Friday, July 7, 2017

The battle for world leadership

As the 20 leading economies meet in Hamburg, a truly multipolar world is finally emerging.


By Marwan Bishara

Link

Starting with the United States of America. The US is the world's leading economy and its greatest military power, with a "soft power" dominating the globe.
But the US share of the global economy fell from half to less than fifth since the end of World War II. And US influence has declined sharply since the end of the Cold War, notably since its reckless 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2008 financial crisis.

Despite its lethal military power, Washington has failed to win a single major war since World War II.
Japan-EU agree to massive free-trade deal
It lost the Vietnam War, failed miserably in the Second Gulf War (after succeeding in liberating Kuwait in the first Gulf War), and for all practical purposes, this week's news from the Koreas is a reminder why the 1950s Korean War remains unfinished. North Korea's success in testing an intercontinental ballistic missile is seen as a slap in the face of the US and its menacing president on Independence Day.
The emergence of new regional and global powers has been particularly challenging to US power, as the likes of China, the EU, India and resurgent Russia limit its capacity to guide the global agendas.
President Barack Obama understood this new international reality and tried to steer Washington into a more realistic, humble and cooperative role on the global stage.
US power might not have been sufficient to dictate economic and strategic policies to other powers, but for long, it was the go-to guarantor of Western-led international order. Today, all that is in doubt and perhaps is going in reverse.
Donald Trump's amateurish and reckless presidency is undermining US leadership. Not so much because of his protectionism as his banal populist nationalism. His rejection of the Paris Treaty on Climate Change and his total embrace of Saudi Arabia are only two examples.
If popularity is anything to go by, Trump is trailing far behind other unlikely world leaders such as Angela Merkel.

The rise of China

On the opposite spectrum, China has emerged as a formidable economic and military competitor to the US on the world stage.
Within three decades, China became the world's "leading factory", enjoying unprecedented trade surpluses and double-digit growth and creating massive wealth, all the while investing heavily in a military and especially naval power to reckon with.
Moving forward, no one power will be able to lead the complicated and challenging international system that has emerged from the crises of the post-Cold war era.

Of course, size matters, and China has been cruising steadily like an aircraft carrier. But it's also been too aggressive in throwing its weight around to attract or perhaps intimidate smaller neighbours.
Attempts by the Obama administration to contain China through an "Asia Pivot" have failed miserably. And today, the Chinese are exploiting Trump's shortsighted approach to Asia in order to further expand their influence on the continent. (Reportedly, China was happy to see Trump elected as it expected him to screw up big time).
By contrast, the strong and stable Presidency of Xi Jinping has further enhanced China's global role. Earlier this year, he gave a speech at the Davos Economic Forum of the world political and economic leaders, the first of its kind for Chinese leaders, in order to underline Beijing's interest in global leadership as America turns inwards. Xi even defended free trade from "blind" nationalism in an indirect jab at Trump's "America first" policies.
China may continue to lag behind when it comes to soft power and innovation, and human rights, but its capacity for engineering and exporting new models of development have been attracting other countries - large and small - to follow suit.
As the G20 economies convene for their 9th annual meeting, there is little doubt about the enhanced role of China alongside the US, or the so-called G2 in influencing the group's decisions, big and small.
But the two aren't alone in vying for a place on top.

The EU, the world's leading union

Speculations about the future of the European Union have been quite negative since the 2008 international financial crisis disproportionately affected some of Europe's weaker economies. And pessimism spread after the UK voted to leave the EU last year amid increasing pressures from emboldened Putin's Russia to the East and from skeptical Trump's America to the West.
But the world's largest economic union has rebounded, at least psychologically, over the past several months as elections, notably in France, gave it a new momentum and vigour.
The same German-French partnerships that allowed the EU to become the largest economic market and union it is today promises to grow stronger under the duo of Merkel-Macron.
The more seasoned and more experienced Chancellor Merkel has emerged as the de facto leader of the union on economic, and also on strategic, environmental and humanitarian issues.
This week, as she hosts the G20 summit, the German Chancellor is more popular in her country and around the world than the US president. It's indeed paradoxical that the two great powers defeated in World War II, Germany and Japan, have emerged in the Trump era as the two most steady voices of the liberal world order.

Although she is seen as a voice of reason on new global challenges from environment to refugees, Merkel has also proven to be a calculating and, some would even say, "Merkevilian" politician able to successfully manoeuvre her way around the traps and pitfalls of European and world politics.
In that way, Merkel's power and influence is both enhanced and amplified by and through the EU, and is emerging as an attractive third choice, nicely positioned in the middle between Trump's America and Xi's China.
However, to its disadvantage, the administratively complicated and slow-functioning EU tends to take a back seat to American and Chinese leadership which enjoy greater capacity to deliberate and respond.

Multipolar world?

The three leading powers, US, China and the EU, along with their respective leaders, present distinct and contrasted models, visions and governing styles in what increasingly looks like a post-American world.
The multipolar world that French President Jacques Chirac preached around the 2003 Gulf crisis when France and Germany opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq is finally upon us.
Moving forward, no one power will be able to lead the complicated and challenging international system that has emerged from the crises of the post-Cold war era.
Trump criticises Russia in Poland speech
The dollar, the Pentagon, Hollywood and Harvard might be leading for now, but as US hegemony wanes, so will a lot of what it represents to the world. Or, in tune with the times of globalisation, these and other American brands will probably become more global and less American with time.
This is a far from democratic world, but we are slowly and surely moving away from the bipolarity of the Cold War and unipolarity of its immediate aftermath.
One could only wish that world powers show the ever more needed responsibility, maturity and capacity to meet the challenges of the 21st century with less conflict and more cooperation. Wishful thinking?
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera. Follow him on Facebook.

The turning point of the GCC crisis

A list of six broad principles issued by the Saudi-led group may initiate the resolution of the GCC crisis.


A GOOD PIECE

By Rami Khouri

Link

A flurry of diplomacy this week marks the first possible turning point in the five-week-old standoff between a defiant Qatar and four Saudi Arabia-led Arab states that have tried to bring it to its knees, accusing it of promoting terrorism and threatening their security. While accusations and denialscontinue to fly around, we may be facing a turning point towards a possible negotiated diplomatic resolution that satisfies the legitimate minimum demands of both sides - if all concerned respond maturely to the new positive developments.
The heart of this possible shift is a list of six "principles" issued on Thursday by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Egypt, which address in broad and universally acceptable terms the same concerns of regional security and stability that had prompted the initial assault on Qatar in early June. These six principles seem to replace for now the 13 "non-negotiable demands" on Qatar that it had squarely rejected in any case, and that had found virtually zero support among any other major countries.
This is significant because the six broad principles clearly can be supported by Qatar and all its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) partners, once the details are clarified and negotiated quietly. This would reverse the boisterous, aggressive, and defiant tones that defined the past five weeks of public sparring, while a seemingly detached United States watched from the sidelines and also sent conflicting signals. 
Three trends that peaked last week may have pushed the feuding parties towards a possible new path to resolution. The Qataris showed that they could and would resist both the siege and the unreasonable demands from their GCC neighbours, for years if need be, and many important countries supported them.
The Saudi-led group pressuring Qatar found themselves almost totally isolated internationally, with nothing to show for their previous month of aggressive demands on Qatar. They probably realised that any new sanctions they imposed would only backfire on them politically and economically, and tarnish their reputation globally as reliable partners. And the United States engaged more directly and clearly for a negotiated resolution of the feud, following weeks of mixed signals and seemingly detached American reactions to what Washington initially described as an in-house feud within the GCC; strong European support for a negotiated solution also reinforced the US position.
The announcement on Thursday that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson would fly to Kuwait on Monday - the formal mediator in this issue - followed the German Foreign Minister's statement that Qatar would allow German experts to inspect Qatari financial accounts to investigate any credible allegations of support for "terrorist" groups. These developments coincided with statements at a private conference in Washington, DC on Thursday by former US officials who handled terror financing probes that several countries in the GCC seem to have allowed their citizens to fund extremist Islamist groups or other designated "terrorists".
The accelerated direct involvement of the US, Germany, and other foreign powers in resolving this dispute is a critical component of the diplomatic process - but  the interests of regional powers such as Iran and Turkey that have come to Qatar's assistance in riding out the Saudi-Emirati-led failed siege should also be taken into consideration.
An opening now exists for all sides to acknowledge that money and tough-guy talk can never substitute for a rational, principled, and balanced discussion of legitimate grievances that are resolved through dialogue and negotiations.

The six principles statement opens the door for Qatar and its GCC erstwhile partners - should they wish - to achieve critical goals that have been sidelined during the past five weeks. They can agree to core principles of promoting mutual security, stability, and sovereignty, while also fighting terrorism, preventing cross-border provocations and incitements, and refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
The six principles broadly but also specifically respond to the demands of both sides, as well as the global commitment to fight terrorism and political violence. They also significantly include references to 2013/14 and 2017 agreements on these issues that all six GCC states had agreed to implement, so all sides could move ahead to a resolution by reaffirming positions they had all already accepted.
How those broad principles are defined in practice will determine whether or not this is indeed an opening to a new path to resolve this conflict. So, for example, will the Saudi-led side insist that closing Al Jazeera is critical to ending "incitement" against one's neighbours, as they did in their original, and widely ridiculed, demands that Qatar rightly rejected out of hand? Will Qatar negotiate an agreement that commits all the GCC states to the same principles as they want it to implement? Do foreign military bases across the entire GCC threaten any one country's security?
The past five weeks have confirmed again that unilateral hard demands issued within an aggressive siege of Qatar have no chance of being accepted. They have also shown that Qatar is willing to comply with international measures to prevent funding of terrorist groups - inspections, audits, embedded foreign technical experts - but very reasonably it wants those measures to be applied universally across the GCC and other states. Achieving an agreement that sticks will require the same kind of mutual respect and balanced, realistic diplomacy that allowed Iran and its international negotiating partners to reach their agreement on nuclear/sanctions issues - because both sides' concerns were taken into account, and international principles of legitimate or forbidden actions were applied equally to both sides. 
Saudi-Emirati-led bravado across the Gulf during the past five weeks unsuccessfully used tough talk and siege measures to force Qatar to comply with the unreasonable initial demands. Not only did Qatar refuse to comply; also every important power in the world emphasised its support for a political resolution of the conflict and ending the siege.
An opening now exists for all sides to acknowledge that money and tough talk can never substitute for a rational, principled, and balanced discussion of legitimate grievances that are resolved through dialogue and negotiations. This is a spectacle of many characters in the Arab world and abroad, including mature established leaders, dysfunctional new leaders, and brash young men who know little about the workings of the world. Let us hope the mature leaders among us prevail, which they now have a chance to do if they follow up diligently to build on the six principles that have just been announced.         
Rami G Khouri is senior public policy fellow and professor of journalism at the American University of Beirut, an internationally syndicated columnist, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

الحصاد- الإمارات- لوبان.. تمويل حملة ضد قطر

الحصاد- لبنان- سوريا.. انتهاكات ضد اللاجئين

الأزمة الخليجية في اجتماع القاهرة وبعده

المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات
المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات
Link

على خلاف ما هو متوقَّع، فشل اجتماع وزراء خارجية دول الحصار الأربع (السعودية، والإمارات، والبحرين، ومصر)، الذي عُقد في القاهرة يوم الأربعاء 5 تموز/ يوليو 2017، في اتخاذ أيّ إجراءٍ تصعيدي ضدّ دولة قطر.

وكان مقررًا للاجتماع أن يخرج بسلسلة من الإجراءات التصعيدية، فقد التأم بعد انتهاء مهلة الأيام العشرة، وتمديد الساعات الثماني والأربعين التي طلبتها الكويت، وقد قالت دول الحصار إنها أعطتها لقطر من أجل الاستجابة للمطالب الثلاثة عشر التي تقدمت بها. فما الذي جرى؟ ولماذا فشلت دول الحصار في التصعيد ضدّ قطر؟ وهل بلغت الأزمة نهايتها؟ أم مازال أمامنا طريق طويلة قبل الجزم بذلك؟

المطالب الثلاثة عشر والردّ عليها
بعد مرور نحو ثلاثة أسابيع على القرار الذي اتخذته دول الحصار، صباح الخامس من حزيران/ يونيو 2017، المتمثّل بقطع العلاقات الدبلوماسية والقنصلية مع قطر، وإغلاق المنافذ البرية والبحرية والجوية معها، ومنع العبور في أراضيها وأجوائها ومياهها الإقليمية، ومنع مواطنيها من السفر إلى قطر، وإمهال المقيمين والزائرين من مواطنيها فترةً محددةً لمغادرتها، تقدّمت دول الحصار، بضغط من وزارة الخارجية الأميركية، بقائمة تضمّنت 13 بندًا، وطالبت دولةَ قطر بتنفيذها كشرط لرفع الحصار عنها.
شملت المطالب، من بين عدّة أمور، إغلاق قناة "الجزيرة" ومنابر إعلامية أخرى (مثل العربي الجديد)، وتخفيض التمثيل الدبلوماسي مع إيران، وإغلاق القاعدة العسكرية التركية على الأراضي القطرية، وقيام قطر بدفع تعويضات لدول الحصار مقابل ما وصفته الوثيقة بالضرر الذي ألحقته السياسات القطرية بها، وتسليم جميع أفراد المعارضة من الدول الأربعة الموجودين في دولة قطر إلى بلدانهم، وتقديم معلومات مفصّلة عن شخصيات المعارضة من الدول الأربع، وغير ذلك من المطالب.
رفضت قطر المطالب جميعها، ودحضتها بالتفصيل، وقد كانت السّمة السائد للردّ متمثّلًا 
بالمراوحة بين تكذيب بعض ما ورَد في تلك المطالب وعَدّ بعضها الآخر اعتداءً على سيادتها واستقلالها، وقامت بتسليم ردّها مكتوبًا إلى الوسيط الكويتي، مُعربةً عن استعدادها لمواجهة كل الاحتمالات للدفاع عن سيادتها وقرارها المستقل. في حين عَدّت جهات أخرى، بما فيها وزارة الخارجية الأميركية، أكثر المطالب الواردة في قائمة دول الحصار غير منطقية وغير قابلة للتنفيذ، وبالمثل صرحت ألمانيا وتركيا أيضًا. كما أثارت هذه المطالب حالةً من الاستنكار في وسائل الإعلام، خاصة الغربية ومنظمات حقوق الإنسان وأكاديميين وناشطين وشخصيات بارزة بوصفها تستهدف حرية الرأي والتعبير وليس محاربة الإرهاب، كما زعمت دول الحصار. وظهرت عشرات المقالات في الصحف الغربية التي تتناول الموضوع من هذه الزاوية.

كلمة السر الأميركية

كان وصول الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب إلى السلطة، وزيارته للمنطقة، وحضوره قمة الرياض بمنزلة الفتيل الذي أدى إلى تفجّر الأزمة الخليجية، وهو ما أقرّ به ترامب نفسه، عندما أشار إلى وجود علاقة بين زيارته للمنطقة وتفجّر الأزمة الخليجية؛ إذ كتب في حسابه على توتير: "من الجيّد أن نرى أنّ زيارة المملكة العربية السعودية واللقاء مع الملك و50 دولةً بدآ بإعطاء نتائجهما. لقد قالوا إنهم سيتبنّون موقفًا أكثر حزمًا في التعامل مع تمويل التطرّف، وكل التلميحات كانت تشير إلى قطر. ربما سيكون هذا بداية نهاية الإرهاب" . ويبدو واضحًا أنّ وصول ترامب إلى البيت الأبيض شجّع السعودية والإمارات على تفجير خلاف مكبوت مع قطر وتصفية حسابات قديمة معها.
كان واضحًا منذ البداية أنّ موقف ترامب، المخالف لمواقف بقية أركان إدارته، خاصةً الخارجية والبنتاغون، مثّل عامل القوة الرئيس الذي استندت إليه دول الحصار في موقفها من قطر، وكان من الواضح أنّ ترامب تعهّد لها بمهلة من الوقت للضغط على قطر. ولكنّ موقف الرئيس الأميركي يفسر، أيضًا، فشل الدول الأربع في اتخاذ مزيد من الإجراءات التصعيدية خلال الاجتماع الذي تداعت إلى عقده في القاهرة، مع انتهاء المهلة الممنوحة لقطر من أجل الاستجابة لمطالبها. فقد أربك الاتصال الهاتفي الذي أجراه الرئيس ترامب مع الرئيس المصري عبد الفتاح السيسي، وتزامن مع موعد عَقد اجتماع القاهرة، موقف دول الحصار؛ إذ دعا ترامب، وفق بيان صادر عن البيت الأبيض، السيسي إلى "التفاوض على نحو بنّاء لحلّ النزاع، وأكد مجددًا ضرورة أن تلتزم جميع الدول بالتزاماتها في قمة الرياض لوقف تمويل الإرهاب والحدّ من الأيديولوجية المتطرفة وفق تعبير البيان" . وبناءً على ذلك، يمكن فهم السبب الذي جعل البيان الختامي لاجتماع القاهرة مخيبًا لوزراء الخارجية أنفسهم؛ من جهة عدم التصعيد، والتأكيد المتكرر لالتزام دول الحصار بالقانون الدولي في أيّ إجراء تتخذه ضد قطر. كما استبدلت دول الحصار مطالبها الثلاثة عشر بمطالب أكثر واقعيةً، وأكثر عموميةً، أدرجتها ضمن قرارات مجلس التعاون والقمة العربية والإسلامية.

لماذا تغيّر موقف ترامب؟

لا شك في أنّ صمود الموقف القطري، وإجماع القطريين على الدفاع عن سيادتهم واستقلالية قراراهم، ورفض كل أشكال الإملاءات والهيمنة الخارجية، فضلًا عن الأداء الدبلوماسي 
والإعلامي القطري الهادئ والفاعل في الوقت نفسه، وهو أداءٌ نجح في كسب تعاطف عربي ودولي كبير على صعيد الرأي العامّ وعلى الصعيد الرسمي، إضافةً إلى ضعف منطق الحملة المعادية التي قامت على الترهيب والإملاء؛ في محاولة لاستهداف حرية الرأي والتعبير، وتكميم الأفواه، ومنع كل رأيٍ مخالف، عوامل اضطلعت كلّها بدور كبير في احتواء الهجمة التي تعرضت لها قطر من دول الحصار، إلّا أنّ جملةً من العوامل الدولية الأخرى أدّت، أيضًا، دورًا مهمًّا في منع دول الحصار من التصعيد؛ في مقدمتها تنامي التوتر في شبه الجزيرة الكورية، وهو ما جعل الرئيس ترامب يطلب من حلفائه العرب تجميد الصراع مع قطر مؤقتًا، خلال الاتصال الهاتفي السالف الذكر الذي أجراه مع الرئيس السيسي، إذ لم يتمكن من احتمال التعاطي مع عدة أزمات في اجتماع العشرين الذي كان متجهًا إليه. يضاف إلى ذلك أنّه لم يطلب وقف الحصار على قطر، بل عدم فتح معركة جديدة بخطوات تصعيدية فقط.

لقد بلغ التوتر مع كوريا الشمالية أوجه مع دأب بيونغ يانغ ومنذ وصول ترامب إلى السلطة في الاستمرار على إجراء تجاربها على صواريخ بالستية عابرة للقارات وقادرة على بلوغ الأراضي الأميركية وسيلةَ ردعٍ أولًا في مواجهة أيّ هجوم أميركي محتمل عليها، ومن جهة ثانية وسيلةً لإجبار واشنطن على الاعتراف بها قوّةً نوويةً والجلوس معها على طاولة المفاوضات، للتوصل إلى حلّ يؤدي إلى رفع الحصار عنها، على غرار ما حصل مع إيران، لكنّ ذلك من دون التخلي عن قدراتها النووية. وخلال الأسابيع الأخيرة بدَا أنّ كوريا الشمالية مصممة على إحراج إدارة ترامب من خلال تصعيد تجاربها حتى أنّها تمكنت قبل يومين من إطلاق صاروخ بالستي قادر على إصابة الأراضي الأميركية، وهو ما آثار واشنطن، ودفع ترامب إلى الإعراب عن خيبة أمله في قدرة الصين على الضغط على كوريا الشمالية لوقف تجاربها الصاروخية.
وكان اعتماد ترامب على الصين لاحتواء كوريا الشمالية أحد الأسباب التي أدّت إلى تعديل موقفه العدائي لبكين، والذي أبداه بوضوح خلال حملته الانتخابية، وبرهن عليه، عندما أمر بتوجيه ضربة صاروخية لقاعدة الشعيرات الجوية السورية، ردًّا على هجوم كيميائي قام به النظام السوري في الوقت نفسه الذي كان مجتمعًا فيه مع الرئيس الصيني شي جينبينغ في أول لقاء قمة جمعهما في فلوريدا في السابع من شهر نيسان/ أبريل الماضي؛ وذلك في إشارة فهم منها استعداده لفعل الشيء نفسه مع كوريا الشمالية، إذا فشلت الصين في إقناعها بوقف مساعيها الهادفة إلى تطوير صواريخ تهدّد من خلالها الأراضي الأميركية.
لم يثبت نجاح كوريا الشمالية عدم جدوى مقاربة ترامب في الاعتماد على الصين لكبح جماح  
بيونغ يانغ فحسب، بل أحرجه بشدة أيضًا. فقد تعمدت كوريا الشمالية إجراء تجربتها الصاروخية الناجحة في اليوم الذي تحتفل فيه الولايات المتحدة بعيدها الوطني، غير عابئة بتهديدات ترامب أنّ قيامها بتطوير صاروخ بالستي عابر قادر على بلوغ الأراضي الأميركية بمنزلة خط أحمر لن يسمح لها بتجاوزه. 
وبقيام كوريا الشمالية بتجاوز هذا الخط، أصبح مطلوبًا من ترامب الردّ، خاصةً أنه حرص منذ وصوله إلى الرئاسة على إعطاء الانطباع أنه، على عكس أوباما "الضعيف"، يحظى بالقوة والشجاعة لاتخاذ القرارات لتنفيذ تهديداته والوفاء بوعوده المتمثّلة باستعادة الهيبة الأميركية التي بدّدها أوباما. 
أمام هذا التحدي الكبير، مثّلث الأزمة الخليجية عبئًا ليس هذا وقته بالنسبة إلى اترامب، ما جعله يطلب من حلفائه في المنطقة تجميد الصراع مؤقتًا حتى يتفرغ للتحدي الكبير الجديد الذي طرأ على الساحة وصار عليه التعامل معه، مع ما يترتب عليه من تداعيات كبيرة في علاقاته الدولية، خاصةً في ضوء تصريح وزير الخراجية الروسي أنّ بلاده والصين ترفضان، في التعامل مع المسألة الكورية، "أيّ محاولة لتبرير الحل باستخدام القوة مع استغلال قرارات مجلس الأمن كذريعة".

خاتمة
تمكّنت قطر بأدائها الإعلامي والدبلوماسي والاقتصادي الناجح، فضلًا عن ظهور تطورات على الساحة الدولية، أبرزها أزمة الصواريخ الكورية التي أخذت تركيز ترامب بعيدًا عن المنطقة، من احتواء أيّ إجراءٍ تصعيدي من دول الحصار، لكنّ هذا لا يعني بحال من الأحوال أنّ الأزمة انتهت، أو أنّ الحملة على قطر اندحرت، بل يعني، فقط، أنها جمدت عند هذا الحدّ في الوقت الراهن لأسباب خارجة عن إرادة دول الحصار التي بدت خيبة أملها كبيرةً في عدم قدرتها على اتخاذ أيّ إجراءٍ تصعيدي ضد قطر، كما كانت تعهدت بذلك مع انتهاء المهلة. فالحصار مستمر، والمخاطر مازالت قائمةً، وهناك اجتماع مُقبِل تُعِدّ له دول الحصار سيُعقد في البحرين، وهو ما أشار إليه وزير الخارجية البحريني خلال المؤتمر الصحافي الذي أعقب اجتماع القاهرة الفاشل.
وبناءً على ذلك، يترتب على قطر أن تستمر في إدارة الأزمة والمخاطر بالنشاط والفاعلية نفسها، بما في ذلك التخطيط لما بعدها.

DNA - 06/07/2017 بازار النزوح السوري

Top 5 most ridiculous things said in *that* Saudi press conference

Top 5 most ridiculous things said in *that* Saudi press conference

(Look at that asshole on the right (Bahrain's FM), it looks like he has swallowed a camel!)

Link

'Why doesn't Qatar want us to smile?' asked UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah Bin Zayed. No, really, he did.
After Qatar swiftly rejected a list of 13 demands put forward by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt in order for the Gulf allies to drop their attempts to isolate Qatar, the four countries' foreign ministers gathered in Cairo for a press conference to announce their reaction.

They said they wouldn't impose further sanctions on Qatar, but had some very awkward moments while doing so.

Here are the top five most bewildering moments of the press conference:

5. They admitted that Trump told them to stop being so naughty

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry revealed that the four countries turned to US President Donald Trump for instructions - which ulitmately influenced their decision to not impose any further sanctions on Qatar.

Trump told the four to "to negotiate constructively to resolve the diplomatic crisis" rather than to exasperate it with new sanctions.

4. 'It hurts us to treat Qatar this way, it really does,'  says Saudi foreign minister


Adel Al-Jubeir stood up, with a straight face, and said that the four countries were upset about beseiging Qatar. Which wasn't patronising at all...

3. 'Anyone who deals with Iran must be punished,' the Saudi foreign minister added
This may not seem so ridiculous if Riyadh could stand by its threats. Let's not forget that Kuwait, the country mediating this crisis, invited Iranian President Rouhani to their country in February. Oman too. And of course, the United States and the five next most powerful Western nations all worked to come to a deal with Iran over its nuclear capabilities in 2015.

2. 'We are facing a crisis with Qatar, but we have a bigger problem with terrorism,' says the UAE foreign ministerBut havent they been arguing all this time that Qatar was the sole source of terrorism and the whole point of this blockade was simply a massive counter-terrorist operation?

Or did they not want to try to explain their claim that Qatar was funding both Al-Qaeda and the Houthis in Yemen - two ideologically disparate groups who are at real physical war with each other - at the same time?

1. 'Why doesn't Qatar want us to smile?'
The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates actually asked this, and, yeah, we're just as confused as anyone else...

Emad Hajjaj's Cartoon: Arab Regimes Have Erased Palestine!

نحو فلسطين !

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

الاتجاه المعاكس- هل كان انقلاب السيسي كارثة على مصر؟

الحصاد- الأزمة الخليجية.. تأكيد على سيادة قطر

DNA - 04/07/2017 هلال الحشد الشعبي

DNA - 03/07/2017 بورصة حب الجيش اللبناني

Qatar being punished for embracing American ideals

A VERY GOOD PIECE

BY PATRICK THEROS
(Former US Ambassador to Qatar)
1
Link

On June 21, the U.S. Department of State announced it was “mystified” by the bullying of the State of Qatar by, among others, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who had broken diplomatic relations, closed all borders, airspace and sea lanes in an attempt to shut down their neighbor’s economy.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Corker (R-Tenn.), taking a cue from the State Department, announced he would block all future arms sales to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries until they resolved their differences, a move that lays the onus mostly on Saudi Arabia, which has large, pending arms deals still to be contracted. 
Senator Corker also recognized that the accusation that Qatar funds terrorism was only a pretext for punishing Qatar for its strongly pro-American policies; policies that the neighbors view as a threat despite their need for American protection.

The countries that ganged up on Qatar, a long-standing American ally that is home to a number of U.S. military bases, fear that the smallest Gulf Coast state had embarked on a path to modernization based on the American model that could upend the established regional autocratic order.
They saw that the aim of the Qatari experiment — from the U.S. universities housed on the Qatar Foundation’s Education City campus to its invention of a pan-regional investigative journalism tradition at Al Jazeera — has been to create people-power: training millions at home and across the region to think, debate and challenge the status quo of autocrats who buy American friends while supporting repression and extremism at home.

Long unhappy with Qatar’s modernization, its neighbors created the current crisis to undo what they perceive as a threat to the regional status quo. Their list of demands would, if accepted, reduce Qatar to a vassal state of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia worse than what it endured from independence in 1971 to 1990. Qatari society in that period could best be described as a “lite” version of Saudi Wahhabism.
With few exceptions, Qatari women could not get a driver’s license, and churches were banned. Following my arrival in late 1995, several senior clerics told me that they chafed under these restrictions, which they described as against the real teaching of Mohammed Abdul al-Wahhab. When asked why they tolerated them, the reply was always the same: “We are afraid of the Saudis.”

Fortunately for Qatar, it differed from Saudi Arabia in one other crucial aspect: governance. Unlike the Al-Saud family, the ruling Al-Thani family adhered more closely to the traditional bedouin constitutional order. The family chose the ruler through consensus with the governed. Qatar had already declared its de facto independence in 1990 when it realized that Saudi Arabia could not defend itself, let alone the GCC, after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Rather, Saudi Arabia had to call the Americans, something the Qataris could do themselves. Relations with Saudi Arabia deteriorated and then turned toxic when Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE conspired to support an attempted plot by partisans of the former Emir to assassinate Sheikh Hamid and restore his old cronies to power. It failed.

Qatar then embarked on the most radical modernization policies in regional memory by choosing the institutions and liberal values of the United States as a model. By early 1996, the emir lifted all press censorship and even abolished the Ministry of Information, making Qatar the only Arab state without a ministry responsible for censorship. 
To improve education, Qatar enlisted RAND Corporation to advise on reforming K-12 schools. After explicitly stating that American universities were the world’s gold standard, the emir’s consort, Sheikha Mozah bint Nasr al-Misnad, led an effort that brought six of the most prestigious American universities to establish branch campuses in Doha. 
Qatar insisted that they come as true branch campuses having a seamless relationship with the home campus, with complete academic freedom teaching the same curriculum exactly as at the home campus (for example, mixed classes). Qatar welcomed Georgetown University to set up its fabled School of Foreign Service in Qatar as an explicitly Jesuit institution.  
Since then, Qatar Foundation has established many educational and social institutions that have brought Qatari women into a more equal status than any of its neighbors. Seventy percent of all Qatari graduates are women. Qatar established a municipal council with elected members early in 2000 under universal suffrage. Women got the vote on the same day as the men. This, in a society that remains as privately pious and conservative as any of its neighbors.

Religious freedom also thrives in Qatar. In early 1996, the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially allowed a priest to come to Doha to celebrate Holy Week and Easter and tend to his communicants. The Foreign Ministry arranged for the priest (now the patriarch of Jerusalem) to meet with the prime minister and have an audience with the emir. Today, seven churches openly occupy a large plot donated by the government in a Doha suburb.  

To the dismay of other regional ruling families, Qatar’s Sheikh Hamid never disguised his unabashed love for being an Arab and his belief that the peoples of the Arab world deserved better governance. He set the example of what free speech and free press can accomplish. He established Al-Jazeera out of the remnants of the BBC Arabic service, which had been shut down by the Saudis.
He made Qatar the hub for a decade-long series of international conferences where Arab intellectuals could meet and exchange views without fear of the secret police of their countries.  

We all failed to anticipate the Arab Spring because we were looking for the intellectual ferment in the wrong places. Qatar had assumed the intellectual role of Andaluz and we never noticed. When the counterrevolution violently overthrew Egypt’s first democratically-elected government, Doha made the cardinal sin of agreeing with the United States publicly by expressing concern about this backward step.
The repressive states of the Arab world, meanwhile, all sought American protection while subliminally fostering hatred toward the liberal values about which we lectured them. The hatreds they created interacted with repression to formulate a deadly mix that led to 9/11, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
Now that the American lectures are officially over, the repressive countries turned all their fury on Qatar as a surrogate for espousing the values and institutions of the United States. Americans should not stand idly as its neighbors punish Qatar for its belief in these American values.
 
Patrick N. Theros previously served as U.S. ambassador to Qatar in the second Clinton administration and is currently president of the U.S.-Qatar Business Council, a private sector organization that provides a forum for discussion of key economic, commercial and other issues of interest to American companies doing or planning to do business in Qatar.