If President Bush’s goal on his last trip to the Middle East was to enrage the entire Arab world - not to mention U.S. Democrats - he could not have done better than the speech he delivered to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday.
“In front of Israeli deputies, the president of the United States indulged in exaltation about ‘the chosen people,’ while expressing his loathing for those Arabs who resist his diktat. The speech exuded pure hatred coupled with the fabrication of prophecy.”
“It’s a shame that since 1948, history only designates the other war maker [the Arabs] rather than the Zionist entity and its ally. Read the rest of this entry »
Now that the pro-Western government in Lebanon has been “put in its place” by Hezbollah - and by extension Iran and Syria - what is Israel up against - and what narrative will the Islamists use to heal the wounds and consolidate their victory?
Explaining why Lebanon’s Pro-West Sunni government is afraid of Hezbullah and Iran, Zaatera writes:
“The people of the Umma [the Muslim Nation] and in particular the Sunnis, are as captive as they are perplexed. On the one hand, they know that what’s happening in Lebanon is an integral part of the battle that the Americans and Israelis are waging against forces of resistance and opposition in the region. Read the rest of this entry »
The events now unfolding in the Middle East, which have been set in motion by Hezbullah’s takeover last week of much of Beirut, do not bode well for American or Israeli interests, warns one of France’s leading historians and journalists, Alexandre Adler.
Writing for France’s Le Figaro newspaper, Adler writes that Iranian President Ahmadinidjad, hemmed in by opponents at home and abroad, has turned to one of the last cards he holds in his hand: the Lebanese Hezbullah:
“Let us first turn to Iran, which is in a fever and where the most decisive threats originate. Iran’s President and his trusted accomplices - and a pro-Iranian faction of al-Qaeda - hope to recreate unity among all people of Muslim faith for a renewed jihad against America and Israel. Voices have been heard, notably among the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, who hope for such an outcome and support Iran’s nuclear program, which many Islamists - not only in Cairo - regard as a liberating force that should be immediately employed against Israel, whatever the risks.”
“Israel cannot tolerate a military victory for Hezbullah over its [pro-West] Lebanese opponents - any more than it can allow Ahmadinejad to pursue nuclear blackmail, especially in this very strange context: There is the probability that a Democratic candidate - indeed an Obama election victory - could bring to the White House a supporter of negotiations at all costs. … Clearly, this is a distressing 60th anniversary for Israel.”
This is a seminal article about what the United States now confronts, and it should be read by anyone interested in understanding this very important and hard-to-penetrate topic. Read the rest of this entry »
April 15th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
With its perpetually (and historically) rocky relationship, the Arab and European worlds have seldom met in a peaceful manner (or without suspicion) during the past half a millenium ever since the downfall of the Moorish civilization in Spain. In this context the on-going London Book Fair, with the “Arab World” as guest of honour and Arab writers present in force, provides yet another opportunity to build a bridge between the two worlds.
The Independent writes: “Imperial bureaucrats, soldiers and scholars on one side; radical nationalists, pious militants and oil-rich oligarchs on the other – all have had their various axes to grind, and to wield. Now, perhaps, the writers of the Arab world can begin to find a voice in the West again. It’s always easier to love distant stars when they can shine, plainly and legibly, on the page in front of us.
“The (London) fair will be the culmination of a long-term plan, steered by the British Council, to forge firmer cultural bonds. And, although he comes from far beyond the Arab world (and writes in English), the Afghan author Khaled Hosseini’s double coup in topping the UK charts both with The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns has helped to put a spring in the step of everyone who wants to widen the readership for literature from the Middle East and North Africa.
(The Kite Runner novel was the third best-seller for 2005 in the United States, according to Nielsen BookScan. It’s been published in 38 countries, translated into 42 languages, turned into an Oscar-nominated movie – and sold more than 10 million copies — one of the publishing industry’s greatest success stories. Now the search is on for the next big thing to come from the East. The Kite Runner is a 2007 Academy Award-nominated film directed by Marc Forster based on the novel of the same name by Khaled Hosseini (click here for more…)
“In the Gulf, lavishly funded new competitions such as the International Prize for Arabic Fiction (the ‘Arab Booker’) and the Sheikh Zayed Awards have signalled the intention of the emirate of Abu Dhabi to build up its name as a global centre of culture. Not to be outdone, and fretting perhaps at its current reputation as the world capital of bling, neighbouring Dubai begins a new literary festival next year. Also in Abu Dhabi, the Kalima translation project has launched an ambitious, state-financed programme to bring, at the rate of 100 per year, classic and contemporary books from around the world into Arabic for the first time and to distribute them across the region. ” More here…
I lived in London during the mid-1970s. I extensively covered there a major “World of Islam Festival” for The Statesman newspaper in India. The festival was opened by Queen Elizabeth II. “As far as anyone can remember, such an attempt had never been made before—and probably could not have been. It is only recently that one civilization has been capable of looking at another civilization objectively, rather than as a potential rival or convert. Read the rest of this entry »
From everything we can gather so far, there are few fans of a John McCain presidency in the Russian press - and the same can be said of President Bush. Asking what’s wrong with Bush’s Iraq strategy is the same as asking what the danger of a John McCain Administration would be. Galina Zeveleva of Russia’s Novosti News Service writes, “Bush continues to rely on force, thereby multiplying the army of terrorists more quickly than he can suppress them, while strengthening the conviction in Iran that possession of nuclear weapons is the only guarantee of its security.” Read the rest of this entry »
Iraqi forces head to Basra on an American C-130, April 3. But will they battle their feuding Shiite brethren after they arrive?
In light of the recent Shiite-on-Shiite battles raging in Iraq’s most important port city, Basra, what do the words ‘patriotism,’ ‘freedom,’ and ‘sovereignty‘ mean to Iraqis? After being occupied by the United States and others for the past five years, according to this op-ed from Iraq, their definitions of these terms bear little resemblance to our own.
Fatih Abdulsalam writes for Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, “In Iraq, everything is relative. What the official political parties see as lawlessness, others inside and outside Iraq see as the most legitimate activity under the law, linked as they are to spiritual and humanitarian beliefs … and patriotism.”
Writing about patriotism and freedom and alluding to Iran and the United States, Abdulsalam reflects the anger an frustration of Iraqis. “The word patriotism is just a relic from a prior age or Saddam’s toppled regime. Being a collaborator with a foreign power is accepted as the surest way to achieve strategic advantage. Freedom means simply being able to stand in Baghdad’s Liberation Square under the Memorial to the Unknown Soldier cursing and accusing all other Arab capitals of treason against the Iraqi nation for refusing to show respect to our own lame politicians - who are nothing but influence peddlers, mercenaries, thieves and charlatans who rely on F16s to maintain their power and legitimacy over the people.” Read the rest of this entry »
With the most significant NATO summit in decades about to begin, among other issues, the problem of what to do about Afghanistan is high on the list. Chief among European concerns in this regard is the apparent lack of a strategy beyond killing members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. For France’s Liberation, Bernard Guetta writes of British plans that France should take part in:
“The Taliban have learned from the defeat they suffered in 2001 … They now realize that they will achieve nothing if they persist with their cocktail of jihad and Sharia; they have become less fanatical, more political, and we could in a word, seek a compromise with them.” As far as the Americans are concerned, Guetta writes, “This is where the French reinforcements could play not only a military role, but a political one as well. They could permit the assertion of a Franco-British pole in Afghanistan, which would be so significant that it could encourage George Bush’s successor to endorse this strategy.”
By Bernard Guetta
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
April 1, 2008
France - Liberation - Original Article (France)
Attention! Everything seems to plead - naturally - against sending more French troops to Afghanistan. But the Atlanticism of Nicolas Sarkozy is so compulsive, his foreign policy so confused, this war in particular - so close to being completely lost - that we have no choice but to conclude that to do so is merely an intolerable, dangerous, positive gesture toward George Bush. As it is, this decision is nothing but troubling, but beware! Contrary to the Iraqi adventure, the Afghan intervention was approved by the United Nations. It’s legal. It is, above all, legitimate, since the Taliban not only protected the organizers of the September 11 attacks, but seven years later, their victory would become a tragedy for this country and would complete the destabilization of neighboring Pakistan. Even worse, it would strengthen the networks of Jihadists giving them a territorial sanctuary and more importantly, nourish their myth about the inevitable defeat of the “crusaders” before the rising masses of Islam. Read the rest of this entry »
As General David Petraeus prepares to testify before Congress about the surge, the question will arise, “How much progress has there been toward Iraqi national conciliation since the surge began.” In order to help answer that question, WORLDMEETS.US has translated this news account from the Al-Iraq News about the status of talks between the Shiite-led government and opposition parties. Adnan al-Dulaimi of the Iraqi Accord Front - the largest Sunni coalition - calls for, ‘The participation of all Sunni sons and not just those of The Accord Front - including supervision in the area of security. Effective control over the nation’s security services by a single sect must end. This would solve many of the country’s existing problems, because having one sect monopolize the area of security has created great harm.’
Izzat Al-Shabandar of the secular Iraqi Accord is quoted as saying, ‘There will be no concessions on our existing demands, in particular because these are the demands of all Iraqis … which include abolishing all sectarian-based quotas and establishing a national project based on performance, good citizenship and integrity - none of which can be waived or conceded.’
Translated By James Jacobson and Nicolas Dagher
March 3, 2008
Iraq - Al-Iraq News - Original Article (Arabic)
Not a single Iraqi opposition party is willing to offer the government concessions on their demands about how to address the tense political situation. Some of these parties attribute their hard line to the government’s failure to pay proper attention to their proposals.
Fadel Al-Sharaa, an advisor to Prime Minister al-Maliki, said “the government is serious about finding solutions that will contribute to improving the political process. In order to rebuild a basis for progress, we are negotiating with blocs that have withdrawn their support.” A number of blocks, including the Iraqi Accord Front [the largest Sunni bloc ], Iraqi National Accord [secular bloc lead by former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi ] and the al-Sadr faction , have withdrawn from the Maliki Government.
Al-Sharaa said, “the government is continuing its dialogue with these political blocs,” adding that the demands and proposals of these blocs would be closely examined, but emphasizing, “these groups must show their seriousness about reforming the political situation.” He added, “the status quo won’t do, in particular because the political situation doesn’t only pertain to political factions, but to the Iraq people, who expect the political blocs to confront the challenge of finding a way out of the impasse and put forward serious proposals that are commensurate with the heavy responsibility they bear for achieving a successful political process in this country.”
For his part, Adnan al-Dulaimi of the Iraqi Accord Front [Sunni], said that the Front was prepared to return to the Government when it is willing to back down from its hard-line demands and agree to compromise. “The demands of the Accord Front are clear and they are popular demands.”
The Front has called for a greater role in government decision-making and the release of detainees [Sunnis]. On the government’s position regarding these demands, Al-Duleimi said: “Unless the government responds positively, we cannot return to the Government.”
On the adoption of the General Amnesty Law [for former Baathists] which was passed by Parliament and was one of the demands of the Accord Front, Al-Duleimi said, “The General Amnesty Law is an important law, but we expect seriousness on the part of the Government in implementing it and speeding up its execution. This is what we hope the government will do.”
He added, “There are other conditions that the Accord has put forward, such as demands for real participation in making decisions and administering the country, as well as finding a balance between the parties in regard to how to create a successful political process. This would require the participation of all Sunni sons and not just those of The Accord Front - including supervision in the area of security. Effective control over the nation’s security services and plans by a single sect must end. This would solve many of the country’s existing problems, because having one sect monopolize the area of security has created great harm.”
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing coverage of how Iraqis themselves view the Iraq War.
Is the Bush Administration hoping for or perhaps even egging Israel on - to invade the Gaza strip and destroy Hamas’ power base there? Political Commentator Maria Appakova writes for Russia’s Novosti, ‘Sixty four percent of Israelis consider it necessary to hold a dialogue with Hamas to obtain a truce. But this is hardly in the interests of the United States. Nor is a truce likely to lead to peace. … Thus, just one option remains - the destruction of Hamas power in Gaza.’
By Maria Appakova
Translated By Igor Medvedev
March 5, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
MOSCOW: U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have simultaneously announced that they continue to believe in the possibility of establishing peace in the Middle East by the end of 2008.
These statements were made the day after Israel concluded ground operations in the Gaza Strip which resulted in the deaths of over 120 Palestinians. What price will Palestinians and Israelis have to pay before Washington realizes that its hopes have been dashed?
Bush’s words of hope, expressed during a press conference in Washington on the results of talks with King Abdullah II of Jordan, could perhaps have been dismissed as diplomatic politesse. But Rice was at that very moment visiting the Middle East and could see for herself what was going on in the region. In parallel with her meetings in Israel, rockets continued to fall; and the Israelis continued surgical strikes in Gaza on the eve of withdrawing its troops.
So what is the source of such faith that peace can be established in the next 10 months - and at a time when it seems that all international efforts to return the two sides to the negotiating table, especially those of the United States, have failed?
Yes, of course Israeli and Palestinian leaders maintain that peace remains their strategic objective, but statements on the resumption of talks have been sluggish. On the contrary, Israel is actively discussing new full-scale operations in the Gaza strip. For his part, President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, announced on the eve of Rice’s visit on Sunday that he was freezing negotiations with Israel, which were launched late last year in Annapolis under the patronage of the United States.
Recall that meetings between Israeli and Palestinian delegations resumed over the past few months, including those headed by Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the parameters of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Before that, there had been no talks on a peace agreement since the fall of 2000. They were at best not about peace, but about a truce and a ceasefire. Now the situation has returned to what it was over seven years ago.
Is Israel’s latest incursion into Gaza an attempt to put an end to the firing of rockets from Gaza into Southern Israel, or is it something much more? According to this analysis from Algeria’s French language Le Quotidien, what people in Gaza and Lebanon are now witnessing is the build-up to a joint U.S.-Israeli ’settling of accounts’ to ‘reconfigure the balance of power in the Middle-East and enable them to achieve their political agenda in the region.’ Kharroubi Habib writes, ‘Everything suggests that Israel and the United States are creating the conditions for a new war in the region, at the end of which they will finally establish ‘peace’ on their terms. And although they don’t openly say it, even Arab forces in the region are pushing for this Israeli-American plan. That includes the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas, who is counting on regaining control of the Gaza strip.’
By Kharroubi Habib
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
March 2, 2008
Algeria - Le Quotidian - Original Article (French)
Since Wednesday, the Israeli air force has been conducting raid after raid over the Gaza strip. These are no longer “targeted” strikes, but are operations meant to claim the largest possible number of victims in a population that has been declared a “hostile entity,” and to which the principle of “collective Punishment” applies.
In just a few days, hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children have perished, having been engulfed in fire. But the worst is unfortunately still to come for the people of Gaza, as the Israeli government prepares for a major operation against their territory. It is this that the air raids are preparing, with the aim of “breaking” the morale and capabilities of the popular resistance in Gaza.
One should not view the ongoing aggression against Gaza as a response to rockets being fired on the Israeli village of Sderot. It is rather, in our view, the prelude to a much larger operation, planned jointly by Israel and the United States, to reconfigure the balance of power in the Middle-East and enable them to achieve their political agenda in the region.
It is by no means fortuitous that just as Israel launched its raids over Gaza and warned of plans to begin ground operations, the United States announced the presence along the Lebanese coast of one of its warships, the USS Cole.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign-language coverage of events in the Middle East that relate to the United States.
Political chaos in Pakistan could bring nuclear headaches for the US, and what our government is doing to prop up a failing regime recalls efforts three decades ago on behalf of our old ally, the Shah of Iran.
The McClatchy Newspapers report: “The Bush administration is pressing the opposition leaders who defeated Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to allow the former general to retain his position, a move that Western diplomats and U.S. officials say could trigger the very turmoil the United States seeks to avoid.
“U.S. officials, from President Bush on down, said this week that they think Musharraf, a longtime U.S. ally, should continue to play a role, despite his party’s rout in parliamentary elections Monday and his unpopularity in the volatile, nuclear-armed nation.”
Pressuring the newly elected anti-Musharraf majority to retain our iffy friend may turn out to be the kind of mistake we made in the late 1970s on behalf of the Shah before and after he was deposed in Iran. Despite Jimmy Carter’s misgivings, he was persuaded by Henry Kissinger and his oil friends to let the old US ally come here, which resulted in occupation of the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days and the ongoing hostility with Iran.
That’s how the Rand Corporation is describing the large-scale intervention we’ve gotten ourselves into in their most recent study. This is from the Rand Corp., which, I am pretty sure, is supposed to skew conservative.
Recognizing that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be the last of their kind, a new RAND Corporation study issued today finds that U.S. capabilities to meet the threat of Islamist insurgencies are seriously deficient and out of balance.
The report finds that large-scale U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world is at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible. The United States should shift its priorities and funding to improve civil governance, build local security forces, and exploit information — capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Violent extremism in the Muslim world is the gravest national security threat the United States faces,” said David C. Gompert, the report’s lead author and a senior fellow at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “Because this threat is likely to persist and could grow, it is important to understand the United States is currently not capable of adequately addressing the challenge.”
The findings are from a major review of strategies to combat insurgencies RAND initiated at the request of the Department of Defense.
What is so absolutely, positively, bottomlessly aggravating about these conclusions is that people could have and would have and were telling us this certainly before we entered Iraq and perhaps before we entered Afghanistan (I recall the former, I do not recall the latter). And if you don’t believe me, well, here’s the Rand again:
The authors cite data from some 90 conflicts since World War II that show the surest way to defeat insurgencies is to foster local governments that are seen by their citizens as representative, competent and honest. “Foreign forces cannot substitute for effective local governments, and they can even weaken their legitimacy,” said co-author John Gordon.
Historically, large-scale military intervention against insurgencies — e.g., France in Indochina and Algeria and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan — more often fails than succeeds.
The study finds that because it can take time for a local insurgency to acquire strength and turn jihadist, the chances of defusing an insurgency are better than 90 percent when caught early. But those chances drop to less than 50 percent if the insurgency has the chance to become a full-blown uprising. Thus, the United States needs the ability to interpret “indicators and warnings” so it can act in the early stages of the insurgency.
Sickening. What and who was President Bush and his advisors listening to when making their decisions to begin military incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq? Feh. Don’t bother answering.
If this is the first time you are hearing this news, you aren’t alone - no one seems to have reported it. You know where I heard it, of all places?
February 11th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
There is one Pakistani politician to watch in the coming months. He hails from the so-called tribal badlands of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area, and could play an important role at the national level…that is, if he survives…
Asfandyar Wali Khan, an MBA, who hails from a distinguished family of politicians and is the leader of Pakistan’s Awami National Party (ANP), said on Sunday the blast that killed 29 of his party workers at an election rally in Charsadda in the North-West Frontier Province was a “targeted bombing” that was meant to eliminate the entire party leadership.
The Jamestown Foundation in its Global Terrorism Analysis provides interesting insight into Asfandyar Wali Khan’s, and his party’s, role. “The potency of Pashtun nationalist forces should not be underestimated. Given their checkered history and traditional support base, they are potentially an effective and viable political force to challenge the religious extremists in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the adjacent Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). This analysis profiles Asfandyar Wali and his party, which has shown determination in reversing the radical Islamist political trends in the Pashtun-dominated areas of Pakistan.
“…He argued that a Pashtun peace jirga involving Pashtun nationalists, civil society actors and religious players from both sides is the last hope for the region. He interpreted the recent ANP victory in the Bajaur elections as a bright spot in the overall troubling scenario and made a case for allowing liberal political parties to operate and function in the tribal areas. This can only happen, he emphasized, if the Political Parties Act of Pakistan is extended to FATA.
“In reference to the causes of conflict in the tribal areas, he lamented the fact that only pro-government maliks (tribal elders who are on the government payroll) are engaged and mushiraan (”people’s” maliks who are financially independent) were completely ignored. This led to a failure in resolving the crisis in FATA. Furthermore, he thinks that Pakistan should have distinguished between the pre-9/11 foreigners who are by now well settled in the area and the post-9/11 foreigners that came in to find a sanctuary. Read the rest of this entry »
“The irony is that the occupier, by which we mean the Americans, the British and the rest of the countries of the occupation, are of the Christian religion, and yet we have heard of no non-Muslims who have collaborated with them.”
By Dr. Fawaaz al-Fawaaz
Translated By James Jacobson
February 5, 2008
Iraq - Kitabat - Original Article (Arabic)
Before I go any further, I would like to say that I am a Muslim man, but that I see facts as being separate from religious bigotry or fanatical ethnic affiliation. When it comes at the expense of others, I do not believe we should see things from the emotional perspective of the group alone.
After the arrival of the occupier, we saw that most of the collaborators were Muslim - not ordinary Muslims - but clerics. Clerics must be the most committed to religion, to the Prophet and to the family of the Prophet, and there are times that we need to seek out the religious instruction of these men, to help us and keep us from straying from the faith. But like it or not, we have seen that the best collaborators were clerics. So there is no choice but to remind everyone of the emergence of clerics who put on the garb of politics to achieve dirty ends that expose Read the rest of this entry »
In light of the Bush Administration’s hard line on Iran and the White House’s perceived lack of credibility, the question is often asked how much influence Tehran really has in Iraq. According to this op-ed article by Khadir Taahar, an admittedly pro-Western columnist for Iraq’s Kitabat newspaper, ‘All posts given to Shiites, starting with the position of Minister to that of Deputy Minister, ambassador, director-general, governor, chief of police, mayor and others … were awarded based on lists provided by Tehran and cross-referenced with lists of people working with the coalition [the U.S. and its partners]. All names were checked in terms of history and absolute loyalty to Iran, and in light of these results, these individuals were given these posts.’
By Khadir Taahar
Translated By James Jacobson
January 30, 2007
Iraq - Kitabat - Original Article (Arabic)
It seems that Iraqi culture has become a prisoner of Islamic political terrorist groups. After former Minister of Culture Asad Al-Hashemi fled [a Sunni ], Jaber Al-Jabri, who formerly bore the name Mudin al-Musawi, assumed the post of Culture Minister. He’s a member of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council , which was established by Iranian intelligence during the war against Iraq [1980-1988], and which was tasked with missions of spying, torture, the execution of the captured Iraqi soldiers and participating in the war against Iraq as a state - and not against the regime of Saddam Hussein!
It is known that all the posts given to Shiite elements, starting with the position of Minister to that of Deputy Minister, ambassador, director-general, governor, chief of police, mayor and others … all of these were awarded based on lists provided by Tehran and cross-referenced with lists of people working with the coalition [the U.S. and its partners]. All names were checked in terms of history and absolute loyalty to Iran and in light of these results, these individuals were given these positions.
And when Jaber Al-Jabri was appointed Deputy Minister of Culture … it was not a random appointment … Iranian planners are working quietly behind the scenes to “Persianize” Iraqi culture, seeking to undermine the Arabic national identity of Iraq. Al-Jabri was put into this position to implement that plan and under the pretext of nationalism and opposing Baathism [opposing support for Saddam’s political party], has begun his activities of attacking everything that has anything to do with Iraqi and Arabic culture.
In the name of “Islamic culture,” Iran is seeking to penetrate and poison Iraq’s national culture by suggesting that those who produced Arab culture were Persians, rather than “camel-riding Arabic Bedouins.” Such were the comments of Finance Minister Bayan Jabr Solagh , when he attacked the Saudi Foreign Minister. Solagh, who as Finance Minister is a colleague of Culture Minister Al-Jabri, is also on the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council!
January 29th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Challenges to return of democracy in Pakistan have multiplied after the assassination of Mrs Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister. For an independent woman, especially if she has a mind of her own, it still remains a herculean task to be heard in many countries of the world. In some countries it can become a matter of life and death.
However, there are brave-hearts who never give up. My attention has been drawn to a recent interview with Dr (Mrs) Ayesha Siddiqa Agha in a Pakistani blog. Mrs Agha, a former senior civil servant, is described as ‘Pride of Pakistan’. An author and a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, she does not mince words when it comes to addressing the ticklish questions relating to her country.
Sample this from her interview —-
Question:When President Musharraf says that Pakistan cannot have a democracy and human rights like West, do you agree with him?
Mrs Siddiqa Agha’s Answer: This is absolute nonsense. The ordinary people of Pakistan can decide as intelligently about their political future as an average American or people from developed countries. Our problem lies at the top. Our elite is highly predatory and suicidal. They have evolved a system of patronage and are holding ordinary people hostage to it. General Musharraf is part of that elite. It is ridiculous to hear people say that illiterate Pakistanis cannot chose their leaders. We are not less intelligent than the Indians. It is our tragedy that governments have always been voted in but booted out. Once that changes, we will also become a strong democracy.
Question:What Pakistan should do with its nuclear arsenal? Should we freeze it, or it roll-back, or improve it, or just hand it over to IAEA?
Answer: This is a political decision. Any answers must be sought by looking at how a certain technology serves the ordinary people. We have millions who do not have access to clean drinking water, basic health, education and dignity. I wouldn’t have a problem with nuclear weapons as long as the other needs are being met. But if any new technology is used to hold people hostage and make fools out of them, then whats the use.
Mrs Siddiqa Agha, who did her doctorate from King’s College London, is a scholar of Pakistan’s military and security affairs. She has worked on issues varying from military technology, defense decision-making, nuclear deterrence, arms procurement, arms production to civil-military relations in South Asia.
Regardless of one’s political views, some of the most engaging reads about the U.S. from the foreign press are those that drip with the most polemic, animus or even, as in this piece from Pakistan’s the Nation, unadulterated sarcasm.
Here’s a taste
President Bush has warned Iran and Syria to stop interfering in Lebanon’s affairs. Iran and Syria must know that interfering in other countries’ affairs is Bush’s exclusive prerogative. The Iran-Syria interference is a personal insult to Bush. If so far Bush has not avenged the insult by invading the interfering countries, it is all because of Bush’s generosity. But the interferers must not forget that Bush’s stock of generosity is not inexhaustible. Any moment could be the moment at which the generosity is exhausted.
According to Bush, there are two brands of weapons of mass destruction. There are weapons which are there specifically for destruction purposes and there are weapons which are there just for fun.
Watching America is still posting stories from the Arab world about Bush’s trip.
Bush doesn’t have an ounce of credibility in the Arab world. WA’s latest translated Arabic article, Bush’s Trip … A New Failure in the Wake of Annapolis, is about a well put-together and comprehensive list of the reasons as you’re likely to find. It’s genuinely not hatred for the man. It’s just gasping at apparent hypocrisy and striking incompetence.
Why is it that President Bush’s “message of freedom” during his recent tour of the Middle East seems to have fallen on deaf ears? According to this op-ed article from Germany’s Frankfurter Rundschau, President is not only a lame duck that lacks credibility, but the Gulf states don’t share his penchant for a confrontation with Iran, preferring instead dialog and coexistence with the Islamic Republic.
“As in the rest of the Arab world, Bush no longer has any credibility in the Gulf region. … Riyadh is ready to recognize Iran as an equal and equivalent mid
Iraqi forces head to Basra on an American C-130, April 3. But will they battle their feuding Shiite brethren after they arrive?
![[The Times, U.K.]](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00303/PeterBrookes385_303670a.jpg)
![[Guardian Unlimited, U.K.]](http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2008/03/04/bell512.jpg)
![[Guardian Unlimited, U.K.]](http://worldmeets.us/images/bushmonkeysaudi_guardian.gif)