The Blame Between Rabat And Algiers

By Mohammad el-Ashab
This commentary was published in al-Hayat on 05/06/2011

Opening the closed borders between Morocco and Algeria was out of the question and its persistence all this time was unacceptable. However, the repercussions of the disputes between the two neighbors reached an extent where no distinction could still be made on whether the damages are harming the populations or whether their fragments are affecting the regimes. The border strip has always represented the symbol of agreement or estrangement. Indeed, it is a source of agreement and of quarrel.

This is a new phase of mutual blame. The statements of Algerian Prime Minister Ahmad Ouyahia and the reactions of the Moroccan Ministry of Foreign Affairs were needless, since the crisis was always there with or without the presence of a difference in opinions. The major headlines were quite obvious, as blame is accepted when the relationships are normal but becomes worthless when the situation is already deteriorating. It might also have no justification at all except that the two neighboring countries will be participating in a soccer game that almost resembles an emotion-packed confrontation.

Concerning the timing, Rabat and Algiers had come up with an opening up plan including the exchange of governmental visits in the economic and commercial sectors. Indeed, it seemed that economy could achieve what politics had failed to. However, the quick return to square one means that the crisis is too large to contain; or that it requires a high level of political management so that it is able to cancel out the other mutual critics.

This did not take place because the two countries had several diplomatic confrontations, the latest of which being that the Manhasset negotiations around the desert impose themselves from the angle of their reflection on some Moroccan-Algerian agreement that could push in the direction of progress; or from the angle of the continuation of the crisis. Everyone knows that without a positive normalization in the relations of the two countries, the obstacles of this crisis cannot be overcome.

This confrontation was perhaps the reason for canceling out the efforts that were made with the aim of achieving détente. And in order to prevent the impression that the process has been forcefully shoved into a less optimistic direction, media leaks were used that exposed the implication of Algeria in supporting the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, although no official Moroccan side had alluded to this implication.

Algeria has the right to correct its image when it comes to this issue. However, this does not justify making accusations against Morocco, or returning to square one since the most important issues imply that the two countries must forget about their differences; and start implementing the steps for building trust; and tackle the essential issues that touch on the Maghreb structure; mend the gap; coordinate the positions concerning war against terrorism; and set an agenda for democratic reforms based on the sound of the windy changes of the Arab Spring.

Algerians are perhaps the staunchest believers in the concept that dialogue between countries cannot take place through TV channels and the media, but rather through the enhancement of diplomatic channels and through the strengthening of the qualifications. Their sensitivity towards everything done – and even not done – by Morocco is increasing to the extent that they are calling for a calm dialogue via the viable mechanisms. Is Morocco exerting pressure when it commits to the politics of the extended hand in order to re-open the borders? And is Algeria doing the same when it links this to personal givens?

It is neither this nor that. The reasons for proceeding with the closing of the borders have ended years ago, mainly since the time when the two countries decided to cancel out the visa system for both Moroccans and Algerians. This was an encouraging sign at least in order to end the state of cautiousness concerning the reasons behind the hasty decisions made by both sides.

It is important to foresee the path of the relationships between the two countries. The positive thing is that they have renewed the treaty for the borders demarcation and good-neighborliness. They even constituted the bandwagon that led the building of the Maghreb structure. This has taken place while the issue of the desert was still pending. So is there any reason that prevents the re-attempts at achieving [an agreement]? It is perhaps better for both countries to commit to more cooperation with the United Nations in order to end the dispute. Indeed, there is no harm in launching this cooperation by looking into ways to enhance the opportunities of security, weapons, and stability in the entire Maghreb region.

The Yemeni President After The Audio Recording

By Tariq Alhomayed 
This commentary was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 06/06/2011

Last Monday, a week ago exactly, I wrote an article entitled 'The Yemeni President before the audio recording.' Today we are entering the post-audio recording stage as President Ali Abdullah Saleh was subjected to an assassination attempt which he escaped miraculously and after which he left Yemen for Saudi Arabia for medical treatment. So was this Saleh's final exit?

All possibilities are viable; perhaps Saleh's departure to Saudi Arabia to receive medical treatment is the beginning of a breakthrough for the Yemeni crisis or perhaps it will cause the crisis to escalate further especially as violent clashes have broken out in Sanaa. The attack on the Yemeni president in the mosque of the presidential palace during Friday prayers tells us a great deal; firstly it means that there is, without doubt, a rift among security circles close to the president as it was evident that the operation against Saleh was very meticulous with regards to timing and location i.e. the rows in which President Saleh and other leading figures were standing.

Secondly, all of that means that Saleh's rule has practically come to an end because as long as the presidential palace is being shelled and government buildings are being occupied – not to mention the ongoing demonstrations that have continued for months now – how much legitimacy does the ruling regime in Yemen have left? Therefore, with the departure of President Saleh to receive medical treatment in Saudi Arabia, Yemen may have entered a new, critical phase that will either represent a breakthrough or the moment of explosion that everybody feared.

Today, it is expected that matters will be settled in Sanaa by occupying the presidential palace and declaring the end of Saleh's rule officially, especially as divisions have appeared among his men following the assassination attempt on his life, or we will see an outbreak of clashes over power in Yemen, and only God knows what the repercussions of this would be. This is where the danger lies and this is what we hope will not happen.

There could be a third possibility; perhaps the departure of President Saleh from Sanaa to receive medical treatment in Saudi Arabia is just a step that has been taken after which Saleh will announce that he is renouncing power for medical reasons and that he is handing over power to one of the government figures close to him. These are all just possibilities of course but what is certain is that we are now facing a real turning point in the course of events; it might be the beginning of the end or we might be dealing with the opening of the gates of hell in Yemen, God forbid. What is also certain today is that we are facing the departure of a third Arab president after he released an audio recording like Gaddafi and Mubarak and Saddam Hussein before them and it is unfortunate when the situation for presidents reaches this stage, as it would have been more appropriate to prevent bloodshed and avoid the destruction one's nation. The departure of the third Arab president also means that we are facing a decisive stage that could change the level of tension in the region; if a peaceful transition of power is achieved in Yemen, and Gaddafi is deposed in Libya, which is now imminent, then there is no doubt that the time will come for Syria's Assad regime.

Therefore it seems that the Yemeni recording will be the most influential in the Arab political market in the region just like a best-selling record!

Saleh Is Gone. What Next For Yemen?

The Yemeni president's departure for medical treatment has created an opportunity to resolve Yemen's political crisis 

By Brian Whitaker
This commentary was published in The Guardian on 05/06/2011

Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh giving an address to pro-government supporters in Sanaa on 20 May. Photograph: Ammar Awad/REUTERS

With the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh for medical treatment in Saudi Arabia, Yemenis now have a chance to resolve the political crisis that has bedevilled the country since February.

Contrary to the official story that he merely suffered scratches and/or a slight head wound in the explosion on Friday, latest reports say he has second-degree burns to his face and chest, plus a piece of shrapnel lodged near his heart which is affecting his breathing – though Saleh, who is 69, is said to have been able to walk from the plane when he landed in Riyadh.

A second plane followed him, reportedly carrying 24 members of his family. This is one indication that to all intents and purposes the Saleh era is finished. He is unlikely ever to return to Yemen as president – and the Saudis and Americans will be working behind the scenes to ensure that he doesn't.

It's also worth mentioning that others injured by the explosion include the prime minister, deputy prime minister, the heads of both houses of parliament and the governor of Sana'a, the capital. Some of them have also been flown to Saudi Arabia for treatment. One of Saleh's nephews, the commander of the special forces, is said to have been killed. So, even discounting Saleh himself, what's left of his regime is in serious disarray.

Given the desperate plight that Yemen is in, this offers the best prospect of a way forward for the country (as I suggested in an article on Friday). There is now a fair chance that the armed conflict will subside. It's by no means certain – and Yemen is never totally conflict-free – but the prospects for relative calm are a lot better now than they would have been if Saleh remained in Sana'a battling to cling on to power.

Secondly, work can begin on the political transition, drawing on some elements from the plan negotiated earlier by the Gulf Cooperation Council – the one that Saleh, after agreeing to it verbally, refused at the last minute to sign.

Apart from the lack of a signature from Saleh, there were two major problems with the plan which made it look unworkable at the time, though both of them are now somewhat academic.

One was that parliament had to grant Saleh immunity from prosecution before he would budge. This condition had been grudgingly accepted by Yemen's official opposition parties, though the protesters on the streets, together with international human rights organisations, found it abhorrent. With Saleh now out of the country, it need no longer be a bone of contention.

The second major hurdle in the GCC's plan was that it envisaged a prolonged resignation/transition period. After being granted immunity, Saleh would tender his resignation to parliament – though the parliament, where Saleh's party has an overwhelming majority, had the power to reject it unless he submitted his resignation for a second time. Meanwhile, the plan envisaged that Saleh would continue in office, working with a new transitional government that included opposition parties.

Anyone familiar with Saleh's usual modus operandi could see that this would not work. He would use every means at his disposal to sabotage its implementation, and the plan itself allowed plenty of scope for him to do so.

Despite that, the broad aim of the GCC plan – to form a government of national unity and prepare for elections – was (and is) the only practicable way forward in the circumstances, especially in the light on international concerns about Yemen's instability. It is far from ideal, because even the recognised opposition politicians have been around for years, some of them are as corrupt as Saleh's chums, and they are mostly devoid of new ideas for tackling the country's multifarious problems.

The hope then, is that this will indeed be a short-term transition and that elections will eventually bring in some new blood that reflects the aspirations of the millions of Yemenis who have risked their lives for so long protesting on the streets.

So far, constitutional procedures seem to be taking their course, and it is to be hoped that Saleh's kinsman, Ali Muhsen al-Ahmar, and the powerful tribal leaders will allow that to happen by staying on the sidelines.

Vice-president Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi, a Saleh appointee and a former military man from the south who is something of a nonentity, has temporarily taken charge as required by the constitution. As a next step, he should form a new government from across the political spectrum. Obviously Hadi's position is precarious in the light of the recent turmoil but for the time being at least he can count on international support – most importantly, from the US and Saudi Arabia.

The constitution specifies that presidential elections must be held within 60 days after Saleh resigns. Yemen is probably not ready for elections just yet but, since he is already out of the way, there is no immediate need for Saleh to formally resign.

It's certainly not going to be an easy ride and there's an awful lot that could still go wrong. But Saleh's departure for Riyadh does create an opportunity for a solution and Yemenis, together with their friends abroad, must seize the moment.

Kuwait: MPs ‘Playing’ With Emotions

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah 
This commentary was published in The Arab Times on 05/06/2011 

The situation in Kuwait has been deteriorating and it might remain this way for a long time if some lawmakers continue to disagree with the prime minister and his ministers, while trying to outdo each other in filing grilling requests without any concern for national interests.

A fierce opponent does not accept the truth. Luckily, the law stipulates a suitable solution for this type of enmity and antagonism to protect the victim from evil and preserve his rights. The solution is to file lawsuits against those who present legal challenges.

In the sea of parliamentary interpellations submitted by some lawmakers, we are facing an archenemy, because the presenters of the grilling motions have not given the government a chance at all. Several grilling motions were filed against HH the Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser Mohammad Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah and his ministers right after the oath-taking of the new government.

Considering that the National Assembly is the proper place for political prosecution, in which judgments are passed through constitutional tools, it is pertinent to point out that all the previous rulings were in favor of the prime minister. The verdict of innocence was delivered when a majority in the Parliament supported him. Despite this, the troublesome lawmakers rejected the declarations of innocence and continued with their enmity, up to the extent of taking to the streets after their failure inside the Abdullah Al-Salem Hall.

What we have today is a minority dictatorship that wants to impose its political ideas and demands on others, using unnecessary noise as its weapon. The members of this group will exhaust all means to serve their personal interests. This is the level of their political bankruptcy and bewilderment. They have not hesitated in using even children, whom they pushed towards the shameful protests, carrying placards to demand the ouster of the prime minister.

No one in his right mind will use children who should have been concentrating on their studies, not the street protests, except the people with absurd political objectives. These children may not even know who is Sheikh Nasser or MP Musallam Al-Barrak. They might not even understand the meaning of the Constitution, or the fact that Kuwait is an independent nation ruled by HH the Amir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah. The quarrelsome group used the children to implement its selfish agendas, as if it was betting on a confrontation with the security forces and praying that it leads to the killing or harming of a child to replicate the incidents in some Arab nations. However, they were disappointed when things did not happen as they have expected.

It is still possible for these lawmakers to save their efforts and time. Without taking to the streets under this hot and dusty weather, they can say whatever they wish. No one would have disturbed them because the margin of freedom in Kuwait is greater than what they could imagine. They can express their opinions through a number of channels — the television, local dailies, and the National Assembly which, by the way, is the right venue for them to discuss issues with cool heads. This is the place where they will not have to go through the pains of playing with people’s emotions or disturbing the streets. Here, they don’t have to distort facts or use crises to blame the parliamentary majority for the misdeeds of the minority!

On the saying that there is an opportunity in every difficulty, the chaos instigated by these people has a positive side — they lose their supporters and weaken their mobilizing power every time they try to spread enmity. Their political ideologies, which are far from the ideals of the society, are feeble. In the near future, we will not see anyone but these lawmakers in the protest actions, because even their secretaries would have deserted them by then!

Ahmed Al-Jarallah is the Editor-In-Chief of The Arab Times and the Arabic Daily Assyassah

Encouraging European Move

By Musa Keilani
This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 05/06/2011 

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe suggested on Thursday that his country could host a Middle East peace conference before the end of July to help relaunch stalled negotiations.

But the Arabs still believe in what President Barack Obama said in his Cairo speech, which is that he is committed to a fair and just solution to the Palestinian cause. He expressed his commitment as part of turning a new page of friendship with the Arabs. But the United States is acting like a cook dominating the kitchen but not really cooking. The worst part is that it would not agree to leave the kitchen and allow anyone else to cook either.

That is precisely what is happening in the Middle East. The US is not willing to cook, or it is unable to cook because of domestic imperatives - the impact of AIPAC on the 2012 elections and other reasons.

Washington, in its current geopolitical coordinates, cannot find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it would not allow anyone else, Europe, for instance, to assume a higher profile by finding one.

For their part, the Europeans believe their long association with the Middle East makes them better qualified to address the Arab-Israeli conflict. They resent the fact that they are shut out of the effort to solve the conflict, if only because the US wants to protect its “strategic” partner in the Middle East.

We have known this for a long time, of course. Since the launch of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations in late 1991, at an international conference in Madrid, the Europeans have been trying to assume a stronger role in the process. However, the US kept them at arm’s length and moved in swiftly to cut off any European country seen to make an effort for an influential role in Arab-Israeli peace making.

At the same time, the US always wanted the Europeans (and Japan) to bankroll whatever agreements were signed between Israelis and Palestinians, starting with the 1993 interim Oslo accord and agreements that were associated with it.

Naturally, the Europeans were angry, and are still upset, that they have been continually denied a higher profile role in Middle East peace making.

Two months ago, Washington shut out a European Union initiative that would have had the international Quartet issue the basis for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in order to encourage the two sides to resume negotiations. No, said Washington, there is no need for such an initiative since Obama was working on a new strategy for peace in the Middle East. But we heard no such strategy in his famous address on television or comments to the media after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or his speech before the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee last month.

Of course, he did make it clear that the US position is that the frontlines that Israel held at the time of the 1967 war should be the starting point for peace negotiations and that an agreement should of course be subject to negotiated territorial exchange.

Welcome as it is, the reaffirmation did not offer any strategy for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (not to mention that Netanyahu rejected the reference to the 1967 lines and went on to berate Obama for referring to those borders). And now Washington is non-committal or even indifferent to a French initiative.

Juppe described the current stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians as “untenable” and said France was willing to turn a July meeting of international donors into a broader peace conference. He affirmed that the French initiative is based on Obama’s speech last month referring to the 1967 borders. But the main difference, according to Juppe, is that while Obama stressed Israel’s security, France is interested in “security for both states”.

The French proposal requires both sides to resolve the two issues of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees within a year. Washington is not exactly impressed by the French idea.

“The ultimate goal is to get them (Israelis and Palestinians) back to the negotiating table,” State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner told reporters when asked if there was room for a French initiative.

“And we’re looking at a variety of ways to do that,” Toner said.

Still, without directly naming the French proposal, Toner said: “I am not necessarily dismissing it.”

Well, Toner overlooked something with his reference to “the ultimate goal”. The ultimate goal, as we understand it, is to have a fair and just peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians and thereafter between Israel and the broader Arab world.

Toner’s comments are not dismissing the French initiative but rather picking up from it and exploring possibilities of resuming peace talks.

The US is protecting Israeli interests by keeping Europe, and indeed Russia, as far away as possible from the “peace process” that Washington insists still exists in the Middle East. It knows well that without direct American protection Israel would come under immense pressure from the Europeans to meet the minimum requirements for peace, which Israel is not willing to meet.

The problem with the Palestinians is that they are still tied down by a feeling that the US will do what it takes to finalise a peace agreement when the time comes. That is a misguided belief. If anything, the Palestinians would find themselves under heavy American pressure to accept whatever Israel is willing to offer them in a “final” agreement that would be offered to them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

One positive fallout of the apparent US rejection of European ideas for peace is that it might encourage some European countries to take a more independent position, which could manifest itself by recognising the state of Palestine when the Palestinian leadership finds it fit to declare it in September 2011 at the United Nations session.

'Are We On The Same Playing Field In Saudi Arabia?'

Tariq A. Al Maeena writes: It is unfortunate that years pass by and yet Saudis remain mired in something as unresolved as allowing women to drive
This commentary was published in The Gulf News 

Speaker of the Saudi Shura Council Abdullah Al Shaikh stated on Thursday that the council was ready to discuss the issue of women driving if it was asked to. He claimed that "the issue has not so far been tabled with the council for discussion".

This issue has become the subject of wide public debate following the recent arrest and detention for 10 days of Saudi Manal Al Sharif, when she drove her car openly.

Al Shaikh, in elaborating on the process of tabling issues before the council, said that a proposal must either come from the government, or at least one member of the council or when the council itself expressed a desire to deliberate a certain issue.

Noted Saudi thinker and activist Abdullah Al Alami countered Al Shaikh's statements by saying that the council was formally asked to discuss the issue in a letter sent by express mail to the council back in February of this year. The request was endorsed by a former ambassador, a former undersecretary to the UN secretary-general, a deputy CEO of a big company in the Eastern Province and a prominent member of the National Society for Human Rights. The petition also included a sizeable number of academics, literary figures, media professionals, businessmen and women, housewives, students and government employees.

According to Al Alami, the Shura Council had set up a committee meeting with a delegation from the petitioners for March 15 of this year, but the meeting was cancelled hours prior to the event without any explanation.

"While we appreciate the council's efforts to consider the issues of society, we urge it to review the project that we have submitted to it, which contains the advantages of allowing women to drive cars and the negative effects resulting from the presence of a large number of foreign drivers socially and economically as well as from a security point of view," he said.

Understandably, Al Alami can be forgiven if he is surprised by the Shura Council speaker's statements. But then let's try to understand why the Shura Council would need outside intervention in this issue, when one of their own for many years was trying to table the issue of women driving and was continuously overruled.

Back in 2006, Shura Council member Mohammad Al Zulfi had repeatedly led calls in the consultative council for the issue to be tabled and to take action. He claimed that he was surrounded and intimidated by angry Islamists at one of the recent debates because of his opinions. In a statement to the press at the time, Al Zulfi stated, "I told them the Quran and the Sunnah do not prevent it, and not allowing women to drive creates more social problems than preventing them. The paroxysms of anger these people go into don't help the matter. They are a minority who are very loud, and they are tense now because of the open atmosphere for debate."

Were these debates not recorded? If indeed the Shura Council speaker claims that this issue has not reached the council yet, then are Al Alami and Al Zulfi and others like them blowing smoke? Or are they in the same ball-park?

Minister's support

In the same year, the then Saudi Minister of Information, Eyad Madani, encouraged women to lobby traffic departments, saying there was no formal legal ban. Speaking before an economic forum, he told the women audience to go ahead and apply for their driving licences. Such a call from a reformer and one with a seat on the Council of Ministers was seen as an encouraging signal for the Shura Council to table the motion and work on it. And yet that did not happen.

At the time, several Islamic scholars claimed that driving was a "physical activity that conflicted with women's divinely ordained role as homemakers and that freedom to drive could lead to illicit relations with men". The Interior Ministry, the body entrusted with issuing driving licences, refused to issue women drivers with the permit.

A lot of change in thinking has taken place since then. It has gradually dawned on many minds in these preceding years that religion had nothing to do with the ban. Mohammad Abdul Latif Al Shaikh, a Saudi scholar, said that the ball was now in the court of the political leadership since the issue was political rather than religious. "Islamic teachings, which did not prevent women from mounting camels and horses, would not forbid them from driving cars," he wrote, adding his astonishment as to why a decision had not been taken on the issue so far and said it was something society was more prepared to accept than ever.

It is unfortunate for half the Saudi population that years pass by, and yet we remain mired in something as unresolved as allowing women to drive, leaving me to wonder if our legislative body, the Shura Council, is on the same team and on the same field as the rest of us.

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

Betting On Bahrain

By Adel Al-Toraifi 
This commentary was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 04/06/2011

Bahrain has experienced an unprecedented political crisis, and has now overcome the worst of it. However, it has not yet recovered from the impact of what has happened. This small, historically and economically distinguished state, which used to serve as a model of social co-existence, suddenly found itself in an ocean of vehement popular uprisings, which took many Middle Eastern countries by storm. In Bahrain, the social and sectarian balance exceeded the limits of moderation, resulting in national security being threatened, and laws being violated. Consequently the Gulf Peninsula Shield force intervened, and Bahraini authorities wisely and firmly managed to dispel popular fears and reinstate order and security, after turbulent days of politicized demonstrations.

For those who live in the Arab Gulf, the reality was quite clear. A very minor group wanted to capitalize on the situation and involve Bahrain in a larger regional conflict, but the attempt was foiled and ultimately contained. Nevertheless, the foreign media and the "Cultural Leftists", who are active on social networking sites, believed their peers in Bahrain were raising slogans of "freedom" and (constitutionally) legitimate political demands, thus they quickly regarded the incident as a violation of the freedom of expression. The Western press, in particular, leveled all kinds of accusations and allegations at the regime, with the intention of portraying the Bahraini situation as something it wasn’t. In reality, it was a political and sectarian collision between the social components of a state with civil institutions, a constitution, parliamentary elections, and a marked pattern of development.

Suddenly Bahrain was tarred with the same brush as other countries which bear no resemblance. Some demanded that Bahrain be dealt with like other countries such as Libya and Syria, which have no balance of orthodox rule, parliamentary elections, or civil institutions.

The flawed vision of Bahrain is fundamentally ideological in origin. Those who renounced the Bahraini model did so in accordance with "neo-liberal" slogans, which do not exist in Bahrain or any other Arab country in the region. Take for example some American and European journalists and researchers, who heaped criticism upon the Bahraini crisis, and incorrectly described it according to their academic and professional standards. Those journalists and researchers ignored the factional, sectarian and regional sides of the dispute. So how can we associate Bahrain with other countries lacking the minimal means of political participation?

For example, President Obama's policy toward Bahrain is an obvious model of political fallacy. Obama, who in his inauguration speech said that America would not interfere in the way others handle their political affairs, elaborated on the Bahraini crisis in his latest speech on the Middle East. Here he compared it to what is happening in countries like Libya, Syria and Yemen, and ended his address by demanding that the region's regimes either "reform or leave".

Perhaps the question that ought to be put to the US administration is this: Do American values - which are said to identify with the demands of our region's people - actually correspond with the Middle East?

The problem for some Western politicians and intellectuals is that they are under the illusion that a democratic-liberal change is sweeping across the region, in a manner similar to the Western model. Here they are thinking of how history will judge them. But the truth is that the Middle East is not going through a democratic transformation, as such observers imagine. Instead, the region is experiencing a storm of popular uprisings which have spread in a "domino effect" for economic, political, social and religious reasons. These uprisings will not necessarily lead to democratic or liberal reforms, as others misconceive.

Unfortunately, Bahrain became a victim of Iran's propaganda and the West's misunderstanding. Nevertheless, it might be the only model capable of correcting the popular misconceptions, and guiding the rest of the region's countries toward reform. The problem with the US administration is that it assumes that reform can universally be enacted in the "Anglo-Saxon /enlightenment" style, regardless of differences between countries in terms of social heritage and history. However, the US administration and those following in its footsteps have missed the fact that encouraging wild popular uprisings can only produce unruly populist regimes, which are more concerned with exploitation, unrest and narrow partisan gains, rather than bringing about reform and improving conditions.

How can the West call upon a regime, regardless of its nature, to introduce reforms, whilst lodging the ugliest of allegations against it and inciting its citizens to protest and demonstrate without restraint?

Can anyone in Washington, London or Paris cut off the streets, destabilize security, and turn hospitals into sectarian or partisan headquarters, outside the framework of the state and the law? We saw how Britain dealt with the protests that were staged in March this year. The authorities arrested more than 214 people in one day on suspicion of vandalism and law-breaking. So how can the West permit or condone acts of sabotage in countries like Bahrain, which has an elected parliament and civil constitution?

Some argue that revolutions - despite their violence and chaos – are necessary to bring about a better ruling system. However, throughout history, it has been proven that revolutions carried out against stable regimes, already working towards reform, ultimately lead to more extreme ruling systems that are less concerned with maintaining civil rights and preserving national security.

The current uprisings are not like the 1848 revolution in Western Europe, or the 1989 revolution in Eastern Europe. The Middle Eastern uprisings broke out across a region that was being rocked to its foundations by extremist religious ideologies and fanatic pan-national chauvinism. Perhaps the most conclusive evidence of this was the gradual collapse of the peace process, the necessity of which the Americans and Europeans had long been stressing, in the face of extremist views advocating confrontation.

It goes without saying that the region is experiencing a historic transition, but what some observers and commentators have not yet realized is that this process is likely to extend for decades, rather than a year or two, with no guarantees of producing better results in terms of democracy, good governance and economic prosperity.

The biggest indication that chaos reigns over the current period is the fact that the demand for improved economic conditions has now become a low priority on the revolutionary agenda. This demand was initially a key factor behind the popular uprisings, but all that is left now is the desire for revenge, and the rekindling of a revolutionary spirit which glorifies haughty principles and the punishment of others under the pretexts of suspicion and cleansing.

Subsequently, everyone's attention is now being directed to Bahrain. If this Gulf State manages to transcend the spirit of revenge and punishment and open the door to social and sectarian reconciliation, as well as serious political and economic reform, it could serve as a model for others.

There are voices in Bahrain demanding collective punishment, feeling extremely bitter about the recent events. Nevertheless, we are betting that Bahrain will emerge far better than what its enemies hope for; a Bahrain capable of effecting a historic national reconciliation, and rising above the recent incidents.

A Bahraini opposition leader recently issued a statement saying that "the majority has never once raised slogans calling for the end of the regime." Other statements were issued by notable Shiite and Sunni figures asserting their adherence to the governing legitimacy. Bahrainis might differ with each other about the steps and details of the reform project, however we must eventually acknowledge the necessity of securing national reconciliation and unifying internal stances, away from the extremists' agenda in Tehran.

The invitation extended by King Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa to hold a national dialogue early next month "without prior conditions" is the right move for Bahrain. Many hope that the wise in the Bahraini opposition will seize the opportunity to bring about national reconciliation, and steer Bahrain toward new reforms contributing to, and not hindering, the development of the country.

Today, we are placing a large bet on Bahrain. The achievement of any sincere and judicious reconciliation is bound to lay foundations for a successful civil State, which would serve as a model to all others seeking reform and development in their own countries.