Yal NATO

The Trump administration is pursuing a regional security alliance comprised of Egypt, Jordan, and six Gulf Arab states, dubbed as the “Arab NATO.” The organisation will presumably support US efforts in containing and rolling back Iranian influence in the Middle East. To use US jargon: to safeguard against Iranian aggression, terrorism, extremism, totalitarianism and any other isms that come to mind. Tired and broke after a series of military interventions in this sad, troubled region, the Trump administration hopes that the Arab NATO would step in and do the work themselves.  

The White House wants to see deeper cooperation between the countries on missile defence, military training, counter-terrorism and other issues such as strengthening regional economic and diplomatic ties. However, the main target is to curb Shiite Iran, by these Sunni partners. The proposal screams failure on many levels, but two dimensions must be explored in this respect:  technical glitches, and moral vacuum.

Clustering these countries in an alliance on the premises of ideological harmony and common interests (at least momentarily) does not promise a solid foundation for a military cross-national alliance. The Gulf States have been on non-speaking terms with Qatar for over a year now. Jordan was boycotted by all Gulf States during the first Gulf War. Egypt outspokenly threatened to topple the regime in Jordan back in the early 1960s. Saudi Arabia and Egypt repeatedly refused to allow either country to lead their army under a military alliance. Political, ideological, historical, economic, and social divides cannot be ignored in the euphoria of ‘Sunni brethren union to counter a Shiite menace’. Even if these Arab States alluded to agreeing to the establishment of their own NATO version, years of experience taught them that this is but a euphemism to: the USA will come to our rescue if military adventures go awry. Another technical issue that should be considered is the point behind the alliance. What does ‘counter Iranian influence’ mean? Does it mean cooperating with the US in damaging Iran's economy, thus also jeopardising the economy of neighbouring countries, primarily Iraq? Does it mean disenfranchising the Shiite community, thus deepening a schism that would likely end in a civil war in multiple countries? Would that mean launching a war against a nuclear Iran? How are these states supposed to curb Tehran's powers? Should the Arab NATO have a vague, open-for-interpretation charter that outlines we-hate-Iran articles? It is very difficult to imagine the technicality of this military cooperation and its specific objectives, let alone legitimacy. 

Now, the moral dimension. The Arab world will not turn into Utopia once the Persian threat is curbed and dwarfed. All of these countries are ruled by autocratic regimes, some of which with totalitarian tendencies, whose youth are disaffected and marginalised. Poverty, unemployment, lack of freedoms, bigotry and many more issues run deep in these countries. Solving them will bring peace and stability to the Middle East. A club of military ambitions will not. Yemen stands testimony to the atrocities that are committed against civilians in the name of protecting Arabs from Iranian intervention. How can the Trump administration morally allow unleashing such erratic behaviour, including on its staunchest Iranian enemy?

The administration’s hope is that the effort might be discussed at a summit provisionally scheduled for Washington on 12-13 October. Let us all hope that someone wakes Trump up from his ethical coma.

Kleptocracy vs Kakistocracy

The US administration has never shied away from depicting the Iranian regime in the worst and most diabolic forms of governments. Slurs such as the axis of evil, a terrorist-harbouring state, and a deranged theocracy are some of the synonyms of the Ayatollah regime in Iran. Most recently, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a speech in which he accused the Iranian regime of being a corrupt Kleptocracy, insinuating that the overthrow of such a corrupt system was a common dream of Americans and Iranian friends.

Not to be outdone,  Donald Trump issued a dramatic tweet in all caps and with the signature exclamation remark at the end: "NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"

These intelligent words came after Iran's foreign minister’s meeting with Iranian diplomats, during which he elegantly indicated that America should know that "peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars". The comment was a sublime thereat to Washington, warning it against any attempt overthrow the Iranian regime.

Steamy retorts and bellicose rhetoric are not new in the US-Iranian relations. However, it is interesting to see how the pot is calling the kettle black.

Yes, Iran is an autocratic regime. And yes, it is most likely a Kleptocracy. But isn’t the Trump administration the purest form of a Kakistocracy? Both nations are run by inept, dangerous, and violent governments. Both countries pose a dangerous and direct threat to the well-being of their neighbours, and both administrations are run on the basis of vendetta, tantrums, and deep-seated and obsessive love/hate relationships with certain ideologies. Nonetheless, one of them is run by the corrupt, and the other by the unqualified. It is pretty clear which of the two is more dangerous.

The public is most likely tired of hearing such flagrant and intense rhetoric. The fact that Iran is run by a corrupt gang will not justify yet another war that no country has seen before (to use Trump’s insensitive, arrogant, and simply stupid words). By the same token, one can expect and justify international calls for an end to the Trump administration on the basis of absolute ineptness. Unqualified and corrupt figures should be banned from office, but there they are, and that is that. Employing soul-touching rhetoric to justify the overthrow of a government and a makeover of an entire regime is what one can expect from - well - a Kakistocracy.

Perhaps it would be better to go back to the Bush-era terminology, which – although equally intelligent – justified intervention in the Middle East. Fomenting terror, harbouring evilness, anti-Semitism and the like had a stronger impact on the public. Are the Americans ready to finance another war in the name of ridding Iranians from corrupt leaders? Not really.

One quote from a Trump visit to Michigan in April wraps this article nicely: 'Our laws are so corrupt and stupid'. Perhaps the administration should start from there.

Oh but Iran is not going anywhere

     Donald Trump’s agenda was - surprisingly – clear when he met with Vladimir Putin during the July 16 summit in Helsinki. Trump’s wish-list included maintaining the gains made against the Islamic State, constraining Iranian influence in Syria, and gradually pulling out all military presence from the country. It does not really matter who stays in power, as long as the Islamic State in the eastern part of the country has been defeated, and Iran’s influence in Damascus is reined by Russia. It is a question of time before Assad gains control over the entire country – eastern side in particular – and the Syrian Democratic Forces will no longer be recognised as the authority on the ground, including by its US patron. What is left for the US to save face is to appear to have minimised Iran's role in Syria.

The Trump administration clearly wants to kick Iran out of Syria. Russia is neither crazy about Iranian growing influence and power in Syria.  A compromise can be reached between the two world powers…but what about Syria and Iran? Would they agree to such a deal? And would Russia have a change of heart and keep a winning (yet problematic) card at hand?

The Trump administration rightly seeks to limit Iranian influence in Syria, but it would do well to recognise that neither the United States nor Russia can force a complete Iranian withdrawal. At the summit, both leaders agreed that they would ‘do certain things with Syria’ that would contribute to ensuring the safety of Israel. It is quite clear what these ‘things’ are:  containing Iran’s influence in Syria (in exchange for downsizing US military presence).

Interestingly, the issue is no longer the Assad regime, the role of rebels, or the safety and well-being of Syria. With Russia still supporting the Assad regime, the US backing rebels in the east, and Syrians still under fire and siege, everyone somehow agreed that the safety of Israel and curbing Iran’s influence in the region would suffice as goals.

The tragedy is that it does not really matter at all whether such an agreement holds. At the end of the day, Iran’s multiple proxies in the entire Middle East and its ability to shape policies are not limited to its current role in the Assad regime. More importantly, there is no guarantee that Russia would respect its side or the agreement, or that Damascus and Tehran would follow through. In the past, Iran and the regime have brushed aside Russian efforts to reshape the political and diplomatic landscape in Syria—most notably in dismissing Russian’s call for all foreign forces to leave the country. Iran and Syria have cooperated since the 1980s amidst the Iran-Iraq war, and their ‘friendship’ has only grown stronger, forged by common goals, ideologies, geopolitical perspectives, and economic interests. 

To assume that Iran would pack and leave because Russia told it so would be both innocent, and slightly stupid. Now that Assad has reasserted control over the country, made the US fight a successful war against ISIS for him, and strengthened the country's alliance with Iran and Russia, it would be impossible to consider relinquishing such leverage in the name of peace. The Trump administration might be tricked into believing the Russian rhetoric...but oh does Israel really know better.

Shawerma Threats

An article posted in Al Monitor describes the growing tensions between Israel and Turkey over the latter’s activities in Jerusalem Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Whether it is the rising funds directed to non-profit associations, primarily the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency, the soaring number of tourists flocking into Jerusalem, or the opening of a series of Turkish shawarma places, Tel Aviv is concerned with Istanbul’s hidden agendas. One concern however seems to stick out - again as reported on the aforementioned article:

´The Israelis are convinced that Erdogan is trying to return Ottoman grandeur to the Temple Mount to intensify tension between Jews and Muslims in the holy places and become the top Islamic figure to protect the mosques and Al-Aqsa. “We won’t let this happen, no way,” an Israeli security source said on condition of anonymity’.

Now, what does this anonymous Israeli security official mean with return Ottoman grandeur to the Temple Mount? Does that mean that the official believe that reminiscing about the past and attempting to revive it are future - actually dangerous – acts that require immediate attention and development of counter measures? Is the Ottoman renaissance dream forbidden for its validity or rather its peril?  

It is quite ironic for an Israeli official to use the history card…after all that is all what Zionism is based on: history. No one is refuting or questioning the rights of Jews in living in peaceful coexistence in Palestine, noting that tracing back Jewish history in Palestine to thousands of years in the past has been a perfectly acceptable excuse for reviving the Israeli Sate. The question that begs itself would therefore be: why would the Ottomans be any different?? Can't one say that presence in the region for five centuries has led to planting roots in the holy land...roots that cannot be denied by history or ethnicity. Furthermore, the Ottoman Empire is much more recent in history, has stretched for five centuries across vast areas in the region, and has introduced political system that reflected – and somehow respected- cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity in the lands it ruled. In other words, the rhetoric employed by Israeli and Jews across the world that Israel is their homeland on the basis of history and religious texts should be viewed in the same lens as the argument of Turkey and Turks across the world that it is only natural for their country to expand its power and presence into foreign lands on the premises of historic rights and religious scripture.

Both arguments are invalid in both cases - but the lesser of two evils is clear to many. Or is it?

A Story of an Olive Tree

     The strong, brown and henna bearing hands dug me a hole to serve as a loving womb. I sat there small yet secure, waiting for the rain – and sometimes the tears – to feed me life. As a sprout I dug myself up to find myself between my rising siblings who were hugging the confident and fair sun. I was showered with love and hate, with peace and war, and with screams and music. When the hands that planted me embraced my trunk, I felt at home...I felt I belonged. However the thunder of gunfire and angry boots crushed the serenity, and shook my existence. I tried to stand but the forces were stronger…and I succumbed watching my lifeless body bidding this land farewell. When I finally fell over the land upon which I once stood tall, I gazed into this beautiful, unjust world. Only then did I find the unborn, fragile seeds hiding in the blood-soaked soil, waiting for death before seeing life.  It was then that I realised that my sacrifice was not in vain, and that I will live on in this holy land through the seeds that my lifeless body is protecting. And that through these seeds I was, still am, and will be.  

El retorico, el esperado, y la auto glorificación

   

    Un artículo publicado en El País el 19 de junio hace un resumen sobre la entrevista de Pedro Sánchez con TVE, emitida desde el Palacio de La Moncloa. Siendo que El País socialista decidió arrojar luz sobre estas 10 frases principales, uno debe suponer que conllevan claves para la visión de Sánchez sobre que debe gobernar España en lo próximos años, y la manera de tratar los  temas prioritarios en la agenda nacional.

Pues no.

Fijándose en estas 10 frases claves, se puede deducir que todos lo que sale de las boca del presidente del gobierno nuevo es algo retorico, dolorosamente esperado, o un intento de auto justificación o elogio. De hecho, las frases son totalmente superfluas y vacías.

Éstas son las frases.

1. Aspiro a agotar la legislatura y que las elecciones sean en 2020.

Esperado. El objetivo de Sánchez fue y sigue siendo ser jefe de gobierno. Nadie pensaba que los socialistas llaman a celebrar nuevas elecciones y arriesgar una pérdida probable.

2. Veremos la fecha y el momento [de la retirada de los restos de Franco del Valle de los Caídos]. España no se puede permitir como democracia consolidada símbolos que separen españoles. No es abrir heridas, es cerrarlas.

Esta es la posición de los socialistas desde décadas. No es nada nuevo ni sorprendente. La presencia de alguna intención de hacer algo sobre los restos puede ser mostrada con la especificación de alguna fecha/plan/proceso/procedimiento, incluso si solo es algo preliminar.

3. Se pueden guardar las fronteras pero sin lesionar a las personas. No vamos a abrir las fronteras, que es inviable, sino a gestionar bien los flujos migratorios.

¿Qué otra cosa puede decir? ¿Abrimos las fronteras para potenciales terroristas? ¿Ahogamos los niños en los barcos para protegernos? Cualquiera pueda llegar a la conclusión y observación del presidente: buena gestión y control de las fronteras….una frase perfecta para que se quede ambiguo el destino de los inmigrantes que llegan a España, o el destino de España que reciba inmigrantes.

4. Es razonable que, cuando termine el periodo de instrucción, cuando el juez lo considere, instituciones penitenciarias pueda trasladar a los [líderes independentistas] presos a Cataluña.

Otra vez, frase esperada y vacía de cualquiera visón concreta.

5. Si hubiera sabido la sanción de Màxim Huerta probablemente no lo hubiera nombrado ministro. Pero eso ya es pasado.

Perfecta mezcla de auto justificación y elogio….perdonadme por no hacer mi labor de investigar bien el perfil de mis ministros, pero dame palmaditas en la espalda por actuar en una manera responsable.

6. Nunca voy a decir que el PP es un partido corrupto. Muchos de ellos se avergozaban de los casos de corrupción de su partido. Y el PP es central en el sistema político español. Espero que renueven el liderazgo y al nuevo líder del PP va a contar con mi lealtad, y espero contar con la suya.

La dualidad en el bipartidismo español no le permite a un líder de un partido clasificado segundo en las elecciones y uno que depende a las alianzas basadas en compromisos muy flexibles a atacar un partido injustamente expulsado.

7. Me siento orgulloso de que España sea el país de la OCDE con más representación de mujeres en el Consejo de Ministros.

Bravo Sánchez.

8. El copago farmacéutico... Vamos a ver si hay suficientes recursos para sacar adelante el fin del copago farmacéutico.

Declarando lo obvio y esperado, mientras se asegura que la vaguedad anubla la interpretación.

9. No hay nadie por encima de la ley [sobre Urdangarín].

Retorico que pronto se convierte en frase hecha. 

10. Este Gobierno se va a arremangar para garantizar el sostenimiento de las pensiones y para que sean los más dignas posibles.

Posición tradicional de los socialistas sobre el tema…nada nuevo ni concreto.

El problema de la entrevista no es que fue una mezcla del obvio, retorico, y auto-glorificación. Cualquier político tiene el pleno derecho de tejer palabras  - vacías o  no -  para conectarse con el público. El problema es la decisión de El País a colgar el artìculo en el encabezado de la página principal. Para un lector crítico, las frases emblemáticas de la entrevista no son más que frases huecas que brindan un amplio espacio para la interpretación flexible y la alteración cuando sea necesario. Esperamos que el estilo editorial no sea el estilo gubernamental del corriente socialista.

Electronic Voting in Jordan?

     

     Electronic voting (e-voting) in parliament is a transparent voting mechanism that allows for accurate counts of votes and monitoring of deputies´ voting behaviour. However, not all parliaments have introduced such a modality in their voting sessions. Jordan is one of the countries that have considered this voting modality but has shied away from implementation. The question is why?

Background

E-voting was introduced in the Jordanian House of Representative (HoR) in 2006 with the support and funding of USAID. The system per se was installed in 2004, but was non-operational owing to the lack of reference in the HoR’s Internal By-law (No. 800 of the year 1996) to e-voting as a voting modality. The By-law was modified in 2006 under the tenancy of HoR Speaker Abdel Hadi Al Majli, whereby reference was made to using ‘modern technical means’ for voting, with the exception of voting on issues related to the Constitution, or granting confidence to ministries and ministers (Article 77 (a)(b))[1]. According to a news article published in Al Dustur[2], the modification of Article 77 to make reference to using technical means for voting was attributed to fears that USAID would withdraw its funding to the system unless a provision was introduced to allow for e-voting.

The use of e-voting was indeed demanded by MPs; prior to adopting the 2016 General Budget, 92 MPs circulated a memo that demanded that votes be cast through e-voting – a request that was rejected by the HoR’s Speaker, who attributed his decision to technical malfunctions[3]. According to a news article[4], Prime Minister Abdullah Al Nsur was seriously concerned about using e-voting, whereby the government contacted several MPs in order to withdraw their support to the aforementioned memo. Such resistance to e-voting - according to the same news article - was due to the fact that this modality allows for accurate counting of the votes in controversial bills, such as the Budget.  The adoption of the 2017 General Budget was also made voting through a show of hands, which led to a number of MPs criticising this modality instead of using e-voting. The incumbent Speaker of the HoR, Atef Al Tarawneh, snubbed the complaints and indicated that the voting modality rested upon the Speaker’s discretion[5]. The 2018 General Budget was also adopted by a show of hands, which was widely criticised by RASED[6], who indicated that this modality did not allow observers to accurately identify the MPs who voted for or against the two laws[7]. In spite of allowing the media and observers to attend the voting session, the quick and generally uncontested count of hands does not facilitate the identification of the voting behaviour of MPs on key issues. It must be noted that the most recent vote on the 2018 Budget was immensely controversial, considering that it introduced price hikes on various sectors. The quick deliberations and the choice of voting through a show of hands (that is subject to manipulation) might explain the choice of words of the Islamic Action Front, who described the process as being ‘theatrical’.

It is important to underline that the first bylaw was promulgated in 1952 (No.831, Official Gazette No. 1105) and not 1956 as the law firm indicated. The by-law stipulated in Article 47(a) that voting on bills related to the Constitution or granting confidence to ministers/ministries shall be by voice vote with name mentioning/calling. Article 47(b) indicated that other bills shall be voted on by show of hands or secret voting. The by-law was amended 1957, whereby Article 77 was modified to make reference to documenting decisions and deliberations.

No modification was introduced to the by-law since then, but a new By-law was issued in 1996 (No. 800) in which reference to secret voting was deleted, and parliamentarians’ vote was limited to voice votes (with mention of names) for issues related to the Constitution and granting confidence to ministers and ministries, and through the show of hands for other issues. The repetition of the vote upon the request of MPs was done through show hands, or rising votes, or voice votes with mentioning of names.

The 1996 By-law was amended in 2000 (No.21) whereby the modifications introduced were related to the bills that are sent back from the Senate. It was modified again in 2006 (No. 777) whereby Article 77(b) included the employment of technical means as another voting modality. Finally, a new By-law was issued in 2013 (No.801) and amended in 2014 (No.802), the latter having modified 23 articles/paragraphs in total, but none was related to voting issues.

The current By-law (No.801 of 2013 and its modification No. 802 of 2014) maintained technical means as a voting mechanism. Indeed, neither procedural nor administrative clarifications were added to the concept of ‘technical means’, whether in the 1996 version or the current version of the By-law. However, the other three voting modalities (voice voting, rising vote, or hand show) are neither clarified nor detailed in the By-law. Therefore, neither the mechanism of e-voting per se should be challenged, nor the issue of liability, based on extrapolation. Any vote however could be challenged by MPs according to Article 88 (c), irrespective of the modality.

It must be clarified that only 3 By-laws were issued since 1952 (1952, 1996, and 2013 which were modified 4 times in 1957, 2000, 2006, and 2014) -  a figure that is modest in comparison to other laws and by-laws. It could be assumed that MPs are content with the current version, or that any attempts to modify the by-law were thwarted (Article 179 of the By-law stipulates that the by-law’s articles could be modified based on a proposal made by 10 MPs at least, which should be shared with the Parliament. Upon the latter’s approval, the proposal is sent to the Legal Committee, which must study the proposal and subsequently submit its recommendations to the Parliament). If there are forces from within the Parliament/external influential forces that oppose the By-law’s modification, including regarding e-voting, the amendment of the By-law would likely not take place.

Controversy of e-voting

Based on extra-official conversations, e-voting is resisted owing to the following factors:

·         Voting by show of hands (or other traditional means, such as by rising vote) would allow for manipulation of the vote when controversial bills are the subject of the vote. Meanwhile, e-voting is accurate and does not allow for miscounts. It has been indicated that it has become common practice to count the votes, announce the results, and immediately adjourn the session to avoid challenges to the vote or discussions.

·         E-voting would imply that the names of the MPs who voted for or against certain controversial bills would be displayed on screens - which would allow observers and the media to share this information and relay it to the public as official and accurate data. Meanwhile, the current practice of hand show leaves room for speculation and denial regarding the voting behavior of certain MPs.

·         It must be underlined that according to sources, MPs are subject to pressure from a number of institutions, including the Intelligence Agency, whereby they are directed to give either a positive or negative vote, irrespective of their actual positons and beliefs. Therefore, a show of hands will protect MPs from reprisal from constituents, while abiding by the instructions received from intelligence.

How can e-voting be introduced?

Efforts have been made by national forces and international actors to introduce e-voting and change the bylaw to render e-voting as the standard voting mechanism. However, and owing to the considerations mentioned above, other solutions can be explored.

Instead of requesting the modification of the By-law to render e-voting as the standard voting modality, the HoR could be asked to commit to using the e-voting system an x number of times. This could guarantee that more bills are voted on through the electronic system, thus enhancing transparency, and the HoR would be able to pass certain bills through traditional means when deemed necessary. The employment of e-voting would be hailed by observers, the media, and influential NGOs, which would consequently likely lead to demands (from observers/media/the public/and even MPs) that more bills be adopted through e-voting. The number of bills passed in that modality might increase with time, without having pressured the HoR to use e-voting solely, or having imposed restrictions to its practice. Furthermore, there would be no need for lengthy legislative procedures related to the modification of the By-law, thus ensuring swift implementation.

Another proposal is to modify Article 88(b) to read: ‘Expect for the two cases provided for in paragraph (a) of this article, a vote be taken by show of hands, by rising vote, or by use of technical means as decided by the Speaker, with preference being given to technical means.

In this scenario, the HoR would not be obliged to use e-voting as the default voting mechanism, but it would acknowledge the preference to such a modality. However, the proposed modification would not guarantee the employment of e-voting, or legally oblige the HoR’s Speaker to use the system.

One other option is to explore technical solutions that would allow for revealing results on the display screens instead of the names of MPs. Advantages of this proposal are:

·        The accuracy of the vote would be ensured.

·        The use of the system might not be resisted, considering that MPs would not have their names revealed on screens, although the names would be recorded digitally for archiving and revision by the HoR/government.

However, observers will not be able to monitor and report on MPs’ voting behaviour.

In conclusion, and based on the observations and comments made by different actors, it is unlikely that the HoR would agree to modifying the By-law in order to render e-voting as the sole voting mechanism. Instead, it would be advised to consider options that would render e-voting as the preferred voting modality, albeit not the only voting modality. In short, it would be important to reach a compromise that would encourage and commit the HoR to use e-voting as much as possible, whilst also ensuring that the HoR has room to employ the traditional voting means when necessary. Whether this solution requires legislative revision or not would depend on the solution that is accepted by all parties concerned.

---

[1] Article published in Al Dustur on 22 November 2006

^[2] Article published in Al Dustur on 28 March 2006

[3] Article published in Al Ghad on 15 January 2016

[4] Article published in Al Alam Al Yawm on 13 January 2016

^[5] Article published in JordanZad on 19 January 2017

[6] RASED is an NGO that monitors elections and parliamentary performance.

[7] Article published in Al Ghad on 5 January 2018