Obama's Middle East Challenge

The President's call to Palestinian and Israeli leaders to co-operate may be overtaken by the action of the people

By Paul Vallely
This commentary was published in The Independent on 22/05/2011

Contiguous. Now there's an interesting word. You had to read between the lines to understand Barack Obama's new vision for the Middle East. The American president began with an apologia designed to make some kind of coherent sense out Washington's utterly inconsistent attitudes to the uprisings in the different countries of the Arab world. He could not, of course, because the economic interest and political values of the United States are in a permanent rictus of contradiction.

Washington is very keen on freedom and democracy, but it is also rather enthusiastic about protecting US oil supplies and political stability in the region they come from. Hence Obama's somewhat tardy embrace of rebellion in Egypt, but his extreme reluctance to back rebels in Bahrain. And he didn't even mention Saudi Arabia.

What he had to say on the conflict at the core of the Middle East's political instability was more interesting. There would be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians until a deal could be agreed that would accommodate a separate state for each. That would best be done by working from the borders Israel had before seizing Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the Six Day War in 1967. Parcels of land should then be swapped to ensure secure borders for Israel and a viable "sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state".

Once borders and security were sorted, Obama said, the two sides could negotiate on the more emotionally charged subjects, such as control of Jerusalem and whether Palestinian refugees driven from their homes should have the right to return. But first, both sides must agree on that contiguous state.

According to that great American lexicographical stalwart Webster's Dictionary contiguous means "touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence". Given that Gaza and the West Bank are 30 miles apart, with a swathe of Israel between, Obama's contiguity has set minds racing. That couldn't just mean a linking corridor, could it?

Adding to the speculation he continued: "The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine."

How does that square with the pre-1967 borders? Was the President implying that the new improved Israel will border neither Jordan nor Egypt, as it does now? Would Palestine's contiguous territory come at the expense of Israel's? Would Israel get the Gaza Strip and the Mediterranean and Palestine get the Negev and a Red Sea port?

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, was incandescent, particularly as the White House did not run the speech past him in advance as it normally does. He only has himself to blame. After a good start with Obama he set up the President's first foreign policy humiliation by refusing to stop building Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Next he embarrassed the US Vice-President Joe Biden as he visited Jerusalem. Then, on the eve of his last visit to the White House he delivered a defiant speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group. This time he got Republican leaders to invite him to address a joint meeting of Congress next week – a move widely interpreted as an attempt to limit the options for Obama, whose speech on Thursday was timed to pre-empt further Netanyahu shenanigans.

But Netanyahu has also been out-manoeuvred by the Palestinians. Having concluded that he is not serious about negotiations, they have chosen another route. In September, they will ask the UN General Assembly to recognise the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem as an independent state.

Obama in his speech warned the Palestinians to drop the idea, but he did not seem to mean what he said. (Similarly, for all his condemnations of oppression in Syria, the signs are that Washington has decided it is better-the-devil-you-know with President Assad, as in Bahrain and Saudi.)

Having made no progress on Palestine since he took office, Obama has decided that Netanyahu will never make the kind of concessions needed for a peace deal. He does not trust the Israeli leader and knows he is in hock to right-wingers even more extreme than him. For Netanyahu to negotiate from 1967 borders would bring the collapse of his coalition.

But what helps at home in Jerusalem is working the other way abroad. The Palestinians are building support in the UN. It is likely that the leading European powers, including Britain, will back them because they see no other progress on peace. The Palestinian state looks set to get more than two-thirds of the vote in the UN General Assembly, where the US does not have veto power. That would leave Netanyahu and his "unshakeable" American ally isolated. Netanyahu's Israel, in the words of the Zionist historian Zeev Sternhell, is on the way to becoming a pariah state.

Europe has the opportunity to exert influence here. Having backed the Obama call for a deal based on the 1967 border, plus mutually-agreed swaps, the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and his European counterparts, could bring pressure to bear on the Jerusalem and right-to-return issues. Since Jerusalem is a holy city to all three Abrahamic religions compromise on the idea of shared jurisdiction is something the Israelis should be pressed to accept.

Likewise the Palestinians should face the fact that, once they have a viable state of their own, demands for refugees to return risks undermining the two-state solution and Israelis' majority inclination for a "homeland for the Jewish people". The right of return could become an obverse of the right of Israel to exist.

Both Israel and America need also to accept that the agreement of the two main Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, to create a single unified Palestinian government is not a hindrance to peace but a sine qua non. The history of many conflicts show, as in Ireland, that it is only when the hardliners are involved that peace can be properly negotiated. Hamas would have to renounce terrorism and acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Europe can play a role in brokering concessions on all sides.

Paradoxically, Israel's best strategy in the current situation might be not to resist the Palestinian bid for UN recognition, says Carlo Strenger, a psychoanalyst at Tel Aviv University who is a member of the Monitoring Panel on Terrorism of the World Federation of Scientists. Rather Israel should back it – but with the quid pro quo that the Palestinians must renounce the right to return to Israel, a demand likely to be endorsed by the international community including the Arab League.

All that could be a long game, for all sides. But hundreds of Palestinian refugees simultaneously stormed Israel's frontiers with Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip last weekend. If those hundreds turn to thousands – or tens of thousands in this Arab spring – then time may be the one commodity political leaders find they no longer have

Yemen 'Crisis' Threat To Nation

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
This Op/Ed was published in The Arab Times on 22/05/2011

Leaders of the joint parties in Yemen want to drag their country into chaos and destruction as reflected in their attitude towards the crisis. This is why the crisis remains unresolved and continues to pose a grave threat to the whole nation, not only the individual parties.

These parties have accused President Ali Abdullah Saleh of maneuvering the situation to buy time, while the reality is that each faction has its own stand, voice, issues and destructive methods. Some of them have stressed the need to put the president on trial; others called for his resignation and another group said the street protests will not stop unless he steps down. They have forgotten the fact that the president also belongs to a party, which has taken a stand on the peaceful transition of power to prevent Yemen from reaching an impasse.

No amount of pressure from neighboring nations or anybody will make Saleh change his mind. Right from the start, he has made it clear that he wants to transfer power peacefully through the constitutional institutions. His adversaries, however, have been issuing provocative statements, most of which have been bordering on the personal, yet the president remains popular among the people and he stands for true democracy that means following the will of the majority.

Saleh represents the majority but he must also protect the rights of the opposition minority, which is bent on imposing its dictatorial ideas. It has continued to threaten to march to the presidential palace and ministries to control these institutions. This is not part of democracy; it is an attempt to instigate chaos and push the country towards destruction.

It is obvious that some groups do not want Saleh to remain in power. Regardless of their number or strength, they cannot create a power vacuum and throw the country into the unknown. Should Saleh jump on his horse or plane and run away from the country through the hills between Saudi and Yemen, or through Somali and other neighboring countries? If he does, he will leave millions of supporters who have been protesting for him. Will the minority rule over the majority or should they also follow the president and leave the country?

The tens of clashing ideas and ideologies presented in the gathering of the opposition parties should not determine the fate of the country or forced down into the throats of the people just because they can cause chaos on the streets. These parties cannot even agree amongst themselves on a particular agenda for the future of Yemen, so allowing them to have their way will only push the country to the brink of collapse.

No matter how much we agree or disagree with Saleh, we cannot deny the fact that he has ruled for 33 years, during which he doused tension several times and prevented sectarian, tribal and secession wars that would have turned Yemen into another Somalia. He has been able to keep his country united and solved many internal conflicts that would have led into wars in which each militia leader would have tried to outsmart the other. He has strengthened relations with several countries, but these achievements mean nothing to the minority that has been demanding for his ouster. They do not even care if these achievements will be destroyed. After all, they have been trying to implement destructive agendas against the future, stability and international relations of the country.

The Yemeni opposition wants to rule without democratic elections. It has yet to present a roadmap for the future and it has been delaying the signing of the Gulf initiative. We have mandated Saleh to sign the pact, because it will serve as a platform for the peaceful transition of power through an election for the people to choose their president. This is better than allowing the country to fall into the same pit as Tunisia and Egypt, and Syria will soon join them if the situation gets worse.

At this point, we want to remind everybody about a popular saying, “You will never know my worth until you try someone else”.

Why Saudi Women Do Not Drive

Tariq A. Al Maeena writes: There is public resistance from some fundamentalist scholars towards granting them this right.
This commentary was published in The Gulf News on 22/05/2011

In my travels around the GCC, I am often asked a familiar question: Why don't women drive in your country? I tell them that they are not allowed. The next question they put forward is: When will women be allowed to drive? To that question I usually shake my head and tell them that I honestly do not know.

Almost six years ago in October 2005 in his first television interview as King, Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia was put forth this question by a TV commentator of a US network: "Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world in which women are not allowed to drive. It seems to be symbolic of a women's lack of independence. Would you support allowing a woman to drive?"

The king's response to the question at the time was: "I believe strongly in the rights of women... my mother is a woman, my sister is a woman, my daughter is a woman, and my wife is a woman. I believe the day will come when women drive. In fact, if you look at the areas in Saudi Arabia, the deserts and in the rural areas, you will find that women do drive. The issue will require patience. In time, I believe it will be possible. Yes, I believe we can. But it will require a little bit of time... Our people are just now beginning to open up to the world, and I believe that with the passing of days in the future everything is possible."

For many women and men in Saudi Arabia, those words flashed across TV screens throughout the kingdom meant a dawn of a new era, one where the rights of women were going to be given impetus and attention by no less than the king himself. Buoyed by the fact that King Abdullah did not reject the notion that women shouldn't drive or that was an un-Islamic thing to do, many felt that the laws permitting women to drive their own vehicles would soon be put into effect.

Rural sight

Six years on and many are still left wondering. Is it our religion that forbids such a right? Obviously not, or else we would be damning devout Muslim women who enjoy such rights across the globe into a life of sin. Then what is it? Is it our culture, our social norms? Again, this does not seem to be a credible argument, as some towns and villages have womenfolk driving back and forth in pick-ups to farms and fields to help in the harvest or herding of livestock. The arguments for allowing women to drive today are increasing multi-fold. As more and more women enter the work force, they are being inhibited from getting there in the first place. Add the economic dent to hire a family driver and provide accommodation, especially if one is just starting to earn a living. And then again, the inexperience of some drivers has indeed led to many a sorrowful death. Children shuttled back and forth to school are often at risk as well and sometimes subjected to physical abuse. No one can share a greater concern for the safety of a child then the parents themselves. Not everybody can afford the privilege of a family driver.

There is public resistance from some fundamentalist scholars towards granting this right to women. But we should not allow ourselves to be held hostage by the narrow views of such groups, whose edicts in the past have all been directed at the subjugation and control of women. Why are they allowed to pawn their ideology on the rest of us as a religious, cultural or social order? Now I realise the Saudi government has a dilemma on its hands. How do you introduce women driving without causing some major problems? Obviously, women drivers initially will be targets of unwarranted attention. In pockets of our diverse culture, women drivers may feel threatened by those who frown upon increased independence. Apply the zero tolerance rules against anyone bothering women, similar to those I have witnessed elsewhere in the Gulf. Males caught in the harassment of women should have their heads shorn and their photos displayed in newspapers, as in some of our neighbouring countries. And I have not witnessed any moral degradation of their societies.

The government doesn't have to move radically. Begin by establishing driving schools for women. Begin hiring females in the traffic section. Initially allow women accompanied by their male guardians to drive. Restrict the age limitation for women drivers to above a certain age, perhaps 25 years. Limit the driving hours for women between sunrise and sunset initially, until it dawns on us males that their time has indeed arrived. Eventually the novelty of seeing an abaya-clad woman whizzing by in her own wheels will indeed wear off. We see it all the time in the rest of the Gulf. This is the 21st century, and until we remove this obstacle, the chances for women to make a positive impact in our society will forever be limited in their dependency on someone getting to their occupation on time and in one piece.

Tariq A. Al Maeena is a Saudi socio-political commentator. He lives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Gaddafi Feels The Squeeze

The Economist comments (22/05/2011): From all sides, military, diplomatic and economic, the noose is gradually tightening around the Libyan strongman

It has been a rotten week for the Libyan dictator. The city of Misrata, the country's third biggest, under siege for the past two months, has been secured by the rebels, along with its airport and port. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's command-and-control centres are being systematically pulverised by Nato missiles. Libya's rebels are again poised to advance westwards towards Brega, after holding back to let Nato hammer the colonel's forces in and around it.

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at The Hague has issued a warrant for the colonel, his son, Saif Al Islam, and brother-in-law, Abdullah Al Senussi, his intelligence chief, to be tried for war crimes. One of the colonel's key ministers, Shukri Ganem, a former prime minister who has been in charge of Libya's oil since 2006, seems to have defected.

Gaddafi's forces are running increasingly short of fuel. The people of Tripoli, his embattled capital, are short of just about everything, including food. The rebels in the east, based in Benghazi, are managing to import their basic requirements—and are getting diplomatically, politically and militarily better organised.

On the military front, the rebels have reined in the young men who had at first been recklessly rushing up and down the coastal road to virtually no effect. A clear line of command has at last been laid down, with Gaddafi's former interior minister, Abdul Fatah Younis, as commander-in-chief and General Khalifa Haftar, who previously claimed the top spot on his return from many years in the US, politely sidelined. A civilian, Jalal Al Digheily, has been appointed defence minister in the National Transitional Council (NTC), a fledgling government.

Nato says that co-ordination with the rebels has also improved, enabling targets to be hit with increasing accuracy. Gaddafi's forces are also coming under increasing pressure in the Nafusa mountains, a Berber-populated area to the south-west of Tripoli; rebels now control the main nearby crossing-point to Tunisia, though the Libyan regime still holds the coastal one. Though some members of the Western coalition against Gaddafi have qualms, the British in particular are stretching the definition of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which lets the coalition take ‘all necessary measures' to protect civilians.

 Executive team

On the political front, the rebels have tidied themselves up too. Mustafa Abdul Jalil, a former justice minister under Gaddafi, is proving a consensual chairman of the NTC, while Mahmoud Jibril, who ran the colonel's economic development board until he defected and has a doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh, is in effect the prime minister heading an ‘executive team'.

He and his closest ally and deputy, Ali Essawi, who also held senior economic posts under the colonel, have forged close ties with some Gulf states. Ali Tarhouni, a former professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, is handling the oil portfolio with aplomb. There are inevitable mutterings that the emerging administration, which stresses its transitional nature, lacks accountability. But foreigners in Benghazi say it has begun to function a lot better.

The NTC is keen not to appear to represent only the east of the country, so it has expanded to embrace a wide geographical spectrum, with as many members from Tripoli as from Benghazi. Though some members have links to the Muslim Brothers, the prevailing flavour is secular. All members fiercely oppose the notion of a de facto partition between east and west.

The colonel's claim to hold the loyalty of most of Libya's many tribes is debatable, as is the influence of tribal leaders in determining the outcome of national politics. Most experts on Libya say that tribal allegiance is socially important but not a clinching factor in wielding power in the national arena, though Gaddafi has lavished largesse in certain areas, particularly in his home town of Sirte and in the south around Sebha. Some say he could make a last stand in either place.

The NTC's biggest and most immediate need is cash. So far, thanks partly to the generosity of Kuwait and Qatar, it has paid civil servants their monthly salary and subsidised imports of basic food.

Ceasefires hitherto declared by the colonel have so far failed to take effect. The ICC warrant will make it harder for him to flee. Some supporters of the NTC hope he will eventually be put on trial after his regime collapses from within.

Obama Struggles To Be Heard In Arab Ferment

By Alistair Lyon    
This commentary was published in The Kuwait Times on 22/05/2011

In an Arab world engulfed in political tumult and, in many cases, economic distress, US President Barack Obama's words can seem lofty, but limp. "By the time we found (Osama) bin Laden, Al-Qaeda's agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands," Obama declared. Many Arabs might feel a US agenda that for decades took little account of their own aspirations was also a cul de sac. The United States, as Obama acknowledged in his speech on the Middle East and North Africa, did not initiate the popular unrest sweeping the region, and its response has wavered.

The fall of entrenched leaders in Egypt and Tunisia this year, and challenges to others in Syria, Yemen, Libya and Bahrain, have upset a status quo in which perceived US national interests often outweighed declared democratic ideals. Obama delivered a ringing pro-democracy speech in Cairo two years ago, but then lost credibility with many Arabs by continuing to back their autocratic rulers, while pursuing longstanding US efforts to protect Israel, thwart Iran's nuclear drive, combat terrorism and secure oil supplies.

Now he wants to get ahead of the curve - but perhaps not too far, Thursday's carefully calibrated address suggests. The United States, he promised, would uphold its familiar policies, "with the firm belief that America's interests are not hostile to people's hopes", but would also change tack by speaking to "the broader aspirations of ordinary people". Such words should be music to the ears of many Arabs desperate to get rid of rulers who have denied them freedom and dignity, while enriching themselves and their cronies.

Yet past experience of US policy in the Middle East, along with Obama's difficulties in wrenching it into new directions, has nurtured scepticism that things will change now. "Obama says US core interests align with Arab hopes. Well, why didn't they align for five decades?" tweeted Shadi Hamid, director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. The turmoil of the "Arab spring", which threatens to unseat America's friends and foes alike, has exposed inconsistencies not just in the policies of the United States and its European allies, but also those of Iran and any number of Arab countries.

Obama, while berating Iran's intolerance of dissent at home, sought to stifle charges of hypocrisy by acknowledging that US allies such as Yemen and Bahrain had also repressed protesters. He called on Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, once viewed as an important ally against Al-Qaeda, to transfer power, but urged the rulers of Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet, only to free jailed opposition leaders and hold a dialogue. And he skipped any mention of oil giant Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy which outlaws all public dissent and which sent troops to help crush the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain.

On Syria, Obama suggested that President Bashar Al-Assad, who has used tanks, gunfire and mass arrests to smash opponents of his 11-year rule, could yet lead a "transition to democracy". This looks implausible. Obama may further harden his line on Assad after imposing sanctions on him and his aides this week. His hesitancy to demand the Syrian leader's exit may reflect the worries of US allies nearby about chaos if Assad goes.

Jon Alterman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Syria's neighbours - which include Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey - wanted to see "evolution rather than revolution" there, unlike in Libya, scene of a NATO military intervention. "The neighbours of Libya would very much like to see Muammar Gaddafi gone," he said.

Arabs, always quick to pounce on double standards, at least the Western variety, will also question Obama's stated sympathy for Arabs who seek freedom, recalling decades of US acquiescence in Israel's grip on Palestinians under occupation. Obama's failure to make Israel comply with his earlier demand for a halt to West Bank settlement building perhaps inflicted the worst damage to his credibility in Arab eyes. Few believe Obama has the power to broker peace, even if he has now stated openly the principle underpinning years of US diplomacy -that an Israeli-Palestinian deal must be based on the borders prior to the 1967 war, with agreed land swaps.

More broadly, the spontaneous Arab revolts and the confusion they appear to have created in Washington have pointed up the limits to the power of America, trying to extricate its military from Iraq, and still painfully embroiled in Afghanistan. "I don't get why anyone is listening to Obama's speech," Amira Khalil, a 23-year-old graduate of the American University in Cairo, wrote on Facebook. "It's obvious that this one man alone has no control or significance in the Middle East." - Reuters

Arab Spring, Al-Qaeda Are Incompatibe

By Musa Keilani

This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 22/05/2011

 

There is no compatibility between the unrest in Arab countries and the kind of “jihadist revolution” advocated by groups like Al Qaeda. If anything, they are at odds with each other.

Jordanians were the first in the Arab world to have a brave confrontation with Al Qaeda, which led the Kingdom to pay the heaviest price among all Arabs.

There is no room for democracy in Al Qaeda “ideology”, whereas those waging anti-regime revolts are seeking democracy.

The rebellions in Tunisia and Egypt toppled longtime autocratic regimes centred around individuals rather than political thought. The same thing is happening in Libya, Yemen and Syria.

If groups like Al Qaeda had any credible role in the Arab unrest, we would have seen a massive wave of suicide attacks and roadside bombings that would have killed thousands without discrimination.

Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi’s regime continues to claim that the rebellion in the country is waged by Al Qaeda and its “drugged” followers. There is little truth in that claim, which originated in Qadhafi’s bid to secure some form of Western sympathy by portraying himself as fighting alongside the West against “terrorism”. There could be a handful of Al Qaeda sympathisers among the Libyan rebel ranks, but that is sheer coincidence and they are in no position whatsoever to direct the revolt.

In Yemen, there is indeed a strong Al Qaeda presence and the group is fighting a separate war on the regime that has nothing to do with the quest for democracy by the masses. Al Qaeda does not have what it takes to take over control of the revolt in terms of popular support. All it could hope for is to establish pockets of control in some areas that could be overrun anyway in a determined military push.

The country’s ruler, Ali Abdullah Saleh, is allowing Al Qaeda to continue its activities in order to keep the US worried that his downfall would mean the group’s emergence as a stronger threat to the West.

In Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood is playing a key role in organising the protests against President Bashar Assad, but the Brotherhood is not Al Qaeda.

The movement has seen the possibility of gaining power through the ballot box and wants to be part of democratic systems that they hope to dominate in the future if not now. This is well pronounced in the posture adopted by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the post-Mubarak era. Al Qaeda will never be able to forge an alliance with the Brotherhood.

The bottom line is: Al Qaeda could have scored some success in gaining support if there were no popular unrest in the countries which were and are hit by anti-regime rebellions. It was betting on the frustration and desperation of the young generation over the denial of social justice and the perpetuation of power of autocratic regimes.

The situation has dramatically changed now. Having witnessed the ongoing anti-regime rebellions, Arab youths are now aware that their future is in their hands. They have sensed that they could bring about changes by themselves, through people power, rather than the suicide vests or roadside bombs handed down to them by Al Qaeda. They are driven by concerns over poverty, corruption, unemployment and the self-centred policies of their regimes, rather than the kind of doctrines propagated by groups like Al Qaeda, which was caught off guard by the rebellions.

Against that backdrop, Osama Ben Laden was making a desperate appeal when he paid tribute to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and called on Muslims to take advantage of a “rare historic opportunity” to rise up.

We are told that Ben Laden, who was killed in a US commando raid in his Pakistan hideout early this month, had prepared an audio tape with a message before his death.

In the message, posted on militant websites byAl Qaeda’s media arm Al Sahab, Ben Laden calls for establishing a council to offer “revolutionary” advice and decide the best timing to spread revolt across the Muslim world.

“A delay may cause the opportunity to be lost, and carrying it out before the right time will increase the number of casualties,” says the message.

“I think that the winds of change will blow over the entire Muslim world, with permission from Allah,” it went on.

There is a surrealistic element to the message.

“There is a serious crossroads before you, and a great and rare historic opportunity to rise with the Ummah and to free yourselves from servitude to the desires of the rulers, man-made law, and Western dominance,” it says.

“It is a great sin and immense ignorance to waste this opportunity that was awaited by the Ummah for long decades. So, take advantage of it and destroy the idols, and establish justice and faith.”

Some might see it as anoble objective, given the suffering of tens of millions under the rule of autocratic regimes around the world, whose first and foremost priority is their own survival rather than the welfare of their people.

However, Al Qaeda is kidding itself if it hopes that this message would galvanise Muslims around the world to embrace its ideology and doctrines.

The fact is that Al Qaeda and like-minded groups have lost their relevance. Muslim masses are seeing through their desperate efforts to survive by exploiting religious sentiments. There might indeed be a tiny minority of misguided people and others with their own agendas continuing to stoke the dying ambers. They must be feeling cornered and deprived of their raison d’être in the wave of Arab unrest, but they could be dangerous because of their desperation. We need to be alert always.

The Right To Film

By Diana Mukkaled
This commentary was published in Asharq al-awsat on 21/05/2011

There are those in Syria who have decided to leak footage that shows the brutal torture of Syrian adults and children.

I'm not speaking here of the footage of demonstrators being shot at and killed, but images and footage taken by camera phones which clearly depict individuals being tortured. This footage, in most cases, is filmed by those actually carrying out this torture, and later uploaded onto the internet.

Since the beginning of the Syrian protests, pictures and videos of youth being brutally beaten and tortured have emerged. This includes a video of a young boy, no older than 12 years old, who was humiliated by being forced to kiss the feet his tormentor, who did not even bother to acknowledge the young boy's tears. We also saw leaked images of shackled demonstrators lying helplessly on the ground whilst they were stepped on and beaten by security officers. Others images showed two security figures dressed in black beating and mocking an already injured detainee.

What all such images and footage have in common is that somebody decided to leak them so that the entire world could watch them. We have previously seen similar footage in Libya showing the torture and humiliation of opposition figures at the hands of Muammar Gaddafi's men. In Bahrain, we viewed similarly bloody images. However the paradox is that in Syria this violence is directed at children, particularly young boys, and that such footage and images are continually and intentionally being leaked.

These photos and footage was not shot by amateurs or adventurers who took them from afar, rather they were shot by the individuals who were committing these atrocities, and who later posted them on the internet. Was the intention of filming, and indeed leaking, these scenes of torture to cause the people to fear and dread the authorities?

Our modern history is full of images of this kind, Saddam Hussein's palaces were full of images and footage [of torture] that no heart or mind could endure, whilst the Al Qaeda in Iraq group filmed unimaginable images of slaughter. Today, the images of torture that are coming out of Syria raise more questions about the reality of what is happening there, amidst the media blackout and government censorship.

The footage [of torture] that we have seen coming out of Syria does not suggest that we are looking at the actions of a few [psychologically] sick individuals, but rather that those committing this violence seem enthusiastic about what they are doing. It is common knowledge that the culture of violence in our region is as old as life itself. In fact, regimes, government organizations, and political parties are all involved in such violence, as they all buy into the idea that force or violence is the first and most prominent governmental tool. As for the images of torture coming out of Syria, political activists close to the Syrian regime have dismissed these, claiming that they are fakes.

Media figures who met with these political activists asked them why the Syrian authorities are preventing the media from covering the reality of the situation on the ground. The official Syrian response to such questions is even more unconvincing, with the activists saying that the Syrian government is entitled to allow or prevent filming. In fact, the Syrian reply lends credibility to such images [of torture], and their attempts to escape condemnation will not be successful unless independent - not pro-government - cameras have access to the Syrian scene.