Month: January 2009

Mapping Cairo’s future

Just before I left Cairo, last weekend, I attended this symposium on “Urban Trajectories in Cairo.” It was organized by new entity called Pericenter Projects, and included videos and talks by artists, designers, architects, sociologists. It was very interesting. I particularly enjoyed a new video by Aglaia Konrad, entitled “Desert Cities,” which consists of 58 minutes of footage of (rather forlorn-looking) developments all around the edges of city. And a talk entitled “Legalizing an Urban Tumour” by designer Marwan Fayed, who presented a number of “case studies” of the creative adjustments of Cairo residents to their urban surroundings, as well as  a number of suggested design interventions based on the observed needs of city residents–these included an “expandable” koshk and a bus stop whose roof projected into the street to shade bus passengers waiting scattered in the street. (I’m trying to get the whole presentation online).

There was also a talk by SODIC architect Marcus ElKatscha on the design principles of the new EastTown and WestTown developments (these are up-scale suburban downtowns meant to cater to the residents of 6th of October and Kattameya). ElKatscha’s presentation didn’t go over that well with the mostly young, artsy, lefty crowd (he got a lot of questions like “Don’t you only want to attract a certain kind of people?”). For me, the fact that the planned developments are upscale isn’t necessarily a problem–every city in the world has “fancy” neighborhoods, and our beloved Downtown Cairo used to be one. And the idea of providing the already existing Eastern and Western suburbs of Cairo with some sort of downtown is actually quite intelligent–it’s clearly what’s missing. But the architectural style was quite bland, and what troubles me more is the deployment of the terms “mixed-use.” The new developments will mix commercial and residential space, and ElKatscha seemed to suggest that in of of itself this lent diversity to the proposed neighborhood, whereas I think it’s quite clear that it will be socioeconomically homogenous. ElKatscha also described Downtown, Garden City, Maadi and Helipolis as “mixed use,” something I found very confusing. I live in Garden City and it’s overwhelmingly residential–whereas all of central Cairo (including lower-class, unplanned neighborhoods) strikes me as the essence of “mixed use.” Finally, SODIC’s planners claim their mixed-use downtowns will cut down commuting time and be environmentally responsible–but while the wealthy house-wife who lives there may be able to walk to the mall, I wonder how far all the servers, shop assistants, cleaners and domestic workers will have to commute (I didn’t see that the plan included any low income housing). In any case, it was fascinating to get this glimpse into the future of Cairo’s development, although I hear that in the current economic climate all these developments have slowed if not come to a complete halt. 

article

Links for January 21st

Links from my del.icio.us account for January 21st:

Old skool

I kept re-reading this short piece by John Mearsheimer for the last month and a half. For a realism-based US foreign policy in the Middle East that does not unnecessarily load itself with unworkable ideas like democracy-promotion or public diplomacy, it does have good basic principles. Some of its key points:

The United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East. Despite Barack Obama’s promises to withdraw from Iraq, the debacle there shows no sign of ending soon. Hamas rules in Gaza; Iran is quickly moving to acquire a nuclear deterrent. We need a radically different strategy for the region.

Fortunately, there is a strategy that has proved effective in the past and could serve again today: “offshore balancing.” It’s less ambitious than President Bush’s grand plan to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, but it would be much better at protecting actual U.S. interests. The United States would station its military forces outside the region. And “balancing” would mean we’d rely on regional powers like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia to check each other. Washington would remain diplomatically engaged, and when necessary would assist the weaker side in a conflict. It would also use its air and naval power to respond quickly to unexpected threats. But—and this is the key point—America would put boots on the ground only if the local balance of power seriously broke down and one country threatened to dominate the others.

. . .

The strategy has three particular virtues. First, it would significantly reduce the chances that we would get involved in another bloody and costly war like Iraq. America doesn’t need to control the Middle East with its own forces; it merely needs to ensure that no other country does.

Second, offshore balancing would ameliorate America’s terrorism problem. Foreign occupiers generate fierce resentment. Keeping America’s military forces out of sight would minimize the anger created by having them stationed on Arab soil.

Third, offshore balancing would reduce fears in Iran and Syria that the United States aims to attack them and remove their regimes—a key reason these states are currently seeking weapons of mass destruction. Persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear program will require Washington to address Iran’s legitimate security concerns and to refrain from overt threats.

A final, compelling reason to adopt this approach is that nothing else has worked. After the Gulf war, the Clinton administration pursued a “dual containment” strategy: instead of using Iraq and Iran to check each other, the United States began trying to contain both. As a result, both came to view the United States as a bitter enemy. The policy also required the United States to deploy large numbers of troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which helped persuade Osama bin Laden to declare war on America.

It’s realistic, cost-effective (don’t underestimate the role played by the Iraq war in the current economic crisis), and barebones enough to help concentrate on basic national interest essentials rather than a hodgepodge of a times contradictory aims. Importantly, one of its implicit recommendations is that when the balance shifts too much towards Israel (as in the peace-processing of the 1990s or the Bush administration) it needs to be corrected.

Let a natural balance of power emerge – a concert of nations for the Middle East, hopefully with a fair solution for the Palestinians. It would be tremendously less destructive to the region than constant war, sanctions and shock-and-awe displays of military might.

Links January 20th to January 21st

Links from my del.icio.us account for January 20th through January 21st:

For a “natural relationship”

Another good Israeli commentary, this time by Akiva Eldar:

Obama is surrounded by Jewish advisers who are very familiar with Israeli tricks and stalling tactics, especially when it comes to the settlements (have we mentioned “natural growth” yet?), but they would still want the new president to adopt the tradition of the “special relationship” with the Jewish state. Obama, however, has also been exposed to the school of thought, existing in both the administration and the American think tanks, that argues that the excessive closeness between the U.S. and Israel undermines America’s strategic interests in the Arab world.

Brent Scowcroft, one of the shapers of foreign policy under President George H.W. Bush, and according to Time magazine, a strong influence on Obama, has called for a fundamental restructuring of American policy in the Middle East. Scowcroft, who was the boss of the current (and incoming) defense secretary Robert Gates, and a friend of the new national security adviser, James Jones, is proposing that the “special relationship” be adjusted to a “natural relationship.” Perhaps such a change would be able to transform celebratory ceremonies into dry agreements.

Two important points here: first Clintonism (i.e. Nobel-seeking) is not the answer, second that the US-Israel relationship is so warped as to be against American, Middle Eastern and world interests. And against the interests of peace-seeking Israelis, although there seems to be few of those in the political elite there. (And incidentally this is the fundamental point made by Walt-Mearsheimer.)

[From Akiva Eldar / As Obama is sworn in, Israelis and Palestinians are thinking ‘no we can’t’ – Haaretz – Israel News]

Alternative history

I missed this Uri Avnery when it came out – and I don’t like any comparison of the Israel-Palestine issue to WW2, or the use of the word genocide about Palestinians (the correct terms are ethnic cleansing and politicide), or even less comparison to the Nazi Holocaust – but this stuff is good:

NEARLY SEVENTY YEARS ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.
Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.
This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war.
Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza as “hostages” and exploit the women and children as “human shields”, they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured.

[From How Many Divisions? – Gush Shalom – Israeli Peace Bloc]

[PS Remember, unfortunately these views of Gush Shalom represent about 2% of the Israeli Jewish view, unfortunately.]

I admit…

…it feels very good that George W. Bush is no longer President of the United States of America.

And that the election of President Barack H. Obama is watershed event in the history of the fight for civil rights in America, and that the speech by Reverend Joseph Lowery was exceptional.

Many would like to look forward into the Obama era, and tackle its many problems. But I don’t think you can do that until you fully examine what happened in the last eight years – not just the obvious stuff like the invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Dahlangate and the egging on of Israel during the wars in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza recently. There is a collective guilt for having aided and abetted the Bush administration amidst most of the American political class and a good part of the American public that preferred to look the other way.

I hope President Obama will not be the same person who voted in support of Israel’s bombing of Lebanon in 2006 (and who would have probably voted in support of Gaza two weeks ago if he hadn’t been elected to a higher office.) Let’s hope he rises to the occasion.

Links January 18th to January 20th

Links from my del.icio.us account for January 18th through January 20th: