"This wave will not stop.": Rachid Ghannoushi

"I once said that al-Qaeda was over in Tunisia, the eruption of the revolution in Tunisia means there is a third way for a change. It's not that of violence, it's not that of integration into the current regimes under the pretext of aiming to reform them because these regimes cannot be reformed.

Changing the internal systems of these regimes failed and changing them through violence also failed. So the Arab world was going through a state of inactivity.

Tunisia came up with a third way which is the peaceful revolution. In one year three regimes have so far been toppled and two others are on the way to being toppled. This wave will not stop."

-Sheikh Rachid Ghannouchi

Sheikh Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of the Ennahda party, which won the first Tunisian elections after Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the country's former president, was toppled in January, talks about the Arab Spring, free elections and the implementation of Sharia in Tunisia. Marwan Bishara interviews Sheikh Rachid Ghannouchi. Here

Revolution in the Middle East: America yet to recover from shock and awe

The recent developments in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and Arab world have bamboozled the American think tank. They are yet to recover from shock and awe.  It is palpable from an interview given by Zbigniew K. Brzezinski to Amar Bakshi of CNN


Zbigniew K. Brzezinski served as national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977-1981. In this role, he was intimately involved in brokering the Camp David Accords and wrestling with Iran's transition from a U.S. ally to an anti-Western Islamic republic. Brzezinski is currently a professor of American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He was the one who first drew the post cold war chess board and considered to be influential in diplomatic circles.

You might notice his sense of shock and awe over the developments in the Middle East. The grand old diplomat wants to create rivalry between Turkey and Iran.
Amar C Bakshi spoke with Brzezinski to get his take on events unfolding in the Middle East and the consequences for Egypt, Israel, Iran and the United States.

Amar C. Bakshi: Do you support the intervention in Libya?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: I support the intervention in Libya because I have the strong sense that if we did not [intervene], our credibility in the entire region - which is already very much at stake - would be shattered and Gadhafi would emerge as the leader and symbol of Arab radicalism.

Do you see what’s unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa as a grand reconfiguration of the region? And, if so, how would that affect U.S. concerns?
It is a reconfiguration, but it may not be quite what people here expect. I’m not all that confident the net result is going to be the surfacing and then the flowering of this series of democratic states.

Also, I emphasize in my own work for many years now the fact that a political awakening tends to be a rather extremist in its initial phases, irrespective of the vocabulary that it uses.

My expectation, therefore, is that what we’ll get in the Middle East is indeed a series of regimes more responsive to popular attitudes. But these popular attitudes are, in many respects, quite critical of American foreign policy - and especially so in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. As a consequence, I think, we’ll have a more difficult time in dealing with that problem, and we may end up paying a higher price for not dealing with it seriously.

What are the chances that if the Muslim Brotherhood became an influential voice in Egypt, for example, the Camp David treaty would be revoked?
I don’t think that it would be revoked outright. But I think the kind of passive acquiescence that we have seen in recent times on the part of the Egyptians is going to be a thing of the past. I think we underestimate the extent to which Arab public opinion on the popular level is truly preoccupied - and in some respects even impassioned - regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

There are some very good public opinion polls by Shibley Telhami, a professor at Maryland, which clearly indicated that issue is at the base of a lot of anti-American or anti-Western Arab sentiments. We also know ... that [Osama] bin Laden repeatedly – and I emphasize, repeatedly - has mentioned it as his principal-motivating impulse in his quest to damage America.

Is there a possibility that Israel could benefit from the upheavals sweeping the region, or is this likely to be against their interests?
I think [Israel] might benefit in the short-term, but largely on the basis of shortsighted expediency. Namely, it may provide them with a seemingly good argument that this is not an opportune moment for negotiations, which require mutual concessions.

But in the longer run, I think that will further preclude the possibility of Israel becoming a viable, creative and influential participant in a more accommodated and peaceful Middle East. I think the longer-range implications of that for Israel’s future are ominous.


Is Iran benefiting from all of this?
Yes.

What should U.S. policy be towards Syria and the Syrian opposition?
It seems to me we have to encourage some concessions towards democracy, but we also have to be conscious of the fact that not everywhere is our voice decisive. And if we’re not careful, we might unintentionally increase Iran’s influence. If we are prudent and careful, we might increase Turkey’s influence, and I think that will be all to the good.

Does this demonstrate declining U.S. influence abroad? Is our leverage in the region less than it has been years ago?
I think we’re facing, in fact, a significant decline of American influence in the region and perhaps the beginning of the process which, in the future, will be viewed by the peoples in the region as the second decisive phase in the decolonization of the region in the wake of first, World War I, and then even more so World War II.

From CNN. More Here

Make no mistake. Libya is not a bed of roses, Mr Obama

Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the West is not fighting “Islamist terrorism” in Libya or is on the quest of the holy grail called Weapons of Mass Destruction. The mission now is to “save lives” and take out the monster that just refuses to fade away like the other friendly, neighborhood dictators in Tunisia and Egypt.

He must hang on in there like a bad dream, an evil spell over Libya. Those who thought Muammar Qaddafi would soon follow his fellow travelers into the sunset were clearly mistaken. The demented author of the Green Book seems to sincerely believe he’s God’s gift not just to the people of Libya but to the whole of humankind. But then Col. Qaddafi, distinctly delusional that he is, isn’t the only one to live in this make-believe world.

There are many out there who have persuaded themselves their leadership is crucial to the survival of their people and their departure would bring on the end of the world. Such is the power of delusions of grandeur. You tend to believe you are at the center of universe.

Those larger than life statues, from Baghdad to Benghazi, are not the celebration of a monstrous ego but the manifestation of a perennial insecurity of the powerful. They have to constantly reassure themselves about their own power.

Some of the biggest and most obscene tributes to human vanity are found in Muslim lands. Islam came to banish all man-made idols and we have replaced them with men who view themselves as divine. They worship themselves and expect their people to do so. Qaddafi is not the only one to believe in his immortality and his right to rule Libya forever. He must kill his people, if need be as he has been doing all these years, to govern them.

There are others out there who have convinced themselves that if they deprive their people of their noble leadership, they will all perish and go to hell. Après moi le déluge, After me the deluge!

After four decades of absolute power, Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen believes his people are not still “ready” to govern themselves or determine what’s good or bad for them. ‘I am prepared to step down,’ he reasons, ‘provided people of Yemen prove they have a capable leadership to take over from me.’ Touche!

Bashar Assad of Syria, who and his father between themselves have ruled Syria for nearly half a century, doesn’t fit the description of a tyrant. He insists he and his people are “on the same page.” There’s no problem whatsoever.

What about those angry demonstrations? And why are the Syrian troops firing on peaceful protesters. 
Of course, it’s the doing of “conspirators and outsiders,” you know. There’s no trouble in the Baathist paradise of Syria. In fact, a Syrian government spokesperson told CNN’s Hala Gorani with a straight face, President Assad himself has wanted to introduce “reforms” since he took over from his father 11 years ago.

Then why hasn’t he? What are we waiting for? End times or another crusader coalition?

Truth be told, whether it is Libya or Syria or numerous other Arab republics, they have all suppressed, abused and persecuted their people for decades — or the lifetime of a tyrant. In addition to perpetual abuse of power and all-pervasive corruption, they all have one thing in common. They’ve all repressed popular democratic movements that turn to Islam for guidance and inspiration, rather than dance to the tunes of London and Washington. And they have all done this with the blessings of Western champions of democracy and freedom.

In Egypt, both Hasan Al Banna, the legendary founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his successor Sayyid Qutb were assassinated by the powers that be, not to mention the thousands of its activists who were incarcerated and tortured for years for believing in a better world. From Gamal Nasser to Anwar Sadat to Hosni Mubarak, the most admired grass-roots movement in the Arab world has remained banned and suppressed for half a century.

This is the same story all across the Arab world. From Egypt and Yemen to Syria and from Algeria and Tunisia to Libya, the Islamists have been hunted like animals for decades. In 1982, Syrian forces massacred thousands in the city of Hama in a crackdown on Ikhwan. The memories of Hama massacre are still fresh.

And who could forget how Algeria’s veteran revolutionaries dealt with the Islamic Salvation Front when it swept the first ever multi-party democratic elections in 1991-‘92? The regime not just annulled the historic vote and the verdict it threw up, it unleashed a reign of terror against the Islamists for daring to take the democratic path to change. Nearly 300,000 lives perished in the subsequent civil war whose wounds are yet to heal.

History repeated itself when Hamas wrested power from the corrupt and clueless elites of Fatah in 2006. The Palestinians are still paying the price for this cardinal sin, locked away as they are in the largest prison on the planet.

All this of course wouldn’t have been possible without the active support and cooperation of our Western masters. Even as they have endlessly sung hosannas to the deity of democracy, they have aided and abetted their ever obliging allies to crush and destroy those foolish enough to believe in their rhetoric. Indeed, if the Middle East is still stuck with tyranny in 21st century and men in khaki rule forever, you know who to thank for.

So it’s rather touching to see Uncle Sam and his cohorts come around cheering on the juggernaut of change that is on the march in the Middle East. The folks who are still working with a racist and terrorist regime to wipe out an entire nation in its own land have no shame in pontificating about a people’s right to choose their destiny.

Those who have protected and pampered the Mubaraks and Ben Alis all these years see no irony in coming forward to claim credit for the tide that has turned the Arab world around. Talk of hunting with hares and running with hounds! Some Western pundits even have the cheek to thank the “Cowboy Crusader,” who gave us Afghanistan and Iraq and sent more than a million people to their death, for the Arab revolt.

Is there no limit to Western hypocrisy and duplicity? Why do they think they can fool all the people all the time? Don’t they see the writing on the wall? The tide has turned in the Middle East and Western powers will ignore it at their own peril. For those who have the courage to throw out their corrupt despots are capable of confronting their masters too.

A whopping majority in the Muslim world has no sympathy for Qaddafi whatsoever. They are waiting for his imminent fall and will celebrate his exit — and of others like him — just as they rejoiced over the departure of Ben Ali and Mubarak. But they aren’t going to welcome Janus-faced friends of their tormentors either. So expect no roses in Tripoli Mr. Obama and Mr. Sarkozy and Mr. Cameron!

Aijaz Zaka Syed in Arab News. More Here.

Libya: War mongering is getting to be a habit for Obama

Obama casually inquiring about the dead bodies in Libya

It’s one thing to say that the U.S. is right to take action against Moammar Gadhafi. It’s quite another to insist that it’s not even a war. And it’s simply dishonest to do so while escalating the war.

But that’s the spin from the Obama White House. While the president travelled through Latin America, his aides told sympathetic audiences in Washington that Operation Odyssey Dawn “is a limited humanitarian intervention, not war,” in the words of White House Mideast troubleshooter Dennis Ross. A letter to Congress notifying lawmakers that Odyssey Dawn was in effect studiously avoided the word “war,” preferring the more anodyne “military efforts” — which are “discrete” and “limited in their nature, duration, and scope.”

Ross’ remarks are outright deceptive. And it fits a pattern with President Obama: escalating U.S. military commitments while portraying them as essentially finite and limited.

For one thing, the fight is intensifying, not dropping off. On Sunday, the U.S.-led coalition flew 60 sorties over Libya; Monday it flew nearly 80; on Wednesday it flew 175. At this moment, American pilots are bombing and shooting at Gadhafi’s armor and artillery units on the outskirts of Libyan cities. Off the shores of Libya, a bevy of Navy ships and subs have launched over 160 Tomahawk missiles.

And to be up front about calling it a war would risk unraveling Obama’s contention that the war should be limited. It’s reasonable to ask whether the explicit goal of the war, now that it’s underway, should be to overthrow Gadhafi; which might require arming the opposition; or even devoting ground troops — all steps Obama wants to avoid. But those are arguments for caution about starting a war with Libya, not for pretending that the one the White House has ordered doesn’t exist.

This is getting to be a habit for Obama. First he expanded the scope of the U.S. counterterrorism efforts to Pakistan and Yemen, places that at least arguably exceed the 2001 congressional mandate for military action. Then he rejected congressional offers to openly debate a reauthorization of the war. When Obama ordered a 30,000-troop surge into Afghanistan — atop his earlier increase of 21,000 troops — he vowed the escalation would end this July. But only minimal numbers of troops will come home this year, and his senior aides are talking about an indefinite stay by at least some U.S. forces after 2014. (Indeed, at a dinner on Tuesday night, White House “war czar” Doug Lute said that would serve as an “insurance policy” against Afghanistan going down the tubes.)

If Obama’s aim is to conduct limited wars, he’s not doing it very well. And he’s certainly not coming clean to the public about what he’s doing. Somewhere, George W. Bush is smirking with vindication.

Spencer Ackerman in Wired.com.  More Here.

Libya: Bushy face of Obama is emerging to the horror of the world

Some critical polls online have even gone so far as to elicit the public opinions by asking "do you think Obama should return the Nobel Peace Prize?" "When I received that award, I specifically said there was an irony because I was already dealing with two wars," Obama told CNN. "So I am accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also someone who aspires to peace."

As imagined, the "Nobel" Obama weighs much more of the American interests and its geopolitical strategies in the Arab world than what the peace prize really means. Libyan turmoil is publicly propped up not only by the US-led Western diplomatic devices but also military intervention. The purpose is not as simple as the "regime change", which the U.S. denied, but focuses on isolating Iran, taking up the entire Arab market and further, spreading the political chaos to Russia and China in order to counterbalance the emerging strengths.

Gaddafi is fighting stubbornly, or putting up a desperate struggle. The coalition forces are intensifying their political and military pressures upon the Arab world, forcing the Arab countries to remain neutral while they are shelling Libya.

The Western military intervention finally lays bare their hidden intention of creating a false impression of the "Domino Effect" and "Butterfly Effect" in the concerned region, and also unmasks "Nobel" Obama's ulterior motives. 

Le Hongmei in People's Daily. More Here.

Arab awakening and collusion of civilisations

The Arab world is on an earth-shaking course of revolutionary transformation. No political pundit could anticipate such a turn of events since they underestimated the revolutionary potential of Islam. All of them thought that Islamic political thought has no rejuvenating energy. But they have been proved wrong.
In this context, there is a need to re-visit the socio-political discourse of Prophet Mohammed and develop a new understanding of his spiritual politics.

The Islamic concept of God became universally understandable and acceptable only after the Prophet made it philosophically valid following his struggle against the idol worshippers among Arab tribes.
The Prophet dismantled the structures of idol worship and instituted the practice of praying to an abstract God among the Arabic tribes that were warring against one another over their idols. For them, a God creating all human beings equal was unthinkable.

That was the primary democratic principle — in the eyes of God all human beings are absolutely equal — that the Prophet established among those warring tribes. This established the notion of spiritual democracy among backward and self-destructive tribes. By doing so the Prophet changed the route of social change in the Arabic world, which otherwise would have slipped into caste brutalism as it happened in India. Or it would have followed the African path.

But by inspiring the tribes to pray to Allah, the Prophet transformed the men and women of the Arab world into philosophically more advanced people than the other Asians, who were struggling between animism and idol worshipping cultures.

Though Christianity took its followers out of the idol worshipping ethic, the Church did encourage the worship of Jesus Christ and Mary. Ironically, though born as an Asian (Israelite) religion, Christianity attracted the Europeans more than the Asians in its early days.
But Islam expanded into the Asian continent very rapidly. Within 200 years of the Prophet’s death it had spread far and wide.

While Jesus tried to separate the political realm from the spiritual realm, the Prophet combined political and spiritual theory into one in a much more nuanced and moral way. That seems to be developing into a democracy of its own model.

The present democratic revolutions in the Arab world are more spiritual-political than what Europe had seen in the 19th and 20th centuries. They might result in re-interpretation of the Islamic notion of democracy on the one hand and change the meaning of secularism on the other. Though the notion of God was very much part of the Euro-American revolutions, secularism was made the core anchor of those revolutions.

The Arab revolutions seem to be evolving a different language of political science. How these revolutions negotiate with the notion of secularism is yet to be seen. The European mode of secularism does not disconnect itself from the notion of God. This is very clear from many Euro-American constitutions, which use the notion of God in their preamble.

Islam seems to be re-negotiating its relationship to politics and democracy differently. The Prophet has more substantial claim to be a political philosopher than Jesus, as he led the community and his sons-in-law became the initial rulers as Khalifs.

There is an attempt to belittle the Arab revolutions by describing them as “Jasmine Revolutions”. On the contrary they have the potential to re-position not only the Islamic world but the whole world.

In the Asian continent the implications of these revolutions would be huge. China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and even India and Sri Lanka have not evolved their democratic cultures through mass revolutions.

In India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, the British-imposed systems of democracy survive. They sustain inequalities, unemployment, illiteracy, and so on. China evolved a communist culture through a revolution but that culture is very fragile and cannot be compared with the Islamic cultures, which have a cementing commonality across nations rooted in one God, one Book and one Prophet.

If that cultural commonality is used for transforming the political systems of nations, no civilisation would match the Islamic civilisation.

If the present trend is any indication, Samuel Huntington’s thesis of Clash of Civilisations would not only fall apart but possibly be turned on its head —to “Collusion of Civilisations”. The same Arab world that the West once thought had no imagination of its own would make that collusion possible.

Kancha Ilaiah in Asian Age. More Here.

Al Jazeera has demolished the lies of the empire

The greatest tribute you could ever crave is to get it from your detractors. So when Hillary Clinton admits that "viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States (and around the world) because it's real news," the Qatar-based television network has every reason to celebrate and pat its own back. Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, the US secretary of state warned that America is "losing the information war," citing the superior quality of Al Jazeera as one of the reasons for her opinion.

Clinton compared the Middle East-based TV network with the giants of US media outlets saying: "Like it or hate, it (Al Jazeera) is really effective. In fact, viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the US because it's real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners."

Hmm. This is what many in alternative media and numerous independent conscience keepers of the world have been saying for years. I mean, the bit about the unwillingness and inability of Western media, especially of those in the US, to see the whole picture and tell the other side of the story.

The US media has been too busy acting as the mouthpiece of the American empire and protecting the interests of the rich and powerful like those big boys of the Wall Street who continue to party Recession or no Recession. In fact, as a friend wrote this week commenting on Clinton's speech, the US newspapers have become newsletters of the US government.

This is why it is gratifying to see the world's most powerful woman work herself up over the growing reach of Al Jazeera and its ability and courage to offer "real news" as it happens - and in the process probably an alternative to the overbearing loudspeakers of the US media.

It's amazing what a critical difference a single voice of sanity, however frail, could make in the Goebbelsian cacophony of lies, half-truths and shameless spin. And what a fantastic journey of sheer courage and chutzpah - and of course loads of hard work and persistence - has it been for Al Jazeera.

It has changed the rules of the game not just in the incredibly dull world of the Middle East media but is forcing the movers and shakers of the world media to watch their step and constantly read and revise their script to keep pace with the change that the Doha-based network has come to represent. Al Jazeera has not just emerged as the real voice of the Arab street, it is pitching itself as a healthy, credible alternative, even if still hopelessly young and green, to the apologists and cheerleaders of the empire. Which has been hard to miss for anyone following the whirlwind of change that has turned the Arab world upside down.

A great deal has been written and said about the role the Internet and social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter have played in sowing the winds of change across the Middle East. Doubtless, the history of popular uprisings in the region - in fact the history of our times - will remain incomplete without the amazing contribution the Net has made. However, Al Jazeera had been there, long before the FB and Twitter arrived in the Middle East, educating, informing and fashioning public opinion across the Arab and Islamic world.

In fact, by faithfully and courageously reporting the dramatic, lightning developments in Tunisia, beaming the action right into millions of homes across the Middle East and around the world minute by minute, it unleashed the tsunami that swept away Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and now threatens many of his fellow travelers.

With its unvarnished and unedited reporting of the ground-shifting developments in Tunisia and Egypt, it created a template of change, a truly democratic and homegrown model, suggesting to the rest of the Muslim world they deserve better. That peaceful change is possible - without the intervention of our manipulative

Western friends or the cynical, diabolic extremism as championed by the likes of Osama Bin Laden.
As a student of media and someone who has avidly followed Al Jazeera's breathtaking journey, it's uplifting to see a little known television network, once identified as the mouthpiece of OBL, grow from strength to strength and take on the Goliaths of this world.

In a region where the media have long come to act as the hand maiden of governments and journalism has largely meant publishing and broadcasting of endless comings and goings of royalty, Al Jazeera came as a burst of fresh, life-giving air.
While rest of the pliant, media establishment obsessed over what is known as "protocol news", Al Jazeera, in the words of its boss Wadah Khanfar, looked for "the real actors. We have been guided by a firm belief that the future of the Arab world will be shaped by people from outside the aging elites and debilitated political structures featured so disproportionately by most other news outlets."

It kept its ear to the ground, listening to the drums beating in distance. This is why all those Western wonks and professional pundits failed to see the wave of change spearheaded by the Internet generation of young Arabs, dangerously aware of their democratic rights as well as the hopeless inadequacy of their elites, Al Jazeera saw the Arab revolt coming, as Khanfar so modestly claims.

It has exposed the shenanigans of both the corrupt, authoritarian regimes in the neighborhood and the terrorism and tyranny of big powers. From Palestine to Pakistan and from America to Australia, Al Jazeera has defied and demolished the lies and narrative of the empire. No wonder it constantly finds itself under attack from both brotherly Arab regimes and the bullies of the West.

While the Doha-based network has been repeatedly banned and harassed in numerous Arab countries, its journalists and offices have often found themselves in the line of fire, literally, of the Self-appointed champions of freedom and democracy. Amazingly, despite being funded by the Qatari government, a close ally of Uncle Sam, Al Jazeera has managed to jealously guard and maintain its independence so far. Which is how it should be.

By the way, why can't we have more Al Jazeeras out there? God knows we do need them more than ever. Instead of chasing those billion dollar mirages in the sand, why can't Arabs invest more in the media? Instead of crying all the time about Islamophobia and negative stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims in Western media and popular culture, why don't they do something concrete to address it?

Al Jazeera's success, especially that of Al Jazeera English, proves it's possible to make professionally credible attempts on this front. If a tiny emirate like Qatar can do it, surely big boys like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey could do it. Even if 5 percent of what many Muslim countries spend on the expensive junk sold by the West as arms was devoted to developing world class media, universities and research institutions, they wouldn't be stuck where they have been. For those who control the media will control the mind.

Aijaz Zaka Syed in Arab News. More Here.

Egypt is not free, yet...!

We have been witness to two Revolutions, seen masses on the march, become aware of young people and of new forms of global communication. Media coverage that carried away people’s sense of commitment functioned, literally, as a “blanket”, as a deforming screen that obscured reality and masked key issues. All praise to the people of Tunisia, and of Egypt (whose bloggers have been working to raise public awareness for nearly three years). Their contribution to the awakening of their peoples has been incomparable. Their calls for liberty, and their mass demonstrations have brought about a break ; have opened a path to freedom.
But we must remain lucid. The powers that be are well aware of these developments. To all those who believe that the American administration miscalculated, demonstrated clumsiness or could not keep up with events, we suggest that they would do well to re-evaluate the situation in the light of what has happened and what may happen in the coming days. Egypt—like Tunisia—is still under tight control ; the way in which power was successfully transferred points to a considerable grasp of communication (up to and including apparent errors in judgment exposed to the public in press conferences) and of the internal logic of the Arab world.

People must now be less emotional ; the leaders of the opposition must be more vigilant and responsible. These leaders must shoulder the critical—and historical—responsibilities that are theirs as these lines are being written. Mobilization must always be an option. But now, the primary task for Arab civil society is to create opposition platforms that reflect the multiplicity of political voices and ideological aspirations. No longer is it possible to look on passively as the mass movement is diverted by lessened tensions, by the passage of time, by fulsome speeches and hackneyed declarations of principle. From where we stand, the same basic recommendations mist apply : stay alert, to not confuse political promises or pledges of support for emerging democracies after thirty years of propping up dying dictatorships, with hard cash.

Several years ago, we called for the emergence of a new “We”, based on principles, values, demands for coherence and a sense of belonging to shared national ideals. Now a fresh page of history is opening before us, ours to inscribe with the concrete and practical objectives of this new “We.” Together we must now commit ourselves, freed from potential emotional deafness, and nourished by a realistic knowledge of democratic demands, so that our governments—in the West as in the East—can no longer divide us, can no longer manipulate us, are no longer able to convince us of differences that simply do not exist in our daily lives, and to undermine our hopes to be fully human.

After all the joy and relief it is time for lucidity, time to set up common fronts based on resistance and on reason. Lucidity and perseverance must become the arms of our non-violent resistance. Neither Tunisia or Egypt is free or independent yet ; mass mobilization in support of the revolutions unfolding before our very eyes must continue, inspiring our hope of more to come.

Tariq Ramadan in his website. More Here.

Egypt fallout: "Will Saudi Arabia be Next?"

There is the thinking along conventional lines that if Tunisia, Egypt and Libya fall, then so must Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

The jury is out on Bahrain, although it does not look good for the Sunni monarchy. But Saudi Arabia? There is no question the Saudi government is a little more than nervous about the Shi'a-led protests in Bahrain. It is impossible to predict what the end result means to the Kingdom, but there is the odor of hope in the western media that Saudi Arabia will fall with the endless coverage of "Will Saudi Arabia Be Next?"

This leads me to wonder whether foreign policy analysts and so-called Middle East experts are being deliberately obtuse about Saudi Arabia's future. Since when do 465 people signing a Facebook Saudi "Day of Rage" page constitute a brewing revolution in a country of 16 million Saudis? It appears that most of the petitioners are non-Saudis with more than a few living outside the Kingdom. I am all for the democratic reforms they demand. However, will a thousand or even 465 people stage a demonstration in Riyadh on March 11 or March 20, or whatever day they decide, to vent their rage? Maybe, but the support from most Saudis is likely to be from the comfort of their homes while watching them on Al Jeezera.

Much is made of the couple dozen Saudi women staging a demonstration in Riyadh demanding the release of their men from custody because they have been charged with no crimes. Several dozen expatriate workers demonstrated in Makkah because they have not been paid. Legitimate grievances, sure. But are these public demonstrations out of the ordinary? No. Has anyone seen Saudi tribes gather in the desert for a meeting with an emir over water issues? I would not want to be on the receiving end of a finger wagging from a Bedouin tribal leader with an entire village standing behind him.

The west's argument that Saudi Arabia is poised to erupt in revolution is found in the reports about King Abdullah allocating an estimated $36 billion in social benefits to Saudis. The benefits will provide home loans, funding for NGOs, 15 percent fixed raises for government employees, scholarship money for Saudis studying abroad at their own expense and unemployment benefits.

News outlets ranging from Investment Watch to the Washington Post and the New York Times assert the money is simply to stave off protests with a Band-Aid. One BBC commentator likened the benefits to "bribery" to keep Saudis quiet.

One must wonder where these news organizations have been for the past five years. The Saudi government has been issuing these types of social welfare benefits annually since King Abdullah became the Kingdom's leader in 2005. Each year, usually in December, the Saudi government allocates massive funds to help Saudis keep pace with inflation, build more schools and universities, and send Saudis abroad for a western education. This year's announcement of providing unemployment benefits is not only new, but historic. Yet it is consistent with previous fund distribution schemes since 2005. This year's allocation occurred in February and not December because the King has been in Morocco for medical treatment.

It is convenient, if not lazy, to place the social benefits package in the context of the regional uprisings, but a look into the archives of any Saudi newspaper tells the story of consistent annual fund allocations for similar programs.

The Saudi government has been on a reform binge for five years, but its sometimes lethargic pace has little to do with the will of the government, but with some Saudis who have their own agenda. They have only their interests in mind, and government transparency and efforts to end corruption threaten those interests.

The true discontent among many Saudis is the lack of accountability for the rampant government corruption and the lack of transparency in how the government goes about its business. It botched the follow up to the 2005 municipal elections by not holding further voting, but I am not sure the average Saudi's interests truly lie in local elections.

There is no question now that Saudi Arabia needs to pick up the pace of reform. It cannot allow special interest groups in various government ministries to continue dragging their feet to implement programs ordered by the king. But the simplistic thinking that the Saudi government unleashed this huge sum of money to keep the Facebook revolutionaries at bay is laughable.

Sabria Jawhar in the Huffington Post. More Here.

Political work is an integral part of Islamic work : Ikhwan leader

Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Dr. Rashad al-Bayoumi is the deputy head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. His organization could be set to play a significant role in Egypt's latest political chapter, having recently declared the intention to form a political party. This move has been met with concern in Western circles, with fears that Egypt's domestic and foreign policies could dramatically shift, if it were governed by an Islamist trend.

Dr. Al-Bayoumi, 74, is a long-serving member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and also works as a professor of geology at Cairo University. He has spent a total of 18 years in prison, during the era of the former regime, when the Muslim Brotherhood was a banned organization. His most recent arrest came in 2006, when he along with other Brotherhood members were detained for holding an organized meeting.
Asharq al-Awsat recently spoke with Dr. al-Bayoumi to learn about the Muslim Brotherhood's plans for the coming phase in Egypt. During the interview, he elaborated on his organization's political motives, as well as discussing several controversial aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood manifesto. Dr al-Bayoumi also reflected on the success of the Egyptian revolution, and what needs to be done to build on this. The following is the text from the interview:

Asharq Al-Awsat : Was the Muslim Brotherhood organization waiting for one of its leaders to be chosen [by the Supreme Military Council] as part of the interim Egyptian government, which is now incorporating some political opposition figures?
Al-Bayoumi: Not in the current government, or in any other. We are not asking to be placed in a position of authority, and we do not aim to be in a position of power or have a parliamentary majority, whether in the current phase or in the future.

Asharq Al-Awsat : Some people have expressed their skepticism about a political group making such concessions, why has the Muslim Brotherhood agreed to these political concessions?
Al-Bayoumi: This is because we feel that there are those who want to play the card of warning against the Muslim Brotherhood, and some people have accused the Muslim Brotherhood of wanting to hijack the revolution of the youth, despite the fact that we have lived this revolution from its first day and we have our martyrs. However we only want to be partners of the people, and we have announced that we are of the people and that we do not want to come to power, or form a government, or even put forward [parliamentary] candidates to achieve a parliamentary majority. Our goal is reform.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  However on Egypt's Friday of Victory [18 February 2011] we saw some Muslim Brotherhood figures attempt to promote the role they played in the Egyptian revolution…and Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi's Friday sermon at Tahrir Square also gave the proceedings a Muslim Brotherhood flavor. What is your response to this?
Al-Bayoumi: Firstly, al-Qaradawi is too great a figure to be included in any single category or group, he is the head of the International Union of Islamic Scholars, which means that he enjoys a consensus [of support] from all Muslim scholars, and his presence in Tahrir Square was an expression of his general mantle [as head of the International Union of Islamic Scholars], rather than his personal mantle. It is unreasonable to imagine that everybody in Tahrir Square on the Friday of Victory was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who were present were attended as Egyptian nationalists, so these accusations have no basis. The Copts have embraced al-Qaradawi, his Friday sermon was addressed to all Egyptians, and the revolution belongs to all Egyptians. We are an effective component of [Egyptian] society, and we are keen to engage with members of all faiths, and we do not have any ambition for leadership or rule.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  If the Muslim Brotherhood has no ambitions for power, why isn't this simply an Islamic Dawa [missionary] organization?
Al-Bayoumi: Political work is an integral part of Islamic work, for Islam is a comprehensive religion and politics is part of general Islamic work. It is our duty, with regards to what was happening in the country, to put forward ideas, participate, and offer sacrifices. Those who do not want to understand this perhaps failed to understand what was happening in Egypt, and our experiences are the best evidence [of this]; for at the parliamentary elections our slogan was "participation not combat."

Asharq Al-Awsat :  Now your demands have been met and former President Hosni Mubarak has stepped down from power. What's next for the Muslim Brotherhood?
Al-Bayoumi: This is not accurate, for this was not just our demand, but the demand of the entire Egyptian people. Everybody must [also] be aware that there are hands belonging to the remnants of the former regime playing in the shadows, and some figures [of the former regime] are still taking action or trying to regain control, trying to hijack the revolution and overturn it. There are figures of the former regime who still remain on the scene, figures such as former State Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Mufid Shahab, and he – along with former parliamentary speaker Ahmed Fathi Sarour – was a fundamental partner in the destruction of the constitution and laws. Their presence, with others, raises large question marks. In addition to this, questions remain over other demands issued by the Egyptian revolution which have yet to be met, including the state of emergency that we have been living under for more than 30 years, as well as the state security apparatus continuing their operations, particularly as it was this octopus-like organization which devastated the country. In addition to this, [questions marks remain over] detainees in prison, defendants convicted by exceptional courts. However above all else, there is the current government that was formed by the former president and sworn in by him. All of these issues require detailed attention, and the realization that we have a lot of work in front of us in order to preserve the popular revolution.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  Is the Muslim Brotherhood content with Mubarak stepping down from power, or will you seek to bring him to trial, whether this is regarding the sources of his wealth in particular, or the policies of the former regime, in general?
Al-Bayoumi: The trial of the regime is inevitable, the trial of all members of the regime and its policies, and it is enough to recall that there are 365 martyrs [who died in the Egyptian uprising] and we do not know who is responsible for their death by live ammunition. The public demand now is for the officials who are responsible for what happened in the country – from corruption and more – to be handed over [to the courts], and the priority, of course, is for the crime of murder which occurred against the people of this nation. What is strange is that we are trying former Interior Minister Habib el-Adly for corruption, before we bring him to trial for ordering the killing of people in the streets.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  Is the Muslim Brotherhood satisfied with the decisions taken by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, since it took over running the country?
Al-Bayoumi: Until now, we can consider what has happened to be a beginning, but this has not quenched the thirst of the people, for this is not the hope of the people, the issue was not toppling Mubarak, but rather toppling the entire regime; all of its members, pillars, and policies. The issue is not one of figures, but rather of policies pursued by the Mubarak regime devastated Egypt on different levels throughout the decades of his reign.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The Muslim Brotherhood has announced that it intends to form a political party, but has yet to clarify what the relationship will be between the political party and the [international] Muslim Brotherhood organization. Can you clarify this relationship?
Al-Bayoumi:The thinking is of a political party that has been present for a long period of time, and there is a decision from the Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council to this effect, for political work is part of the Muslim Brotherhood organization's work, as we said before, and the political party's will have a role at a specific level. However the fundamental for us, with regards to political work, is binding this with the moral framework and what unites the Muslim Brotherhood organization with the political party is the ideological framework. As for the political party structure, this will certainly be separate from the Muslim Brotherhood organization, and we are not – within the Muslim Brotherhood's institutions – studying the existing [political] models for this in the neighboring countries.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The Muslim Brotherhood's political manifesto for 2008 was the subject of severe criticism, particularly with regards to your organization being against Copts or women standing for the presidency. This raised a lot of concerns, both internally and externally, can you tell us if the Muslim Brotherhood remains committed to this proviso?
Al-Bayoumi: We consider our position with regards to who can potentially assume the presidency [of Egypt] to be part of the freedom of choose an Islamic jurisprudential opinion, and a Muslim has this choice, and we have chosen this [jurisprudential] opinion as it is the opinion of the majority of Islamist scholars and we do not impose this upon anybody, but rather we, for our part, will not put forward a Coptic or woman candidate for the presidency, however other parties will have the right to do so or not.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  If another party chose a woman or a Copt as a presidential candidate, and this candidate won the elections to become president, what would the Muslim Brotherhood's position be?
Al-Bayoumi:So long as it is the [Egyptian] people who chose this figure and voted, we do not mind, however we are facing a world that is open to us [as Muslims], but can a Muslim become president in the US, or France, or Italy? Of course there are no provisions preventing this, however the majority decides, in Egypt the majority is Muslim, therefore why should the Muslim Brotherhood be subject to all of these attacks when we speak about this? The Muslim Brotherhood is looking at this issue due to its responsibilities and tasks, including leading the Muslims. Can a non-Muslim or woman undertake these responsibilities? However even if a woman should win the elections we will not stand against this, and we will accept this choice, however our own position within our party regarding [presidential] nominations is clear, we will not nominate a Copt or woman.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The Muslim Brotherhood continually acknowledges following the creed "whenever you must choose between two things, it is better to choose the easier" which is based upon a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad. Why do you therefore stick to this hard-line position with regards to the electoral nomination of a Copt or a woman, particularly when Islamic scholars such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Sheikh Mohamed Salim al-Awa, have said that there is nothing religiously impermissible about a Copt or woman leading a Muslim country?
Al-Bayoumi: We have not taken a hard-line position, this is the opinion of the majority, and there is a prohibition about shifting between one jurisprudential view and another to choose the easiest. However, God said "and the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion." [Surat al-Baqara, Verse 120]. This is clear, whatever we say or do. This issue is being studied and perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood will decide to take a different position.

Asharq Al-Awsat : Some people fear Egypt's foreign relations will be affected by the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly international agreements that your group may be against. How do you respond to this?
Al-Bayoumi: We respect international agreements and major political issues, whatever they may be, however with regards to an objective and academic look [at this issue], it is the right of either side, or any one side, to review and discuss according to the circumstances and requirements. The Camp David Accords were never put to the people or even to the parliament in the proper manner, but rather these were enforced from above. One of the most important articles of this agreement was the establishment of a Palestinian State, very well, but let us ask: where is this [Palestinian] state? Secondly, where is this comprehensive peace in light of the daily massacres and brutal attacks that the Palestinians are subject to? Who has destroyed this agreement, in light of the genocidal plans against the Palestinian people, and the systematic move to Judaize Jerusalem and destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque? There is also the issue of the secret articles included in this accord, from selling Egyptian natural gas to Israel at a fifteenth of its real price. All of this must be put to the people, and it is the people's right to reconsider thee conventions. Of course, we do not accept the Camp David Accords at all, but re-evaluating and dealing with this must be done according to the law.
 
Asharq Al-Awsat : Some people believe Egypt could be subject to international or even regional isolation should the Muslim Brotherhood come to power, as occurred when Hamas came to power in Palestine. What is your opinion of this?
Al-Bayoumi:  We [the Muslim Brotherhood] are the keenest of all Egyptians for Egypt to return to the Arab and Muslim body, for Egypt's isolation from the Arab and Islamic world only occurred due to the signing of the Camp David Accords, and we want to return to the Arab world, and return it to its status and prestige internationally. We are also calling the most strongly for connecting with the Arab and Islamic societies, and we want to restore Egypt to its place at the fore-front of the Arab world, for Egypt to always lead the way.

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The success of the Egyptian revolution has resulted in lifting the ban on the Muslim Brotherhood organization and institutions. How will this effect the organization?
Al-Bayoumi: We ask God this, and we hope to meet and consult with one another in public, and for everybody to know what we say, and what we want for our people and countries, because what we are saying is no secret, for what we want is to raise up the Muslim ummah, and we do not want anybody to think that we are working in the shadows or against anybody's interests.

Asharq Al-Awsat : Don't you think this will anger the West?
Al-Bayoumi: What's this got to do with them? Why should we care about what they say in the outside world?

Asharq Al-Awsat :  The Muslim Brotherhood was previously interested in communicating with opposition parties; will you remain committed to this policy after the success of the revolution?
Al-Bayoumi: Certainly…we remain keen to communicate with everybody, as long as this is in the interests of society.

Shaaban Abdul Sattar with Rashad al-Bayoumi in Asharq alawsat. More Here.

Beware of American games in Libya

It is natural for us to be skeptical when the West demonizes a Muslim leader. He automatically gets the benefit of our doubt but in this case evidence against him is abundant. He forced Wahdah (unification), first on Egypt then on Tunisia. When the Arab countries did not show any interest, he turned towards Sub-Saharan Africa and wanted to lead her in a United States of Africa. That dream also did not materialize.

He tried to purchase an atom bomb from China. Spurned by Zhou En-Lai, he turned towards Pakistan. When Pakistan too said no, he became very bitter. He ordered Egyptian navy during the period of unification, to sink the luxury ocean liner QE2, full of American tourists, in the Mediterranean. The naval commander would not do it without referring to Sadat.

There were reports that he asked Nasser permission to shoot King Husain in an Arab summit conference in Cairo. It is also a known fact that he sent assassins to kill King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The blowing up of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in Scotland is another example of bizarre behavior.

Then all of a sudden he metamorphosed from Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll and became from enemy number one to the best friend of the West, meeting with Condoleezza Rice and embracing Gordon Brown, Sarkozy and Berlusconi.

We need no further evidence to conclude that autocracy, whether benevolent or tyrannical, is something we must not tolerate in the Muslim world. It will certainly be inimical to human development. My experience of the Libyan people is that they are very sweet, friendly and full of promise. They deserve a better leadership. 

However, there is a real danger now that the upheaval in the Arab countries may once again provide entries to Trojan Horses — I am not talking about Islamists — and usher in another era of exploitation. The Revolutions must be on their guard against such hazards.

Waheeduddin Ahmed in The Muslim Observer. More Here.

Libya, India and the games of Obama!

What is most disconcerting is that the Indian government has begun echoing the Obama administration's rhetoric. A pattern is emerging: New Delhi's mood changes, its pauses of silence and its cadence of articulation on the Arab revolt bear an uncanny resemblance to the twists and turns, ambivalences and ambiguities and the agony and ecstasy of Mr. Obama's rhetoric. It took our thoughtful External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna no time to repudiate Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's position that we are not in the business of teaching others the ABC of democracy. Who overruled Dr. Singh? Who encouraged Mr. Krishna?

Therefore, the decision to dispatch two warships to the Mediterranean merits watch. (Now it transpires that the Navy's fleet replenishment tanker also has been sent.) Pray, if evacuation of Indian nationals is an urgent priority, why not charter more aircraft or commercial ships that constantly ply the Mediterranean? That was what China did. As of Monday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said it evacuated to safety 29,000 nationals from Libya. That is 11,000 more than the entire Indian community in Libya. What is happening? We're “twittering” and twiddling our thumbs waiting for our two warships and the fleet replenishment tanker in tow to reach Libya's coast, hopefully by mid-March. Let us hope Mr. Qadhafi will somehow cling on to power until then so that our warships can do some “rescue” act.

It seems Mr. Qadhafi's bestiality provided on a platter a great opportunity to test the “interoperability” of our warships with NATO. Such an enterprise fits into the U.S.-Indian strategic narrative on the security of the “global commons.” Coincidence or not, the western alliance has mentioned partnership with India as one of its three key global priorities in 2011. The U.S. has all along been encouraging India to develop a partnership programme with NATO. Indeed, NATO has kept up subsoil contacts with the Indian defence and foreign policy establishments in the recent years, but these were low-key, given India's traditional aversion to any entanglements with military alliances. The Libyan situation offers the pretext for displaying and stimulating the NATO-Indian partnership. An operation with NATO is precisely the sort of “leap of faith” the U.S. has been demanding from India. Without doubt, this complex shadow play becomes part of India's baptism in order to push its bid for permanent membership of the Security Council. The Indian leadership owes some decent explanation to the public before jettisoning lock, stock and barrel the cornerstones of this country's post-independent foreign policy.

It stands to reason that our government has taken a deliberate, considered decision at the highest level to vote for the U.S.- sponsored Security Council resolution. A precedent of grave proportions for international security is taking shape, which is what the western move on Libya is all about, and New Delhi seems unwilling to explain its role in it. This opaqueness or dissimulation is shocking, to say the least. Why not openly and categorically affirm that having voted for the U.S.-led resolution, India doesn't intend to be associated in any way further with any “humanitarian intervention” or what not? It is a rather straightforward thing to say. If the western intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq holds any moral it is that these modern-day crusades in Muslim countries by western armies can only bring grief and lead to unspeakable tragedies. And India should stay worlds away from these blood-soaked enterprises. On Mr. Qadhafi's crackdown, India has not minced words and, in fact, has used harsh language, which is the right thing to do.

M K Bhadra Kumar in The Hindu. More Here.

Allying with US is like being a cow tied to a bean pole

For all those who think we should join USA in alliance. ask any of the fellow allies of US and you can find a lot of bullying. Allying with US is like being a cow tied to a bean pole. You are very free within a region and not allowed after that. Don't believe me - read this http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-india-should-have-permanent-seat-un-security-council_515223.html. 'Weekly standard and heritage' are the bastion of the conservatives/republicans/GOP- bush's party. In the above link UK should be substituted as lackey. example. the nuclear installations of UK were shared with Russia without even asking UK and UK couldn't even protest. source wikileaks.

A comment by Sri in The Hindu. More Here.

The West is blood stained...

I fully agree with the writer. It touches everything and leaves the reader with his own decission. He is fair in pointing out western rhetoric against Libya. The same Mr. Obama did not wail when Mubarak was punishing the protesters in Egypt. His long silence on the issue is deplorable. To all who said the article to be anti-US and anti-West need to learn more about the crimes done by US and NATO. Iraq was destroyed and the entire population was plunged into misery, death and destruction. Not hundred but thousands were killed by US and its allies. Same is the case with Afghanistan. All 63 killed in Kunar are the victims of opression and greed. Every regime in West and every partner of NATO is having blood of innocents. The last thing which is the essence that India has started itself aligning with the US is the fact nothing else. Growing interest of US in India and increasing cooperation of India with US are the manifestations of the same. But this seriously undermines our Non Align Movement role. We are steadily but surely moving ourselves towards imperial states which bothers me a lot.

A comment by Habib in The Hindu. More Here.

Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain.... : Will it lead to amalgamation of the Middle East into ONE NATION?

Revolutions are often exported; but sometimes imported too. As they know no national or international boundary they travel thick and fast.

The recent upsurge in the Arab world is something very unique. It is both a mixture of export and import. From Tunisia in the west to Bahrain in the east the revolutionary fervor has swept over half a dozen countries, with more coming under its spell. Though it is Tunisia, which took the lead and Egypt apparently imported from the former yet the truth is that it is the latter which is the epicenter of all the great political earthquake in the entire region. Egypt has the oldest, most organized, anti-West and anti-Israel, pro-people party called the Muslim Brotherhood with Islam as its ideology. This party was formed in 1928 and had branches in several countries. Since Egypt is the fountainhead of revolution it is attracting much more global attention.

Europe in late 18th and 19th centuries also witnessed such series of huge changes. The 1789 French Revolution was followed by two more series of big upheavals in 1830-31 and 1848. In those years a number of monarchs were overthrown but many such revolts ended in bloodbath.

Though it is England, which took the first step in the direction of democracy the credit for exporting the idea goes more to France. This notwithstanding the fact that the first French Revolution of 1789 achieved little and it was back to square minus one after 1792-93 when thousands of people were massacred in Reign of Terror. This dance macabre paved the way for the take over of Brigadier General Napoleon in 1798, who later declared himself as Emperor in 1804. As an Emperor he brought about some reforms, but by 1815 it was all over as he lost in the Battle of Waterloo and France was thrown back to history.

A series of revolts in 1831 and 1848 led to the downfall of many tyrants and paved the way for Unification of Germany and Italy. However, the real democracy, which the West boasts about, is only a 20th century phenomenon, when women too got voting rights. Incidentally France, which takes credit for the growth of democratic idea, gave voting right to women in 1945, that is, after the Allied power rescued it from the four year of German occupation on August 26, 1944.

Even the United States gave voting right to all the citizens, including the entire Black population, a few decades back. Yet the West talks too much about exporting this so-called democratic-liberalism even before implementing it in to on itself.

After the liberal democratic idea it was the turn of the Communism to take the world by storm. But a close scrutiny of Communist history would suggest something else. Though it spread far and wide it failed to bring about a series of revolution in the world as it is happening now or in Europe earlier in the history. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 no other country came under its influence. In contrast it led to the birth of anti-Communist Fascist and Nazi regimes in Italy and Germany.

Communism expanded only after the end of World War-II in 1945 when Soviet army occupied several East European countries and thrust its own regime on them. China was the first big country, where Communist Revolution took place on October 1, 1949, that is 32 years after Russia. This was followed a decade later by Cuba while Vietnam and Cambodia fought their way to become Communist countries in 1975. Communist North Korea is actually the result of three years of Korean War (1950-53) in which South got support of the United States and allies while North Korea of China.

The current series of revolts in Arab countries is likely to disturb the West and Israel more than any other countries. Unlike Europe, only one language is spoken in the entire stretch of about 22 countries. They are followers of the same religion, Islam, and almost same sect too. Suddenly the importance of Muslim Brotherhood as one single largest entity has emerged. Except Bahrain, where the majority is Shia and ruler Sunni, all the other Arab countries are predominantly Sunni. Yet these Sunni revolutionaries are getting the moral support from Shia Iran, which is perhaps the most worrying development for the West and Israel. 

Earlier European kingdoms were also predominantly Christian but there was strong sectarian divide. Almost all of them spoke different languages with nationalistic feeling very strong. Colonialism further contributed to its growth. The wave of nationalism led to the two World Wars, which caused the death of between five and six crore people the world over.

So while democratic revolutions in Europe created more differences among the European nations the changes in the Arab world tend to bridge the gap among the population spread over two continents––Africa and Asia. Any such development is likely to have a far-reaching impact on the West, which is now trying its level best to deal with the emerging situation.

A century ago Britain and France started the process of disintegrating the Ottoman Empire, which got completed in 1922. Over a hundred years later the process has started reversing. No western or Israeli intelligence agencies perhaps ever predicted that in matter of weeks things would turn upside down.

Soroor Ahmed in Newzfirst. More Here

The Arab world will not be the same again...!

The upheaval in the Arab World these days is the second attempt within half a century to bring down the treacherous Sykes-Picot regime imposed on the region after the First World War. It was a secret Anglo-French treaty to usurp, divide and rule the region. During the same period Britain had promised freedom to the Arabs, through the Sharif of Mecca, if they joined its war effort against the Ottoman State. The same power had promised Arab Palestine to the Jews if they too helped it out during that war.

As a result of that war, not only was the Ottoman Empire dismantled, caliphate finally extinguished, Arabs betrayed and enslaved, and Jews rewarded, but also a cruel dependency regime was imposed on the divided Arab World where ruthless local satraps presided over police states with full support of London and Paris. After the Second World War, the masters changed. Now Washington was the qibla of these local nawabs. Russians too enjoyed a small period in the sun during the 1950s and 1960s. The Arab defeat in 1967 slowly drove away the Russians and Washington became the sole beneficiary and benefactor of these regimes especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

West had in 1948 succeeded in implanting “Israel” at the meeting point of the eastern and western flanks of the Arab World, thereby cutting it into two disjointed parts. A clear Western policy was devised to keep the tiny Israel more powerful than all the Arab countries together. Denial of arms and nuclear power to the Arabs was a basic constituent of this western policy while Israel was allowed to acquire an arsenal of unprecedented proportions complete with nuclear power and nuclear warheads pointed towards all major Arab countries.

When Egypt tried in the mid-1950s to rebel against this arms embargo, it was threatened, humiliated and finally taught a lesson in June 1967. Slowly, Arab satraps accepted Israel too which had all-along dreamt of emerging as the major power of the Middle East and tried this most disastrously in 1982 when it invaded Lebanon. That fiasco may have put paid to the power of Fateh but it also led to the emergence of new powers like Hamas and Hizbullah which emerged and evolved firmly outside the satrap-master equation prevailing in the region.

Arab people had earlier, during the 1950s, tried to change this equation. “Revolutions” erupted in Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Iraq, Yemen and Sudan etc., but somehow the local armies were able to replace the old satraps.

The current revolution which started in Tunisia and soon spread to Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Libya, Iraq, Algeria, Bahrain and Mauritania etc., is the second popular attempt to dislodge and break free of the Sykes-Picot shackles. Apart from Washington (and West), the only big loser today is a trembling Israel whose long labour to become the sole imperial power of the Middle East suddenly has come to a naught. The revolution is still unfinished. Washington seems to be maneuvering to replace the old faces with new ones. But a lot of water has flowed down the Nile and Euphrates these past decades. Arabs are no longer an illiterate and innocent lot. Once the current upheaval settles down, the Middle East will not be the same again.

Zafarul Islam Khan in The Milli Gazette. More Here.

Lessons of Arab awakening!

It is high time for the United States and its European allies to abandon policies of unconditionally supporting Israeli governments, to revitalize the peace process and work toward a comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The need for Israeli governments to come to their senses has never been as urgent as it is today. Arab revolutions will inevitably help the Israeli people and the Jewish Diaspora at large to finally grasp that Israel’s security and wellbeing cannot be achieved without the same for the Palestinian people. Turkey has surely played a role in the Arab awakening. There is no doubt that the Arab people are inspired by the Turkish example, which has shown the entire world that a Muslim-majority society can be both modern and democratic. No one can deny that policies pursued by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government of establishing closer political, economic and cultural ties with the Arab people, as with all neighboring people, while taking a stand against atrocities and injustices inflicted upon the Palestinians, have helped Turkey to win the hearts and minds of the Arab masses. The myth that Turkey under the AKP government has changed axis, and moved away from the West toward the Middle East, has also collapsed. The case is not Turkey moving closer to the Middle East, but the Middle East moving closer to Turkey. Sensible Americans and Europeans should well assess the contribution Turkey is making towards democratization in its region and also grasp the deceptive nature of arguments that claim Turkey under the AKP government is moving towards an authoritarian regime, put forward mainly by the neocon and Israeli lobby circles in the US. And for those European governments who want to exclude Turkey from European integration, developments in the Middle East seem to provide plenty of reasons to revise their positions. The Arab awakening is inviting Turkey to also come to its senses. Turkey has to move further with reforms to consolidate democracy with European norms, not only for the sake of its own security and prosperity but to also for continuing to inspire its neighborhood. In this context it is imperative that the AKP government meets the democratic demands of its Kurdish citizens, and take all measures necessary to open the way for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to lay down arms and take part in the democratic process. No one can stop Turkey from gaining greater hard and soft power when it reconciles with its Kurdish citizens. Sahin Al Pay in Today's Zaman. More Here.