مؤتمر جنيف 2: النجاح في اعادة تدوير الفشل

رأي القدس

FEBRUARY 14, 2014

ثمة اسئلة صعبة ينبغي التوقف عندها مع وصول مؤتمر جنيف الثاني الى نهاية الطريق المسدود، بعد ان اكد المبعوث الدولي الاخضر الابراهيمي بشكل واضح ان التوصل الى اتفاق قريب بشأن وقف المعارك او تشكيل هيئة للحكم الانتقالي امر مستبعد.
ولعل اهم تلك الاسئلة، الى متى يستمر الشعب السوري اسيرا لهذا النفق المظلم الذي تحدث عنه الابراهيمي؟ وهل علينا ان نستعد لثلاث سنوات اخرى من الفرجة على القتل والدمار الشامل في سوريا؟ وهل كان ذهاب المعارضة الى جنيف قرارا له ما يبرره في ظل المعطيات السياسية والعسكرية التي تصب جميعا في مصلحة النظام؟ ام انه اتخذ ايثارا لمصالح وولاءات اقليمية ودولية ما على المصلحة الوطنية؟
الم يذهب النظام الى جنيف فاقدا للمصداقية والاهلية دوليا، وعاد منها بعد ان اكتسب صفة ‘الشريك في صنع السلام’ الذي يفرش له السجاد الاحمر، ويحظى باعتراف دبلوماسي على المستوى الاممي بعد ان كان ينظر الى اركانه باعتبارهم مجرمي حرب، مكانهم الطبيعي امام المحكمة الجنائية الدولية في لاهاي؟
وهل حان للمعارضة السورية ان تنظر لنفسها في مرآة الحقيقة، وان تصارح نفسها وشعبها معا بنصيبها من المسؤولية عما وصلت اليه فصول هذه التراجيديا المأساوية التي يعيشها هذا البلد العريق؟ وهل مازال اسقاط النظام ممكنا قبل ان يمر قطار التغيير على المعارضة نفسها؟
وهل كان اصرار المعارضة ومن ورائه الولايات المتحدة على استبعاد ايران من المشاركة في مصلحة المؤتمر؟ ام في مصلحة النظام الذي لم يجد من يضغط عليه في الكواليس لتحقيق حد ادنى من التقدم؟
وما سبب بقاء الابراهيمي في منصبه بعد كل هذا الفشل المزمن؟ 
الواقع ان مؤتمر جنيف 2 لم يخيب توقعات اغلب المراقبين ففشل فشلا ذريعا. فشل في مجرد الاتفاق على جدول للاعمال. وحسب بشار الجعفري كبير مفاوضي وفد النظام، لم يجر بين وفدي النظام والمعارضة اي حوار او تفاوض حقيقي اصلا في ظل عدم وجود بنود واضحة للمناقشة. 
ربما نجح مؤتمر جنيف 2 في تعزيز المكانة الدولية للنظام والمعارضة معا، بأن ضمن استمرار الدعم الدولي والاقليمي الذي يشكل شريان الحياة لكل منهما، الا انه فشل في تقديم اي معونة حقيقية للشعب السوري، فاستمر القتل قصفا وذبحا وجوعا اثناء انعقاده. 
وبكلام اخر لم ينجح الا في اعادة تدوير الفشل، لينتج فشلا اخر اكبر، وليكرس شعورا عميقا بالاحباط واليأس لدى الكثيرين. فيا له من نجاح.
اما وفد النظام فيبدو انه كان مصمما منذ اللحظة الاولى على الالتزام الصارم باجندته. 
ومنذ فشل الامين العام للامم المتحدة بان كي مون في اسكات وزير الخارجية السوري وليد المعلم بعد ان تجاوز ضعفي الوقت المخصص لخطابه في الجلسة الافتتاحية في الثاني والعشرين من كانون الثاني/يناير الماضي. كان الفشل دائما ‘يلوح في الافق’ حسب تعبير الاخضر الابراهيمي.
رفض وفد النظام السوري ان يعترف بجنيف 1، او ان يقبل بادراج كلمة ‘التغيير’ في اي وثيقة رسمية او غير رسمية حتى لا تفسر على انها تعني ضمنيا تنحي بشار الاسد، ورفض ان يتحدث الا في مكافحة الارهاب.
في المقابل، وكأنه فوجئ بموقف النظام المعلن مسبقا، بدا وفد المعارضة مضطربا على خلفية الانقسامات والانسحابات عشية انعقاد المؤتمر، بل ومنفصلا عن الواقع، بدءا من الجلسة الافتتاحية التي حاول فيها، وعلى الهواء مباشرة، اقناع وليد المعلم بالانشقاق عن النظام ليكون الوفد السوري ‘موحدا’، وانتهاء برفضه مناقشة مكافحة الارهاب، ما بعث برسالة خاطئة في الوقت الخطأ مفادها انه مرتبط او عاجز عن الزام الجماعات الارهابية باي اتفاق، وهو ما يؤيد البروباغندا التي تبناها النظام منذ اندلاع المعارك.
وفي حين استفاد وفد النظام من خبرة المعلم كدبلوماسي مخضرم، بدا رئيس وفد المعارضة أحمد الجربا فاقدا للقدرة على التأثير او كسب التعاطف والتأييد لقضية عادلة. 
اما وزير الخارجية الروسي سيرغي لافروف فقال ان ‘البعض ظن انه يمكن ان يسقط النظام السوري من جنيف’، وهو تصريح لا يحاول اخفاء روح التهكم والسخرية من ذلك البعض. 
ولم تكن دعوة الولايات المتحدة الى البحث عن ‘خيارات جديدة’ بعد فشل جنيف اقل اثارة للسخرية، حيث ان الذهاب الى جنيف في حد ذاته كان تعبيرا عن نفاد الخيارات تجاه سوريا، حتى ان كثيرين كانوا اعتبروا ان ملف الازمة خرج بالفعل عن السيطرة.
اما بالنسبة للجامعة العربية فمن الصعب تصور انها مازالت تملك اي قدر من التأثير على هذا الوضع المعقد، بما في ذلك الدول العربية التي دعمت المعارضة السورية من اليوم الاول.
فشل جنيف 2 وضع الجميع امام لحظة نادرة للحقيقة، فهل يقتنصها احد ليكسر هذه الدائرة الجهنمية من الدماء؟

Emad Hajjaj's Cartoon

انتخابات عربية!














"Elections"......
Arab Style!

Real News Video: Saudi Arabia and Iran Share A Common Goal in Syria

Hamid Dabashi: All foreign nations involved in Syria are attempting to quell the revolutionary uprisings for economic and strategic interests, but the Syrian people will ultimately decide their own future
A GOOD VIDEO!

UN Security Council must not fail Syria’s besieged civilians again

Desperate crowd awaits relief aid at Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus.

© UNRWA Archives

“

Time and again, the Security Council has squandered the opportunity to tackle the human rights and humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded during nearly three years of unrest in Syria. The Council, including Russia and China, must adopt a strong resolution on access and not fail Syria’s besieged civilians now.

”

José Luis Díaz, Head of Amnesty International’s UN office in New York

Thu, 13/02/2014

As many as a quarter of a million civilians in areas under siege around Syria need the UN Security Council to push for unfettered humanitarian access to alleviate their suffering, Amnesty International said today, as the world body considers a draft resolution submitted by Australia, Luxembourg and Jordan. 

In one location alone – the Yarmouk camp for Palestinian refugees south of Damascus, in which Syrian nationals also live – the organization has received the names of more than 100 men, women and children who have died during a siege imposed by the Syrian armed forces last July following clashes with armed opposition groups. Starvation, lack of adequate medical care and sniper fire have been the main causes of death.

“The situation for civilians trapped and under siege in a number of locations around Syria is truly dire, with vital food and medical supplies either in short supply or completely lacking,” said José Luis Díaz, Head of Amnesty International’s UN office in New York. 

“Time and again, the Security Council has squandered the opportunity to tackle the human rights and humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded during nearly three years of unrest in Syria.

“Its non-binding ‘Presidential Statement’ on humanitarian access, seen as a small step forward when adopted on 2 October last year, has remained essentially a dead letter. The Council, including Russia and China, must adopt a strong resolution on access and not fail Syria’s besieged civilians now.”

Russia – which along with China has vetoed three Security Council resolutions on Syria in the past two and a half years – has already voiced its opposition to the draft resolution. 

As negotiations continue on the draft, the UN’s Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos will brief the Security Council today on developments in implementing the Presidential Statement. 

There has been limited progress in allowing the delivery of humanitarian aid to some besieged areas, and amid negotiations to end the siege of Yarmouk hundreds of individuals have been evacuated to hospitals elsewhere in Damascus. 

But serious obstacles remain. Even the brief ceasefire allowing the evacuation of civilians from Old Homs collapsed as a UN aid convoy came under attack earlier this week, although it has since been extended.

Yarmouk residents have told Amnesty International that they have had no electricity for a year, are forced to forage under sniper fire for grass to eat and some have resorted to eating cat meat. Local activists have published the names of tens of individuals, including relief workers, who were arrested in the last two weeks when they went to the camp’s main northern checkpoint to assist in the distribution of a small aid delivery. Health workers in the camp have told Amnesty International that only one of Yarmouk’s hospitals continues to partially function but that it has no doctors. 

Blockades by Syrian government forces on Moadamiya, Eastern Ghouta and other areas have also left desperate civilians trapped and facing extreme food and medical shortages. Two predominantly Shi’a towns in the Aleppo governorate, Zahraa and Nubl, have also been besieged by armed opposition groups in recent months.

“The increased humanitarian access in a limited number of areas is just a drop in the ocean when compared with the massive civilian suffering across Syria today,” said José Luis Díaz. 

“Civilians have been caught in the crossfire and cut off from humanitarian aid for too long. With the Geneva talks between the Syrian government and armed groups faltering, the UN Security Council has no time to lose to ensure adequate humanitarian access is allowed to reach all civilians in need.” 

The Syrian government must allow the UN-mandated Commission of Inquiry on Syria access to investigate all human rights violations and abuses, including those amounting to crimes against humanity and war crimes, being committed by all parties to the conflict. It should also allow access to Amnesty International and other human rights organizations.

The organization continues to call for the release of peaceful activists in government detention and civilian hostages being held by armed groups. 

Cartoon for Israeli Apartheid Week 2014, by Carlos Latuff

About these ads

Such A Deal

Palestinians Should Walk Away

By Philip Giraldi

Australian-American former Ambassador Martin Indyk is the lead negotiator for Secretary of State John Kerry’s Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative. He heads a nearly all-Jewish American negotiating team, including David Makovsky, a “mapping expert” from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spin-off Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Indyk iscurrently briefing an array of Jewish leaders in the US about his plans while keeping them secret from everyone else. Scott McConnell has observed that the Israelis are characteristically screaming about being forced into an agreement even though they will get nearly everything they want.

As if to demonstrate that no good deed goes unrewarded, Israeli politicians have reviled Kerry in personal terms, leading to a rare rebuke by the White House, while a group of conservative rabbis haswarned that God will destroy him. Meanwhile the corrupt Palestinian leaders will likely cave to US pressure in anticipation of the personal rewards they will receive when the donor cash begins to flow after an agreement is signed. The Palestinian people will get the sharp end of the stick.

Make no mistake, Kerry’s objective from the start has been to get the maximum possible for Israel while enticing the Palestinians to accept the barest minimum that will get them to agree to sign on to something. Even if Kerry wanted to be an honest broker he knows he can’t go that route because the Israel Lobby is so powerful and pro-Palestinian sentiment means nothing in terms of American elections. Kerry’s boss President Obama is looking at congressional elections later this year and would be extremely reluctant to antagonize Israel’s friends. So it is better to let the process limp along until the end of the year. If Kerry is very fortunate he might be able to give Israel a lopsided deal that would at least limit the incessant settlement expansion and just might create a modus vivendi that would not threaten to explode every couple of years. But more probably the peace process will again die a natural death, linked inexorably to the US two year election cycle.

There have been some suggestions regarding what the Kerry “framework” proposal might look like. In his secret talks with Jewish American leaders, Martin Indyk has indicated that three quarters of Israeli settlers would be able to stay on the West Bank, which is, in rough terms, 400,000 people. There would be swaps of land to accommodate the settlements by giving the Palestinians parcels of land that are currently regarded as part of Israel. The transfer of population would take place over a period of from three to five years.

Another key feature of the Kerry plan is to give money to Palestinians who were displaced by the Israelis in 1948 and 1967 in exchange for their giving up their right to return to their homes at some future point. Interestingly, money would also be given to Jews who fled their homes in Arab countries, not because they are now lacking homes, but to build political support inside Israel for some kind of agreement. Likewise settlers who are forced to leave their homes on the West Bank will be compensated. The possibly tens of billions of dollars needed will presumably come from Washington.

The Israelis are also insisting that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” a demand which Kerry and the president, at least rhetorically, appear to be supporting. They are also demanding that they exercise military control of the Jordan River Valley in any future arrangement, which is surely a deal breaker, but which might be parlayed into a joint US-NATO force providing security.

If it all sounds like a reasonable enough tit-for-tat arrangement that would serve as a jumping off point for further discussions, that is clearly the intention, but the devil is in the details. If Israel is a Jewish state then Muslims and Christians are only citizens or residents by sufferance, meaning that they have only limited rights in obtaining redress for actions undertaken by the Israeli government, including eventual expulsion if Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has his way. Ongoing negotiations from the “framework” would also prevent the Palestinians from going to the UN in September, an option feared by both Tel Aviv and Washington as overwhelming worldwide support for the Palestinian cause would be evident, fueling new demands for divestment and boycotts of Israel.

The Palestinians would also in principle be conceding control over the major settlement blocs that together cut them off from Jerusalem and also divide the West Bank nearly in quarters, bisecting the West Bank both to the north and south and also to the east and west. The Israeli intention to tighten its grip by expanding the key settlements was made clear last week when it announced approval for 558 new housing units in East Jerusalem, a sharp rebuff for Kerry and the Palestinians even as a framework agreement appears to be imminent.

If the Palestinians are allowed to declare part of East Jerusalem as their capital, it will be surrounded by Israel and possibly only accessible by Israeli military controlled roads. The settlements outside Jerusalem itself are largely built on good, arable land which is why they are located as they are, with access to water. In return the Palestinians will get unproductive land that that the Israelis do not want, carefully mapped out by David Makovsky.

Other possible details to be resolved along the way demonstrate that a Palestinian state would only have limited sovereignty. They include Israeli demands for the complete demilitarization of Palestine and possible control of its borders, Israeli management of scarce water resources, and Tel Aviv’s refusal to permit a Palestinian controlled airport. Jewish-only roads might also survive to link the settlements.

So it is a very bad deal for the Palestinians, but given the lack of effective leadership they have few options apart from a new resort to violence, and Kerry just might be able to convince them to take what they can get. I should think that if I were a Palestinian I would be throwing rocks and graduating up to hand grenades, if I could get hold of any. Living under any government requires an abridgement of freedom, something which we Americans have learned to our chagrin over the past thirteen years as we have watched our constitution shredded and our rights curtailed. But I think the measure of a tolerable arrangement between rulers and ruled is a situation in which there is at least a modicum of democratic self-determination. If you can push back against the government or vote to throw the bums out, even if you know it won’t change anything, it at least permits some self-respect.

Palestinians have nothing like that to fall back on. They are helpless in a confrontation with a ruthless and powerful enemy backed by the world’s only superpower. They have become the victims of the Israeli occupiers and also of their own leaders and an essentially indifferent United States. As an American I am ashamed of Washington’s role in the suppression of the Palestinian people. We too should be throwing rocks, but directed at Congress, the White House and the mainstream media, which have together caused our country to become a true heart of darkness.

Al-Jazeera Video: ما وراء الخبر.. حدود الدور الروسي بقضايا الشرق الأوسط

A Voice for Democracy Against Egypt’s ‘Fascist Buildup’

Amr Hamzawy was one of the few liberals who condemned both the Morsi government’s misrule and the military coup. Now he’s increasingly isolated.

by Sharif Abdel Kouddous

Amr Hamzawy at a news conference in Cairo in December 2012. (Reuters/Amr Abdallah Dalsh)Amr Hamzawy was once the toast of the town among Egypt’s liberal elite.

A prominent political scientist and scholar, he rose to fame following the launch of the 2011 revolution, emerging as the spokesman for the “Committee of Wise Men,” an ad hoc coalition of public figures formed to mediate between protesters and the Mubarak regime.

Hamzawy went on to help found two liberal political parties before winning a seat in Parliament, soundly beating a Muslim Brotherhood candidate in one of the strongest showings in the 2011 elections. His liberal politics often put him at odds with the Brotherhood and other Islamist groups during their time in power. He was a frequent guest on television talk shows and a regular public speaker.

But it was Hamzawy’s outspoken criticism of the army’s overthrow of elected president Mohamed Morsi last July that set him apart from his liberal counterparts.

Now, three years after the revolution began, Hamzawy finds himself politically isolated. He is vilified by his former colleagues, branded a traitor and a “fifth columnist” in the press and barred from travel after prosecutors charged him last month with insulting the judiciary.

“It’s hard to be with no allies and no friends, but it’s always better to understand where people stand and what they think in order to mind future steps and maybe fashion new alliances,” Hamzawy said in a recent interview in his small office at the American University in Cairo, where he is a professor of public policy.

In the aftermath of last summer’s coup, while much of the political elite fell over one another to praise the military’s role in ousting Morsi and the ensuing brutal crackdown on the Brotherhood, Hamzawy emerged as a rare non-Islamist critic of human rights abuses by security forces, the quashing of dissent by the interim government and the re-entrenchment of the military into public life.

“I was shocked by how little nominally liberal voices were willing to speak out,” Hamzawy said. “I was shocked at the fact that liberals were willing to endorse what is to me a freeze of democratic mechanisms.”

Hamzawy took part in the massive anti-Morsi demonstrations on June 30, he said, as a “democratic demand to get to early presidential elections.” He points to the Brotherhood’s political decisions as the primary cause for the unrest during their time in office. “In a way, the Brotherhood did not want to really promote democratization,” he said. “They decided to ally themselves to networks of power, of financial and economic power, within the state bureaucracy, in a way very similar to what Mubarak and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces did. They wanted to preside over a state without reforming it.”

Yet on July 3, three days after the demonstrations, as massive crowds in the streets cheered on the military, Hamzawy was arguably the only prominent liberal figure in Egypt to oppose the army’s role in removing Morsi from office.

“You should open up polities in transitioning countries to an early ballot box, but not for interference by a military and security complex,” he said, pointing to examples in other countries, like Argentina in the early 2000s. Hamzawy argues that if Morsi had agreed to hold an early presidential vote, and if his liberal counterparts had not compromised on democratic principles, then the military coup could have been avoided.

Since Morsi’s ouster, hundreds of protesters have been killed and as many as 21,000 people have been imprisoned, according to Wikithawra, a group that documents detentions. The crackdown has broadened well past the Brotherhood, with activists, journalists and academics being targeted amid the narrative of a war on terror.

Throughout it all, Hamzawy has remained an outspoken critic of the military-led roadmap and the growing government campaign to silence all expressions of dissent.

In mid-January, prosecutors charged not only Hamzawy but two dozen others—including liberals, Islamists and Morsi himself—with insulting the judiciary. In Hamzawy’s case, the charges stem from a message he posted on Twitter last year criticizing a court ruling against three US nonprofit groups. The charges came the day after the adoption of a new constitution that was hailed in the media as an important step forward in the political transition. “What is happening in Egypt politically is a move away from democratization,” Hamzawy says.

Last month a prominent scholar critical of Morsi’s overthrow, Emad Shahin, who has taught at Harvard, Notre Dame and the American University in Cairo, was charged, along with senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood, with espionage and subversion. The case sparked an international outcry, yet was met with a muted response within Egypt.

“For anyone with political ambitions in Egypt today, to express criticism against the crackdown could mean at best popular marginalization, and at worst accusations of treason,” said Adel Iskander, a professor at Georgetown University and the author of Egypt in Flux: Essays on an Unfinished Revolution. “Throwing Hamzawy and Shahin under the proverbial bus, while undesirable for many liberal politicians, is a modest price to avoid the wrath of the regime.”

There is little criticism of the military in the state and private media, many of which have helped to whip up a frenzy of chauvinistic nationalist sentiment. Belal Fadl, a popular columnist and fierce critic of the interim government, recently decided to quit writing for the private daily Al-Shorouk after the newspaper refused to print his article critical of the military’s intervention in politics, in what he called an act of censorship.

Meanwhile, army chief Abdul Fattah el-Sisi is lionized in the press, and his intention to run in the upcoming presidential elections has dominated headlines. One veteran Egyptian actress, Soheir al-Babli, in supporting Sisi’s bid for the presidency, went so far as to say that “Egyptians need a man as strong as Hitler."

"They are pushing the narrative of salvation from a hero in uniform,” Hamzawy said. “You have human rights violations, you have repressive laws being passed, you have the press using conspiracy theories and unitary definitions of what our national interest is, and accusations of treason everywhere. Clearly, when you connect the dots, you are looking at a fascist buildup.”

Yet the army and Sisi enjoy widespread popularity, and the army-led crackdown on opposition voices is often either encouraged or ignored. Hamzawy said the public’s response is not surprising, pointing to the failure of the entire political class to address people’s needs in the wake of the revolution.

“All of us contributed to the current misery,” he said. “We did not address people’s living conditions—social and economic issues—seriously. We focused on grand political debates on the constitution and so on, and basically did nothing in terms of public policies.”

The charges against Hamzawy do not disqualify him from running again for Parliament, but he is undecided and said he needs time to assess whether he can most effectively challenge the growing authoritarianism through formal politics, as a lawmaker, or informal politics, as an advocate.

“You cannot govern Egypt simply by defaming opponents. You cannot govern through a long-term fascist buildup. You are bound to run out of steam,” he said. “We have more than one reason to be hopeful, but we are going through a very tough time, and unfortunately it’s happening at an enormous cost to our society.”

United States of Yemen

By Brian Whitaker

Click here to enlarge map

United States of Yemen

Is federalism the solution or just a diversion?
  

           

The year 1990 marked what many Yemenis hoped would be the start of a new era when the northern and southern states – relics of British and Turkish imperialism – merged into one.

The British had taken Aden as a colony in 1839 and then extended their authority in the southern and eastern hinterland. A decade later, Ottoman forces began their conquest of the north which led, in 1871, to the installation of an Ottoman governor in Sanaa. 

The north’s long struggle against Turkish rule began in 1891 and finally succeeded in 1918 when the Ottoman Empire collapsed; thereafter north Yemen was ruled by imams – religious leaders with monarchical power – until the republican revolution of 1962. British rule in the south continued until 1967 and was quickly followed by the establishment of the Arab world’s first (and last) communist regime.

Unification of the northern Yemen Arab Republic and the southern People's Democratic Republic of Yemen had been discussed for years without much progress and it came about in 1990 largely because of a political and economic crisis in the south. 

The southern Marxist rulers were especially worried about the decline of communism in eastern Europe and feared that if nothing was done they would soon meet the same fate as the Ceausescu regime in Romania. To avoid that, they embarked on an ill-fated marriage with the northern regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh.

When I first visited Yemen in 1991, T-shirts on sale in Sanaa hailed the new era with a slogan saying "United States of Yemen". But it was not to last. The southern leaders soon had second thoughts and in 1994 fought a brief war of secession – which they lost. President Saleh reimposed unity by force and his subsequent treatment of the south left simmering resentment which eventually led to a revival of separatist activism.

Now, almost a quarter of a century after unification, the phrase "United States of Yemen" is back, but in a different context. I heard it used by a Yemeni the other day, in connection with the decision to create a federal system with six regions. 

Let us hope that the 2014 version of the "United States of Yemen" proves more successful than the 1990 version, though it's not going to be easy.

The Yemen Socialist Party, which formerly ruled the People's Democratic Republic, is far from happy about the new arrangements. It had been seeking a two-region federation (north and south) but many Yemenis viewed that as a revival of the old divide and a possible stepping stone to secession. As a compromise, the south will now have two federal regions and the more populous north four.

Although multiple tiers of government (local, regional and national) are a good idea in principle, in Yemen's case federalism seems to be more about damping-down separatist tendencies than promoting good governance. It could also further weaken a central government which has never been able to establish its authority over the entire country.

Yemenis are naturally wary of central government. During the Saleh years there were plenty of reasons for opposing it, criticising it and wanting it to have less power. But that's because it was bad, not because it was central. 

Yemen cannot move forward without a strong and effective central government to address key problems at a national level. The danger in the new federalism is that continuing arguments about its structure and functions, and competing regional claims over scare resources, will simply become a time-wasting diversion. 

To prevent that, Yemen needs a government in Sanaa with the authority to arbitrate between regions and capable of imposing its will if necessary, in ways that Yemenis can recognise as just and fair.

One example of the need for strong national government is Yemen's looming water crisis. Although not at the forefront of current debates, water scarcity is arguably the country’s number one problem, Helen Lackner writes in a book published this month. She continues:

"Without effective water governance and management ... Yemen’s long-term perspective is one of worsening poverty, and therefore of further deterioration of security and safety. Sooner rather than later, this is likely to lead to civil strife on an unprecedented scale ... 

"The state must retain final authority over water management and enforce decisions that protect the interests of all Yemenis, rather than bowing to political pressure from powerful interest groups."

  

Al-Jazeera Video: أردوغان: لا فساد بتركيا والأسد رجل مجرم

U.S. Plunges in Global Press Freedom Rankings As Obama Wages "War on Whistleblowers"

Democracy Now!

"A new survey of press freedom around the world that finds the United States has plunged 13 spots, now ranking just 46th among 180 countries. The annual survey by Reporters Without Borders also says Syria is the most dangerous country for journalists, showing a correlation between conflict zones and a low level of press freedom. Other countries that fell lower than in the previous year’s survey, include the civil-war-torn Central African Republic, down 43 spots to 109, and Guatemala, where four journalists were killed last year alone. This comes as the United Nations General Assembly recently adopted its first resolution on the safety of journalists. The group has now called on the United Nations to monitor how member states meet their obligations to protect reporters. We are joined by Delphine Halgand of Reporters Without Borders....."

Let’s salute Tunisia and emulate it

A VERY GOOD COMMENT

 February 12, 2014 12:17 AM
By Rami G. Khouri

The Daily Star

"Many significant things are taking place around the Arab world these days, some violent, some peaceful, some within one country and some across several different countries.
History will look back on these days and record a variety of noteworthy episodes, whether concerning the war and negotiations between Syrians, Salafist-takfiri networks across the Levant, Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, continued military dominance in Egypt and slow transitions in Libya and Yemen. However, the most important and truly historic recent event must be the passage of the new constitution two weeks ago by Tunisia’s National Constituent Assembly.
This marked a moment of profound significance for the entire Arab world, because it was the first time in modern or ancient history that ordinary citizens of an Arab society agreed on the substance of their constitution through a consultative process that achieved a credible national consensus after significant debate and compromise. Tunisia was the first Arab country ever to draft its own constitution – the qanoon al-dawla al-tunisiyya, or “law of the Tunisian state” – which came into force in 1861, and, fittingly, it is now the first Arab country to draw up a meaningful and legitimate constitution after a popular revolution that removed a long-serving autocratic government.
I have always felt that if the Arab world had just one country with a credible, homegrown pluralistic democracy, then other Arab societies would seek to emulate this historic leap forward. Well, thanks to Tunisia and its heroic people, we now have that one Arab constitutional democracy that is being born, after a messy and erratic process. The elected representatives of Tunisia’s National Constituent Assembly took two years and three months to complete their work. Three drafts were needed to reach this culminating moment of consensus, and the road was marked by intense arguments and compromises on almost every issue of public or private concern.
Precisely because the assembly members and many interested Tunisians debated every draft word by word, the final approved version enjoys popular legitimacy –which is unprecedented in the Arab world. Beyond this, the document is historic also because it encapsulates a national consensus on the most important and contentious issues that define the identity and spirit of Arab societies – Arabism, Islam, gender, civil-military roles, individual rights, minorities, separation of powers and other such big sticker items that had never before been seriously and credibly debated by Arab publics.
The letter and spirit of the constitution will continue to be discussed for many years, as should be the case with any such document that plays at least four critical and foundational roles in any society: it reflects the core values of the citizenry, it affirms their collective identity, it lays out the framework of governance that includes both the exercise and the limits of public power and it affirms the equal rights of all individual citizens while providing mechanisms to guarantee that those rights are enjoyed and protected.
No other constitution in Western democracies, even pioneers such as those in the United States, France and Switzerland, was as ambitious as this Tunisian constitution in insisting from the start on equal rights and common values and identities for all citizens – rather than waiting a century or more to give women and minorities equal voting and other civil rights. The Tunisian constitution calls for parity for women in elected public bodies, for example, while also affirming universal freedoms and rights for all citizens, which no Western democracy did at a similar stage.
Some blurred areas allow articles of the constitution to respond to issues of profound concern to different groups of Tunisians. So the document notes that “ Tunisia is a free, independent and sovereign state, Islam is her religion, Arabic her language and a republic her regime.” But it also underlines that “ Tunisia is a state of civil character, based on citizenship, the will of the people and the primacy of law.”
The document carefully leaves space in the national tent for Tunisians who are neither Arab nor Muslim, such as its Berber or Jewish citizens, while also affirming the majority Arab-Islamic identity of society and blurring the relationship between religion and the rule of law. Such wording matters because it emerged from years of intense debate that finally achieved a consensus of all parties. Much remains to be done in Tunisia to put this document and its principles into practice, and also to improve the socioeconomic conditions of citizens whose material lives have stagnated in the last three years.
For now, though, we in the Arab world should salute and thank Tunis and its citizens for their great achievement. We must follow in their path and muster the common sense and courage to follow them into that alluring yet – for most Arabs – elusive world of sensible statehood anchored in the rule of law, citizenship, good governance and the glue of credible constitutionalism that binds them together."

Assad and the enemy within

Discontent among regime loyalists in Syria

By Brian Whitaker

"“One day, it will be an Alawite who finally kills Assad.” This rather startling prediction – that the Syrian president’s own community will eventually turn against him – comes in a blog post from Aboud Dandachi, an activist now living in Turkey.

Dandachi, it should be noted, used to live in Homs and has some strong views on military intervention. “Assad’s airforce must be obliterated down to the last aircraft and helicopter,” he wrote in an earlier post. But setting that aside, is there any credibility in his idea that large numbers of the regime's supporters would happily see Assad gone?

Dandachi relates an incident in June last year when regime forces entered the town of Telkelakh, “ransacking homes and arresting people pretty much at random”:

“A relative of mine in the town at the time, whose son had for years enjoyed close ties to very senior regime officials, thought that his family’s well known relations with the regime would protect him.

“When regime shabihas burst into his home, this relative immediately held up a picture of his son shaking hands with none other than El Presidente, the Eye Doctor himself. ‘Look, look!’ he said, ‘my son with el-doktor Bashar’.

“The shabihas took one look at the picture, and broke my relative’s jaw. ‘Kess emak ‘ala em el doktor Bashar!’ “

It may seem hard to believe that pro-regime forces would curse their president, but Dandachi has ideas about what may lie behind it. While living in Homs he had never distinguished between the president, the regime and the state:

“To a Homsi whose city had suffered the worst of the conflict up to that point, all three were one and the same, inseparable. The revolution was about getting rid of the president, to cause the downfall of the regime, and create a new state.”

Later, having moved to the relative safety of Tartous (a mixed city of Christians, Alawites, and Sunnis) he began to see a different picture:

“To a Tartousian, these [president, regime and state] were three very distinct and separate entities, a fact that took me a very long time to understand. Being a ‘loyalist’ meant different things to different people ... 

“Very few people had a kind word to say about the president, Bashar Assad. Explicit criticism of his person was never voiced openly, of course, but there were plenty of criticisms of the ‘strategy’ of the war, of its ‘handling’, and many wistful nostalgic yearnings for the ‘wisdom and experience’ of Hafiz Assad [the president’s late father]. I lost count of the number of times I heard it said that Hafiz would never have allowed things to reach the point they did.”

But this lack of faith in Bashar’s abilities did not translate into support for the opposition:

“I met no one who expressed much love for the president. The vast majority however, felt that the regime was a necessity, and would have gladly been happy to see the current regime headed by a new president.”

The irony of this is that it’s a result of the regime’s propaganda success in persuading its supporters that the conflict is all about foreign-sponsored terrorism and has nothing to do with Syria’s internal politics. For those who buy this line, the problem is that the regime, under Assad’s leadership, has not been tough enough. They have spent almost three years fighting “the terrorists” with no prospect of finally crushing them.

Worse still (in their eyes), Assad has even sent his officials to talk to “the terrorists” in Geneva and, in a concession to the UN, is allowing some of them to escape from Homs while others receive food and medicines.

This, rather than orders from the regime, may explain mortar and sniper fire directed at the UN convoys. Reporting from Homs for the Wall Street Journal, Sam Dagher writes:

Members of Mr Assad's Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam and a minority in Syria that dominates the regime, accused the UN of being far more concerned about taking in food and medicine for rebels and civilians than determining the whereabouts of some 740 missing people from their community.

They say the missing are believed to have been kidnapped by rebels since the start of the conflict almost three years ago and held in the besieged quarter …

"Where are our children?" said an Alawite woman in Homs, referring to those allegedly abducted by rebels who include many young soldiers and conscripts. "People are bursting with anger as they see food being delivered to the armed men."

Dandachi, in his latest blog post, suggests that the death of Dr Abbas Khan, the British surgeon, just before he was about to be released from prison may also be attributable to the regime’s ultras rather than the regime itself:

“The mukhabarat, who have no illusions as to what awaits them should the regime fall, do not want to see high profile prisoners such as Dr Khan released just to make Assad look good. 

“Dr Khan’s savage and brutal murder a mere hours before his scheduled release was as much an F-U to Assad as it was an act of revenge against the British. Galloway? Who is George Galloway? If it is Galloway’s dream to become the world’s first Scottish Ayatollah, the mukhabarat, who have also died in their thousands during the war, apparently don’t feel obliged to give up anything to grant him any PR points.”

None of this augurs well for the resumed Geneva peace talks. Assad may not face an immediate threat to his presidency but, sandwiched between the UN and his own hardliners, he has a shrinking space in which to manoeuvre."

World press freedom index 2014

Reporters Without Borders

Middle East and North Africa

SYRIAN CRISIS IMPACTS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IN REGION

Already the world’s most dangerous country for journalists, Syria saw a further decline in the security situation in 2013 as the conflict became more complex. Nearly 130 news and information providers have been killed since the conflict began in March 2011. They are under attack from both sides: on the one hand by Bashar Al-Assad’s regular army, which continues to arrest and kill those who document the conflict; and on the other by armed Islamist groups in the so-called “liberated” areas in the north, above all by Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS). Since the spring of 2013, these Jihadi groups have been abducting journalists and installing legal committees (hay’at shar’iya) that dispense arbitrary justice. The security forces operated by the Democratic and Union Party (PYD), the dominant political group in the Kurdish regions, pose an additional obstacle to freedom of information. Under threat from all sides, Syrian news providers are fleeing the country in large numbers.

In Lebanon, where the media serve as the propaganda outlets of businessmen and politicians, the Syrian conflict has consolidated the existing fault line between media allied with “8 March” (the mainly Shiite movement supported by Tehran and Damascus) and media allied with “14 March” (the mainly Sunni coalition supported by Saudi Arabia against Damascus). This polarization between media that support and oppose the Syrian government has reinforced Lebanon’s social and political polarization.

In Jordan, the Arab Spring and the Syrian conflict have led the authorities to tighten their grip on the media and, in particular, the Internet, despite an outcry from civil society. Access to around 300 news websites was blocked within Jordan in June 2013 under a new media law that drastically restricts online freedom of information.

Since 2012, Iraq has been sinking into a new cycle of violence that is an aftereffect of the chaos and civil war following the US-led intervention of 2003. Religious tension between Sunnis and Shiites is being exacerbated by the Syrian crisis and, like the constant obstructiveness of the authorities and security forces, is having a negative impact on the safety of journalists and the independence of the media. In late 2013, for example, ISIS attacked the headquarters of Salaheddin TV in the northern city of Tikrit, killing five of its journalists.

Iran, a major regional actor, is playing a key role in the Syrian conflict. The Iranian authorities continue to control news coverage strictly, especially when it concerns its ally, the Assad regime, the Revolutionary Guard presence in Syria and Iran’s financial aid. Any coverage of these subjects is regarded as “endangering national security.” Reporting on the nuclear issue, human rights and prisoners of conscience is also censored. At the end of 2013, Iran continued to be one of the world’s biggest prisons for media personnel, with 50 journalists and netizens detained. A few prisoners of conscience were released, but President Hassan Rouhani has not kept his campaign promises to “release all political prisoners” and bring about a change “in favour of free speech and media freedom.”

Syria

According to the tally kept by Reporters Without Borders: — Nearly 130 news providers were killed in connection with their work from March 2011 to December 2013. Seven of the professional journalists were foreign.

— At least 120 Syrian news providers fled abroad during the same period.

At the end of 2013:

— Around 20 Syrian news providers were being held by the Assad regime.

— 19 foreign journalists were detained, held hostage or missing.

— At least 20 Syrian news providers were being held hostage by Islamist armed groups.

NON-STATE GROUPS WITH NO LEGITIMACY IMPOSE REIGN OF FEAR

Non-state groups are the main threat to news providers and a source of danger for everyone in several countries in the region. The Islamist armed groups responsible for threats and kidnappings in Syria since the spring of 2013 count among the latest predators of freedom of information. In Iraq, journalists are targeted by armed militias often linked to organizations that are both political and religious in nature. After operating solely in Syria, ISIS began carrying out attacks on the media in Iraq in late 2013.

In Libya, freedom of information is under threat from the violence that continues to rock the country. Working as journalist is still very arduous nearly three years after the February 2011 uprising against the Gaddafi regime, which used strict media control to hold on to power for more than four decades. The enthusiasm generated by the Libyan “media spring” is running out of steam.

Ruled by a provisional government, today’s “free” Libya is on the verge of anarchy with the reign of armed militias replacing the rule of law. This has had a big impact on journalists. As a result of repeated arrests, intimidation, arbitrary detention and even torture, they are censoring themselves again. All the militias have been guilty of abuses against journalists including those created summarily, those legitimized by the government – such as the Libya Shield Force, placed under the defence ministry’s nominal authority – and well-known militias such as Al-Qa’qa’a.

Yemen has enjoyed more freedom of expression since Abd Rab Mansour Hadi took over from Ali Abdullah Saleh as president in February 2012 but a range of armed groups – including those linked to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Houthi rebellion in the north, the secessionist movement in the south, and conservative clerics – have been responsible for an upsurge in threats and violence against the media. The political parties also play a role, as most Yemeni media are the mouthpieces of parties, and many journalists are the victims of mistrust or even hostility from the security forces.

The Freedom Foundation, a Yemeni NGO that monitors the situation of the media, reported a total of 268 attacks affecting 356 people in the first eleven months of 2013. The Union of Yemeni Journalists reported a total of 333 attacks against journalists and media at the height of the uprising in 2011. And impunity reigns. The justice system has on the whole failed to investigate these abuses and punish those responsible. Despite the start of a national dialogue, the press and publications law has not been amended. Special courts and jail terms for journalists are still in effect.

Double penalty for Iraqi journalists

Armed groups have no compunction about killing media personnel in Iraq. Five TV journalists were gunned down in the northern city of Mosul in the space of three months in late 2013. Two cameramen employed by local stations, Alaa Edward Boutros of Nineveh Al-Ghad and Bashar Abdulqader Najm Al-Nouaymi of Al-Mosuliya, were shot near their homes, the former in late November and the latter in late October. And two Al-Sharqiya journalists, reporter Mohamed Karim Al-Badrani and cameraman Mohamed Al-Ghanem, were gunned down while out reporting in central Mosul in early October. Nawras Al-Nouaymi, a young Al-Mosuliya TV presenter, was shot near her Mosul home a month later. Impunity reigns. No one has been arrested for these murders. Instead of doing what is necessary to protect journalists, the authorities compound their problems by prosecuting them in connection with their reporting.

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

“Brotherization” of Egypt’s media under Morsi

Hosni Mubarak’s removal in February 2011 raised hopes of an improvement in respect for fundamental freedoms but they were quickly dashed after a Muslim Brotherhood government headed by Mohamed Morsi was installed in the summer of 2012. President Morsi had a decree adopted in November 2012 that gave him special powers but backtracked in the face of an outcry. The constitution that was approved by referendum the following month lacked sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression. It did not guarantee the independence of the state-owned media and, in practice, opened the way for the Islamization of media legislation.

As soon as the Muslim Brotherhood took office, it began asserting its control over the state media. In August 2012, Morsi got the upper chamber to appoint Muslim Brotherhood supporters to run the state-owned newspapers. These appointments had a big effect on their editorial policies. At the same time, there was a big increase in lawsuits and physical attacks against journalists.

“Sisification” of Egypt’s media under Gen. Sisi

Since Morsi’s removal by the army under Gen. Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, the new authorities have systematically targeted foreign and Egyptian media affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood – which has again been banned – or regarded as sympathetic to it. The pan-Arab TV station Al-Jazeera has been particularly targeted. Five journalists were killed and at least 80 were arbitrarily detained by police or demonstrators – pro-army or pro-Morsi – in the second half of 2013. Arbitrary arrest and torture is now common. An anti-Brotherhood witchhunt is under way that targets not only Egyptian journalists but also their Turkish, Palestinian or Syrian colleagues. This persecution violates provisions in the new constitution that was adopted by referendum in January 2014.

Morocco’s anti-terrorism pretext

Morocco, which has had a moderate Islamist-led coalition government since November 2011, has yet to carry out the constitutional reforms promised after a referendum in July 2011. The leading media development in 2013 was the September arrest of Ali Anouzla, the editor of the Arabic-language version of the news website Lakome, for posting a link to an article in the Spanish daily El País, which in turn had a link to a video attributed to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

Released after five weeks in “preventive detention,” Anouzla continues to face a possible sentence of 10 to 30 years in prison on charges of providing “material assistance” to a terrorist organization and “defending terrorist crimes.” The case is indicative of a disturbing readiness on the part of the authorities to view journalistic work as inciting terrorism.

Tunisia: state media independence blocked

The Islamist party Ennahda’s victory in Tunisia’s first free elections has not ended the tradition of close government control of the state-owned media. Perpetuating deposed President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali’s methods, the Ennahda-led government has been making and breaking careers at the head of the state radio and TV stations. The hopes of media freedom defenders were raised when the appointment of members of the Independent High Authority for Broadcasting Communication (HAICA) was announced on 3 May 2013 but they dashed again when another wave of senior appointments in the state broadcast media were quickly unveiled in August. Three years after Ben Ali’s removal, authoritarian methods continue to short-circuit reform attempts and block state media independence.

ARABIAN PENINSULA: PRIORITIZING NEWS CONTROL

Fearing the spread of the Arab Spring, the countries of the Arabian Peninsula have reinforced surveillance and control of the media, starting with the Internet, which has come to be a place where people express themselves with a freedom not found in the traditional media. As a result, the cyber-police of the Persian Gulf monarchies are on the lookout for any online article, post or tweet critical of government policy.

In the United Arab Emirates, any support for the Muslim Brotherhood is crushed. Long jail sentences were passed ontwo netizens who tweeted about the trial of 94 Emiratis accused of membership of Al-Islah, a local party with links to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. The authorities had banned observers and foreign reporters from the courtroom, leaving carefully selected local reporters to cover the trial. It will probably be the same for the trial of 20 Egyptians and 10 Emiratis accused of links with the Muslim Brotherhood and trying to overthrow the government. On 21 January 2014, they were given sentences ranging from three months to five years in prison.

Saudi Arabia, which is on the Reporters Without Borders list of “Enemies of the Internet,” does not lag far behind. The kingdom is relentless in its censorship of the Saudi media and the Internet, and jails netizens without compunction. In 2013, the censors paid particular attention to calls for women to be allowed to drive, a popular topic online that even received a mention in some of the traditional media. Asharq Al-Awsat columnist Tariq Al-Mubarak was arrested in October on various grounds including a column criticizing the ban on women drivers.

The Saudi authorities are even stricter on matters concerning religion. In July, a sentence of seven years in prison and 600 lashes was passed on Raef Badawi, the founder of the now censored Saudi Liberals website, who had posted an article about St. Valentine that allegedly denigrated the religious police. The charges brought against him after his arrest in June 2012 initially included “apostasy” (abandoning one’s religious beliefs), but it was finally dropped.

In Kuwait, the authorities are cracking down on two sensitive subjects – the emir and religion. Two citizen-journalists, Badr Al-Rashidi and Ourance Al-Rashidi, were given long jail sentences for “insulting” the emir. They eventually received a royal pardon but, without reform of the law, there could be more convictions and there is no guarantee that the emir will be so benevolent with the next victims. A draconian bill was considered and then abandoned in April. It would have allowed the authorities to impose fines of up to 800,000 euros for criticizing the emir or the crown prince, and sentences of up to 10 years in prison for “insulting God, the Prophets of Islam, or the Prophet Mohamed’s wives or companions.”

In Oman, the sultan continues to be one of the main taboos. Anyone criticizing him is liable to feel the regime’s wrath. Netizens have been given long jail terms although some have subsequently been pardoned.

Bahrain, kingdom of disinformation

Ever since the start of a popular uprising in February 2011, the Bahraini monarchy has been a past master in the art of manipulating coverage of the street protests and the ensuing crackdown. In its efforts to protect Bahrain’s image, it has also cleverly exploited the reticence of western governments to condemn it, persuading them to accept its insincere promises and superficial reforms.

As a result, Manama was designated 2012 capital of Arab culture and 2013 capital of Arab tourism. Bahrain’s latest PR coup was to persuade the Arab League to let it host the Arab Court of Human Rights, although some of its jails are overflowing with prisoners of conscience.