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
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
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
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
Thursday, February 5, 2009
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
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
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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
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
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
Friday, January 30, 2009
View from the Middle East, Jan 31. New Course for the Palestinian Dialogue
Blogger's Note: This is an article about recent Palestinian history, the split between Fatah and Hamas and the possible course of action for the future. The article is a bit dense and confusing toward the end but gives a good background on the root of the cause.
The relationship between the two splits, the Palestinian one and the Arab one, is a phenomenon for anyone who has been following the developments in the region for the past two years. For this reason, a connection has to be made between the effort to correct the trajectory of the Arab-Arab relations and any new attempt to end the Palestinian schism which would make realizing national unity possible. But achieving progress to treat this fracture stops at a positive evaluation of the previous effort that took place in two main stages, one of which started at the end of 2003 and the second, which began during 2006. The split in the first stage was political with an ideological background. But the worry of the Egyptians about the worsening of the split, despite its limitedness of scope at the time, forced it to move to consider a national dialogue within the frame of its endeavour to attempt to strengthen the Arab position overall after the American occupation of Iraq.
The Egyptian initiative hoped to achieve an agreement on a national Palestinian program, and was an internal dialogue which had started in the West Bank and on the Gaza Strip more than a year before the initiative got off of the ground. The essential problem which the Egyptian initiative faced was the difficulty, or perhaps the impossibility, of an agreement on a long term strategic program between factions who differed in their end goals. And that was the mistake, the management of the dialogue in this phase was done methodically; that is, in regards to the course of the dialogue and the foundation on which it stood.
This phase could not possibly continue after the passing of Arafat, despite the "sentimental" atmosphere which accompanied his passing and which helped in the reaching of the "Cairo Announcement" on March 17, 2005. But Arafat's death ended a phase entirely. And a new Palestinian era began, in which the schism was on the way to becoming inevitable when "Hamas" won in the legitimate elections in January 2006. After the split became political based on ideology, it took on organizational dimensions balanced on thin governmental supports. For this reason, it was natural that the dialogue transformed from focusing on the search for an impossible agreement on end goals for national Palestinian action to a deep plunge toward the smaller goals of the factions of the action, and in particular, the two biggest factions, the "Fatah" and "Hamas" movements. The matter of the dividing of authority between the two became a point of contention and from there the main subject of the dialogue. For this was not just a procedural matter, but it was tied in with the political and ideological split and thus the resolution remained difficult. In the absence of even the smallest amount of trust, it was natural that the first accord that was concluded between the two in the second phase of the dialogue failed, and which had as a title "The Charter of National Unity", signed on June 27, 2006, a year before the split reached an unprecedented climax. The agreement collapsed faster than was expected and the situation began to crumble to the earth quickly, surpassing all expectations, where it reached the point of the outbreak of armed clashes which ended an era in which the slogan "Palestinian blood is a red line" was very much revered.
When Egypt proposed all it could muster at that time, a sort of lack of confidence creeped into its relations with Hamas and the Saudi leadership had to intervene to save what it could save and find a solution by offering to hold the dialogue in Mecca. But the oath the leaders of the warring parties had sworn at this holy site could not prevent the collapse of the agreement that they signed under Saudi guidance on Februrary 8, 2007, a document titled "Mecca Agreement."
At that point the collapse began to pick up speed until the huge shock which led to Hamas assuming power in the Gaza Strip on June 14, 2007. The crisis worsened until it reached an unprecedented nadir. The schism had produced a geographical separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, not to mention the other political, ideological, "organizational" and factional dimensions.
The matter required almost a whole year before Egypt resumed its efforts to resolve this rift. Many efforts came from other sources during that year, from Yemen, Senegal and others, but they all arrived at a blocked-off road.
Egypt had grown up during that year, imagining a new national Palestinian dialogue based on a connection between resolving the fracture and the future of the issue itself. The Egyptian initiative began in August of last year, via an invitation from the Palestinian factions to Cairo to hold bilateral talks. The aim of the bilateral talks was to put forth a draft for what Egpyt considered a national Palestinian project and which was fundamental for a direct dialogue between the factions.
The draft of the treaty was full of various issues which were in agreement with the course Egypt supported, and which tried to include all the goals of the dialogue that existed in the first and second stages. The draft dealt with the fissure which created a geographical split by reorganizing the Palestinian issue completely. And it proposed, to that end, the formation of a unified government which would have defined functions, namely the lifting of the blockade, easing the daily life of the Palestinian people, preparing for the holding of new legitimate presidential elections, and the supervision of the rebuilding the security apparati on a national and professional and not sectarian basis.
To reinforce this action, the draft advised for the obtainment of Arab help, but without defining the exact meaning of that help, because Hamas had objected to requesting help from Arab forces.
The draft did not stop at this point as the operational resolution, which was the majority of the contents of the agreements on June 2006 and February 2007, but it tied in with it the development of the Palestininan Liberation Organization, with the reconfirmation that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, based on the fact that Hamas had accepted this previously, in the Cairo Declaration which was issued in March of 2005.
The draft defined the meaning of this development, that the organization would have the power and control over all the factions, without suggesting that the both movements "Hamas" and "Al-Jihad" join it, considering that an implicit notion. But it declared that the PLO would remain the broad, national leading body and the high political authority for the Palestinians. And it added what was previously mentioned in the 2005 declaration, an election for a new national congress for the PLO on the inside, outside, and wherever it was possible.
And the draft tied this widely scoped framework, for what possibly could become the Palestinian nation reconciliation, to a plan for the management of the struggle with Israel that was borrowed from the success of the detente which Egypt achieved in the Gaza Strip and which entered the implementation stage 2 months before the initiative to resume the Palestinan dialogue. Despite the fact that the draft included in it that the resistance had the right to enact laws for the Palestinian people as long as the occupation existed, it tied in with it the existence of national unity, whereas it supported that negotiations with Israel be managed by the PLO and the President of the Palestinian Authority with Israel and it merged the final authority on any agreement which was possible to be reached with the National Council of the PLO, and not the legislative assembly in which Hamas enjoys a majority.
And this was one of 9 points to which Hamas objected, in addition to the title of the draft, which it requested to be changed from "The National Palestinian Treaty" to "The Treaty of the Palestinian Reconciliation". And despite not objecting publicly to the Egyptian stance when it demanded that it bring up all that it wanted at the Palestinian dialogue table with the other factions, it was clear that the size and type of its reservations to the draft, are not what is causing it to participate in this dialogue. This was the real reason it requested two days ago to postpone it from its agreed upon date, i.e. last November 9, despite justifying its position by the insistence of the authority in Ramallah not to release the Hamas prisoners in the West Bank.
The main lesson that can be learned, from the efforts expended to put the Palestinians on the same page and arriving to the recent attempt, from last August to November, is that everytime ambition became stronger, the ability to realize it weakened and the chance to achieve something from it regressed. Perhaps it would be better planning to lay out less ambitious goals this time, in attempt to arrive at partial cooperation, at first, between Hamas and Fatah and their apparati in the West Bank and Gaza, which would allow them to gradually regain the lost trust, on the path to achieving more ambitious goals on a more solid foundation.
This is the new course of action which Egypt could employ in its efforts to solve the Palestinian fracture in the coming days.
http://www.alittihad.co.ae/wajhatdetails.php?id=42852
The relationship between the two splits, the Palestinian one and the Arab one, is a phenomenon for anyone who has been following the developments in the region for the past two years. For this reason, a connection has to be made between the effort to correct the trajectory of the Arab-Arab relations and any new attempt to end the Palestinian schism which would make realizing national unity possible. But achieving progress to treat this fracture stops at a positive evaluation of the previous effort that took place in two main stages, one of which started at the end of 2003 and the second, which began during 2006. The split in the first stage was political with an ideological background. But the worry of the Egyptians about the worsening of the split, despite its limitedness of scope at the time, forced it to move to consider a national dialogue within the frame of its endeavour to attempt to strengthen the Arab position overall after the American occupation of Iraq.
The Egyptian initiative hoped to achieve an agreement on a national Palestinian program, and was an internal dialogue which had started in the West Bank and on the Gaza Strip more than a year before the initiative got off of the ground. The essential problem which the Egyptian initiative faced was the difficulty, or perhaps the impossibility, of an agreement on a long term strategic program between factions who differed in their end goals. And that was the mistake, the management of the dialogue in this phase was done methodically; that is, in regards to the course of the dialogue and the foundation on which it stood.
This phase could not possibly continue after the passing of Arafat, despite the "sentimental" atmosphere which accompanied his passing and which helped in the reaching of the "Cairo Announcement" on March 17, 2005. But Arafat's death ended a phase entirely. And a new Palestinian era began, in which the schism was on the way to becoming inevitable when "Hamas" won in the legitimate elections in January 2006. After the split became political based on ideology, it took on organizational dimensions balanced on thin governmental supports. For this reason, it was natural that the dialogue transformed from focusing on the search for an impossible agreement on end goals for national Palestinian action to a deep plunge toward the smaller goals of the factions of the action, and in particular, the two biggest factions, the "Fatah" and "Hamas" movements. The matter of the dividing of authority between the two became a point of contention and from there the main subject of the dialogue. For this was not just a procedural matter, but it was tied in with the political and ideological split and thus the resolution remained difficult. In the absence of even the smallest amount of trust, it was natural that the first accord that was concluded between the two in the second phase of the dialogue failed, and which had as a title "The Charter of National Unity", signed on June 27, 2006, a year before the split reached an unprecedented climax. The agreement collapsed faster than was expected and the situation began to crumble to the earth quickly, surpassing all expectations, where it reached the point of the outbreak of armed clashes which ended an era in which the slogan "Palestinian blood is a red line" was very much revered.
When Egypt proposed all it could muster at that time, a sort of lack of confidence creeped into its relations with Hamas and the Saudi leadership had to intervene to save what it could save and find a solution by offering to hold the dialogue in Mecca. But the oath the leaders of the warring parties had sworn at this holy site could not prevent the collapse of the agreement that they signed under Saudi guidance on Februrary 8, 2007, a document titled "Mecca Agreement."
At that point the collapse began to pick up speed until the huge shock which led to Hamas assuming power in the Gaza Strip on June 14, 2007. The crisis worsened until it reached an unprecedented nadir. The schism had produced a geographical separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, not to mention the other political, ideological, "organizational" and factional dimensions.
The matter required almost a whole year before Egypt resumed its efforts to resolve this rift. Many efforts came from other sources during that year, from Yemen, Senegal and others, but they all arrived at a blocked-off road.
Egypt had grown up during that year, imagining a new national Palestinian dialogue based on a connection between resolving the fracture and the future of the issue itself. The Egyptian initiative began in August of last year, via an invitation from the Palestinian factions to Cairo to hold bilateral talks. The aim of the bilateral talks was to put forth a draft for what Egpyt considered a national Palestinian project and which was fundamental for a direct dialogue between the factions.
The draft of the treaty was full of various issues which were in agreement with the course Egypt supported, and which tried to include all the goals of the dialogue that existed in the first and second stages. The draft dealt with the fissure which created a geographical split by reorganizing the Palestinian issue completely. And it proposed, to that end, the formation of a unified government which would have defined functions, namely the lifting of the blockade, easing the daily life of the Palestinian people, preparing for the holding of new legitimate presidential elections, and the supervision of the rebuilding the security apparati on a national and professional and not sectarian basis.
To reinforce this action, the draft advised for the obtainment of Arab help, but without defining the exact meaning of that help, because Hamas had objected to requesting help from Arab forces.
The draft did not stop at this point as the operational resolution, which was the majority of the contents of the agreements on June 2006 and February 2007, but it tied in with it the development of the Palestininan Liberation Organization, with the reconfirmation that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, based on the fact that Hamas had accepted this previously, in the Cairo Declaration which was issued in March of 2005.
The draft defined the meaning of this development, that the organization would have the power and control over all the factions, without suggesting that the both movements "Hamas" and "Al-Jihad" join it, considering that an implicit notion. But it declared that the PLO would remain the broad, national leading body and the high political authority for the Palestinians. And it added what was previously mentioned in the 2005 declaration, an election for a new national congress for the PLO on the inside, outside, and wherever it was possible.
And the draft tied this widely scoped framework, for what possibly could become the Palestinian nation reconciliation, to a plan for the management of the struggle with Israel that was borrowed from the success of the detente which Egypt achieved in the Gaza Strip and which entered the implementation stage 2 months before the initiative to resume the Palestinan dialogue. Despite the fact that the draft included in it that the resistance had the right to enact laws for the Palestinian people as long as the occupation existed, it tied in with it the existence of national unity, whereas it supported that negotiations with Israel be managed by the PLO and the President of the Palestinian Authority with Israel and it merged the final authority on any agreement which was possible to be reached with the National Council of the PLO, and not the legislative assembly in which Hamas enjoys a majority.
And this was one of 9 points to which Hamas objected, in addition to the title of the draft, which it requested to be changed from "The National Palestinian Treaty" to "The Treaty of the Palestinian Reconciliation". And despite not objecting publicly to the Egyptian stance when it demanded that it bring up all that it wanted at the Palestinian dialogue table with the other factions, it was clear that the size and type of its reservations to the draft, are not what is causing it to participate in this dialogue. This was the real reason it requested two days ago to postpone it from its agreed upon date, i.e. last November 9, despite justifying its position by the insistence of the authority in Ramallah not to release the Hamas prisoners in the West Bank.
The main lesson that can be learned, from the efforts expended to put the Palestinians on the same page and arriving to the recent attempt, from last August to November, is that everytime ambition became stronger, the ability to realize it weakened and the chance to achieve something from it regressed. Perhaps it would be better planning to lay out less ambitious goals this time, in attempt to arrive at partial cooperation, at first, between Hamas and Fatah and their apparati in the West Bank and Gaza, which would allow them to gradually regain the lost trust, on the path to achieving more ambitious goals on a more solid foundation.
This is the new course of action which Egypt could employ in its efforts to solve the Palestinian fracture in the coming days.
http://www.alittihad.co.ae/wajhatdetails.php?id=42852
View from the Middle East, Jan. 30, Obama's attack on the Muslims
I was writing an article during the presidential electoral campaign last spring, in which I feared that the candidate's, Barack Obama, association, at that time, with Islam would transform into an issue between him and an objective viewpoint which would also turn into an issue in which Arabs and Muslims would become involved. The reason at the time was that he avoided talking or commenting about the roots and history of his Muslim family.
I did not rely on his sympathy with the Muslims because his sole job is the service to the interests of his country, but indubitably I was afraid that the racial attacks on his biracial background would cause a problem that would cause him to treat the Arabs and Muslims unjustly. The Secretary of State George Schultz, in the Reagan era, was on record for having been considered a suspicious appointment just because he used to work with a company with subsidiaries in the Middle East and he was unjust and cruel in his dealings as a Minister with Arab parties, as opposed to Henry Kissinger, who held the same post during the Nixon era. And despite the Arabs' fear of the Jew Kissinger, he was able to conclude a deal with Syria for the disengagement of troops and the foundation of new relations with Egypt.
But the truth is, that I was surprised by Obama's meeting on TV where he willingly talked about the Muslim members of his family, and that he lived in muslim Indonesia. An "accusation" transformed into a "distinguishing feature" where he connected with Muslims, and that, he, as an American Christian and President of the United States of America does not hold any grudge and anger against the Muslims, and that he calls to open to a new page with them. This has surpassed merely taking a stance different than what his predecessor George Bush took. He, Bush, was famous for his sentence: "Either for us or against us." Obama has stratified the world into three categories, either in his group, or against him, like Al-Qa'ida, or just those that disagree with him. Obama insists on saying that he makes the distinction among those that differ with his country in the region, that they are not necessarily enemies. And he has gone even further than that, extending his hand to the Iranians, a hand that has not been extended since the time of Jimmy Carter, that is, since 30 years ago.
Obama was warm in his conversation to the billion Muslims of the world. But despite his friendly language and tone and the positive welcoming of his talk, the connection with the Muslims is a very complex issue. The overwhelming majority of Muslims do not have any connection with terrorism of "Al-Qa'ida" ; on the contrary, Muslim have suffered because of Al-Qa'ida more than Americans, and for many years before the occurrences on September 11, when hundreds of people died during their crimes in Egypt, Algeria and Saudia Arabia. The American problem is a blend of an historical and cultural accumulation and, above all, political and state-controlled propaganda which has made reconciliation a difficult task. The majority of Muslims are peace-loving, quiet and and hard working, searching for their daily bread. But the one who hears his voice the loudest, are the groups Obama won't be able to reconcile with, the ones who really have to be reckoned with, such as The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for example, which has one plan: to rule Egypt. And it will stand unlike the official regime, as opposition in any matter or general affair. This negative stance is not particular just to the opposition but to all radical regimes, such as the Iranian regime which is considering changing the region according to it's plan, even if that means spreading chaos. But the Muslims, like any other people in the world, do not agree on all matters and particular ruling bodies, and therefore dealing with a billion Muslims is much more complicated than dealing with a billion Chinese who have one leader and one plan.
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&issueno=11022&article=505174
I did not rely on his sympathy with the Muslims because his sole job is the service to the interests of his country, but indubitably I was afraid that the racial attacks on his biracial background would cause a problem that would cause him to treat the Arabs and Muslims unjustly. The Secretary of State George Schultz, in the Reagan era, was on record for having been considered a suspicious appointment just because he used to work with a company with subsidiaries in the Middle East and he was unjust and cruel in his dealings as a Minister with Arab parties, as opposed to Henry Kissinger, who held the same post during the Nixon era. And despite the Arabs' fear of the Jew Kissinger, he was able to conclude a deal with Syria for the disengagement of troops and the foundation of new relations with Egypt.
But the truth is, that I was surprised by Obama's meeting on TV where he willingly talked about the Muslim members of his family, and that he lived in muslim Indonesia. An "accusation" transformed into a "distinguishing feature" where he connected with Muslims, and that, he, as an American Christian and President of the United States of America does not hold any grudge and anger against the Muslims, and that he calls to open to a new page with them. This has surpassed merely taking a stance different than what his predecessor George Bush took. He, Bush, was famous for his sentence: "Either for us or against us." Obama has stratified the world into three categories, either in his group, or against him, like Al-Qa'ida, or just those that disagree with him. Obama insists on saying that he makes the distinction among those that differ with his country in the region, that they are not necessarily enemies. And he has gone even further than that, extending his hand to the Iranians, a hand that has not been extended since the time of Jimmy Carter, that is, since 30 years ago.
Obama was warm in his conversation to the billion Muslims of the world. But despite his friendly language and tone and the positive welcoming of his talk, the connection with the Muslims is a very complex issue. The overwhelming majority of Muslims do not have any connection with terrorism of "Al-Qa'ida" ; on the contrary, Muslim have suffered because of Al-Qa'ida more than Americans, and for many years before the occurrences on September 11, when hundreds of people died during their crimes in Egypt, Algeria and Saudia Arabia. The American problem is a blend of an historical and cultural accumulation and, above all, political and state-controlled propaganda which has made reconciliation a difficult task. The majority of Muslims are peace-loving, quiet and and hard working, searching for their daily bread. But the one who hears his voice the loudest, are the groups Obama won't be able to reconcile with, the ones who really have to be reckoned with, such as The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for example, which has one plan: to rule Egypt. And it will stand unlike the official regime, as opposition in any matter or general affair. This negative stance is not particular just to the opposition but to all radical regimes, such as the Iranian regime which is considering changing the region according to it's plan, even if that means spreading chaos. But the Muslims, like any other people in the world, do not agree on all matters and particular ruling bodies, and therefore dealing with a billion Muslims is much more complicated than dealing with a billion Chinese who have one leader and one plan.
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&issueno=11022&article=505174
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
