Arab rulers meet Obama, declare "solidarity" against Ferguson "plot"

[Originally posted at NOW Blog]

As US President Barack Obama scrambled Wednesday to contain domestic unrest that has seen multiple killings of civilians by police, mass arrests, the firing of tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets at demonstrators, and the establishment of military checkpoints in the streets, the commander-in-chief received a surprise show of support from a perhaps unlikely source. In a rare display of unity, the leaders of the Arab world set aside their political differences, economic rivalries, and murderous sectarian proxy wars to travel to Washington, DC, to personally deliver to the president what they called a “message of full solidarity in the face of the global criminal conspiracy.”

“I know better than anyone what it’s like for a great, free nation to come under attack from thousands of terrorists in its own streets,” said Egyptian President Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi, kicking off the proceedings at the White House reception in a pair of dark sunglasses. “Indeed, as of this week, it’s been exactly one year since the patriots of the Egyptian army finally liberated our capital from the insurgents’ grip, in what was the most glorious milestone yet in what your honorable Secretary of State, Mr Kerry, has described as our ‘restoring democracy.’ President Obama, like myself, is a leader for all his people. And I praise his iron determination, but also his humane restraint, in confronting the enemies of his people, whether they be armed gangsters or journalists.”

“Barack and I haven’t seen entirely eye to eye in recent years,” joked Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after taking the podium, drawing laughs and a round of delighted applause as a grinning Obama mimed an ‘oops’ gesture with his hand. “But today we face a common danger, a cancer that threatens us both equally. There can be no reasoning, no negotiating, with cancer. One can only exterminate it.”

“And Lord knows I know a thing or two about extermination,” he added with a wink, earning another eruption of laughter and even, according to one aide present, a standing ovation from Obama.

Following Assad was the Bahraini ruler, King Sheikh Hamad al-Khalifa. “The American police have rightly identified the groups assaulting them – who pose as so-called reformists and shed crocodile tears about equality – as dangerous ‘agitators’ and ‘criminals.’ We in Bahrain know the dirty tricks of such provocateurs very well. And I think I speak for everyone here when I say it’s a source of great personal pride to me that the tactics – not to mention the munitions themselves – used by your brave security forces in resisting these traitors were first used in my own country against precisely the same enemy.” A concert of sober applause broke out, and a suddenly serious Obama placed his palm on his heart and nodded in appreciation.

After several more speeches along similar lines, including an assurance from Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim al-Thani that coverage of the events on Al Jazeera America would exclude anything “disrespectful” toward the Obama government, the president himself took to the podium to accept a Cartier diamond-encrusted golden dagger from the ruler of the United Arab Emirates.

Asked to say a few words, Obama began with a deadpan rejoinder to the Syrian president: “It’s always a gas when Bashar’s around.”

“Seriously, though, it’s good to see you guys,” he continued, scanning the faces of the Omanis, Yemenis, Sudanese, and Kuwaitis. “I had kind of forgotten half of you existed.” After a jumbled, seemingly distracted thirty second pronouncement on “freedom,” he excused himself, explaining a helicopter was waiting to return him to his vacation home in Martha’s Vineyard. “Tee-off’s in an hour,” he said to confused frowns. “That bastard Biden’s probably already on the range.”

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Israel had already made its own statement of support to the Ferguson police force’s crackdown. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had hoped to join the delegation in D.C. but was unable to obtain travel permits. Lebanon, currently having no head of state, was absent, though as one diplomat who preferred to remain anonymous quipped, “With Syria and Saudi attending, you could say the Lebanese government was already amply represented.”

Humbled Qatar may curb Lebanon extremists

[Originally posted at NOW]

As Saudi Arabia elbows aside Qatar’s influence across the region, militant Islamists in Lebanon may feel the squeeze.

The dramatic ouster of Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi last Wednesday has been quickly interpreted by analysts as a significant setback for the foreign policy of Qatar, the Gulf state which had asserted itself as the prime supporter and financier of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated government since the overthrow of former President Hosni Mubarak in 2011.

Having poured $8bn into the country under Morsi, the argument goes, Qatar had placed its biggest bet yet on the Islamist movement of which it is the key global patron, and with the fall of Morsi this has turned out to be a blunder. The revelation Tuesday that Qatar’s rivals Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have collectively pledged $8bn in aid to the post-Morsi government – exactly matching the sum offered by Qatar previously – appeared to further signify the Gulf state’s loss of influence.

Egypt is not the only country in which Qatar appears to have lost ground to the Saudis. Last month, NOW reported the Kingdom was seeking to monopolize control of the political opposition in Syria, which has long been criticized as too heavily weighted toward the Brotherhood. The subsequent selection of Saudi-backed Ahmad Jarba as head of the Syrian National Coalition, quickly followed by the resignation of Qatar-backed Ghassan Hitto from the post of rebel prime minister, have been seen as the successful fruits of these efforts.

Not all analysts, however, see such developments as straightforward losses for Qatar. “It’s not really that clear,” said Andrew Hammond, recent author of The Islamic Utopia: The Illusion of Reform in Saudi Arabia, currently based in Doha. “The Qataris in recent months have obviously been involved in a process of succession… so I think they’ve been happy to be out of the picture to a certain degree and [to be] acceding to these pressures of the Saudis muscling in on the scene,” he told NOW, referring to the recent replacement of Emir Hamad al-Thani by his son, Sheikh Tamim, as head of state. “I think they’ve bought themselves time by having this shift in who’s in charge officially here. I don’t think it necessarily means they’re not going to come back.”

Nor, argues Hammond, is Qatar likely to drop its historical alliance with the Brotherhood. “The Brotherhood’s representatives in Qatar have been here for a long time. [Prominent pro-Brotherhood cleric Sheikh Yusuf] Al-Qaradawi is just as close to the new emir as he was to the father. So, it would be a lot to imagine that they would suddenly shift in one go when they’ve had a relationship with these people for a long time.” Indeed this relationship, adds Hammond, while partly based on self-interest, is also “more nuanced.… there is a certain sympathy [Qatar] has for [the Brotherhood]. They do genuinely see them as being in the middle of the Arab political spectrum.”

In any case, to the extent that Saudi has gained at Qatar’s expense, the effects could be beneficial for Lebanon, according to former MP Mosbah al-Ahdab of the Democratic Renewal (Tajaddod) Movement. Ahdab told NOW that while Saudi chiefly sponsors the non-Islamist Future Movement, Qatari funds in recent years have been primarily directed at Islamist factions, including the majority of militant groups in his native city of Tripoli.

“It would be very reassuring if the Saudis started taking an interest in Lebanon again, because for some time we have been in the hands of Qataris who have been throwing money left and right, radicalizing the whole situation, and creating fighters who have no coordination and no goal. It’s been very dangerous.”

Future MP Mustafa Alloush agreed, adding to NOW that the unwinding of Qatari influence in Lebanon is already underway, as evidenced by the recent crushing of the armed movement of Sidon-based cleric Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir, often rumored to be a Qatari client.

“Qatar played some dangerous games by financing radical and extremist movements in an attempt to counter the Saudi influence on moderates. What happened [to Assir] and the [limited] reactions proves that these movements are weaker now. So in Lebanon, we will see empowerment of the moderate movements, and weakening of the extremist ones.”

Hammond, however, argues that Lebanon may not necessarily benefit from an ascendant Saudi Arabia.

“My impression is that it won’t necessarily make the situation more peaceable in Lebanon because the Saudis have their people there, and they’re going to push them, and that’s going to lead to more conflict with Hezbollah. From their perspective, they just want to fight Hezbollah, to push their influence back, and whether that in the short term leads to a calmer situation in Lebanon is another question entirely.”

Yara Chehayed contributed reporting.

What's really wrong with Aaron David Miller?

[Originally posted at NOW]

Last week, readers of Foreign Policy were treated to another installment of the “distinguished scholar[ship]” of Aaron David Miller (he of the recent ‘Tribes With Flags’ notoriety), this time entitled, ‘What’s Really Wrong with the Middle East?’ 

So breezily are the facts distorted, so woefully are the points missed, and so cheerfully are the region’s more than three hundred million people insulted that it prompts the arresting question: What’s really wrong with Aaron David Miller?

The piece comprises Miller’s diagnosis of the “top five” reasons for the “jumble of violence, sectarianism, and incompetence” that have been the real fruits of an Arab Spring that was supposed to be the “big transformative moment.” These are, in order: the mistreatment of women, the lack of secularism, excessive conspiracy theorizing, “narcissism” (yes), and lack of leadership.

In addition to the many generic, or what might be called orthodox, ways in which the overall argument is wrong-headed, there are some particularly egregious bits of mendacity and nastiness that are worth highlighting.

First is his callous jab at the Lebanese, all of whom (in their narcissism) “think what happens in Beirut is on the minds of U.S. policymakers from morning till night.” Perhaps I’m ill-trained in the hard-nosed, cut-the-crap school of “realism” in which Miller affects to excel, but I feel those Lebanese who have taken serious risks (and paid serious prices) to stand against the menaces of Syrian Baathist totalitarianism and its murderous proxies deserve something better than the scorn of those they were led to believe were their friends.

Second, and speaking of the Damascene dictatorship, it’s simply contemptible of Miller to pretend that “America’s loss and lack of credibility” is what prevents it from providing meaningful assistance to the Syrian opposition (who also, evidently, have an inflated impression of how much attention is paid to their sacrifices in Washington). Instead, it’s perfectly obvious that it is the Americans’ failure to lift a finger in defense of the revolution that is eroding what was left of their credibility – as the cartoonists of Kafranbel have been trying to tell everyone for two years now.

Things only get worse when he turns to the Holy Land dispute, complaining of being “really tired of Israeli peaceniks […] and of Arabs” asking America to work toward peace (his patience for Israeli hawks, apparently, has not yet waned). His message for these irritating supplicants is as crass as it is dishonest:

“Here's a news flash: the cavalry isn't coming. Maybe if this sinks in, the locals will do more for themselves. But I doubt it.”

A pretty straightforward reason why this won’t “sink in” is because, for one party, the cavalry in fact arrived a very long time ago, and is showing no signs of disappearing soon (indeed, its ranks grow with each passing year). An administration that has used its veto power to protect Israel at the UN Security Council, upped the annual military aid package to an unprecedented $4bn a year for ten years, while throwing hundreds of millions of additional dollars at programs like the Iron Dome and David’s Sling missile defense systems can hardly be said to have washed its hands of the Middle East quite yet.

Nor has the “cavalry” exactly neglected other areas of the region. Miller is, of course, perfectly right that many of the Arab world’s greatest villains are fellow Arabs, but when the young men and women of Bahrain took to the streets in 2011 to peacefully challenge their despot, it was with American-made bullets and tear gas canisters that their efforts were quite literally shot down. Since then, while Martin Luther King-quoting human rights activists have been rounded up and tortured before being sentenced to life imprisonment, Obama has responded by selling the Khalifa regime $53 million in arms.

Which is why it isn’t at all “ironic,” as Miller claims, that the “authoritarian monarchs” of Jordan and the Gulf have proved to be “the most durable.” Their durability, while partly sustained by popular will, is also quite openly guaranteed by American policy, with Bahrain being merely the most brazen example. It isn’t just the massive weapons sales to Islamist autocrats across the Gulf, including an eye-watering $60bn consignment of fighter jets, attack helicopters and missiles to Saudi Arabia. Whether it’s bloggers in the UAE and Jordan, poets in Qatar, or clerics belonging to the wrong sect in Saudi, Gulf regimes crush every conceivable form of dissent without ever incurring tangible reproach from Washington.

Indeed, if I were to propose a real irony, it would be that the poorest performers of all Arab nations on Miller’s criteria of women’s rights, secularism, and religious fundamentalism are precisely the US’ most cherished allies and business partners.

Egypt's porn law only further endangers women

[Originally posted at NOW Lebanon]

In a shameful effort to appease the country’s muscular new Salafist bloc, Egypt’s prosecutor-general ordered yesterday the implementation of a 2009 court order banning access to pornographic websites.

As Islamists rejoiced (MP Ali Wanis, for example, hailing this “first step towards applying Islamic Law in Egypt”), the apparent liberal response was to see the move either as a threat to free speech or as an eccentric but basically benign distraction from the more urgent tasks of creating jobs and battling corruption.

It is those things, to be sure, but it’s also something much more dangerous. No one who has lived, as I have, in a country that bans pornography (the UAE in my case) can have failed to observe the warping effects of this kind of deprivation. It’s a fairly well-established rule that the more a thing is prohibited, the more people will want it, and the cause-and-effect mechanism in this context can manifest itself in very ugly ways.

Unable to see feminine flesh second-hand in the privacy of their homes, frustrated men will find themselves inclined to search for the real thing in public. I can’t statistically prove the link between sexual prohibition and sexual assault (largely because what little data do exist on the UAE are compromised by the substantial underreporting of rape; fuelled in turn by a “justice” system that imprisons and even lashes the victims themselves – a separate scandal altogether), but Cairo already has quite a reputation for the latter, and I see no case for believing this new law will lessen that. (Though an ingenious new campaign to brand the city’s gropers and grabbers with a spray-paint stencil declaring “I’m a harasser” seems more promising.)

More generally, if the Gulf countries have anything to teach Egyptians, it’s that transforming a liberal society into an Islamist one is much like cooking an egg into an omelet: a process not easily reversed.

Interview with Sultan al-Qassemi

[Originally posted at NOW Lebanon]

A favorite topic of contemporary political punditry concerns the role of social media in facilitating the revolutions of the Arab Spring. At the front line of this pioneering activism is Sultan al-Qassemi, the Emirati columnist, blogger and royal family member whose Twitter feed —read by over 100,000 followers—was named by Time Magazine as one of last year’s top 140. Qassemi spoke to NOW Lebanon about his part in the historic upheavals in the region, and where he thinks we are heading.

How did you get involved in political writing?

Sultan al-Qassemi: I started off in 2007 writing for a few publications in the UAE—mainly financial op-eds but usually with a political twist. Then, of course, there was this movement that started in December 2010 in Tunisia and since I understand French I was able to keep up with the news—at first it wasn’t being reported in the English or Arabic blogospheres so much as in the French one, so I was able to follow it and tweet about it, and the story kept growing, and then suddenly an entrenched Arab dictator had fled. And then I think it was only 11 days later we had Egypt, so it was just a rollercoaster. And I think it was only really then that I began to get noticed regionally.

Were there any early experiences that drove you to politics? 

Qassemi: I was always interested in it, but when I was about 12 my cousins fled to the UAE from Kuwait, and they were telling me about this Iraqi invasion, that there were tanks in the streets, and it affected me.

What have been the successes of the Arab Spring in your opinion?

Qassemi: Firstly, I don’t like to call it the Arab Spring; I prefer the Arab Uprising. I think the biggest success has been the people saying “enough is enough.” This is a huge step compared to many decades in which people wanted to speak up but either didn’t or couldn’t. The Arab world will never be the same again. Specifically, Tunisia has been a great success. Most Arab leaders are military men, many of them brutal dictators, but in Tunisia we now have a civilian president—a human rights activist, in fact—in a country that used to be one of the very worst police states. This is an example that puts other Arab countries to shame.

What about the other side of Tunisia—the rise of the Salafists, for example?

Qassemi: There are Salafists in the UK. They are all over the world. They are part of society, and as soon as they enter the political game—as in Egypt—they will be almost neutralized. The only fear is if Salafists don’t enter the political game. Then they become a big risk.

What have been the failures of the Arab Uprising?

Qassemi: The very slow progress Egypt has made in handing over power to civilian rule. Egyptians are very intelligent, educated and capable of governing themselves without military interference. The other disappointment is dictators who believe they can stay in power through repression, like Bashar al-Assad.
But for me the lack of reform in the Gulf is the biggest disappointment. The fact that two Gulf countries actually saw a regression—Bahrain and the UAE—and the fact that Saudi Arabia has not seen any kind of reform.

What is the significance to you of the arrests of many of your fellow bloggers, from Alaa Abd al-Fattah to Ahmad Mansoor to, most recently, Hamza Kashgari?

Qassemi: I think the significance is two-fold. First of all, it shows you the Arab countries are still using outdated laws, sometimes from the colonial era, to prosecute people in the 21st century, so it shows you how slow the Arab countries are to adapt. Secondly, it’s very clear that when bloggers are arrested this is a message to other bloggers.

On that note, you live and do most of your work in Sharjah, perhaps the most conservative emirate in the UAE. Have you faced opposition from the establishment for things you have written or tweeted?

Qassemi: I wrote an article in defense of mixed marriages [Emiratis with non-Emiratis] and people in senior circles, tribal chiefs, were very unhappy with me. And I’m the only person in history to have received an official rebuke from the UAE parliament. I wrote a piece questioning if the parliament actually existed at all, and I got this critical letter saying shame on me. And I was very proud of that, to have instigated a debate on the parliament. And there have been several other examples, but they haven’t changed the way I write or tweet.

Has being a member of the royal family affected your freedom to write?

Qassemi: I don’t know. I hope not. I hope the law is applied equally to everybody. I’m not naïve enough to say that it is, but if I had a choice, I would rather that that be the case.

Your critics argue there is a double standard in you supporting democratic uprisings elsewhere while appearing to look favorably upon your own country’s Islamist monarchy. How would you respond?

Qassemi: I make a point of tweeting any articles or press releases that people would consider critical of the UAE. In fact I “favorite” the negative tweets about the UAE so that people can see I don’t shy away from criticizing my own country.

You once said, “I’m only interested in two countries in the region now: Egypt and Saudi Arabia.” Could you elaborate?

Qassemi: I am! I’m only interested in Egypt and Saudi Arabia—people try to stuff other countries down my throat, it doesn’t work. Listen, I sympathize, and I am so saddened by what’s happening in Syria, in Yemen, in Palestine. But I’m interested in these two for two reasons: firstly, because these are the countries I’m most knowledgeable about. And secondly, I believe that if Egypt and Saudi Arabia change, then everywhere else will change, because of Egypt’s demographic weight and Saudi’s religious and financial weight.

What, in your opinion, is the solution to the Syrian crisis?

Qassemi: I feel as helpless as tens of millions of other Arabs. I want to say there is a diplomatic solution, but I’m honestly hoping for a palace coup; that some honorable person will come and depose Assad and his ruthless brother, and then immediately open up the door for reconciliation and elections, because I fear it could get very ugly if it continues in this way.

What about foreign intervention?

Qassemi: I think every time we’ve seen foreign military intervention the country has descended into chaos.

Finally, what do you see for the future of Lebanon?

Qassemi: I’m very hopeful about Lebanon. It’s always been a beacon of freedom for us. We all want Lebanon to prosper, to turn the pages of civil war and sectarianism. I remember being there a few months ago, you could be in a leftist bar one minute and then walk down the road and you’re in an Islamic gathering. The Arab world needs Lebanon more than people understand.