Growing Together

I recently read an article on Al Jazeera English about potential solutions for the aftermath of the Arab Spring activities.

The Middle East hasn’t really changed too much apart from the overthrow of national leaders. Solutions are still far from implementation and there are remaining resolutions to be made. There are also some growth measures to take toward development and economic strength. The author of the article raises three questions about the solutions for new leadership principles in the Middle East.

Question 1: Is Islam the solution?

“Islamists can lead the way in stamping out corruption, injustice, and exclusion, but to do this they need to partner with the rest of society.  …The Arab Spring has given Islamists an opportunity to demonstrate how “Islam can be beautiful” in practice.”

I think that an Islamist state could work as well as a secular state. The issue is that no one can really agree on what applications are appropriate for state politics. A faith-based government would be difficult to implement because interpretations are very subjective. If something didn’t work out with a chosen Islamic concept as a political resolution, what would the consequences be for readjusting the “rules”? Would it make the Islamic political model less credible?

Question 2: Is democratization the solution?

“Pragmatically, Islamists have postponed the project of the Islamic state – and some even the implementation of Islamic law – until such a time when there is a properly functioning Muslim society. The reasoning behind this is that the perfect Islamic society is nowhere to be yet found in the global Islamic community. Democratic majoritarianism must equally be postponed until there is a properly functioning democratic public and society.”

Will there ever really be an entirely properly functioning society? Who would have the authority to deem an Islamic (or democratic) society as “perfect”? Who could keep the leader accountable for the reasoning behind decision-making? The most “functional” democracies are all pretty dysfunctional but they (hopefully) continue to strive for growth and improvement.  Drastic changes have to be made to the current Middle Eastern political landscape and soon. If the new leadership in the “new Middle East” waits until there are functional Islamic or democratic societies to mimic before any changes are made, it will be waiting a very long time.

Question 3: Is coalition-building the solution?

Coalition is a “combination or alliance, especially a temporary one between persons, factions or states,” (dictionary.com). It seems that this would be practical but with so many opinions about how to run things, compromise, accountability and strategy would be essential to making this solution work.

“If the two parties with the most potential build themselves into the democratic rivals of Ennahdha and then end up joining the Islamists as governing partners, the Constituent Assembly will not be a place of vibrant opposition, deliberation, contests and counter-contests.”

A constant tug-of-war about opposing perspectives and opinions will hinder any movement forward. Continuous disagreement about the approach with stunt the process of solution exploration with this method. Different groups would have to be aware of their alliances and how that shapes the reactions of opposing parties.

Perhaps a combination of Islamism, democratization and coalition-building would be the best compromise. Naturally, these changes will be difficult on more than one level. Islam has a bad reputation of being associated with radicals and terrorists. To help debunk these broad assumptions about Islamism,  the rest of the world would need to be educated on the particular positive aspects of how it would be helpful on the political front. It might make the international interactions with the West a little harder at first; how would other nations react to Islam being part of the politics of a state?

The tricky part would be for leaders to agree on which elements to include as part of their constitution, and then the policies set forth would need to be followed. It will be interesting and important to watch how the structuring of political powers and policies unfold in this “newer” Middle Eastern era. I know that this is optimistic, but I really hope that the new regimes can agree on positive ways to work toward developing their states into stronger economies together.

A peek into a crazy man’s world

I just watched a current film (2011) about the son of Saddam Hussein, Uday Saddam Hussein, and the man who was forced to act as his double. The film The Devil’s Double was based on the true story of Latif Yahia.

I remember hearing all about how sadistic Saddam and his sons were to the Iraqi people. At one point, I remember hearing that Saddam would treat people based on his mood. The film validated these rumors as it showed the instability and outrageous behavior of Uday.  

Some other strange elements of the film that I noticed:

• The women in the film were very light-complected (one of the love interests resembled Christina Aguilera and had blue eyes with an accent that sounded English at times).  Is the Western woman look considered attractive or were the females in the film just a reaffirmation of the thin, white ideal?

• Latif Yahia sounded British. Maybe the actor couldn’t pull of an Iraqi accent but I thought that it was a little distracting.

• Uday had guns in his bedroom that he played with right before he was about to have sex. This seemed more like an exaggeration of a stereotype than an interpretation of his sanity.

• I think that the film-makers injected more violence in the movie because it covered such a violent topic. It was hard to tell what was included for historical depiction and what was included for entertainment.

• The discotheques played American and British music. Also, when war footage came on screen, there was pop music to accompany it.

• The film showed Iraqis that were part of the regime, or those who celebrated with the regime, celebrating by shooting their guns in the air. I’m pretty sure that it was just a play on stereotypes.

• There were frequent black and gold contrasts. It was striking and was symbolic to the abundant wealth of the Hussein regime (gold) and the evil that they embodied (black).  

• Whenever the U.S. was shown as part of the storyline, it was shown as a hero and a help to the people of Iraq. The U.S. forces were portrayed as a “good guy” and on the same side as Latif.

The film left me with a better understanding of how psychotic Uday Saddam Hussein was. It also left me feeling disgusted with the arrogance, greed, violence and terror that a former leader inflicted on its people. The subtle propaganda about the U.S. helping to save the day was noted too. War wasn’t glamorized but there was a clear fight between good and evil and the U.S. was positioned on the “good side” in the film. I appreciated the historical elements used (documentary footage of the Gulf War) but I’m not sure if it was used to educate the audience about the time period or push the idea that Americans helped to save the Iraqis during this conflict. I thought that the film was an OK way to learn about these historical accounts because it taught me that Uday was crippled from an assassination attempt.

I watched The Devil’s Double to see if the Western film-makers used it as a way to maximize on Middle Eastern stereotypes or if it was used as a way to educate viewers about this piece of history from the basis of an actual first-hand experience. Even though the film used some messages on American propaganda, it brought the lavish and crazy lifestyle of the Husseins to life. It seemed to confirm the rumors that I heard about the Husseins from my childhood, and it gave the audience an intense protagonist to root for. Even though the visual elements were fairly well done and the story line was powerful, it is not a film that I would watch again.

Young Iraqi Identity

Tattoos; hip-hop; break-dancing; foul language and Twilight. These are some of the things that American soldiers are leaving the Iraqi youth with as they exit Iraq. In a recent article by the Associated Press about the U.S. military legacy in Iraq, the author describes how American popular culture has influenced the youth of the Iraqi people.

With all of the mixed feelings about leaving Iraq swimming around in American media, an article that highlights some “good” had to have been strategically placed amidst all of the negative Middle Eastern stories. Sometimes I feel like the American media is a lot like that one friend that we all have who turns every conversation back to them.  The American press found another way to talk about themselves. It even highlighted a general quote from the Iraqi youth that declared, “I love American soldiers” in bold lettering.  

This article is tailored to an American audience and Orientalism messages are weaved into the story by the author’s portrayal of Iraqi youth as mostly ignorant followers. The author explained that “to many of their fellow Iraqis, the habits appear weird, if not downright offensive. But to the youth, it is a vital part of their pursuit of the American dream as they imagine it to be.”

It’s interesting that the mimicked American style that the youth have adopted has become a subculture within Iraq. People have the desire to learn English and sport tattoos but it’s not a positive thing when it’s pursued in a way that is disrespectful to the Iraqi culture. Some youth also think that if they “act more American,” they can obtain a higher status. Without access to university for some poorer citizens, sometimes rap music, satellite TV and American soldier interaction is the only way that people in Iraq choose to learn English. This perpetuates negative American stereotypes in Iraq and it also perpetuates class discrimination against someone who partakes in this created subculture.

An Iraqi young person might identify with American soldiers because that’s what they’re most recently familiar with, but they can choose to be whoever they want. Also, they’re young and they’re still developing their own ideas of what they believe to be part of their own identity. I agree with Nawras Mohammed (an Iraqi that was interviewed for the story) when she says that people need to be selective when choosing how to learn English and when deciding what to represent.  The identity of the Iraqi youth is up to them.

Refurbished and ready for visitors

Strangers in your country have just been ordered to leave with no new negotiations. It’s been about 10 years since the country has been all to yourself. You’re free from foreign occupiers and now you need to find a way to make your home appealing to outside visitors. Better yet, how about enticing those within your country to explore their own backyard? What could you offer them so that they would come visit your town and try to boost the economy?

Air-conditioned accommodations are quite the luxury and refrigerated amenities would be ideal. It would be especially fortunate to be able to acquire these things for little to no monetary costs. What would you do with hundreds of abandoned spaces that could potentially bring in cash?

This is the scenario that Iraqi officials and businessmen face after the Americans left their former military prison camps in Iraq. They aren’t the most appealing buildings to use – considering the activities that used to take place within the walls – but now they are up for grabs and have a lot of potential to bring in money. Iraqis are attempting to transform these old war spaces into new-ish hotel accommodations for those traveling on business. International business leaders are counting on an oil boom to increase their bread and butter, and will be taking more trips to the oil-abounding land of Iraq.

Even though it sounds twisted that people would create a civilian sleeping space from a place that used to be the homes of war prisoners, it’s actually quite resourceful. It would be very expensive to demolish hundreds of camps to just rebuild new hotels for visitors. The biggest feat here is clean up – and then seriously marketing the benefits of the new space. Every building has a past with its own issues. Every building also has the potential to serve its people well. Let’s hope that the hotel owner has the sense to at least take down the barbed-wire fences from the entrance ways.

It’s unfortunate that the aftermath of war always makes community rebuilding difficult and tricky. It will be even harder for Iraq to recover because it is reentering the international economic landscape during a really bleak time. Iraq is still picking up the pieces from its own government calamities while it simultaneously tries to slowly implement more “democratic” practices. It doesn’t help that it is also surrounded by other nations that have continuous internal struggles and government oppositions.

Hopefully, with a more democratic-ish government, the needs of the people will be considered in the domestic (and international) economic situation. The Germans and French had to rebuild their economies when war left their soils. Thankfully, they’ve recovered just fine. Hopefully, with baby steps in the right direction, it will only be a matter of time before Iraq gets back into the world economy too.

*photo from the New York Times, Dec. 4 : A New Hotel, Where the Stay Used to Be Mandatory

Freedom Through Parkour

When you’re in a constant fight with your neighbors, what do you do for fun? Can you find a fun outlet that doesn’t revolve around political strife?

These young Palestinian adults turn to Parkour as a fun way to express themselves. They’re also sure to stay away from Hamas’ training area as well as the streets of Gaza. The only place where they can practice their sport is in a former Israeli settlement camp near the Khan Yunis cemetery.   

In this past weekend’s New York Times Style Magazine, parkour is described as a sport about “overcoming barriers and living beyond the restraints of physics. Literally.” Evcn if it’s not intended to be, political symbolism is also deeply embedded in the activity. These young men use this sport as a way of overcoming personal and situational barriers within their own living conditions.  

The optimistic athletes are building up an online social media presence with the use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and MySpace. They want to gain audience awareness and, ultimately, a sponsor to continue the sport outside of Gaza. Together with social media and the desire to escape from everyday political battles, the hope is that these young men can be relieved of the continuous fight with their neighbors through something that brings them pleasure: parkour.

Bahrain’s Bad Behavior

Sayid Jarrah* from ABC’s LOST is the character that comes to mind when I hear about torture in the Middle East. He represents Hollywood’s idea of a Middle Eastern persona and, as a result, most Americans buy into it.

Sayid had a hard life. He was in the Iraqi military and he regularly tortured people for the gain of the government. Even though Sayid was from Iraq – which already provoked uneasiness for the audience because the U.S. was in the middle of invading Iraq – he was a product of a stereotype and he reveals what Americans perceive to be an “other” from the Middle East. While all of these things could be part of an Iraqi’s life, they don’t accurately represent Middle Eastern people as a whole.

Torture is a real thing and it’s horrific. It is “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty,” (dictionary.com). The Middle East isn’t the only region that does it (read: Guantánamo Bay), but it has been under a lot of scrutiny for it lately.

Recently, Bahrain was called out in the Commission’s Report, from the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, for using unconventional regulation of its citizens. Protestors demanded that their leaders stop ignoring the fights between the Sunni and Shiite groups, and they called for a more equitable political system and a constitutional monarchy. The protests got more aggressive and the Sunni monarchy feared that it would be overthrown. The protestors were met with arrests and torturous consequences. Excess force was used to suppress the movement and the tensions between the two groups were further aggravated.

According to the New York Times, even though the report identified that Bahrain participated in uncivilized “discipline” of its citizens, it failed to mention any information about actual government officials being at fault for the arbitrary arrests and the aggressive actions against the protesters. “Systematic pattern of behavior existed indicates that this is how security forces were trained to act,” the report said. There seems to be an unspoken understanding that the Interior Ministry and National Security Agency were well aware – and condoned – these torture situations.

Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa said that he would review the report and try to implement the suggested recommendations for change. He recognized that these publicized incidents were morally wrong and he threatened those who would further participate in the poor behavior. He didn’t forget to mention that he thought Iran (a Shiite-majority nation) instigated the disorder in Bahrain. He also seemed strangely calm and compliant about these findings. Is he embarrassed that his government got caught? Will Bahrain actually heed these recommendations or will it try harder to cover them up?

If the people were protesting there are already contentious feelings against the current rulers. The Arab Spring wants to push through in Bahrain but the violence managed to keep it at bay for the time being. If the king is serious about not participating in violent discipline anymore, or letting his military do it either, he should give a formal apology to his people. If it happens again, would there be any serious action taken against the king? Or would he get another verbal warning?

After Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN human rights agencies called out the inhumane actions of the Bahraini government, the U.S. chimed in to slap the hands of the Bahraini government too. Does its public disapproval have much authority to the Bahraini government or is it just to show that the U.S. supports the human rights groups?  This treatment had been happening for a while so why is the U.S. publically pointing out the discrepancies now? Does that make the U.S. hypocritical because it still operates Guantánamo Bay? Or is that considered to be a different situation because it’s a higher intesity prison for ”major bad guys” and Bahrain is dealing with its own citizens? This is not something that should be a regular occurrence anywhere.

Throughout the rest of the seasons of LOST, the writers tried to capture a more realistic idea of what it might be like to live as a “real life” torturer. Like Sayid Jarrah, these Bahraini military men are following orders of their leaders. Sayid wanted to get out of these cruel situations but his own life depended on it. The same could be said for those in the Bahraini military who have to follow orders from the top. Not all Middle Eastern people or military believe that torture is a norm; it’s widely understood to be an inhumane action against others. In Bahrain, it’s the king’s responsibility to ensure that he protects his people. If he lets it continue, his legitimacy as a national leader could be brought in to question and his people could rally together until they see to his own demise.

*Naveen Andrews, the actor who played Sayid Jarrah, is actually of Indian decent and is originally from London, England, U.K. (imdb.com)

Making up rules in Yemen

Political and economic unrest still festers in Yemen, partly because it’s the poorest nation in the Middle East and partly because it’s a nation that cultivates al-Qaeda activity. It doesn’t help that this has been the status-quo throughout the 33 years that President Ali Abdullah Saleh was in office.

As of November 23, Ali Abdullah Saleh joined the other three Arab leaders forced out of power by the people – in the last year. But he’s making up new rules as he goes along. As he transfers power to his vice president, he also grants himself to be honorary president for three months after he has already signed the agreement. It reminds me of a first born child that changes the rules of a game so he can have the advantage over his siblings to win. I’m not sure if everyone is actually fine with that arbitrary decisions or if the people are apprehensively silent because he’s already scared the voices of objection out of them. They don’t want to make a scene because they know he may beat them up.  

Is anything really going to change? Will he just be a puppeteer for the next leader? To add insult to injury, Saleh also is working out a deal to grant him and his family immunity from prosecution. Who has the authority to grant immunity and why would it even be accepted for a known international criminal?   

According to the Yemen Times, “Saleh has often said in the past that he will remain in the country as the head of the ruling General People’s Congress party. Saleh has also stated that once the opposition is in power, he will play a hard, oppositional role against them.” There he goes making up more rules. And he doesn’t have anyone’s interest in mind except his own. It would be to his own benefit if he would work toward a common goal of economic recovery before Yemen collapses.

Journalists also participate in peaceful protests against the government restrictions by taking it upon themselves to self-censor their work. They don’t want to be accused and charged with “harming national unity.” The same rules don’t apply to the government officials though. The president has been part of many incidents that regularly harm the people and the national unity. If he’s immune to all of his poor behavior, why does it matter if journalists speak candidly about the country? Is it a matter of upholding his already tainted reputation?This is where he opens the door for Orientalism to run wild. Yemen is viewed in the international world as backwards and dysfunctional because its own leader doesn’t follow the international (or domestic) rules.

With the vice president in power and an attempt to grant immunity to Saleh, would the new regime have accountability to not have Saleh involved in the decision making?  It has been expressed by opposing politicians that the avoidance of violence is what is holding the country together. Avoidance and appeasement lead to contempt and violence. Pushing down the issues will only cause the nation to further internalize the problems and then erupt at a later time. Those who cheat shouldn’t be allowed to play anymore.

Chaos in Cairo

Tear gas, riots, anger, fear and collective solidarity continue to fill the streets of Cairo. International concern about the violence continues to grow too. Egyptians continue to fight for real democracy and are tired of hollow promises. Mubarak is out. That was the first major demand that met the needs of the protesters but his role was filled by his loyal army. There is an outcry for the military and the people to unite – to be one hand – but unfortunately, that is far from the current reality.

Egyptian people continue to fight a lop-sided war with their military. What does the military think will happen as a result of all of the violence that it inflicts on those demanding democracy? Does it assume that people will back down because of a fear of death? Why has its behavior been allowed to get this out of hand? Doesn’t sovereignty come into question when the “leader” of a nation can’t protect the safety and security of its people? What happens when leaders are the ones that continue to provoke this violence – and so openly? What consequences do they face? The UN and international states are concerned but concern doesn’t stop it from happening, especially when it’s coupled with idle observations. Americans support the Egyptian people (and its military) with annual aid. While it’s not the responsibility of the U.S. government to stop the violence entirely, it could use its support as an incentive to persuade or strongly encourage a more democratic government more quickly.

Attacks are said to happen even during prayer time. Some believe that there is someone who is benefitting from all of the chaos and that it’s part of the benefactor’s plan, but how would all of this be a good thing for anyone? Could it be part of a political set up for a potential new leader? Would one try to come in and be the Egyptian savior?

With elections nearing, the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be less supportive of the protests and more supportive of the potential political structure. The Brotherhood is being criticized by its own people of being too politically focused and over-accommodating to the military. It doesn’t support their members protesting with the people of Egypt either. The main objective of the Brotherhood during this violent time has been the negotiation of the voting timeline. It was moved up by six months - to June 2012 - and the Brotherhood is hopeful that this change will allow it to gain the favor of the voters.

What about the short-term conflict? Do those negotiations also mean that the military will let up on the violence or are Egyptians supposed to continue to fight until next June? If the latter is true, the self-interested move by the Brotherhood will leave a sour taste in the mouths of the people. If the change to the voting timeline  is perceived to be for its own benefit, then this current chaos may be used against the Brotherhood.

Safety and security is a human right and if the Brotherhood wants to mitigate poor perceptions of its recent actions, it might want to at least reconsider its presence in the protesting space. Perhaps it could dedicate a few members to participate in the protests with the people to show that it does stand for the idea solidarity and to be “one hand” with the people. If there are going to be continued negotiations, non-violent conditions for the military should be included. If the Muslim Brotherhood chooses to continue to negotiate for its own political interests, while the people are still fighting for peace, the chaos will continue to boil over and its credibility will decline. The trust of the people is key to winning a democratic election and toying with it is risky.

Protesting Global Arrogance

Protests seem to be a typical way that students react to disagreeable conditions, decisions or leader habits. The reason for some protests are dubious and others are crystal clear. While the audience for some protests are leaders of smaller organizations or local political entities, students in Iran are protesting against the actions of a much larger group: the leaders of world powers.

World powers are supposed to make decisions for others based on what is in the best interest for all involved – not for their own best interests. Students in this video continue to say that they’re tired of the global arrogance and want leaders to know that they understand that these arbitrary rules that infringe on their national rights. Iran has the capacity to build nuclear weapons but claims to focus on the science of nuclear energy. Why would it launch an attack on another state just for fun? What purpose would that serve? Do we really think that Iran is a barbaric state that will start World War III?

The Western powers are scaring the rest of the world with the idea that Iran is a major enemy with an agenda that leads to global demise.  However, the threat seems to be questionable as the U.S. doesn’t intend to do anything about it. It just wants to be part of the nuclear decision-making. Jeff Steinberg, writer and political analyst in Washington, stated that the IEA report is another form of propoganda during an interview on PressTV. He also said that the U.S. military and intelligence confirm that there is no basis for war and that a war would create a complete economic disintegration.

If Western nations had the capacity to build nuclear weapons, would the other global leaders restrain these sciences for fear of attacks on others? Or would it be OK because Western nations are “more responsible”? Iranian press states that “Iran maintains that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, it has every right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.”

Regime change and political advantage is what the West really wants from Iran. These changes would help with power gain and it would create economic advantages in the Middle East for the West. Iranian students recognize this and hold fast to a resistant ring against the arrogant threat. They stand behind nuclear activities for peaceful purposes - and Iran’s own right to energy.

Finger-pointing

I recently read an article on Al Jazeera that described the U.S. republican presidential candidates’ concern with the Middle Eastern policy of the Obama administration. In the eyes of the candidates, the recent Arab Spring events are Barack Obama’s fault.

Michelle Bachmann: “You want to know why we have Arab Spring? Barack Obama has laid the table for the Arab Spring by demonstrating weakness from the United States of America.”

Newt Gingrich:  Described the Arab Spring as a result of the Obama foreign policy’s “grotesque failure” and it’s an ”anti-Christian spring” too.

Mitt Romney: “We’re facing an Arab Spring which is out of control in some respects because the president was not as strong as he needed to be in encouraging our friends to move toward representative forms of government.”

I know that republicans don’t agree with the ideology of democrats – and vice versa – but to say that one person is responsible for the actions of a government and its people in another region is ridiculous. The candidates might have run out of ways to articulate how they would contribute to the world in a positive way, and their attack on Obama’s Middle Eastern policy is just easier.

What are they actually saying?  That the current administration does have the power to help prevent these Springs? Doesn’t that imply that we support un-democratic practices and regimes that oppress their people?

The U.S. supported Mubarak’s regime because Egypt was considered to be a U.S. ally. The U.S. no longer considered Mubarak to be so friendly once he was out of office though. The article’s author, Professor Abdullah Al-Arian, argues that “US policy has demonstrated its ability to adapt to changing conditions on the ground by rushing to secure its interests under the guise of democracy promotion.” As long as the U.S. continues to get what it needs, it doesn’t seem to consider the negative effects that it has on the other people involved.

The U.S. hasn’t tried to prevent anything – it just wants to have a solid presence in the Middle East.  I doubt that the administrations of the past several decades really thought about an Arab Spring either. It just so happened to occur during Obama’s administration, while he continued to foster the relationships that his predecessors established.

It’s important to learn more about how the U.S. ”supports” the Middle East. It’s also important to learn how to be critical about the methods used to “support” those in oppressed states. The indirect questions that the republican candidates raised about our current Middle Eastern policy are valid. There’s a lot of speculation about the part that the U.S. plays in the realm of oppressive governments in the Middle East and North Africa. Finger-pointing  is hardly an effective way to challenge the self-interested behavior. And conceit doesn’t make the U.S. - or Obama – responsible for the Arab Spring.