Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

Internet usage is booming amongst Arab youth. While slow dial up lines are finally beginning to take root throughout the Middle East, in places such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt - a new market for Arabic websites has emerged.

With the new technological innovations of “Web 2.0,” - Youtube, Blogs, Facebook, Lexis Nexus, Skype, Google News, our lives have been changed dramatically. Information is now available at our fingertips like never before. Not only does social networking go on the internet, but everyone has a voice to publish whatever they want - and one can search through the archives of hundreds of thousands of pages of television transcripts, and news throughout the world.

With this new great demand, comes the demand for Arabic information. CNN and the BBC have now opened up Arabic websites. Youtube is full of Arabic content, and Arabic blogs are spreading like wildfire.

Yamli an internet startup company for instance allows transliterated Arabic searching capabilities. The free-market is truly the servant of the consumer, and innovation is only multiplying.

The internet is a great opportunity for spreading knowledge throughout the Arab world. I urge Arabs who go online to not only search around for their favorite Nancy ‘Ajram video clips - but to also be actively involved in reading as many online books as possible, articles, scholarly websites, and everything available in Arabic!

Share This

Experts state that the Middle East will remain a vital part of our preoccupation in the future due to the strategic importance of oil, reports an Australian newspaper.

Middle East to remain crucial: expert - The Age

The main reason is crude oil, the director-general of the Office
of National Assessments Peter Varghese said in an address to
national security experts in Canberra on Wednesday.
“The Middle East’s dominant share of oil reserves will be
strategically more important (in the future),” Mr Varghese
said.

While many, including me, believed that the whole “war for oil,” mantra was a conspiracy theory - I have given it some weight now after reading the writings of many foreign policy and international relations journals where proponents of the war have stated it bluntly.  Yesterday, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Joe Biden, stated that he believes oil was an impetus for the Iraq war on Chris Matthew’s Hardball.

If you go back to the days right after the war you can dig up an article by pro-war hawk Kenneth Pollack, who anyone who watched cable television news before the Iraq war knows.  Pollack made the case for war with Iraq constantly. 
Even Oprah had him on.  He was known for continuously repeating the position that there is absolutely no option available to the United States other than war with Iraq.  Containment and sanctions, he believed, were not viable alternatives.

Pollack’s July 2003 article discusses the importance of oil as of central strategic importance for the United States in the Middle East:

America’s primary interest in the Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the
free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at large. This
fact has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories leveled against the
Bush administration during the run-up to the recent war. U.S. interests
do not center on whether gas is $2 or $3 at the pump, or whether Exxon
gets contracts instead of Lukoil or Total. Nor do they depend on the
amount of oil that the United States itself imports from the Persian
Gulf or anywhere else. The reason the United States has a legitimate
and critical interest in seeing that Persian Gulf oil continues to flow
copiously and relatively cheaply is simply that the global economy
built over the last 50 years rests on a foundation of inexpensive,
plentiful oil, and if that foundation were removed, the global economy
would collapse.

Pollack is right when he labels the fringe extreme Left’s arguments about Iraq being a war to cheapen oil as being conspiracy theories.  He nails it on the head though when he discusses American interests in the region.  It is out in the open for all critical and intelligent people to read - the United States has an interest in keeping the oil in the Persian Gulf flowing.

John J. Mearsheimer made this point as well stating, from his standpoint of political realism in international relations theory, that the central objective of American foreign policy in the Middle East is making sure no state reaches hegemonic influence on oil.  This argument - Pollack’s and Mearsheimer’s - was echoed by Allan Greenspan in his latest book.  Greenspan clarified his comments on the Today Show to Matt Lauer, stating that hegemonic control of oil in the region would be of major detriment to U.S. interests.

Oil matters a lot.  Did the U.S. invade Iraq because of oil?  No, not exactly… there are many other reasons given by neoconservatives and their allies in support of the Iraq war.  Some of these reasons were restructuring balancing power in the region, taking out a hostile government which could eventually get weapons of mass destruction, spreading United States friendly democracy in the region, and securing Israel.  Yet oil was a contributing factor, not “cheapening,” the price of oil, or stealing oil, or having United States corporations exploit Iraqis for oil, no.  For preventing a hegemonic control of oil from developing in the region.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

If you all haven’t noticed in the mass media frenzy which has ocurred in the past few days - the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has reported that Iran stopped their nuclear program in 2003; amid U.S. and international pressure (well, not really, as Khatami was the President then, and the whole Iran nuclear ‘aggressive diplomacy,’ period only began in 2005 after Ahmedinijad was elected the President!).

Most people state that this is a victory for Iran, however this is not the case. It would actually be a victory for Iran if the U.S. believed they were seeking nuclear weapons. Why? Coming back to a Realist paradigm of international relations - which I have posted about before concerning Iran - the leverage of a state lessens when its percieved power decreases.

How so?

When Iran was percieved as almost a nuclear power it was given significant leverage. Firstly, it caused the Bush and Sarkozy administrations to put stronger pressure on Iran, even though it was cooperating, and gave Iran further impetus to seek a nuclear weapon. The logical message it sent was - although you are cooperating, we will treat you the same. The war in Iraq reinforced the belief in Iran that if it did not seek nuclear weapons as soon as possible it was headed for war anyways. It only further gave Iran reasons to get nuclear weapons. The U.S. would also face immense drawbacks in invading Iran, such as destabilizing Iraq, an immense backlash in the Muslim world, and spending immense amounts of money in another quagmire war - which made Iran believe that if it got nuclear weapons it would be more safe from attack. The NIE report, if the U.S. uses it to engage Iran postively, will show Iran the benefits of cooperation and thus keep them from being a nuclear power, thus hurting them.

Secondly, the NIE report destroyed the image of Iran as an emerging moderate power in the region. Syria relies upon Iran for its defense, as well as Hezbollah. Venezuela, and even in some expert speculation - Russia (see my blog post a few days ago), were beginning to increase their ties with Iran. Iran also set off a security dillema crisis for the Gulf states and Israel. Iran’s image as a nuclear power increased its fear factor, and thus encouraged the United States to cooperate and attempt to engage and deal with enemies such as Syria to pull them away from Iran. Iran’s emerging power also emboldened Hezbollah, increased fear in Israel - who just lost a 2006 war due to Iranian influence, and increased prospects of some sort of peace deal with the Palestinians, especially with Syria, due to the negative effects of Iranian foreign policy.

The NIE report destroyed this “fear factor,” as well and makes it clear that Iran is not the emerging nuclear power that people make it out to be. It decreases fear in the region and thus almost certainly drives down oil prices which will hurt the Iranian economy which would be almost stagnant if it wasn’t for the high price of oil.

In the end, this report which seems as if it saves Iran from the threat of war, actually hurts Iran militarily, economically, and strategically, and re-balances the Middle East in favor of the Western bloc of the United States and Israel, and away from the Syrian-Iranian factor.

It is very interesting how one report in one day could change an entire region in such immense capacity.

Share This

Maricia Pally asks why American Muslims are so successful, and why European Muslims are so radical and isolated.  The answer, she suggests, lies in the American system itself, which is not secular but pluralistic and allows participation by a wide variety of minorities without assimilation.  There is also much more economic opportunity and opportunity for class mobility in the freer markets of the United States than in the Socialist-leaning welfare states of Europe.

In all an amazing analysis, free markets and pluralistic Western democracies do work.  This is just further proof of the genius of capitalism and democracy.

The Transatlantic Muslim Divide

Why do US Muslims do well while remaining devout and distinctive-looking? Why can they participate without assimilating?

Two factors seem significant: first, relatively porous economic, political and educational arenas that allow immigrants entry to these key areas of American life. Despite the discrimination and poverty that immigrants often suffer initially, barriers to economic and political participation are relatively low.

The second factor is America’s pluralistic public sphere, an arena not without religion but with many religions, which are visible and active in civil life as the basis for institutions, publications, and symbols that influence values and conduct. The US is not a secular society; it is a religiously pluralistic one with secular legal and political structures.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

The Guardian - Comment is free: Free trade for Wall Street

In the same vein, we should sit down with state and local treasurers and ask them what prevents them from taking advantage of the lower bond underwriting commissions that could be charged by investment banks in Mumbai or Hong Kong. This could save taxpayers nationwide billions of dollars each year in bond underwriting fees. Similarly, we can ask start-up companies in the Silicon Valley why they don’t seek to use Indian or Chinese investment banks for their initial public offerings, saving billions on fees and removing an important obstacle to gaining access to capital on world financial markets.

Free trade policies that removed barriers to financial firms in the developing world would both hasten growth by increasing efficiency and also lead to a more equal distribution of income.

Free trade helps both the developing and developed world by increasing competition and opening up the field to foreign markets.  Foreign direct investment (FDI) by multinational corporations into the developing world causes immense economic growth.  Just look at Dubai and Qatar ten years ago, in 1997, compared to today.  There is no comparison.  Thomas Friedman remarked on this fact in a column a few weeks ago.  Competition in a market was always a cause of competition for everyone.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

Turkey: Q&A with Mufti of Istanbul Mustafa Cagrici (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper)

I saw this interview in Asharq Alawsat Newspaper. It was published 3 days ago, and has some interesting perspectives on the success of Democracy in Turkey and the compatibility of Islam and Democracy. The Mufti of Istanbul seems to be a very moderate man. He condemns elitist groups which encouraged Muslims to do nothing but worship all day and disengage themselves from entertainment and play; and strongly makes an interesting point that Turks understand Islam better because they see it as more than the outward appearance of beards or hijabs, but simply as beliefs, values and behaviors.

There is no better system on the face of the earth, or at least model of rational politics, which is superior to the liberal Democratic system which has its roots in Locke, Montesquieu, and the founding fathers. And even greater than liberal democracy is free market capitalism, which has its roots, I would argue, in Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptural injunction and Locke, Smith, and more recently Mises and Friedman’s ingenious contributions. Indeed, democracy has its alternative in righteous monarchy and aristocracy which works for the good of the people - as Aristotle and others have noted. Yet, the free market has no alternative except oppression of the people or the road to oppression, see the great economist Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, for an explanation!

In the late 19th century, a Tunisian historian and Islamic jurist by the name of Ibn Abi Diyaf, stated the need for an innovative constitutional basis for Islamic monarchy (or “Caliphate,” which is simply tantamount to pan-Islamic monarchy) while also commenting on the ingenious rational basis for the American constitutional republic, stating that this system even had scriptural basis from the Qur’anic imperatives on consultation. Arab and Muslim admiration for the Democratic state has its roots deeply entrenched in Islamic history. The Mufti seems to carry on this tradition:

Strengthening the democratic experience is the most important thing. There is a lovely proverb by al Farabi: the state governed by philosophers is ideal, but the state governed by democracy is even better. The democratic state is in better condition than others because there is freedom in the democratic system. If the Islamic world opened the door to democracy and freedom, its problems would be resolved in the blink of an eye.

Share This

America’s Failed Militarized Foreign Policy by Jeffery D. Sachs

Jeffery Sachs has a new article which was published in Pakistan’s Daily Times and many other international newspapers this week.  In it he deals with America’s foreign policy of warfare in comparison to the gains brought in from economic growth.  Sachs, well known for his work in reducing poverty, says:

This militarized approach is leading the world into a downward spiral
of violence and conflict. Each new US weapons system “sold” or given to
the region increases the chances of expanded war and further military
coups, and to the chance that the arms will be turned on the US itself.
None of it helps to address the underlying problems of poverty, child
mortality, water scarcity, and lack of livelihoods in places like
Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province, Sudan’s Darfur region, or
Somalia.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - Reviving the cold war in the Middle East?

A very intelligent and insightful editorial by Robert Freedman in tomorrow’s Daily Star, the Lebanese daily. Freedman is an expert in  Russian foreign policy, specifically towards the Middle East.  He argues that the policies of the current regime have lead Russia to perhaps make alliances with Iran and perhaps even Syria - for oil security.  If such a thing did happen it would be one of the greatest examples of the predictions of foreign policy Realists

One thing that strikes me about the Daily Star is the intelligence and expertise of their opinion page which is actually run by one of the managing editors of Reason Magazine the moderate-Libertarian monthly. David Ignatius of The Washington Post has his columns syndicated in The Daily Star, and pieces have appeared by Lebanese expert Paul Salem, international relations theorist and ex-State Department insider Joseph Nye, and They also publish from Project Syndicate, and professors of political science, sociology, and economics in major American universities.

It is a very well done opinion page to say the least.

This article is a very good read, with very good predictive analysis:

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

The Local - ‘Workshy’ couple see benefits reduced

This article comes out of Sweeden where The Local, a Sweedish newspaper reports that:

For almost ten years the husband and wife pair have asserted their
right to opt out of the rat race and live on a combination of state
support and their own crops.

So the government has the right to take 60% of a person’s property, which he either worked for or was given - his personal right - and give it to people who decide not to work but are able?

The Founding Fathers of this country never believed in using taxation as a tool to “equalize,” incomes.  Actually, they believed that diversity in income inequality was something natural and normal not to be tempered with by the state.  They feared the state which would have power to tax a person’s income, but this right was lost with the 14th Amendment in 1914.

While there are religious arguments abound from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic perspective concerning the natural right to one’s property (with some exceptions of course, such as tithe or the Islamic zakat) - a right which is clearly defined in the Bible and Qur’an - the rational basis for such arguments returns to John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government which clearly argues the case for one’s private property and one’s own labor.  It’s worth a read.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This

Annapolis The Day-After - Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Dr. Rami Khoury, a columnist for the very good English Lebanese newspaper, The Daily Star, has a very good analysis of the Annapolis summit and what comes next.

A majority of Palestinians and Israelis want a negotiated
peaceful resolution of their conflict, and are prepared for serious,
reciprocal compromises. Sadly, Annapolis seems to confirm again,
neither side has been able to generate the bold, quality leadership
that is required to mobilize public support to achieve such a peace. A
decisive, constructive shift in American, Arab, and European external
engagement in the negotiations could rescue this precarious process.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the other day that if a Palestinian state does not come to existence, then Israel’s existence will be threatened. In unusually frank comments Olmert stated that the American Jewish lobby and the international community would cut off support to the Jewish state if Palestinians would forever live in Apartheid-like conditions.

However, there has been much talk in the past few days in the television news media as well as The New York Times and The Washington Post that it may be much easier for Washington to broker a peace deal between Israel and Syria than with the Palestinians. Ha’aretz also reported that a member of the Kinesset from Ehud Barak’s Labour party was requesting peace talks with Syria without conditions.

The U.S. may be following the strategy of Kissinger, who in 1974 pulled Egypt’s Sadat - Syria’s number one ally at the time - from Syria by brokering an Egyptian-Israeli peace. Pulling Sadat away from Syria, as Patrick Seale reports in his biography of the Syrian President, caused Syria to be isolated in the Middle East until it later made an alliance with Iran following the Islamic revolution, and the 1979 fatwa of Lebanese Shiite cleric Imam Musa al-Sadr which paved the roots for the Lebanese Shiite-Syria-Iran axis in the modern Middle East.

As Steven Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard, who I have quoted many times, states - powers balance against perceived threats. The Syria-Iran alliance only exists because of the threat of the Israel-U.S. alliance. Syria’s primary geostrategic imperative is to regain the Golan Heights from Israel. If the United States can secure this there will be no need for Syria to support Iran or Hezbollah, and it can thus pull Syria from Iran, as Kissinger pulled Egypt from Syria only 3 decades ago.

I blogged about this a few days ago, but it is interesting that it looks more and more like such a deal can happen. We will just have to wait until the Spring post-Annapolis summit in Russia.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This