Friday, February 11, 2011

Arab awakening - ABC Online

Find More Stories Egyptian demonstrators used Twitter to organise mass protests (Getty Images:Peter Macdiarmid) Be first to comment

Antoun Issa

Antoun Issa

With Egypt on the cusp of a democratic revolution, it is clear to the world that the Arabs are finally having their awakening. This decade will mark a significant change to the post-colonial Middle Eastern order that has stagnated the region for much of the past century.

The Arab ‘street’, which has been sidelined in the political life of these countries by decades of autocracy, is about to take charge in determining the interests of their states.

As a generation of tweeters take to the streets of Egypt in a bid to oust their dictator, President Hosni Mubarak, it is fair to deduce that globalisation has at last reached the shores of the Middle East.


‘Arab exceptionalism’ no more


The democratic wave that swept through Eastern Europe, Latin America and parts of Asia post-Cold War failed to dint the authoritarian landscape in the Arab world. Rather, Arab regimes tightened their autocratic rule when the world was heading in an opposite direction.

Discourse on globalisation and development, thus, largely bypassed the Arab world. It became widely anticipated that the Assads, Mubaraks and Abdullahs of the region would continue their dynastic rule by gifting their rule to their progeny.

‘Arab exceptionalism’ was a phrase coined to normalise the region’s autocracy and lack of development, and justify the failure of globalised trends to penetrate the Middle East. Adherence to this perception of the Arab world blinded many to the realities on the ground, and consequently caused shock in the West and Israel when millions began pouring onto the streets of Cairo to demand Mubarak’s resignation.

Indeed, a week prior to the beginning of the Egyptian protests, Israel’s head of military intelligence Major General Aviv Kochavi was certain on the stability of the Mubarak regime.

Global communications

Albeit dormant, the Arab ‘street’ was not totally immune to the effects of globalisation. Despite living in heavily censored states, young Arabs connected to the World Wide Web and discovered a means to challenge the status quo. Social media – a global phenomenon of Facebook, Twitter and blogging – pierced the tightly held information censorship bubbles of the Arab world, and enabled locals to air their frustrations in an open space.

Popular Facebook pages were up a week earlier informing Egyptians of mass protests, a date was chosen, a Twitter hashtag was selected, and before you knew it, tens of thousands were in the streets.

This is not to detract from the core elements of the protests. Indeed, like most revolutions, Egyptian grievances are found in poverty, unemployment, and a lack of freedoms. Social media and the internet, however, have provided Egyptians and Arabs with a means in which to communicate such grievances, exchange ideas, and aid in collective action.

Internet is for Arabs what cafés were for the French in 1789, an open space where aggrieved citizens can share their frustrations and work together towards an alternative. Social media did not cause the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, but it facilitated them.

Globalised ideals 

The use of the internet and social media is not the only indication of the effects of globalisation on the Middle East. Protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Jordan are all chanting the same demand: democratic reform.

A globalised ideal that has made its way to all corners of the world is now on the lips of Arab protestors. Liberal democracy – a concept championed by the US seemingly everywhere but the Middle East – has been touted as the preferred alternative to authoritarianism.

In an era where the West feared an Islamist takeover of the region, that protestors are chanting for democracy should be a sign of comfort. Islamism infers that Arabs are still exempt from the global system, and are opting to pursue an antagonistic form of governance. However, the calls for democracy in Cairo and Tunis demonstrate an eagerness from the Arab ‘street’ to join the global system, and begin to receive the economic benefits promised by liberal democracy.

Indeed, liberal democratic reforms also include a redefinition of a nation’s interests. Sovereignty in the Arab world has long been confined to the selfish interests of despotic ruling families. This proved much easier for the US to manage in terms of finding allies to support its regional interests, such as containing Iran and protecting Israel.

Democracy, conversely, bestows sovereignty onto the people, and thus – as we understand from our own democratic traditions – the national interest becomes a complex and fluid concept driven by altering attitudes within the public.

At present, the Arab public remains hostile to Israel, and ambivalent towards Iran, and this poses a short-term dilemma for Washington. Long-term gains, however, outweigh any short-term costs, with a democratic and developing Arab world moving with the globalisation process and not against it. The social and economic pressures brought by despotic, corrupt rule will alleviate, and radical religious extremists will have a smaller pool of frustrated, impoverished youth to recruit from.

Using globalised means of communication to promote a globalised political system, Arabs have proven that they are no longer an exception.

Antoun Issa is an Australian-based freelance political writer, blogger, Global Voices Online author, and commentator on international affairs, with a specific interest in Middle Eastern issues.


View the original article here

What Israel fears in Egypt - Washington Post

One might expect that Israelis, who live in the only democracy in the Middle East, would turn out in the squares of Jerusalem and the gardens of Tel Aviv to show solidarity with the demonstrators in Egypt. The protesters, after all, are seeking to overthrow an authoritarian regime.

Israelis, however, have stayed at home, warily following events on TV and the Internet.

It is not a democratic Egypt that Israelis fear but the prospect of Egypt being hijacked by enemies of democracy, of Israel and of the United States. Within every revolution are some who hope to use democratic processes to establish oppressive regimes. This was, to a large extent, what triumphed in Iran in 1979 and what happened in Gaza only five years ago. Many Israelis wonder why it would be any different in Egypt, which is home to the world's most powerful and popular Islamist movement.

Should the government of Hosni Mubarak be replaced by one not truly committed to freedom and peace, the consequences for Israel could be devastating. As Egypt struggles toward an internal balance that appeases all forces, including the Muslim Brotherhood, peace with Israel could be the price of an Egyptian compromise. And the risks are worse if the Brotherhood, an organization deeply hostile to Israel, America and the West, gets to call the shots.

Consider what an Egyptian official once told me: "There is no war without Egypt." From 1948 to 1973, Israel had to fight four wars against coalitions of Arab armies. Since the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, however, there has not been even one war between Israel and Arab states. The lives of many Israelis and Arabs have been saved over the past four decades, and the security burden on Israel's economy has become more bearable. Yet if the peace with Egypt dissolves, the risks to the Jewish state and its citizens cannot be overstated.

The implications for the region could be massive. If Israel's western neighbor turns hostile, where would that leave our eastern neighbor, Jordan? Would it remain at peace with us? What would be the impact on other pro-American regimes? How many weeks, or days, would the new alignment of interests between Israel and most Arab regimes last against an aggressive and nuclear-armed Iran? If there is a negative outcome to the events unfolding in Egypt, the world will be living with a new Middle East, but it will be very different from the one we all aspire to.

Meanwhile, Israelis are uncertain about some positions of the U.S. administration. They remember how, after the 2009 presidential election, the Obama administration refused to support courageous Iranians who demonstrated against the oppressive "hate to America" regime in Tehran. People are understandably puzzled when news reports show an ally of America - even an authoritarian one - abandoned while U.S. rivals are honored with state dinners in Washington, despite their gross violations of human rights. In this highly charged region, Washington's actions are carefully watched. Israelis are looking at the results of U.S. policy in Iraq, the recent loss of Lebanon to Iran and how American pressure on Israel led to a "democratic" takeover of the Palestinian Authority by Hamas terrorists. Israelis live every day with the results of the U.S. administration's blunder that made already-difficult negotiations with the Palestinians impossible.

Israelis have learned the hard way that Israel cannot shape internal developments in our neighboring Arab states. While they wish America could responsibly engage in this process and ensure a positive outcome, they also doubt whether even America can prevent events from proceeding toward, and down, a slippery slope.

It is said, and is possibly true, that worry may be in the Jewish genes. With our history, having paved so many roads with good intentions only to see them lead to destruction, and having experienced how democratic slogans and processes have been abused again and again by murderous dictators, it is hard not to be concerned.

The future of Egypt is uncertain: Is it a hostile Islamist tyranny, using democracy as a fake ladder, or a compromise at Israel's expense that may be about to occur? The fear of war and death is on Israelis' hearts and minds.

But if a real democracy, committed to the values of freedom and peace, were to emerge in Egypt, Israelis would overwhelmingly support it.

The writer was Israel's ambassador to the United States from 2005 to 2009.


View the original article here

DIARY - France to Feb 28 - Reuters

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Historic temple caught in Thai-Cambodia crossfire - Washington Post

PREAH VIHEAR, Cambodia -- High on a cliff overlooking the jungles of northern Cambodia, heavily armed troops crouch in fortified bunkers on the grounds of an ancient temple turned modern-day battlefield.

The stone remains of Preah Vihear, built nearly 1,000 years ago, are supposed to be a protected U.N. World Heritage site. Instead they are at the heart of a dangerous tug-of-war between Cambodia and Thailand - one that has taken at least eight lives and forced 15,000 to flee in four days of clashes recently.

The battle over a hilly patch of land in this remote countryside is rooted in a decades-old border dispute that has fueled nationalist passions and been driven by domestic politics and conspiracy theories on both sides.

A fragile truce has held since Monday night, but the dispute remains unsettled, and troops are digging in for another round of combat.

The Cambodians filled fresh sandbags earlier this week, stacking them meticulously in 10 bunkers along one of the temple's low outer walls. It looks out over a ravine toward Thailand's sandbagged foxholes on the other side.

"We're just praying in our hearts for this to be over," said Hun Demong, a Buddhist monk who fled into a Cambodian army bunker after the fighting broke out on Feb. 4. "We only hope it will not start again."

With ornamental panels dedicated to the Hindu deity Shiva, Preah Vihear was a stunning achievement of the Angkorean empire, whose realm once took in parts of modern-day Thailand and Vietnam.

When the latest firing stopped, the great stone temple itself stood as a silent victim, small chunks of its darkened gray walls blown off by shrapnel from shells fired from Thailand.

The tail of an exploded rocket lay at the feet of a squatting Cambodian soldier atop the 160-step stairway at the temple's entrance. Along a stone causeway leading farther into the complex, an empty gun battery looked out over a charred hillside, its shredded trees and gnarled saplings bearing testament to the ferocity of the fighting.

A pool of dried blood spattered the floor under a sandstone archway, the spot one mortally wounded soldier was carried to by comrades after being hit by an artillery blast.

There is no simple answer to what sparked the latest fighting.

The temple has been the subject of an intense boundary dispute since French colonial forces withdrew from Cambodia in the 1950s.


View the original article here

India, Pakistan Agree to Resume Peace Talks - Salt Lake Tribune

India, Pakistan Agree to Resume Peace Talks The Washington Post

First published 1 hour ago
Updated 38 minutes ago Updated Feb 10, 2011 07:19PM New Delhi • India and Pakistan agreed Thursday to resume formal peace talks that were broken off after the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which were blamed on Pakistan-based militants. The decision could ease tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals and was welcomed by the Obama administration.

The United States has urged the Indian government to resume the dialogue with Pakistan, in part because their rivalry undermines efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. There has been a string of meetings in the past year between officials from both sides, but Thursday’s announcement of a dialogue “on all issues” marks a significant step forward, regional experts said.

It also represents something of a concession by India, which had been pressing Pakistan to bring to justice those responsible for the November 2008 attack on Mumbai, India’s financial hub, when gunmen stormed luxury hotels and a Jewish center, killing 166 people.

Retired Indian Maj. Gen. Ashok Mehta, who has convened informal talks involving retired military and foreign service officials, as well as opinion leaders, from both countries, said India had realized how hard it was for Pakistan to comply with that demand, given the reluctance of judges there to prosecute suspected militants and the reluctance of witnesses to come forward.

“The conditions India imposed in the aftermath of Mumbai were dictated by domestic political compulsions,” Mehta said. “Now that more than two years have passed, we ourselves have realized the conditions have to be watered down, and that is precisely what we have done.”

blog comments powered by Disqus

View the original article here

Korean Talks End Without Agreement - Wall Street Journal

SEOUL—Midlevel military officials from South and North Korea ended two days of talks Wednesday without agreeing to higher-level discussions, closing for now a slim opening they had created to discuss a flare-up of tensions over the past year.

The outcome wasn't surprising. Statements from the two countries over the past month showed they held vastly different goals for the meeting, and they took several weeks just to negotiate its particulars.

0209koreas02Kim Tae-Hyung/European Pressphoto Agency South Korean Col. Moon Sang-Kyun, left, and North Korean Col. Ri Seon-Kwon walking briskly to their meeting Wednesday

But the prospect of no further talks leaves the U.S., China and other countries in a quandary over how to proceed with North Korea.

The U.S. watched the proceedings for signs that North Korea was willing to discuss difficult issues, which could make it worthwhile for Washington to re-engage with Pyongyang diplomatically. Asked later about the development, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said, "We'll just continue to evaluate what unfolds going forward, but clearly, this was an important opportunity for North Korea to demonstrate its sincerity."

China, North Korea's closest ally, is believed by many outsiders to have pressured it into talking. Beijing is thought to have become angry over Pyongyang's belligerence, most notably after its attack on a South Korean island in November.

Military talks between the rival Korea's stall, dealing a setback to efforts to restart international aid-for-disarmament talks. Video courtesy of Reuters.

North Korea's access to China's economic support may hinge on its ability to demonstrate it isn't going to engage in more tension-raising behavior, said Dan Pinkston, Korea analyst at International Crisis Group in Seoul. "The key question is will this be perceived by the Chinese as a legitimate and sincere effort by the North to reconcile with the South?" Mr. Pinkston said.

The talks, held between colonels of the two sides who had met before, most recently in September, were designed to set conditions and talking points for a meeting of higher-level officials later this month or next. But after the colonels met on Tuesday, a difference was clear. South Korea said it was seeking a ministerial-level meeting while North Korea only wanted deputy ministers to meet.

0209koreas01Yonhap/European Pressphoto Agency The two colonels started Wednesday's talk with a shake but ended without an agreement.

Also, South Korea wanted North Korea to acknowledge—and move toward some form of apology for—its attacks on the South last year, including the Nov. 23 artillery barrage of Yeonpyeong Island, which killed four people, and the March 26 sinking of a patrol ship, which killed 46. Both incidents happened in the area of a maritime boundary that North Korea disputes.

North Korea's representatives at the talks on Tuesday said that South Korea's insistence on talking about those matters amounted to a rejection of the importance of discussions. On Wednesday, North Korea again criticized the South for focusing on the attacks, the South said. North Korea's representative also repeated the country's oft-stated line on the attacks: that it wasn't involved in the sinking and that the island bombardment was the South's fault.

In a statement after the meeting broke up, South Korea's defense ministry said, "We kept our position that we are willing to hold a high-level military talk if North Korea accepts our agenda and level of official."

North Korea on Thursday Asia time issued a lengthy statement blaming South Korea for the collapse of the talks and said it didn't feel any need to meet again. "South Korea pretends to be interested in talk with us, but in their minds they are not," the statement said.

In early January North Korea began a campaign to promote inter-Korean talks, which it officially proposed later in the month. But from the start, its purpose for such discussions was at odds with South Korea's. North Korea's state media repeatedly stated that the talks should "promote the national reconciliation and unity and hasten independent reunification," a phrase that to Pyongyang means control of the South by the North.

That notion is considered ridiculous in the South. But because North Korean officials rarely want face-to-face discussions, South Korea grabs most opportunities, even when little is expected to be achieved. Last week, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak described this week's meeting as merely a test of North Korea's "seriousness for dialogue."

— Jaeyeon Woo contributed to this article.

Write to Evan Ramstad at evan.ramstad@wsj.com


View the original article here

Cambodian-Thai border rift sees no immediate settlement - Xinhua

PHNOM PENH/BANGKOK, Feb. 10 (Xinhua) -- As of Friday, two days have passed without gunshots disturbing the 11th-century Preah Vihear temple after the Feb. 4-7 bloody clashes between Cambodian and Thai troops, but there's a fear that real peace is still far out of reach in the disputed border area.

The skirmishes, in which heavy weapons including rockets, machine guns, mortars and artillery were resorted to, have reportedly killed at least eight Cambodian and three Thai soldiers, wounding many more, and compelling tens of thousands of villagers to flee home for shelters.

Witnesses said damage was done to the 900-year-old temple, a World Heritage site, and that although firing had stopped for two days, additional Thai tanks were seen en route to the contested areas, and Cambodia's military deployment near the frontier was not lessened.

The border between Thailand and Cambodia has never been completely demarcated. Although the International Court of Justice ruled in 1962 that the temple itself belonged to Cambodia, the row over the 4.6-square-km territory around the temple has never been resolved.

As the international community urges both sides to display restraint and calls for a peaceful solution to their age-old territorial dispute, the two neighbors are even at odds over the way of working the matter out.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen favors the United Nations Security Council's decision to hold a meeting on Feb. 14 to discuss the Cambodian-Thai border dispute.


View the original article here