‘Influencing each other’: Arab Democracy and America

Jade Salhab* 

 While the risings in Tunisia and Egypt unequivocally showed the universal appeal of democracy, they also showed the fragility of the ‘democratic grasp’ among many Americans and Arabs. By ‘democratic grasp’ I mean the profound understanding that any group of people - popular or elitist, spontaneous or organized - can harbor a genuine diversity of views on any given issue. Despite the generalized belief in the merits of democratic governance, ‘democratic grasp’ was often forgotten when analyzing the latest social and political events. We can do better, if we’re really aiming for true democratic practice in both worlds. We can do better, if we’re really hoping to inaugurate a new era of respectful relations between both worlds.

As protesters poured into Tahrir Square, pundits and amateurs alike were pouring their thoughts into the public sphere expressing sincere admiration for the ‘Egyptian people’ and the ‘spirit of democracy’ they embodied.

But as we look back - now that we‘re trying to learn from these events– one thought comes to mind: throughout the turbulent process, Arabs and Americans analyzed each others’ moves using incredibly counterproductive and misleading simplifications.

Let’s start with some common misreadings in the United States.

The better known one is the Conservatives’ fear that Mubarak’s autocratic regime would be replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood theocratic regime. But the more interesting one is found among Liberals who, understating any influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, admire the ‘revolution of Wael-Ghonim’s young and inspired Internet generation’. The protests, they assert, were led by this emerging, free-minded youth that has awoken and is about to sweep the Arab world out of the yoke of darkness.

In fact, not only were both of these groups equally active actors in the Egyptian rising, but they were also two among many. Heaps of protesters were simple workers, yearning for a better life, better salaries, and lower prices. Many were also from a previous generation, alienated by the excessive submissiveness of Mubarak to the American-Israeli geopolitical interests. Any Arab individual would be able to describe how diverse the crowd was and how this ‘Egyptian people’ was, in fact, composed of Muslim conservatives, young liberals, workers and union-organizers, leftist intellectuals, nationalist Nasserites and many more. In contrast, few in the US lent themselves to such a nuanced reading of the movement, and fewer even are ready to put-up with the diverse -and possibly inconsistent - perspectives and aspirations that will very shortly start emerging from it.

Here’s why this is important: if Americans are unable to truly think democratically and accept this diversity, they will also be unable to effectively support democracy in Egypt, consequently deepening the rift between America and the Arab world.

But let’s also take a moment to look at how much democratic grasp we, the Arabs, have shown in our interpretation of ‘America’ and its response to the protests.

Many Arabs started criticizing ‘America’ from the moment the protests broke out. For some, Obama was not doing what he could to support the rise of democracy in Egypt; for others he was acting hypocritically: supporting the crowds and abandoning the 30-years-long loyal dictator only because he had no other choice. For Hassan Nasrallah it was even doing both things at the same time - go figure.

Ironically, one argument was recurrently used by all critics alike: the contradictory messaging of the Obama administration throughout these 18 days. The argument goes like this: “Americans say one thing and then its opposite: They are either trying to bet on both horses, or trying to hide their true agenda”.

Here’s my question: how can we Arabs be nuanced enough to understand the complexities of the Egyptian dynamics - or ultra-complex Lebanese dynamics for that matter- and yet fail to understand that ‘America’ is not one single block?

An article on Sunday in the New York Times plainly exposes how divided the American administration really was: rather than being the monolithic, all-conspiring, all-powerful, synchronized, hegemonic and satanic machine that your average Arab taxi driver is always eager to blame for the world’s misfortune, ‘America’, it turns out, was truly debating its way to a new era of relations with the Arab world.

The article shows how the White House staff - composed of a younger and more progressive team - was genuinely inclined to back the protests and honor Obama’s Cairo speech, while the State Department - composed of overly prudent, institutional realpolitik bureaucrats that are as nimble and dynamic in their minds as a tanker ship – where trying to save the furniture of the Titanic.

One tempting conclusion from the article is that the mixed messaging was simply a failure on behalf of the White House to tame the State Department and keep its diplomats on message (the message being: “the orderly transition to democracy needs to start now, and now means yesterday”). But a deeper conclusion would be that between those who want change and those who fear it, those focused on principles and those on interests, a genuine internal debate is raging in America, and this White House is struggling to strike a reasonable balance.

The general point I’m trying to make is that peoples, organizations, and even administrations in free societies - as well as not so free ones - are diverse, incoherent, inconsistent, and dynamic. Acknowledging this fact is of the essence, if we are to build a democratic society - or pretend to be one, in the case of the USA. Acknowledging this fact is of the essence as well, if we are to find common grounds that will encourage ‘America’ to develop a more nuanced and reasonable foreign policy towards our region.

It is time for Arabs to understand that the American Administration is not a cohesive hegemonic imperialist machine, as much as it is time for Americans to understand that Arabs are not a lump of sheep-minded followers of retrograde imams. Only then can we start ‘influencing each other’ as Bashar el Assad - of all people - has eloquently put it in his recent interview with the Wall Street Journal. Only then can we consolidate truly democratic behavior within and between our respective worlds.

*Jade Salhab is a Lebanese architect and urban planner, born in Beirut in 1976. He graduated from the American University of Beirut in 1999. He  went on to complete a Masters in Urban Environment and Sustainable Development as well as  post-graduate studies in Urban Planning at the Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya in Barcelona. Between 2002 to 2010 he lived and worked in Brussels where he established a succesful private consultancy firm. He is currently based at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government completing a Masters in Public Administration.

The Pastor, the Book and the President

On 18th November 1978, a 'Pastor Jones', Jim Jones this time, led 909 indiviudals to their death, by self-poisoning in the jungle of Guyana. These events shook the US and raised questions over the danger of extreme religious cults and the risk of them drifting into tragedy. But America is America and religious freedoms are sacro-saints, except maybe when it involves a Muslim praying centre in the vicinity of the World Trade Centre site.

In 2010, a Pastor Terry Jones, who manages to get 50 people to attend his sermons on a good day (12 on a bad day), made the headlines around the world as he threatened to burn the Koran in public. It prompted reactions from Western leaders, calls for the Catholic pope to interfere and then negotiations involving a muslim cleric who turned up at the site of the 'Dove World Outreach Centre' and smiled uncomfortably in front of makeshift banners cursing his religion. The US President looked even more uncomfortable as he spoke sheepishly to Terry Jones through the media asking him ro refrain from carrying out his threat.

And Threat it is! While maybe not an act of violence in itself, the burning of a book deemed Holy by millions across the world at a time of conflict of tension carries in it an inherent symbolic violence and the potential for the loss of lives through international repercussions, as highlighted by Gen. David Petraeus.

Many commentators have questionned how such an insignificant, most likely unstable character, managed to effectively hold the world at ransom. The answer is multilayered  and once scrutinised Terry Jones and his group become irrelevant. Successive US administrations have failed to engage the 'other' effectively and to inform their own public of the nuances in Islam. The media, right wing or other, have built a paranoid vision of a world populated by unruly barbarians with a completely separate set of values inconsistent with the modern world.  There has been no shift in the understanding of long-held grievances in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Israeli perspective is still accepted as fact in the circles of power and arguably beyond them. Iraq and Afghanistan figure in the American unconscious as dirty smelly deserts where 'our boys' get killed by faceless terrorists. In essence, Samuel Huntington's clash of civilisations has been manufactured where it failed to materialise spontaneously.

On the other hand, The main tool in Terry Jones's new found influence is the risk of indiscriminate violence from some Muslim fundamentalists in response to his action. These groups maintain a firm grasp over the imagery associated with Islam and that is projected to the rest of the world. Their resorting to violence at the first hint of an external insult to their belief system seems tolerable or at least excusable to many moderate Muslims (See the Cartoon affair a few years back). Many fearing the repercussions branded Jones a 'Zionist' who is  deliberately trying to create a rift between Islam and Christianity. This type of rationalisation is unhelpful as it again gives political weight to the  action of an eccentric individual and shifts the blame onto a third party. The responsibility on Muslims to also try and understand the place that such man has in the so called Christian realm is brushed aside. Some raised the question: Would the Catholics threaten mass murder in response to the burning of the Bible. A fringe element might consider and act upon justifiable anger and outrage but the wider community would reject it outright.  This discrepancy shows that Muslim societies are yet to confront their own demons but the politico-religious leadership is lacking in the context of internal divisions and the use of devoutness as an indicator of righteousness in an otherwise bleak social, economical and political horizon.

The Terry Jones affair is not yet closed. The risk of copycat behaviour is highly likely and the blackmailing of an already embattled Obama can only herald the return of an intolerant America that never really went away. Jones should be allowed to burn any books he likes in his backyard with his group of misfits and suffer whatever consequences in this life or the other. This should have never become an issue for the rest of us. Unfortunately we are now past that point.

'Avatar': An Anti-Imperialist Epic?

By Joseph El-Khoury

The bad habit of carpet bombing: Apocalypse Now 1979

Avatar starts on a depressing note. In 2154, humans are still invading foreign lands, digging for underground resources and serving their interests with complete disregard to universal values and life in its various shapes (in this case , the shape of oversized cat-like figures with an unhealthy blue tinge). Not one lesson learned from the Iraq inquiry or the Goldstone report. Not one dent to the might of the military-industrial complex!

Things do improve as we realise that a small eccentric group of idealist geeks refuse to abide by the rules and go out of their way to fraternise with the indigenous population. They, well-meaning as ever, end up causing the most damage, although only in the medium term (This is Hollywood after all and a happy ending beckons). I thought here to draw parallels with the kind-hearted American missionaries caught ‘rescuing’ a few dozen Haitian children from their fate as...Haitian children. These, just like Corporal Jake Sully, find themselves misunderstood and vilified from San Domingo to Salt Lake City. A Far-fetched analogy, you might think. Not as ludicrous as the parallels drawn by some with the Iraq invasion. Everything in Hollywood these days seems to refer to Iraq, as if this one tragedy was out of character for Uncle Sam and deserved ad nauseaum analysis. But why look hard when the birth story of the United States is also that of the uprooting of a native people with animist beliefs and a dress sense suspiciously similar to the ‘Na’vis’. While the jungle on Pandora coupled with the heavy reliance on airborne combat tactics and carpet bombing is reminiscent of the Vietnamese conflict. Nothing new there. As the story unfolds, we are quickly back to old clichés of the all-American hero who gets the girl, dodges bullets and defeats evil. The heartbroken local chief has no choice but to swear allegiance to the well-bred natural leader of men and humanoids alike. Perversely, I can’t think of another occasion where an American audience will be asked to revel in watching Americans troops die in droves while justice prevails. If you are still convinced of an Iraqi reference, then James Cameron must be suspected of links with Al-Qaeda. Unlikely, judging from his lifestyle.

I have to conclude that Avatar is pleasant enough to watch and the technology behind it is to be admired. Unfortunately, I am none the wiser about Mr Cameron’s views on imperialism but certainly aware of his taste in music...and on that front not much progress since ‘Titanic’.

!!!جائزة نوبل للسلام

خالد برّاج

لا أعرف ما هي إنجازات الرئيس الأميركي باراك أوباما و لم ألحظها إلى حدّ الآن لكي أهلِل فرحاً لنيله جائزة نوبل للسلام.

صحيح أنّ الرجل يحاول في شتّى المجالات تحسين صورة الولايات المتحدّة في الخارج عبر العمل العلني (على الأقل) للحدّ من التسلّح النووي و الإستغناء عن الدرع الصاروخي في أوروبا (المقلق لروسيا) إضافةً إلى محاولة إبتداع طرق جديدة لطمأنة العالم العربي و الإسلامي من خلال تحريك ملف المفاوضات الفلسطينية - الإسرائيلية (ممّا أوقعه بخلافٍ مع إسرائيل ظهر إلى العلن بجدِية لأول مرَةٍ منذ نشوء دولة إسرائيل) و معارضته للإحتلال الاميريكي للعراق و صولاً إلى تعاطيه بشكل مغاير لإستمرار الحرب في أفغانستان إلاّ أنّ جميع تلك المحاولات هي ضمن ما يسمح به النظام "السيستم" و هو يتماشى مع المصلحة الحالية لسياسة الولايات المتّحدة الخارجية.

بالطبع العلاقات بين الولايات المتحدة و إسرائيل لن تشوبها شائبة بالرغم من بعض التوّترات التي تحدثها تصاريح من هنا أو هناك للرئيس الأميركي أو أحد معاونيه لأنّ المضمون لا و لن يشكّك بحق إسرائيل في الوجود أو دفاعها عن نفسها و هو يتبع نفس منهج الإدارات الأميركية المتعاقبة بتحميل الفلسطينيين و الإسرائيليين على السواء بفارقٍ كبير مسؤولية الأحداث و الصدامات التي تحصل بالأراضي المحتلّة, أمّا هامش التصريح أو الخطاب الرسمي (أو الغير الرسمي) الأميركي المنتقد لإسرائيل فهو مبني بشكلٍ أساسي على إنتقاد عمليّة الإستيطان في الأراضي المحتلّة و دعوة إسرائيل إلى إيقافها أو الحدّ منها و هي تأتي بإطار التمنّي و ليس الأمر.

في المسألة العراقية, يدفع الرجل ثمن أخطاء بوش الأب و الإبن في آنٍ , و هو و إن إنسحبت جيوش التحالف بقيادة المارينز من مدن العراق الرئيسية و معلومات شبه مؤكّدة عن الخطّة النهائية للإنسحاب النهائي من العراق إلاّ أنّ المسالة العراقية أصبحت تتعدّى وجود عسكري لقوى إحتلال في كلِ المدن أو بعضها إلى منحنى أخطر (أي الإقتتال الطائفي الشبه يومي) ساهمت فيه بشكل رئيسي سياسات الإدارات الأميركية المتوارثة منذ حرب الخليج الأولى بتشجيعها عن قصد أو غيره بالتضامن مع الأحلام الإيرانية بتصدير الثورة إلى محيط إيران العربي, أماّ التدخّل السوري فهو إن يأخذ طابع تسلّل تخريبي عن طريق بعض الجماعات الأصولية إلاّ أنّه يبقى محصوراً في إيطار ما يمكن أن يحصل عليه النظام السوري من مكاسب ضمن المفاوضات الشبه علنية التي يقودها الوسيط التركي بين إسرائيل و سوريا.

أمّا في أفغانستان فإنّ المعطيات تشير بشكلٍ لا لبس فيه أنّ الإتجاه لدى الرئيس الأميركي هو بالتجديد للقوات الأمريكية إضافةً إلى معلومات صحفية تؤكِد أنّ الرئيس الأميركي سيوافق على توصية قائد القوات الدولية في أفغانستان الجنرال ستانلي ماكريستال على توسيع رقعة الحرب و زيادة عديد القوات الأمريكية هناك.

إذاً أين هي الإنجازات ؟

هل الإستغناء عن الدرع الصاروخي في أوروبا و الذي أعطى حيوية إيجابية لكن محدودة للعلاقات الأميركية – الروسية يشكِل إنجازاً يكافأ عليه باراك أوباما بجائزة نوبل للسلام ؟

هل إيمان باراك أوباما بالحلول الدبلوماسية و السلمية لحلّ النزاعات في العالم يشكِل قاعدة قانونية و عمليّة لمنحه جائزة نوبل للسلام ؟

هل حلمه بضرورة وجود عالمٌ خالٍ من الأسلحة النوويّة يعتبر كافياً لمنحه جائزة نوبل للسلام ؟

هل إنتقاده و دعوته للتخفيف من حدّة الإستيطان الصهيوني في الأراضي الفلسطينية يؤرّخ كإنجازٍ يكافأ عليه بجائزة نوبل للسلام ؟

هل إنسحاب القوات الأميركية من المدن الرئيسية في العراق هو إنجازٌ كافٍ يمنحه بشكلٍ تلقائي جائزة نوبل للسلام ؟

هل إنتخاب رجل أمريكي من أصول أفريقية لأول مرةٍ كرئيس للولايات المتحدة الأمريكية يعطيه دفعاً و مصداقية لكي ينال جائزة نوبل للسلام ؟

حسب ما أذكر فإنّ الجائزة تمنح للأفعال و ليس الأقوال و التمنيّات, و أفعال الرئيس الأميركي ليست إلى الآن سوى أقوال و هي أحلام رجلٍ آتٍ من بيئة متشعِبة أظهرته وسائل الإعلام كمزيجٍ عصري من الرئيس الأميركي الراحل جون كينيدي و فتى الستينات الحالم بعالمٍ أفضل , إنّ منح باراك أوباما جائزة نوبل للسلام بناءاً على أحلامه و تمنيّاته هي هرطقة مضحكة لا تمتّ إلى الواقع بشيء , و هو يعلم تماماً و في قرارة نفسه أنّ منحه هذه الجائزة قد أتى قبل الأوان بكثير لأنّ هناك الكثير من العمل يجب إنجازه لكي ينال جائزة السلام الحقيقية التي سوف تمنحه إياها الشعوب المقهورة القابعة تحت وطأة الأنظمة التوتاليترية و دبّابات الجيش الأميركي.

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize: A lapse in judgment

By Joseph El-Khoury

There used to be a time when the Nobel Peace Prize would recognise achievement. These days,possibly due to the dire state of affairs in many parts of the world, the committee behind the prize seems to satisfy itself of recognising endeavour towards peace.

How else would you explain that US president Barack Obama was chosen as the 2009 recipient only 9 months into his presidency, in the absence of any tangible progress on the Middle East, Afghanistan, Cuba, North Korea not to mention the difficulties he faces in reforming the US healthcare.

Supposed to recognise his ability to instil hope across the world, the Nobel prize will raise expectations that his administration will revolutionise the way America approaches foreign affairs. Yet,so far beyond some symbolic gestures and a measured language it is business as usual in Washington.

It is maybe unfair to blame Obama the man for a deeply entrenched arrogance that colours the American view of the world (and in particularly the Third World). It is also unfair to bestow on him the honour of a Nobel Prize for merely not being George Bush.

Al-Megrahi and the Swiss Bankers

By Joseph El-Khoury

The Al-Megrahi controversy illustrates one of the basic misunderstandings that poison East-West Relationships. The scenes of celebrations upon his return cannot have come as a shock to those who remember the history of Colonel Kaddafi(Gaddafi) and his consistent talent at irritating, insulting and keeping everyone on their toes. This is not about a clash of cultures or an Arab insensitivity to the suffering of others. Leaving aside whether Al-Megrahi is guilty of Lockerbie or whether the Libyan people feel his detention was a political one, the public display of jubilation are unlikely to have been spontaneous and can only have been blessed and orchestrated by a regime bent on sending messages as part of a conversation with London and Washington of which we know little. Capricious tyrant or Machiavellian visionary? The jury is still out on that one. What is clear is that the West is showing a great deal of tolerance in the name of pragmatic cooperation.

I remember a conversation with A Libyan doctor in self imposed exile who complained above all of the ‘unpredictability’ of a regime run by an unpredictable man. In a way Kaddafhi is not different from a Henry VIII changing wives like you would change socks, then creating a church to accommodate his personal needs. These, after all are the prerogatives of absolute Monarchs...and Rock stars. Kaddafi probably aspires to both status: omnipotent and dramatic. He is a figure as recognisable as Michael Jackson since the 1980s and will mostl likely become a pop-art icon for years to come. But the values of the 16th century are no longer in operation. This is 2009, supposedly dominated by liberalism, governance, accountability, fairness and...Democracy. Wars are being waged in the name of these values in Iraq and Afghanistan at a high cost for all those involved. Unfortunately, and since September 2001, Kaddafhi has been sold to Western public opinion as a repentant bad guy, turned anti-terrorist campaigner and business partner. Dropped were concerns over sustained human rights abuses, oppressive policies and lack of political freedom. Libya had become in 8 years the ideal investment spot, as longs as you managed to woo the ruling inner circle by accepting invitations to share food in the presidential tent or admiring the artwork of the heir to the throne Seif El Islam in a London Gallery. Britain, but also the US and others have only their governments to blame for marketing the regime as a model for the future Middle East.

Only a few days prior to Al Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds -A decision that can only be praised if its premises are genuine- Switzerland was apologising to Kaddafi’s other son Hannibal for having smeared his image following allegations him and his wife had abused their staff while sojourning in the country. Libya had retaliated by withdrawing funds deposited in Swiss Banks and cancelling contracts. The sight of Swiss officials begging for forgiveness was more repulsive than the scenes in Tripoli. It was also more symbolic of the hypocrisy framing East-West relationships, a relationship of business and political powerhouses over which the average Arab has no influence.

'Jesus' comes to Afghanistan

It seems the Taliban are not the only extremists thriving in Afghanistan. In this clip broadcast on the English AlJazeera some elements within the US Army unashamedly draw a parallel between their duty as soldiers and their obligations as Evangelical Christians. Encouraged by a head chaplain (also a senior officer), they use militaristic vocabulary to justify their proselytizing strategy, with the use of Bibles translated in Pashtoun and other local languages.

Although this is probably not a reflection of the majority of US Servicemen, it is worrying that the Christian version of the Madrasas seem to operate unchecked in Bagram Air-Base. Over the past decade Killing in the name of! has become mainstream again and the rest of us are caught up in these anachronistic religious wars . It is high time for the seculars to step in.

Arabdemocracy

Al Bashir, the US and the ICC

By Bachir Habib

The International Criminal Court issued a long awaited arrest warrant last week against President of Sudan Omar Al Bashir.
In its first warrant against a serving head of State, the panel of the ICC judges ruled that Al Bashir should answer two counts of war crimes, and five counts of crimes against humanity related to the conflict in Darfur.
The warrant issued has been praised by most Western countries including the United States. However, the history of the relations between the US and the ICC is all about “conflicts and disagreements”, and it is essential to mention that Washington did not ratify the Rome Treaty that brought the ICC into being in 2002.
To avoid any confusion, it is essential here to shed some light on the ICC and its relation with the American “Power”.

The International Criminal Court is not to be confused with the International Court of Justice. It is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
As of March 2009, 108 states are members of the Court; however, a number of states, including China, Russia, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined.
The Court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.
To date, the Court has opened investigations into four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur. The Court has issued public arrest warrants for thirteen people; seven of them remain free, two have died, and four are in custody. The Court's first trial, of Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga, began on 26 January 2009.

Regarding the Court’s relation with Washington, it is primordial to mention that The US has been so far in opposition to ratifying the Rome Statute and joining the ICC. However, the United States took no action to oppose using the ICC to prosecute atrocities in Darfur, as evidenced by the U.S. abstention on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593 referring the Darfur situation to the ICC for prosecution.
The U.S. State Department has in the past published a long list of US objections against the ICC, stating that it is vague, broad, and has unaccountable powers, that the statute of the Court is an “infringement of national sovereignty and is in incompatibility with the American Constitution”, and finally, that it paves the way to “politically motivated prosecutions”.
The US State Department has even posted a Frequently Asked Questions section on its website explaining why Washington is against ratifying the ICC Treaty.

The above “facts” are clear, and they are nothing but a brief summary of a whole juridical literature written during the past few years regarding the US position towards the ICC. However, the US support of the ICC, specifically in Al Bashir’s case, is a clear example of a politically motivated act, rather than a support for the international legality. Washington is actually harming the international system with its attempt to serve its National Interest by using a young legal body that needs to go a long way ahead, before proving its independence, credibility and authority.
In that sense, it is maybe time to remind that there is no democracy, national or global, without implementing the principle of separation of powers. In other words the need is for a separation of the legal international system from any political interference once a judicial process is launched.

“Arabesque” Unveils Arab Art to Americans

By Bachir Habib

“Unwrap the cultural treasures of the Arab world in this Kennedy Center international festival showcasing the varied cultures of the 22 Arab nations that represent the Arabic-speaking world. From the Arabian Gulf to the Levant to North Africa-this region of the world is the birthplace of human civilization and features extraordinary diversity in geography, traditions, landscape, religion, and contemporary aesthetics. In cooperation with the League of Arab States, the three-week festival brings together artists, many of whom are making their U.S. debut, in performances of music, dance, and theater, as well as exhibitions featuring art installations, fashion, a soundscape, cuisine, a marketplace, and much more. Discover the evolution of art forms born from the cradle of human civilization. Experience an amazing breadth of culture that spans both eons and continents.”

This is how John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington has unveiled its 10 million dollars event called “Arabesque: Arts of the Arab World”. It is indeed an important moment for the Arab Culture and the Arab art scene to be invited to such a prestigious institution and environment.

Arabesque as the above press release and video show is an important moment for the Arab art scene and the American audience altogether. It happens only a month after the inauguration of President Barack Obama who revealed a new American diplomacy in his speech on the 20th of January. He addressed the Muslim world saying that Washington seeks “a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect”. The coverage of the launch of Arabesque by international news agencies strongly mentioned the link between the festival and the dawn of a new American diplomacy towards the Arab and Muslim world.

Both events can be linked, but on the other hand, as Alicia Adams, head of International programming at Kennedy Center said, they are not directly related. According to the organizer who spent three years roaming more that 15 Arab countries to find artists and new talents and bring them to perform in the US, the relation between both events is a coincidence. This festival was going to happen no matter what the outcome of the US elections would have been. But Adams insists that it was not an easy task to prepare Arabesque for it was all put in order at “a time when the popularity of the USA was very low and there was a possibility that the artists would say they were not interested because it was America and Kennedy Center, which is a quasi-federal institution”.

Since it started on the 23rd of February, the festival lasting until the 15th of March is of interest for the American, international and Arab media. However, this big event mainly featuring mainstream and “commercial” art of the Arab world, fails to focus on the colossal structural problems the Arab art scene faces at home.

Freedom of expression, censorship and self censorship, lack of investments, negative public reaction to the notion of difference, and finally tyrannical state policies and intolerance are the main challenges art faces in many Arab countries.

Art and Culture are spheres that can generate social and even political changes. If used properly as spaces where concepts, ideas, talents and challenges meet, interact and evolve, they might create the right path towards achieving the “dream of a Nation that draws strength and coherence from its differences and diversities”, as assassinated Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir once said.

Kaddafi’s “Performative Act” in the NY Times

By Bachir Habib

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, right, meets with US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, in Tripoli, Libya, Friday, Sept. 5, 2008, AP/Nasser Nasser

Only last week, The New York Times featured the Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Kaddafi as an opinion writer. We are used to such credible newspapers publishing articles by prominent diplomats, political advisors, and occasionally former or actual heads of State. We have read for example in the New York Times and other newspapers, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bill Clinton and many others, expressing their views on controversial issues.
The article written by the Libyan leader is somewhat ambiguous and raises many questions regarding its timing and its intention. It is equally clear that Kaddafi’s piece entitled “The One State Solution” is less a “way out” of the Middle Eastern crisis than it is a political statement reminding President Obama’s new Administration of Libya’s “achievements’ with George W Bush. Hence, the idea of writing an article in the NY Times is loaded with symbols and messages that can be summarized in three headlines:

The first one is the ability of Libya to propose a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The second is the adhesion of “the new” Kaddafi to a version of History when he writes: “The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland”. Finally, the third strong message Kaddafi sends is through denouncing religious extremists that he accuses of “feeding on the conflict as an excuse to advance their own causes”.

The Libyan leader is determined to get these three main messages across to the new American president. And to make sure nothing is lost in translation, he has chosen the NY Times as a reliable mailbox.
However, the Kaddafi who wrote the very conciliatory article a few days ago is the same one who requested “an open door for voluntary participation of Arabs to fight beside the Palestinians in Gaza” and urged “Arab countries to reactivate their common defense treaty to face the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip”.
I am not surprised to see an Arab Leader, formerly a “champion” of Pan Arabism making such a call to fight Israel and defend the Arab cause. It is not surprising either to see that our cherished leader is insulting Arab minds by presuming our ignorance and our illiteracy.
From an American point of view, Kaddafi’s well written article can be considered a gesture of goodwill and a sign of moderation. But placing his words in the context of his recent declarations on the matter shows how disrespectful and inconsistent our leaders can be when they use one discourse to ease tensions “at home” and another one to satisfy Washington.
One last word to the Colonel: While it is usually considered prestigious to be featured in the NY Times, on this occasion it smacks of insolence.

Related links:
Kaddafi's article in the NY Times
Kaddafi's declarations during the war on Gaza

More statistics: What every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine

"What every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine" is a quote from the site Ifamericansknew.org . Statistics shown on this site, addressed primarily to interested American readers, are self explanatory and well referenced. The figures that followed were last updated in November and are likely to rise significantly as a result of the latest Israeli offensive on Gaza. We read:

Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed since September 29, 2000 till Present:
123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians, and 1050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis.
Israelis and Palestinians Killed since September 29, 2000 till Present: 1062 Israelis and at least 4876 Palestinians have been killed.
Israelis and Palestinians Injured since September 29, 2000 till Present: 8341 Israelis and 33034 Palestinians have been injured.
Daily U.S. Taxes to Israel and the Palestinians:
In the Fiscal Year 2007 the U.S. gave more than $6.8 million per day to Israel in comparison to $0.3 million per day to the Palestinians.
UN Resolutions Targeting Israel and the Palestinians:
Between 1955 and 1992 Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.
Current Number of Political Prisoners and Detainees: 1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel.
Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes, since 1967 till Present: 0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 18147 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel.
Current Israeli and Palestinian Unemployment Rates:
The Israeli unemployment rate is 7.3%, while the Palestinian unemployment rate is estimated at 23%.
Current Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land: Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and "outposts" built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land.

Link: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Arabdemocracy

Guerilla Footwear

By Joseph El-Khoury

Muntadar Al Zeidi did what many Arabs could only fantasize about: Giving George Bush a piece of their mind. The shoe throwing incident coupled with a traditionally crafted verbal insult (You dog!) pretty much summarises the general mood in the Middle East in response to the relentless patronising and misleading discourse of the Neo-Conservative administration for the past 8 years. It is no coincidence that the action of Mr Al Zeidi came at the moment that Mr Bush was praising the achievements of years of occupation, as if relating the completion of a chemistry school project, with complete disregard to the suffering they had sown in Iraq. Even for those uninterested in the political context, the video clip of the shoe throwing incident, was funny: A respectable man in a suit ducking from a flying shoe aimed at his face. Substitute anyone with status to GW Bush and the scene is still YouTube worthy. It has the pulling power of a video on Pandas cuddling or cats fighting, retaining an entertaining quality no matter how many times you watch it.

There is a strong argument for peaceful shoe throwing (the soft sole version) to be upheld as a genuine guerrilla tactic across cultures and settings. Imagine a shoe being thrown, for example, at Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Thabo Mbeki, King Abdullah of Jordan or Hugo Chavez. All would be justified for one reason or the other and certainly as funny to watch. This technique could even be adopted by the most unconventional of leaders such as Mr Ahmadinajjad of Iran or Muaammar Kaddafi of Libya to settle disputes. It would not the first time in history that a shoe is used to affirm a political point of view. On October 12th 1960, The Soviet Leader Nicolas Khrouchtchev banged his shoe against a desk to silence the Filipino representative to the UN general Assembly. He also called him ‘a jerk, a stooge and a lackey of Imperialism’. At the time, no cultural dimension was attributed to the use of the shoe, although it was followed by a dissection of the personality of Khrouchtchev and the Communist regime behind him.

As the first shots of the incident in Iraq were beamed around the world, so called experts on Middle Eastern customs sought to highlight the cultural significance of shoe throwing. Whether well meaning or not, their attempts seemed a blunt misuse of cultural contexts to distract from the core issues at stake. The best insight came from the victim, President Bush himself, who likened it to having the middle finger waved at you. Other Western equivalents could also be: heckling, throwing eggs or rotten tomatoes or running naked across a football pitch. We will soon find out whether this was a clever plan cooked up by radicals with Iranian connections or just a spontaneous display of emotions. Whatever Muntadar’s motivation, the message was a universal one and did not require the elaborate cultural interpretations clumsily thrown in by the Foreign press, as if discussing the strange rituals of an obscure Amazonian tribe. Having gone through rigorous search, the shoe was probably the safest option available, easy to take off and with limited potential for serious damage. It is a civilised expression of extreme disgust and an ethical advancement on suicide bombing and plane hijacking. I echo Dean Obeidallah who wonders sarcastically in the Huffington Post whether shoe throwing is perceived positively in any culture. At this rate Lonely planet and other travel guides will be warning backpackers travelling through the Middle East to steer clear from irritable Arabs in a solid pair of Timberlands.

Obama vs.Osama

By Joseph El Khoury

In a cold cave somewhere in the rugged mountains of the Pakistani-Afghan border, a group of bearded men stare at their Battery powered TV screens with obvious signs of disappointment. Jihad suddenly got tougher! The Bush-Cheney tandem, with which they shared an obsession for world domination and a weakness for guns, will be missed. In their place emerges a peculiar coalition of liberals, moderates and pragmatists led by a Black man called Barack Hussein Obama. The rhetoric will have to evolve and the slogans refined to adapt to the scenery.
Osama Ben Laden will have to restyle himself to avoid that too many Muslim kids turn to Obama for inspiration. If a Black man can become the most powerful on Earth why can’t we dream of a day that an individual from Arab stock can achieve a similar position, and by peaceful means?

Against all odds, America has shown that it is capable of changing course and chastising those who dragged it, and the world, into a failed ‘war on terror’ that was no less bloody and destructive than the ‘war of terror’ declared by Ben Laden and co. There is no reason to believe that Mr Obama will be less hawkish in Afghanistan or less pro-Israeli in Palestine. He has made it clear all along this campaign and is unlikely to change course with the eyes of Conservative Americans (McCain’s share of the popular vote was 46%) scrutinising his every move with distrust. The policy changes will most likely affect Iraq and the relations with Iran, both areas where the Al-Qaeda influence is in retreat. The bearded men will dig deep and rewrite their discourse as their motivation was never to reason the US or bring it to adopt a fair approach to the problems affecting Arabs and Muslims. Theirs is a fight in the name of an Ultra-Orthodox version of one religion among many and by definition can only end with their annihilation as a project.
In the meantime I suspect we will be hearing from them, whether through another Ayman Al-Zawahiri video or attacks on soft targets across the world. They will remind us that while once totalitarian project has been defeated another one still lurks in the shadow.
The Neo-Conservatives were defeated at the hands of the American people and it is hoped that the change in US administration will convince Muslim societies that bearded men in caves are no way to build a future.

US Elections and the Vacuum Abroad

By Bachir Habib

The US presidential elections taking place on Tuesday are the major political event closing the year. On the interior American front, there will be a real political change no matter who will win. However, in the event of an Obama victory change will definitely be more radical.
The outcome of the elections will also be reflected outside the United States and shape in many ways the international political scene. We are then witnessing an election that will bring to power an Administration that will redefine the image of Washington. The Middle East and its issues will be the first affected. This has aroused the interest of the Arab media and press in these elections with extensive special coverage of the campaign.
From being at the heart of both campaigns in the early days, the Middle East has taken a step back and been replaced by the economy, especially since the financial and economic crisis took a turn to the worse.
The three main Middle Eastern fundamental questions on hold since late summer are: The Iraqi question, US – Iranian relations and the Peace process (equally waiting for the outcome of the Israeli general elections expected early next year).
The political actors in the region are not wasting time; they are preparing their files and studying the options for the new phase ahead. The ideological Bush Administration is leaving and being replaced by pragmatics from both ends of the spectrum.
Syria who has very carefully managed indirect talks with Israel has already declared that there will be no direct US sponsored talks with Tel Aviv as long as Bush is in power.
Iraq is holding its breath. In Baghdad, despite a positive attitude toward having a Democrat in the White House and the promise of a prompt pullout from Iraq, there is fear in some political spheres regarding the future, certainly with a personality like Joe Biden as Vice President (Cf Biden’s Plan for Iraq)*.
On the Iranian side, where many improvements have been noticed lately regarding Washington – Teheran relations, there’s a “wait and see” strategy operating, but Teheran is holding its cards strongly. The two main cards being the Iraqi one (where the future of the US-Iraqi security agreement resides) and the nuclear one; both inextricably linked due to successful Iranian tactics.
Finally, however important this election is for the Middle East, it will probably herald a temporary vacuum in the Region while the new administration is investigated and approved by the parliamentary commissions. This period may take a year or even more, but will be hopefully followed by a new era characterized by less tension, less violence and well thought through policies based on pragmatic calculations of political interests.
But violence is always an option to all involved in this turbulent region, essentially when the political process fails to serve strategic and national interests.

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/opinion/01biden.html

The New Middle East

By Bachir Habib

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem warned on Monday of military retaliation in the event of future cross-border American raids, saying: "If they do it again, we will defend our territory."
Why didn’t they retaliate this time? Why didn’t they retaliate after the bombing of what the US and Israel pointed at as “nuclear or chemical facility under construction” in September 2007. Why didn’t the Syrian – Iranian mutual defense agreement apply in both cases? And where do we go from here?
Ever since the invasion in 2003, Iran has had the upper hand in Iraq. The “Democratic” elections brought to power an Iraqi establishment close to Teheran and somewhat “Made in Teheran”.
Is it a coincidence that the so called Surge strategy is succeeding and the level of violence in Iraq has reached its lower records since American ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Kazemi–Qomi held series of meetings in Baghdad discussing “exclusively” the security issue in Iraq? Although the invasion of Iraq probably had ideological roots in terms of “spreading the Western model of Democracy and creating a New Middle East”; on the ground this war has evolved in a more pragmatic direction. Washington is now seeking a safe exit for its troops, and on the other hand an Iraqi-American Agreement that will preserve its interests. The negotiations over that agreement were conducted by the Iraqi government, meaning an Iranian approval is implicitly given.
There is an Iranian American diplomatic tango going on, and it is at times getting quite intimate: In May 2008 reports revealed how Washington blocked an Israeli decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. More recently the Israeli press publishes a report titled: Bush to declare renewal of ties with Iran (Haaretz, 25/10/2008).
Americans are apparently acting as if nothing is possible in Iraq without the help of Teheran. And it is only a matter of time before the American implicit recognition of the Iranian role becomes a formal and declared one. The price is going to be paid in Iraq, by Iraqis. It may have the face of an American brokered “Iraqi Taef” (in reference to the Taef conference that ended the Lebanese civil war in 1989) where Washington will recognize an Iranian role in Iraq, similar to the one Syrians used to have in Lebanon.
In exchange, the Iranians have established themselves as the only de facto power able to provide security guarantees to Israel: On the nuclear level, an Iranian agreement with the International community is the only nuclear security guarantee for Israel worthy of notice. On the northern Israeli front, Iran is the only actor able to ease Hezbollah’s pressure in south Lebanon and pacify the border. On the Palestinian front, Teheran has a very crucial role in guiding Syria’s policy towards radical Palestinian factions. All this comes at a time Damascus is desperately trying to reintegrate the International community after years of isolation, and when indirect Israeli Syrian peace negotiations via Turkey seem to be on a positive track.
There is a serious chance the next phase opening with a new US administration in office from November will be characterized by a climate of pragmatic negotiations. The re-defining of roles and shifting alliances will all be paving the way for an honorable and safe exit of the US Army from Iraq.
Finally, regarding Washington dropping its traditional allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the pragmatic Americans will find a very diplomatic way securing arms selling to the Arab Gulf Monarchies and other Arab countries, and on the other hand making them smoothly understand that Teheran is capable to give Israel in terms of security what they were never able to provide.

Islamophobia and the Power of Suggestion

By Joseph El-Khoury

In 1991, panic swept across educational institutions in Lebanon, following the suicide of a teenage student, who was reportedly a fan of the Heavy Metal brand of Rock Music. The frenzy reached the media leading the Government of the day, in an incredible bureaucratic cock-up, to even posthumously ban Jim Morrison (dead since 1971) from setting foot on Lebanese soil. Determined to grab the bull by its horns, the propaganda machine of the Catholic Church treated us to a ‘documentary’ which would expose the Satanic depravity of Bon Jovi and colleagues. They claimed that songs such as Queen’s ‘Another One Bites the Dust’ contained subliminal messages set on corrupting the minds of the youth. These messages were apparently encrypted and only heard if the song was listened in reverse. We were told that Queen’s real message was ‘START TO SMOKE MARIJUANA’. Unsatisfied with the Priests explanations, we set up to find out the truth for ourselves. This was the pre-CD era and listening to a tape in reverse was still a technological challenge. We succeeded with archaic dexterity and surprise surprise we did ‘hear’ what we expected to hear ‘START TO SMOKE MARIJUANA’. Is there a need to mention that this only made Queen and the Black Sabbath brand of bands even more appealing.

In 2008, in a retail park somewhere in the United States A customer heard a Mattel doll babbling that ‘Islam is the Light’. A panic swept across American homes. The frenzy reached the media...

As seen on Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435164,00.html

Parents Outraged Over Baby Doll
They Say Mumbles Pro-Islam Message

A doll some are claiming utters pro-Islam and even satanic messages has outraged parents in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.
People insist they can hear Fisher-Price's "Little Mommy Real Loving Baby Cuddle and Coo" mumbling "Islam is the light" and "Satan is king," according to KJRH.com and MyFOXKC.com.
"There's no markings on the box to indicate there's anything Islamic about this doll," said Gary Rofkahr of Owasso, Okla., who was at work when another man brought the toy in to show his colleagues.
Rofkahr said he found various versions of the doll at local Target and Wal-Mart stores, which have since pulled the toys from their shelves, reported KJRH.com.
Pennsylvania Targets have also reportedly stopped selling the doll, according to MyFOXKC.com.
Fisher-Price referred all calls to parent company Mattel, which didn't immediately respond to FOXNews.com's requests for comment.
A Target representative told KJRH.com the company has no plans to recall the doll nationwide.

The Partnership

By Wael Abdelraheem

The supporters of the Syrian regime in Lebanon argue that Syria is not in a hurry to make peace with Israel, nor is it in a haste to normalise its relation with the USA.
The USA is in the quagmire of the economic backlash that is casting its dark shadows across the whole world, and stalling its imperial project. These circumstances, along with the imminent threat of Iran and the ever growing power of Hizbullah, render Israel unable to make any individual decision without consulting with Washington and thus fearful of a confrontation.
As for Syria it is benefiting from Russia's resentment to seek military support, reviving the Port of Tartoos and reestablishing Russian political influence in the Near east. Not to mention the military support of Iran that protects Syria from serious danger.This means that Syria does not need the US or Israel because they have nothing to offer once the normalization is in gear and the peace treaties signed.
In addition, the Baath Regime is in no hurry to reestablish its military presence in Lebanon now that it regained its political leverage there through its allies, namely Hizbullah and Michel Aoun.
All these arguments sound logical and plausible.
The American project in the Middle East is in trouble, and the parties that gambled on its success especially in Lebanon are suffering from disillusion. Their Regional allies seem to have redirected their support to the Islamic militias in the course of their open war against Iran.This is only a glimpse of the general picture…
But the people who really care about the future of Lebanon and the region, and those who call for true democratic reforms, social justice as well as for maintaining the struggle against Israel on the basis that it is at the heart of the national liberation movement, perceive the alleged Iranian Syrian victory as an additional blow to their efforts.
Yes we are defeated because Iran and Syria on one hand and the USA on the other work to destroy every chance of a democratic project.

They are accomplices in breaking down our people into bickering sects and groups.
They are accomplices in using up our political potential in petty conflicts.
They are accomplices in supporting Islamic terrorism in words and actions.
They are accomplices in liquidating the Palestinian cause for the sake of other causes.
They are accomplices in eliminating hope from our dictionary for the foreseeable future.
This partnership between enemies is the knife that killed us in the past and is still killing us today.

We are losing the fight without any confrontation. We have no choice but to regroup and reunite, moving from the margin into the heart of the battleground with the intention to fight with our own weapons and our own values. Otherwise we might as well be consigned to the ‘Rubbish Bins of History’ as the old Leftist expression goes.

شيعة ضد حزب الله.. لبنان ساحة اختبارات

وائل عبد الرحيم

خلال ثلاثة أعوام واكثر استطاع "الاعتراض الشيعي" على حزب الله أن ينتج رموزاً يمثلون – على قلّتهم – علامات فارقة في الخارطة السياسية والثقافية في لبنان، وجذبت هذه الحالة دعماً إعلامياً غربياً وتمويلاً أميركياً بخلفيات اجتماعية لا تُخفي ضرورة العمل على "اختراق" الساحة الشيعية في هذا البلد.

30.9% نسبة التمويل الرسمي الأميركي التي قدمتها المؤسسة الوطنية من اجل الديمقراطية The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) للجمعيات اللبنانية ذات الطابع الشيعي من عام 2002 حتى عام 2005 (751 ألف دولار من أصل 2425049 دولار قُدّمت مباشرة للجمعيات اللبنانية).
ودلالات هذه الأرقام تصبح معبّرة إذا رُبطت بالأهداف المعلنة التي حدّدتها المؤسسة التابعة لوزارة الخارجية الأميركية والتي تتمحور كلّها حول ضرورة دعم الآراء المختلفة والتوعية على الديمقراطية في مناطق الجنوب اللبناني او في اوساط الجمهور الشيعي في لبنان.
لا تشكّل هذه الأرقام وحدها دليلاً على توجّه اميركي وغربي مضطرد نحو تقديم الدعم المالي والإعلامي والسياسي لمجموعات شيعية لبنانية تناصب حزب الله وحلفائه العداء. لكن آراء لمحللين وسياسيين اميركيين أعلنت صراحة وجود حاجة إلى تنمية أصوات الاعتراض الشيعي اللبناني. الاعتراض الشيعي تعبير يُراد به الحديث عن خصوم حزب الله في الوسط الشيعي منذ بداية الأزمة اللبنانية الأخيرة.. وهو طبعا لا يشمل الحديث عن الاعتراض الديمقراطي على الاستئثار الحزبي والحركي بين شيعة لبنان خلال العقود الأخيرة. وهو، على ما يبدو، نموذج صغير للاختبارات التي تجريها الإدارة الأميركية على المجموعات الطائفية والعرقية في الشرق الأوسط.

حالة فرضتها ظروف "ثورة الأرز"
منذ 14 شباط 2005 حينما اغتيل رئيس الوزراء اللبناني الأسبق رفيق الحريري، وانقسم لبنان إلى معسكري آذار، باتت الحاجة إلى "الاعتراض الشيعي" أكثر إلحاحاً. وإذا كان الاعتراض الشيعي معقله في الجنوب اللبناني بشكل خاص (يوم كان اليسار الجنوبي أكثر توحّداً)، فإن الأوضاع الناشئة عن اغتيال الحريري تطلبت تغييراً في المهام والأدوار.. في الواقع كانت الحاجة إلى اختراع اجتماعي – سياسي لمعترضين شيعة من نوع آخر أكثر ضجيجاً وأقلّ تمثيلاً – (بانتظار الصحوة المنتظرة من أحد ركني الثنائية الشيعية نبيه برّي).
فاليسار الجنوبي الذي يضمّ أحزاباً وشخصيات ديمقراطية ووطنية، بات متهماً من فريق 14 آذار بالخضوع لأجندة سورية - إيرانية ربطاً بمواقفه التي تتمسك بدعم المقاومة في مواجهة إسرائيل وبرفض أي نظام وصاية غربي ولا سيما الأميركي – الفرنسي، ودون اعتبار لواقع ان اليسار اللبناني كان احد الخاسرين الأساسيين من النظام الذي ساد لبنان بين عامي 1990 و2005 وحكمته الوصاية السورية المشار إليها من تحالف 14 آذار / مارس.
لكن الاعتراض الشيعي الذي تلا اغتيال الحريري لم يشمل اليسار.. فليس المطلوب حركة اعتراض وطنية ديمقراطية متمايزة أو مستقلة في مواقفها عن التيارات التي تعصف بالمنطقة.
خرج اليسار من المعادلة السياسية.. أفسح المكان للسياديين لطرح البدائل.. ثم ذاب هذا اليسار بفصيله الأبرز (الحزب الشيوعي) في قوى 8 آذار اصطفافاً لم تنجح في إخفائه "المواقف النقدية" المنطلفة من قاعدة التحالف اللينينية الشهيرة (نقد الحليف!) وهي القاعدة التي اعتمدها أساسا خلال تحالفه "الالتحامي" مع الحزب التقدمي الاشتراكي خلال الحرب الأهلية.
وتتالت محاولات تظهير حالة شيعية متميزة عن فريق 8 آذار بدأت باجتهادات أفراد انضووا صراحة ضمن لجان تنسيق "ثورة الأرز"، ثم بالتجمع الشيعي اللبناني المتعثّر، ووصولاً إلى مواقف بعض رجال الدين والأكاديميين والمثقفين والناشطين خلال حرب تموز / يوليو الأخيرة، واخيراً ظهر تجمع يطلق على نفسه "التيار الشيعي الحرّ"، وصولاً إلى توزير ابراهيم شمس الدين في حكومة السنيورة العتيدة.
ومن كان يطرح نفسه ديمقراطياً في السابق، ألحق بصفة الديمقراطية وصف "شيعي حرّ".. بهذه الطريقة يرشّح كل طامح نفسه للأدوار التي يمكن ان تستجدّ في حال وصلت الأمور بالبلاد إلى حدّ الطلاق النهائي بين "أكثرية" 14 آذار والفريق الآخر الذي تتزعمه ثنائية حزب الله – امل.

الاستقلالية الشيعية خياراً؟
يدرك 14 آذار الذي كان ممسكاً بالسلطة في لبنان أنه من الصعب عليه تقبل اندماج أجسام ضئيلة في نسيجه وإن يكن تحت عنوان الاعتراض الشيعي.. فتركيبة القوى التي تشكل هذا التحالف لا تسمح له باستيعاب مغامرة كهذه لا سيما أن الاعتراض المشار إليه هنا لا يتمتع بالتمثيل الشعبي الحقيقي. لكن هذا لا يمنع التحالف الطائفي من استخدام "الاعتراض الشيعي" على اوجه مختلفة. يمكن الاستخدام من باب الضجيج – وهو استخدام مشروع بالمعايير السياسية - . فتدور الآلة الإعلامية لتحالف 14 آذار على وقع الاعتراض الشيعي وبأدوات "الاعتراض الشيعي" ودون مشاركة طبعاً للاعتراض الشيعي في أي قرار مصيري.
لكن الاخطر ليس الاستخدام الإعلامي للاعتراض الشيعي من قبل 14 آذار، بل استخدامه من التحالف إياه لتشويش الحليف الدولي وتضليله.. أسلوب جرى تعلّمه من النموذج العراقي (تقارير احمد الجلبي – فؤاد عجمي للإدارة الأميركية عشية حرب العراق). في تقارير الجلبي – عجمي ولوبي المعارضة العراقية عشية الحرب توقعات وتنبؤات لم يتحقق منها شيء (ما خلا سقوط نظام لم يكن تراهن على صموده إلا قلّة معميّة). ودفع الأميركيون ثمن هذه النصائح حتى باتوا اليوم يتحدثون صراحة عن هزيمة مدويّة في العراق، ونبذوا الجلبي ومعارضته معتبرين أنهم تعرّضوا لخديعة.
جدّد الحلفاء اللبنانيون نصائحهم، مستفيدين من اعتبار الإدارة الأميركية لبنان احد النجاحات القليلة في الشرق الأوسط.
حاولوا إيهام صنّاع الرأي والأوساط القريبة من دائرة القرار في واشنطن بإمكانية قيام البديل الشيعي المعتدل المستقل عن المحور – الإيراني السوري. حاولوا استصدار قرار بمنع كلّ تسوية في لبنان، وباستمرار الاندفاعة فيه على أساس ان "ثورة الأرز" هي إنجاز إدارة بوش اليتيم.
أصبح مقال رأي او مقابلة تلفزيونية أو موقف كاتب جديراً بإعلائه إلى مصاف الفعل السياسي المؤثر.
لم يعد مستغرباً في مرحلة ما ان تقرأ في الصحف والمجلات الأميركية بعد كلّ زيارة او جهد استثنائي لرمز من رموز التحالف الآذاري في لبنان عن "الاعتراض الشيعي" كحالة أقلويّة لكن شديدة الاحترام والهيبة في لبنان.
حتى كانت احداث 7 أيار / مايو التي جرت على وقع المتغيرات في المنطقة ولا سيما المتغير في العلاقة السورية الفرنسية بسكوت ضمني من جانب الإدارة الأميركية، فاظهرت ان الاندفاعة إلى الحسم التي كان فريق 14 آذار ولا سيما وليد جنبلاط وفؤاد السنيورة ينظّران لها لا اساس لها على ارض الواقع.

حالة أقلوية تستأهل الدعم؟
"شيعة ضد حزب الله"، عنوان مقال كتبه المستشار السابق في وزارة الدفاع الأميركية David Schenker مباشرة بعد حرب تموز ونشرته The Weekly Standard الأميركية (13/11/2006) قبل احداث أيار 2008 بنحو عامين، وفيه يستعرض مواقف "الاعتراض الشيعي" ليخلص إلى ضرورة دعم هذه الأصوات الاعتراضية وتشجيعها.
تحدث Schenker عن ثلاث شخصيات شيعية تشكل جزءاً من حالة "الاعتراض" الحالي على حزب الله. المحامي محمد مطر الذي يقاضي الشيخ عفيف النابلسي بتهمة إصدار الأخير فتوى يحرّم فيها على كلّ شيعي دخول الحكومة أو القبول بمنصب وزاري بعد اعتكاف الوزراء الشيعة في كاون الأول / ديسمبر 2005، والأستاذة الجامعية منى فياض التي نشرت في 8 آب 2006 - في فترة العدوان الإسرائيلي – مقالاً في صحيفة النهار اللبنانية بعنوان "ان تكون شيعياً اليوم" وتبدي فيه اعتراضها على حزب الله وأدائه خلال الحرب، والأستاذ لقمان سليم الذي (ووفقاً لـSchenker) "يدير جمعية غير حكومية ممولة من الاتحاد الأوروبي" ويبدي بدوره انتقادات لحزب الله. والجامع بين الثلاثة تحدّثهم بصفتهم الشيعية.
ويبدو أن التعاطي الإعلامي الغربي – والأميركي بشكل خاص – ما فتأ يركّز على أربع شخصيات باررزة في الاعتراض الشيعي: مفتي جبل عامل السيد علي الأمين، والدكتورة منى فياض، والمحامي محمد مطر، والناشر لقمان سليم.
يتحدث مقال نشرته صحيفة Christian Science Monitor الأميركية (15/12/2006) عن أن بعض الجهات الشيعية اللبنانية بدأت تطرح الأسئلة علانية عن أحادية حزب الله، وتتخوف من طموحات الحزب التي قد تلتقي مع المحور السوري – الإيراني وتعرّض مصالح الشيعة في لبنان على المدى الطويل للضرر. ويسمي المقال الشخصيات الأربع المشار إليها.
وتنقل الصحيفة عن الأمين أن تصرفات الحزب لا تصب أبداً في مصلحة الشيعة ولا في مصلحة لبنان.
ومع أن الصحيفة تلاحظ ان الأصوات الشيعية التي تعارض حزب الله لا تزال قليلة، إلا أنها ترى ان هذه الأصوات باتت تجذب المزيد من الاهتمام في الوقت الذي تحول في لبنان إلى ساحة صراع بين إيران وحلفائها الإقليميين من جهة، وبين العالم العربي الذي يسيطر عليه السنّة بقيادة السعودية ومصر.
وتذكّر الصحيفة بأن المفتي الأمين بات منذ أشهر أبرز المعارضي العلنيين لحزب الله ويرفض ما يتحدث عنه حزب الله عن "النصر الالهي".
وتضيف الصحيفة أن السيد الأمين كان في السابق مقرّباً من حزب الله وأحد أساتذة الأمين العام للحزب السيد حسن نصرالله حينما كان الأخير يدرس العلوم الدينية في مدينة قم الإيرانية في العام 1981.
ثم تستفيض الصحيفة في الحديث عن الدكتورة منى فياض، الأستاذة في الجامعة اللبنانية ومقالها الشهير "أن تكون شيعياً الآن"، والمحامي محمد مطر المحامي الشيعي الذي تحرك ضد حزب الله.
ويقول مطر للصحيفة "في النهاية يجب الدفاع عن مبادئ الجمهورية. وإذا كان البعض يريد العيش في مجتمع يقوده رجال الدين فليذهبوا إلى إيران".
كما لا تهمل الصحيفة الإشارة إلى لقمان سليم وموقعه الالكتروني "هيا بنا" وتنقل عنه أن اسمه ورد في لائحة العار التي وزعت عبر الانترنت خلال الحرب الإسرائيلية على لبنان.
ورغم أن الصحيفة تشير إلى استطلاعات للرأي بيّنت أن حزب الله يجذب تأييد 90% من شيعة لبنان، إلا انها تنقل عن معارضين شيعة للحزب أن شعبية الحزب باتت أقلّ مما تظهره الاستطلاعات.
ويعترف الشيعة المعارضون لحزب الله بصعوبة منافسة الحزب على جمهوره الشيعي. وتنقل الصحيفة عن سليم قوله "لسنا مؤهلين لمنافسة حزب الله بوصفنا شيعة جمهوريون علمانيون، فلديهم الله إلى جانبهم، ومن المستحيل منافسته".
أما صحيفة The Washington Post الأميركية (10/12/2006) فتنقل عن منى فياض في سياق وصفها الأزمة الحالية في لبنان بين المعارضة والحكومة أن المعركة بدأت، "لقد فتحوا أبواب الجحيم. هكذا شعرت خلال الأيام القليلة الماضية".
وتتحدث الصحيفة أيضاً إلى محمد مطر الذي يجزم بأن "لبنان سيزول من الوجود إذا احتكرت قوة ما كل السلطة او باتت قوية جداً".

تمويل اميركي لبعض شيعة لبنان
هذا التوجّه من ضرورة التشجيع وتقديم الدعم التي يدعو إليها Schenker، لا يجد ترجمته في السياسة فحسب.. فمنذ سنوات تقدّم الولايات المتحدة الأميركية عبر المؤسسة الوطنية من أجل الديمقراطية (NED) دعماً مستمراً وغير منقطع إلى إحدى المجلات التي تُعنى بشأن الجنوب اللبناني أهمّ مناطق شيعة لبنان سياسياً واجتماعياً: مجلة شؤون جنوبية التي يرأس تحريرها السيد علي الأمين نجل العلامة السيد محمد حسن الأمين (دفعت Ned 53 ألف دولار خلال عام 2005 لتمويل صدور 12 عدد من المجلة وذلك بهدف تشجيع النقاش العام بشان إنشاء مؤسسات ديمقراطية في لبنان ولا سيما في المناطق الجنوبية، كما دفعت 30 الف دولار خلال العام 2002، و70 ألف دولار في 2003). (نقلاً عن موقع Ned)
ويتبدى الاهتمام الأميركي الحكومي أيضاً من خلال المنح التي قدّمتها NED إلى جهات وجمعيات غير حكومية بهدف معلن يتركّز على الاهتمام بالشأن الجنوبي – الشيعي. فجمعية "جيل" التي يرأسها السيد حكمت الزين وتعنى بشكل خاص بالمناطق الجنوبية تتلقى تمويلاً ثابتاً من Ned (25 ألف دولار عام 2002، 35 ألف دولار عام 2003، 35 الف دولار عام 2004، 50 ألف دولار عام 2005). اما اهداف التمويل كما تحددها المؤسسة الحكومية الأميركية نفسها فهي "تشجيع حقوق الإنسان والديمقراطية ومشاركة الشباب في الأنشطة المدنية في جنوب لبنان".
وتَحظى الجمعية الخيرية العاملية بدعم مستمر (48 ألف دولار عام 2002، 135 ألف دولار عام 2003، 135 ألف دولار عام 2004، 135 الف دولار عام 2005). ومن اهداف التمويل لتدعيم حاجات المجموعة الشيعية في لبنان إلى حقوق الإنسان.
وتشكل نسبة التمويل الحكومي الأميركي لهذه الجهات "ذات الطابع الشيعي" الخالص 30.9% من مجموع التمويل الأميركي للجمعيات اللبنانية من عام 2002 حتى عام 2005 (751 ألف دولار من أصل 2425049 دولار).

البدائل المعتدلة
سياسة تشجيع البدائل المعتدلة مرشّحة لمزيد من الازدهار في هذه المرحلة التي تحولت فيها الإدارة الأميركية من خطاب دعم نشر الديمقراطية في الشرق الأوسط إلى دعم النظم المعتدلة وما تصفه بـ"الحكم الرشيد"..
لكن خطورة هذه السياسة لا تنحصر في أنها تخلق كيانات سياسية واجتماعية وهمية معزولة عن سياق التطور الطبيعي للمجتمعات في هذه المنطقة، بل ربما تطرح علامات استفهام بشان جدية الغرب والأميركيين بصفة خاصة في الحفاظ على الاستقرار الاجتماعي لشعوب عانت طويلاً من اختزال إراداتها في نُظم تلقى دعم واحتضان الخارج.
في الحالة اللبنانية، ليس مأمولاً فعلاً أن تصبح "البدائل المعتدلة" – لدى الشيعة على الأقل – ذات ثقل وتأثير كافيين لتغيير الخارطة السياسية داخل الطائفة. مهما حاول الناصحون المحليون – وعبر بعض وسائل الإعلام والأبواق التي تروّج لفكرة دعم البدائل المعتدلة – تظهير مشروع ما لاستبدال سلطة التمثيل الشيعي بأخرى واهية لا أساس لها ولا مستقبل، فإنهم سيصطدمون بواقع أن في أميركا والاتحاد الأوروبي من يحرص على عدم الانجرار في التورط اكثر وراء المزيد الخداع. فمهما بالغ الأميركيون في الإشادة بمزايا المعتدلين العرب، لن تغيب عنهم الصورة النمطية للسياسي التاجر المحلي.. إنها صورة يحتقرها الكثيرون في سرّهم.

The Failed System and The Roaring Crisis

By Bachir Habib

“The Wall Street that shaped the financial world for two decades ended last night, when Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley concluded there is no future in remaining investment banks now that investors have determined the model is broken”.

Christine Harper and Craig Torres, bloomberg.com, 22-09-08

The financial dinosaurs are finally realizing that we are simply witnessing the end of an era. The model that lasted for more than two decades is being dismantled, and it looks like the substitute is not yet in the pipe line.

The domino effect started with the credit crunch in the United States more than a year ago, and its direct impact in the financial field was predicted almost immediately by sensible analysts. High inflation rates driven by the flying energy prices and the global food crisis were a determinant factor in shaping the global dimension of the economic slowdown which spread from the US through Europe to affect seriously different markets around the globe. The current situation is one last episode in the bad economic saga created in part through a combination of economical and political policies that deserve a lengthy analysis. However it is important to pinpoint the invasion of Iraq as the starting point and its consequences as the main political engine to the economic crisis.

Beyond the fall of Lehman Brothers, the difficulties faced by Merrill-Lynch and the US governmental attempt to rescue AIG, it is the decision this week to reshape Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley into banks that is the clearest indication that the current financial model has reached its limit. It is such an irony to see these capitalist powerhouses expecting to be saved by public initiatives, in another word by an intervention of the state in the market. It is ironic because such big groups were the main promoters of neo-liberal principles criticizing and opposing any interference of the state in the economy.

A journalist colleague’s reaction after covering the events at the Lehman’s HQ in London was to echo the sadness of the “city boys” who were now facing unemployment for the first time in their life. Despite my best efforts, I couldn’t share his empathy for these young boys and girls, aged between 25 and 35, who had plans to retire at a very young age without any financial worries, because of the accumulated wealth in salaries, benefits and bonuses. My real concern was not for the young finance workers at Lehman but for the security employees and low-level administrators who earn salaries in line with the rest of us. They will now have to compete in a very difficult market to secure jobs that will guarantee them and their families a decent life in a time of recession and increasing cost of basic goods.

As for the young and dynamic category of investment bankers who have gotten used to playing “masters of the universe” from their glass towers, it is now time to come back down to earth with modesty and experience the reality of a life where your actions do have consequences. And it is also time for the specifically Arab elements among them to reflect on how they could use whatever skills they acquired in the interest of moving things forward in a Middle East they helped create through a combination of antisocial policies, while turning a blind eye to bad governance and colluding with dictatorships. It may sound like a wishful thinking, but who ever believed a Republican administration would be proactive in nationalizing Wall Street.

Vote for Obama or … Welcome World War IV?

By Bachir Habib

The US presidential campaign is heating up, and Sarah Palin is the latest Republican weapon deployed after the stunning success of the Democratic Convention in Denver. The Palin choice might backfire early against the Republican’s campaign, with personal and professional stories about Alaska’s governor (qualifying her as a bad choice already) invading the press in America and abroad.
However, very strong ideas are making their way to the American political discourse. Frightening principles and words are being used, and “World War IV” is one of them. World War IV entered this campaign when Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor told Seth Colter Walls from the Huffington Post nearly two months ago: “If McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is Rudolph Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV” (the Cold War counted as World War III).
The more powerful is a Nation, the more its internal affairs become of interest for the International Community. How many non Americans wish they can vote in the US elections to see the candidate that will “help” or “do less harm” to their country securing his way to the White House?
But unfortunately, all those interested in the US elections can’t make their voice heard via powerful lobbies as AIPAC who imposed itself as a pressure group able to guarantee that the elected president considers Israel’s National Interest as integrated to and inseparable from the US National Interest.
It is finally to the American voter alone to decide who will be ruling the American Empire (or what Bush left of it). And that same American voter will indirectly define Washington’s positions towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia (etc)… At the same time, the American voter might not be worrying about all the international questions, and his vote might be exclusively on internal issues like healthcare, economy, unemployment, taxes (etc)…
The interaction between internal and international issues becomes crucial when a country holds a position of superpower. Since the end of the cold war in 1991, the US has been considered as the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union. November 2008 is a historical moment for the United States of America. And the Russia – Georgia crisis over Ossetia throws doubt over the US remaining in the position it held since 1991.
It is a test of realism for the American Empire. Will it assume the responsibility of its power by voting for a President able to recollect the pieces internally and adopt a less arrogant tone abroad? Or will it vote for a World War IV perspective that will prove that “Each empire holds in its heart the germs of its self destruction”?