Bear Market Economics Blogs

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

BEAR MARKET MEWS Blogs are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

The Middle East, explained in one (sort of terrifying) chart


The Washington Post 

WorldViews

By Max Fisher and the Washington Post Foreign Staff


The Middle East, explained in one (sort of terrifying) chart



What could be simpler than the Middle East? A well-known Egyptian blogger who writes under the pseudonym The Big Pharaoh put together this chart laying out the region’s rivalries and alliances. He’s kindly granted me permission to post it, so that Americans might better understand the region. The joke is that it’s not a joke; this is actually pretty accurate.


Click to enlarge and you will either have a seizure or fully comprehend the Middle East. (Courtesy The Big Pharaoh)
 
 
Spend a few minutes staring at this and you will either have a seizure or actually comprehend the Middle East. Egypt is represented by the “MB” (Muslim Brotherhood) and “Sisi” for military leader Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi. (Courtesy The Big Pharaoh)
 
There are rivals who share mutual enemies, allies who back opposite sides of the same conflict, conflicting interests and very strange bedfellows. There are two categories of countries: the ones that meddle (the United States, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel) and the ones that are meddled with (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories). Each of the former is pushing for a different outcome in each of the latter, falling in and out of cooperation and competition. And that long-running interference is an important part of why conflict persists.

It’s all kind of a scramble. The Big Pharaoh writes: “I keep on updating this chart because every time I look at it I discover that I’ve missed an arrow. That’s how complicated it is.”

The chart is a spin-off of the most amazing letter to the editor ever written, which appeared in Thursday’s Financial Times. It also explained the entire Middle East, in a few short sentences. Here they are:
Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.!

Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!
Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.
KN Al-Sabah,
London EC4, U.K.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

10 ideas that will help you understand the world





Home > Learn about > Facts

10 идеи, които ще ви помогнат да разберете света

10 ideas that will help you understand the world

20.06.2013 | 13:00 20.06.2013 | 13:00
 
 

To think better and without prejudice, we must know the basic laws by which things work

 
 
To improve your skills reflection of the conditions to have maximum understanding of our cognitive biases, as well as basic knowledge of the laws by which the universe works.
 
The editors of intellectual site Edge.org decided to ask some of the most influential thinkers in the world - including physicists, neurologists and mathematicians - and ask them what they think are the most important scientific concepts in the modern era.
 
The outcome of the exercise is the book "This will make you smarter: New scientific concepts to improve thinking" - a collection of two hundred essays that describe the most important ideas to handle today and explore the world.
 
1. Cumulative error.
 
Author: Dzheyran Leyniar, author of the article "You're not your widget"
 
When information travels through multiple channels is easily some of the elements of the message to confuse and distort - whether because of prejudices or simply due to human error.
 
The effect of the spread of misinformation is often due to the so-called "Cumulative error". Living in an age in which information can travel the world in nanoseconds, making this a very dangerous concept.
 
 
133547
Снимка: Sxc.hu Photo: Sxc.hu
2. Cognitive humility
 
Author: Gary Marcus of New York University
 
Decades of cognitive research has shown that "our mind is limited and not nearly as perfect as we want to believe. Knowledge of and compliance with the restrictions will improve our abilities to think and reason, and logic. One of the worst effects of our limited creature is that we tend to remember things better, which coincide with our views and outlook.
 
 
 

3. Blind experiment

Author: Richard Doukin, evolutionary zoologist at Oxford University

Blind experiment is a tool that researchers use to eliminate the unconscious prejudices of the people involved in the experiments. Understanding of this tool will help people better understand their subjective biases daily to prevent generalization and develop critical thinking.

 
133548Снимка: Sxc.com Photo: Sxc.com
 4. Deep time
 
 
Author: Martin Rees of Cambridge astrofizi
 
The concept is related to the belief that in front of us a lot more time than has elapsed. This creates a more expansive worldview and understanding of the potential of the universe.
 
Our sun is less than half of their life cycle. It was formed 4.5 million years ago, but it will take another 6 billion before its fuel is over.
 
133540Снимка: Sxc.com Photo: Sxc.com
 
 
 
5. Theory of cycles

Author: Daniel Dennett of Tufts University.

Cycles explain everything, especially when it comes to basic levels in the processes of evolution and biology. Where cycles can be changed and thus confused and disturbed.  Knowing the cycles that nature (and our minds) follow, can explain a number of phenomena.

 
133533Снимка: Sxc.com Photo: Sxc.com

6. Cultural attraction
 
Author: Dan Sperbar from Central European University in Budapest
 
We are attracted by the ideas and concepts that are easy for us to accept and process.  For example, round numbers are cultural attractors - they are easier to remember and provide easier prioritize things. But the fact that we are attracted to specific concepts does not mean that they are the best in every situation.
 
 
133532Снимка: Sxc.com Photo: Sxc.com
 
 
7. Copernican principle
 
Author: Samuel Arbesman, izsledovalel Harvard
 
 
The basis of this principle is the idea that we are special, that the universe is much bigger than our understanding of it, and that we play a minor role in it. The paradox of the Copernican principle is correct only if we understand our place in the world, even if modest, only then can you realize your situation. And when we do, you will not look so ignorant.
 
 
133538Снимка: Freedigitalphotos.net/Salvatore Vuono Photo: Freedigitalphotos.net / Salvatore Vuono


8. The idea of a superorganism
 
Author: Jonathan Come, social prisolog the University of Virginia
 
Until biologists had combined with social scientists to develop a theory of society in which every act of altruism is seen as driven by self-interest.
 
The new concept of contingent superorganisms says live their lives, several different levels. The idea here is that once you reach a certain level, the success of the group for you becomes more important than the individual.
 
 
133,535Снимка: Булфото Photo: BulPhoto
 
 
9. Satisfaction of restrictions
 
 
Author: Stephen Koslin from Stanford University
 
When we are faced with too many option choices, no matter how beautiful and useful, it can be overloaded and lead to the inability to reach a decision. Therefore, placement of various restrictions is useful and leads to solutions. In fact, much of the creativity comes from the satisfaction of the imposed limits. Einstein, for example, makes breakthrough after finding that nothing can travel at a speed exceeding that of light.
 
 
133541Снимка: Wikipedia.org Photo: Wikipedia.org

10. Cognitive load
 
 
Author: Nicholas Carr
 
Our brains can hold a limited amount of information in real time. When congestion is too high, we begin to get distracted too easily and can retain what they have learned. Working memory is the notion that researchers of the brain called the place in the brain for short-term storage of information. There hold the contents of our creature at any time. There are all impressions and thoughts that go through our minds throughout the day.
 
 
133542Снимка: Sxc.hu Photo: Sxc.hu 


Saturday, June 1, 2013

I Am the River and the River is Me: The Implications of a River Receiving Personhood Status



Home





November 26, 2012 







When an agreement recently signed in Aotearoa (New Zealand) proposed the acknowledgement of the Whanganui River as a legal person, many saw it as an innovative resource management solution. Indigenous Peoples around the world often struggle with governments that do not recognize their view of the natural environment; when natural resources are involved, Indigenous worldviews are often in direct conflict with non-Indigenous notions of property ownership. Viewed in this light, the agreement is even more compelling—because it is an agreement to define a natural resource according to the worldview of Maori, the Indigenous people of Aotearoa.

A Resource for Profit or Te Awa Tupua?


The natural resources in Aotearoa are often viewed through two different lenses: Maori and non-Maori. Honorable Peter Sharples, noted Maori academic and cabinet minister, describes these competing views best: “Holding a title to property, whether Crown or private, establishes a regime of rights—to capture, to exclude, to develop, to keep. Rangatiratanga (Maori sovereignty or absolute chieftainship) is asserted through the collective exercise of responsibilities— to protect, to conserve, to augment, and to enhance over time for the security of future generations. Both seek to increase value, but the question is, how do you value the resource? [By] the profit you can make? Or the taonga (treasure’s) contribution to the survival of the group?”

The answer, in this case, is the latter: the Whanganui River will be defined and governed by the Maori view of the river. Whanganui Iwi, the Indigenous people that possess rangatiratanga over the Whanganui River, and the river itself will be considered a living, integrated whole, or Te Awa Tupua. This view encompasses more than chieftainship, however. As explained by the late Niko Tangaroa, a Maori elder, Whanganui Iwi have an interdependent relationship with the river: “The river and the land and its people are inseparable. And so if one is affected the other is affected also. The river is the heartbeat, the pulse of our people. . . . [If the river] dies, we die as a people. Ka mate te Awa, ka mate tatou te Iwi.” This unique relationship is not a concept that can be easily understood by non-Maori because its value exists outside of the profitgenerating notions of property.


According to Honorable Tariana Turia, a member of parliament who is affiliated with Ngati Apa/Wairiki, Nga Rauru, Tuwharetoa, and Whanganui Iwi, the Whanganui River has always been a protected tribal resource—so the Whanganui Iwi do not accept the argument that everyone and no one owns it. In fact, prior to signing the agreement with the Crown, Whanganui Iwi argued that assigning non-Maori ownership rights to the river were the only way that their unique relationship, identity, and rangatiratanga could be protected. So if Whanganui Iwi view the river differently from non-Maori, how did Iwi get the Crown to agree to define it as they always have, as Te Awa Tapua? Also, why did Whanganui Iwi agree to have their rangatiratanga protected through a
non-Maori guardianship model where the river is considered a legal entity? The answers, not surprisingly, are complex.

Defining the River According to the Worldview of Maori


Ma-ori chiefs and agents of the British monarchy began their official partnership when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The partnership continues between the Maori and the Crown today, though it is the Treaty’s principles that govern the duties and obligations of this partnership rather than its explicit text. Although these principles will inevitably change to reflect the transforming needs of the country, the courts have found that the Treaty’s principle of partnership imposes a duty of good faith and reasonable conduct between Maori and the Crown.

Additionally, the Crown has a duty to make informed decisions and to protect Maori property rights. The spirit of the Treaty also imposes the principle of redress, where the Crown is required to provide active and positive redress for past breaches of the Treaty. In such a case, the settlement process usually begins by the Maori filing a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal; then Maori negotiate with the Crown directly so that Maori can get compensation for proven breaches of Treaty principles. Whanganui Iwi have been engaged in this process for decades. As both parties continue to negotiate a final settlement, the agreement recognizing the river as Te Awa Tapua is an important step forward.

Tu-tohu Whakatupua: A Cause for Cautious Optimism


The agreement that defines the Whanganui River as a legal entity, to be protected by appointed guardians, is titled Tu-tohu Whakatupua. It states that Ma-ori values of the Whanganui River be central to a final settlement in which the Crown will appoint one guardian, Whanganui Iwi will appoint one guardian, and both guardians will act together for the benefit of the river. If the guardians have to protect the Indigenous property value associated with the river, then they must promote and secure the river as more than just a natural resource. In other words, the guardians must also promote and secure the spiritual and cultural rights of the river— not simply the physical and ecological rights.

Although Tu-tohu Whakatupua is neither a settlement nor a decision with any independent binding authority, if the terms are followed then the final settlement will be governed according Whanganui Iwi values—values that define the river as a treasure contributing to the survival of the group, rather than a profit-generating resource. However, Whanganui Iwi rights to the river may also end up being restricted by the recognition of the river as a legal entity because once the guardians have been appointed, Whanganui Iwi, like the Crown, will have no power to influence them.

While the guardianship model ensures that the Whanganui River will not be owned by anyone, thereby promoting the Crown’s view of natural resources, the Whanganui Iwi maintain that the welfare of the Whanganui River is the most important part of any settlement. As Che Wilson, affiliated with Whanganui Iwi, notes, “the recognition of [the river] as its own legal entity goes a long way to us as descendants of the river [in] ensuring that the protection of the river is upheld and its sanctity is maintained.” It is difficult to speculate on the full implications of the agreement because its details have yet to be fully fleshed out. But Tu-tohu Whakatupua is arguably cause for cautious optimism as Indigenous Peoples continue to fight for the recognition of their views of the natural environment.

—Brendan Kennedy was born and raised in Aotearoa, and is currently a third year law student at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, Massachusetts.

We Are the World




We Are the World

 

In New Zealand—or Aotearoa, as it is known to the indigenous Māori people—the Whanganui River has been awarded personhood status.




We Are The World
New Zealand—Aotearoa, as it is known to the indigenous Māori people—the Whanganui River is now a legal person.
Photo By Aidan


In a land where corporations are considered people, it’s a bit of a leap to imagine nature attaining the same status. But as Brendan Kennedy reports for Cultural Survival Quarterly (December 2012), in New Zealand—Aotearoa, as it is known to the indigenous Māori people—the Whanganui River is now a legal person.

“Indigenous peoples around the world often struggle with governments that do not recognize their view of the natural environment,” writes Kennedy. Where the Māori strive to conserve and enhance, non-Māori typically seek to industrialize and maximize profit. Thus, indigenous worldviews often directly conflict with non-indigenous practices of property ownership. Awarding the river personhood status, then, is a significant victory for the Māori.

According to the new agreement, the river will have two guardians—one appointed by the Whanganui Iwi tribe and one by the British Crown—that promote the physical, ecological, spiritual, and cultural rights of the river.
Such an agreement has few precedents, however. While the news brings hope, Kennedy warns of the possibility that the river’s guardians might restrict Whanganui Iwi rights to the river with no room for recourse. Still, he calls the agreement cause for “cautious optimism as Indigenous Peoples continue to fight for the recognition of their views of the natural world.”

Monday, September 24, 2012

The Snake Behind the Arab Spring



Intifada Palestine

THE SNAKE BEHIND THE ARAB SPRING





By Dr. Elias Akleh -  Intifada-Palestine.com

Due to its important geopolitical location (linking Asian, African and European continents) and to its diversified rich natural resources the indigenous inhabitants of the Middle Eastern region had been subjected to multi-forms of colonial campaigns since the beginning of ancient times. These inhabitants were subjected to ruthless military occupations, genocides, persecutions, oppressions, enslavements, and ethnic cleansing. Yet the people never surrendered nor gave up. They struggled for their freedom and independence and fought all colonial powers one after the other. Since the beginning of 2011 we are witnessing their latest regionally-sweeping fight against local ruling regimes that are subservient to foreign powers. This has become known as the Arab Spring. Unfortunately, like all their previous struggles, there is a poisonous snake in the background, which covertly is directing and orchestrating this Arab Spring to reap its fruits for itself.

Their most previous sweeping struggle, similar to the present Arab Spring, was the famous Arab Revolt of June 1916 kicking the colonial Ottoman Empire, known as the “Sick Man”, out of the whole Middle East. The poisonous snake then was the United Kingdom, who pledged to recognize Arab independence throughout the whole Middle East if they join the British in their fight against the Ottoman Empire; an ally to Germany during WWI. This pledge was officiated through what is known as McMahon/Hussein Correspondence (1915 through 1916). Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Arthur McMahon was the British High Commissioner in Egypt from 1915 to 1917 and Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca. The British confirmed their pledge, again, through the January 1918 letter by Sir Mark Sykes carried by British Commander David Hogarth to Hussein. British weapons were shipped to Arab fighters through T.E. Lawrence (known as Lawrence of Arabia), who also coordinated the war efforts between the two parties. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire the British broke their pledge to Sharif Hussein. According to their May 16th 1917 secret Sykes-Picot Agreement they divided the Middle East into French and British colonies, and according to their Balfour Declaration, November 2nd 1917, they promised Palestine to the Zionists. Sharif Hussein was ousted from Mecca to exile by the British supported Abdul-Aziz bin Saud, who established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The military struggle continued within each separate Arab state until independence was achieved. Before quitting and leaving their Arab colonies, France and Great Britain raised some of their local cronies to become heads of states in order to keep the country dependent on the occupier economically, politically and even culturally. Some of the Arab countries, especially in Northern Africa, still use the occupier’s language next to Arabic as a main daily language.

There exists in the world a very wealthy and very influential group of people; the wealthiest 1%; a Power Elite, who exerts tremendous influence on world events. This Power Elite value themselves above all other nations. They had developed a kind of political theology that exalts them as the elite of all elites, the divinely chosen group, the architects of this world, the crafters of all religious, political and social ideologies, and the destroyers and builders of nations. It gives them the right and the duty to move nations and lead them into reshaping their political regimes through revolutions and wars to make these nations subservient to their own agenda. They spend their days drawing global projects and dedicate all their resources for their execution. They were responsible for all major wars around the world, for revolutions in many countries, for economical crises and for most major events in the history of this world. Through their wealth they control heads of states, all media outlets, military and intelligence organizations, and the world economy. Looking at the present global financial crises affecting many countries, one could not help but ask: who is this debtor, wealthy enough to hold many countries and their whole economies in his debt?

This is not any longer the farfetched conspiracy theory they are trying to ridicule those who try to expose it. It is a fact. After all a conspiracy is defined as “evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more people”.

For those who doubt that nations could be blindly and irrationally driven to acts against their own national interests and welfare, I would like to remind them of the drastic opposing effects of the famous speeches given by Brutus Albinus and Mark Antony to the Roman citizens after the assassination of Julius Caesar. The Romans, won by Brutus’ speech, were immediately converted against him within few minutes by Mark Antony’s speech. The famous proverb states that “people are just like a ball kicked from one corner of the field to the other by politicians.” Thus the political term “the ball is in one politician’s court.”

Iraq, Syria and Iran were the main obstacles to the Power Elite’s primary colonial Zionist Project of establishing Greater Israel to control the Middle Eastern region. The Power Elite came up with the “New Middle East” and “fighting global terrorism” projects to augment their Zionist Project. Intending to move southward they started with the occupation and destruction of Iraq. Although the Iraqi occupation was carried out under the banner of weapons of mass destruction and spreading the American democracy, it was faced with huge global political opposition not to mention the large financial expenses.

After failing to manipulate the IAEA and UN to isolate and to break the Iran/Syria ally, who supports Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas in their resistance against Israeli occupation and expansion, the Power Elite came up with the perfect scheme of “New Order through Chaos” erroneously dubbed, later on, as the Arab Spring. It involves revolution from within to topple the ruling regime and to incite conflict and struggle between the different religious and ethnic groups to divide and to weaken the country in order to make it easier for them to interfere, under the pretence of protecting minorities and/or of economic aid, to virtually control and re-organize the country. This way the Power Elite would present itself as an ally rather than an occupier, would gain the approval of the international community, would sidetrack all global political opposition and criticism, and would avoid the huge expenses incurred by the revolution. Their first attempt during 2009 Iranian election failed to topple the regime due to the relatively small size of demonstrators. A proven precedent with a strong credibility was needed to convince larger masses into revolting. The Power Elite was ready for a “controlled sacrifice” in order to win the ultimate prize, similar to a chess player, who is ready to sacrifice his queen in order to check-mate his opponent’s king. The goal is a controlled election in an American style democracy in some of the “non-friendly” Middle Eastern countries.

Tunisian Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was the first sacrifice. Tunisia was a French colony from 1883 to 1956 when Habib Bourguiba established the Republic of Tunisia. Bourguiba made the fatal mistake of nationalizing foreign land holdings and Christian religious institutions. This infuriated the Italians, who brokered what is known as the “medical coup d’état” deposing Bourguiba and installing the head of security forces, Ben Ali, in his place. This was declared to a 1999 Parliamentary Committee by Fulvio Martini, former head of Italian military secret service (SISMI). Ben Ali was perfect local foreign puppet. He has French and American military and intelligence training. He had close working relationship with Bush’s (Junior) administration and was a partner in fighting the so called global terrorism through the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative.

Contrary to the claimed cause for the 2010/11 Tunisian Revolt its economy was considered the best in the African continent and was projected to even improve in the coming years. The 2010-2011 Global Competitive Report (Davos World Economic Forum) ranked Tunisia as first in Africa and 32nd out of 132 globally. In an attempt to fight potential terrorism through economic assistance Ben Ali established a National Solidarity Fund that slashed Tunisia’s poverty from 7.4% in 1990 to 3.8% in 2005. The Oxford Business Group stated that Tunisia’s economy was likely to grow starting with 2008 due to its diversified industries.

Tunisia was chosen for its vulnerability to the West. Its security intelligence was penetrated through its cooperation in NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor, and its military and economy were compromised through the American military and economic assistance programs. Although the Power Elite supports its local puppet rulers they also support, to a lesser extent, opposition groups just in case the ruler gets out of line they would use the opposition groups to get rid of him.

The revolution started with Wikileaks exposing the large extent of Ben Ali’s corruption. When Mohammed Bouazizi lit himself aflame the opposition groups were already primed for mass demonstrations. As the head of state, and through bribery, Ben Ali could have sent the army and thugs to crush the demonstrators, as we have seen in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria. The country’s army chief withdrew his support to Ben Ali after his consultation with the Obama’s administration as was rumored. Ben Ali flew out to Saudi Arabia that has become known as the refuge for all deposed dictators of the region.

The many political parties formed before the Tunisian election is an indicative of the prevalent division and confusion among the people. The inexperienced Ennahda Islamist Party, who won the October 23rd election, could become a very easy prey to foreign long experienced political interference and to economical manipulation.

Egypt was the litmus test that would propel the rest of the Arab nations, particularly Syrians, into revolting against their ruling regimes. Hosni Mubarak was chosen for he was the most hated, although very influential, Arab leader of the most important Arab country. He was hated by his people for his tyranny, his oppression, his corruption, and his cheap privatization of Egyptian natural resources to foreign investors among many others. He was hated by the majority of Arab nations for his pro-American/Israeli foreign policies, for supporting the American invasion of Iraq, for his opposition to the democratically elected Palestinian Hamas, for his sabotage to all inter-Palestinian reconciliation efforts, for his partnership with Israeli Gaza siege, for his opposition to Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ armed resistance against Israeli occupation, and for his support to Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah and Israel’s 2009 war against Gaza. He was the queen to be sacrificed in the chess game.

“US groups helped nurture Arab Uprisings” was the title of an article in New York Times, which exposed that young Egyptian activists had received technical training on the use of social networking and mobile technology, and were financed by American groups such as International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy and Project on Middle East Democracy.

It is inconceivable that Mubarak, the wealthy ruthless head of state for thirty years and with long history in military service, did not have any loyal subjects in the army, who would help him crush the demonstrators. For the last thirty years the Egyptian army had been virtually armed, trained, and financed by the US. The army did not crush the protesters because there were strict orders not to do so. Comparatively the same army had crushed protesters and even opened live fire at them after the revolution (Maspero Massacre of 9th October, here and here). The Supreme Counsel of the Armed Forces, who seized power after the revolution, had re-instated the emergency laws and is slapping in military courts prison sentences to young activists, who started the revolution. This Counsel stood watching thugs attacking and destroying many government buildings. The latest attack this month was on the Supreme Court while judges were in a meeting. Egypt now is divided with religious conflicts (Christian Copts vs Muslims) and non-functioning government.

The American chosen next president is already primed and ready for the proper time to grab presidency. As for Mubarak, he had served the American/Israeli interest well for the last thirty years and would not be let off empty handed. According to Egyptian weekly “Alanbaa Aldawlia” the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) organization, with 14 million members and specializes in the monitoring of money laundering schemes, had reported to the FBI that for 10% commission President Obama and 17 other American officials, including both former presidents Bush (father & son), Hillary Clinton, James Baker and others, with the cooperation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a high manager of Deutche Bank in France, had been involved in the money laundering of Mubarak’s $700 Billion from Deutche Bank, Barclays Bank and HSBC Bank, to Israel’s Bank Leumi and other banks in China and Taiwan. According to Anat Levin, the branch manager of Israeli Bank Haboalim-Swiss branch, she was authorized by the Israeli government to transfer $20 Billion from Mubarak’s account to Saudi King Abdulla Abd El-Aziz’s account and to UAE president Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s account. The weekly also reported that Christine Legarde, while still French Minister of Economic Affairs, had submitted a report to the Interpol requesting thorough investigation into the management of Deutche Bank in France.

Libyan revolution was actually a civil war brokered by Western powers (US, UK, and France) and some Arab Gulf countries (Egypt, UAE, and Qatar). After paying reparations for Lockerbie bombing, abandoning his nuclear program, and giving Western energy companies (Royal Dutch Shell and BP) access to Libyan oil fields in 2004, Gaddafi had ended enmity with the West. Although he had a type of grandeur illusions Gaddafi attempted in the past to unite Arab countries, and upon failing he recently attempted to create an African Union which threatened the re-colonization plan of Africa by AFRICOM. The decision to get rid of Gaddafi, once and for all, came when he vowed to expel Western energy companies from the country and replace them with oil firms from China, India and Russia. Gaddafi’s second fatal mistake was his plan to convince African and Muslim counties to create a new currency, the gold dinar, to rival the American Dollar and the European Euro, in oil trade.

Libyan revolution was totally militarized. It was revealed that Egypt and Qatar were the main arms suppliers to the Libyan rebels. Under American pressure Arab League urged UN to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, and Qatar offered to cover all expenses of NATO forces to bomb alleged Gaddafi’s forces. Libyan rebels were civilians without any military training and were no match for Gaddafi’s well-trained and well-equipped army. It was revealed by Walter Fauntroy, member of US House of Representatives, that while in a self-sanctioned peace mission to Libya, he witnessed French and Danish troops coordinating NATO bombings and raiding Libyan villages, and giving the credit to Libyan rebels. At the end Gaddafi was ordered murdered rather than captured for fear of exposing all his shady dealings with the West.

Two unplanned products of the Arab Spring were the Yemeni and Bahraini revolutions. These are genuine popular peaceful revolutions against Yemeni Saleh’s 33 years oppressive rule, and against Al Khalifa family virtual 191 years rule. The two countries have strategic locations in the region and are of important interest to the American Administration. Yemen is located on the southern entrance of the Red Sea, through which all east/west marine traffic passes. Citing the October 2000 USS Cole bombing, the 2008 attacks on US embassy, and the October 2010 bomb packages incidents, allegedly linked to Anwar al-Awlaki, as proof of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Obama’s administration and Saudi Arabia justified sending money, arms and troops to help Saleh fight terrorists, and to crush the 10 months old demonstrations

The US has possibly the largest marine/air force base in Bahrain, where the Fifth Fleet provides support to all war ships of the US Naval Forces Central Command (USNACENT) to patrol the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. To keep the status quo in Bahrain Obama’s administration encouraged Gulf States to send the Peninsula Shield Force to Bahrain to crush the demonstrators. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE were happy to oblige and send their troops to Bahrain.

Syria is the main target; the prize; the king to be checked-mate. With American money and with the cooperation of some Arab officials, paid operatives incited some Syrian citizens, motivated by ethnic and religious background, to demonstrate in the streets demanding reform and regime change. These demonstrations took place in the easy accessible small towns on the borders of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Yet these demonstrations were dwarfed by millions of other Syrian citizens who demonstrated in major cities in support of the regime. To intensify the conflict these operatives, dressed in Syrian army outfits, started killing some citizens and accusing the Syrian police and army, and at the same time attack police and army personnel to force them into the defensive.

Compared to Tunisian, Egyptian, Yemeni and Bahraini peaceful demonstrations, Syrian demonstrations are totally armed with heavy weapons; machine guns, propelled missiles, anti-tank RPG, mines and heavy explosives, and are directed and orchestrated by military experts from other neighboring Arab countries as exposed by Al-Alam and Syrian TVs.

Heavy weapons and military experts were smuggled in through Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as reported by the Lebanese Arabic Assafir. Turkey had also played a major role in pressuring Syria and had harbored and encouraged armed Syrian rebels called Free Syrian Army. In successive televised interviews the former Lebanese MP Nasser Kandil had exposed in details including names, dates, and places, the conspiracy of destroying Syria as a country not just a regime change. The Saudi Bandar Ben Sultan (dubbed Bandar Bush by the Bush family) was named as a major conspirator with the Americans against Syria. It was reported that He was arrested in Syria while under cover smuggling money and weapons to Syrian operatives. It was also exposed that the American Ambassador Robert Ford and French Ambassador Eric Chevallier (in Arabic) to Syria had smuggled sophisticated satellite communication and surveillance equipment to the Syrian rebels some of which were seized by Syrian police.

Media outlets had also been manipulated to pressure Syrian government and to inflame the demonstrators. After gaining credibility in reporting Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan revolutions Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia TV channels had almost totally ignored the 99% popular Bahraini peaceful demonstrations and concentrated on Syrian demonstrators, less than 40% of the population, in a biased unconfirmed and more hostile reporting against the Syrian government. Every Thursday one could notice heightened reports about civilian casualties and ruthless attacks of the Syrian army in an attempt to incite more people to join Friday demonstrators. Syrian news would top every news broadcast even though there might be more important news in the region. Al-Jazeera repeated broadcasting phone video clips of the same demonstrations from different angles, and of alleged civilian victims, some of these clips proved to be of old Iraqi troops abusing citizens. The victims were always reported as civilians while there was no mention of Syrian soldiers being killed. Unlike Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan, and Yemeni army defectors shown on TV declaring support to the people, the media failed to show one Syrian army defector while they keep announcing wide defection. Al-Jazeera had established a special war room planning anti-Syrian propaganda as reported by some Al-Jazeera’s prime reporters and directors such as Ghassan Ben Jeddo and Luna Al-Shibl among many others (Arabnews in Arabic), who submitted their resignation in protest of such unprofessional politically biased reporting.

The US and France, particularly, had pushed for many harsh sanctions against Syria through the UN. Fortunately they could not obtain a military interference under the excuse of protecting Syrian citizens, as was done in Libya, because of the Russian and Chinese veto threat. So the Arab League, a Western tool, was pushed to play pressuring active role in Syria. It seems that many Arab leaders, especially Gulf leaders, who cynically call for democratic regime in Syria, have forgotten that they, themselves, employ family autocratic dictatorships in their own countries. Despite this fact the Syrian government had accepted the Arab League plan. The oppositional Syrian National Council rejected the plan and intensified its violence against the Syrian army inviting harsh retaliation. So the Arab League suspended Syria’s membership and threatened economic and political sanctions. Such are illegal actions contradicting the constitution of the Arab League that had never made a decision benefiting any Arab state, but legalized the many Western military interference in the Middle East such as in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and Libya. We should mention here that the Arab League had refused to receive a petition from the slaughtered Bahraini people requesting protection. Thousands of people within different Arab states demonstrated against the decision of Arab League in front of Qatar’s and Saudi Arabia’s embassies.

It has become obvious that the Syrian oppositional groups are divided and have different aspirations some of them are conflicting and confusing. This division and confusion are due to the background of each oppositional group. The Western paid groups are armed seeking violent regime change and call for foreign interference the same as in Libya. The genuine oppositional groups reject any foreign interference fearing the same fate of Libya, and seek drastic reform through dialogue.

To obtain peace, real democracy and prosperity in the Arab World, ALL the present Arab leaders and regimes need to be abolished, starting east with the Gulf States all the way west to the Atlantic  Ocean through the northern Arab states of Africa. This would give a chance for an Arab Union to develop under one real democratic regime with one united economy. Such a strong Arab Union would rebalance global power and put an end to Western re-colonization schemes of the Middle East.

We should remember that permanent changes happen through the evolution of human consciousness not through violent destructive revolutions.
*********

Dr. Elias Akleh

Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent born in the town of Beit Jala. His family was first evicted from Haifa after the “Nakba” of 1948, then from Beit Jala after the “Nakseh” of 1967. He lives now in the US, and publishes his articles on the web in both English and Arabic.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Please Reconsider the Term "Arab Spring"

world

The Internet Newspaper: News, Blogs, Video, Community




Maytha Alhassen


Please Reconsider the Term "Arab Spring"

Posted: 02/10/2012 5:07 pm

As we come upon more than a year of cascading revolutions and uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa/Maghreb (MENA), it is worth critically examining the way we in the West have come to describe these revolutions, resistance movements and uprisings in the region. Even esteemed MENA academics and some Arabic press (which has directly translated it from its English form 'al-rabi' al-'arabi'), have disappointingly re-appropriated the term. What many who fail to investigate the majority of Arab people's more popular nomenclature, as will be discussed, miss by using an empty phrase like "Arab Spring" is that these movements are more than just a "democratic blooming" -- they are what democracy is predicated on, a revolutionary demand for recognizing their right to human dignity.

Initially I myself was quick to use such a convenient catchphrase. But as my time in MENA this past summer, work co-editing a book on the revolutions, and data from a cultural analytics project has revealed to me, "Arab Spring" has its extreme limitations, ones bordering on being offensive. I have begun referring to these movements as the Dignity Revolutions. Although any kind of naming has its limitations, I have found a focus on "karama," dignity, as the most unifying demand present in these uprisings and resistance movements. What is truly remarkable and distinctly "revolutionary" about these movements is the almost consistent focus all the movements have on karama. Furthermore, let it not be forgotten or glazed over that non-Arab ethnic groups (like Kurds, Circassians, etc.) in these "Arab" countries are participating in and/or are significantly leading these revolutionary movements.

Where did this uncritically reproduced phrase that enjoys much Western popularity in the media, pop culture, academy and on social media come from? More bluntly stated, where did this notion of an "Arab Spring," one that was initially so foreign to the people and region that it is being used to describe, originate? Tunisian street vendor Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire on December 17 2010. Ben Ali fled Tunisia on the 14th of January. Egyptian cyber activists hashtagged their "day of rage" as #Jan25. Most major tipping points occurred during winter. Not only is the phrase "Arab Spring" seasonally inaccurate, but as a metaphor to denote a "time of renewal" it is a condescending insinuation that those who courageously labored to successfully oppose decades of entrenched dictatorships just stumbled upon a coming of seasonal change.

There are many reasons to object to the use of "Arab Spring," namely another, more powerful contention being that such a flippant term used to describe "blooming" from a "winter slumber" is not the one used by the people who are leading, organizing and participating in these revolutions. And as my experience co-editing a book on the revolutions has taught me, these movements have been years in the making. Where did this phrase that came to describe so much but represent such little substance originate?

As UCLA Middle East History Professor James Gelvin exposes in his recently released book Arab Uprisings: What Everyone Needs to Know, the term "Arab Spring" is not a new one and was originally applied to describe a prescient "democratic domino effect" that was expected to spread its "seeds" across MENA after the elections in Iraq in 2005. "Arab Spring" and the metaphor of spring as a time of "renewal" also historically defined "liberal reform" movements that were either short-lived or quickly crushed (like the "Prague Spring" of 1968 that was put down by the USSR). The term was first popularly applied to the Arab world in March 2005 by numerous media commentators to suggest that a spin-off benefit that the invasion of Iraq would have on the flowering of Arab "democracies" opening to the West (a simple Google search of "'Arab Spring' and '2005'" will produce a plethora of results). It was also a time of electoral reforms across MENA. 2005 marked Saudi Arabia's Consultative Council establishment of the kingdom's first (municipal) elections since the 1960s, female enfranchisement in Kuwait, and Mubarak's promise to hold free presidential elections. As history is testament to, we can easily see how that promising "springing" of "reform" produced little democratic change.

There is also the even more offensive "Arab Awakening" that suggests that the Arab populations brutally repressed by these regimes that ruled with impunity were "asleep" this whole time. The Economist, which continues to refer to the events in the regime under the expression "Arab Awakening," even dedicated a summer 2009 issue to the Arab world that was "waking from its sleep" as the front cover read. Also, this phrasing was used to describe the Arab nationalist challenge to the Ottoman Empire, which resulted in a mandate system of indirect rule of their lands by European countries England and France.

The inadequate fitting of the straitjacketed terminology clothed and tailored by Western media became explicitly clear to me after touring MENA this past summer, through learning about USC researcher VJ Um Amel's cultural analytics of social media activity around the Arab region, and in the process of co-editing a book on the Arab Revolutions.

Most of this past summer was spent for me conducting research for my doctorate and investigating stories for freelance projects in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon and Spain. In every location, I made it a priority to ask youth organizers about their respective movements. In Tunisia, I discovered youth activists strongly rebuffed another Western imposed phrase: the Jasmine Revolution. This was utterly insulting for those who actively sacrificed their livelihood and put their families in danger to have their movement to overthrow Ben Ali. It was part of a fundamental step towards questioning how it we "here" speak of what is going on "over there."

I discussed these ethnographic observations with my colleague at USC, VJ Um Amel, creator of the virtual lab R-Shief, whose cutting edge cultural analytics research of Tweets and Facebook updates reveals that the three most popular words used to describe the uprisings in MENA are: karama, thawra and haqooq (dignity, revolution and rights). This, in conjunction with all the signage and graffiti, reminded me of the abundant demands for "karama" and calls for "tharwa" paraded across city squares, casbahs, and on the lips of protesters, ones that were visibly heard, seen and felt during my trip -- and consequently gave me more pause.

Lastly, after being approached to co-edit a book on youth voices from the revolutions in the Arab world, my co-editor and I wrote up a project description for a call for submissions with the subject headline "Would you be interested in contributing to a book on the 'Arab Spring'?" We quickly received response after response asking us to clarify what it is we meant by "Arab Spring." Realizing our faux-pas, we reached out once again with a supplementary question. In addition to asking them to contribute to their stories to the book, we asked "what do you call the movement in your country and in the region?" Once again, "thawra" or "thawrat" (plural of revolutions) became the dominant response and as the essays later illuminated, the demand consistently was for an inalienable right to "karama."

The irony of the Western invention of the "Arab Spring" is that regardless of citizenry remonstrations for "self-determination," we still continue to see the Arab region in our eyes and not through theirs. What is going on in the MENA is something deeper than a democratic transformation, it is what democracy is predicated on -- a demand for recognizing the right to human dignity. What is revolutionary about the revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa is not the call to overthrow dictators, or even the inspiration that Arab world has played in the global staging of governmental greed grievances from European anti-austerity measures protests to the Occupy movement that started in the States. What has been revolutionary is the call to establish a new way of envisioning human treatment, through a demand for dignity.

Reconsidering the Arab Spring

Hoover Institution Stanford University

. . . ideas defining a free society


March 30, 2012

Reconsidering the Arab Spring

Peter Berkowitz on The Arab Awakening: America and the Transformation of the Middle East by Kenneth M. Pollack, et al.


Kenneth M. Pollack, et al. The Arab Awakening: America and the Transformation of the Middle East. Brookings Institution Press. 381 Pages. $26.95.

President obama entered the White House determined to overcome what he and his supporters regarded as the Bush administration’s poisonous legacy in the Middle East. And yet, though loath to acknowledge it, since the advent of the Arab Spring in Tunisia in December 2010 and January 2011 and its rapid spread throughout the region, the Obama administration has been struggling to formulate and implement its own version of the Bush Doctrine, according to which it is in the interest of the United States to promote freedom and democracy in the Arab world. 

This unacknowledged reversal came at a time in which the president’s major policy initiatives in the Middle East were in disarray, in significant measure because they were ill-conceived and clumsily executed. Touting engagement with the Iranians, Obama’s smart diplomacy went nowhere. Tehran mocked him, flouting deadline after deadline set by the president for ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program was limited to civilian purposes by subjecting it to international supervision. And while the United States was reduced to silently observing the carnage, Iran brutally suppressed large public demonstrations against the corrupt presidential elections of June 2009. Having lost two years in fruitless efforts to sweet talk the Iranians, the Obama administration has over the last year expanded and intensified sanctions imposed by the Bush administration. By the president’s own secretary of defense’s estimates, Iran is on a path to developing the capacity to make a nuclear weapon within a year.

The president’s June 2009 Cairo speech, intended to open a new era in relations between America and the Muslim world, has led to no discernible improvement in America’s standing among Muslims worldwide. Indeed, in many parts of the Arab Middle East Obama is less popular than was Bush. Moreover, by grounding his Cairo speech in a fundamental tenet of radical Islam — that the world is politically divided into Islam and the rest — the president played into the hands of al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran while simultaneously undermining the liberal and democratic reformers throughout the Arab world whose primary political allegiance is not to Islam but rather to the protection of individual rights, democratically accountable nation-states, and generally applicable international law.

The uprisings sparked by the self-immolation of a Tunisian street vender that swept the Arab world last year seemed to have caught just about everybody by surprise, including Arab people themselves — and Arab rulers. 
 
The president’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has foundered on misunderstandings of the region. He seems to subscribe to the view common among progressive intellectuals that the fundamental source of instability in the Middle East is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians — rather than, say, Iran’s exporting of Islamic revolution and drive to dominate the region through acquisition of nuclear weapons. And that the key to resolving it is ending Israel’s control of the West Bank — rather than, say, Hamas terrorism and intransigence, and the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and eliminate from its educational system the teaching of hatred of Jews and Israel. Accordingly, President Obama made the achievement of a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians the centerpiece of his Middle East strategy. At the same time, he injected into the peace process the novel idea that Israel should freeze all building beyond the Green Line (the 1949 armistice lines agreed to by Israel and Jordan), including in East Jerusalem, to lure the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. This unprecedented requirement had never been demanded by the Palestinians themselves over the course of nearly twenty years of direct negotiations with the Israelis and came unaccompanied by the president’s insistence on matching concessions from the Palestinians. It greatly complicated domestic coalition politics for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while forcing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to adopt a hard line on Israeli West Bank construction, since he could not be seen to be less aggressive on behalf of Palestinian claims than the president of the United States. The predictable result has been the breakdown of negotiations.

In Iraq, President Obama proceeded with the drawdown of American troops and in late 2011 made good on his campaign promise to complete it. Given the fragility of the government left behind in Baghdad, the porous border between Iraq and Iran, and Iran’s determination to stir up trouble and perhaps even foment a Shiite takeover, there is good reason to worry that the president has set back America’s long-term interests in a stable and democratic Iraq.

Captive to its misconceptions about the Middle East, the Obama administration was caught by surprise by the Arab Spring. Then again, the uprisings sparked by the self-immolation in December 2010 of Tunisian street vender Mohammed Bouazizi that swept the Arab world last year seemed to have caught just about everybody by surprise, including Arab people themselves, Arab rulers, the Israeli security establishment, and diplomats and foreign policy experts in the region and around the globe. Throughout 2011 and into 2012, the Obama administration has had to improvise. It watched as Tunisia swiftly replaced President Zine al-Abidine ben Ali. When beginning in late January 2011 hundreds of thousands of protesters gathered in Tahrir Square in Cairo, it dithered, at first giving Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak whole-hearted support, and then flatly demanding his ouster. It “led from behind” in Libya, eventually supporting a un Security Council resolution authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone over the country that officially aimed at protecting civilians but which in reality was directed at the overthrow of dictator Muammar el-Qadaffi. In Syria, as protests have steadily spread since the spring of 2011, the Obama administration seems to have slowly come around to the view that President Bashar al-Assad must go, but even as Assad has stepped up the killing it has yet to formulate a clear policy on how to hasten his departure or ease the transition.

In short, the Obama administration is desperately in need of serious and informed thinking about the Middle East, and in their new book, Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Kenneth M. Pollack, who serves as lead author, and seventeen of his Brookings colleagues provide it. Their illuminating volume offers, as they intend, a “sober analysis” of the momentous events of 2011 in the Middle East and sensible recommendations concerning how the Obama administration might most effectively respond. A product of Brookings’ Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which Pollack directed from September 2009 through February 2012, the book is not, despite its eighteen authors, an edited volume presenting a variety of viewpoints on a common theme. Rather, it advances a well-organized and sustained analysis of the Arab Spring by drawing on the specialized expertise of a group of affiliated scholars, based in both the United States and the Middle East, who share a sensibility and perspective. The view that unites them might be described as a hard-headed liberal internationalism.

Understanding the Arab Spring, Pollack explains in the Introduction, begins with understanding the “stagnation of the Arab economies.” Economic stagnation in turn is connected to the failure of education in the Arab world to transmit knowledge, cultivate critical thinking, and develop skills necessary for success in the contemporary economy. And the deep defects of both Arab economies and educational systems are inseparable from the costs of Arab autocracy, which has been for the most part repressive, inefficient, and corrupt. 

Accordingly, Arab peoples’ frustration with the status quo was understandable, as were the initial demands, when that frustration exploded early last year, for government that provided greater economic opportunity and showed real responsiveness to the will of the people. Nevertheless, those who initiate revolutions often cannot control their outcomes. Large questions loom — in relation to Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and throughout the region — about the balance of power between the young secular democrats who gave the revolutions their initial impetus, and the traditionalists and Islamists who are seeking to take advantage of the overthrow of dictators to advance their visions of political Islam.
To be sure, the revolutions, Pollack observes, embody an enticing promise of progress:
If Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia eventually emerge as stable democracies — perhaps joined by a similar kind of state in Iraq — they will exert a profound influence on the internal politics of the region, by demonstrating successful alternative models to the autocracies and theocracies that have previously been the only choices on offer.
However, as Pollack knows, that’s a big “if.” It is characteristic of the book as a whole to both generally understate the prospects for the hijacking of the revolutions by Islamists and, should they prevail, the dire consequences for the region and for American interests, while at the same time giving the assiduous reader adequate information to conclude that that the threat is considerable and the results would be extremely destabilizing and constitute a dramatic setback to American interests.

Shibley Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland and a Saban Center nonresident senior fellow, gives reason for optimism. He notes that the transformation of the regional television market and the rise of the internet and social media have dramatically diminished the ability of the regimes to “control the narrative.” Polls in Egypt show that large majorities support freedom of religion and speech, and somewhat smaller majorities support freedom of assembly, even though much of the population regards the United States as a hostile threat inclined to prop up Arab dictators and to provide cover for Israel to pursue expansionist policies at the expense of the Palestinian people.

Saban Center fellow Stephen Grand reiterates that “more than anything else, the Arab Spring has been about a yearning for democracy.” But he argues that a long, hard road lies ahead. Democracy involves much more than free and fair elections, which in themselves would be no small feat for peoples who have known only despotism. It also involves the establishment of democratic political institutions and the creation of a democratic political culture which, Grand emphasizes, is the work of many years.

Shadi Hamid, Saban Center fellow and director of research at the Brookings Doha Center, argues that the overthrow of Mubarak has brought the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt “newfound power and responsibility.” What Islamist parties want — and most such parties in the mainstream Arab world are branches or descendants of the Muslim Brotherhood — is in one sense clear and in another uncertain. They all want “the promotion of Islamic values throughout society.” The huge question is whether, or to what extent, they regard democracy as consistent with Islamic values. Hamid worries that the rise of Salafist groups in Tunisia as well as Egypt will push the Brotherhood toward more extreme interpretations of Islam. Given the electoral successes enjoyed by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists in Egypt over the past year — between them they took three quarters of the seats in the recent parliamentary elections — Hamid concludes that political Islam is here to stay and that the United States has no reasonable choice but to learn to do business with its representatives.

One particularly valuable feature of the book is its demonstration, by means of chapter-by-chapter analysis of the particular challenges arising out of the Arab Spring, that the Middle East is anything but monolithic and that it is therefore a serious error to attempt to address the Arab people of the region under the single rubric of Islam. The authors divide the countries of the Arab Middle East into three categories: those — Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya — which have experienced regime change; those — Saudi Arabia, the small Gulf monarchies (Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the uae, and Bahrain), Jordan, Morocco, and Algeria — whose regimes appear to be intact but now find themselves under substantially increased pressure to adopt liberalizing and democratizing reform; and those in immediate crisis, specifically Yemen and Syria, which face anarchy and civil war. In addition, the authors survey the changing reality confronting other regional actors — Israel, the Palestinians, Turkey, and Iran. And they review how the Arab Spring has affected the regional interests and ambitions of external powers — Europe, China and Russia, and the United States — and the organization of the international order more generally. The reader is left with a refined understanding of, and sense of foreboding for, the region.

In the concluding chapter Pollack, who before moving to Brookings served as director for Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council under President Clinton, distills the grand strategy that undergirds the book:
We believe that to secure America’s interests in the Middle East, the United States must embrace a long-term commitment to help the countries of the Middle East pursue a process of political, economic, and social transformation. One that grows from within, rather than being imposed from without. One that reflects the values, traditions, history, and aspirations of the people of the region themselves, not a Western guess at them. One that recognizes that change and stability are not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing — and ultimately mutually essential. But one that also acknowledges that change is most likely to be constructive, rather than destructive, when it is deliberate, planned, and properly resourced. This will be a difficult course to pursue, but it is ultimately the only good path to follow.
Pollack’s formulation leaves hazy two crucial matters that while also undergirding the book deserve greater highlighting. The “process of political, economic, and social transformation” that he and his colleagues believe it is critical for the United States to support in the Arab Middle East is not any old sort of transformation but a transformation, however gradual and incremental, to greater freedom and democracy. And encouraging and sustaining that transformation will be a daunting task because of the complex and varying relation between Islam and various Arab peoples of the Middle East. Pollack’s hard-headed liberal internationalism could stand a few degrees more of hardheadedness.

Admirable in scope, ambition, and timeliness, the book would have profited from addressing a few more issues. Oddly, in a volume in which most Arab states are so honored, the authors omit a chapter on Lebanon, where Iran-backed Hezbollah threatens an Islamist takeover and could at any moment drag the country into another ruinous war with Israel. In addition, the book suppresses the extent to which the Arab Spring itself, the Obama administration’s developing response to it, and the Brookings scholars’ own grand strategy reflect concerns at the heart of the Bush administration’s freedom agenda. And, the authors fail to grapple with the substantial changes that must be made in the United States domestically to cultivate the kinds of policymakers, diplomats, and holders of high office with the understanding of the culture, history, and languages of the region necessary to carry out Saban Center–style policy recommendations for the Middle East. One place to begin would be with proposals to encourage the study of critical foreign languages such as Arabic and Persian, much as the federal government did with Russian and Chinese during the Cold War.

It is rare to combine rapid response to unfolding events with scholarly care and depth as does the Saban Center’s substantial contribution to understanding the seismic shifts set in motion by the Arab Spring. The framework it has developed and the case studies it has undertaken can serve as a sound basis for advancing the systematic and reasoned inquiry so critical to understanding the elusive and strategically vital Middle East.


Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His writings are posted at www.PeterBerkowitz.com.