issandr – Page 255

Iraq Conference in Egypt

It’s 1 am so I’m not sure this post will be too coherent. I’m covering the conference on Iraq in the Red Coast town of Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt. The conference is being attended by all of Iraq’s neighbors (Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey) as well as by the US, France, Germany, the UK, the Arab League, the UN, the EU and many more. The aim of the conference is a little vague (more on that later) but in general it’s a show of support for the upcoming elections, for the interim government, and for the future stability of the country.

Today there was the meeting between Iraq and neighboring countries. As of writing this, I know nothing about it from the participants themselves, as they gave no comment on entering or exiting, the talks were not televised, and there was no press conference. There was massive security and journalists were kept miles away. The Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the discussion had focused on elections and security, and that was that. Typical Middle Eastern lack of transparency perhaps. But there may be a further reason that everyone was so tight-lipped. I talked to a high-ranking Iraqi official in Baghdad tonight, and he told me the Iraqi delegation was planning on presenting evidence at the meeting of the “interference” of other countries in its affairs–of how they (he wouldn’t name names, but we are talking Iran and Syria at least obviously) have directly funded and supported terrorist groups in Iraq and how they are home to a great number of rich and disgruntled Baathist elite with links to the insurgency. Oh to have have a fly on the wall at these talks..

In general covering this sort of event is exhausting and really frustrating. A lot of the press spends a lot of its time staking out hotel lobbies (the delegations are spread out over many of the luxurious summer resort hotels here) and hounding passing officials into giving snippets of comment. There was a really funny scene today when the Syrian Foreign Minister became the center of a camera scrum but refused to talk. His handlers on all sides tried to hustle him along, but they took him the opposite way of where he needed to go, and he and his entourage ended up bounding around the courtyard of a hotel like a ping-pong for a while, journalists in hot pursuit. At one point he even accidentally ended up on a dead-end raised catwalk–we all thought he was going to make a statement, but he was just lost. Finally they piled into the obligatory go-cart and took off.

The Iraqi officials were really busy of course and hard to get ahold of but I have to say that they are the most engaging to talk to, in general. They actually say things. The Iraqi deputy foreign minister denied that any civilians had died in Fallujah. He also said the new January 30 election date is realistic, and that Iraqis will participate “because this will determine the future of the country.” And he claimed Kuwait had agree to forgive Iraq 80% of its debt (just like the Paris Club just did). That would be a lot of money, and would put pressure on Saudi Arabia to do so as well, but I was unable to get Kuwaiti officials to confirm this.

Other than the interesting confrontation between Iraq and its neighbors, there are of course the well-established tension between France and the US. France (and other countries) would like there to be a set withdrawal date for US troops. The US doesn’t want to make that commitment. More on this tomorrow after press conferences from Bernier and Powell.

In general, as I started out saying, it’s unclear what practical steps or actions are going to come out of this to aid Iraq. They”ll issue a nice statement at the end, but then what? The underlying problem–that European countries are unwilling to send forces to help with the aftermath of a war they opposed, and Arab countries are afraid a stable Iraq will be a base for further US military interventions in the region–haven’t gone away.

Saad Eddin Ibrahim wants to contest presidency

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the Egyptian-American activist who spent well over a year in jail between 2000 and 2003 before a case against him was dismissed by Egypt’s highest appellate court, is backing an unlikely amendment to the Egyptian constitution that would allow multiple candidates to be selected:

“If given the chance, I personally want to run (for president) to break the barrier of fear and intimidation,” Ibrahim told The Associated Press. “Not that I have real hopes of success, but I want to show my fellow Egyptians that nothing should be a political taboo.”

Under the current constitution, a presidential candidate is selected by the People’s Assembly, Egypt’s parliament, and then the public votes either “yes” or “no” in a referendum. In the current political climate where the ruling National Democratic Party controls over 80% of seats, this means that there can only be NDP candidates and that no one is likely to be selected to run against Hosni Mubarak, who’s been president for nearly 24 years.

As the story explains, it is unlikely that this amendment, which is backed by 650 activists who signed a petition requesting it, will pass. There have been rumors that the NDP was considering accepting it to run a lame duck NDP candidate against the president to make a show that it is democratic. But surely they thought better of it considering that a) it would look ridiculous, b) it might create an expectation of debates, or at least different platforms, between candidates and c) they are unlikely to encourage the idea that there could ever be anyone better than Mubarak to lead the country.

The truth is the current system — outside of the immediate political conjecture — should be replaced by direct elections of the president, as you find in most countries that at least pretend to be democracies. (Strangely, that doesn’t technically include the US, since the presidential elections there are indirect. In fact, technically the “electors” are meeting on 13 December to elect the next US president. But that’s another story.) After all if parliament retains control of what candidates can present themselves, there can never be a chance for underdogs to enter the political limelight (think Nader, Buchanan, Perot in the US.) Direct presidential elections would give the existing parties as well as movements like the Muslim Brotherhood a chance to campaign in a way they really never have before, and would crystallize symbolically the idea that there could be a president who is not from the ruling party, or indeed who is not from the ruling military junta.

Aside from this, the elections that are coming up in fall of 2005 are going to be very important. After 24 years of Mubarak it is time for him to resign, even if you’re of the opinion he’s done a good job. Otherwise we’re going to see the Bourguibasation of Egypt at a time when the country is in dire need of young blood, a new direction and effective leadership. At this point, no matter about how you feel about Mubarak, it should be clear that it’s time for a fresh start — even if it’s still not democratic or another army general. Time is running out.

Pentagon, Republicans kill 9/11 commission bill

When you’ve been living in a military dictatorship for several years, this kind of thing sends a shiver of recognition:

House Republican leaders blocked and appeared to kill a bill Saturday that would have enacted the major recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, refusing to allow a vote on the legislation despite last-minute pleas from both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to Republican lawmakers for a compromise before Congress adjourned for the year.

The decision to block a vote on the landmark bill, which would have created the job of a cabinet-level national intelligence director to oversee the C.I.A. and the government’s other spy agencies, came after what lawmakers from both parties described as a near-rebellion by a core of highly conservative House Republicans aligned with the Pentagon who were emboldened to stand up to their leadership and to the White House.

The bill would have forced the Pentagon, which controls an estimated 80 percent of the government’s $40 billion intelligence budget, to cede much of its authority on intelligence issues to a national intelligence director.

“What you are seeing is the forces in favor of the status quo protecting their turf, whether it is Congress or in the bureaucracy,” said Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who was the chief Senate author of the failed compromise bill, in what amounted to a slap at her Republican counterparts in the House.

The chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, Thomas H. Kean, a Republican and the former governor of New Jersey, said that the lawmakers who blocked the vote should be held accountable by the public, and he blamed senior Pentagon officials as well.

“I think there’s no question that there are people in the Pentagon who want the status quo, and they fought very hard with their allies in Congress for the status quo,” Mr. Kean said.

Meeting Anonymous

Choice quotes from Meet The Press with Michael Scheuer, the rather bizarre author of Imperial Hubris:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you and our viewers from your book this quote: “U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious: We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency–not criminality or terrorism–and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces.”

Do you believe we’re losing the war on terror?

MR. SCHEUER: I think without question we’re losing the war on terror, sir, not because they are stronger than us but because we resolutely refuse to recognize the motivation of the enemy is grounded so thoroughly in their religion and their perception that American policies are a threat to annihilate that religion. And that’s not to say we should sympathize or empathize with their position, but certainly if you’re going to destroy your enemy, you better understand what he’s about.

. . .

MR. RUSSERT: I want to read something else from your book. “The military is now America’s only tool and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that many of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions, not values, will get America out of this war.”

“Actions, not values.” What are the actions that created this hatred in the Muslim world?

MR. SCHEUER: Our foreign policy, sir, about six items that bin Laden has isolated. I think if has a genius, that’s one of them. He has created an agenda that appeals to Muslims whether they are fundamentalists or liberals or moderates. Our unqualified support for Israel is one. Our ability to keep oil prices low, enough for Western consumers, is another. Our presence on the Arabian peninsula certainly is another. Our military presence in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, in Yemen, in the Philippines, in other Muslim countries is a fourth. Our support for governments that are widely viewed as suppressing Muslims–Russia and Chechnya, for example, the Indians in Kashmir, the Chinese in Western China. But perhaps most of all, our policy of supporting what bin Laden and I think much of the Muslim world regards as tyrannical governments from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, whether it’s the Al Sauds, the Kuwaitis, the Egyptian government, the Algerian government. He’s focused Muslims on those policies and it is a very resonant agenda.

MR. RUSSERT: When you say “unqualified support for Israel,” I received an e-mail from a former colleague of yours at the CIA and it said that Scheuer’s basic premise is blame the Jews, that the reason we’re in this fix is because of our support for Israel.

MR. SCHEUER: No, that’s hardly the case. Indeed, the Arab-Israeli problem for so long was just a minor annoyance in the terms of our perception in the Muslim world.

MR. RUSSERT: When you say “politically correct debate,” what are you talking about?

MR. SCHEUER: Yeah. What I’m talking about is an American landscape littered with politicians who have dared question our relationship with Israel. No one is advocating dumping Israel as an ally. We have, unfortunately for America, a long history of abandoning allies. But there is a perception in the Muslim world, and I think there’s a perception on the part of many Americans, that the tail is leading the dog on this case. And perception, for better or worse, is often reality.

MR. RUSSERT: So what would you do?

MR. SCHEUER: I think we need to take a position with Israel that suits American interests.

MR. RUSSERT: Such as?

MR. SCHEUER: Such as perhaps being more insistent on some arrangement with the settlements. Certainly, no one is going to withdraw the protective umbrella of the United States, but at some point, Americans need to look after their own interests first.

MR. RUSSERT: But do you believe that being “tough on Israel” would in any way change Osama bin Laden’s agenda or desire to destroy America?

MR. SCHEUER: His agenda is not to destroy America, Mr. Russert. He simply wants us out of his neighborhood. He wants us out of the Middle East. And I’m not–no, it would not change his agenda, but my point here is that America has a choice between war and endless war with the forces led by Osama bin Laden. And at some point, we need to take actions in our own interests that limit his ability to grow in power and popularity in the Muslim world.

Locusts over Cairo

Moritz left a comment in a previous post asking about the locust swarm that came over Cairo a couple of days ago and is making its way to the Mediterranean. I didn’t see it myself — they didn’t come to my neighborhood — and I think it was pretty localized. My pals over at Reuters — whose Cairo offices in central Cairo are high up with a great view of the city and the Pyramids (if the smog isn’t too dense) seem to have gotten a good shot, as you can see from the picture on the right.

What was funny is that state TV interrupted normal broadcasts and some minister (I can’t remember which) said that people has nothing to worry about as they were not aggressive. My cleaning lady was there when we were watching it, and, in typical Egyptian fashion, assured me the minister was a liar and that she had it on good evidence from a friend of a friend of her sister’s that a women in her neighborhood had been attacked and that the locusts had pocked holes in her face.

More seriously, the locusts could have done serious damage to crops if it had been slightly hotter — they don’t feed below 30C, apparently. Where they might be causing a famine, however, is in already impoverished Mauritania.

If you want to help, donate to Oxfam which has a program to help with the locust attack.

Arafat’s medical files released, but not public yet

Some recent developments on the causes of Arafat’s death story:

The French government has said that Arafat was not poisoned.

“If the doctors had had the slightest doubt, they would have referred it to the police. I note that permission was given for him to be buried,” government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope said after the weekly French cabinet meeting.

The Palestinian leadership has been wondering publicly about the cause of his death, but brushed aside allegations that he was poisoned by Israel:

“The conditions surrounding the death of President Yasser Arafat raises questions,” Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie’s office said in a statement.

Palestinian leaders have dismissed speculation among ordinary Palestinians that Arafat was poisoned by Israel, which has also denied any involvement. No evidence has been provided to back the allegation of poisoning.

France’s Le Monde newspaper quoted doctors on Wednesday as saying Arafat, 75, a longtime symbol of Palestinian nationalism, suffered from an unusual blood disease and a liver problem.

Our favorite Zionist hack, Daniel Pipes, is pushing for the AIDS theory in this ridiculous post where he suggests that Arafat dying of AIDS is “what is really on the minds of serious people” and praises the tabloid for covering this issue while the broadsheets haven’t mentioned it. It continue to boggle the mind that this guy has any credibility.

Suha Arafat dashed from Paris from her hideaway in Tunisia (she’s been living between Tunisia and Paris for the past few years and is very close to Tunisian President Ben Ali’s wife — one of the most corrupt Arab first ladies, by the way) to beat Yasser Arafat’s nephew to get the medical files:

Suha Arafat has been given copies of the medical files of her late husband Yasser Arafat and then flew to Tunisia, as the late Palestinian president’s nephew was expected in the French capital to pick up the same documents amid some controversy.

Defence ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau said Arafat’s nephew, Nasser al-Qidwa, who was travelling to Paris, had the right to access to the information if he requested it.

But the Paris lawyers of Suha Arafat had said the dossier should only be given to “the children and the widow.”

Bureau told AFP that it was not up to the ministry to confirm or deny what the lawyers believed but in any case Qidwa had the right to see the file if he so wished.

So hopefully this will mean she’ll make the causes of his death public soon — unless there’s something embarrassing to hide.

Bin Talal backs Murdoch

It would seem weird if an Arab prince and business would save Fox News from slipping from Rupert Murdoch’s hands, wouldn’t it? Well, that may very well happen:

The Australian Financial Review said Thursday that Prince Alaweed bin Talal, listed by Forbes as the world’s fourth-wealthiest individual, had thrown his support firmly behind Murdoch.

The prince owns about three percent of non-voting shares in News Corp. and offered to boost his stake if needed, the newspaper said in a report from New York.

“I have the utmost confidence in Mr Murdoch, his management team and his succession plan,” bin Talal said, as quoted by the Review, saying that Saudi companies would be willing to boost their stake to defend his position.

“If necessary, the kingdom companies and I will convert currently owned shares and purchase additional ones to increase ownership of voting shares in News Corp. in support of Mr Murdoch and his plans.”

The prince added that Murdoch’s sons Lachlan and James were qualified to run News Corp.

At least with Murdoch Bin Talal can be sure he can buy positive coverage…

So long Safire

In this dark, tenebrous world, a little piece of good news: the New York Times’ leading conservative editorialist, William Safire, is retiring. Over the past few years there has been nothing as consistently infuriating as a Safire column. There are many reasons for this — his dogged pursuit of a mythical Iraq-Al Qaeda meeting in Iraq, which he continued to refer to even after President Bush and the CIA denied it, or his insinuations against the UN in the oil-for-food scandal we admittedly still know too little about, or his professed love of the Kurdish people for no other reason, apparently, that they are against Arabs. True, he did not always support the conservative orthodoxy, and took progressive stands on stem cell research, privacy rights and media consolidation. It’s said his Sunday column, On Language, was learned and well-written, but I didn’t read it often enough to tell. He’ll be continuing that one every Sunday anyway.

But what I’ll remember him most for was his shocking hatred of Palestinians (who unlike the Kurds did not have a national cause worth worrying about, apparently) and tendency to write press releases straight from the office of the Prime Minister of Israel. Perhaps his old habits — he ran his own PR companies in the 60s before he joined the Nixon administration as spinmeister — die hard. Two particularly grating examples of Safire hackery are below:

A Chat With Sharon, October 21, 2002

He’s an unabashed admirer of this President Bush. “Thank
God, at this historic moment, the U.S. is leading the free
world toward liberation from fear of terror.”

And his unwavering confidence under sustained pressure
makes me an unabashed Arik Sharon admirer. “We go back many
years,” he says. “Call me more often.” I may just do that.

His schoolgirl crush on Ariel Sharon — surely one of the most grotesque and unsavory politicians in a region which has its shares of assholes — made me want to throw up at the time. This was a regular Safire shtick — phone calls to his old pal Arik — that befits Pravda or Tishreen (the appalling Syrian daily) more than the New York Times.

But there’s worse to come:

Sharon, Trusting Bush, May 26, 2003 (no link available)

Especially sticky is the claim of refugees to land fled from a half-century ago, which Arabs call a “right of return.” Palestinians want to kick hundreds of thousands of Jewish “settlers” out of a future Palestine while inserting an even greater number of Muslims into Israel. Jews find that a deal-breaker.

So-called “settlers,” is it? Safire takes the single issue that has done the most to propagate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and tries to spin it into a Palestinian myth.

William Safire is a morally bankrupt hack when it comes to the Middle East. Good riddance.

Islam in the world

This is from last week, but worth mentioning. Jonathan Steele in the Guardian reviews a new book by Olivier Roy called “Globalised Islam.” According the the review, Roy offers a comprehensive snapshot of Islam as it is practiced (in Muslim and in European countries) across the world today, with all its contradictions, nuances and different gradations. Roy argues against reducing Islam to the “a religion of hate” stereotype, and argues that the problems and violence of the Middle East are not based in religion.

I’m not sure I agree with the argument that Islamic fundamentalism is in its death-throes. And I find the “Islam is really a religion of peace” argument used very disingenuously at times. While I can attest from my daily life here in Egypt that the great majority of Muslims have nothing extremist about them, the truth is that all religions contain a good dose of potential intolerance. What’s true is, as Roy apparently writes, that “The key question is not what the Koran really says, but what Muslims say the Koran says.” The Koran is an unescapable legitimizing reference point in Muslim debate, but it is used to argue very different points. If you read (Moroccan feminist Islamic scholar) Fatima Mernissi on the Koran, and you come away withe respect and fascination for a meaningful, multi-faceted text which contains the seed of some radical and inspiring ideas. Read some of the contemporary sheikhs handing out fatwas based on the Koran, and you come away thinking it’s one great compendium of bigotry.

It’s worth noting that Roy is French. The French may well end up being at the forefront of a movement to understand and integrate Islam into the West (10% of the population in France is Muslim). Europe in general is grappling with Islam in a much closer and I would say much more mature and nuanced way than America is. There are great perils ahead (racism on the part of Europeans, extremism on the part of immigrant Muslims) but if an educated, empowered Muslim community emergese in Europe they could have a real impact on world affairs and on their home countries.

PA officials still don’t know why Arafat died

There have been a few responses on the recent post on the causes of Arafat’s death, so I thought I’d post this here rather than in the comments:

Palestinian prime minster Ahmed Qorei has asked France to provide him with a medical report detailing the cause of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s death, his office said.

“We officially demand that the Palestinian leadership be informed about the medical report on the death of the president and the reason for his death,” Qorei’s office said in a statement.

Arafat died in a French military hospital last Thursday at the age of 75 after sinking into a coma, but no information has been released about the exact cause of death.

The veteran Palestinian leader was admitted to a French hospital on October 29 with a “blood disorder” and the lack of any clear explanation has sparked speculation that he was poisoned by Israeli agents.

His personal physician Ashraf al-Kurdi is among those who have called for an investigation into the death.

“I demand an official inquiry and an autopsy… so the Palestinian people can learn in all transparency what caused the death,” he said, although Islam forbids autopsies out of respect for the sanctity of the dead.

He said his suspicions were aroused by the absence of any information about Arafat’s health after he was admitted to hospital given that he had been conscious when he left his Ramallah compound.

The French have said that under their laws, Arafat’s medical files can only be handed over to family members. So, what is Suha Arafat waiting for?