Sudan Vote Makes Modern Arab History

By Rami G. Khouri
This commentary was published in the Daily Star on Wednesday, October 27, 2010

A remarkable development will take place in Sudan in January which strikes me as among the most significant in the modern history of the Arab world: referendums by which the people of Southern Sudan will determine if they wish to remain part of Sudan or secede and become an independent country. This is remarkable because it may be the only explicit and credible case of Arab people exercising the opportunity to define their country’s shape and its ideological orientation. Who knows whether the Southern Sudan referendums will trigger spillover effects in other parts of the Arab world, but it is obvious nevertheless that the structural stresses that have plagued Sudan and led to these referendums are not unique to that country.

Sudan and the rest of the modern Arab world continue to be the world’s only collectively and chronically non-democratic region in large part because of the flawed configuration of statehood. In various ways, we are still dealing with the consequences of the post-colonial manufacturing of modern Arab statehood at the hands of retreating European powers. They left behind a patchwork of independent Arab states that often did not coincide very neatly with the demographic, tribal, ethnic and other realities of the indigenous people who became the citizens of these new countries.

Sudan is a glaring example of Arab countries that should be wealthy and stable, but in fact remain wracked by internal ideological and ethnic strife, under-achievement, recurring autocracy, and large-scale violence. In Sudan’s case, this reached the point where the International Criminal Court last year indicted President Omar al-Bashir for genocide and war crimes. The structural problems of Arab countries that suffer chronic internal stress are obvious throughout the region. Among other glaring examples are Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Lebanon, where ethnic, sectarian and tribal differences among major constituent groups have led to, variously, recurring bouts of fighting, large-scale state repression and violence against its own citizens, or chronic fragmentation and instability.

These are the most glaring cases, but similar stresses plague almost every other Arab country, where tensions are often less anchored in ethnic or sectarian differences and more a consequence of the fact that many ordinary citizens do not feel that they have a stake or a say in how their government operates. The deeper problem – largely unspoken in a modern Arab world that prefers to hide its weaknesses under the rug – is that most of our countries were not defined or created by the collective will of their own citizenry. In other words, the people of the Arab world and its 22 member countries of the Arab League largely have not had the opportunity to exercise the right of self-determination that is a fundamental requirement of rational statehood, stable good governance, and sustained national development. We have independence and sovereignty, but no track record of collective self-determination.

The referendum in Southern Sudan and the parallel one in oil-rich Abyei governorate are a historic first in this context because they are the result of a negotiated agreement among the Sudanese central government and the southern provinces in question, and because they include the explicit question of whether the voters want to remain part of Sudan or become independent. Many structural and political problems remain to be resolved before the referendums in early January, and it is possible that the results will be messy and lead to renewed fighting. The significant thing is that citizens of an Arab state are exercising a rare opportunity to decide for themselves who they are and how they want to translate their collective identity into a configuration of sovereign statehood – a fundamental collective human right that has been determined for all Arabs in the past 100 years by European colonial powers or their own army officers who seize power and wield it without the hindrances of democracy, popular participation or political accountability.

The Arab world widely needs such processes that can translate into reality the basic need for human beings to feel that their voices are heard on such fundamental matters as the definition of statehood and the political ideology of the ruling government of the day. The modern Arab state has been transformed heavily into a security apparatus and a facilitator of shopping malls and real estate investments because the alternative route to national stability and sustained, equitable development – democratic participation and the consent of the governed – have never been attempted on a serious basis.

 

Sudan and the referendums in the south are potentially a historic development that could reverberate in other parts of the Arab world, where large ethnic minorities and ordinary citizens who form the majority alike can ask why they, too, do not have the chance to define their state, validate their governance systems, shape their national policies, and, most importantly, hold accountable those who wield power in their name.

US Should Admit Wrongdoing In Iraq

By LINDA HEARD | ARAB NEWS

This opinion published in Arab News on the 26/10/2010

 

ANYONE who has been following the shameful Iraq saga since the 2003 invasion knows that US forces sometimes crossed modern-day warfare’s red lines. There has been a wealth of anecdotal evidence to support claims against the invaders of abuse, torture and a lack of concern for civilian deaths; allegations that have mostly remained unproven. 

The Pentagon insisted that the horrors of Abu Ghraib was the work of a few bad apples and maintained there had been no body counts of Iraqi victims. But, now, thanks to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who, on Saturday, released 400,000 classified US military Iraq War logs written-up by American military personnel, there is absolute proof of the coalition’s disdain for international rules of war and the Geneva Conventions.

For a World War I country like the US, which leans on other countries to adopt its so-called moral values, the facts are shocking.

Between Jan. 1, 2004 and Dec. 31, 2009 there were 109,032 conflict fatalities, which exposes the “no Iraqi body count” assertion as an outright lie. Worse, over 60 percent of those fatalities were civilians. Some 700 civilians including pregnant women being transported to hospital to give birth, children and a number of mentally-ill individuals were gunned down at checkpoints.

Civilians whose lives were lost during US airstrikes hardly figure in the above statistics as pilots regularly logged “zero casualties” despite having released their bombs on heavily populated areas where it was believed insurgents might be hiding. For example, one F-15 bomb was recorded as having successfully hit a target in Fallujah but no casualties were mentioned. In reality, according to sources on the ground, there were eight victims of the blast including four women and two children.

The Iraq War logs also prove that the Pentagon ordered its personnel in Iraq not to investigate over 1,000 allegations of abuse by Iraqi soldiers, police and prison guards. The US knew that detainees were being tortured with whips, electric drills, electrodes and subjected to rape or sexual abuse. It was known that prisoners were hung on hooks attached to ceilings and beaten on the soles of their feet with cables, yet consciously did nothing to stop the torture and continued to hand over prisoners into Iraqi custody.
It’s one thing to feel that an occupying force has been particularly brutal and quite another to know for certain that its despicable actions were blessed by the highest political and military echelons as a matter of policy. It is clear that the Bush administration has much to answer for but it’s more than probable that its officials will never be held to account.

In the first place, George W. Bush made sure that the US military would not fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague by refusing to ratify the Rome statute. Moreover, the UN Security Council cannot refer American officials to ICC prosecutors without the agreement of the US which holds a power of veto.

More importantly, the current administration and the American people have little appetite to hang up their country’s dirty laundry. Within the US the WikiLeaks revelations made headlines for only one day and were hardly discussed in the right-wing media, which is more concerned with praising the Tea Party mob or bashing Obama.

Unfortunately, a large proportion of the American public possess an almost cultish reverence for their “nation’s finest” which leaves them with a blind spot when it comes to assessing their military’s moral record. They lap up feel good stories of troops handing out sweets to kids or soldiers bringing shipping home stray Iraqi dogs, who became heroes for sniffing out IEDs. But when it comes to hearing about soldiers turning their guns on Iraqi kids or helicopter squadrons like “Crazy Horse18” that killed two Reuter’s journalists and 10 Iraqi civilians including one child while laughing and joking, they would either prefer not to know or, quite simply, don’t really care.

The Obama administration is equally culpable. President Barack Obama who came out strongly against the invasion of Iraq represented himself as an ethical man who believed in fairness and justice during the early days of his presidency. Yet, until now, he has been deafeningly silent on the WikiLeaks expose while his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has chosen to shoot the messenger without any attempt to address the message, which she says endangers US troops and civilians.

Clinton has willfully missed the point. If Americans are, indeed, endangered it is because of the previous administration’s disgraceful policies that flouted international norms. Instead of condemning the leak she should censure Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, apologize to the Iraqi people and make financial reparations to the families of the 60,000 plus innocent victims.

UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak says the Obama administration has both a legal and moral obligation to investigate credible claims of its military’s complicity in torture as per UN human rights treaties and America’s obligations under international law. If the Obama team ignores Nowak’s reasonable demand, it is just as blameworthy for abuses committed in Iraq as Bush and Co.

Judging by the war logs, the hands of the British military aren’t exactly clean either and, like its US counterpart, Britain’s Ministry of Defense was quick to slam WikiLeaks for setting truth free. British soldiers are far more exposed to justice than their American comrades in arms because the UK is a signatory to the ICC and Britons who were overwhelmingly against the war are not imbued with the same reverence for their army as Americans.  There is a slew of lawyers preparing to pursue the perpetrators of abuse in British courts and many Britons would be delighted to see Tony Blair answering to judges in The Hague for his part in the debacle.

As embarrassing as the WikiLeaks revelations are, there is one British politician standing firmly for truth and justice. Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal-Democrat Party Nick Clegg who believes the invasion was “illegal” is calling for an investigation into claims that British troops covered-up the unlawful killing and abuse of Iraqi civilians.

“Anything that suggests basic rules of war, conflict and engagement have been broken or that torture has been in any way condoned are extremely serious and need to be looked at. People will want to hear what the answer is to what are very, very serious allegations of a nature which I think everybody will find shocking,” he said. At last, an honorable voice in a culture of whitewash and excuses.
Is there even one similarly decent individual in Obama’s Cabinet willing to place truth before election hopes, career or political expedience? I doubt it!

Still Waiting

By Hussein Shobokshi
This opinion published in Asharq Al-Awsat on 25/10/2010

 I am enjoying the recent public reaction to the words and statements of the Saudi Minister of Energy and Water, Abdullah Al-Hussayen. Who could forget his famous statement during the crisis whereby water was cut off from Jeddah, and queues of people were lining up to get their share of water tanks for their homes, when he said: “The water crisis in Jeddah is a psychological issue”. On another occasion, he commented on the crises of power shortages in some areas, stating “the power outage does not mean a lack of available services”. To understand the meaning of this statement, and appreciate it with sufficient depth, one needs to be a PhD graduate of the Sorbonne, Oxford or Harvard at the very least!
 
A few days ago, a ministry official announced that the process of draining an infamous lake in Jeddah [in order to dispose of its leftover high sewage content], was complete. The official ‘confirmed’ that the water had not been dumped into the Red Sea, but that it had been treated three times, ensuring that it was sterilized to the required standard. This statement was met with a tidal wave of criticism and skepticism by environmental specialists, and likewise those interested in meteorology and environmental protection. They deduced that, considering the number of treatment plants currently in operation in Jeddah designed for this purpose, the Ministry would not have sufficient capacity to accomplish what has been ‘achieved’ in the intervening period of time assigned to the task. Therefore it is logical, according to what they claim, that there are many sites off the coast of Jeddah where the color of the water has changed, and which are now emitting unpleasant odors.
 
The news of the elimination of sewage from this notorious lake is both important and positive. However, it seems that the solution to the problem has been to salvage the lake and to purify its waters “in any way and as soon as possible”, and dozens of problems have been created due to this solution. This is the wrong approach, and it deserves reflection and discussion. Furthermore, the recipients of official ministerial statements deserve more respect. The ministerial spokesman must support his statement with clear facts and figures, in line with what he has been instructed to say.
 
The volume of stagnant water in the notorious lake exceeded 50 million liters, so where has it gone so quickly? Especially considering the known absorption capacity of existing treatment plants in Jeddah, is it not ‘impossible’ to implement a process to eradicate such a quantity within this period?
 
As a matter of transparency and logic, I think that Jeddah specifically, and Saudi Arabia in general, deserve a clear account of where the sewage went and how it dried up so quickly. This would represent a complete solution to the problem, and an explanation to those who criticize or question that the water was dumped into the sea. This claim has no foundation, especially since it came after the ministry's spokesman challenged to disprove any one claiming that the water was poured into the Red Sea without treatment.

People are waiting for a comment from the Ministry, with one hand on their hearts, and the other on the dictionary

Democratic Model

By Mostafa Zein

This Opinion was published in Al-Hayat on Sunday 24 October 2010

What do the countries neighboring Iraq want of Baghdad and of its new politicians? What does the United States want of those politicians, who came to power with its military and political assistance? And then where do the interests of those countries meet, and where do they part ways? These questions and many others are imposed by what has become of Iraq. All of them exclude the most important question, which is what the Iraqis want of their government, a government forged by foreign consensus, by one country forcing its will on another, or by one coalition overpowering the other. The Iraqis are merely groups of people who have no will. They play their part during elections and then return to their homes and to their misery, to watch a game they have nothing to do with. Their democracy stops at the threshold of choosing this or that leader, so that he may lead them to what others, in the neighborhood or beyond the seas, want.

Returning to the questions, they conceal the recognition by everyone that the Iraqis are not one people. They are Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Assyrians and Mandaeans. They are all of these but they are not Arabs. And they are not citizens in the known sense of the word citizen. They are separate groups of people – each with their own internal political authority of reference organically tied to foreign parties that dictate upon these groups that which suits their own interests.

Foreign forces are now in consensus, without coordination, over calming things down. Egypt and Jordan have demanded that Maliki form a government in which all would take part. The same discourse was heard in Syria and in Turkey, the Turks and the Syrians adding to it a warning against meeting the demands of the Kurds, so that they may not consolidate their declared state and represent a threat to Iraq’s neighbors. In Iran, support for Maliki was clear, especially as Tehran has put all of its affection for Muqtada Al-Sadr to use in order to convince him to join Maliki in exchange for the release of prisoners from his movement.

The United States had a solution that did not conflict much with the demands of Iraq’s neighbors. It has sent the man who came up with the plan of dividing up Iraq, Vice President Joe Biden, several times to Baghdad. He suggested that Maliki become Prime Minister in exchange for broadening the powers of the National Security Council and for appointing Allawi at its head, with vast powers. In other words, Washington also supports a government of national partnership in Iraq. Both leaders are on good terms with it: the first ratified the strategic security agreement with it, and the second was Prime Minister under “civilian” governor Paul Bremer and is described as a secularist and a liberal.

The Iraqi government will be formed in the end. And every country that contributed to its formation will have a share in it. One of them might even have an obstructing one-third, the Lebanese way. Indeed, is not Lebanon a unique model of democracy in the Middle East?

Two models of democracy, and between and within them another model embodied by the modernity of political Islam. And the choice is yours.

Much At Stake In Abbas-Netanyahu Duel

 By Jamil K. Mroue
Publisher and editor in chief
This editorial was published in Daily Star on Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Mahmoud Abbas’ pointed and accurate statement Monday clarified – better late than never – that Israel’s illegal settlements represent to the Palestinians what Hamas and other similar groups represent to Israel: a central obstacle to peace.

Abbas, in forcefully rejecting Benjamin Netanyahu’s warning from one day earlier, also distinctly placed himself and the Israeli premier in the middle of a gathering storm which is either going to result in a wave of calm settling over the surrounding environment or a hurricane that will sow destruction far and wide.

After Netanyahu warned Palestinians against taking unilateral steps to seek recognition of a Palestinian state, Abbas correctly pointed out that Israel has for more than four decades been pursuing a unilateral strategy of building illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank.

No one should find it exceptional for Abbas to throw the settlements back in Netanyahu’s face; the Israeli government certainly does not coordinate settlement construction with its Palestinian negotiating partners. Indeed, the Palestinian leadership has vainly battled against the spreading stain of the settlements where it can, among the Arab League and the UN General Assembly and their ilk, just as Israel has fought without success to eliminate Hamas and similar groups.

In addition to training the spotlight again on the unceasing settlement construction, Abbas’ comments also positioned him and Netanyahu squarely as rivals, locked in a one-on-one standoff apart from their usual entourages and mediators. This demonstrates how far the peace process has fallen in a few weeks, from direct talks to suspension to openly denigrating each other’s positions.

The only chance to bridge this gap rests in the Oval Office; alas, it will be some time after next week’s midterm elections before the White House returns whatever focus it can muster to the derailed negotiations. We should not forget about another factor crucial to the outcome of this deadlock – Iran might next month begin talks in Geneva to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program, as Avigdor Lieberman produces a report on what a nuclear Iran would mean for the Jewish state.

 

With those parameters clear, the future of the Middle East leaves little to the imagination. The future of the rest of the region will mirror the outcome of the Abbas-Netanyahu duel. If the diplomatic efforts in Geneva and Washington fail to bring any progress or even breathing room, the region will have to prepare for the worst. If the peace talks fail, then it is only a question of time until the ill winds swirling around Abbas and Netanyahu gather force and consume in violence the immediate environment: Jordan, Egypt, Syria and perhaps Lebanon as well.