose to slaughter them.

The Presidents of Tunisia and Egypt belong to the first type. It took less than a month for both of them to understand that the time had come for them to leave. Bin 'Ali, the Tunisian, fled; Mubarak went to his voluntary exile inside his country. In Middle Eastern terminology, the price of their exit in terms of the killing and injuring of their citizens was but a trifle.

Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, is without a doubt the second type. Forbidden to make a mistake: if it weren't for the hail of bombs that NATO troops rained down upon him from the sea and air, and without the hundreds of Tomahawk missiles that fell down on his officers and chased them away, Qadhafi would currently be feting his victory against the rebels who oppose him, and the road from Benghazi to Tripoli would be lined with the corpses of thousands of citizens who were forced to pay the price of victory with their lives. But who cares about that?

There are a thousand reasons why it is possible to categorize Bashar Al-Assad as the second type, the type who does not hesitate to kill more and more before surrendering his seat.  We will list 5 of the reasons:

1. The family gene pool: Despite the talk (which is still going on) revolving around completely different casualty totals, there is a thread tying together the slaughter which his father, Hafiz Al-Assad, carried out against Muslims in Hama in 1982 and the killings of this week in Dara', in As-Sanamayn, and even in Damascus: the authorization to shoot to injure, not to warn.

2. The sectarian affiliation: Bashar is not unique; for he is a representative of the 'Alawi sect, a minority, but which enjoys the boons of being in power. If he leaves without a fight, the rage of the people (and the loss of privileges) will rise up against the sect in full force.

3. Internal contentment: Al-Asad sees himself as the hero of the battle against Israel; quite simply, he doesn't believe that the time has come for him to leave.

4. Regional backing: Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah, both allies with the younger Al-Asad, likewise don't believe that he should leave.

5. The international moral duplicity: Al-Asad considers himself to be in a much better position than Qadhafi. He knows that Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron will think a thousand times over before hazarding firing off rockets on the Presidential Palace in Damascus, if only to protect the rebels.

In truth, therefore, he does not have a sound reason to get up and leave at this point in time, even if it was suddenly discovered that a large part of the Army and security forces at his disposal (not those affiliated with the 'Alawi sect) refused to slaughter civilians and join the protesters. Until this happens, he will be allowed to continue firing shots and killing, promising reforms and telling people not to worry. Not one western leader will lift a finger.

http://www.alquds.co.uk/index.asp?fname=today\27qpt960.htm&arc=data\2011\03\03-27\27qpt960.htm

*italics mine in order to clarify meaning

View From the Middle East, 24 March 2011, The Democracy the Arab World Is Looking For

Has Qadhafi become a great power and we don't know it? So why are the most powerful armies in the world unable to achieve a decisive victory against him, while making all kinds of excuses that they are unable to finish him off once and for all?

Qadhafi is still provocatively claiming that his troops are humiliating the allied troops who will go, in his opinion, into the trash bin of history.

The allied troops, for their part, say that they have stopped the Colonel's troops from advancing on the rebels' camps and that they have forced his planes to remain grounded.  Despite this, the rebels say freely that Qadhafi's forces still surround important areas in Ajdabiya and Masurata.

Despite NATO's insistence that the Colonel's troops are not complying to the announced resolution to halt military operations, these countries refuse to deploy infantry troops onto Libyan terrain, their excuse being that this would violate international law. There is much evidence that international law has been violated by these countries who now refuse to violate it.

The American President is trying, in this context, to convince NATO countries that they have achieved their goals in the current operations.  He said this in order to pave the way for the withdrawal of his country from this alliance, in anticipation of the strong push-back he will face from within the United States regarding a military entanglement and the huge costs which the U.S. knows about from its experience during the war in Iraq.

The American President has called French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron to grant NATO the lead role in applying the no-fly zone resolution over Libya, which would then reduce the U.S. and French role. France opposes this, claiming that handing control over to NATO would diminish Arab contributions, though without specifying what Arab countries are currently contributing.
The withdrawal of the U.S. from what is unfolding in Libya remains a source of great contemplation; is it really because of domestic opposition, because of the costs or for other reasons which are unclear at this stage, particularly after Qadhafi's declaration that the overthrow of his regime would lead to disarray and disruption of the security and peace of the region and in Israel? For if Qadhafi is able to overcome this crisis, will the U.S. want that he submit to their beck and call?

We must not glance over this viewpoint, because the U.S., supported by the West, has forgiven Qadhafi's (what they considered) past mistakes; so why do they not pardon him now? In my opinion, the matter is not confined to Libya and its stance on Israel. What is going on in Libya is exactly what happened in Tunisia, then what moved to Egypt and after that to Yemen. Does this mean that the Arab world is on the cusp of a great political transformation?

It is not a difficult question to answer for us, since we can look at what is currently happening in Tunisia and in Egypt. Without delving into details, we wonder: have those two countries reached a new stage in their history, namely, achieving democracy? Or is this merely a transitory stage on the way toward an ambiguous future? Most likely it will be just a "waiting" period, because the transition from an era of totalitarian rule to a time of democratic rule needs a new political and cultural climate which is not in abundance in the Arab world at the present time.

There are three issues at which the Arab world must take a long look in order to guarantee that it is headed down the right road. The first is education, since the Arab nation cannot begin down the road of progress unless it has a real awakening with regards to its education system. This scholastic awakening in the Arab world is tied to the school.  Many do not realize that the school can be one of the most dangerous means of mental malefaction if society does not see to it that the requisite freedoms are maintained within the schools. We know however that the school in the Arab world is simply a means to get a diploma which then leads to obtaining a job; many people live this way in society. But this is not the case in most western countries, where people in society are not categorized by what kind of diploma they have, but by what they can offer. This is to say nothing of the matter that many of those who have diplomas in the Arab world obtain them through illegal channels and then find their way to the faculty at universities where they compete with those who have genuine  abilities and real qualifications.

This reality, in sum, has led to the appearance of a trend in the western world currently, calling for the establishment of a school-less society, as presented in the book by Ivan Illich, and it might seem that this trend is idealistic and would not catch on in the Arab world. The important thing is that we realize that educational reform in this Arab world is not limited to opening more schools and calling for the development of curricula, but fundamentally, it needs more freedom, whereby students can learn a culture of freedom in the schools and their minds do not become dark from rotten ideas and values. There are legitimate debates in many Arab countries around what the schools are capable of creating in the mind of a pupil who spends his youth there and whose mind is loaded with notions that are not useful in a modern society.

The second issue concerns the economy. We have recently seen an idea prevalent in the Arab world, calling to lay siege upon the rich, to hunt them down and to take possession of their money, in order to transfer it to the people, as the propaganda of this new trend says. But the result has been two-fold, the first of which has been to set up nationalized companies taken over by "big wigs", who then transform the companies to serve their own special interests. The second result has been that many rich folks smuggle their money to foreign banks in order to remove it from circulation in the national economy. In this way, smuggling has become a culture, so now we hear about many presidents smuggling hundreds of billions of poor peoples' money and putting into circulation in foreign economies without the people getting any benefit. Sound and right thinking would be for serenity and peacefulness to take hold in the minds of the rich so that they do not move their money outside of the country. For if it were to stay in circulation in the national economy, many would benefit, regardless of who owns the money, as long as it will be used for the sake of all individuals of the society. This is the situation in many developed countries, where it is of no import who owns the money; what matters is that the money serves everyone. In light of this reality, most will accept paying taxes because they realize that a system of social security will offer most of them the closest thing to a decent life.

The third issue is a social structure founded on a civil culture which isolates no faction or individual of society from another even when this stems from his ideology, religious beliefs or doctrine. For all people are capable of co-existing within the modern civil society as is the case in many western countries, who clearly pronounce it a culture and which they also have named a culture of a multicultural and multi-ethnic society.

The reality which we have explained is the one that is the most conducive to building modern societies, not just for the purpose of overthrowing regimes, then wending one's way toward an unknown future. In this light, Arab societies must ponder not about replacing governments with governments but replacing ruling systems with ruling systems; as democracy does not presently exist in the Arab world, the farthest people can fathom is replacing a regime with another regime, thus to start the old story from the beginning.

http://www.alquds.co.uk/index.asp?fname=today\23qpt698.htm&arc=data\2011\03\03-23\23qpt698.htm

*italics are mine for the purpose of clarification of the meaning

View From the Middle East, Feb. 13, Will America Become Weak?

It is known that Democrat rule in the United States of America is mostly characterized by weakness in the field of foreign policy, which in turn weakens American power in the field of foreign policy and foreign relations. It was noticeable today after the new president Barack Obama took over the reins of the government, that there is a radical transformation in the notions of foreign policy. Obama showed that he wants to consider the mistakes of the previous president Bush, particularly regarding foreign policy and the new American president appears accordingly; he extends a hand of cooperation to all without exception and this is a big mistake which could reflect negatively later on on the power and hegemony of the U.S.A, in a world that is still suffering from the phenomenon of international terrorism and the matters of political reform which Bush began. A world which has found that the path to success has been limited, because of the ignorance of the US to the dictatorial regimes and their human rights abuses, which in turn necessitates that it puts the good deed of fighting terrorism at the top of the list of priorities of American foreign policy at the expense of the urgent and necessary democratic reform particularly for the countries in the Middle East. The U.S. has seen a large deterioration in the situation of the world powers when a Democrat was president, especially during the era of former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, when the U.S. dropped down to the level of Third World countries when it came to foreign policy.

Power in international politics is not just flexing muscles; there needs to be actual, effective practice of it. International relations were, still are, and will remain the only arena in which to prove one's military, economic and technological might, just as it is no place for morals. Power, as Machiavelli himself decided, is not an end in itself, but the real goal for the state is to take possession of the power and the will and to guard it. By showing this might in the field of international relations, it separates itself from the power of the countries. Every time the power of the country grows, in addition to its ability to make a valid and effective decision to use this power
against others, its influence on the international stage increases. In a world today there is no room for the American president, whether he be a Republican or a Democrat, to abandon strengthening the role of power and the possibilities to use it in international relations to subjugate or even harm other countries. What the American president Obama is doing, putting the idea of negotiations and reconciliation at the forefront of his international affair (policy) damages the prestige and status of the U.S. The world today is too bad off than to be dealt with with kindness and gentleness. It is correct that the policy of "carrot and stick" is one of the fundamentals of foreign relations, but you must use the stick and it must be a priority in this matter.

Flexible foreign policy, which the U.S. intends to pursue, may damage the standing of the U.S.; for one highly effective terrorist act, carried out by the hand of one of the terrorists leaving Guantanamo, the possible result of one of Obama's policies, would ruin the reputation of that Obama policy, and, as a lawmaking president might destroy his political future. Because of the lenient mind and pursuing a policy of forgiveness toward terrorists the experiment has resulted in the return of no less than 60 of them to terrorist groups.

On the other hand, any indifference or disdain toward the idea of democratic reform in the Arab world would be like snatching away the dreams of those who believe in reform. Unless President Obama is convinced that the political reform in the Arab countries can only be done from the outside, first of all, then the huge loss in the truce aspirations of the countries in the Middle East, especially the dictatorships there, will be in the dashing of all hopes of the possibility of a political development happening, whether in democracy or in altering education curricula.

The role of the U.S. in shaping the world today, in an age of globalization, is a inescapable destiny; it is not easy to attempt to flee from this fate without hurting others and at the expense of the reputation of the United States of American itself.

By Dr. Ahmad Al-Baghdadi
http://www.alittihad.co.ae/wajhatdetails.php?id=42948

View From the Middle East, Feb.12, Uneasy Start for President Obama

The foreign policy features of the administration of the new American president have begun to take shape gradually. He has closed the black files on the War on Terror which his predecessor George W. Bush announced, such as the Guantanamo prison and the secret torture centers scattered in several spots in the world, most of them in Arab countries unfortunately, ending the worst transgressions and violations of human rights in modern American history. But the aspect related to the Middle East and the Israeli-Arab struggle has become muddled and intricate and full of many worrying cracks and crevices.

It is true that Obama has requested the opening of the crossings to allow humanitarian assistance to be brought in as well as business dealings for the people of the Gaza Strip. And he has shown empathy toward the suffering of the sons and daughters of Gaza but he has never once broached the subject of the Israeli massacres, the killing of children, the use of internationally prohibited phosphorus bombs, the destruction of more than 6,000 homes and the displacement of 4,000 people.
We expected from the new American president a strong stance against these Israeli crimes, especially after assuming the duties of his office. He, the one, who has come from the womb of suffering, poverty, deprivation, and racial segregation, when his parents were forbidden 50 years ago to patronize most of the restaurants and clubs because of their color or African background. We expected him to condemn this Israeli brutality with clear, unadulterated words, indicating the beginning of a phase of change which he promised us, and translating his words about dealing with Muslims on the basis of respect and common interests.
It appears that President Obama has forgotten that the Palestinians, whose bones were disintegrated by tanks and their children, whose tender bodies were burned by phosphorus, are Muslims but human beings as well. In the speech he gave during the appointment of his envoy to the region he equated the Israeli and Palestinian victims saying, "I was extremely worried about the losses of Israeli and Palestinian lives over the last few days."

We could understand this type of language if the new American president had used it during his presidential campaign or even before taking up the duties of his post in the White House. But he has grabbed the stick from the wrong end, and making no difference between the executioner and the victim is an unacceptable and reprehensible matter and reveals a bad beginning.
The Israeli victims in this war did not exceed 3 civilians and 10 military personnel, whereas more than 1350 Palestinians were martyred in the savage Israeli bombing of the Strip, most of them children and civilians. So how is it possible for an American president who knows well the root causes of the struggle, just as all of his advisers and his Secretary of State who know the scope of the Israeli preoccupation with shedding of Palestinian blood in a way never before seen in modern history to deal equally with the losses on both sides and the worry and pain?
It is nice that the new president has ended his country's war on terror and has acknowledged the transformation of victory in it, and the amount of the destruction which it has left behind on the visage of his country and the financial bleeding of its economy and money. But the most beautiful thing would be to turn his attention to the Israeli terror as well. He has witness the atrocities with his own eyes on the TV screen, with the smoldering pictures of children, the father who lost his wife and 5 children, or the families who have been completely obliterated. A picture doesn't lie, as the first lesson in journalism and the war science states.
If Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, was able to admit that he was on the verge of breaking into tears at witnessing on TV the aid to a Palestinian doctor who had lost his 3 kids, one would expect the American president to be more affected by these massacres and more sympathetic with its victims and with our assent to Olmert's lie and all the other Israeli officials like him, who take pleasure in lapping up the blood of the Palestinians until their thirst is slaked.

We don't want laws to be issued hurriedly before this administration has had a chance to settle in, but a bad start can only lead to worse results. So here we feel it's our duty to raise our voice in warning and caution, before a catastrophe occurs and making coming back from these mistakes difficult.
Asking Hamas to ackowledge Israel in his first speech as president while explaining his foreign policies is one of the best examples of this flubbed start, especially since this request coincided with the complete commitment to Israel's security and without directing any blame to Israel for the failures of the peace process, the continuation of setting up settlements, choking Palestine's economy, building a sectarian isolating wall, killing thousands of cut off Palestinians, and taking more than 10,000 of its good people prisoner.
So why is there no difference in the sympathy with the victims of both sides but no evenness in handing out blame and calling things as they are without hemming or hawing? The Palestinians do not occupy Israel's land and do not send American made F-16's and Apache helicopters to bomb innocent people in a war with only one direction.
Ending the war on "terror" without ending the continuing Israeli terror which has lasted 60 years and with American support and protection will lead to the appearance of a new more dangerous and malicious Arab Islamic "terror", because those children who lost their siblings, mothers and fathers, and witnessed the Israeli airplanes firing their embers above their heads, will be more malicious in their revenge, which is justified and legitimate according to all divine laws which have been passed down, if they continue to be without a home and without hope and without a future.
The slaughter of Gaza did not just destroy the culture of peace and moderation; it has forcefully revived the culture of resistance across the Islamic world. It has revealed the general downfall of Western and American morality in its ugliest forms and shapes. If the new American president and his crew do not realize this evident truth, then all of his proclaimed intentions to repair the very ugly image of his country in the Islamic world will be to no avail.

We still hold onto a straw of hope that the new American president will be able to make this desired change happen in the foreign policy of his country, not because the name of his parents is "Husayn" and not because of his African heritage and features. But because continuing the policies of the previous administration of pressuring the victim, fleecing him, and making him give up concession after concession under the pretense of promoting a speedy peace will reverse and turn out to be ruin for the United States and its interests, at a time when it greatly needs peace and stability to rescue its collapsed economy and to regain its position of leadership in the world.
The Palestinian people do not need a conference of donor countries to allocate money for the purpose of rebuilding and to finance a failed corrupt authority which no longer represents anyone. It needs a peace conference supported by international and legitimate resolutions telling the Israelis that, "You all have become a moral, political and security burden on the shoulders of the West and all of its people, by being the source of threat to the safety and stability of the world and its terror crimes against a isolated people. These crimes feed radicalism and extremism and makes Al-Qa'ida, as an organization, pale in comparison to the organizations that could appear in the future.

By 'Abd Al-Bari Al-Atwan

http://www.bariatwan.com/index.asp?fname=2009\01\01-24\23z50.htm&storytitle=ff%C8%CF%C7%ED%C9%20%E3%DE%E1%DE%C9%20%E1%E1%D1%C6%ED%D3%20%C7%E6%C8%C7%E3%C7fff

View From the Middle East, Feb.8, Obama and the Arab and Islamic Challenges

Great are the hopes that have been hung on the new American President Barack Husayn Obama, now that he has gained the absolute affection of his citizenry domestically and the trust of the overwhelming majority of the almost 7 billion people of the world. The tasks and challenges set in front of him are greater than what he will be able to overcome successfully, at home or abroad but he, despite what is said about the paucity of his experience, will not be worse than President George W. Bush, who left behind a legacy replete with failures and botched wars. The largest success the new American president will be able to see through is to return the White House to the Americans and to liberate it from the lobbyists who have hijacked it, that is, specifically the Jewish lobby and the weapon manufacturing lobby, and to reallocate to serve foreign policy interests.

If President Obama wants to have his country return to lead the world and rebuild the bridges with Muslims and the Third World countries, the magical recipe for this would be to do the opposite of what his predecessor Bush did, who left the Oval Office with insults chasing him out and without apologizing to anyone.

More precisely, we mean humility, and the distancing from provocation by haphazard and illusory force and power, the respect of international law and imposing the respect for international law on others at the same time and the return of the United Nations to a respected and esteemed status; we are pointing to the values of justice, democracy and equality, all of which, (when followed), are the best models which could help win the minds and hearts of those hundreds of millions who hate the United States and its disastrous policies which have destroyed countries, killed and displaced millions, have made the world less safe and more dangerous and have led it to become bankrupt economically after having been bankrupted ethically and morally. We in both worlds, the Arab one and the Islamic one, do not want the new American president to be on our side and support us on matters; to this endeavor we cannot look forward because of our experience with the nature of American institutions and how they make decisions; we want him just to be neutral and not to stand in the other camp and to wage wars against us on a purely ideological basis.

We want the American president to listen to us as well and to deal with the facts on the ground, from an ethical viewpoint, and on the basis of international law and its rules and put an end to the crimes and violations of those who place themselves above this law and who behave according the the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak and impose their will through the power of the murderous American weapon.

President Obama needs no explanation from us about the Israeli massacres in occupied Palestine and before that in Lebanon; he only needs to have witnessed parts of it in the Gaza Strip over the last 3 weeks. And if he needs more, he only needs to call Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General and to listen to what he witnessed, since he has just returned from wandering around the region and saw with his own eyes the bloody imprints of what the Army of the only democracy in the region and its American made missiles and planes left behind.

We hope that he himself goes to the ill-fated Strip and sees the children whose tender bodies were burnt by phosphorus bombs or the houses who caved in over the heads of their owners or the schools belonging to the United Nations and whose flags were clearly raised and the way in which they were transformed into mass graves of innocents who had sought refuge in them.

President Obama promised to respect Muslims, and this is a good and encouraging thing, but this respect can only become reality through policies of action which translate on the ground; the most fundamental of these are the admission that military decisions failed to solve the crises and to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq; to put an end to American support, militarily and diplomatically, of Israel's massacres and to force them to respect international treaties and the resolutions made by the UN.

Pledging to fight terrorism and to defeat it cannot be achieved through war and setting up failed states as Bush has done in Pakistan and Iraq and previously in Somalia; and these are all Islamic states. On the contrary, this can only be realized through calm diplomatic dialogue together with the language of welfare for all as well as putting monetary assistance to work for the benefit of political and democratic reform and peacemaking and not to support corrupt dictatorships in order to oppress its people and to turn a blind eye to the Israeli slaughters or, in the best case scenario, covering them up.

The new American president must realize that his country is no longer the single great power in the world, for it has lost its reins on power; the time is past when it would decide to wage wars and recruit allies, through persuasion, intimidation, or fleecing, and use international organizations to provide a legal cover for its wars. For there are world powers on the rise, such as China, Russia, India, and Brazil, and one goal unites them: usurping the Unites States from the throne of power while making itself the judge of the potential of the people of the world.
We do not for one second doubt the intelligence of the new American president and the power of his character, for he does not for one second hesitate to interact with his adversaries and opponents as well as powerplayers and including them in his administration, such as Hilary Clinton and Robert Gates and Joe Biden. But what he is deficient in and what we hope, is that he uses logic in dealing with the burning international issues. Among them: negotiating with Iran and other movements such as the Taliban, Hamas and the Iraqi resistance. For all previous empires have negotiated with those whom they considered terrorists; security was only achieved in the streets of London after the British government negotiated with the Irish Republican Army.

Sending additional troops to Afghanistan will not produce victory nor stability there; it may yield totally opposite results. For Afghanistan is not Iraq. Creating "Sahwat", or Awakening Councils, was a decision that proved to be a failure in the past and will not be successful in the future. More troops means more defeats and losses in the ranks of the foreign troops. And the few security successes that have been achieved in Iraq because of this strategy might be "temporary." Who believed that the Taliban and Al-Qaida would return with such force to Afghanistan 7 years after its infrastructure was destroyed and its members scattered because of the American occupation and NATO forces.
We don't want that the new American president start issuing decisions; his seat in the White House isn't even warm yet. But it can be said that he seems genuine when he speaks, and his intentions for "change" are positive indicators. We believe that the ruling American "institution" might not grant him the freedom to maneuever which would allow him to transform his intentions into actions on the ground. The one thing that pleases us is to see George Bush leave the ring with a crown of ignominy, not saying sorry to anyone, his hands stained with the blood of the children in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine; it is enough that, after eight years, he has failed to achieve the great mission he promised to achieve, to arrest or kill the leader of Al-Qaida or his second in command or ally Mullah Muhammad 'Ummar.

http://www.bariatwan.com/index.asp?fname=2009\01\01-22\21z50.htm&storytitle=ff%C7%E6%C8%C7%E3%C7%20%E6%C7%E1%CA%CD%CF%ED%C7%CA%20%C7%E1%DA%D1%C8%ED%C9%20%E6%C7%E1%C7%D3%E1%C7%E3%ED%C9fff

View from Germany, Feb 2. Rickety World Power...America Forever

The USA is stuck in a deep crisis. That's why, in Davos, politicans and economic experts are calling for a world without U.S. dominance. But what should replace the American model remains a puzzle.

At the end of a long debate, it was surprisingly the Americans who stated it bluntly. "The American model was wrong, " the renowned economist Ken Rosen said. "The German, Japanese and Swiss models are better."

Rosen is speaking about the consumption cumbersomness of the US economy, but his succint assessment captured the Zeitgest at Davos in 2009--the Americans have crashed and they have dragged everyone else with them into the abyss. A new World Order is needed to end U.S. dominance. The key word is "Multilateralism."

But how this cooperation between East and West, rich and poor, and industrial and developing countries, which has been requested at the World Economic Forum under the motto "The world formed after the crisis" is supposed to look, is unclear.

"The most important task by far for the new US administration will be finding the right relationship with China," the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair believes.

Even China and Russia, who arrived, unlike the new US administration, with their top minds in tow, made clear on the first day that they see themselves on the same niveau as the US, or even above. He didn't want to resort to finger pointing in the direction of America, but the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, did just that at length. The enormous disparity in the world, where one consumes (the US) and one finances (China) is a cause of the crisis, he analyzes. His Chinese colleague, Wen Jiabao, has criticized the "inept macroeconomic policy", also a clear swipe toward Washington.

A "new world architecture" with reformed institutions must come about, according to Putin. Also, that there is "a danger of only having one reserve currency" he warns, with the Dollar in mind. "More countries must be issuers of reserve currencies." Whether he meant by that the rubel, euro, or Chinese renminbi, Putin didn't say. During many appearances and rounds of talks it still remains baffling what should replace the written-off American model.

In this way, the participants of a forum for the US buying public quickly came to agree, that it is untenable over the long term that the US GDP exceeds 70% of consumption. But Zhu Min, Vice President of the Bank of China, made the sobering assessment, that this hope for Chinese consumers is an illusion. The contribution on a global scale is minimal at this time and in the short term nothing will change. Indeed the consumption contribution to the GDP in China has sunk from 54 to 38% in recent years.

Economist Nouriel Roubini, the prophet of the crisis who has risen to become a master of his craft warns that without future internation cooperation, individual states will pursue "policies at the cost of neighbor states." The G-20 community of states will be the deciding committee for the crisis. "The G7 club, this is behind us," he writes about the group of industrial countries. South Africa's finance minister Trevor Manuel's call that the G20 take over the coordination received a resounding 83% in favor in a vote in the hall. "It's not enough, when Washington and Beijing talk with one another."

Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, however, gave some food for thought, that this "multilateralism" which everyone is longing for can not be implemented in reality. No country is ready to sacrifice its sovereignty in the interest of the best for everyone.

Laura Tyson from the University of California pointed to the fact that the stabilization of multilateral institutions is hardly realistic in the short term. The crisis has actually strengthened the national governments. Only a strong country can actually get the process started. The paradox is: "We will be multilateral, but only if it brings with it the power of a hegemony as well."

The US is ready to take over the roll. Valerie Jarrett, a adviser of Obama's, promises "global economic cooperation." How that is supposed to look, she doesn't say.

Hope for a miracle

Dream In almost all national economies, exports take a nose dive. For this reason, governments and economists focus more on the domestic market and demand. Consumers, above all, are to bring the most money to the businesses. Many economic programs contain components which boost consumer demand.

Reality Consumers in the European Union are becoming even more skeptical of economic development, however. The corresponding index of consumer confidence sunk even further in January. This index is based on a survey of income, occupation, and consumption behavior of EU citizens, who made known their expectations in the coming months.

http://www.ftd.de/politik/international/:Wacklige-Weltmacht-America-forever/467765.html

View from the Middle East, Feb 1., Egypt's Islamicists are enthusiastic about Obama and the world welcomes his speech at Al-Azhar

Almost 4 days after the first interview the American President Barack Obama held with news media after his inauguration and which was an exclusive to "Al-Arabiya", Islamic leaders in Cairo announced their welcoming of him and their optimism for the new direction he made clear about taking with regards to Muslims as well as his intention of giving a speech at one of the great Islamic capitals.

And even the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the leaders of the "formerly radical" groups, viewed Obama as having something different than his predecessor. They went to welcome him for giving a much anticipated speech from the Egyptian capital, and, too, the large Al-Azhar world went, on the chance that he would give his anticipated speech from inside the mosque of Al-Azhar, a confirmation that there would be no legal objection preventing such a thing from happening.

Dr. Mahmud Rafit 'Uthman, a professor at Al-Azhar University and member of the society for Islamic research said to "alarabiya.net" that, "It's a good idea for President Obama to give his speech to the Muslim world "from inside the Al-Azhar Mosque."

And he added, "There is a law permitting him to be in the Mosque and giving a speech, despite him not being Muslim, on that condition that he does not stand at the pulpit. The Messenger (God bless him and grant him salvation) used to receive delegations inside the mosque, the reason being Al-Azhar allows tourists to enter, most of them non-Muslim."

Dr. 'Uthman viewed it as a very good idea for Obama to speak from Cairo, and from inside Al-Azhar Mosque or in front of it. "It would be a symbol he would need to gain favor in the Islamic world; if he wanted to extend his hand, we would have no objection to attuning ourselves to him and listening to him and submitting our requests to him, and especially telling him that we are scrutinizing the change of non-neutral American policy toward us and the protection of democracies."

The Egyptian Islamic Party

Dr. Najih Ibrahim, the Vice President of the Advisory Council of the Islamic Party and one of its historical founders, as well as the chief editor on its internet site told "alarabiya.net", "We see Obama as being better than his predecessor, and therefore we call on Al-Qa'ida not to undertake any reckless or irresponsible actions which would cause him to be worse than George Bush, especially since he has come to extend his hand for peace. Even if these matters seems like formalities, it is nevertheless a good start; for he who has come with skepticism will come again assured that he has found encouragement from us, we haven't assailed him with hostility or at least with attacks.

And he added, "September 11 pulled the Islamic movements and the Islamic and Arab world into a conflict with America and the West which we neither wanted nor were ready for and we do not want that this conflict be repeated, one in which Muslims were lost."

Ibrahim went on to say, " We want to turn the page on George Bush and his policies; we want to give Obama the chance to show us that he wants peace and we want that as well, and that he corrects what he can. We realize he can't do everything, but he should do what is possible regarding Sharia' and lawful policy; we mean to encourage him to create what is possible from what is good.

He added, "Even if Obama were able to prevent the heinous acts of his predecessor and didn't come to us in our interest, we would have to encourage him not to drag the Islamic world into something in which we lost previously; Iraq and Afghanistan have been occupied and America has made its way to the center of the whole region."

The Vice President of the Advisory Council of the Islamic Party said, "The foundation of Islam is extending the hand to the hand extended to you out of goodness; we therefore welcome him speaking from Cairo or Saudi Arabia or from any Islamic capital, this is better for us than the one who comes to these capitals to bomb them, occupy them, or destroy them, then we can't pay for it."

He added that the Islamic Party sees good signs in Obama's initial actions up until now, among them his recent announcements on "Al-Arabiya"..pointing to the importance of jumping on this opportunity through rational speech. "We must understand that Obama will not come as a ruler of the Muslims, but for America and to act in its interests and if we are acting on behalf of our country it could be possible to meet in the middle and achieve the interests of both groups."

He continued saying, "His talk with Al-Arabiya was good; we see many positive things in it, which we must deepen. And we are not changing them into negatives. We will not treat him unjustly or fight him or carry out attacks similar to those on September 11. This would make him even worse than George Bush."

Dr. Najih Ibrahim pointed out that he sees that, "Allah, let him the Sublime be praised, has foredained this man to be better than his predecessor and we have to try to help the goodness grow in him; and we take from him what is possible and if our dealing with him improves the Islamic world, it will bring many benefits and ward of many malicious acts."

The Muslim Brotherhood

However, Muhammad Mahdi 'Akif, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood group, the largest and oldest of the Islamic movements in the world and in Egypt told "alarabiya.net" that they are not interested in the speech which Obama promised to give to the Islamic world and are not concered about which capital he will pick for it, whether it's Cairo or another one.

He went on to say, " We don't care one iota, and this is because of him and whoever his hosting him; we don't care at all about the politics he will use in his dealings with the region. We won't rely on him much, because his actions and his might are only determined by us as Arabs. And if we were all at the heart of one man and if we all had one agenda and one vision, we could force all people to respect us, but we are a separated nation and there is no hope for someone other than us to stand by our side."

He turned to Obama's statement in his conversation with "Al-Arabiya", that the latter has new plans for his relations with the Islamic world, and as to whether that meant, in the opinion of the Muslim Brotherhood, a change in American policy, 'Akif answered, "We welcome any plan which brings about justice and freedom and fairness to this region. But we have yet to see anything. Of course we will afford the opportunity, because we welcome any charitable act for this nation and the Palestinian situation especially. We are with whomever stands with the people against oppression and with the law abiders against Zionism."

Former leader in "Al-Jihad"

Dr. Kamal Al-Sa'id Habib, the former leader in the Al-Jihad group and a scientist in the field of Islamic movements, considered in his talk with "alarabiya.net" that, "Obama is the first American president to talk directly to the Islamic world specifically, in his inauguration speech and his relationship with it will be based on respect and mutual benefits. This opens many doors for Islamic movements; this may be an era different than the one in the previous administration."


He noted here that some Islamicists sent him letters, such as one from the wife of the Islamic leader imprisoned in Egypt, 'Abbud Al-Zamar, who asked him to intervene into the matter of Shaykh 'Ummar 'Abd al-Rahman--imprisoned in the United States--and welcomed the special decision at the prison camp at Guantanamo. And the letter from Abu 'Ummar Al-Masri who had been kidnapped by CIA agents in Italy, in which he explained his pain and subjection to torture and the issue of building a new bridge in the era of Obama.

Dr. Habib expressed his belief about the existence of specific indications from many Islamicists, about their hope that the new president is different than the the previous administration, from which the Islamic world came out as the biggest loser.

Call to Al-Qa'ida for a truce

'Assam Dirballa, a leader in the Islamic Party, called on Al-Qa'ida, on the official website of the group, to announce a unilateral truce with the U.S. for a period of 4 months, in response to Obama's decision to postpone trying the prisoners in Guantanamo for 120 days in preparation for their release or trial before military tribunals.

Dirballa said, adressing Al-Qa'ida, "What would it hurt if you announced to Obama what kind of good you want, and you said, 'We are holding out our hands in peace based on mutual benefits and what the goodness of mankind can achieve.'"

He added, "Let us welcome peace based on respect for Islamic identity and the right of our people to live free from the shadow of dogma and Sharia', and based on mutual benefits with America and the world."

Dirballa clarified that Obama has something different, "Even if we disagreed about the definition of its scope, he summed it up in one word in his inauguration speech as President of America addressing the Islamic world: We need a new direction based on shared benefits and mutual respect.

In his first televised interview since becoming the President of the United States, an exclusive for the news channel "Al-Arabiya", on Tuesday 1/29/2009, Obama made clear that he would keep the promises he made during his presidential campaign with regards to the Islamic world, in addition to giving a special address to Muslims from a large Islamic capital, in order to, politcally translated, "extend a hand of friendship" to the Islamic world and to strengthen relations which the United States had built.

He made clear that, "What we are proposing to the Islamic world is a hand of friendship." This, after the tensions which caused the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the policies which his predecessor George Bush had pursued.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/02/01/65499.html#004