UN$C

New rounds of talks took place between Iran and the United Nations Security Council’s Permanent five members (USA, Russia, France, UK and China) and Germany in Oman in November. The meeting set a November 24^th deadline to reach an agreement with Iran and its nuclear program, where in exchange of lifting economic sanctions, Iran must draw back on its nuclear activities. The deadline was not met, and no one cared really. Before going into that, a brief historic review of Iran and nuclear aspirations will be presented first.

Iran, under the Shah regime, was a western ally. Israel and Iran in fact were buddies. The nuclear program (for civilian purposes) started back then in the fifties and sixties and Israel even offered to help Iran out – an offer snubbed for some reason by Tehran. International cooperation was also offered to Iran, and things went smoothly and peacefully. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 changed everything however, and Iran was no longer the region’s watchdog. The cleric regime shifted the balance of regional power and alliances, and imposed a new set of ideals and national aspirations and orientations. This new ideology affected all aspects of Iranian life, including the scientific sphere, where the nuclear programme was at first disparaged and rejected by the Ayatollahs as being anti-Islamic, considering that any plan to create a weapon that would annihilate people indiscriminately is against the tenants of a benevolent religion (those were the days). Yet, politics trumped ethics, and Khomeini changed his stance on the nuclear issue, viewing the design of a nuclear bomb as a necessity to maintain security and protect the Islamic state. The program was back on again, and nuclear scientists went back to their labs to resuscitate the project. Despite international efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear programme (in particular Israel’s meddling with plans and manuals and later on introducing software defects) the programme was not halted. Assassinations of scientists, imposition of sanctions and embargoes, and supporting the green revolution were all futile efforts, and the programme is still ongoing.

Against this determination and defiance, Israel threatened on numerous occasions to level the nuclear enrichment sites in Iran, but since the boy cried wolf many a time, no one is taking Israeli threats seriously. The USA has also shied away from military confrontation or supporting Israel in any military operation, while peaceful Europe has been measuring its options. The wisdom of the USA and the EU bore fruit in November 2013 when an agreement was inked between the UNSC and Iran on its nuclear program, each side giving and committing to concessions. This year was to see actual progress on the understanding reached last year, where Iran would further halt nuclear enrichment, and the November talks were held for that purpose.

Now the whole humouring Iran and its leadership is not based on fear of Iran’s backlash against an attack (although it is a factor), nor its ability to close off a major strait in the Persian/Arab gulf against international commerce (also a factor), nor polite diplomacy (definitely not a factor); the reason is economics. This interest is shared by both governments and businessmen. Western investors received the news of talks and the possibility of concluding a final deal with much enthusiasm, visiting Iran shortly afterwards in search of investment and business opportunities. As the Chief US nuclear negotiator with Iran Wendy Sherman said: “as soon as sanctions are suspended, the world will flood into Iran”.

The western world’s indulgence of Iran and its programme and its conditions efforts to curb its programme peacefully whilst offering it an economic break is understandable for two reasons. First, Iran proved not to be an illogical, irrational and fanatical regime, as despite the rhetoric applied now and again, the country did not engage in any acts of aggression and in fact collaborated with its sworn enemy in controlling the Iraqi scene. Second, Iran is a gold mine, both for resources (both material and human) and location, and investors do need to dig into Iran’s business scene. Now Iran’s patience with the West and its intentional prolongation of talks is not based merely on its plans to win time (talking and enriching at the same time), but also on a geo-strategic and political card it is wittingly holding. Iran realizes a few important things: Israel will not attack, the US will not help Israel should it attack, Iran is key in maintaining security in Iraq, the US needs Iran to keep Shiite forces in the region in check, the Syrian regime listens to very few – and Iran is one of the privileged few, and the West is interested in Iran’s economic opportunities and oil (especially in light of what is happening in Russia and the possible consequences of oil supply as a retaliation to any sanctions imposed on the patient bear). Iran, as much as it wants the sanctions eased, is faring well and is no hurry to obey orders in return for rolling back sanctions. The revolution did not work, the economy is struggling but still hanging on, and the people learned how to live under constant economic pressures. It can wait.

Politics is not a product of good will but pure interest, economic interest in particular. Swallowing one’s pride and scaling back on the freedom and democracy rhetoric is a strategy that worked in the past and will work now. Meeting the November deadline was worrying the West more than Iran, as the former has got more to lose. So basically what the West is telling Iran: do what we say, and in return, we will let you let us benefit from your much needed resources. Human rights, democracy, anti-Semitism and the like are not important now. Tehran realized the position it has put the West in and decided to stall….just as a wise Iranian proverb goes: A drowning man is not troubled by rain.

Spring Fling

The Arab Spring swept the Arab world and its regimes by surprise in 2011 when a Tunisian activist inspired millions of Arabs to rise against dictators and authoritarian regimes. Many countries in North Africa and the Middle East took their lead from the Tunisian popular revolt, and soon Egypt, Libya and Syria witnessed mass demonstrations demanding change, whilst other countries witnessed softer forms of manifestations that called on reforms and democratization. Unfortunately, and after three years of the initiation of the Arab Spring, only Tunisia found itself stable, quasi-democratic and on the path of reform. Things did not turn out the same in other countries, and the process of regime change and democratization has failed. Challenges facing each country vary, and conditions on the ground do play a role in hindering any assistance offered by the international community to assist countries in reforming and opening up to democracy. Three examples will be offered in this context, highlighting the difficulty that each country faces and the hurdles that the regimes in these countries impose on any form of assistance - technical or financial – to reform the political system.

1.      Jordan

Jordan has embarked upon a political reform programme since 2005, with the adoption of the Natioanl Agenda, and has since been active in reforming the political system and responding to popular demands, especially after the popular movements’ initiative that mimicked the Arab Spring in other Arab countries. Despite some steps taken by the government in that direction, Jordan remains a semi-liberal autocracy with the King concentrating both executive and legislative powers. Given the tribal nature of the society, the King’s leadership and the regime’s legitimacy were never challenged, but was has been repeatedly demanded and continuously advised upon by both Jordan citizens and by the international community is the empowerment of the legislature. The EU, under the ENP, has allocated a financial package under the ENPI 2007-2013 dedicated to promoting the role of the parliament and indirect assistance to political parties in this field. The project reaped very modest results, given the challenges that face the country. The challenges facing any initiative of project to strengthen and empower the legislature to assume its role as a democratic representative of the people are:

·         Laws and regulations that limit the parliament’s power and place it under the King’s complete control, noting that the King can dissolve the parliament at any moment and without requiring a justification. Moreover, the parliament serves as an entity that passes laws rather than promulgating them, acting therefore as mere administration office for draft laws its receives from the prime ministry. The power to question ministers and reject policies has been dwarfed throughout the years, and any attempt to oppose the general policies taken by the government would threaten the continuity of the parliament and the status of its members before the regime. Therefore, attempting to empower a legislature and engaging its members in capacity building programmes has thus far reaped futile results, considering that the core problem – the legal aspect – has not been addressed.

·         The problem of immigrants, Arab refugees and particularly Palestinian refugees in the country. At the moment, Jordan hosts over two million refugees from various nationalities. Moreover the Palestinian community in Jordan, registered as refugees at UNRWA or not, outnumber the Jordanian community (representing over 60% of the population). The issue of political loyalty, identification with Jordanian local concerns, solidarity and sense of belonging is lacking amongst the great majority of citizens/residents. The regime’s response to the situation, and in an act of protecting itself and its continuity, explain why political freedoms and political plurality are much feared and controlled. A neutralized and silenced legislature with little powers may be considered as a survival strategy for a regime that fears the escalation of events in the region and the reaction of the non-Jordanian community if empowered.

·         The growing fundamentalist Islamic current in Jordan. The Islamic Liberation Party that has need since the 1950s is still present in Jordan gaining popularity in rural and impoverished area. The number of salafi groups and independent activists affiliated with the ISIS fighters is on the rise, signally to the regime that exerting further pressure and control over political movements and monitoring their access to the legislature is a necessity. Should there be open elections and should the parliament be given its full powers, these fundamentalist actors will pose a danger to national peace.

·         The nature of the Jordanian society that remains a tribal and traditional one, respecting the hierarchy rules and the figure of the patriarch pose a great difficulty to any reform agenda and any attempt to empower the people and give them the change to take part in political activity. Whether as voters or as members of parliament, the local population still depends of family ties and social relations and kinship in their political dealings.

2.      Egypt

Egypt’s 2011 revolution brought much hope to the people, not only in Egypt but the entire Arab world. The stepping down of the president in 2011, the amendment of the constitution and the celebration of elections on December 2011 were signs that Egypt was heading in the right direction. However, in January 2012, the Islamists won the elections with a very modest majority. The presidential elections confirmed the notion that Egyptians still did not know where they stand in terms of democracy, where an Islamist candidate and a candidate from the Mubarak regime both won the majority of votes. The election of the Islamic president was frowned upon by both national and regional actors and the power struggle led to the June 2013 military coup ousting the President and his party. The military General Al Sisi won the elections in May 2014 and in a blink of an eye Egypt went back to the Mubarak era. Only last week was a new national security adviser appointed, Ms. Abu Al Naja, who was one of Mubark’s closest advisers and who was criticized for allowing human rights violations in the 2011 revolution. The main challenge facing Egypt is twofold: for one part, the military regime that has taken power since the 1950s has been infiltrated in all institutions and has been accepted as the status quo. Viewed as a lesser evil in comparison with the Islamists, the military establishment rules with an iron fist, controlling all aspects of the political apparatus. The lack of political options led the Egyptian society to endorse a regime it detested, yet a regime that is strong and that can curb the spread of fundamentalism, or endorse a party that promises nothing but an authoritarian system masked behind a theological slogan. The second issue facing democracy promotion in Egypt is the impoverishment of its citizens. According to studies, citizens with meagre economic means tend to focus more on economic aspects of their lives rather than engage in political activity. Despite that fact that a democratic system would ensure a dignified living standard, illiteracy and extreme poverty amongst a large proportion of the society (along with extremist ideological and fundamentalist views) convince citizens otherwise.

3.      Lebanon

Lebanon can be considered as one of the very few democracies in the Middle East. Political parties are strong and have their affiliated, competing freely in elections and engaging in political debated in complete freedom. Furthermore, political and religious tolerance set Lebanon apart from its neighbours. However, the extreme political diversity in the country, the lingering civil war anger sentiments, the occupation of lands in the south and the division of the society upon sectarian lines have rendered the task of electing a president impossible. The tenure of the current president, Michael Suleiman, has ended in May 2014, and five times has the government failed to elect a new leader. The reason behind that is the political division of the two main currents or blocs: the 14 of March group and the 8 of March group.  With parties in each bloc standing firm and insisting on not compromising, the wedge between the two sides is digging deeper and parties are converting little by little into a one-man-show. Lebanon is an example of a paralyzed democracy, where the parties do not need empowerment, but need to adopt a strategy to overcome stalemates. The main challenge in fostering democracy in Lebanon is the issue of regional alliances of its parties, Hezbollah and its militia, a turbulent and powerful neighbour (Syria), and the divisions within the society, converting the country into small patches inhabited by segments of the society who fiercely defend their ethnicity and religious affiliation at the cost of democracy and compromise.

The Arab Spring has turned into a cold cold winter, and all hopes pinned on reform and democratization have been washed away by tornadoes of violence, terrorism, civil wars, fear and dangerous indifference. It was indeed a spring fling...a flirtation with reform, a tease. Perhaps what is needed after all is not a spring but a raving ocean. 

My Fair Lazy

The financial crisis. A dark gloomy cloud lingering in the skies of Europe since 2008, obstructing any filtration of sunrays to lighten up the dark patches of impoverished lands and lives in this super mega power. Desperate measures have been followed in most affected countries, and when those did not work, people turned on one another and separatist movements emerged, demanding independence from the whole to achieve economic salvation for the part. Others decided to expand and annex territories with historic ties, and others decided to re-examine economics 101 and EU 101. In all cases, innovative steps and plans saw light after the crisis, and so did the rhetoric of political movements and parties. Not only has the crisis impacted parties, their programs and their discourse, but it has also led to a certain radicalization of ideologies that have dug so deep into the belief-base of some societies in a very short period of time and has been feeding citizens hopes and convictions equally as fast.

It is no secret that one of the consequences of the crisis has been the rise of European radical left parties. Unemployment, inequality and failing austerity measures have acted as the perfect pretext to use neo-liberalism as the scapegoat for all the problems these societies are going through. Now an educated society learns that demonizing an ideology is both futile and ludicrous, as problems stem from a series of factors and not a mere economic policy that went wrong. Or is that so?

Walking down the University of Alicante’s path leading towards its general library, a small stand surrounded with white banners and hippie-looking-promoters were handing out flyers in a serene attitude with a hint of tamed indignation. The stand was supporting an initiative with the title of “Nómina Digna Para Todos” (dignified salary for all), attempting to gather as many signatories as possible in order to officially present the initiative to local authorities. In a nutshell, the initiative calls for a dignified life for all Spanish citizens, employed and unemployed. Just by the act of being born, every Spanish citizen must enjoy a dignified life guaranteed by a fixed salary that he/she receives after a certain age, irrespective of their job status. Given that many are unemployed, the minimum that the state can do is ensure dignified living standards to all its citizens by providing those unemployment and without unemployment benefits with monthly salaries. After all, the social contract between citizens and the state can literally mean so: a contract between the state and the citizens where the latter provides and the former sponsors…and if the provision side of the deal cannot come through, the contract’s provisions must be modified so as to ensure sponsorship no matter what. What is missing from the utopian plan is the financial factor – and since the option of money growing trees has been explored and unfortunately deemed difficult – another plan is being suggested by the initiative. Cuts on expenses and restructuring of loans are amongst the proposed steps. I am no economist so I am not going to get into this aspect of the proposal, although one proposal does stand out. Raised tax on well-off citizens.

Those hording, greedy, fat pay-checks country-club set guys must be burned at the stake, but since their money is needed-and income generating jobs too, let us not burn them just yet, just tax them. A lot. And the unjust and excessive amount they make will then be distributed justly. Perhaps that initiative’s flyer did not state this options per-se, but anyone with a cool head can read between the lines. The problem of being rich in a country that is generally socialist in the economic and culture senses was not a problem really before the crisis. Everyone had jobs and services were provided to all, rich or poor. Equality was not an issue dwelled upon by the lower classes as the general needs were satisfied with commendable efficiency. The green-eyed classist monster was asleep. Now that the rough got going, the poor are no longer indifferent about what their rich fellow citizens are doing and not doing. Extreme leftist parties are feeding this social anger and calls on wealth distribution are being more and more popular. How more socialist can Spain get? Is what is being proposed logical? Before exploring logic, is it fair?

What is being fed to university students through this initiative is a culture of dependency and victimization; a culture where it is ok to be comfortable with what is available and it is acceptable to whine about conditions that are not in your favour. A culture that is based on extreme ego-centrism and narcissism, where the government and fellow citizens owe you everything just by the mere fact of being born Spanish. It does not matter if you add any value, if you contribute to the society in any shape of form, if you try to change the status quo by hard work and innovation, if you assume responsibilities with courage and dignity and if you depend on your skills and muscles to provide for yourself. Students are being told by this salvation group that it is ok if you don’t find a job or try to, it is understandable that you don’t want to leave your comfort zone and look for something else somewhere else, we fully support your decision to wait for the 9:00 to 15:00 minimum responsibilities job, as papa government should and will shoulder the burden. Just be happy.

This unjust, spoilt and lazy utopia should not be accepted nor promoted, especially amongst the young generation. Social equity and justice is something, and what is being suggested under this hippie banner is another. Dignity is an acquired right; the rich people are not the enemy. Justice is achieved when everyone exerts the exact amount of effort; each according to his/her won capacities. Retribution would follow suit. Working hard ten hours a day and getting a lofty pay check should not be recriminated. Demanding that more tax be imposed on rich people, people who work hard and sacrificed and still sacrifice much, to pamper the whims of a-simply-born-Spaniard is simply demagogic. If this call does catch on, it will only lead to the glorification of a culture of sluggishness and dependency. I hope it does fall on deaf ears, and the fact that there was no queue lining to sign the notorious petition at the University’s stand is a positive sign that the petition is fortunately mute.

Ya Hala

The Syrian civil war – or proxy war – has been ongoing for far too long now. Three years of infighting, hatred, massacres, radicalism, vengeance, political schemes, betrayal, diplomacy and deals. Fear and sadness drove people out of their homes and left them at the mercy of the international community and good doers to house them and give them a refuge from all the ugliness that is happening in Syria. Those financially comfortable found a place in Europe; those desperate and cunning smuggled their way into Europe as well; and those with less financial means sought neighbouring countries. In arms wide open some countries took Syrian refugees in and gave them a temporary residence until things clear up and calm down back home. Jordan, and Jordanians, are one of those countries and people that stretched out a helping hand to fellow Syrians. Jordan – as in government- and Jordanians- the people- are housing one and a half million Syrians today. Government and citizens are playing host. Or are they both doing so?

Jordan is a poor country. Very limited are its resources and impoverished is a large proportion of its population. Unemployment is widespread and minimum wages are the common wage. Going into the reasons behind the economic situation and the unemployment rates is beyond the scope of this article. The focus of the article is however on why Jordanians agreed to house Syrians and how they agreed to that. The hospitality, generosity, solidarity and sense of brotherhood of Jordanians are not at doubt at any point, but such honourable attitudes must come from within rather than be enforced from without. Jordanian citizens would definitely help Syrian refugees in all possible means, but it would have been nice to first ask Jordanians if they can shoulder the burden before inviting the 1.5 million Syrians in.

Reports have indicated that Syrians’ presence in Jordan not only has cost Jordan (Jordanian taxpayers) huge amounts of money (to finance shelters, security, food, water, services, utilities etc.) but has also formed a new threat: that of cheaper – and more talented – labour force. Some Syrians are seeking shelter in Jordan not due to security factors but based on economic aspirations, judging that the Jordanian market and industries would give Syrians what they want: poorer salaries for skilled workers. A Syrian would gladly accept an underpaid job with an unfair wage, a job that would have been assigned to a Jordanian, instead of staying home and face unemployment and war. Although refugees’ presence in Jordan is officially confined in camps in the north of the country, it is no secret that many have escaped and found their way into central and southern cities in search of economic opportunities. The Jordanian host is not happy anymore. This brings us back to the main question: when the government “banged its chest” (literal translation of a Jordanian expression that means to offer with generosity) and allowed the entry of these Syrians, how did the decision come through? What was the decision process like?

The issue of refugees is one of great importance in the country and many other countries. The scope of dimensions it covers is wide: economy, culture, society, health, politics and the environment are all related to it. The government’s policy towards refugees is –unfortunately- that of limited scope. No one was consulted on whether Jordan was ready to accept these refuges. NGOS, political parties, civil societies, syndicates and other social institutions have not been consulted in that nor asked to study the issue. Consultation was required not to only reinforce and respect democratic practices, but also to reach sound policies. It seems that in Jordan public policy is still stuck in the realm of public administration. Instead of forming vertical and horizontal relations between institutions – formal and informal – to study issue from all angles and reach policies based on research and analysis, the policy towards refugees was one approached from a strictly single-minded diplomatic approach. Instead of having trained administrators in policy making, employees who can use numbers, theories, studies and analysis to draw best policy recommendations and scenarios, the rigid bureaucratic arrangement was followed. Public policy does not seem to exist in Jordan. The art of making policies is one limited to an elite circle. People and public employees are shut out of the process. Those who know best call the shots, avoiding the tedious process of studying policy options with fellow political actors, administrators and policy analysts and acting on decisions that have been decided on already. To conclude, policy making in our part of the world is a mix of Foucault’s conclusion: "political thought and analysis, we still have not cut off the head of the king" and the wise proverb: Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.

Love Thy Region

     

Spain’s Constitutional Court killed the Catalan dream, or perhaps let it lay in a coma for some time. The Court decided blocking the independent vote planned by Catalonia’s regional government, leaving the Catalan leaders no choice but suspending the November 9^th independence referendum. The Court argued that the 1978 constitution requires a majority of Spaniards to be consulted on any issue of sovereignty; since they were not, then the vote is simply unconstitutional. However, the regional government will not shy away from challenging the Court’s decision as it plans to appeal it. After all, the region's 5.4 million voters have been taken by the romanticized dream of independence from a lazy, impoverished and corrupt south – and west. What recently happened in Scotland was not a bad omen to the region’s enthusiastic separatists; over-confidence, pride, strong belief in the cause or sheer cussedness may explain the region’s will to fight for the referendum. Pro-independence citizens' groups in Catalonia are equally active, scheduling rallies to promote the referendum anyway.

     To force a group of people to be part of a state against their will is against every interpretation of a democratic and free society. Prohibiting a nation from establishing its own state also goes against democracy; it is equal to denying the right of Palestinians to establish their own state. But what is also an aggression to the free-will is the manipulation of a set of elite actors, intellectuals and positions of masses to rally around the cause of nationalism. First, a quick definition of a nation, quoting Montserrat Guibernau: “a human group conscious of forming a community, sharing a common culture, attached to a clearly demarcated territory, having a common past  and a common project for the future and claiming the right to rule itself. Thus, in my view, the “nation” includes five dimensions: psychological (consciousness of forming a group), cultural, territorial, political and historical”. Enjoying a common culture, language and tradition does indeed distinguish one nation or a set of people from the whole, but it does not necessarily feed the urge of marking the separation nor inventing the separation. Searching for symbols, myths of origin and a glorified inherited code-of conduct is a mechanism implied by separatists to inflame mass emotions and intensify their sense of pride in their separate being.

    Civicism or criticism – or belonging and loving one’s home-city – is a similar form of nationalism that is spreading, with global cities emerging and competing for the affection of their residents. Residents of these cities take pride in the particular ways of life of their own cities. A romantic Paris, an intellectual Moscow, a religious Jerusalem, a wild Ibiza or a fashionable Milan are trademarks to the city and its residents, their shared culture, their ethos and exclusive identity. Sweet so long as this recognition of distinctiveness is natural, unforced and un-manipulated. What is occurring these days is that a class of politicians and interested parties behind them are ignoring the fact that cultures are now mixed, that traditions change over-night, that a pure gene-pool is a stupid and offensive notion, that borders are receding and that what a nation enjoys in prosperity, wealth, art and culture is a result of centuries of interaction and exchange with nations. To unite the people by means of homogenisation is futile in our globalized world that is moving toward further integration. It is very commendable to have pride on one’s heritage and promote a territory’s a nation’s history, art and culture; but to obsess over employing the before-mentioned in a quest for distinctiveness and creation of a separated identity and self is an act of manipulation.

      John Breuilly once said that: “Nationalist ideology has its roots in intellectual responses to the modern problem of the relationship between state and society”. It is a problem, it does involve a society and the state, and it is an intellectual response.  Elie Kedourie suggests – as many others (as reported by Montserrat Guibernau) that “an elite of intellectuals captures the main  injustices endured by the mass of the population and constructs a nationalist doctrine whose aim is to eliminate the unjust situation shared by  all those belonging to the same nation, thus uniting elites and masses under a single banner”. The objective is to gain power in society and halt their alienation and exclusion from positions of honour and privilege. These intellectuals, perhaps present in modern day Catalonia, understand the delicate economic situation, the distribution of powers nation-wide and the benefits –both in terms of economy and status – they could reap with independence. Thus, masses must galvanize around the quest of independence and must be fed literature on the history, the culture and virtues Catalan’s inherited from their non-Spanish forefathers.

   Adolph Hitler (apologies for quoting him) said that “great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one”. Do fight for independence Mr. Más, but don’t trick people into it.

No More Iraqi Style Wars...Promise

   

The overarching pretext for the 2003 war on Iraq was discovered a sham one year later. In 2004, David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector and Chief of the Iraq Survey Group in Baghdad resigned and announced that he didn’t think former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had possessed any stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. Former Secretary of State Collin Powell told the Washington Post that he too was having second thoughts about the war based on Kay’s testimony and although he retracted his remarks one day later, the bombshell he dropped caused enough damage. “For many Americans, such candour from inside the intelligence established was both illuminating and devastating. It didn’t matter that the Survey Group had reaffirmed Saddam’s capacity to reconstitute his illicit weapons program, or that he had been developing ballistic missile systems that might deliver new weapons in the future, it didn’t matter that Saddam had killed or scarred tens of thousands of Kurds and Iranians with nerve agents or mustard gas, or that he had been twice discovered developing nuclear weapons….all that mattered in 2004 for many Americans was that they had been colossally misled”(Tyler, 2009: 6-7).

     Now the American political establishment is an intelligent one. It rarely repeats its mistakes and almost always learns from lessons from the past. After the immense amount of money poured out of the American treasury to finance two major wars in the Middle East, the sad number of lives lost in war zones and the counter effect that such wars bore (rising extremism and vindictive jihadism), the Americans are done. No more unnecessary wars, no more blood spilling and no more missionary acts to liberate and democratize the world. Unfortunately, the politics of a superpower cannot follow this logic, and constant and surly intervention in world affairs – in the name of whatever it is – is necessary. A pretext to carry out wars for higher ends than those announced is needed. And the USA managed to find one two days ago.

     The timing of Obama’s speech on the September 11^th thirteenth anniversary was just perfect. In that speech, he outlined the strategy to be followed by the USA and regional actors to eradicate the ISIS and end its acts of terror. His speech also stressed on the need for Middle Eastern countries to assume their share of responsibility and join efforts to fight IS off. And the region’s leaders came through. The foreign ministers of the regional alliance (composed of USA, GCC states, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey) against ISIS and other terrorist organizations met in Jeddah yesterday and confirmed its commitment to fight off ISIS, agreeing on who needs to do what. Their efforts will not end at launching a fully-fledged war against ISIS, but will also include actions to stop the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the IS. Most importantly, the Syrian opposition forces will also be trained, supplied with advanced weapons and financed, enjoying a major role in this alliance as it will ensure fighting off ISIS, securing the areas freed from the militants’ grip and prevent the Syrian regime from taking advantage of the strikes against ISIS for its own military and political ends. Considering that the Assad regime may take advantage of the war against ISIS to strike the opposition, the latter will be armed and supported so as it fulfil its mission without wicked intervention from a terrorist-harbouring regime. Both the USA and Saudi Arabia agreed in the meeting on the important role of the Syrian opposition and the need to train it and arm it.

   What a happy coincidence. Just when the world agreed that there can be nothing done to curb the Syrian regime’s tenacious will to remain in power, IS came along. Assad’s swift approval to rid Syria of its chemical weapons' stockpile, his holding of free elections as promised and his deviously intelligent message to the world of the dangers of a fragmented Assad-free Islamist Syria gave reason to the world in general and the American public in particular to oppose further military interventions. Let Syrians deal with their issues and as long as Assad is popular amongst some, well then let him be. However, things quickly changed when IS came to light, beheading Christians, enslaving women and children, abducting western journalists and slitting their throats in cold cold blood, expanding a radical and dangerous state, targeting religious minorities and burning down churches. These barbaric images not only enraged the world, but also scared it. What if this IS does expand? What if its population grows? What if it actually manages to train an army that could attack western interests and western nations? Action must be taken, and money must be spent, and blood must be spilled to stop that. While we are at it, and since it is all part of the same operation and serves the same end, let’s also get rid of Assad via military intervention. Sweet. Olé Obama.

Woooman!

   

    A Jordanian friend of mine, who happens to be living in the Middle Eastern business hub – UAE, made this comment yesterday as we were speaking over the phone: “In Amman, street harassment is becoming more and more common….the comments slapped on women walking down the street are just degrading and infuriating. I had to ask my wife to cover up to avoid problems on our vacation”. Now this issue hits a sensitive cord, especially since extremism in neighbouring countries – almost always being first manifested by attacking/controlling and objectifying women – is a phenomenon that may be contagious. This testosteronian craze taking place in regional countries is not only shameful, but also alarming. Egypt topped the ranking of the worst countries for women's rights in the Arab world, attributed to escalating sexual harassment. Salafism in Saudi Arabia is still prevalent and despite efforts to suppress features of womanhood under loose baggy dark garments, women do receive their share of street harassment, albeit contently. As for Iraq and Syria, the displacement of thousands and their refuge in camps have led to a rise in the testosterone level of men and their loss of control before the minimum display of a feminine feature. The Islamic State may have its street whistlers under control, but women of other faith are considered war spoils and are sold as sex slaves. These phenomena have a series of factors explaining them, but what these countries are passing through and the conditions that have attributed to this situation of out-of-control ogling and leering, are simply not present in Jordan. So what has happened?

   Jordan is suffering from economic woes, regional chaos, political (regional and to a certain extended local) turmoil and social unrest. Nonetheless, and despite rising extremism and fundamentalism, the society still is conservative and does not cross the line of over-harassing women. Street calling, whistling, ogling, gawking and catcalling are a reality, but it stops there- for now. The scary question is whether this innocent street harassment will persist or would it escalate to a serious situation where the side-walk would convert to a hostile and dangerous place for women. Will the Jordanian street become a lewd one? Men and boys are showing signs of sexual thirst, and whether this is something related to regional conditions, religious extremism (whereas indecent women deserve to be harassed), cultural confusion or social anger is unclear. What is clear however is the need to address this issue as soon as possible before it grows into something else and Jordan is ranked alongside Egypt in harassment polls.

Among the many steps that can be taken to address this issue is one to be taken jointly by the government and Jordanian expatriates. In search for economic opportunities or a chance to live in more peaceful and liberal countries, many intellectual, cultured and bright minds left Jordan and relocated elsewhere in the world. This class of people is reflecting a very positive image of Jordan in their host countries but is draining Jordan’s resources of progressive and moderate actors. The cultural role played by these individuals is of utmost importance, and the society is in much need of a boost of liberal thought and action to set itself back on track. The government in this sense has a major responsibility in luring expats back to Jordan. Take the example of India for instance, founding an entire ministry concerned with emigrants, or the case of New Zealand which established the Kiwi Expat Association- a PPP that connects New Zealanders in the world through social actions and keeps them connected with the mother land. France and Germany did not forget about their expats and reserved parliamentary seats for them. Jordan must follow the example and keep its citizens residing abroad within arm’s reach. Even if these expats chose not to return, their connection with Jordan and the role they place when on vacation in the country is also important. We need liberal independent women who refuse to be scared into covering up, who would face all street harassment with courage and determination to change this pathetic reality, who would carry with them the thoughts and ideals acquired abroad to the Jordanian street, and who would remind the male Jordanian youth the morals upon which the society was founded: that of respect to women and their bodies. Books and lectures will not suffice; action on the ground is a key requirement. 

To conclude, change must happen and must be led by the victims themselves who happen to be liberal uncovered women. Whatever this class of men is going through at the moment it would not disappear in an act of magic. Effort is required, and we are all responsible for this change. I will quote ma verse from the holy Quran (Chapter 13 sūrat l-raʿd (The Thunder)) that reminded people that for change to happen, people must change. 

"For each one are successive [angels] before and behind him who protect him by the decree of Allah. Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves. And when Allah intends for a people ill, there is no repelling it. And there is not for them besides Him any patron".