Supporting Democracy in Iran
وقفة تضامنية رمزية مع شباب التغيير بإيران
اليوم الخميس 25 يونيو 2009 - الساعة السابعة - ميدان طلعت حرب بالقاهرة - وقفة تضامنية رمزية مع شباب التغيير بإيران
Today, Thursday 25 June 2006 - a peaceful demonstration in Talaat Harb Square, Cairo, in Support of the Freedom Uprising in Iran.
On Looking Deeper, Or, Things About Iran You Might Not Know
by fake consultant
Published at : Daily Kos
Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:48:19 PM PDT
It has been an amazing week in Iran, and you are no doubt seeing images that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago.
For most of us, Iran has been a country about which we know very little...which, obviously, makes it tough to put the limited news we're getting into a proper context.
The goal of today's conversation is to give you a bit more of an "insider look" at today's news; and to do that we'll describe some of the risks Iranian bloggers face as they go about their business, we'll meet a blogging Iranian cleric, we'll address the issue of what tools the Iranians use for Internet censorship and the companies that could potentially be helping it along, and then we'll examine Internet traffic patterns into and out of Iran.
Finally, a few words about, of all things, how certain computer games might be useful as tools of revolution.
عزبنة الدولة
خلال الأربعين عاماً الأخيرة، تعرضت "الدولة" لحالة من "الحكمنة" ثم "العزبنة". فمنذ بداية الستينات، قررت الحكومة أن تسيطر كل أوجه الحياة في مصر، "فأممت" أو في الواقع "حكومت" أو "حكمنت" كل شيء وكل نشاط. والحكمنة تختلف تماماً عن الحوكمة. فالأخيرة تشير إلى ترسيخ مبادئ الإفصاح والشفافية وقواعد الرقابة والمساءلة، للوصول إلى الحكم الرشيد للمؤسسات. أما الحكمنة فهي مرادف للقرصنة، وتشير إلى نوع من أنواع البلطجة الحكومية المقننة والمنسوبة ظلماً إلى الأمة في تعبير "التأميم"، والأمة منها براء. وكما سنرى فالحكمنة عكس الحوكمة في كل شيء وإن اتفقت معها في بعض الحروف.
في البداية تأتي الدولة "فتلقح جثتها" على صاحب العمل أو المبادرة وتتحرش بمشروعه أو مؤسسته، ثم تجبره على "طلب" الانضمام إلى الشركة القابضة الفلانية أو القطاع الإنتاجي العلاني، وتعطيه تعويضات هزلية عن قيمة هذا "الانضمام التطوعي"، وتحوله إلى موظف في المؤسسة التي بناها، ثم تطرده بعد قليل، وفي النهاية تتركه "ليموء" في الشارع. والحكمنة كلمة جامعة مانعة، تدل على سيطرة الحكومة على حياة الناس من قبل ومن بعد، فكل حرف من حروف "الحكمنة"، يشير لحكمة بالغة أو معنى نبيل، فالحاء والكاف يدلان على احتكار الحكومة لكل نشاط، والميم تشير إلى الموت الذي أصاب الدولة من جراء ذلك، والنون تشير إلى "نبوت الفتوة" الذي هو الحكومة وبطشها، والبلطجة التي تمارسها بارتياح تام ودون أي تأنيب ضمير، فهي تمرر القوانين تحت جنح الظلام لتضفي الشرعية على تسلطها وقرصنتها، وتعطي غطاءً أخلاقياً لموظفي عموم الجباية ليردوا به على أي متظلم "أنا لا أضع هذا المال في جيبي، هو يذهب لخير البلد والخزانة العامة."
تجد الحكومة مشروعاً ناجحاً يدر على صاحبه دخلاً يكفيه شر سؤال الناس والحكومة، فتستكثر عليه أن يعيش في كرامة دون أن يحتاج التذلل للحكومة، فتأممه، أو تفرض عليه الضرائب الباهظة حتى يفلس، أو تتهمه بتوظيف الأموال ثم تخضعه للحراسة، أو تلاحقه لسداد قروض بنكية وهي "تأكل عليه" مستحقاته بالمليارات، أو تجعله هدفاً للإعدام المعنوي بتسريب الشرائط الجنسية، أو تلفيق التهم الكيدية، إلى أن تنهار أعماله، فتشعر الحكومة براحة وسعادة بالغة وترى ثمرة نجاحها في حماية الشعب من المستغلين. ولم يقتصر هذا على الأنشطة الاقتصادية، بل امتد للقطاعات الثقافية والاجتماعية والتعليمية والصحية وغيرها.
وعندما أممت الدولة كل شيء و"طفشت" كل صاحب مبادرة أو موهبة أو مهارة، فوجئت أن لديها مجموعة ضخمة من "الخرابات المؤسسية". ففي غياب الإحساس بالتملك تحولت الشركات والجمعيات إلى خرابات ومجمعات. لم تكمن المشكلة فقط في ضياع مفهوم التملك بمعناه القانوني، ولكن الأخطر هو اندثار الشعور بامتلاك جزء من الحلم وبعض لبنات من البناء. ومع اختفاء الفكر الإداري وروح المبادرة والإبداع، وجدت الحكومة أن حصيلة أعوام القرصنة هو أسطول ضخم من السفن "الخربانة" و"المنقورة" ومعظمها على وشك الغرق. نعم، الدفاتر المحاسبية تحتوي على "أصول" موجودة، من مبان ومكاتب وخطوط إنتاج ومخازن على الورق، ولكنها جميعاً خالية من الروح ولا تمثل "أصولاً ذات قيمة سوقية أو قدرة على أن تدر أرباحاً مستقبلية" بالمفهوم الاقتصادي.
ومع هذا الخراب، وجدت الدولة نفسها في وضع فريد. فلديها كيان ضخم، ولكنه "مخوخ" من الداخل، لا يوجد من يديره أو يتحمل مسئوليته، فعهدت بهذه المهمة لمجموعة من المحاسيب وأهل الثقة، سواء من ضباط "الحركة" المباركة أو زملائهم أو تلاميذهم أو من يدينون لهم بالولاء، وفيما بعد اعتمدت على رجال "التنظيم الطليعي"، ثم أعضاء لجان حزب الحاكم الأوفياء والملتزمين بقانون الصمت "الأومرتا"، ولله الأمر من قبل ومن بعد.
ولأن تلك المؤسسات والمصالح أصبحت خرابات جرداء، ذبل الزرع فيها وجف الضرع وتبخر الماء، فقد عجزت الحكومة أن تعطي المقابل أو الراتب "المناسب" للقائمين على تلك المصالح أو العاملين فيها، فوقع بينهما تراض تمخض عن اتفاق غير مكتوب، هو عبارة عن امتياز وترخيص بالاستغلال، استغلال المواطنين طبعاً وسرقتهم و"تقليبهم"، وفرض العمولات الفاحشة والإتاوات والرشاوى الباهظة عليهم إن هم أرادوا التعامل مع المؤسسة أو التعاقد معها بيعاً أو شراءً أو استئجاراً أو توريداً من أي نوع، هذا بالنسبة للمؤسسات الاقتصادية.
أما الهيئات الحكومية المتحكمة في شئون البلاد وحياة العباد، والمسئولة عن الترخيص لأي نشاط، سواء عقاري أو تجاري أو صناعي، أو حتى تراخيص القيادة والسيارات وتراخيص التصدير أو الاستيراد، أو التحرك أو السفر أو التصريح لأي نشاط من أي نوع، فحدث ولا حرج عن المشارط والأمواس والأدراج نصف المفتوحة، والإتاوات والسرقة بالإكراه وتحت تهديد سلاح "توقيف الحال"، والذي تفضلت الحكومات المتعاقبة مشكورة بوضعه في أيدي هؤلاء الموظفين العموميين عن طريق طبقات ورقع متتالية من القوانين واللوائح التي تمنع وتجرم كل شيء، وتجعل الالتزام بالقانون أمراً شبه مستحيل حتى في أي نشاط بسيط وطبيعي. وبين تلك الطبقات والرقع، تأتي بعناية الثغرات والحفر، والبثور والدمامل والبؤر، التي تتيح للموظف العام أن "يمشي الحال" بعد توقيفه. ولكي "يمشي الحال" مرة أخرى فهو يحتاج إلى تشجيع كبير، وتصفيق وزق وشاي وسجائر، فضلاً عن حافز مادي ضروري لتسليك الطرق الواقفة، وفك العكوسات والأعمال الشريرة، ويعمل بمثابة "المشاية" أو "العصاية" التي يتعكز عليها هذا الحال هو والسيد المسئول.
وهكذا سار الأمر، فمع كل شهر يحصل فيه الموظف على راتب هزلي لا يتناسب مع ظروف الحياة، يتسلم مع إذن القبض تصريحاً ضمنياً يسمح له باستكمال دخله عن طريق الرشوة. ثم صدرت فتوى شرعية تحلل تقديم الرشوة في ظروف معينة، وأصبح الأمر "عال العال".
أعطت الحكومة لعمالها ترخيصاً ضمنياً غير مكتوب بالاستغلال، ينص على أنه "يحق لكل مسئول استخدام سلطته العمومية لاستكمال دخله الحكومي الهزيل عن طريق استغلال الشعب وفرض الإكراميات والرشاوى والإتاوات عليه، وهذا الترخيص لن يعترف به في حالة ضبط الموظف متلبساً، وسوف تنكر الحكومة أي وجود لهذا الترخيص في تلك الحالة."
ولشرح مفهوم "العزبنة"، فقد قسمت الحكومة الدولة إلى مجموعة من العزب والإقطاعيات، ومنحت كل واحد من كبار الموظفين صكاً بملكية إحدى تلك العزب أو بإدارة إحدى تلك الإقطاعيات مع تمتعه بحق الانتفاع. وينص الصك على أنه "يحق لكل مدير مصلحة أن يستخدم المصلحة وأصولها من أجهزة وسيارات حكومية ومصايف وخلافه في أغراضه الشخصية والعائلية، كما يمكن له استخدام مرءوسيه في أعمال التنظيف وشراء لوازم البيت والطهي ورعاية الأطفال وإعطاء مجموعات التقوية لهم. ويمكن التجديد للمسئول حتى يبقى في موقعه بدون حق أقصى والأعمار بيد الله، ويمكن للمدير أن يورث إدارة الشركة أو المصلحة لأولاده، بشرط أن يتجاوزوا سن الثلاثين، وأن يأتي التوريث من خلال ثني ولي القواعد الإدارية، ويمكن في حالات الضرورة القصوى اللجوء لتكسير تلك القواعد في الخفاء وبشرط عدم إحداث ضجيج أو رذاذ أو رائحة كريهة. والحكومة تشجع قيام سوق مقايضة لتبادل المناصب والخدمات بين كبار الموظفين، للأخذ في الاعتبار تباين مؤهلات الأبناء الأحباء وميولهم، وتنوع احتياجات الأقارب وأهل "المدام" لدى المصالح الحكومية المختلفة، مما يحتاج لتعاون المسئولين عنها تحقيقاً للمصلحة المشتركة. كما يحق للمسئول أن يستعين بأولاده في التصدي للمسئولية العامة عن طريق تشجيعهم على مساعدته في العمل، بأن يشرعوا في تكوين الشركات التي تقوم بالتوريد للمصلحة عن طريق الأمر المباشر ودون حد أقصى للقيمة. وفي حالات سوء الحظ قد يتعرض المسئول للملاحقة القانونية إذا قامت حملة إعلامية ضده لفترة تزيد عن 3 أسابيع من النشر المتوالي في الصحف، وهنا سوف تنكر الحكومة أي وجود لهذا الصك، ومع ذلك، فسوف يلقى كبش الفداء كل رعاية في سجون الخمسة نجوم."
ومع انتشار الحكمنة و العزبنة، لم يجد الشعب المسكين أمامه سوى "الحسبنة". حسبنا الله ونعم الوكيل.
Obama's Comments on
Events in Iran
Balanced and respectful of the Iranian people and their sovereignty but is also clearly supportive, positive and hopeful.
OK. Good, Now we want to see Action regarding the issue of the settlements.
لابد أن أعترف أن تعليقه متوازن وينطوي على قدر كبير من الاحترام للشعب الإيراني وتجربته الملهمة، وفي نفس الوقت لغة أوباما قوية وواضحة في دعم الحقوق الكونية لكل إنسان وشعب وللإيرانيين في اختيار من يحكمهم، كما يحمل خطابه روح إيجابية وأمل على الرغم من القلق الواضح نتيجة للعنف
كلام محترم
ياللا بأه عاوزين أكشن في موضوع المستوطنات
المعارضة بها سم قاتل
الشباب العاقل اللي بيدور على مصلحة البلد ينتخب جمال مبارك، هذه هي الجملة التي ينسخها مجموعة من الشباب ذوي الصور المنمقة والشابات ذوات الصور المزوقة – جداً، ويتنقلون من جروب لجروب في الفيس بوك بدءاً من حوالي سنة عندما أدركت الأجهزة مدى انتشار الفيسبوك وتأثيره، ويبدو أنها – الأجهزة يعني - استخدمت مجموعة من الشباب ووظفتهم في هذا الغرض النبيل وهو الترويج للسيد جمال مبارك بطل الضربة الحزبية الخاصة بالفكر الجديد.
وقد قامت مجموعة من المجندين بعمل جروب للترويج للسيد جمال مبارك وقد وصلت العضوية فيه بسم الله ما شاء الله حوالي 4000 عضو بعد عام كامل من الكفاح والترهيب والترغيب، و4000 عضو طبعاً دا رقم ضخم جداً بالنسبة للأجهزة التي تعجز عن تأجير أنفار في أي مؤتمر للرئيس أثناء حملته الانتخابية رغم سداد المعلوم نقداً وفراخ، لكن 4000 عضو يعني على الفيس بوك لا مؤاخذة يعني أي حد يقدر يلمهم في أي موضوع مهم أوغير مهم في كام يوم.
المهم اتوزعت اللاب توبات ومعاها الرسالة المتينة، الشباب العاقل اللي بيدور على مصلحة البلد ينتخب جمال مبارك، الشباب العاقل اللي بيدور على مصلحة البلد ينتخب جمال مبارك ، الشباب العاقل اللي بيدور على مصلحة البلد ينتخب جمال مبارك ، هي كده 3 مرات مثل الأوراد، وتم لصقها على كل الجروبات التي بها نشاط بمعدل 3 مرات في اليوم بعد الأكل والقبض. ونشط المجندون في بيان الأسباب الهامة جداً والتي لا يمكن إغفالها في الحتمية التاريخية لانتخاب الأستاذ جمال مبارك، رغم أن جمال مبارك هو غير مرشح جداً وينفي الترشيح بكل الطرق الصوفية والقطنية. ومن أهم هذه الأسباب التي يسوقها المجندون كدليل على حتمية انتخاب مبارك - وأنا أنقل هنا من الجروب في بداياته: إنه تم إنشاء أنفاق بالفعل بالقرب من منزل السيد جمال مبارك بما يوفر على الدولة مبالغ طائلة عند توليه الحكم. شفت السبب العبقري. وبعدين اصحابهم الظاهر اتريقوا على السبب ده فغيروه إلى الآتي:
من حيث توفير الأعباء الماليه على دوله حين تولي استاذ جمال الرئاسه:
من المعروف تولى اى رئيس دوله يكون فيها صرف مبالغ طائله من ميزانية الدوله وهذا ماينص عليه الدستور والقانون من حيث:
وهذا مانص عليه الدستور المصرى.................فى المادة 99 لسنه 1987. (!!!)
وتبين لنا ايضا من الناحيه الماليه حين تولى استاذ جمال الرئاسه سوف يقوم بتخفيف الاعباء الماليه على الدوله من كل تلك المصروفات.
وعندما فشلت الضربة اللابوتوبية الفيسبوكية، لأن العيال ما كانتش حافظة غير جملة واحدة هي الشباب العاقل اللي بيدور على مصلحة البلد ينتخب جمال مبارك، قالك طيب نجيب كده كام واحد كبار شوية يمكن يعرفوا يقولوا أيوتها حاجة ولا يسمعونا صلاة النبي. وفعلاً، استوظفوا كام واحد بمهايا معتبرة ودول دخلوا الأول اتسحبوا واتصاحبوا على كام بلوجر فيسبوكاوي، وبعدين شوية شوية هاتك يا شتيمة في المعارضة، المعارضة دي أغراضها دنيئة، المعارضة دي بتستقوى بالخارج، المعارضة دي بتعوم في التمويل الأجنبي بريست وكرول، المعارضة دي بتاعة مصالح، الوفد ده بتاع الباشوات وابن ستين في سبعين، الغد دا بتاع الاستشوار، التجمع دول شيوعيين وكفرة، الناصري دول متحجرين ومتعرعرين وجربة، وكفاية دول غوغائيين ورعاع، والجبهة دا حزب عائلي، آل يعني اسم النبي حارسه الحزب الوطني المونوجرافي حزب ألماظ أصلي عيار 200 قيراط وبدون خدوش.
ولما الموضوع ريحته طلعت، اتلم شوية تانيين من هنا ومن هناك وقال إيه، عايزين حقنا، قالولهم، طيب اثبتوا كفاءة، بينوا أمارة، اعملوا كرامة، فلقينا موجة جديدة فيها شوية محللين متحمسين جداً لأنهم نفسهم في التعيين، وهما محللين فعلاً، عايزين يعني يحللوا التوريث ويحرموا الديمقراطية، ويحللوا القرشين اللي حياخدوهم لما تفرج يعني، محللين على كيف كيفك يعني، وزاد الهجوم على المعارضة، بصورة نشيطة جداً، وكأن المعارضة هي المسئولة عن كل مشاكل مصر من أول المبيدات المسرطنة ولحد هزيمة 67 مروراً بغرق العبارة ووقوفنا في الصناعة عند السيارة 128 زاستافا ورمسيس الترامكو، وبالمرة المعارضة طبعاً مسئولة عن الفونزا الخنازير، وبأه الواحد من دول ماشي يوزع تحذيرات، المعارضة فاسدة، المعارضة دنيئة، المعارضة تستقوى بالخارج، المعارضة بها سم قاتل، لا تجلس جنب واحد معارض، وكده يعني.
طيب.
شوف هنا بأه.
المعارضة فعلأً سامة، وماسخة، وحواليها نار، وبتفصل الناس من شغلها، وبتحرق الطبيخ، وبتصرف فلوس المدارس على شغل الأحزاب والمؤتمرات والكلام الفارغ، والحزب الوطني ناعم وجميل وكميل وكله حنية، ولجنة السياسات حلوة وسنيورة وعسولة وكلها أراضي ب اتنين جنيه المتر في القطع المميزة، ومليانة احتكارات حديد واسمنت وعبارات وخلافه، ورحلات مجانية، وجواز بالراقصات وبالمغنيات الأحياء منهن يصبحن بعد شوية أموات على يد رجال الحزب الشرفاء الذين لم تلوثهم الرشاوى ولا الفساد ولا تزوير الانتخابات ولا الاستفتاءات، ما فات منها وما هو آت. لا أبداً وألف لا.
ماشي ، احنا المعارضة كدة. نكديين وفقريين. احنا زفت وستين قطران، لازقين لنا ليه طيب؟
يالا بأه منك له هوونا وأوعى ياله انت وهوه تهوبوا ناحية جروباتنا تاني وورونا عرض كتافكم، وابقوا اشتكوا للي من خيره لحم اكتافكم.
The recent events in Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and even inside the United States, show that we are experiencing a deep divide in our world. You can see it and you can touch it. It affects elections like the ones we have recently seen in the U.S., Iran and Lebanon. It crosses boundaries of geography, ethnicity, religion or cultures. The new divide is not sectarian. We have seen in Lebanon that both the Hezbollah-led alliance and March 14 coalition both had Muslim and Christian factions as a part of each. This divide is not nationalistic. We have seen some right-wing American Neoconservatives publicly or secretly wishing that Ahmadinijad would win the elections so that a final confrontation between the U.S. and Iran would imminently draw near. Islamist fanatics also supported Ahmadinijad for what appears to be different reasons, but really it is because of the same motive. A quest for confrontation. A death wish for the bloodiest self-fulfilling prophecies of all time, Armageddon.
The new divide cuts deeply through our societies. It disrupts peaceful coexistence in our homelands and our world. It brings the threat of civil war closer to our towns and cities. It competes to control our media and our education systems. In one way, the new divide could be seen as being between the moderate and the traditional. The old and the new. Between the liberals and the conservatives. Between the fanatically religious and the secular. Between those who believe in changeable human laws and those who insist on following what they see as the timeless divine will of God. Between things we can debate and things which some consider to be unbound by time, place or logic. But ultimately, the divide is really between those who believe that our problems can be solved through dialogue, diplomacy, economic cooperation and even sanctions; and those who believe that war is inevitable. The divide is between those who believe that we, with all our differences can co-exist, and those who believe that it is either us or them. Between those who think that we can differ but still maintain amicable relations and those who think that either you are with us, the good, or you are against us siding with the axis of evil. The divide is between fear-mongers and promoters of xenophobia on one hand and those who simply believe that people are more or less the same everywhere on the other.
The national divide in Egypt, Lebanon or Iran is not a simple political disagreement within one agreed framework. It is often a disagreement on the nature of the framework which should govern agreements and disagreements. The debate in Washington about torture is not the result of a political disagreement. It represents a disagreement over a basic moral question, are the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights truly universal? Do Geneva conventions apply equally to us and to others? Are they only binding for others or are they binding for all of us? The same divide occurred a few years ago in the over whether or not the United States has the right to invade Iraq, without a United Nations mandate or a consensus from the international community. The problems in Pakistan are not caused by a minority or an isolated rebel group, they represent a national divide between a large portion of the population who supports or at least sympathizes with Taliban with its extremist and violently confrontational ideology, and moderates who want to resolve conflict through peaceful means and dialogue.
Needless to say, that the absence of an effective and fair International Justice System, stands behind the widening of this divide and the empowerment of the extremist ideology. When peaceful means failed and failed for decades, violence started to be marketed as a potentially more successful alternative.
The clash of civilizations assumes that a country or a group of countries belong to a distinctive civilization. Funny enough, the new roles of globalization weaken the validity of such classification. The truth is that the clash is happening within each society. It is a clash of mindsets. A clash of values and personal ideologies. The ideological commonalities cut across societies just like global market segmentation takes place. The clash, therefore, can be more accurately seen as a clash between those who believe in tolerance, diplomacy, peaceful struggle and would only consider war as a last resort in self-defense on one hand and those who believe in exclusivity, violent confrontations and pre-emptive strikes on the other hand.
The reason why many Israeli settlers refuse to leave their illegal settlements is because they believe that this land has been promised to them by God. Many Muslims also believe that they must control Jerusalem because of other religious reasons. During the crusades, Christian warriors believed they had to reclaim the holy land. Too many promises for the same piece of land. Muslims, Christians and Jews sadly have come to believe in Armageddon. The final war where God rewards the righteous, the faithful and the virtuous and delivers victory to his chosen people. The trouble is, each party believes that they are the chosen people. As soon as an attack on Gaza takes place, Muslim mosque preachers of the Friday prayers start telling the stories of Armageddon and how "a rock will tell the faithful that an enemy Jew is hiding behind it, so that the faithful can slay that enemy." Funny enough, the idea of Armageddon had no mention in the Koran and was most likely borrowed by late interpreters from biblical sources. Some Jewish sects and more recently Zionist Christians also believe in Armageddon with different intentions, to say the least. On the way to Armageddon, Islamist extremists, right-wing Neocon extremists, Zionist extremists, do all go hand in hand, till they arrive to the battlefield of course, there it will be a different story of which no one will live to tell. Perhaps Armageddon was once necessary as a potent psychological mobilization mechanism for survival in the past. But times have changed. Armageddon has become the scariest self-fulfilling prophecy of all times. But the good news is, as much as it is self-fulfilling it also is surely self-defeating.
The idea that there is a chosen nation, or a chosen people, or children of God, despite being so deeply rooted in the religious beliefs of Muslims, Christians and Jews is self-defeating because it gives moral justification to the notion that some of us are better or "more equal than others". The struggle of who exactly is better will continue to fuel war and conflict till doom's day, AKA Armageddon. One thing is for sure, Man, by his very nature seeks equality and freedom and rejects bondage and inferior treatment. Thus, ideologies which favor one race, one nation or one religion can fuel wars for centuries, but because Man ultimately seeks peace, safety, comfort and prosperity, these ideas are at the end self-defeating.
Armageddon, at least in the way it is currently being taught, is an illusion. Not because wars will never happen. Unfortunately we will witness wars every now and then. But the idea that Armageddon is a final war whereby one religion or one people will win an ultimate victory, military or otherwise, and then reign supreme happily ever after, as the world witnesses "the end of history", will just never happen. Wars, straight or asymmetric will just continue to erupt until a world order of equality and justice is established. Man will always seek freedom, dignity and equality and this will ultimately defeat Nazism, fascism and promoters of any sort of exclusive supremacy to any group, nation, race, religion or civilization.
But as for now, this divide will continue, until such time that the ominous promise of Armageddon is finally discredited.
Obama Presents a Bold
Vision for Change to Come
Wael Nawara
Posted: June 5, 2009 11:20 AM
Obama Presents a Bold Vision for Change to Come
huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wael-nawara/obama-presents-a-bold-vis_b_211811.html
In his historic address to the Islamic World from Cairo, Obama demonstrated that he is more than a charismatic orator. He proved that he is a sensitive courageous world leader who has a vision for making peace and building a better world. Obama extended a steady hand of friendship to Muslims; with dignity, confidence and yet with sincerity and humility. He presented the challenges of having to jointly work together to build such better world. He recognized sources of tension, recent and historical, but he called for moving beyond the past, ending the viscous cycle of suspicion and discord and called for a new beginning. Obama made it clear that he rejected stereotyping against Muslims but he also expected Muslims to drop their stereotyping of the US as an empire which only seeks its self-interest. He cited the great contributions of Islam to human civilization but reminded Muslims with the great achievements of his own country, the United States of America.
As expected, Obama stressed his commitment to fight extremists and to withdraw from Iraq. He vowed to help Pakistan and Afghanistan economically. Obama, however, said things no other president, American or otherwise, has ever dared to say. For instance he spoke of his dream of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. He invited Hamas, an entity which is still on U.S. list of terrorist organizations, to take responsibility in uniting Palestinian people but demanded that it should desert armed resistance seeking just settlement through peaceful struggle. He also invited Iran for a new beginning without preset conditions, recognizing the negative role which the U.S. had played in overthrowing Mosaddegh's democratically elected government in the 50's.
On the issue of freedom of faith, Obama frankly mentioned the disturbing tendency amongst some Muslims to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's and called for upholding religious diversity -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Christian Copts in Egypt. What his eloquent speech did not say but indirectly implied, is that Muslims must pay more attention to what is being taught at their schools, preached at their mosques and communicated in their media. But the same message of tolerance should in fact also go to keen followers of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity; in Israel, the United States and the rest of the world.
Obama made it clear that the United States will not impose any specific form of democracy on countries of the region, but he affirmed his belief that basic human rights and freedoms are universal. He stressed that the United States will support countries which seek modernization and peaceful democratic transformation. He stressed his commitment to women's rights and listed a number of programs to empower women. He finally addressed the issue of economic cooperation and presented several programs designed to foster a spirit of partnership.
The speech was met with mixed reactions but there was a general consensus that his address was visionary, sincere, frank, fair, balanced and uplifting. He inspired his audience and left the people with hope that change is possible. He did not try to please the audience by only saying things they would like to hear omitting positions or commitments that may be problematic or unpopular. For instance he described U.S. bonds with Israel as unbreakable and accused those who question the Holocaust of being ignorant and hateful. More than 2,500 people present in the domed auditorium interrupted Obama's 55-minute speech thirty times with enthusiastic applauds then finally gave him a stand-up ovation as he was ready to leave the stage. The youth in particular received Obama's address with great enthusiasm. In the middle of the speech one member of the audience shouted, "We love you" and Obama responded spontaneously, "I love you too".
The event, which was co-hosted by Al Azhar and Cairo Universities, was held in the main auditorium of Cairo University. The huge hall which hosts three floors was almost full. The invitations of this event were hand-delivered by messengers acting on behalf of Egypt's Presidential Authority and included flags of the United States and Egypt on both sides of the card with Arabic text printed on one side and English on the other. The audience arrived at 10 a.m. but had to wait for three hours as President Obama's speech started at 1 p.m.!
The audience included Ahmed Nazif, the Prime Minister of Egypt, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Egyptian top officials, actors, celebrities, foreign diplomats, politicians, activists and students from Egypt and other Muslim-majority countries, in addition to staff of the US embassy in Cairo. A large number of Muslim and Christian religious scholars and leaders were seated in the front rows acknowledging the role which faith can play in making peace or promoting conflict in this part of the world where many people are keenly religious. The event received heavy coverage from local and international media organizations and Obama's entire visit was televised on air through several Egyptian TV channels, public and private. For the first time, Egyptian Authorities allowed bloggers to cover an event of this nature online.
Outside Cairo University was a small demonstration where mainly American and European protestors called on Obama to stop supporting Israel's siege of Gaza. This demonstration was obviously tolerated by the security forces in an effort from the Egyptian regime to remind Obama of the order of priorities! Shops and Kiosks in the area surrounding Cairo University were instructed to shut down for the day. Cairo streets, usually crowded with heavy traffic, were largely empty as most businesses and schools took the day off. On why the speech was scheduled for Thursday and not on Friday, which is the weekend holiday in Egypt, some speculated that the reason was to avoid potential angry riots organized by extremist Islamists which could have erupted following Friday's prayers springing out of the security authorities' control.
The audience, mostly Egyptians, loved Obama and admired his charisma. Obama used quotations from the Quran, Bible and Talmud several times. He showed depth in understanding the complex history and problems of the region. "He did not refer to the printed speech not even once!" many people made that remark, funnily enough, to add to Obama's legendary presentation skills. Most of the audience present in the auditorium or following the televised speech from home did not realize that Obama was reading the speech from transparent teleprompters strategically located on both sides in front of the podium. "Afla7 in Sadak" meaning "he will do well if he stays true to his words and delivers on his promises," this was another comment shared by many of those who followed the speech. They loved what Obama said and wished that there was a way to realize these aspirations of peace and prosperity.
His strong commitment for peace and human rights made one of the audience members say that "Obama is just too courageous! He is the bravest U.S. President since Kennedy. I hope he does not meet his tragic fate." Obama, however, stressed that building this desirable future must happen through partnership. That it is a joint responsibility and not a task that he or the United States can bring about alone.
Critics, including members of "Kifaya" movement, however, regarded Obama's visit as an attempt to bestow undeserved legitimacy over a repressive regime and saw Obama's speech addressing the Muslim world as no more than a PR stunt designed to deceive Muslims and Arabs. One day before his visit Obama had described Mubarak as a pillar of wisdom and stability in the region. "Kifaya," the word literally means "enough," which seeks to end Mubarak's 28-year authoritarian grip on power, viewed the visit and the address as a gimmick which aimed at distracting Arabs and Muslims from the fact that the United States main interests in the region are to guarantee Israel's security and supremacy and to ensure that the U.S. controls the region's vast oil reserves through oppressive regimes which are merely puppets dancing to US commands. Obama's speech was therefore weak on democracy and human rights by design. Some critics saw that the overwhelming enthusiasm with which Egyptians greeted Obama reflected a deficit in leadership in their own constituency and a longing for a Messiah who can deliver them out of their long suffering.
In the critics' eyes, Obama demanded that Palestinians give up armed struggle without promising any solid policy changes. Obama did not promise for instance to end an unnecessary U.S. tradition of blocking Security Council resolutions whenever the hint of blame was to be placed on Israel. This decades-long unfortunate tradition is seen as an American obstruction of international justice. As for helping to reach the desired end of a 2-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, what Obama had to offer was merely his "patience", thus possibly endorsing endless rounds of fruitless negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis.
Obama confirmed his commitment to strongly oppose illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. This position however, was not accompanied by material policies and consequences should Israel fail to observe international law. The United States placed very stringent regulations on fund raising which may be used to finance extremist Islamist organizations. Obama did not offer or contemplate any remotely similar regulations designed to block fundraising activities in the United States if the funds would be funneled to Israel to finance the building of illegal Israeli settlements. Currently these generous donations from unsuspecting U.S. citizens are used to rebuild even bigger settlements as soon as the Israeli government dismantles some, making a mockery of the American and Israeli administrations' commitment in this regard. Further, Obama did not address the issue of reforming the United Nations, the Security Council structure and its decision-making process or talk about his vision of erecting an effective international justice system at some point in the future.
Critics accuse Obama's speech of being low on substance. Merely a collection of words nicely put together. But words is what speeches are usually made of. Today's address, however, may provide a starting point for a switch of the mindset, a change of heart and a paradigm shift. The dialogue has just started and today's words can provide a new way of thinking our common problems and mutual interests. It may serve as the preamble of an informal collective contract in which each party, Muslims, Arabs, Israelis and Americans must play its role and honor its commitments and obligations.
At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. Everyone will be watching closely for signs of real change in U.S. policy in days and months to come. Muslims will expect results and actions. Only words were released today. Words which signify dreams of a better future. But if these words and dreams are embraced and nurtured, they can grow and blossom. These aspirations can guide a continued dialogue and set a road map for a better future. Actions and policies to follow, however, is what will make these words and dreams more than rhetoric and turn them into design specifications for a truly better world.
Hate-Mongers Panic
As Obama's Sincerity
Touches the Hearts
Of the People
Obama's Speech:
A Public Relations Stunt
Or a Vision
For Real Change
to Come?
As the world's attention is focused on Cairo, in anticipation of Obama's historic visit to Egypt and his address to the Islamic world, Kifaya, the Egyptian Protest movement, earlier today announced its intention to organize a demonstration in Cairo's busiest square tonight in protest of the much publicized visit. The leaders of Kifaya, (the word Kifaya literally means enough in Egyptian), regard the visit as an attempt to bestow undeserved legitimacy over a repressive regime and see Obama's speech addressing the Muslim world as no more than a PR stunt designed to deceive Muslims and Arabs. They view the visit and the address as a gimmick which aims at distracting Arabs and Muslims from the fact that the United States main interest in the region is to guarantee Israel's security and supremacy in addition to ensure that the U.S. controls the region's vast oil reserves through oppressive regimes which are merely puppets serving the US interests. Even in the United States itself, analysts are warning from losing this historic opportunity in rhetoric which does little in dealing with the real issues. The message they give is that actions matter more than words.
It is true that nothing can be said tomorrow, which in itself is capable of bringing about Obama's promise of hope and change. Only actions and policies to follow can do that. All that can be hoped from tomorrow's speech is to set a vision and a road map for the future marking a new phase of U.S.-Muslim relations. The people, however, will be watching out at how this vision is to be turned into actions in the months and years to come.
Tomorrow's speech can provide a starting point for a switch of the mindset, a change of heart and a paradigm shift. It should provide a new way of thinking our common problems and mutual interests. It may serve as the preamble of an informal collective contract in which each party must play its role and honor its commitments and obligations.
On this historic occasion, Obama may ask Muslims to pay more attention to what is being taught at their schools, preached at their mosques and communicated in their media. Incitement of hatred, the attitude of having a total monopoly over the truth, exclusion and self-righteousness when taught to young minds and shared by the elites and the masses on a national level will eventually lead to imminent clash and conflict. The same message of tolerance should be relayed to keen followers of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity; in Israel, the United States and the rest of the world.
Obama must also demand that the regimes adopt a long term approach of modernization and peaceful democratic transformation of Arab and Muslim countries. Reforms that would protect human rights, enshrine equality, create opportunity, celebrate diversity; pluralism and rejoice liberty. A true partnership for prosperity between the United States and countries of the region should see timely implementation of such reforms.
On the other hand, for Obama's speech to become more than a public relations stunt, Obama must also promise change in the American ways of conducting foreign affairs.
For starters, the United States should reverse an unnecessary tradition of blocking Security Council resolutions whenever the hint of blame is to be placed on Israel. This decades-long unfortunate tradition was equal to the United States' blocking of justice since U.N. Security Council is just about the only apparatus man has so far devised for collectively serving international justice. Second, the idea that negotiations alone between the Palestinians and Israelis can bring about a just peace is not realistic and has led to endless rounds of fruitless negotiations. Meanwhile, things on the ground were constantly changing creating even crueler realities for Palestinians. Peace became like an evasive mirage. Third, we are heartened to hear the new administration's commitment to a two-state solution and its strong position against illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. This position however, must have material consequences should Israel fail to match its commitments.
For instance, the United States placed very stringent regulations on fund raising which will be used to finance extremist Islamist organizations Similarly, the new Administration must put in place equally strict regulations designed to block fundraising activities in the United States if the funds will be funneled to Israeli for financing building of illegal Israeli settlements. Currently these generous donations from unsuspected U.S. citizens are used to even rebuild bigger settlements as soon as the Israeli government dismantles some, making a mockery of the American and Israeli administrations' commitment in this regard.
At the end, change and global security is not the responsibility of America, Israel, the Arabs and Muslims alone. Obama should demand that all nations must work towards the creation of the better world we all seek, through compassion, economic cooperation and diligent efforts which aim at reforming the United Nations, the Security Council structure and its decision making process, as to finally erect an effective international justice system at some point in the future. A system which will significantly reduce conflict, violence and human suffering as it invests in our common humanity to enhance our common security and world peace at large.
Yes. It is true that actions speak louder than words, but it is words that will be exchanged tomorrow. Words which can create this shift of mindset and set a road map for a better future. Actions and policies to follow, however, is what will make these words more than rhetoric and turn them into design specifications for a truly better world.
By:
Wael Nawara
Obama's Speech:
A Public Relations Stunt
or A Vision
for Things to Come?
As the world's attention is focused on Cairo, in anticipation of Obama's historic visit to Egypt and his address to the Islamic world, Kifaya, the Egyptian Protest movement, earlier today announced its intention to organize a demonstration in Cairo's busiest square tonight in protest of the much publicized visit. The leaders of Kifaya, (the word Kifaya literally means enough in Egyptian), regard the visit as an attempt to bestow undeserved legitimacy over a repressive regime and see Obama's speech addressing the Muslim world as no more than a PR stunt designed to deceive Muslims and Arabs. They view the visit and the address as a gimmick which aims at distracting Arabs and Muslims from the fact that the United States main interest in the region is to guarantee Israel's security and supremacy in addition to ensure that the U.S. controls the region's vast oil reserves through oppressive regimes which are merely puppets serving the US interests. Even in the United States itself, analysts are warning from losing this historic opportunity in rhetoric which does little in dealing with the real issues. The message they give is that actions matter more than words.
It is true that nothing can be said tomorrow, which in itself is capable of bringing about Obama's promise of hope and change. Only actions and policies to follow can do that. All that can be hoped from tomorrow's speech is to set a vision and a road map for the future marking a new phase of U.S.-Muslim relations. The people, however, will be watching out at how this vision is to be turned into actions in the months and years to come.
Tomorrow's speech can provide a starting point for a switch of the mindset, a change of heart and a paradigm shift. It should provide a new way of thinking our common problems and mutual interests. It may serve as the preamble of an informal collective contract in which each party must play its role and honor its commitments and obligations.
On this historic occasion, Obama may ask Muslims to pay more attention to what is being taught at their schools, preached at their mosques and communicated in their media. Incitement of hatred, the attitude of having a total monopoly over the truth, exclusion and self-righteousness when taught to young minds and shared by the elites and the masses on a national level will eventually lead to imminent clash and conflict. The same message of tolerance should be relayed to keen followers of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity; in Israel, the United States and the rest of the world.
Obama must also demand that the regimes adopt a long term approach of modernization and peaceful democratic transformation of Arab and Muslim countries. Reforms that would protect human rights, enshrine equality, create opportunity, celebrate diversity; pluralism and rejoice liberty. A true partnership for prosperity between the United States and countries of the region should see timely implementation of such reforms.
On the other hand, for Obama's speech to become more than a public relations stunt, Obama must also promise change in the American ways of conducting foreign affairs.
For starters, the United States should reverse an unnecessary tradition of blocking Security Council resolutions whenever the hint of blame is to be placed on Israel. This decades-long unfortunate tradition was equal to the United States' blocking of justice since U.N. Security Council is just about the only apparatus man has so far devised for collectively serving international justice. Second, the idea that negotiations alone between the Palestinians and Israelis can bring about a just peace is not realistic and has led to endless rounds of fruitless negotiations. Meanwhile, things on the ground were constantly changing creating even crueler realities for Palestinians. Peace became like an evasive mirage. Third, we are heartened to hear the new administration's commitment to a two-state solution and its strong position against illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. This position however, must have material consequences should Israel fail to match its commitments.
For instance, the United States placed very stringent regulations on fund raising which will be used to finance extremist Islamist organizations Similarly, the new Administration must put in place equally strict regulations designed to block fundraising activities in the United States if the funds will be funneled to Israeli for financing building of illegal Israeli settlements. Currently these generous donations from unsuspected U.S. citizens are used to even rebuild bigger settlements as soon as the Israeli government dismantles some, making a mockery of the American and Israeli administrations' commitment in this regard.
At the end, change and global security is not the responsibility of America, Israel, the Arabs and Muslims alone. Obama should demand that all nations must work towards the creation of the better world we all seek, through compassion, economic cooperation and diligent efforts which aim at reforming the United Nations, the Security Council structure and its decision making process, as to finally erect an effective international justice system at some point in the future. A system which will significantly reduce conflict, violence and human suffering as it invests in our common humanity to enhance our common security and world peace at large.
Yes. It is true that actions speak louder than words, but it is words that will be exchanged tomorrow. Words which can create this shift of mindset and set a road map for a better future. Actions and policies to follow, however, is what will make these words more than rhetoric and turn them into design specifications for a truly better world.
By
Wael Nawara
Read this in Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/obama-egypt-speech-will-o_n_209932.html
Obama vs. Obama
During his visit to Cairo, Obama can write a new chapter in history. The idea that the American President will address Islamic Nations from Cairo, capital of Egypt and home to Al Azhar University carries a symbolic gesture that can open the door for a new era of dialogue and understanding between the West and Muslims. For decades, Muslims have been accumulating negative feelings of victimization and accusing the U.S. of using double standards especially as a result of the lingering Palestinian suffering. Muslims blame the U.S. for its blind support to Israel shielding it from Security Council resolutions and international justice. During the last 8 years, the curve of the relationship dived to its lowest levels ever, with President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and his “War on Terror” which Muslims saw as being mainly directed against them.
The war against extremism and violence, however, is a war of minds and hearts. Hearts that could never be won through use of military power or invasion. With every civilian casualty falling in the crossfire in Iraq for instance, the U.S. would acquire new enemies and lose potential friends. The war against fanaticism should have been fought against injustice, intolerance, poverty and oppression. It should have been fought through creation of opportunity, hope and change of dire circumstances leading to frustration and despair. This gesture to address Muslim grievances comes at a critical hour in the history of our world. This opportunity may not come again.
The war against extremism, hatred and exclusion is everyone’s war. Obama should engage Muslims everywhere to side with peace, freedom and tolerance. During his campaign, Obama enjoyed tremendous support in this part of the world. People placed very high hopes on Obama to deliver the change he promised and fix what they saw as decades-long problems. Upon his historic victory, most Muslims cheered and celebrated. The biggest challenge facing the American President is this image of a Superhero-Obama who can fix all problems and solve all complex issues. Obama must therefore walk on very thin ice in trying to balance between aspirations and realities. Between promises and policies. Between what is said now and what can practically be implemented during his term or terms as a President. For instance he must try to balance between Israel’s security and Palestinian rights. Between amicable relations with existing regimes ruling Muslim countries and long-term friendship with the people who regard these regimes as oppressive and corrupt. Between regional stability and demands for reform and democracy.
Some pessimists regard the choice of Cairo as the venue for this historic address as blow which undermines U.S. commitment to democracy and human rights. Supporters of neocon hard-line confrontational approaches are now saying “we told you so”, pointing out that this choice of venue gives a blank check to oppressive regimes and shows that the new administration’s support for democracy in the Middle East has waned. Aly Eddin Helal, a senior ranking member of the ruling NDP party in Egypt, in an interview with Al Ahram Daily paper last Friday, saw the visit as a signal that critics of the Egyptian regime who had been calling for democracy, reform and respect of human rights have lost their bets. Optimists, on the other hand, believe that Obama’s policy of using soft power, with publicized friendly gestures towards governments carries a less visible side within. They believe that tough diplomacy demanding progress and reform behind closed doors has been much more effective than Bush’s blunt rhetoric which was ill-received and produced negative reactions from old stubborn leaders in an area of the world where public scolding leads to losing face.
The stakes are high and so are the expectations. Muslims will listen to Obama and he has a chance to get to their hearts and minds. He can frankly tell Muslims that they need to change their ways. But he has to provide them with alternative means of getting their justice. The United Nations and the structure of the Security Council have both failed to justly address Muslim issues. This contributed to rise of terrorism and political advances enjoyed by extremist political factions. Obama now has what no other Western leader have ever had, a feeling amongst people in this part of the world that they can relate to him. That he in turn can relate to them and understand suffering of the weak and the marginalized. That their pleas can find sympathetic ears from someone who managed to move through the ranks and achieve what was once considered an impossible accomplishment. Obama remains hero of the people. And that is a tough place to be. Obama the man has to try hard to keep up with Obama the legend. This is the challenge before Obama.
Written By
Ayman Nour
&
Wael Nawara
