A matter of time

The nearer Bashar Al-Assad's regime gets to its end the more dangerous Syria becomes, writes Graham Usher at the United Nations

As the Syrian regime fights for its life in Aleppo, Western states and their regional allies are preparing for the day after the end of President Bashar Al-Assad. Two weeks ago a Russian and Chinese veto denied the UN Security Council even the threat of financial sanctions against his government. Yet, despite this, the United States, Turkey and others are pressing ahead with a political transition without Al-Assad or what remains of his regime.

It was to prevent such a radical shift in the regional balance of power that Russia and China made their vetoes, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. "We [were] blocking only the attempt to allow people to support one side in an internal conflict through a UN Security Council resolution."

If so, Russia and China blocked the resolution but not the outcome. Even those most associated with special envoy Kofi Annan's peace plan (which was the core of the vetoed resolution) have now thrown in their lot with the rebels.

"In my opinion it is only a matter of time before a regime that is using such heavy military power and disproportional violence against a civilian population is going to fall," said Major General Robert Mood, the former head of the UN observer mission in Syria. He also warned that the end of Al-Assad would not necessarily mean the end of the Syrian civil war.

Diplomatically of course there is reluctance at the UN to admit the end of the Annan plan for a political transition to a democratic government, if only because there's nothing to replace it. The Arab group is still touting it as the basis of a new General Assembly resolution submitted by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It cannot be vetoed but, unlike Security Council resolutions, is non-binding. It is expected to be passed by a large majority in the 193 member assembly.

You will find similar consensus against any direct UN military intervention in the Syrian crisis, especially among the five permanent members. Not even the US and France -- the two most vocal regime-changers -- have any desire to repeat the Iraq or Algerian experience. Rather Syria is seen as a geopolitical keystone that holds up a delicate regional architecture of sect, ethnicity, nations and tribes. One jolt could bring the whole house down, with the debris shaking Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, the occupied territories and Israel. And the closer the Syrian regime gets to implosion the more prone it is to jolts.

There are three things UN diplomats and observers most fear should Syria disintegrate as a state. One is the fate of the regime's chemical weapons. Few think it would use them in a blaze of self-destruction. But -- as the regime has warned -- they could be mobilised to deter "external aggression". The problem is that when you define all rebel groups as "agents of foreign powers" the distinction between an internal and external foe becomes a fine one.

One thing, however, is clear: should Syria transfer any chemical or biological warheads to the Lebanese Hizbullah movement Israel has signaled it would intervene militarily. Few think it bluffing.

Second, analysts accept that at a certain point the regime is going to give up trying to hold hostile cities like Damascus and Aleppo. It may opt instead to carve out an Alawite enclave. There are signs the process may have already started, with the army and Shabiha militia ethnically cleansing Sunni areas to secure Alawite villages near Homs as well as on the approaches to the Alawite mountain heartland on the Mediterranean coast. Thousands have been displaced and hundreds killed.

Yet any decision to create a separate Alawite state within the larger Syrian one would mean a full-blown sectarian war, triggering massive refugee flights into neighboring countries, as well as safe zones in Syria. The pressure on the world -- and especially the UN -- to act would be enormous.

Thirdly, wherever the regime retreats, Sunni opposition groups are likely to advance. This seems to be the vision of jihadi wing of the resistance which sees north-eastern Syria as the territorial base they tried and failed to secure in north western Iraq. Any Sunni Islamist resurgence of this order could have a domino effect in Iraq and Lebanon. It would also be met by Iranian and Hizbullah resistance: moving to protect Shia Muslims and Alawites against what would be deemed mortal ideological enemies. Syria's degeneration from a state into a Lebanon-like sectarian war would be complete.

Weapons of Mass Destruction, refugee flows and civil wars in disintegrating states may all require international intervention or at least help. But the UN has proven to be pretty ineffectual when it comes to Syria. And nation states -- regional and otherwise -- prefer to act through proxies. So far most have managed to avoid being sucked into the Syria maelstrom. But that is unlikely to last.

Last weekend a border land next to Turkey but inside Syria was taken over by Syrian Kurdish militants, allied to the PKK, the Turkish Kurdish group that has spent years fighting Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was asked whether Turkey would strike inside Syria if the PKK or its allies started to use Syria as a base. "That's not even a matter of discussion," he said. "It's a given".

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Romney pledges loyalty to Israel

In an ignominious display, Obama and Romney are falling over themselves to pander to Israel more than the other, writes Khaled Amayreh in occupied Jerusalem

In a classic example of the tail wagging the dog, US Republican presidential runner Mitt Romney heaped praise on Israel and Zionism this week in the hope of tilting Jewish voters to his camp in the November US elections.

"I love this country, I love America, I love the friendship we have," Romney said, receiving a standing ovation from a carefully-selected Israeli-Jewish audience, which included the country's political and military leaders as well as a multitude of Jewish tycoons and wealthy business people from the United States.

According to the latest opinion polls, more than 60 per cent of American Jews favour incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama, who, too, is doing his best to woo American Jews to his side by embracing Israeli causes to the hilt.

American Jewish voters, though relatively small in numbers in comparison to other ethnic and religious minority groups, for example, Hispanics, are concentrated in crucial states such as New York, Florida and California, giving their votes more weight in the November showdown between Obama and Romney.

In a brashly sycophantic speech intended to please and appease Jews, even at the expense of whitewashing crimes and excesses, such as the enduring Palestinian plight under Israeli occupation, Romney used every epithet in the book to praise Israel and condemn her foes, from Gaza to Tehran.

Eyeing Jewish money and votes, Romney spoke elaborately about the Iranian "nuclear threat", saying the fanatical clerical regime in Tehran must not be allowed to possess "the world's most destructive weapons".

He dutifully ignored two outstanding facts pertaining to this issue: first the vast Israeli nuclear arsenal, which is widely thought to include 250-300 nuclear weapons, along with their deliver systems. Second, the nature and make-up of the current Israeli regime, considered by many the most fanatical and extremist since Israel was founded 64 years ago. Two years ago, one Israeli cabinet minister and son of a former Israeli president was quoted as saying that "We already live in a fascist state."

Romney spoke of "thousands of missiles landing in Israel from the Gaza Strip", but ignored the genocidal blitzkriegs Israel has been launching on the coastal region, using the latest and most advanced weapons produced by American producers, killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians and destroying homes, mosques, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure.

Likewise, Romney didn't utter a word about the decidedly criminal activities of Talmudic-minded Jewish settlers in the West Bank, who are hell-bent on ethnically cleansing the occupied territory of its native Arab inhabitants.

Even the newly elected Islamist president of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi, was not spared by Romney, so intent on pandering to Israel and grovelling at its feet for Jewish money and votes.

Recognising the fact that Islamists were the winners in Egypt's democratic process, he demanded that the majority respect the rights of minorities.

A follower of the Mormon faith, which many Christians think is heretical, Romney was alluding to the Egyptian Coptic community whose rights all Egyptian leaders, including Mursi, have vowed to respect and preserve.

Again, Romney didn't speak of the dismal Israeli record in treating non-Jewish minorities. A metaphor for Israel's contempt and disrespect for its non-Jewish citizens occurred last week when a Jewish member of the Knesset tore up a copy of the New Testament in full view of the plenum. The profanity received far more cheers than jeers, a sign that Israeli Jewish society is drifting to jingoism at a time when American political class is still singing the praise of Israeli democracy.

This is exactly what Romney did on the eve of his arrival in Israel this week.

"I would treat Israel like the friend and ally it is," he told Israel Hayom, the Hebrew newspaper owned by Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who has donated millions of dollars to Republican and Zionist causes.

"I cannot imagine going to the United Nations, as Obama did, and criticising Israel in front of the world," Romney continued. "You don't criticise your allies in public to achieve the applause of your foes."

On Monday, Romney tapped Jewish American tycoons and others millionaires for more than a $1 million, ending his visit to Israel, aimed at convincing Israelis and Jews that he would be more obsequious and loyal to them than is Barack Obama.

Earlier in the week, President Obama sought to outmanoeuvre his Republican opponent in currying favour with Israel.

He signed a new US-Israel pact, granting the recalcitrant Jewish entity a virtual carte blanche to arrogate, free of charge, the secrets of American technology in order to achieve more territorial expansion and military aggrandisement at the expense of its often poor and weak neighbours.

The baleful and vapid race between Obama and Romney to satisfy the Jewish Golem did not escape the observation of the deep American intelligence establishment, as the CIA leaked a caveat this week, warning that officially the United States still views Israel as an ally that is striving to spy on the US.

According to unnamed US intelligence officials, the CIA continues to view Israel as a major intelligence (read spying) threat. Reports to that effect were published in major American media outlets this week although officials in Tel Aviv and Washington sought to downplay the significance of the reports.

John Winthrop, who dreamed of a shining city on a hill, must be turning in his grave, seeing the country of Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin and Madison willingly teetering under the Jewish yoke.

Winthrop warned: "The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause us to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world."

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

A 1952 replay?

Will the honeymoon between Washington and Egypt's new Islamist leaders end in bitter recrimination, as did US-Egypt relations following the 1952 Revolution, asks El-Sayed Amin Shalabi

The US has apparently shifted its position on political Islam and its currents. Following decades of scepticism, even paranoia, US officials now seem to be completely at ease with the Islamists who are now in power. No longer viewed in Washington as an imminent threat to US policy in the region, Islamists are being treated, at least for now, as potential partners.

Washington has been monitoring the rise of the Islamists since 2005, when they won 88 seats in the Egyptian parliament. US officials have held meetings with Muslim Brotherhood members and remained familiar with their views. Of course, the interest was motivated by the bitter memories of the Iranian revolution, when the Americans failed to anticipate it and totally underestimated the vehemence of its ideology.

It all boils down to pragmatism. The Americans hedged their bets on the 25 January Revolution as far as they could, and when it was completely clear that the revolution was unstoppable they demanded Hosni Mubarak's resignation. The same happened after the revolution, for as soon as the Islamists emerged as the dominant force, the Americans didn't think twice about which side to take.

No matter what the Americans believe in, or pretend to believe in, when it comes to foreign policy, they will play it safe. This is why US officials had little trouble accepting the new reality that catapulted Islamists to power in Egypt. The fact that Egypt's liberals are divided and weak was factored into the new US political thinking.

American politicians and top brass have been coming to Egypt quite frequently since the revolution. And Hillary Clinton's audience with President Mohamed Mursi was symptomatic of the interest Washington is taking in Egyptian politics. The Americans are especially interested in the position of the new regime on the peace treaty with Israel. And it seems from the way Secretary Clinton reacted to her meeting with Mursi that she has heard some reassurances in this regard. Clinton, who went immediately to Israel afterward, may have relayed the comforting news to the Israelis.

For now, the Americans and Egypt's new regime seem to be getting along just fine. But how long is this going to last?

The current interaction between the Americans and Islamists reminds me of 1952, when the Free Officers were the new kids on the block, and the Americans were hoping to win them over.

At the time, the Americans were busy "containing" the Soviet Union, an effort that involved getting the entire Middle East, if possible, on their side. So when the 1952 revolution broke out, the US was quick to forge close links with the new leaders. The Free Officers, in turn, were thrilled to have Washington on their side. Who else would keep the British off their backs?

For a while, US Ambassador Jefferson Caffery was the favourite diplomat in the circles of the Free Officers. And the latter were serious about buying US weapons and giving the High Dam contract to the Americans.

The honeymoon didn't last long. The Free Officers' brand of nationalism didn't quite sit well with American plans for the region, and Egypt started pulling back from the Americans. Initial friendship turned sour, and animosity was only a few years away.

Will history repeat itself?

Will the US be disappointed with the Islamists and vice versa? If the Islamists allow their doctrinal beliefs to influence their regional policies, conflict with the Americans would be hard to avoid. On issues such as Palestine and Iran, the Islamists of Egypt may not be able to see eye to eye with the Americans. The two may be able to keep their differences to a minimum for at least a while, but the chances for confrontation are too real to be ignored.

The writer is managing director of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Press review

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The letters of Ramadan

The second Faisal Book Fair and Al-Mahrousa Nights at Al-Sayeda Zeinab public garden are two Ministry of Culture activities that celebrate Ramadan this year. Nevine El-Aref reports

This week Minister of State for Antiquities and Charge D'Affairs of the Ministry of Culture Mohamed Ibrahim inaugurated both the Faisal Book Fair (FBF) and the Al-Mahrousa Nights at Al-Sayeda Zeinab public garden. Strains of Oriental music filled the evening air at the Faisal grounds of the General Egyptian Book Organisation (GEBO) to announce the opening of the second round of Faisal Book Fair (FBF).

This year the fair is larger than last year with 130 instead of 80 Egyptian publishers and contributions from four from Arab countries: Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Over the 20 days of the FBF, GEBO will launches new publications including the complete works of poet Ahmed Fouad Negm, the biography of lawyer and politician Yehia El-Gamal and Breathing underwater by Nader Fergani, the director of Almashkat Research Centre and the lead author of the Arab Human Development Report. GEBO also offers a 50 percent discount on all its publications as well as organising, for the first time, a workshop for children where they could read and discuss books of their age. Drawing and book singing events for children are also provided.

Basma Magdi, one of the children's workshop organisers said the existence of these workshops for the first time at the FBF has encouraged many children to join in several activities, which in its turn attracted more visitors to the fair to bring their children. "It is a really great innovation at the FBF," said engineer Hassan Hamed, the father of a child named Ahmed. He said he is very happy that Ahmed participated in the workshop as it helped him to develop his drawing hobby.

The FBF also put on show books containing the texts of Egypt's previous constitutions as well as others of archaeology, cultural heritage, politics, economics and literature. Cultural seminars, poetry readings ands book signing are to be held on the fringe of the fair.

Ahmed Megahed, the head of GEBO, said the fair opens its door free of charge to the public in two periods daily: from 11:00 am to 4:00 pm and (after iftar) from 8:00 pm to 1:00 am. A large parking space is located at the entrance of the fair.

***

At Al Sayeda Zeinab Public Garden the Mawlawiya whirling dervishes opened the Al-Mahrousa Nights where Oriental and folkloric products of the Cultural Palaces Public Organisation (CPPO) are also exhibited. It includes arabesque art works and furniture, ceramic and copper pots, stained glass lamps, decorated kilims, rugs and khayamiya cushions (oriental weavings with geometric and foliage decorations) as well as portraits showing scenes of the traditional folk epic Al-Sira Al-Helaleya.

A book fair showing books published by the CPPO is held alongside the theatre and dance.

Ibrahim describes the Ministry of Culture celebration of Ramadan nights this year as a very good opportunity to introduce cultural products with the full range of its types to all Egyptians, especially the inhabitants of Faisal and Al-Sayeda Zeinab.

For his part, Saeed Abdel Rahman, the head of the CPPO, said the Al-Mahrousa Nights is a good opportunity to introduce all the activities and products of the CPPO in one place and at one time as well as raising the cultural awareness of Egyptians by showing to them different parts of their folk heritage.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The perfect storm

Fi Ain Al-Asifa (In the Eye of the Storm), Ezzedine Choukri Fishere, Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation Publishing, 2012

Another compilation of articles on the revolution, the latest release by Bloomsbury Qatar on the topic -- written and published before the presidential runoffs -- In the Eye of the Storm establishes Ezzedine Choukri Fishere's analytical power in matters of politics, which he demonstrates without delving into the risky business of making predictions about the future.

Fishere, diplomat and a novelist, rose to prominence in the wake of the revolution as one of a handful of objective analysts appearing on various talk shows and present on the political scene. He has been a professor at the American University in Cairo since 2007; his columns appear regularly in such Egyptian dailies as Al-Shorouk and Al-Tahrir; and two of his novels -- Intensive Care Unit and Embrace at Brooklyn Bridge -- were nominated for the Arabic Booker.

In this book Fishere provides a profound analysis of the Egyptian political scene after the revolution with particular reference to the parliamentary elections in which the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the Salafis represented by Al-Nour Party achieved the majority.

In his introduction to the book, Fishere rejects many theories of the revolution: the Islamist project; planned chaos to destabilise the country's institutions; the Americanisation of Egypt.

Fishere regards the revolution as the perfect storm, the storm that emerges out of a rare combination of circumstances that might not initially be connected to each other, but will soon enough combine to either produce stillness or lose momentum altogether.

Coherently enough, this leads us to the vital question that Fishere presents on the cover: Is Egypt witnessing the perfect storm already, or are we on the path for a grand collision and a bigger storm? The writer believes the results of the storm are powerful enough to initiate another storm or a new wave of revolution, which will hopefully by then give way to the rise of other political factions, better prepared to deal with the political chaos that might occur. Such political leadership must be ready with plans for the aftermath of the storm, in order to re-build and strengthen the country's institutions, to reform the police and the media, and maintain justice in such a way as to prevent the monopolising of power. Such objectives will not be achieved with imaginary plans, paperwork or fact-finding committees; it has to be the actual work of professional people with specific and detailed plans to invest in the new wave of revolution should it occur.

In the fifth chapter, "Egypt Faces its Ghosts", Fishere explains that people who believe the MB or the Salafis to be newcomers to Egyptian society are mistaken. It would be a misreading of the situation not to recognise quite how old their organisations are and attribute their popularity to the Wahhabi influence of Saudi Arabia and the illiteracy and poverty of people alone. Part of the reason behind such misinterpretation is that Islamists had been marginalised by the former regime.

The fact that the MB achieved a parliamentary majority leads Fishere to discuss the predicament of the MB in depth, discussing the arrangements between the MB and SCAF and how, though this was a chance for the MB to strengthen its position and substantiate the position of its Freedom and Justice Party, it had actually been to the MB's disadvantage.

With their parliamentary majority and the socio-political groundwork they had been laying down for nearly 80 years, they managed to achieve a socio-political change from the bottom up: Fishere elucidates the crossroads facing the MB and their future in Egypt; they could either unite with other political revolutionary factions to the benefit of Egypt, or unite with SCAF and the Salafis.

Discussing the latter choice, the writer argues that it will weaken the oragnisation of the MB: SCAF will not grant them the luxury of deciding on all matters of consequence and the Salafis will force them to make sacrifices, weakening their vision. By the end of this chapter the writer is wondering which path Sheikh Hassan El-Banna, the founder of the MB in Egypt, would take were he alive today. Aside from the fact that there are issues they could never agree on, Fishere argues, it may be the immaturity of revolutionary forces that prevents the MB from uniting with them.

Fishere sets a worrying example in one of his articles entitle "Upheavals on the Road", in which he presents a brief explanation of the political scene in Gaza prior to the Hamas takeover of power there, which can benefit the Egyptian political scene even now, after the rise to the presidency of Mohamed Mursi.

Fishere explains how complicated the political scene in Gaza was after Hamas achieved the parliamentary majority in Gaza, defeating Fateh -- results that sounded normal to people who were not in denial of the fact that Fateh was in a shambles. However, Fateh controlling the presidency led Hamas to form the government to take control, which led in turn to their complete failure.

At the same time, Fateh was preparing an army with which to confront Hamas who were well prepared for the coup d'??tat they were about to wage. The writer discusses the notion of a parliamentary majority that comes from outside the established system and in a way seems to be in power but isn't: this is a signal that the entire system needs to change.

Fishere proposes a telling allegory in one of his articles in the attempt of the Mubarak regime to keep the lights off in a big theatre in order to conceal the presence of the Islamists. Abruptly, the revolution turned on the lights to reveal the actual composition of power. The question remains as to how Fishere will see the political scene at present.

Reviewed by Soha Hesham

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.