Diplomacy

    We have all heard the many jokes about George Bush Jr.’s low IQ and non-existent wits, how his poor knowledge on world affairs cost thousands of Americans lives and billions of dollars and how anyone – including the commentator - could have made a better decision on the Iraqi and Afghani files. Funny were the jokes I admit, but perhaps not quite accurate. The same comic approach is being used to describe Obama’s administration and persona, where not only is the president depicted as being lost and weak, but also as unwitty and not so shrewd when it comes to international affairs. Perhaps analysts and political observers have their right to such an argument, but as an average Arab citizen with some interest in political issues, I concluded that this argument does not hold.

    My observation was strengthened after the announcement of the deal struck between the Axis of Evil and Satan himself on the nuclear file, but of course, name-calling was dropped on the happy occasion. Leaving Israel livid at the break through and the world split between those happy for the victorious Iran and those ashamed with American - and UN- weak diplomacy, the agreement can be considered one of the most significant achievements of Obama’s administration. Iran and the P-5+1 agreed on November 23^rd in the third round of talks in Geneva that Iran would cap further enrichment at 5%; not increase its stockpile of 5% uranium; not increase its centrifuge capacity to enrich uranium; stop nuclear-related advances on the Arak facility and allow IAEA inspectors enhanced access to nuclear facilities, uranium mines, and centrifuge manufacturing sites. In return, the P-5+1 agreed to suspend sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical exports, trade in gold and precious metals, auto industry, and civilian aviation; not impose new UNSC sanctions or EU nuclear-related sanctions; the U.S. Administration to refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions; and facilitate humanitarian trade using Iran’s frozen oil revenue held abroad.

      Whilst Israel warned that fundamentalist, anti-semitic and straight from hell Iran cannot be trusted and Gulf States deciding how to break up with Washington, the UNSC and USA in particular hailed the agreement as an important step towards resolving the controversial nuclear file and neutralizing the crisis for some time. Was it a wise decision? Did Iran come out victorious? Did Tehran outwit everybody’ else? Was Obama lost and a bit, well, dumb? Well not really.

   Observing statements that have been made by either sides for the last month or two, one can note a change in tone in both US and Iranian officials. For instance, it was no coincidence that Tehran’s temporary Friday preacher stressed during his sermon late October that using nuclear weapons was Haram, that one week earlier to that Rohani in a national speech said that he hoped the new Swiss ambassador to Iran would reveal Iran’s good intentions to Washington and that the infamous opposition figures Meer Husein Musawi and Mahdi Karroubi, under house arrest since 2011 (after leading the green revolution that questioned the 2009 elections) were to be subjected to less severe control procedures in a decision made around the same time. On the international realm, it was also no coincidence that in late October Britain decided to resume its diplomatic representation in Iran, deciding to reopen its embassy in Tehran and in fact appointing a non-resident charge d'affaires to Iran later in November (after two years after Iran’s ambassador was expelled from the UK following the storming of the British embassy in Tehran in 2011). The timing of the the leader of EU parliament's socialist group and the two socialist representatives' visit to Tehran in October in an attempt to break the ice was no mere coincidence either. On the last note, Khameni's calls for friendly relations with all nations, including the USA in a speech made in late October was not a slip of a tongue. All were preparatory steps towards mending bridges.

     Based on the above, the rapprochement between the West and Iran was no sudden move and no hidden affair; the USA therefore was only acting as per a strategy to accommodate the Persian giant into a friendly zone where it seems that history is turning its page on the mutual accusations, mistrust and animosity between. Whether it was based on the objective of avoiding a new costly war, an attempt to neutralize Tehran on the Syrian file, or an actual and genuine attempt to slow down the nuclear program, the strategy did in fact work. No blood was shed, no loss of lives, no financial burdens, no unnecessary regional spill overs or a great deal of meaningless and empty rhetoric. The West, and Iran, got what they wanted at the least costs paid.

      The shrewd Henri Kissinger said that Diplomacy: the art of restraining power. It is not if you are not with us you are against us, it is not deadlines and threats, it is not falsification of reports, not group punishment or religious wars …it is as Kissinger exactly said: restraining oneself from use of power when possible. The Obama administration came out victorious in the end: a halted nuclear program, a rapprochement with Tehran that may be a first step to understandings on other files, a removed threat from Israel and a demonstration to the entire world that Iran could, and did, compromise, even to Satan himself. Bravo Obama, bravo diplomacy and bravo intellect. To conclude, accusations regarding Obama's passiveness and lack of action are inaccurate and perhaps too haste...he achieved all that he promised with absolute elegance and calculation... a true diplomat and an intelligent one as well. 

Reinvent the Wheel

      Revolutions, counter revolutions, toppling autocratic regimes, restoring old regimes, military coups and political Islam revivalism have all been taking place in the Middle East for the past three years. Arab nations are calling for introducing democracy as a political system, a system that must be enforced, by any means or price. The ticket to freedom from tyranny, poverty, exploitation, backwardness, political repression and every ailment that has struck the region since the Islamic days of glory should be the one and only “rule of the people”. Democracy: the magical potion.

    

      The beautiful thing about political thought is that it has been a developing science, growing and changing and taking on new ideals and beliefs in order to justify political practice and systems. Ever since the early Hellenistic civilization, followed by the Romans and the emergence of “modern” religious based empires, toppled by secular regimes and revolutions, political thinkers, scientists and philosophers have introduced in their books and their research the ideals of political organization. Who should rule? Why? How? How can money be distributed amongst citizens? What about communism? What to do with freedoms? All these questions have been asked and answered and criticized and doubted and asked again...this cycle of theory development ever stops, and all politically conscious and responsible countries and their political thinkers never stop wondering “how can we make it better”.

     

     What is interesting about this is intellectual activity is that it proved itself correct. Trial and error, experimentation, accurate and scientific observation and constant evaluation of political systems in the western world have all lead to the establishment of regimes that have proven to be efficient. Not to go deep into criteria of efficiency, but one must take quick look on economic performance, quality of life, life expectancy, level of satisfaction, environmental considerations and gender equality to realize that yes, the western world has actually learned about the correct formula to apply in order to achieve its goal of social, political and economic fulfilment. This part of the world did not ignore political thinkers, did not shy away from discarding political ideals that were revered by many but judged inappropriate, did not contend to the status quo and did not stop trying to link in the ground reality with the equivalent political origination and manifestation. I don’t believe the Arab world did, nor will do.

     Receiving a manual on “101 in political organization” to ensure democratic practice is the solution that many political activists have been indirectly campaigning for. “We want to democracy”, “let the people rule”, “decision of the majority”, “separation of powers”, “secularization of institutions” etc., are all admirable ideals… they did after all prove effective in many parts of the world. But are Arabs like the rest of the world? Do we have the same set of beliefs? Do we aspire to the same things that Europeans aspire for in terms of social and political issues? Is our social make u the same? Are our educational interests close to those of Americans? Are we as culturally prepared to take on radical leaps towards a Scandinavian governance system? Did Jean-Jacques Rousseau include us in his political studies?

     I believe that what Arabs need at the moment is a period of patience, contemplation and scientific investigation. We need to learn about the best political formula that would accommodate our social, religious, cultural and economic realities. We cannot expect to import an ideal and implement as it is, and then get frustrated when it did not work on the ground. What we need is a modest recognition of our limitations and an attempt to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes the wheel does need to be reinvented; especially when a certain vehicle has helped a nation to reach its destination in ease has led to chaos and disaster in others. Take Egypt as an example; political idealism of majority rule led to the election of political figures that have failed in all aspects of governmental reform.

   At this stage in our history, I suggest that we go back to the basics, delve into political thoughts since its beginning and come up with our own formula.  Socrates believed for his part that virtue is a field of knowledge that can be learned and taught. Perhaps we should approach virtue and its political manifestation as a serious field of study rather than a de facto issue…learn what virtue means for us as Arabs and how we can mould it into a system of life. His student, Plato, in his priceless book “The Republic” said that there is no hope for a state unless power is found in the hands of those who know, who know what state responsibilities and duties are and what education is deeded for citizens in order for them to carry out these tasks. Laws not based on tradition and customs, but those based on rational analysis and education…nothing should be written down on stone. Perhaps the words of this philosopher ring ever so true in our Arab reality…perhaps our laws are flawed and we need to restudy them. Then again, is that not what thousands have lost their lives for? 

Just as Orwell Said

        George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.

     Iran’s proposed plan offered to the P5+1 included two phases, both of which did not touch on its right to enrich uranium, but where open to concessions regarding quantity and levels of enrichment. Moreover, Iran also accepted to have its nuclear sites and facilities inspected by IAEA inspectors in any sudden visit, confirming with that that its nuclear goals are but peaceful. Its offer is being studied but has so far drawn applause and acceptance, at least from the media.  Catherine Ashton for her part described the diplomatic approach that Iran is treading as useful, Britain and France seem to be warming up to their Persian not-quite-the- adversary, and the Obama administration ignored both Israeli and gulf worries about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and political influence in the region and seems keen on going forward in talks with Iran and its new leader. The nuclear concessions offered by Iran will – if not already have – be met with political concessions from the US which are basically a given recognition of the role of Iran in all of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Palestine and the possibility of including Iran - rather than gulf countries - in the negotiating table with Syria. Whilst the western world refused at the beginning to include political issues in nuclear negotiations with Iran, they are now more inclined to embrace that only available option. The loyal and victimized allies in the Arab gulf now seem to be left out, and accommodating the villain of all villains seems to be the salvation.

     Political alliances and geopolitical considerations are meant to change over time according to countries’ interests and conditions. Should US interests and those of the EU lie in building bridges with Iran at the expense of Arab interests and Israeli fears, then this change of policy and approach would be perfectly fine. Nothing is engraved in stone. What is not fine however is the manipulation of public opinion with strong and blind convictions that give people every reason to fear an imaginary bogeyman. Depicting Iran as an evil nation with plans to annihilate Israel, destroy Arab states, enforce fundamental shiism, launch wars of terror on western nations and succumb the world to tyranny -quoting Bush Jr. – and then suddenly considering it as an option for a regional partner to restore peace in the Middle East (just like what happened in Iraq) and pacifying its nuclear ambitions, is not OK. Satan cannot repent and change course in a matter of 5 years’ time…unless of course he was not Satan from the very beginning…just a word stolen and altered to suit US interests at the time, just as Orwell said.

All You Need to Know Book

   

   

      At the ophthalmologist’s waiting room I was impatiently checking my watch, hoping it would strike 18:00 in defiance of the laws of nature controlling time passage. Masking my impatience with observing people’s attitudes at the grey large room, I was surprised to be actually entertained with an observation based on fellow patients. Men, women and children of different ages were resting comfortably on washed out green sofas, each defying time with his or her own entertaining gadget: a magazine, a book, a laptop, a phone and an interactive video game.  The only two (three if myself were included) exceptions to the case were the man sitting next to me and the man sitting two sofas ahead of me. Not accurately described as being old, the older men were about 65 -70 years old. Far from having a blank look in their eyes, these two men were staring into everything and nothing at the same time, their minds seemingly engaged with the elements present in the existing room whilst at the same time perhaps shifting into a virtual world of worries, ideas and chores. In all cases, what was on their mind exactly was of no interest to me, but what was – and consequently led to this article – was the fact of their “non-aided engagement” with their own thoughts.

      
     According to Michael Oakeshott, rationalism has been a growing trend since the 17^th century, being applied in all aspects of life (science, politics, religion etc.). Tradition, experience and facts accepted for face-value are all rejected by rationalists, where reason, and only reason, should be followed to reach conclusions about any given subject. Cleansing our minds from prejudices, we – rational learners – start a long journey of learning that requires acquiring two sets of types of knowledge:  technical and practical. In Oakeshott’s words, the process also involves “bringing all social, political, legal and institutional inheritance of our societies before the tribunal of our intellect”. He stresses the superiority of ideology over tradition, an ideology derived from a technique of thinking, investigating and interpreting….confirming that no knowledge is real knowledge unless it is technical knowledge, anything else is pure ignorance. As the philosopher Francis Bacon explained, all works of comprehension starts anew and take their own path, being guided in every step of the way…a comprehension that is an art of interpretation and investigation that complements the weakness of our natural reasoning. However, this rosy and logical picture painted by many philosophers and championed by Oakeshett seems to be spoiled by our modern ways. Oakeshott complains that this rationalist approach has been changing slowly, where we are moving further away from the true sources of inspiration and where the rationalist character has become more vulgar and rude…what used to be the art of thinking has become a manual of how to use your head at a fraction of habitual cost and what used to be the art of living has become the technique of success in life. Everything we need to know nowadays is written down eloquently and directly and we are spared the long dire process of thinking.

      Back to the waiting room, my observation was the following: nowadays, with the spread of books (paper and digital), vast variety of publications and communication tools we have turned into a “deluded information sponge”. We take everything- absolutely everything- in, with few questions asked.  We seem to be waiting for somebody else’s idea about a given topic, which would be taken for face value and stored at the back of our minds without any intention to doubt, question or analyse that thought. We are eager to know anything and congratulate ourselves for using the precious time – that could have been wasted - at the waiting room to flip through magazines and websites and take more info in….any info. What I am not sure about is how dangerous is that to our rational being? Are we really learning how to think? Are we clearing our heads of prejudices and receiving and storing others’ prejudices? Is Oakeshott right to complain that we misinterpreted rationalism and tend to convert the techniques of thinking, reasoning and reaching conclusions into a manual that is followed blindly?

     I am sure that some of us do. Most evident is that reality in politics, where the practicality of political engagement liberated many activists from the duty of political learning and the preference to acquire the magical politics technique that liberates the disadvantaged from political ignorance. His salvation can be found in an “all you need to know book” or a discourse that she can by heart and can apply directly and mechanically. How many journalists, bloggers (myself being one), reporters and programme presenters have brainwashed us and given us a false notion of being politically updated…themselves of course being brainwashed by others? How few are rational thinkers who can read an article published in a prestigious newspaper and written by someone with three titles preceding his name and rationally analyse it and value its essence? How impatient are we as readers and learners to take the fast track and get an honorary degree in knowledge? Are all of these patients – minus two – waiting at the ophthalmologist’s clinic members of the mpatient, passive and not-really-rational group? In all cases, it just struck me as a coincidence that such and observation was made while waiting for my eyes to be checked…although my argument may seem solid after this epiphany, I should stress that my arguments as based on 10 pages of Oakeshott’s book, read in 2 hours and written down in 1. So yes, I am a fellow member.

Nymphos vs. Jihadists*

     The news today read that the Polish experimentalist Ania Lisewska, who is on a mission to engage in sexual intercourse with one thousand men from around the world, was banned from entering Lebanon. She was also denied a visa to enter Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia and Yemen amongst other Arab countries. Despite the fact that the decision to ban her entry breaches every right and freedom that most of these countries repeatedly claim to protect, the irony of the decision within the current circumstances the Arab world is absolutely ridiculous.

  

    Hundreds of thousands of infiltrators have smuggled their way into Middle Eastern countries, whether to take part in the Godly war against imperialism and infidelity; whether to help fellow warriors by sending conjugal services performed by female mujaaheeden; or whether to assist fellow Arabs and believers by smuggling weapons, money and drugs and use such resources for extortion and black mailing. These border breaching phenomenon is not limited to the Arab world, as only last week did the Spanish authorities reveal the large number of expats living in Spain who left the European continent for good to fight the Syrian war. This is not to mention the thousands of mujahidden that infiltrated into Syria from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the question remains: how did these fighters get in? Did they devise a new transportation strategy where they can disappear into thin area, cross borders in their transparent form, and then find themselves in these countries? Do they mask their true identity behind secular outfits and attitudes and arrive as rich tourists or concerned journalists? Have Arab countries and their border-control officials not yet honed their vigilance skills and are still unable to control and protect their frontiers? The Polish case proves otherwise though, with every border control official on high alert for this honour and chastity number one danger and the threats she poses on the general well-being of Arab citizens. What about Tunisian women who were sent to Syria to help “release some tension” from the mujahideen; did they pose no threat? Why did not anyone stop them from coming in?

    

     I say let her in. Let this investigator with a clear mission achieve her goal of sexual experimentation and result dissemination. We may benefit from what she has to share. After all, one is free to take on her offer or not and read her findings or not. Perhaps our ministries of interior and border control departments should focus instead on protecting their citizens from terrorists cells and proxy warriors who have so far brought nothing but division, destruction, instability, injustice, backwardness, hatred, loss of faith and every worldly excuse to label the Arab region as the center of all irrational behaviour. Let her instead...some sex won’t hurt.

*In every reference to jihaad or mujahideen, what is meant is the proxy warriors who mask their true interests, ideologies and objectives with slogans of religious affiliation and liberation of oppression. It is no way a reference to the true conviction of a small minority of religious duty.

The Syrian War

     The current civil war in Syria is in no doubt fuelled by many factors and has its roots dug deep in the history of the troubled region. The long established regime of Al Assad clan and the authoritarian iron grip of power has enjoyed less and less fans from national, regional and international stakeholders. Yes, stakeholders. One cannot deny that what happens at one's backyard will have an immediate effect on one's own home, especially given the state of globalization and interconnection of the world. A troubled Syria does cause problems for its immediate neighbours (mainly Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey) and its neighbours located further away such as Russia, and those located furthest away such as the USA and China. We are all connected, and we should therefore all be concerned. Going back to the reasons behind the conflict, some factors can be mentioned:

• Dire economic conditions suffered by the Syrian people as a result of the international financial crisis and accentuated by the sanctions placed on the country by the USA.
• The wave of democratization and revolution that spread across the Arab world, which motivated and empowered the Syrians to rise against their authorities.
• The growing impatience of the USA and Isreal over Syria's relations with a nuclear Iran, with a growing Hezbollah and popular Hamas.
• The Russian-American struggle over hegemony in the region.
• Pipeline politics, where Syria refused to sign an agreement in 2009 with Qatar that would run a pipeline from Qatar, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets as it would negatively effect Russia's supply of natural gas to Europe. The following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed by in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo.

These factors all came together beautifully 2 years ago when the uprising commenced in Syria. What started as a peaceful national movement demanding political change and reform, soon transformed into a trans-national crisis with international actors playing a part in the conflict each for their own interest. It is no longer a question of democratic reform, a chemical weapon abuse against civilians, a matter of human and civil rights: it is purely a mixture of economic interests and international political leadership calculations. It is no secret that the US, and some European allies such as Britain and France, have intended to destablize the country for the very same reasons mentioned above, and an excuse to intervene – the chemical gas red line – militarly is but another step taken towards reshaping the country's political make-up and molding the region's regimes according to the interests of economic and political leaders in the USA, Europe, Russia, China, Iran and the oil-rich gulf. To make matters worse, the slafist appeal to the younger Arab and Muslim generation, Al Qaeda's growth, the Shiite militia's excellent organisation under the tutelage of Iran and the christian-muslim, shiite-sunni division are also playing a role in deepening the crisis, and again, each acting to serve one's proper interests.

Bashar Al Assad has been the scapegoat, so was Sadam Hussein, and both were/are evil men who gave the world an excuse to turn a blind eye to the hypocrites, imperialism and double standards of the international community. The only victim in this power play is the Syrian people...especially when many got to the point where the choice between “the evil of the lesser evil” became a real and only choice.

Morlino's Lesson

   

         Long has it been established that history repeats itself, and that countries tend to tread the same path chosen by nations before (whether for their own good or destruction). The European experience throughout the past centuries, supported by the countless studies that have been conducted to investigate Europe's history and political development, are of utmost importance to understand the current crisis through which some Arab states are passing. Examining the current state of affairs in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt reveals extreme tension on all levels as well as the need to disseminate political and intellectual consciousness so as to prevent the transformation of this current crisis into a state of constant and permanent instability. In this context, Leonardo Morlino's reference in his book “Democracies and Democratization”, published in 2009, in which he referred to the phases of transformation from democratic regimes to authoritarian regimes (citing the German experience in the 1930s in particular) sheds a light on the transformations happening in Arab regimes. Should the theoretical aspect of Morlino's transformation steps be compared with the current Egyptian scenario, where the democratically elected government was out thrown and a new interim government took control, then the “history repeats itself” notion would be proven fatefully accurate. 

    The crisis in democratic regimes begins, according to Morlino, with the emergence of a state of political competition between parties, political elites and social activists, followed by an increase in polarization, divisions and fragmentation, whether in the party, in political participation or in the standing government. Polarization in this sense means the deviation in political positions between parties and elites on either pole, whilst radicalization follows polarization and involves a growing distance between these polar forces, either in the parliament or in the street. Amidst such radicalization, division and instability, the government finds itself drawing inefficient policies, leading to the general perception of the regime's illegitimacy and a deepening of political conflict. In this phase, should the rival political elite reach a compromise/ agreement, then the crisis could be overcome; otherwise, the crisis would move to the next phase that leads to the fall of the regime, increase in violence and the politicization of the neutral powers, deeming any agreement or compromise impossible. 

      A transitory phase follows, described as involving two opposing political coalitions as the regime is being gradually transformed from a democratic regime to an authoritarian regime. The new regime would then transform and alter the standing structures and norms as it sees fit. The differences between the old and new regimes are wider when there is a state of chaos and violence which assist in the appearance of new leaders with reactionary policies against the old regime, noting that the new regime would be institutionalized much easier and faster if elements in the older regime – such as the army – were an accomplice in overthrowing the government. This new regime would do all that is possible to protect itself, its guardians and its economic and political interests, confiscating at the same time all coercive powers. Gradually, this new authoritarian regime will establish itself in all domains of public life, and its removal would not be an easy task.

     The point behind Morlino's study is two folded: for one part, it is a reminder of how easy a regime can be transformed from a democratic model to an authoritarian one. The Weimar Republic's experience, albeit short standing, serves as an excellent example. On the other hand, it reveals how necessary it is to spread political culture amongst citizens, who are both the protagonists and victims of political rivalries and national, regional and international forces. For us, as activists and concerned citizens, we must learn that every demonstration, every act of violence and every blind acceptance of the decisions and actions that undermine the essence of democracy -no matter how appealing they may seem or how convenient they are to our political orientations – would have dire consequences. And yes, history proved so.