Category Archives: Politics

Semi-Authoritarian Regimes

“‘Semi-authoritarian regimes’ have political parties and NGOs, hold elections, and look on paper as though they at least have some democratic attributes. But behind the scenes the power elite makes sure it remains in power and reduces the ‘democratic’ activities to a shadow play for the benefit of a restless domestic public and for that of international bureaucrats.”

Middle East expert Juan Cole thinks that American policy in recent years has encouraged the formation of semi-authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East. Those that were pure dictatorships in the past have learned to hold elections without putting at risk the monopoly of their ruling elites. As Israel hardens its nature as an apartheid state, it is moving toward authoritarianism and away from democracy. In Iraq and Palestine, where the U.S. experimented with democratization but didn’t like the results, semi-authoritarian regimes have become the more comfortable path for U.S. interests. America’s clumsy attempt to support democratizing forces in Iran has led to more authoritarianism, not less. In the two cases he mentions where movement has been in the other direction, Turkey and Pakistan, greater popular control at the expense of the military is “disturbing the world status quo,” creating awkward relations with the U.S.

Cole concludes:

“You have to wonder how committed most Washington elites really are to democratization, and have to wonder whether semi-authoritarianism in Middle Eastern allies might not be perceived as holding benefits for the U.S.”

The book to which he refers in this post, Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism by Marina Ottaway, can be found here.

Let’s Talk About Israeli Racism

2 Replies

Just yesterday, I wondered to a friend if maybe Benjamin Netanyahu is disrespecting Barack Obama in part because he is black? And lo and behold, David Bromwich wrote today in the Huffington Post:

“Racism as much as fear drives the Israeli policy toward Palestinians. This has always been known. But who now will deny that there is also, in the Israeli distrust and visceral ridicule of Barack Obama, an undercurrent of racism?”

He goes on to point out the parallel between racism against Palestinians by the Israeli settler movement, and racism against blacks by their staunchest supporters in the U.S., the white evangelicals he calls Christian Zionists. It is almost as if, their segregationist fantasies defeated here at home, the religious right is projecting them onto the Holy Land by helping the settler movement to build an apartheid state.

“The operation of Israeli racism against a black American president is powerfully enforced by the settler movement and by its American allies, the Christian Zionists. … Settler racism and Christian Zionist racism (associated with the ‘birther movement’ in the U.S.) converge in a belief in the political and the social superiority of Israeli Jews over Palestinians — a superiority that for the Christian Zionists corresponds (in ways that need no comment) to the natural superiority of American whites to blacks.”

He calls on Americans to become aware of the racist nature of the Israeli settlement project, and its implications for American security interests.

“Will Americans now stop calling the annexation wall — which cuts off West-Bank Israeli colonists from their Palestinian inferiors — ‘the security fence’? It is a wall. Its function is only partly to secure. It is there also to separate, to mark off, and to overawe. … The separation produces…a condition of constant inequality. It seems too weak to call the result ‘segregation.’ Ehud Barak, a solid authority one would have thought, has recently called it apartheid, and language that is accurate in the eyes of the defense minister of Israel should be good enough for Americans. …

“The existential threat in the vicinity of Israel is not extermination but expulsion. And Israel is the agent rather than victim of that threat. The project is being carried forward by legalized acts of dispossession, by harassment, by deprivation of useful work, and by the deliberate infliction of misery.”

Fortunately, he feels that Americans are starting to become aware of these ugly truths. Beginning with the war in Gaza, and continuing through the diplomatic crisis surrounding Joe Biden’s visit to Israel, forty years of self-imposed silence in the American media, which have prevented a frank discussion of Israel’s policies, are starting to fray.

“So the door to an honest discussion of Israel and Palestine has been opened wide. Too wide for AIPAC, and all its journalistic outlets, to close with their usual dispatch. We are in possession now of the realistic knowledge that Israel’s policies endanger American troops and American interests; that by creating new terrorists, those policies also threaten the security of the United States. …

“It is one thing to sacrifice yourself for a friend in the cause of justice; another to sacrifice yourself for a friend in the cause of injustice.”

Palisraelstine

8 Replies

I thought it would look ugly, but I like it….

Finally, America vs. Israel

5 Replies

What Joe Biden told the Israelis:

“This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

What Hillary Clinton told CNN:

“The announcement of the settlements the very day that the vice president was there was insulting.”

What Hillary Clinton told the Israelis (paraphrased by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley):

“The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security.”

What a senior U.S. official told the Washington Post:

“We think the burden is on the Israelis to do something that could restore confidence in the process and to restore confidence in the relationship with the United States.”

What Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told his colleagues:

“Israel’s ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975…a crisis of historic proportions.”

What General David Petraeus told his superiors back in January (paraphrased by Mark Perry in Foreign Policy):

“The message couldn’t be plainer: Israel’s intransigence could cost American lives.”

So American interests and Israeli interests are not identical? Finally, a confrontation where it counts!

Obama’s War of Choice

Obama’s war of choice, coming in 2011?

“Iran is definitely in Obama’s sights. He has ceased courting it, and is girding for the confrontation. But not yet. … Last year was the year of public relations; 2010 is the year of pressure. The crushing blow that comes after the pressure will not be dealt before next year.”

“The year of public relations” — that’s what worries me. Did Obama “court” Iran not because he wanted a deal — whether a narrow deal on uranium enrichment, or a broader deal leading to warmer relations — but as a gesture designed to fail? Did he set out merely to show the world that he was being reasonable, that he offered his hand and Iran refused? If that is the case, the failure will now be used to isolate Iran even further, softening world public opinion for military action down the road — once punitive sanctions, too, have been tried and failed.

The Ha’aretz writer I cited above thinks he can read Obama’s mind. He believes that Obama has given up on negotiations and will attack Iran, but is waiting until after the November elections for political reasons. I’m not so sure, but I do worry. Washington has limited its outreach to Tehran to a single issue — an all-or-nothing uranium swap — and now keeps repeating how unimpressed they are with Tehran’s attempts to meet them halfway. (Iran is willing to do a swap, but not all at once, rather in stages over several months.) Negotiations are at a stalemate, and the U.S. is busy rallying the global powers to punish Iran through sanctions. Meanwhile, Congress has passed its own sanctions bill by an overwhelming vote. Unless the game changes suddenly due to an Iranian popular revolution in the next few months — which won’t happen — it increasingly looks like the stage is being set, and consciously so, for a military showdown in 2011 as Ha’aretz claims.

What has Iran done to deserve this? Its leaders have said repeatedly they don’t want a nuclear weapon. Western intelligence has found no evidence that they are pursuing a weapon. Stories were planted in Western newspapers claiming that the Iranians are testing some sort of nuclear detonator, but these stories have been shown to be false. Iran’s uranium enrichment program is well within its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and they are cooperating with IAEA inspectors. I don’t understand the justification — moral, strategic, or otherwise — for a showdown with Iran.

If it’s true that Obama has already made up his mind to attack Iran, that would prove him to be even more duplicitous than I already know him to be. The condescension of pretending to want peace, while preparing for war — I’ve perceived it in him since his Nobel Peace Prize speech. But if he goes so far as to attack Iran, a country that has done nothing to the U.S., after pledging to reach out — may he be condemned by history, may he be buried in shame.

Of course, I may be jumping the gun. Perhaps the Ha’aretz columnist is projecting his own fantasies onto Obama. My own fears, too, could be wrong — I certainly hope so. If Obama decides to negotiate sincerely, without preconditions as he promised during his campaign, far-ranging breakthroughs are possible, instead of this senseless division. Or maybe Russia and China will make the price of military action too high. Or maybe the U.S. will blunder into the bloody chaos of its third Middle East war. I guess we’ll know soon enough — in another year or two.

— • —

Here’s Iranian rapper Salome calling for the Iranian people to remain united regardless of “family” differences — since there are those trying to exploit those differences “who don’t care about us.” This addresses itself to those in Washington who hope a “Green Revolution” will play to its advantage, as well as to opportunists in Iran hoping to use the divisions to gain power. (Thanks to Lenin’s Tomb for the link.)

Congress Demands Arab Censorship

11 Replies

On December 8, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 395 to 3, a resolution specifically naming three Arab TV stations — Al Manar, Al Aqsa, and Al Rifadayn — as “terrorist owned and operated” channels that broadcast “incitement to violence against the United States.” The resolution stated that any satellite provider that broadcasts these stations, or others to be named later, would be considered a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” under the law. The president would be required to report to Congress each year concerning “anti-American incitement to violence” on TV stations across the Middle East, covering 19 nations from Morocco to Iran.

The three “terrorist” stations are carried on the two largest satellite providers in the Middle East, NileSat of Egypt and ArabSat of Saudi Arabia. Between them, NileSat and ArabSat offer hundreds of stations, most of which show cheesy movies, game shows, and cartoons for kids, as well as the official state programming of the various Arab nations. This resolution, known as H.R. 2278, would require NileSat and ArabSat to block any channel the U.S. labels as terrorist, or see themselves labeled as supporters of terrorism. The resolution still needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by the president to become law — it is currently before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chaired by John Kerry. So there is still time for Washington to come to its senses, but it should be clear that by issuing such a heavy-handed demand for censorship, Congress has sent exactly the wrong message to the Arab world.

Al Manar is the voice of Hezbollah, which besides being an armed resistance movement against Israel, is a political party active in the Lebanese government. Al Aqsa is linked with Hamas, also a resistance movement and the de facto government of the Gaza Strip. Al Rafidayn is an Iraqi station described by the Open Source Center, an arm of the U.S. intelligence community, as a “pro-Sunni, anti-U.S. Iraqi channel believed to be affiliated with the Association of Muslim Scholars.” Of the three, only Al Rifadayn could remotely be accused of “incitement to violence against the United States,” since it supports resistance to the American occupation of Iraq. There is a blurring of lines here between “terrorism” and legitimate resitance — a difference which is in the eye of the beholder. None of these stations supports random acts of violence against civilians, such as suicide bombings or kidnappings, which is the usual definition of terrorism. All provide legitimate news services to the population. And the target of resistance for both Al Manar and Al Aqsa isn’t the U.S. at all, but the state of Israel.

I’ve watched Al Manar here in Morocco, and while they have their share of pro-resistance propaganda — scenes of heroic battles from the 2006 Lebanon War, accompanied by patriotic songs — they are also a news source with high standards of professionalism. In fact, they were the only ones providing on-the-ground coverage during the Israel–Lebanon conflict — even Al Jazeera used their footage — and it was through their station that I became aware of the devastation Israel was raining down on a beleaguered nation. Perhaps that’s what bothers the U.S. Congress. It’s certainly what bothers Israel. Henry Lamb, an American lawyer living in Lebanon, who seems to be the only one writing in depth about H.R. 2278, cites a “Washington DC observer” on the motivations behind the proposed law.

“Regarding Al Manar it’s personal for Israel. The reason is that Al Manar did to the Israeli government propaganda machine during and following the July 2006 war what Hezbollah fighters did to Israeli troops. Al Manar kicked butt. That station must be made to disappear. The plan is to stop the 15-20 million daily viewers of Al Manar from receiving its transmission and well as to intimidate all the other Middle East TV channels that are suspected of moving toward the growing ‘Culture of Resistance’….”

In another article, Lamb praises Al Manar’s “reputation for accuracy, thoroughness and objectivity and getting the latest news on the air fast.” Speaking of the tragic crash of an Ethiopian airliner in Beirut on January 25, he adds:

“As Lebanese woke to the news this morning an estimated 80% of the population is thought to have turned into Al Manar at least once sometime between the hours of 7 am and 11 am, as they and the region regularly do during war or crisis. … Al Manar was the first Lebanese station to give the most details…. Ironically, staff at the American Embassy, and surely the large contingent of CIA agents here, almost certainly sat glued to Al Manar to evaluate what really has happened. [If H.R. 2278 becomes law] US officials may be deprived of this reliable source of information.”

During a recent visit by Senator John McCain, Lebanese president Michel Sleiman asked “that Washington backtrack on its decision to ban certain television channels, including Al Manar,” according to an official statement. Meanwhile Nabih Berri, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, sent a letter to U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi denouncing the proposed law.

“[The bill] harms the principles of freedom of expression and civil rights, and leads to further complication in relations. … This bill represents bypassing to the sovereign national laws of the targeted countries, among them Lebanon which is a free ‘Hyde Park’ for the Lebanese and Arab satellite ‘public opinion’ media channels. … Therefore, the bill issued by your Congress undermines our sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of many countries….”

Lebanon is proud of its diversity of opinion, which is the thread holding society together after a generation of civil strife. The above statements show that Congress, in its hastily considered attempt at censorship, has united the entire Lebanese political class in protest — not just Hezbollah, a political movement the U.S. still labels “terrorist,” but the elected government as well, which Washington supports.

But there is another dimension to the problem, namely the excuse that H.R. 2278 gives to Arab nations with reasons of their own for censoring opposing views. Chief among them are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which coincidentally or not, are home to NileSat and ArabSat, respectively. Egypt has been ruled by Hosni Mubarak, known as “the Pharaoh,” for 28 years under martial law. Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabism and the obscenely rich Saudi royal family. Both have a history of silencing domestic critics, and both are sponsors of an Arab League proposal to monitor TV stations in all its 22 member nations.

The Arab League first discussed a satellite TV charter back in February 2008, but the recent action by Congress has given new momentum to their plans. On January 24, 2010, Arab information ministers met in Cairo to discuss the proposal. According to Reporters Without Borders, the plan would set up an “Office for Arab Satellite Television” to ensure that stations “respect the ethical standards and moral values of Arab society” and “no longer serve as fronts or outlets for ‘terrorist’ organisations.” In a statement, the Paris-based watchdog group warned of the potential for abuse.

“The danger is that this super-police could be used to censor all TV stations that criticise the region’s governments. It could eventually be turned into a formidable weapon against freedom of information.”

Anthony Mills of the International Press Institute issued a similar warning.

“The International Press Institute is wary of efforts to engage in that kind of monitoring particularly given the record of most, if not all, Arab Middle Eastern countries on press freedom. It’s an example of states in the Arab world using the notion of security to in fact monitor and stifle independent reporting.”

The influence of H.R. 2278 can be seen in two of the stations mentioned by Reporters Without Borders as targets of the new plan — Al Aqsa and Al Manar — along with the plan’s emphasis on “terrorism.” However, as Daoud Kuttab shows in a 2008 article, the original motivations have little to do with “terrorism” or “incitement to violence.” Arab governments simply want to shield themselves from an increasingly independent and critical media universe.

“[Arab information ministers] have been gradually losing power to the satellite stations. For some time governments have been resigned to the fact that the rich and elite will have access to alternative information coming from satellite but the poor masses will continue to be spoon fed through the terrestrial stations. But as the prices of satellite dishes have become affordable to the poor masses, and as the satellite stations have cut deeply into the audience of national broadcasts, the alarm bells started to sound and the ministers of information increased their meetings hoping to find a regional solution to this problem. …

“Couched between clauses that prohibit broadcasting obscenity, pornography and scenes encouraging smoking, the charter calls for ‘Abstaining from broadcasting anything that would contradict with or jeopardize Arab solidarity….’ It also calls for ‘abidance by objectivity, honesty and respect of the dignity and national sovereignty of states and their people, and not to insult their leaders or national and religious symbols.’

“The strange notion that politicians are somehow immune from attack, that leaders are not to be insulted or that the satellite broadcasters are obliged not to jeopardize Arab solidarity is nothing short of censorship.”

It’s clear that by taking up the issue just one month after the passage of H.R. 2278, the Arab League is doing its best to defuse to the claims that NileSat and ArabSat are enabling “terrorism.” However, it’s equally clear that they were given an excuse to do what they want to do anyway — rein in stations whose independence is a thorn in their side. One indication is that along with Al Aqsa and Al Manar, Reporters Without Borders names Al Jazeera as a target of the proposed “super-police.” Al Jazeera is the most popular news channel in the Middle East, and the only one with an international reputation for journalistic excellence and independence. They have reporters around the world, even providing excellent coverage of the 2008 American presidential elections. Their investigative reporting is provocative, as are their discussions with public figures and intellectuals. They are an indispensible actor in the move toward greater freedom of expression in the Arab world.

Some in the U.S. seem to have the impression that Al Jazeera is a jihadi station that shows nothing but suicide bombings and tapes from Osama bin Laden. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is frankly insulting. People in Morocco rely on Al Jazeera to get an independent perspective on what is happening in their own country, and I’m sure the same is true in other Arab nations. This forces the official state channels to compete in a world where they are no longer the sole source of information. This makes them uncomfortable, and forces them to get better if they want to retain credibility. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera has earned its reputation. They aren’t pushing an agenda. They simply provide balance to Western networks like CNN and the BBC by showing what the world looks like from a perspective outside the West. This can be refreshing, even for an American.

Congress did not name Al Jazeera in H.R. 2278, but the Arab League is using the resolution as an excuse to pressure the station. After all, they hold the power. If Al Jazeera were denied access to NileSat and ArabSat, it would vanish from TV screens across the Middle East. This recently happened to another station that annoyed Saudi Arabia, Al Alam of Iran. When Saudi Arabia got involved in a Yemeni civil war that its propaganda blames — falsely — on Iran, it pressured Egypt to kick Al Alam out of the NileSat lineup. Since ArabSat is controlled by Saudi Arabia, there was no problem there. The station went dark across the Arab world, upsetting my friend’s aunt who liked to watch it daily because “it tells the whole truth.” She also likes Al Manar, also for its independence. What business does Congress, none of whose members have ever watched an Arab news channel, have telling my friend’s aunt that she likes “terrorist” TV?

The Arab League is divided on the “super-police” proposal, with Egypt and Saudia Arabia as key sponsors, and Qatar and Lebanon strongly opposed. Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, where it began as a project of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, so Qatar is defending its own interests there. We’ve already seen that the Lebanese political leadership is ready to defend Al Manar on the grounds of national sovereignty. So it comes down to a test of wills between two nations, Qatar and Lebanon, who are pioneers of Arab media diversity, and two others, Saudia Arabia and Egypt, who represent state censorship and control. Guess which side the U.S. Congress is on? And isn’t it ironic that around the same time Hillary Clinton made a big speech defending the “freedom to connect” on the internet, Congress should be demanding that Arab states use their authority to pull independent media off the air?

American Oligarchy

My Powerful Voice

7 Replies

Yesterday, President Obama told me:

“I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.”

It’s nice to know that my voice is the one everyone else is listening to. It certainly doesn’t feel that way.

I wanted a much stronger economic stimulus back in the spring, focused on creating jobs by building a new, “green energy” infrastructure. I wanted at least some of the big banks to be taken over by the government, and thoroughly reformed before being broken up and resold to the private sector. I wanted guaranteed health care for everyone, paid for through a national system like in Britain, France or Canada. I wanted an immediate end to the use of drone aircraft in war, which invariably kills civilians. In fact, I wanted all troops withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq, closure of most American bases overseas, and a massive cut in our defense budget. I wanted an end to all those unconstitutional things Bush was doing in the name of national security. I wanted a criminal inquiry into torture, secret prisons, and the illegal war in Iraq. I wanted the U.S. to join the International Criminal Court, and to recognize the Goldstone Report that found Israel guilty of war crimes. I wanted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with a right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel. I wanted full diplomatic relations and open exchange with Iran, Cuba and Syria. I wanted to allow anyone, anywhere in the world who wants to move to the U.S. to be able to do so, unless she has committed a violent crime. I wanted a new era of peace and prosperity worldwide, based on economic justice and respect for human rights — and if that wasn’t possible, I at least wanted the U.S. to try really hard to make it happen, without firing a single bullet.

I know my voice isn’t being heard in Washington, and President Obama isn’t hearing it either. There’s probably good reason for that, because my voice is one of many, and not eveyone agrees. But at least spare me the fatuous talk, Mr. President, because you don’t even know me.

“Internet Freedom” as Foreign Policy?

1 Reply

Middle East expert Marc Lynch has some valuable thoughts on American efforts to use “internet freedom” to promote its foreign policy interests, particularly in Iran.

He compares a speech by Hillary Clinton, “outlining America’s commitment to ‘internet freedom,'” with an article published the same day “by two key Bush administration public diplomacy officials, James Glassman and Michael Doran, calling on the U.S. to use the soft power of the internet to promote regime change in Iran.”

“[For] Glassman and Doran, who both held important public diplomacy positions in the previous administration and have long been enthusiastic advocates of using the internet…the point is not abstract, universal freedoms — it is using those tools against an adversary. They urge the U.S. to use the new media to undermine the Iranian regime and to help the Green Movement by providing moral and educational support….

And if Glassman and Doran have their way, they will be right

Lynch goes on to describe the “moral hazard” involved if the U.S. is unwilling or unable to look out for those who might take Clinton’s words at face value.

“It’s great to support and encourage internet activists and protestors of all sorts. But such support can lead them to take some very risky, dangerous activities against their brutal governments, perhaps in the expectation that the United States will protect them from the consequences. Will it? If a blogger inspired by Clinton’s speech decides to launch a corruption monitoring website, and is summarily imprisoned and tortured, does the U.S. have any plan in place to protect her?”

While I share Clinton’s hope that “the freedom to connect…can help transform societies,” Lynch shows the danger of looking at the world solely through a prism of American interests. American words and actions have consequences, to real people outside the U.S. If “internet freedom” is treated as an arm of American foreign policy in which activists are used and then abandoned, it will make the U.S. look like a cynical manipulator and a feckless hypocrite. If, however, the commitment is real and for the long term, it will mean supporting the internet’s many voices even when they are saying what America doesn’t want to hear.

War Is Theft