Political Pluralism breaks out in Tunisia

Posted on 10/28/2011 by Juan

Tunisia’s election outcome gives 41% to the Muslim fundamentalist party Al-Nahda. One of the other two winners is the Rally for the Republic– of long-time political exile Moncef al-Marzouqi. Then the third major party is al-Takattul or the Democratic Forum for Labor and Freedoms, headed by Mustapha Ben Jaafar.

The latter two mentioned are secular, and al-Nahda needs these secular allies to run the government, not to mention achieve a majority. The al-Nahda fundamentalist party, moreover, told me last June that they want a pluralist system that makes a place for believing Muslims, but that they will not dictatorially impose policies on one another. I asked about liquor and they admitted that they would try to discourage drinking. But they said they would do so by increasing taxes on alcohol, just as governments have done with smoking.

If the al-Nahda semi-victory (they did not get the majority and so did not ‘win’ in the American sense) contributes to an opening up of Tunisia to a variety of styles of life, if it makes Tunisia more multi-cultural, then that would be all to the good. There is an admitted danger that al-Nahda will try to limit freedom of speech. Tunisia is now the only Arab country without print censorship, and you wonder if that will last. Marzouqi and al-Takattul bear a special responsibility for keeping Tunisia free.

The French newspaper Le Monde pointed out that this pluralist outcome is far superior to what happened in Algeria in fall, 1991, when the Islamic Salvation Front won 66% of seats in parliament, allowing them to tinker with the constitution. The secular Algerian military intervened to stop what they saw as a Muslim fundamentalist juggernaut, and they dissolved parliament. Angry Algerians then threw the country into a civil war that lasted some 15 years and generated over 100,000 deaths. The compromising, less rigid stance of the Tunisians is likely to allow them to avoid that kind of conflict.

0 Retweet 2 Share 7 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Sefat: Top 10 ways OWS can Excel: Counsel from Iran’s Green Movement

Posted on 10/28/2011 by Juan

Kusha Sefat writes in a guest column for Informed Comment

Following the disputed Presidential election in Iran, our Western compatriots gave many suggestions on combating state oppression. Various tactics and strategies were devised for Iranian protesters, some on this very blog. It seems that most of those recommendations were ineffective within Iran’s particular social and political context. It may be worth outlining some of the tactics that were in fact useful to Iranian protesters particularly as the OWS movement kicks into high gear (assuming these tactics make sense within the American socio-political context). The following are the Top 10 most effective tactics for the OWS, stemming from the experience of mass social movement in Iran.

1) Pick a color to represent your movement and wear it daily in public places (work, restaurant, etc.). Remember, this is a numbers game. You want maximum visibility, and to bring your movement into everyday life.

2) Have an all-inclusive strategy. Accept people with different views who are willing to join you in protest. Contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to know what you want as a movement yet. The goal at this stage is to point to your opponents and say that they have been lying to you; that the show they have constructed is false and that you are sick of it.

3) Demonstrate peacefully. Committing violence during demonstrations leads to ruptures within your movement, diminishes public sympathy, and gives the security forces a reason to violently suppress your protest.

4) Be rigorous. Security forces, dressed as civilians, may commit public acts of violence in order to have an excuse to squash protests. Find footage of those that police accuses of acting violently. Make sure they are legitimate protestors. Expose them if they are not.

5) Be creative. During demonstrations in Iran, security forces dressed a male protester in female attire in a bid to embarrass him. The next day, hundreds of male protesters came out in female attire.

6) Record protests with your mobile phones and send to television stations. Many broadcasters are owned by the very people who are in the 1%. But every now and then, there are producers and news workers who are willing to get in trouble for showing the truth. This happened in Iran on many occasions. News websites have an e-mail address and they generally ask you to send them footage. Do IT.

7) Send your footage of acts of violence committed by the police to foreign television broadcasters like Al Jazeera, RT, etc. When they show the footage, it puts pressure on American broadcasters to do the same. (Iranian protestors used BBC very effectively, even though it is a British outlet).

8) Write, “I am 99%” or “OWS” on all dollar bills that you circulate. Remember, you are fighting on the plane of the symbolic, and cash circulates widely and quickly.

9) Do not let politicians co-opt your movement. Many politicians, domestic or not, may hope to use your movement to their advantage. Allow them to join your movement, but DO NOT let them lead or act as spokesperson.

10) Write arguments and op-eds that aim at the logic of the system that has robbed you of opportunities and comfort. Do not aim at a particular person. People can be replaced; it is the system that is hurting you.

——–

Kusha Sefat was a media consultant in Iran and is now a Doctoral Student in Sociology at Queens’ College, University of Cambridge

0 Retweet 4 Share 33 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Iran, US Politics | 5 Comments

If American Land were Distributed the way American Wealth Is

Posted on 10/27/2011 by Juan

The Congressional Budget Office confirms that the top 1% has tripled its income since 1979, while the upper middle class has increased its wealth much more modestly, and the rest of the country has seen only a small gain.

Just to be clear, the 1% are about 3 million, the 9% are about 27 million, and everyone else crowded into that little torrid strip is about 278 million.

courtesy http://27.media.tumblr.com/ tumblr_ltlc07b69D1qj171uo1_500.jpg

0 Retweet 22 Share 228 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized, US Politics | 24 Comments

Is Syria in Civil War?

Posted on 10/27/2011 by Juan

Robert Fisk uses the “C” word about Syria– Civil War. He takes seriously both the human rights organizations’ allegation that the regime has killed some 3000 people in the course of putting down demonstrations since last spring, and the Baath Party’s assertion that rebels have killed 1,150 Syrian troops (though he admits that there is no way to be sure about such matters, given that the regime has unwisely excluded foreign journalists from the country, or at least the hot spots).

By one important social science definition of civil war, Syria is close to civil war, if the government estimate of deaths among its security forces are anywhere near accurate. The only ingredients lacking are battlefield skirmishes and a discrete insurgent guerrilla force, though there are now flickers indicating that such a force is gradually being formed (see below), especially through deserters from the military. Still, I wouldn’t say that the conflict has quite risen to the level of civil war, since most deaths have occurred in the course of the repression of demonstrations by non-combatant civilians. I give the definition at the end of this posting.

All hell broke loose in Syria on Wednesday, prompting Fisk’s dark musings. According to the Egyptian daily al-Qanat writing in Arabic some 27 persons were killed, 14 non-combatants (including a child) at the hand of security forces, and 13 military personnel, including an officer, whose convoy was hit by rocket-propelled grenade fire suspected of coming from a unit that defected to the protesters.

Aljazeera English reports on the tense situation in Syria:

At the same time, significant regions of the country actively participated in a general strike. The small city of Deraa in the south apparently looked like a ghost town. In the rebellious city of Homs and its environs, even government office workers joined in the strike for the first time. Al-Sharq al-Awsat writing in Arabic says that a majority of Syrian cities closed down during this strike, which the protesters declared to be their new strategy for overthrowing the regime. In the town of Maaret al-Numan on the way to Aleppo from Damascus, crowds gathered in the central square, and security police shot two of them to death.

The Baathist regime, like the authorities in Oakland, Ca. , appear not to realize that deploying a violent crackdown on protesters is guaranteed to water the tree of activism with the blood of martyrs. In an ironic Middle East tie-in, one of those seriously injured by a tear gas cannister in Oakland is a two-tour Iraq veteran, who was allegedly sent to that country by the Bush administration to ensure that Iraqis could hold protest rallies against their government. (That is what Bush administration officials repeatedly replied when asked about the large Iraqi demonstrations demanding that the US troops depart.)

If the towns of the northwest of Syria struck, people in the metropolitan cities of Aleppo and Damascus enthusiastically stayed with the regime. Tens of thousands, perhaps as many as 200,000 supporters of Bashar al-Assad came out in the central Umayyad Square of Damascus to hail the regime. It was expected that a similar large pro-regime rally might be held in the port city of Ladhikiya, in the hinterlands of which many Allawite Shiites live (this ethnic group, 10% of the population, is disproportionately present in the upper echelons of the regime and the officer corps).

Reuters reports that French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe remarked of the ongoing demonstrations and strikes on French radio, “This will end with the fall of the regime. It is nearly unavoidable… But unfortunately it could take time because the situation is complex, because there is a risk of civil war between Syrian factions, because surrounding Arab countries do not want us to intervene.”

Al-Assad met with an Arab League delegation, which included the Prime Minister of Qatar. They demanded that he cease repressing the protests with deadly force, release political prisoners, and open negotiations by the end of this month. Some members of the Arab League want to expel Syria for its brutal crackdown, but so far have not mustered enough votes in the 22-member body to do so.

Aljazeera English reports on the Arab League delegation and the pro-Assad demonstration in Damascus:

Here is how J. David Singer and his colleagues defined a civil war:

“Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter’s ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain.” (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, “Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.) ”

0 Retweet 3 Share 5 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Syria, Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Grossman: Call your Congressman and Save International Studies in the US!

Posted on 10/26/2011 by Juan

The current House of Representatives don’t hold with Amurkins knowin’ ’bout furriners, and seems determined to defund federal support for international studies in the US. The Neoconservative lobbyists have been gunning for these programs for years and want the money given to rightwing think tanks in Washington instead. And whereas in the old days, senatorial lions would roar back and protect this key resource, Sen. Reid & co. have folded on this one. This step represents a rollback of everything achieved since Sputnik reminded Americans that they are not the only game in town. The programs being cut are in Federal terms funded at the peanuts level and no real savings are had, but they leverage the big universities into being more supportive of less-taught languages, e.g. Please follow the instructions below if you care about America’s ability to understand the world and compete in it.

Jim Grossman of the American Historical Association writes:

Dear Colleagues,

. . . tis the season of the budget in Congress, and this is an important one—as is NEH funding, which will be the subject of an additional appeal in the near future.

This is Title VI / Fulbright-Hays, an essential aspect of the infrastructure of research and education in areas beyond the boundaries of the United States. Many of you will be familiar with these programs. For those who are not, I can say with confidence that they are essential to our mission. The AHA Council has declared Title VI/Fulbright-Hays as one of the highest legislative priorities as we look at funding cuts in various sectors.

Background

The U.S. Department of Education’s International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) programs, including HEA-Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs, form the vital infrastructure of the federal government’s investment in the international service pipeline. The 14 IEFLS programs support comprehensive language and area study centers with the United States, research and curriculum development, opportunities for American scholars to study abroad, and activities to increase the number of underrepresented minorities in international service.

The Fulbright-Hays programs are of particular importance to historians because of the resources they provide for research and education relating to foreign languages and cultures. Funding opportunities include:

Short-term study and travel seminars abroad for U.S. educators in history and related disciplines for the purpose of improving their understanding and knowledge of the peoples and cultures of other countries.

Grants to support overseas projects in training, research, and curriculum development in languages and area studies

Grants to colleges and universities to fund individual doctoral students who conduct research in other countries, in modern foreign languages and area studies for periods of six to 12 months.

Funding for the Department of Education’s Title VI/Fulbright-Hays International Education programs was cut $50 million (or 40%) from $126 million in FY 2010 to $76 million in FY 2011).

Congress did not complete work on the FY 2012 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Bill before the October 1 start of the new fiscal year. A short-term Continuing Resolution for FY 2012 was enacted through November 18 at the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution levels, minus an additional 1.5% across-the-board cut.

Current Status

In the Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the FY 2012 Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill (S. 1599), all programs in the higher education account—including Title VI and Fulbright-Hays—are continued at the FY 2011 levels. Thus, a 40% decline from 2010 levels, which seriously threatens these crucial programs.

While the House Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee has yet to take up its version of the bill, Chairman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) has released a “draft” FY 2012 funding bill that eliminates funding Fulbright-Hays and the Title VI-C, Institute for International Public Policy. Title VI-A&B would be funded at the FY 2011 level.

Action Needed

If you are in the congressional district or state of the Members on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (see list below) call and urge their support for “holding the line” on funding, that is to say, no more cuts to Title VI/FH in FY 2012. Emphasize the impact of these programs in the Member’s district/state and on the national interest overall. We strongly encourage you to personalize this message. Working off the basic script below, tell Congress, in your own words, why one or more of the Title VI/Fulbright Hays programs are important to you (and/or your institution).

You can call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be transferred to your Representative or Senator’s office, or you can call directly. If you know the name of the staffer who works on appropriations policy, you can send an email or call and ask to leave a message for that person. If you don’t know the staffer’s name, phone the appropriate number below and ask if you can leave a voice mail message for the person who handles appropriations issues for the Member.

Time is of the essence. Congressional staffers are negotiating agreements on the Labor/HHS/Education FY 2012 appropriations bills now.

Message

My name is _____ and I am calling from (place name in state). I want to urge Representative/Senator to oppose further cuts in Title VI international education programs.

Title VI higher education programs have already sustained a $50 million or 40% reduction in the FY 2011 Budget. Currently the differences between the House and Senate versions of the FY 2012 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill are being reconciled.

I urge you to consider the important federal role played by these international and foreign language education programs in supporting our nation’s long-term national security, global leadership and economic competitiveness capabilities. Successful U.S. engagement in these areas, at home or abroad, relies on Americans with global competence.

Instruction is provided in over 130 languages and 10 world areas, with emphasis on the less commonly-taught, strategic languages and areas of the world. Most of these languages would not be taught on a regular basis but for this support.

I strongly urge you to safeguard these programs from further reductions by providing no less than the FY 2011 level of $75.729 million provided in the Senate committee bill. This includes $66.712 million for the Higher Education Act, Title VI-A&B; $7.465 million for Fulbright-Hays 102(b)(6); and $1.552 million for the Title VI-C Institute for International Public Policy.

Thank you for your time.

——
Jim Grossman
Executive Director
American Historical Association

——–

Truth in advertising: Juan Cole directs a Title VI National Resource Center at the University of Michigan.

0 Retweet 3 Share 23 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Islamic Law not a problem in Bush’s Afghanistan & Iraq, but a Problem in Libya?

Posted on 10/26/2011 by Juan

George W. Bush said of Iraq and Afghanistan,, “I’d like to be a president [known] as somebody who liberated 50 million people…”

The 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan [pdf], drafted and passed under the rule of George W. Bush in that country, makes Islam the religion of state and forbids any law that contravenes the sharia or Muslim religious law (the official translations on the Web misleadingly render ahkam or religious laws with the word “provisions,” which hides the real intent of the constitution, so I have translated those passages more literally):

“Article One Ch. 1. Art. 1: Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two Ch. 1, Art. 2: The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article Three
Ch. 1, Art. 3

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and laws [ahkam] of the sacred religion of Islam.

A human rights report notes:

“The Afghan Constitution and Islamic Sharia law both support polygamy, allowing men to take up to four wives. Certain conditions apply to polygamous marriages, such as the equal treatment of all wives, but these are not always observed.”

The constitution of Iraq, adopted in 2005 under the rule of George W. Bush over Iraq, says:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is the primary basis for legislation:

A. No legislation may be enacted that contradicts the established laws of Islam

B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.

C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this Constitution.

Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the
Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights to freedom of religious belief
and practice of all individuals such as Christians, Yazidis, and Mandean Sabeans.

Polygamy is legal in Iraq with a judge’s permission, and Iraqi legislators have been considering making it easier for men to take more than one wife in order to have the country’s vast number of war widows supported.

But the following recent statements by Libyan leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil provoked the CNN headline, “Libyan leader’s embrace of Sharia raises eyebrows:”

“As a Muslim country, we have adopted the Islamic Sharia as the main source of law. Accordingly, any law that contradicts Islamic principles with the Islamic Sharia is ineffective legally.” Jalil also urged an end to restrictions on taking more than one wife, and wanted to see Islamic banking principles instead of Western-style interest.

The Western press seems unaware that when Muammar Qaddafi came to power in 1969 he pledged to implement Islamic law or sharia and to abolish Italian and British colonial-era laws and regulations. He forbade alcohol, e.g. When in 1977 he declared Libya to be a “masses-ocracy” (Jamahiriya), he proclaimed that the holy Qur’an was the source of law or sharia for Libya.

So far, Jalil has said nothing that was not said repeatedly by his predecessor, Qaddafi. He has said nothing that is not in the constitutions and/or legal practice of Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraq. But there is no hand-wringing about those two “liberated” countries and Islamic law or sharia. I guess if secular, communist Afghanistan was made fundamentalist by Reagan and Bush, or if the relatively secular Baath Party of Iraq was overthrown by W. in favor of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Islamic Call Party and the Bloc of Ayatollah Sadr II, that is unobjectionable and not even reported on. But if there’s a Democratic president in the White House, all of a sudden it is a scandal if Muslims practice Muslim law.

0 Retweet 6 Share 14 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Islam, Islamophobia, Libya | 24 Comments

Namibia: Largest Solar Plant in S. Hemisphere Planned

Posted on 10/26/2011 by Juan

US-based SSI Energy Solutions plans to construct the largest solar power plant in the southern hemisphere in the southern African country of Namibia (population 2 million). The plant is expected to cost $1.6 to $2 billion US to construct. Namibia typically has 300 days of sunshine a year.

Namibia is heavily dependent on imported coal, which it cannot always acquire from neighbors in the desired quantities. Ground will be broken on the solar plant in January and it has a two-year completion timeline. It will initially generate 500 megawatts, but over time its capacity will be doubled to a gigawatt. That is, when expanded this solar plant will generate about the same amount of energy as a typical nuclear plant. But it will be much cheaper to build, and far, far cheaper to fuel and operate, nor will it produce toxic waste that lasts for centuries and cannot safely be disposed of.

Namibia also hopes to build a controversial nuclear power plant, scheduled to be completed in 2018, and the country has uranium mines and is an exporter of that metal. Namibia says, pretty unbelievably, that it hopes to enrich its own uranium to the 3.5 percent level needed to run a nuclear power plant. The nuclear project has been criticized as extremely expensive ($15 billion), with nuclear plants costly to maintain even after built. And there are fears of the toxic nuclear waste ultimately harming Namibians’ health.

Namibia had been a colony of Germany and then from World War I a colony of neighboring South Africa. It became independent in 1990 and has a population of 2 million and a relatively stable parliamentary regime.

Its major exports include copper, uranium, fish, meat and grapes, and it has a tourism industry oriented to the middle and high end of the market. The Eurozone crisis has hurt Namibia’s economy this year. About 13% of its gross domestic product is generated by industry, which requires more electricity generation.

If the solar plant is built as quickly and inexpensively as now planned, it is possible that it will simply displace the nuclear plant, which might then never get built. Competitive solar and wind energy will increasingly be chosen over coal and nuclear by developing countries, since the plants will be less expensive to build than nuclear ones, and the upkeep and security issues are not nearly as pressing.

0 Retweet 1 Share 12 StumbleUpon 2 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Energy, Environment | 4 Comments

Ambassador Ford’s Departure a Defeat for al-Assad

Posted on 10/25/2011 by Juan

With the departure of the US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, from Damascus and the summoning home of Syrian ambassador Emad Moustafa, President Obama’s original Syria policy has now crashed and burned.

There is no immediate danger of Obama going in the direction recommended by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), of military action against Syria. But the likelihood of Ford actually returning to his post any time soon, despite State Department assurances, is low. He has repeatedly been the object of ire among regime loyalists in Syria, and his abrupt return to Washington appears to be related to some sort of planned attack on him. Ford has vocally supported the right of Syrians to peaceable assembly and protest (he should have a word with the US police forces who have arrested or harassed so many of the “Occupy” protesters). Despite his being a thorn in the side of the Baathist regime, President Bashar al-Assad is making a huge error in allowing the situation to deteriorate so badly that Ford has had to leave.

Barack Obama came to office in 2009 determined to talk to all parties in the Middle East, including Iran and Syria. This policy of ‘jaw-jaw’ rather than ‘war-war’ (in Churchill’s phrase) contrasted with George W. Bush’s ‘cooties’ theory of diplomacy, wherein he never acknowledged that Syria and Iran existed except to condemn them, and declined to allow any US official to get near enough to them to actually speak to them. While the Baath in Syria and the Islamic Republic have adopted policies deserving of condemnation, it is not useful for a great power only to scold from a distance, in the absence of other forms of engagement.

Thus, Obama addressed the Iranians on the Persian New Year (typically March 21), and had a US representative meet along with other UN Security Council members and Germany with a representative of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to negotiate the impasse over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. (Iran says it is a civilian program to produce fuel for reactors).

With regard to Syria, Obama restored diplomatic relations and sent an ambassador to Damascus. Syria had had an envoy to the US all along, Emad Moustafa, but no one in the capital seemed to talk to him and he was billed the loneliest man in Washington.

But Obama’s determination to talk with his enemies abroad met the same fate as his attempt to reach compromises with the Republican Party domestically. Iran weirdly made a deal on sending low-enriched uranium out of the country to be turned into fuel for a medical reactor, then abruptly reneged on it.

Relations between the US and Syria foundered on the Arab Spring and the widespread demonstrations in Syria’s provincial cities, which have been met with brute force that has left an estimated 3,000 demonstrators dead and many more wounded or imprisoned.

Reuters has video on Ford’s departure:

On Friday, some 25 protesters were killed by the Syrian army.

Obama has been left with a policy toward Syria of financial sanctions and a diplomatic freeze, despite his best efforts to craft a better approach.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should realize that keeping Ford in Damascus and safe is his best option for keeping a line open to Obama. By allowing or perhaps fostering threats to the US ambassador, he has cut himself off from any dialogue with Washington. It is Sen. McCain’s warmongering that has filled that vacuum.

McCain is wrong that Western military intervention is plausible in Syria. There has been no Arab League resolution calling for it, and no UN Security Council resolution (action is being blocked by Russia and China). Most Syrian protesters themselves have opposed foreign intervention. There is no framework of international legality or legitimacy that would permit an outside intervention. Additionally, Syria’s geography is diverse and often rugged, and no attempt at intervention would be simple, tactically or logistically.

Given the danger that sinister accusations will come to substitute themselves for reality in Washington with regard to Syria, Damascus would be better off finding a way to get Ford back into the country. To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.

0 Retweet 4 Share 3 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Syria | 19 Comments

« Older Entries