Peaceful Taliban

     

     The Afghan Taliban on Saturday called for an end to violence against Muslims in the Central African Republic, a statement echoed by al-Qaida's North Africa branch. After weeks of atrocities and horrific acts of barbarity committed by the 'anti-balaka' militia against Muslim citizens, along with mutilations, death sentences, beatings, burnings and terrorization, the Muslim salvation group decided to speak out and call on the international community and the Christian leadership in particular to put an end to what is happening. The question is: where are they? They found their way to the US, and Iraq and now in Syria, fighting for the liberty and dignity of Muslim citizens across the world…does the Central African Republic not count? Do Muslim suffering in the African country fall under a second class category of Muslims? Fighters were able to infiltrate into the Middle Eastern region and North Africa, but could not go further south? In no way am I suggesting or promoting their involvement in Central Africa, or anywhere else, but perhaps the rhetoric and the hypocrisy of these militant organizations must be acknowledged by themselves first, and then by their admirers. To claim to defend an ideology/religion by all possible means and at any cost may sound heroic and idealist (to some), but to “pick your fights” changes the equation. It is no secret that Syria, Iraq and the Middle East in general is of greater interest to Al Qaeda (and to an extent Taliban), may it be of strategic, political or economic purposes, and the for the time being Central Africa does not seem a lucrative engagement.    

      Sirs (Taliban and Qaeda militants), a statement condemning what is happening and calling on the Pope to interfere do not sound like something you would generally say nor do they reflect your brutal and bloody strategies. If there is a change in heart in respect to your tactics and the African country's events have opened your eyes to a new diplomatic and peaceful way to tackle crises, then please advise. If not, then it would be more dignified (and credible) to retract your statement. It was pointless, and void, and will remain so.

     I will conclude with a George W. Bush statement that once made no sense (apologies) but now appears to be accurate: “you are either with us or against us”. Just as the political thinker Maurice Duverger suggested, there is no real centrality in politics…you either agree with one solution or the other, take the side of one party or the other. No matter how many variations of a decision there are, in the end, it is either “this” or “that”. Centrality is false. The same is applicable to our dear militias, you either choose the "diplomatic wing" or the "violence wing". It is either the political and diplomatic course when it comes to conflicts in all nations where Muslims are oppressed, or blood shed and violence. You can’t have it both ways...it is futile, just like everything elese you  did or said.

Note: This is a link to a video exposing what is happening in Central Africa…viewer discretion is strongly advised. http://alarabalyawm.net/?p=127216

What Machiavelli Said

The 16^th century politician and philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli argued in his morally controversial book “The Prince” that the final objective of politics is to conserve and augment political power. He championed absolute monarchy in the chaotic renaissance Italy which was facing a problem of a corrupt and damaged society, arguing that when the necessary virtues disappear from a given society, it is not possible to neither restore such virtues nor form an organized government except via tyrannical power. Such a tyrannical power, he argued, enjoyed a special status in respect to the society. The governor, according to Machiavelli, is above morality; morality that must be adhered to by the group of citizens, but not the governor himself. The only way to measure the success of such a governor is through the policies he applies to augment the power of his state. Machiavelli also recommended despotism in the creation of new states and the reform of a corrupt one, adding that when corruption is vast, laws would be impotent and incapable of containing such corruption, hence the need of an iron-fist governance model. To save a country, issues of justice and injustice, humanity and cruelty, glory and infamy are not to be considered…what is primordial is the salvation of the state and the protection of its existence and liberty.

The resonance behind Machiavelli’s masterpiece and his political thought amidst a corrupt and divided Italy (controlled by heads of the church at the time) is beyond the scope of this article. What is intended is to draw parallels between the arguments applied centuries ago with those used today by tyrannical leaders and oligarchic leaderships in Arab states. Observing the arguments used by the Assad regime, the defence strategy of actions made in the name of "protecting Syria" and the logic behind the positions it has been taking throughout the past three years, one can say that indeed, some do believe that the only path towards salvation of a nation is through tyrannical leaders. The constant reminding of the dangers of islamists, the hand of Israel in the riots, the personal and self-serving interests of the suggested alternative government and the hidden agendas of regional and international actors are the arguments used and repeated by this regime. The acts of violence, targeting of citizens, blood shedding and stubborn hold on to power are all being justified by Assad, his circle of elites and his sympathizers, both local and international.

  Perhaps the prophecy of Machiavelli is true…perhaps morality is not to be applied on all equally…perhaps the protection of the existence of the nation is an objective that justifies acts of cruelty and injustice…perhaps holding on to power is the ultimate objective of politics….but what is sure is that such a line of thought only exists in that part of the world. 

الدرس الاوروبي

The only solution: Back in Time

       

    The ideal state, statehood, citizenship, democracy and governance have been themes studied and debated by famous political thinkers, starting from Socrates, to Hobbes to Duverger. Civilizations, both based on philosophical grounds and religious doctrines (and more recently civic and judicial foundations) have all tried to come up with the supreme state-model, a blueprint for a happy and well-functioning society, an ideal type of governance and relations between citizens, nations and political class. Achieving a euphoric state is not a logical objective, but the quest is. Nations make sure that they constantly reform, modify, update, analyse and test their policies and governance strategies, all with the objective of enhancing the quality of the state and statehood in question. As modern as this may sound, this activity has been actually long practiced, starting as early as the fifth century BC Greece.

     

    Plato believed that a good man must be a good citizen who in return could not exist without a good state. He believed that no law is more powerful than knowledge, rejecting laws and customs that people accept at face value and without a critical eye. Aristotle believed that reason cannot be separated from a good state that is incarnated in both law and customs of the community that is being governed. Moral ideals, supremacy of the law, liberty and equality of all citizens and law-based governments have all been the supreme ends of any state. The pleasure seeking Epicureans for their part believed that a state is found with the sole objective of achieving security, protecting men from other men’s egoistic interests. They lectured that considering that all men are selfish and seek personal happiness and joy, and that men would do anything to achieve such happiness, men in communities agreed to form ab agreement that protects them from harm caused by one another. Men, therefore, adopt a plan to respect the rights of others with the objective of having their own rights protected. Antisthenes and his school of Cynicism  preached liberal thoughts of refusing society, laws, traditions and prejudices,  focusing on the inner merits of individuals; rich men, poor men, Greeks, barbarians, citizens and foreigners booth free and slaves, nobles and villainous are all equal  and should all be reduced to a common level of indifference. With the expansion of the Greek empire after Alexander the great, the Greek philosophy also became more universally oriented, where the concepts of universal state and universal citizenship became clearer. The Romans inherited the philosophies of their Greek neighbours and new philosophers, such as Cicero, began preaching the universal natural rights, universal states governed under the law of God and the equality of all men under this eternal celestial law. He strongly believed that only bad habits and false opinions impede men from being equal. Seneca (the Roman Stoic philosopher) then emphasized the importance of benevolence, tolerance, morals and equality of men, a set of thoughts that spread in the Roman Empire and inspired the Christian thought. From there, and since Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire in 380 AD and Islam came to preach abut equality of human kind and that races, no matter how much they differ in color, language, and conditions, are all equal before a benevolent God. Empires then followed and the ideals kept on developing. Good. So what happened later? How could this string of intellectual progression of human political thought get destroyed by political leaders and fanatical ideological ideals? How could it be that a community in Roman and Greek empires preached and believed in equality of citizens, reason and subjection to a common law that would protect their interests, while now, in the 21^st century, we are rebelling against, law, common sense, and humanity itself?

     

    A quick review of last week’s Middle East’s headlines read as follows: Iraq: Al Qaeda aims at suffocating Sunni Cities; Dozens dead in a series of blasts in different Sunni cities; Two car bombs kill 17 Shiites in south Baghdad during Karbala religious ceremony; Muslim Brothers students in Egypt’s convert universities to conflict zones with security forces; MB to boycott referendum on constitution; Jihadists chop head of three Alawi men in Adra next to Damascus. What is not being broadcast but is somehow general knowledge is that Jordanians frown upon Palestinian presence in Jordan; Palestinians are oppressed by Israelis; Israeli Jews discriminate against anyone who does not carry pure Jewish blood; Iranians want to annihilate the Zionist nation; Iraqi Shias sympathize with Iran's quest to spread Shiism; Lebanese Shias agree and feel oppressed by Sunni co-citizens; Sunnis want to join hand with anyone against Iran; Christians and Muslims doubt each other’s intentions; Kurds still deprived of full autonomous rights in Syria, Turkey and to a certain extent Iraq; Alawis are not Muslims nor are the Druuz say fundamentalists…and the list goes on. We seem to be living in a conflict zone, a moral, intellectual and religious conflict zone. Respect to human rights, freedom and dignity has evaporated, and pure fundamentalism is taking their place instead. Tolerance is no longer acceptable and is in fact considered a sign of weakness. Any comprise or deal made without bloodshed, without compensation, without wars and trials and destruction would be considered a humiliating defeat. We ridicule leaders who sit down with enemies and listen, we judge citizens who try to picture the other point of view, and we disapprove of any deviation of the accepted political/religious/social doctrine. We are living under the slogan of vengeance, when the history of our region, whether political, intellectual or religious has demonstrated elsewise throughout history.

    

   I lamentably believe that the calls for virtue, thought, subjection of laws to human intelligence, tolerance, patience and intellectual activity are being attracted by a number of actors with political agendas. What the Pythagorean cult believed in “harmony as a basic principle in music, medicine and politics” is ridiculed by our modern actors who champion rigid compliance to a sole doctrine. What Socrates believed in respect of virtue as being a learned and taught knowledge is now considered as blasphemy and a challenge to religious laws. Any intention to find a way for harmonic existence is being fought and won by such fundamentalists. Against the backdrop of mutual suspicion against anyone who does not belong to the exact school of thought, religion, set of beliefs, political orientation and affiliation and of course racial roots, and the failure to find any solution, I have a suggestion. I say we divide the region into small patches of land, each governed by a family. Black sheep can find their own patch. This way we can go back to prehistoric times – as we are on the way there by the way – and each family finds a settlement that calls it home. From there, let’s start anew. Let us start to learn how to think, live and progress. Let's learn how to develop our morals and respect for diversity and co-existence. Let us learn how to forgive and tolerate. Let us erase all the ugliness we have seen in our modern days and go back to a more developed past.

+ 3 GMT

   Jordanian local newspapers have all published heated articles complaining about the government’s decision regarding winter time (maintaining GMT+3 instead of GMT+2). They also rejoiced the great public's victory of obliging the government to reverse its decision and go back to winter time on December 19^th. The Prime Minister Abdalla Al Nsur said in the parliament’s opening session on Wednesday that the government received the parliament’s request regarding this issue adding that he was impressed with the parliamentarians’ civilized attitude and approach, which, as he said, was exactly the democratic way of doing things.  There will be great costs resulting from this decision he explained, but since the government is committed to respecting the opinion of its citizens, it will shoulder the expenses*. What a victory, what a social movement, what a potent parliament, what a strong voice, and what an ability to cause drastic changes in policies as per the public’s request and vision. What is surprising however is that in the parliamentary session on Sunday December 1^st, members of the this robust  parliament decided to walk out without giving their vote of confidence on the cabinet as was expected, deciding to postpone this minor issue after the 2014 budget is passed (thanks to a petition signed by 57 members). So far there has been little feedback from major news portals on the passiveness of the parliament and the motives behind this decision, but it does not really matter, we Jordanians are still in the festive mood after getting our way on the winter time war. The public’s demand is not being ridiculed (forgiveness if it does sound otherwise), as all of us Jordanians understand the dire economic conditions in which many fellow citizens live in, and what an extra hour of sunshine in the morning would mean in respect to availability of morning hot water and tolerable weather conditions as children walk to school. When a European country decides to change into winter time, children don’t have to worry about waking up in an igloo-like house, washing up in cold water, or walking in pitch darkness down unsafe roads. The extra hour of sunlight would be used for recreational purposes, visiting parks and enjoying a somehow warmer/sunnier afternoon. Sadly, the situation in Jordan is not so, and hence the demands to reverse the government’s decision. Nonetheless, this rejoice may perhaps be  an indication of underlying anger, one related to a sense of helplessness and complete lack of public control over public policies. When are Jordanians consulted on anything? When was the last referendum held on any issue? How are economic, social and political concerns taken into account? How effective is the parliament in its duty in representing the people’s will? What is the extent of the control it exerts on executive decisions? Did it ever control any of these decisions? Can we safely judge that this jolliness of parliamentarians and the public is somehow linked to a sense of “finally, our voice is heard on something…anything”? That the parliament did in fact practice its role as a legislator and a speaker for the people?

   Someone once said that “Cynicism is humour in ill health”.  Accurate description of Jordanian politics. Fixating on minor issues while ignoring bigger causes and the root of problems will never help us (Jordanians) acheive political development and enhance the concept of democracy, public participation and accountability. To highlight the victory of time change and ignore the issue of confidence vote is a betrayal to all attempts in developing our political system and the sacrifice made by activists and partisans throughout history. When our Constitution was drafted in 1952 and included an article (53) on the confidence vote,  parties, activists and political figures in the country who fought for this change since the 1920s (through national conferences, demostractions and demands on modifications of the 1947 constitution) felt a sense of relief and acheivment. The parliament actually exercised this right as early as the 1950s and had enough integrity to face the storm and accept to have the parliament dissolved because of its defiance to the government and its loyalty to its public responsibility (example: the third parliament elected in 1951 was dissolved on June 22^nd 1954 prior to the voting session as premier Tawfiq Abu Al Huda learned that some members were planning to block the confidence vote). They pushed for amendments and managed to even get the vote of confidence blocked by a majority of the parliamente (1954 modification) instead of two thirds (original version of 1952), an achievement that may sound minimal at the moment but had a great impact on the flow of events back in the fifties and the sixties. Nowadays, when this right is granted, and when the government is fully under the legislative’s control, it is being marginalized and somehow belittled. Our parliament (or part of it) is feeding the public false victories on minor issues while giving away its right of policy control, the right we all entrusted in these members. To conclude, we should thank our parliament for our not-so-cold-or-dark mornings, although we sadly do remain in the dark.

*Please note that the government will shoulder expenses via the treasury, not the piggy bank of any official.

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?