Monday, December 27, 2010

Christmas In Bethlehem - Then And Now

By James J. Zogby
This commentary was published in The Jordan Times

The Christmas story as it is told in the West, in scripture and tradition, contains timeless elements that have shaped our culture in significant ways. As we tell it, year in and year out, the story conveys to those who listen powerful themes evoking deep feelings.

It is, at its core, a tale of a helpless child, born as an outcast, whose role became transformative in human history. Unrecognised, at first, the importance of this birth was initially only understood by the lowly of the earth, “the shepherds of the field”. Later, “kings from the East” came to pay homage, bringing gifts. Their appearance raised the ire of the local rulers, forcing the baby’s parents to flee in order to save the life of their newborn child.

I want to take a moment to reflect on the elements and themes of this story, seeing contemporary realities through its prism.

Two thousand years ago, Palestine was subject to a harsh occupation, much as it is today. In some ways, though, the conditions back then allowed the residents of occupied Palestine greater mobility than the current inhabitants of that land.As we are told, Joseph had to take his expectant wife from Nazareth, where they were living, to Bethlehem in order to fulfil a requirement, imposed by the authorities, to register in their ancestral village as part of a nationwide census. Today, of course, all this would be impossible.

In the first place, no Palestinian originally from Bethlehem could move to Nazareth. The occupation and closure of the West Bank makes that sort of movement impossible. Furthermore, Israeli law now prohibits an Arab from Nazareth from marrying a Bethlehemite and bringing the spouse across the Green Line to reside in Israel. Additionally, while thousands of Palestinians in Bethlehem, both Muslim and Christian, can see Jerusalem from their homes, they cannot go to the Holy City to pray. Arab Christians from Jerusalem, likewise, cannot easily go to the Christmas services in Bethlehem to pray alongside their European and American co-religionists who dominate at the seasonal event.

Bethlehem of old was overcrowded and under siege. Today, as well, the city is being strangled, hemmed in by settlements that have confiscated the town’s ancestral lands to make way for a 30-foot-high barrier wall and massive Jewish-only housing cutting the Arab residents off from nearby Jerusalem.

The constriction of growth and the lack of economic opportunity have forced Bethlehemites to flee in search of jobs and freedom, with tens of thousands of them and their descendants now living in the US and the Americas. They can return to visit with difficulty, but are not permitted by the occupation authorities to take up permanent residency in the town of their origins.

While the kings of old, we are told, were able to travel from afar bearing gifts to honour the newborn child, one can only imagine the difficulties they would encounter today dealing with Israeli soldiers at the King Hussein bridge. Having endured their interrogations, myself, I can hear the kings answer hours of questions, such as: “Where are you from?”, “Who are your parents, grandparents?”, “Why are you here?”, “Who are you visiting?”, “What are these gifts for?”, and on and on. In the end, it is doubtful whether those hapless “kings from the East” would have gained entry.

That Joseph, Mary and Jesus were able to flee to Egypt to escape Herod’s vengeful wrath was possible back then. Today, that option is unlikely. The barrier/wall that encapsulates the West Bank and the closure of Gaza would make such a trip impossible.

Finally, as I reflect on the birth of Jesus, I cannot help but think of the nearly 400 babies who would be born on Christmas day to Palestinian parents in the West Bank and Gaza. I think as well of the number of those who will perish at birth because of inadequate medical services (some babies have been put at fatal risk at checkpoints, because Israeli soldiers would not permit their delivering mothers to pass). And I think of Mary, 2000 years ago, and am grateful that, despite all she endured, there were no checkpoints blocking her way to Bethlehem.

Our traditions tell us that Mary’s joy at the birth of her son was tempered by foresight. She knew her child would grow and endure great suffering. Likewise, the joy that Palestinian parents experience when greeting new life these days must, no doubt, be accompanied by concern. Not only must they question how they will provide for their new child, they must also face their fears of bringing up a son or daughter under occupation, with its dangers and hardships.

From the pressures and humiliations encountered daily by Palestinians in the West Bank to the grinding poverty and despair facing those trapped in Gaza, life under hostile foreign rule can drain joy out of even the most blessed events.

There is a traditional Christmas carol that asks the question “What child is this?”, the answer, of course, being “Jesus, the son of Mary”. But given the universal message conveyed by the Christmas story, we also understand that the child is for us, a reminder of our responsibility to care for the helpless and the unrecognised.

And so, when we think of the vulnerable children born today not only in Palestine but anywhere where life is at risk, we are not to ask “What child is this?”, because we know that they are ours - to acknowledge and protect, like the shepherds and kings, enabling all these children to grow and to help change our world.

Time To Get Tough With Israel

This commentary was published in Gulf Times on 28/12/2010

When diplomatic sources revealed that the US was abandoning efforts for an Israeli settlement freeze, many surely did not know whether to laugh or cry. The first two years of US-Israeli relations under the Obama administration has been a debacle. For the next two, what is learned from that failure, and how it’s applied, will be of utmost importance.

The failure to get a freeze is not only about the settlements - a colonial enterprise expanding on occupied Palestinian territory that a new Human Rights Watch report called a “two-tier system” that is both “separate and unequal” - but also a test of America’s commitment to evenhanded mediation. So-called core issues, including the return of Palestinian refugees and the disposition of Jerusalem, are every bit as difficult as the settlements, maybe more. But obtaining the freeze was a tone-setter, one that would have shown that the US could fairly enforce obligations by both parties.

This didn’t happen. Instead, during the earlier, temporary 10-month freeze, the Israeli settlements were still being expanded - only new-home construction was frozen - and settlements around Jerusalem were accelerated.

When the Oslo peace process began - a process that was based on the principle of a two-state solution - there were 200,000 settlers in occupied Palestinian territory. Over the years, as Israel has claimed it sought peace, it increased the number of colonists to well over 500,000 today, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics.

No legitimate Palestinian leader can negotiate with Israel while it continues to colonise Palestinian land.

The US strategy began to fail when it expected the Israelis to freeze settlements upon request. What the Obama administration apparently didn’t realise was that Israel would not change its behaviour without an incentive. When that finally became clear, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an offer that amounted to a bribe.

Generally, the incentive to rectify bad behaviour in the international community - behaviour like expanding settlements despite road map obligations and international law - is delivered by sticks, not carrots. But the deal offered to Israel, which included billions of dollars worth of advanced F-35s in exchange for a 90-day freeze, was all carrot and no stick.

And it didn’t work. Despite American prostrations, the Israelis continued with settlement expansion, and provocative announcements about settlements around Jerusalem were made just as the offer was reported. All hope for a freeze disintegrated.

The message this sent to Palestinians was that the US was simply incapable of being an evenhanded broker. The US never misses an opportunity to reward bad Israeli behaviour, and Israel never misses an opportunity to squeeze its principal world ally.

Ultimately, we discovered that Israel’s near-insatiable desire for American carrots is outweighed only by its insatiable desire to colonise Palestinian land.

Will Washington learn from this and apply the lessons in the next stage of mediating this conflict?

The Obama administration should not expect the Israelis to do anything without pressure, and this pressure - economic, diplomatic - has to be real, tangible and biting. A brazen Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, undoubtedly emboldened by what he and his right-wing coalition view as a victory in a standoff with President Barack Obama, needs to be presented with a decisive and harsh response to Israel’s bad behaviour.

Some suggest that abandoning a freeze gives the US an opportunity to put forward its own plan. But if Washington couldn’t muster the strength or the will to press Netanyahu on settlements, can anyone believe it can press the Israelis to accept a deal on the rest of the core issues? It’s highly unlikely.

The biggest mistake the US has made in the last two years was not its focus on settlements but its failure to use leverage to get the Israelis to stop building them.

Has Washington learned the lesson? Perhaps the answer came earlier this month when Clinton delivered a major policy speech at the Brookings Institution. Though she expressed her frustration with the peace process, she didn’t signal any change in the US approach. Clinton’s message can be summed up succinctly: We will keep doing what we have done and hope for a better outcome.

At a moment when the world needed to hear a change in direction, we instead were told that the US is committed to repeating the same failed policies of the past. This is precisely why Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil recently determined they wouldn’t wait for the bankrupt American-led process and recognised the state of Palestine.

America’s political response? Rep. Howard L. Berman, D-Calif., rushed a resolution to the House floor expressing opposition to such declarations of Palestinian statehood. The resolution, which passed, is a timely reminder of the increasing gap between Washington and the international community on this issue.

If there is no change in the US approach to Israeli violations, no one will take this administration seriously: not the Israelis, certainly not the Palestinians, and presumably not the international community. Who can blame them? — MCT

A Symbolic Sign Of Support For The Palestinians

This leading article was published in The Independent on 28/12/2010

For such a traditional Tory as William Hague, the admiring biographer of William Pitt the Younger, the Foreign Secretary is conducting a far-from-traditional Tory foreign policy. It is less deferential to the US than might be expected, more assertive in the Balkans, among other places, and more independent-minded towards the Middle East.

Mr Hague's reported decision to upgrade the Palestinian representative office to a full diplomatic mission is a sign of this. It is a symbolic gesture. But symbols can be important, and the action and the timing have raised hackles in Benjamin Netanyahu's government in Israel, especially as Britain's move brings it into line with other European countries that have already done the same.

Israel's annoyance with Britain will be tempered by the knowledge that granting the Palestinian representative ambassadorial status is not the same as recognising Palestine as a state. Several Latin American countries have taken this step. No European country is ready to go so far, for good reason. In the absence of any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, it is not clear that this move would be of practical benefit to anyone.

Broader international recognition of Palestinian statehood cannot be ruled out indefinitely, however, as some of Mr Netanyahu's ministers realise. The Labour Party's Benjamin Ben-Eliezer recently said he would not be surprised were "the whole world" to recognise Palestine within a year, if the logjam continued. This is an exaggeration. Support for Israel remains rock solid in the US. Rather than "the world" turning against Israel, a more likely prospect is a growing divergence of opinion between Israel-plus-America and the rest.

Such a prospect need not worry Israel while America remains the world's paramount power. The problem is what happens if, or when, this is no longer the case. Thinking Israelis are aware of the long-term folly of pursuing a policy of stalling peace negotiations with the Palestinians, and indeed of undermining them. The same cannot be said, alas, for their Prime Minister, who remains fixated on short-term political goals.

Preserving Heritage, And The Fabric Of Life, In Syria




Salah Malkawi for The New York Times
The innovative restoration of the Citadel in Aleppo, Syria, involved not just this landmark but its surroundings as well, including a pleasant plaza enjoyed by local residents and tourists alike.
By Nicolai Ouroussoff
This article was published in The New York Times on 26/12/2010
ALEPPO, Syria — At first glance it seems an unremarkable scene: a quiet plaza shaded by date palms in the shadow of this city’s immense medieval Citadel, newly restored to its looming power. Foreign tourists sit side by side with people whose families have lived here for generations; women, both veiled and unveiled, walk arm in arm past a laborer hauling tools into an old government building being converted into a hotel.
But this quiet plaza is the centerpiece of one of the most far-thinking preservation projects in the Middle East, one that places as much importance on people as it does on the buildings they live in. The project encompasses the rebuilding of crumbling streets and the upgrading of city services, the restoration of hundreds of houses in the historic Old City, plans for a 42-acre park in one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods and the near-decade-long restoration of the Citadel itself, whose massive walls dominate the skyline of Aleppo, one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, and a gem of Islamic architecture.
The effort, led by a German nonprofit group and the Aga Khan Trust for Culture working with local government, is the culmination of a major philosophical shift among preservationists in the region. It seeks to reverse a 50-year history during which preservation, by myopically focusing on restoring major architectural artifacts, sometimes destroyed the communities around them. Other restoration efforts have also sparked gentrification, driving the poor from their homes and, at their worst, fostering rage that plays into the hands of militants.
By offering an array of financial and zoning incentives to homeowners and shopkeepers, this approach has already helped stabilize impoverished communities in a part of the world where the most effective social programs for the poor are often still run by extremist organizations like Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood.
“The project in Aleppo is quite an exceptional model,” said Daniele Pini, a preservationist who has worked for Unesco, the United Nations cultural arm, throughout the region. In places like Cairo and Jordan, he said, those who would restore historic buildings and those who live in them are often at loggerheads. The Aleppo plan, he said, “allows people to adapt the old houses to the needs of modern life.”
Correcting Past Blunders
The role of postwar urban planning in the rise of fundamentalism is well documented. In the 1950s and ’60s nationalist governments in countries like Egypt, Syria and Iraq typically viewed the congested alleys and cramped interiors of historic centers not as exotic destinations for tourists but as evidence of a backward culture to be erased. Planners carved broad avenues through dense cities, much as Haussmann had before them in Paris. Families that had lived a compartmentalized existence — with men often segregated from women in two- or three-story courtyard houses — were forced into high-rises with little privacy, while the wealthy fled for villas in newly created suburbs.
But while preservationists may have scorned Modernist housing blocks, they were often just as insensitive to the plight of local residents who got in their way. Even as they worked to restore architectural monuments in the Muslim world, they could be disdainful of the dense urban fabric that surrounded these sites. Neighborhoods were sometimes bulldozed to clear space around landmarks so they would be more accessible to tourists.
Agencies like Unesco often steered governments toward a Western-style approach to preservation. Traditionally a family might have built onto a house to accommodate a newly married son, for instance, adding a floor or a shop out front. But those kinds of changes were often prohibited under preservation rules.
“The word ‘athar’ — ‘antiquities’ — became a horrible word because it meant preserving our houses but not our traditions,” said Omar Hallaj, the chief executive of the Syria Trust for Development and a preservationist who has worked in Syria and Yemen.
These tensions grew with the boom in global tourism, as cities around the world sought to give travelers the “authentic” experience they craved, but in a safe, tidy and germ-free environment. The Old City of Damascus, for example, has in the last decade become a major draw both for the international tourist set and for Arabs who began traveling closer to home after Sept. 11. According to informed estimates, the number of foreign visitors to Syria has quadrupled over the last five years.
Even as the city government races to preserve its character, its courtyard houses are being converted into boutique hotels and fashionable restaurants. Many 20th-century structures — including impressive examples of early modern architecture from the time of the French mandate period — remain unprotected. The city has introduced incentives to keep some homeowners, but many preservationists think it’s too late.
Militant Islamic hardliners, meanwhile, have had equal disdain for both the modernizers and for the preservationists, many of them Western, who followed them.
“I remember when we first moved into the city of Zabid in Yemen, the local imam started going to the mosque saying, ‘The Germans are here to transform your towns into cabarets and brothels,’ ” Mr. Hallaj said.
What many militant extremists are fixated on is a utopia of the past: a vision of Islam in the era of the Prophet. Not only Western influence, but also three centuries of Ottoman rule — the period when the fabric of most Arab cities was created — is seen as a form of corruption.
“What is interesting about this whole argument between the modernizers on the one hand and fundamentalists on the other is that it all happens on the level of ideology,” Malise Ruthven, a historian who has written books on Islamic fundamentalism, said in a recent interview. Mohamed Atta, the central planner of the 9/11 attacks, once wrote an urban planning thesis on the Old City of Aleppo in which he said he wanted to tear out centuries’ worth of buildings, Mr. Ruthven said. He dreamed of “an Islamic city that was pure and unchanged — frozen in aspic.”
Benefits for Residents
At first sight the plan for Aleppo’s rehabilitation may not seem a radical departure from preservation as usual. Led by GTZ, a nonprofit organization owned by the German government, it began with a two-year analysis of the city’s historic structures that included hundreds of interviews with residents.
With GTZ’s guidance the government began laying more than 323 miles of sewage and water pipes, removing the webs of dilapidated electrical wiring that stretched across its alleyways and replacing missing cobblestones. To encourage building owners and their tenants to stay, the group set up a pilot program that offered interest-free construction loans. For those who accepted, it helped ensure that any renovations followed preservation guidelines.
“The rationale was that if the state is forcing preservation on people,” Mr. Hallaj said, “then the state has a responsibility to pay for that burden. So if they want a historical hand-carved window instead of an aluminum one, the state pays the difference.” Other incentives were put in place to encourage local businesses to stay — the kind of small neighborhood commercial establishments whose importance was championed by urban thinkers like Jane Jacobs.
What makes the project such an auspicious model for the region, though, is its clear grasp of how architecture can both shape and define relationships among social groups. Long before developers got an inkling of what was going on, GTZ and its government partners divided the Old City into zones, with new hotels and restaurants confined to two areas, one around the Citadel and the other in the Jdayde neighborhood. (GTZ describes Jdayde as an area of crooked streets and tiny shops with a large Christian population that would be more accepting of tourists than some of the more heavily Muslim areas.)
These zones, in turn, are being anchored by increasingly ambitious — and often architecturally magnificent — public spaces. The first, Al-Hatab Square in Jdayde, is a small patch of stone shaded by a few trees. Once partly built over with squalid sheds, the square has become a vibrant mix of Syrian families and foreign tourists, framed by old jewelry shops, fish markets and cafes.
It has been a decade since the Aga Khan Trust for Culture began its meticulous restoration of the Citadel. Its enormous moat was cleared of garbage and lined with low-growing plants. The ruins of houses and shops built by Ottoman soldiers stationed here in the 18th century, and destroyed in the 1828 earthquake were torn down. The mazelike interior walls — a monument to medieval paranoia designed to keep invaders from reaching the court’s inner sanctum — were cleared of rubble.
Just as important is the social vision behind it. The road surrounding the Citadel, which choked it with cars and exhaust fumes, has been replaced by a pedestrian walkway bordered by the newly landscaped moat on one side and scattered historical buildings on the other. Many of these are being beautifully restored, including a palatial 1930 neo-Classical structure that is being transformed into a hotel by the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development. But if some of them — former government ministries built during the early half of the 20th century — are being turned into luxurious hotels for the wealthy, it is the buildings, not the public, that seem to be confined behind iron gates.
What’s particularly striking is the sense of shared ownership and belonging. The poor seem as comfortable strolling along the Citadel’s paths as the rich, which is all the more striking given that Syria is controlled by the authoritarian government of Bashar al-Assad and the ruling Baath Party. It is a expression of how public space, when thoughtfully designed, can promote a more egalitarian vision of civic life.
This atmosphere filters into the surrounding streets. The cobblestones look freshly scrubbed; the heavy wood shutters that front the old shops have yet to acquire the patina of age. But the clash of historical styles and eras that shaped Aleppo — and that made it one of the world’s great cosmopolitan centers — have not been smoothed over. And for the moment at least, you get the encouraging feeling that it is possible to push back at the forces of displacement. It’s a city being adapted for human beings, not for some abstract vision of a global consumer.
There is more to come. A few months ago the Aga Khan Trust for Culture began building the foundations for the 42-acre park in an impoverished neighborhood just outside one of the gates of the Old City. This hilltop site is now strewn with garbage. A sprawling asphalt parking lot borders it on one side; crumbling modern apartment blocks — the kind that 9/11’s mastermind envisioned demolishing — and decrepit 19th-century houses line the other.
The project, which is being modeled on an earlier one in Cairo, Al-Azhar Park, will feature rambling walkways and gardens with views over the Old City to the refurbished Citadel. The trust plans to train local people in traditional crafts like carpentry and stonecutting so they can take part in the park’s construction.
In a speech he gave in Aleppo two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Aga Khan described his mission as creating an intellectual garden “where there would be no possibility of suffocation from the dying weeds of dogma” and “beauty would be seen in the articulation of difference,” a statement crystallizing what preservationists hope will happen now in Aleppo.
A Search for Continuity
The tricky question — and the one that may have the most longstanding impact for the Middle East — is whether Aleppo can carry its vision of social and historical continuity into the future. The government recently started an architectural competition for a new cultural complex that will include a 1,600-seat opera house, library and exhibition space in an area built during the French mandate.
And the city’s mayor, Maan Chibli, said that he recently asked GTZ to help plan for the redevelopment of the informal ramshackle settlements that have sprouted on Aleppo’s outskirts.
“These settlements date from the 1970s,” Mr. Chibli said. “They are part of a social pattern that leads back to the old villages. Someone arrives, then his brother follows. So the idea, as before, is not to destroy these areas. It is to begin by providing them with infrastructure and services, then work programs.”
But how to make the final link between historic preservation and the creation of a contemporary city remains blurry. Many preservationists working here, including some at GTZ, see the last 70 years as unworthy of their interest. And most contemporary architects, whose clients are almost uniformly drawn from the global elite, are out of touch with the complex political realities of the poor in the region.
These are not merely esoteric issues. They have to do with the real lessons that cities like Aleppo and Damascus can teach. Their power is not just the beauty of historical layers. It is that the coexistence of those layers, often piled one on top of the other, embodies a world in which every generation — including ours — has the right to a voice and individual creativity triumphs over


Darfuri Rebels, The NCP, And The Future Of Southern Sudan

By Rebecca Hamilton
This commentary was published in Foreign Policy on 27/12/2010

Sitting in Washington, pundits and politicians tend to overestimate U.S. influence on the Sudanese government. These days, provided the Gulf States and China continue to open the checkbook, the biggest threat to the Islamists in Khartoum comes not from Washington, but from inside Sudan itself.

The ruling National Congress Party (NCP) understand that they do not have the support of the marginalized people that make up the bulk of the Sudanese population; their worst nightmare is that this disenfranchised periphery might one day unite against their elite dictatorship in Khartoum. Hence the significance of a series events that have taken place over the past month inside Sudan, where opponents of the NCP have been putting the ruling party under increasing pressure in advance of the referendum on Jan. 9 in which southern Sudanese are widely expected to vote to become an independent nation.

Last month Minni Minawi, the lone Darfuri rebel leader to have signed a stillborn peace agreement with the Sudanese government in 2006, moved from Khartoum to Juba, home to the semi-autonomous government of southern Sudan (GOSS). His move prompted fears within the NCP that GOSS (whose army consists of former southern rebels) was supporting Darfuri rebels, giving both Minawi's Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) safe retreat in the southern states that border Darfur.

Zach Vertin, Sudan analyst at the International Crisis Group says that allegations of active or passive support to Darfur rebels by the semi-autonomous southern government remain unclear, "but Juba would be wiser to assuage NCP fears than to contribute to them. Fueling Khartoum's insecurity is unlikely to yield positive results."

Following his move to Juba, the NCP declared Minawi, formerly an advisor to President Omar al-Bashir, to be a "legitimate target" of the Sudanese army. They raided Minawi's office in el Fasher, arresting those they found in the building. Next the Sudanese army launched two consecutive days of attacks on Khor Abeche, a village 50 miles from the south Darfur capital of Nyala which is perceived to be supportive of Minawi.

According to UNAMID spokesperson Kemal Saiki, the attacks left at least one dead and 16 wounded. The UN says twelve thousand people were displaced as a result. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon issued a statement of concern that the recent clashes "included attacks on civilians and destruction of property, and have resulted in renewed displacement, and the withdrawal of humanitarian agencies from some areas."

The UN has also confirmed bombing by Sudanese government aircraft in Bahr Al Ghazal, one of the southern states bordering Darfur. The government-controlled media claimed that Darfuri rebels had support from the southern army for training camps in Bahr Al Ghazal (a claim that southern politicians have denied.)
***
While the southern capital of Juba has housed a semi-autonomous southern government for the past six years, the prospect of a fully independent south raises new fears for the NCP. "In some sense the NCP feels threatened, uncertain of its own political and economic future" says Vertin.

Negotiations have still not concluded over how to divide Sudan's vast oil resources if the country splits, or how to apportion its $35 billion in external debt. The better that the NCP fares in these negotiations, the stronger position it will be in to manage those in the north who seek to challenge its rule, and the less troubled it will be about what support the newly independent GOSS might provide to its opponents. But even if NCP opponents are not actively supported by GOSS, the upheaval resulting from the likely split of the nation may be exploited by them.

Just this week the Umma party of former Sudanese prime minister Sadiq al-Mahdi, issued a demand for the NCP to form an interim coalition government to draft a new constitution for what will be a new northern Sudan if southerners vote for independence. And also this week, in a unified effort of the kind not seen since the start of the Darfur conflict in 2003, Minawi's SLA  joined forces with JEM this week to battle the Sudanese army in North Darfur.

To date, the NCP has handled major challenges from inside Sudan's sprawling territory by refusing to acknowledge the commonality of concerns raised by its many opponents. The international community has tended to follow Khartoum's lead, responding to the various challenges to NCP rule in discrete silos. Sudan is the only country in the world that has two UN peacekeeping operations on its territory; UNAMID in Darfur and UNMIS in the south. The so-called Comprehensive Peace Agreement that the troika of the U.S., U.K., and Norway supported dealt only with southern Sudan, while the African Union and the U.S. subsequently pushed for a separate peace agreement for Darfur, and six months later Eritrean-sponsored negotiations led the NCP to sign yet another peace agreement, this time with rebels in the east of Sudan.

Earlier this month the Obama administration appointed Ambassador Dane Smith as an envoy to focus solely on Darfur, following its September appointment of another diplomat, Princeton Lyman, to focus on southern Sudan. Khartoum has actively encouraged this kind of separation, probably because it facilitates its ability to trade off progress in one marginalized area for a reduction in scrutiny of its actions in the other. But in terms of what the Sudanese leadership view as the most serious threat to their survival, Darfuri rebels, northern political opponents, and the future of southern Sudan are all deeply intertwined - never more so than today.

Rebecca Hamilton is author of the forthcoming book, Fighting for Darfur

Egypt's Real State Of Emergency Is Its Repressed Democracy


By Mohamed ElBaradei
This commentary was published in The Washington Post on 26/12/2010


Egypt has recently held yet another fraudulent and farcical election. Ballot boxes were stuffed. Votes were bought. People who considered voting for the opposition were subjected to violence by professional thugs. And these transgressions have been well documented by human rights groups.
 
Democracy must mean more than merely going through the motions.

In theory, Egypt has a constitution and laws that reflect the will of its people. But in reality, the provisions are a hodgepodge that perpetuates the iron grip of the ruling regime. President Hosni Mubarak enjoys imperial powers. There is no legislative oversight of the military budget. No more than five people are permitted to assemble without permission to stage a peaceful demonstration. Universities have security forces on campus to ensure that students do not engage in political activities.

A recent constitutional amendment has made it almost impossible for an independent actor to run for president. Any candidate who is not a member of an officially sanctioned party is forbidden to have a headquarters or to raise funds. Political activists are often blocked from renting venues for meetings. In the 12 months since I began campaigning for reform in Egypt, I have received a flood of requests for interviews, but after the recent crackdown on the media hardly any local TV stations have dared to express interest in talking to me.

In theory, Egypt has multiple political parties. In practice, establishing such a party requires permission from a committee dominated by the National Democratic Party (NDP) - the political machine that has kept Mubarak in power since 1981. And any new party must exist for five years before it can field a presidential candidate.

In theory, Egypt has an elected president. But over the past half-century, the country has had only three rulers. There were differences in their style and vision, but all have presided over an authoritarian and repressive political system. For the past 29 years, Egyptian society has existed under a draconian "state of emergency," a tool that has allowed the president to suspend basic constitutional protections and that has been used to detain, torture and sometimes kill those who dare to dissent.

In theory, Egypt has a democratically elected parliament. In practice, one-third of the members of its upper house are appointed by the president. Of the 508 seats, 440 are held by members of the NDP. In no way is the Egyptian parliament representative of the Egyptian people. Although about 10 percent of Egyptians are Coptic Christians, the Copts hold only 3 seats in parliament. The Muslim Brotherhood, a religious movement that managed to win 20 percent of the seats in the 2005 parliamentary elections, was shut out of the November elections and now holds no seats. The Wafd, the largest liberal party, won six seats. Both boycotted the run-off vote because of the substantial fraud committed and documented during the first-round voting last month.

In theory, Egypt has a court system; in fact, legal decisions are often ignored when they run contrary to government policy.

Egypt's economic and social fabric continues to deterioriate. Despite annual growth in gross domestic product of 5 to 6 percent the past few years, there has been little to no trickle-down effect. The obscene gap between rich and poor worsens daily. The middle class has all but disappeared. More than 40 percent of Egyptians live on less than $2 per day. Nearly 30 percent are illiterate - a sad commentary for the culture that, more than 2,000 years ago, gave the world the Library of Alexandria. In Cairo, a mega-city of more than 15 million, half the population lives in shantytowns next to gated communities that rival the opulence in Southern California.

Egypt urgently needs a new beginning. The voices of dissent are growing in number. We come from many orientations, from different vocations, from different parts of society, from different faiths. But we speak with a single voice in seeking social justice. We demand an accountable and transparent system of government, with meaningful checks and balances. We want economic opportunity for all Egyptians and the right to live in dignity and freedom. Together we are organizing around peaceful change. The international community ought to support our struggle for freedom and hold Egypt to its international commitments with respect to human rights. The rights of the Egyptian people should not be trampled in exchange for an elusive promise of stability.

The present pseudo-stability based on repression is a ticking bomb that is dangerously close to exploding. Lasting stability in Egypt, as in any nation, will come only through genuine democracy that responds fairly to the needs and aspirations of all its people.

The writer, a former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was the 2005 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Lebanon: A Saudi-Syrian Initiative Or Idea?


By Tariq Alhomayed
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 27/12/2010
 
During his last visit to Paris, the Syrian President [Bashar al-Assad] stressed that there is no Saudi – Syrian initiative and that the solution to resolve the issue of the Hariri international tribunal potentially accusing Hezbollah [of the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri] must come from the Lebanese themselves. However despite this, there is still talk about what some have labeled a "Saudi – Syrian initiative" and what others have called Saudi - Syrian "ideas" [to postpone or neutralize the tribunal], and this is something that is gaining momentum day after day.
 
Of course, there is nothing that can completely confirm this, and one source has stressed "believe me, there is no initiative!" There are those who don't want to accept this denial, and it is enough here to say "there could be ideas [in this regard]; however I cannot say that this is an initiative." Whilst another source has confirmed that "some ideas are difficult to implement."
 
There are Saudi – Lebanese sources, who agree with one another even though they appear to be on different sides, that: there are ideas being discussed, including the idea that after the international tribunal issues its decision accusing Hezbollah, the March 14 Alliance or Saad Hariri's party would announce that justice has been carried out and that this does not mean the accusation of an entire sect or that Lebanon has no choice but to follow [the decision] of the international tribunal. It is enough here to recall that the international tribunal is an international body and that Lebanon does not have the right to end it. Following this, peaceful statements will be issued to ensure a sectarian confrontation does not break out in Lebanon.
 
In return [for this], Hezbollah and its allies would be required to fulfill a number of conditions; four conditions according to some sources, and three according to others. These are: Hezbollah would waive its "obstructing third" [veto power] over the Lebanese parliament; Hezbollah would pledge to remove the weapons from the Lebanese camps and groups that it previously armed, including the Sunni militias affiliated to Hezbollah or Syria, particularly as such arms were previously used to occupy Beirut, as well as Hezbollah pledging never to occupy the capital again. The third condition would see Hezbollah pledging to return to national dialogue, and finally fulfilling the provisions of the Taif Agreement, particularly with regards to the Assembly of Representatives and other provisions.
 
This is [potentially] the outcome of what is happening in Lebanon today, according to the level of information that we have at hand, even if there is different – if not as well-informed – information and analysis to the one above. However this is also interesting, and according to informed sources, Hezbollah feels that this talk about a [Saudi – Syrian] initiative aims only to neutralize the group during this period, and that Hezbollah is today facing the reality that it expected, which in turn explains the statement issued by the Iranian Supreme leader [Grand Ayatollah Khamenei] to the effect that the international tribunal is "null and void."
 
According to sources, Khamenei's announcement came as no surprise to the Lebanese, for he had previously informed them of his opinion during [Saad] Hariri's last visit to Tehran, and at the time the Lebanese had called on the Supreme Leader of Iran not to disclose this [publicly] as it would only further complicate the situation. However the Iranian Supreme Leader announced his position after this issue failed to witness any progress following Hariri's return from Tehran. This confirms what I said in my article "Hezbollah: "Sisterly" Iran to the Rescue" which was published on 22/12/2010, that the Supreme Leader's statement signified the end of the deadline granted to Damascus by Tehran, and this is something that was confirmed on the following day by French sources.
 
The interesting issue here, which is perhaps useful to any observer, is that after talking to a number of sources the only thing that is not open to doubt is that all parties have become increasingly more suspicious of one another.