Social Media Will Help Fuel Change In The Middle East

By Arianna Huffington
This commentary was published in The Daily Star on 13/12/2010

We all know the many ways the internet has been used in the service of terrorism – Al-Qaeda-linked websites, recruitment videos, uploads of Osama bin Laden’s latest video screed, and how-to-blow-things-up online manuals. Al-Qaeda and its sympathizers were early adopters of the web and have made destructive use of its unparalleled ability to connect people.

But a new, countervailing trend is emerging: more and more of the Middle East is getting wired. As a result, we can now change the conversation to the impact of technology and social media on peace, not just on terror.

This was one of the topics addressed at a conference I attended recently in Abu Dhabi. I’ve been to a lot of tech conferences, but I’ve rarely seen the sort of enthusiasm and optimism that I witnessed at the Sir Bani Yas conference, convened by Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, and the International Peace Institute. The participants included Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Arab League chief Amr Moussa, and high-level officials from Jordan, Palestine, Malaysia, Pakistan and Bahrain.

When I spoke on the second evening of the conference about how to use social media to promote peace and security in the Middle East, I was struck by how willing many of the Arab leaders present were to more fully embrace these new social tools. Among them was Khalid al-Khalifa, who describes himself on his Twitter feed as “Diplomat, Ambassador, Foreign Minister of Bahrain, Reader, World Traveler, Bon Vivant.” He’s also an impassioned Tweeter, who has mastered the art of being familiar with his followers.

At the dinner, Jordan’s foreign minister, Nasser Judeh, told me about a live Twitter interview he hosted this summer, where he took questions – many of them pointed – from Jordanian “tweeps,” or followers on Twitter. Of course, Queen Rania has famously made Facebook, YouTube and Twitter – where she has 1.3 million followers – a vital part of her communications repertoire. Earlier this month, she tweeted, “Technology isn’t just a luxury of the developed world; it’s a crucial tool for the developing world” – a powerful echo of Twitter founder Biz Stone’s assertion that “Twitter is not a triumph of tech. It’s a triumph of humanity.”

All across the region governments, non-governmental organizations, groups and individuals are utilizing social platforms to impact their societies – politically, culturally and socially.

In Jordan, young people are texting, tweeting, and using Facebook and YouTube to call attention to environmental issues. This is a concern across the region. Bahrain’s Khalifa recently tweeted “UAE, Qatar, Bahrain named among worst polluters in global list.”

 

In Egypt, young people are using social tools to put a spotlight on police brutality and to try to keep their government honest. Indeed, recently when Egypt held the first round of its parliamentary elections, the government refused to allow international observers to monitor the vote. But the website U-Shahid.org (“you are a witness” in Arabic) tried filling the void by soliciting citizen reports of election problems. Egyptians were able to report irregularities via email, Twitter (hashtag #USHAHID) and text message, which U-Shahid tracks on an interactive map. U-Shahid.org currently has 125 volunteers working on the project.

Elsewhere in Egypt, a new project aims to catalogue instances of women being harassed on the streets of Cairo: 83 percent of Egyptian women say they have been sexually harassed. HarassMap is a new website that helps women to anonymously report mistreatment via Twitter, Facebook, email and text. It hopes to identify the parts of Cairo where harassment is prevalent, then do community outreach in those neighborhoods.

In Lebanon, the Social Media Exchange is training people to use social media to develop projects such as Building a Culture of Peace, which is geared toward teaching young Lebanese activists how to resolve conflicts.

And throughout the Middle East, young people are downloading the Mideast Youth iPhone App, a tool that promises to gather in one place what young people in the region are saying on Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed and a variety of popular websites. Among the features: a Middle East news feed, the latest tweets from the region, a Middle East youth podcast, and a list of human rights Facebook groups in the Middle East.

No longer is our best hope for change in the region the far-too-often failed process of our government pressuring their governments. If fundamental change happens, it’s going to come from the bottom up – with social media fuelling the transformation.

Arianna Huffington is co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of 13 books. THE DAILY STAR publishes this article in collaboration from the Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org) with permission from The Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com).

Health As A Bridge To Peace In The Middle East

By Dr Cesar Chelala This commentary was published in Gulf Times on 13/12/2010

For several decades several projects have been carried out between conflicting sides in several regions around the world that have improved public health as a common denominator in the search for peace. Although these initiatives cannot by themselves achieve peace, they have benefited thousands of people and increased understanding among them, and showed that sustained cooperation can be achieved despite violent disputes and a hostile political atmosphere. Since its founding in 1988, the Association of Israeli-Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights has brought together Israeli and Palestinian health professionals. Following the signing of the Oslo agreement in 1993, a new set of players — aside from nongovernment organisations and human rights groups — came into action focusing on developing and providing health services to the Palestinian people. In 1995, following an invitation by the late King Hussein of Jordan to officials at the Canada International Scientific Exchange Program, several measures were carried out to foster collaboration between Arab and Israeli doctors. The high incidence of hearing loss among Jordanians and Israelis became the basis of a project to provide auditory tests and improve the hearing of infants. Since then, there have been many scholarly exchanges among Canada, Israel and Jordan; many Israeli- Palestinian publications have been created; and several scientific symposiums have been conducted. To date, more than 145,000 infants have been screened and treated for hearing loss and, as a result, their hearing has considerably improved. In addition, the programme has expanded to youth health promotion, maternal nutrition, and the management of infectious diseases. In December 2004, the first issue of the magazine bridges was launched under the auspices of the World Health Organisation. The magazine contains contributions from both Israeli and Palestinian health experts, and is another example of the value of building bridges of understanding between Israelis and Palestinians. Under the leadership of Dr. Mary-Claire King, who identified the first breast-cancer gene, scientists from Tel Aviv, Bethlehem and Seattle teamed up and found several genes responsible for hearing loss. They did it despite the shutdown of university facilities, blocked shipments and other inconveniences. These are just a few examples of what up to now has been a very active collaboration between Palestinian and Israeli doctors and health workers. Despite their obvious value, these activities are not universally supported. In 2005, medical and health service providers and members of research and training institutions working in the Occupied Territories strongly objected to what they considered to be strong pressure to enter into Palestinian-Israeli co-operation in the health area. According to them, a political agenda is the driving force in the forced co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians. In addition, they don’t think that Israeli-Palestinian collaboration in the academic, scientific and professional spheres can truly contribute to reconciliation as long as justice for Palestinians has not been achieved. Although there is some validity to their position, peace will not be achieved overnight, or in isolation. It is only through some incremental steps that reconciliation between both peoples will take place. As the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin stated when awarding a UNESCO peace prize: “Peace will be built slowly, day by day, through modest deeds and countless spontaneous details. It will be built, step by step, by people.” There is no better way to do this than through collaboration in the public health area on issues of common interest. The better health of thousands of women, men and children is a living testimony of the effectiveness of such approach. In a region plagued by lack of confidence and trust, health is the best antidote to war. Dr Cesar Chelala, M D, Ph D, is an international public health consultant and a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award

Can Turkey Show Arab States The Way To A Brighter Future?

Nearly a century after the Ottoman empire fell, Turkey's private sector could provide benign guidance to the Middle East

By Marco Vicenzino

This commentary was published in The Guardian on 12/12/2010

 

The government of Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has given strong backing to Palestine. Photograph: Reuters

Although Palestinian survival has been largely sustained by Arab countries, it is the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan that has emerged as the Palestinians' most resolute spokesman. By backing its rhetoric with diplomatic muscle, Turkey most recently influenced Brazil and Argentina to recognise an independent Palestine. Other Latin American countries will soon follow. In addition, Turkey is actively harnessing international support to end the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Despite general public sympathy for the plight of Palestinians, Turks are not united on ways of showing this support. Secular Turks allege that religiously inspired NGOs, with government encouragement, exploit the Palestinian cause to promote and strengthen themselves domestically and abroad. The recent flotilla fiasco off Gaza provides a prime example.

It is common in the Middle East to attribute Arabs' misfortunes to western colonialism and nearly four centuries of Ottoman rule. While significant antipathy toward the west persists, there has been a considerable shift in Arab public opinion toward Turkey in recent years. Turkey is increasingly looked upon by Arabs as "what we should be".

It has garnered enormous respect for its achievements and growing influence in the region. Although a majority Sunni state, Turkey thus far has been able to rise above the Sunni-Shia divide evident in many Arab and Muslim-majority states – shrewdly converting it into valuable political and diplomatic capital.

After several false dawns, the Arab street remains largely cynical and frustrated. While pride in ancestors' achievements provides some comfort, it is usually overwhelmed by current realities.

Few if any leaders provide inspiration. Slow strides in Iraq seemed destined to be followed by greater slowness and fewer strides. Despite transparent elections, Palestinian infighting undermines real hope. After decades of martial law, ambiguity surrounding Egypt's succession hangs like a dagger over its future. Assad's fiddling with free markets and tight grip in Syria provides no vision or certainty for the next generation. Considerable progress in Jordan is difficult to replicate beyond its borders as its ability to influence others is limited by internal challenges and regional realities. Despite apparent progress, Lebanon remains a fragile powder-keg that could explode at any moment. The resource-rich pre-emerging market of Libya remains subject to the whims of an ageing autocrat whose stability is questioned clandestinely at home and openly abroad.

The constantly recurrent question in western policy circles is whether Turkey can serve as a model for Arab states.

While Turkey can serve as an inspiration and provide useful lessons, it cannot be a model. The unique dynamics and historical context within which the modern Turkish republic developed cannot be replicated. Contemporary Turkey is still evolving democratically. Internal power struggles, the Kurdish issue and the broader path to reform are just some reminders of the arduous road ahead. The government must strike a balance. With enormous challenges at home, it must avoid overreach abroad.

With the overwhelming majority of Arab populations under the age of 30 confronting a bleak future, a demographic timebomb is ticking in the region. This further underscores the need for Turkey's leadership to encourage its private sector to seize the initiative in the Middle East and unleash its potential. By creating opportunities it can help relieve regional pressures and contribute to a soft landing.

Change in the broader Middle East will occur most effectively through an evolutionary process marked primarily by economic growth and not imposition of external designs. Gradually, over time, the potential for further reforms will increase. When needed, Turkey's politicians should provide a gentle touch but leave it to its businessmen to produce results. After all, Turkey's most effective ambassadors come from its private sector.

For four centuries ending with the first world war, major decisions dictating the course of Arab history were largely made from Istanbul. History will not repeat itself. However, after nearly a century of absence, the return of real Turkish influence to Arab capitals, in a more benign form, must be welcomed. It is also fundamentally essential to the gradual transformation of a region whose instability poses a constant threat to global order.

Reality Check

By Thomas L. Friedman

This commentary was published in The New York Times on 11/12/2010

The failed attempt by the U.S. to bribe Israel with a $3 billion security assistance package, diplomatic cover and advanced F-35 fighter aircraft — if Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu would simply agree to a 90-day settlements freeze to resume talks with the Palestinians — has been enormously clarifying. It demonstrates just how disconnected from reality both the Israeli and the Palestinian leaderships have become

Oil is to Saudi Arabia what unconditional American aid and affection are to Israel — and what unconditional Arab and European aid and affection are to the Palestinians: a hallucinogenic drug that enables them each to think they can defy the laws of history, geography and demography. It is long past time that we stop being their crack dealers. At a time of nearly 10 percent unemployment in America, we have the Israelis and the Palestinians sitting over there with their arms folded, waiting for more U.S. assurances or money to persuade them to do what is manifestly in their own interest: negotiate a two-state deal. Shame on them, and shame us. You can’t want peace more than the parties themselves, and that is exactly where America is today. The people running Israel and Palestine have other priorities. It is time we left them alone to pursue them — and to live with the consequences.

They just don’t get it: we’re not their grandfather’s America anymore. We have bigger problems. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators should take a minute and put the following five words into Google: “budget cuts and fire departments.” Here’s what they’ll find: American city after city — Phoenix, Cincinnati, Austin, Washington, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Philadelphia — all having to cut their fire departments. Then put in these four words: “schools and budget cuts.” One of the top stories listed is from The Christian Science Monitor: “As state and local governments slash spending and federal stimulus dries up, school budget cuts for the next academic year could be the worst in a generation.”

I guarantee you, if someone came to these cities and said, “We have $3 billion we’d like to give to your schools and fire departments if you’ll just do what is manifestly in your own interest,” their only answer would be: “Where do we sign?” And so it should have been with Israel.

Israel, when America, a country that has lavished billions on you over the last 50 years and taken up your defense in countless international forums, asks you to halt settlements for three months to get peace talks going, there is only one right answer, and it is not “How much?” It is: “Yes, whatever you want, because you’re our only true friend in the world.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, what are you thinking? Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, offered you a great two-state deal, including East Jerusalem — and you let it fritter away. Now, instead of chasing after Obama and telling him you’ll show up for negotiations anywhere under any conditions that the president asks, you’re also setting your own terms. Here’s some free advice: When America goes weak, if you think the Chinese will deliver Israel for you, you’re wrong. I know China well. It will sell you out for a boatload of Israeli software, drones and microchips so fast that your head will spin.

I understand the problem: Israeli and Palestinian leaders cannot end the conflict between each other without having a civil war within their respective communities. Netanyahu would have to take on the settlers and Abbas would have to take on Hamas and the Fatah radicals. Both men have silent majorities that would back them if they did, but neither man feels so uncomfortable with his present situation to risk that civil war inside to make peace outside. There are no Abe Lincolns out there.

What this means, argues the Hebrew University philosopher Moshe Halbertal, is that the window for a two-state solution is rapidly closing. Israel will end up permanently occupying the West Bank with its 2.5 million Palestinians. We will have a one-state solution. Israel will have inside its belly 2.5 million Palestinians without the rights of citizenship, along with 1.5 million Israeli Arabs. “Then the only question will be what will be the nature of this one state — it will either be apartheid or Lebanon,” said Halbertal. “We will be confronted by two horrors.”

The most valuable thing that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could do now is just get out of the picture — so both leaders and both peoples have an unimpeded view of their horrible future together in one state, if they can’t separate. We must not give them any more excuses, like: “Here comes the secretary of state again. Be patient. Something is happening. We’re working on a deal. We’re close. If only the Americans weren’t so naïve, we were just about to compromise. ... Be patient.”

It’s all a fraud. America must get out of the way so Israelis and Palestinians can see clearly, without any obstructions, what reckless choices their leaders are making. Make no mistake, I am for the most active U.S. mediation effort possible to promote peace, but the initiative has to come from them. The Middle East only puts a smile on your face when it starts with them.

America Can't Walk Away From The Middle East

By Blake Hounshell

This commentary was published in Foreign Policy on 12/12/2010

I know where Thomas Friedman is coming from. His column today, in which he calls on the United States to wash its hands of the Middle East "peace process" and let the Israelis and Palestinians stew in their own juices for a while, must have been enormously satisfying to write. And for U.S. diplomats, tempted as they are to say "to hell with these people, we've got other things to do," it must have been a bracing read. Dealing with the stubborn shortsightedness of Israeli and Palestinian leaders has preoccupied four American presidents over the last 20 years, taking time away from more productive endeavors.

But unfortunately, it's not so easy to just walk away. Not only has the United States given billions in military and economic aid to Israel over the last three decades -- and provided Israel diplomatic cover at the United Nations and other fora -- it has also propped up the Palestinian Authority while Arab leaders have broken promise after promise to help. U.S. bases dot the region, and U.S. troops are currently occupying two Muslim countries. American money goes to build settlements in the West Bank.

Not only is the United States deeply involved in the conflict, it's not as if both sides would be affected equally by U.S. disengagement. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would probably be relieved. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose strategy rests on bringing American pressure to bear on Israel and avoiding making any concessions himself, clearly has more to lose. 
Unfortunately, the enemies of peace think time is on their side: The Israeli right, because more time means more "facts on the ground" -- settlements -- and the Palestinian hard-liners, because they believe demographic and military trends are in their favor. Neither group has U.S. interests in mind.

This is why many observers think the only way forward is for the United States to put forward its own peace plan. But is Barack Obama really willing to take this risk? So far, the answer has been no -- Obama has avoided a fight with Israel's domestic supporters every step of the way, even going so far as to offer up a ridiculously generous package of F-35s and security guarantees in exchange for a measly 90-day settlement freeze.

More likely, the U.S. administration is hoping to shake up Netanyahu's coalition, which is why Hillary Clinton ostentatiously met with Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni last week ahead of her big speech. Her remarks also pointed in that direction: By urging Bibi to "grapple with the core issues of the conflict on borders and security; settlements, water and refugees; and on Jerusalem itself," Clinton is hoping to force him to put his positions on the table, something he has so far refused to do. If he does, and it ticks off his right-wing allies, that's OK with the United States -- Livni is waiting in the wings. If he doesn't, then at least we'll know once and for all that he cares more about keeping his coalition together than making peace. Then what?

Interpreting Wikileaks

By Abdul Rahman al-Rashed
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 12/12/2010
 
It is still raining secrets, and each affected party is feeling embarrassed and angry. Everybody is busy anticipating what will appear the following morning, and praying, like in the Salatul Istisqa [Islamic prayer for rain] that "O Allah [let it rain] around us, and not upon us!" In the midst of this torrential downpour, the only thing that certainly does not match the magnitude of this event is the term "leaks" or indeed "WikiLeaks." We are facing a massive flood with the release of hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents, so it is not enough to refer to these as being "leaks." I imagine that Julian Assange, the hero of the battle, a mere computer hacker, could not comprehend the size of the treasure that he managed to get his hands on, or the risks that accompany it.
 
In our region, how are those concerned handling this event? This has naturally been described as a conspiracy by those who have been affected, as well as by those who have been shown something that does not fit with their preconceptions or beliefs. However some consider the leaked diplomatic cables to represent strong and glaring evidence, because they are consistent with their viewpoint. This is what we can see in the Lebanese arena. Stances towards WikiLeaks are sometimes contradictory. For example, the leaks may be described as false in one instance, whilst at other times they may serve as important proof, depending on the situation.
 
The worst position that anyone involved can adopt is one of denial, because this only brings more attention [to the issue]. We saw an example of this regarding a comment attributed to a Kuwaiti official who said that his country was not eager for Kuwaiti prisoners to be returned from Guantanamo Bay, something which only serves to bring more attention onto this issue.
 
Some of the leaks are simply ridiculous, such as the confidential US diplomatic cable which quoted Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Shara as saying that Britain's Prince Charles "would soon be implicated in a Scottish judicial investigation into Princess Diana's death, and was consequently planning a trip to Iraq and Iran" in order to "seek the support of the Muslim world."
 
There are other more controversial leaks, such as the document that revealed the plan for a joint-Arab military force to confront Hezbollah's occupation of West Beirut. This was a position that was not reflected in the impassive statements issued by Saudi Arabia at the time.
 
There is another cable that has particularly caused confusion, as it revealed details of an event that occurred during the Saudi – Huthi war. This reveals that the Yemenis provided Saudi Arabia with coordinates to carry out aerial assaults, with these target coordinates including a target in a residential area, however luckily the Saudi pilot flying this mission about his attack, sensing that something was amiss with regards to the target he was provided with. It later transpired that the coordinates were for the headquarters of Yemeni military commander Ali Muhsin. If the pilot had gone through with this mission it would have dramatically changed the relationship between the two states!
 
Is everything that has been revealed by the leaked diplomatic cables true? This is a matter best left to political observers and analysts who possess the required knowledge to assess this information, and in time we will be able to look at and investigate the veracity of everything that has been revealed. It is possible that some of the information and analysis made by the embassy staff is based upon incorrect information or sources, and we must also take into account that they have incorrectly analyzed local events. It also seems that there has been a deliberate plot undertaken by some sections of the Arab media, who have added information to the leaked documents, and sometimes fabricated a document in its entirety. Therefore we must be careful to read these documents from their approved sources, not via media summaries. In my opinion, most of what has been revealed up to now has been interesting and useful in understanding political realities.

The Fate Of The Relations Between Morocco And Spain

By Mohammad el-Ashab

This commentary was published in al-Hayat on 12/12/2010

Only dialogue can allow Morocco and Spain to avoid the dangers of severing their ties. Geography does not permit Spain to remain limited to the extreme southern corner of Europe, without having an extension into Africa, while Morocco cannot allow itself to see no farther than its northern bank on the Mediterranean.

It is ironic that the two countries, which once pondered the idea of a continental link between Africa and Europe through Gibraltar, are headed for the kinds of hard-line stances that would make this project evaporate into thin air. It seems that it is the destiny of these relations to be always characterized by suspicion. Neither are the Spaniards certain that Rabat will not surprise them with a “master stroke” to achieve their withdrawal from the cities of Ceuta and Melilla ahead of time, nor are the Moroccans convinced that their relations with their neighbor Madrid have been purged of the problems of their past.

What is absent in this formula are not the calls to punish this or that side; these calls appear to have convincing justifications when dialogue is absent. Instead, what is lacking is the realism and self-restraint during periods of tension.

In the past, the mere request by Morocco to join Europe brought problems, for instance on its agricultural products, which were subjected to sabotage when Moroccan trucks attempted to cross Spanish territory, while the threat to suspend the coastal fishing agreement angered the Spanish fleet, which controls the lion’s share of the area’s maritime wealth.

Also in the past, Morocco’s request to demarcate regional maritime borders would spark controversy, since it would be incomplete without considering the coasts of Ceuta and Melilla, which Spain does not want to relinquish. Spain’s tendency to organize the residency status of Moroccan immigrants, meanwhile, estimated in the hundreds of thousands, also had a negative impact on bilateral relations. However, Rabat and Madrid have coexisted despite such difficulties.
But one does not have to dig up the entire history of wars and agreements, or contemplate the negative points while ignoring bright spots. Rabat once staked that Spanish democracy would help bring about a new chapter. The Spanish, too, believed that an emerging democracy on their southern flank would considerably help Madrid hog a bigger role in North Africa.

Once, relations between Morocco and Spain improved noticeably at the expense of France’s monopoly of commercial and economic dealings with Morocco; Spain went from a non-player to number two. Perhaps Rabat at the time wanted to end French tutelage, which had exceeded all limits. However, the current situation might indicate that Spain is seeking in turn to impose some kind of hegemony. The difference between the two is that France has offered something political in return that is reassuring, at least in terms of Paris’s support for Rabat’s stances on the Sahara conflict, while Spain is turning this into an instrument of pressure on Morocco.

Until recently, the conflict over positions of influence in North Africa would stabilize based on the balance of power between the United States and European countries, particularly France and Spain. However, the Americans have gone farther in wooing North African partners, as we have seen in the case of Libya and the countries of the Sub-Saharan Sahel. It seems that the Spanish and French are engaged in a battle outside their traditional spheres of influence, which means that the US is the number one beneficiary of these contradictions.

While it seems clear that the Americans are dusting off a plan for partnership that has not taken place with North African capitals, it will be difficult for the Europeans to remain in their positions, as disputes between Morocco and Spain move in a wider scope.