Two faces of the Arab street

By Hussain Abdul-Hussain,Tue Jul 3, 4:00 AM ET

Kamal is my Syrian cousin who lives in Damascus. He is a pious Muslim who keeps a low profile. When I decided to Google his name, I was surprised to see that he had made a statement in one of the newspapers denouncing the American war in Iraq and describing the US as a bully.

But I know Kamal, and I know that he admires the West. During our chitchats, his favorite description of the social and economic situation in Syria is "backwardness." He tells me that he would love to move to a "civilized" country where people stand in a queue, where drivers follow the law, and where everyone is "respected" and everything is "clean."

Kamal's statement in the newspaper does not reflect his thought. Rather, it reflects the double-faced character that most of the Arabs and Muslims have to put up, fearing the tyranny they live under.

During my years as a reporter in Beirut, whenever I covered an anti-US protest, I saw most of the protesters trying to hide their faces from cameras. Ask any of them about the reason for doing so, and they will tell you that they do not want to jeopardize getting a visa to the US or to other Western countries.

But those who don't want to risk their visas are the same ones who fear retribution of their ruling regimes, or even their militant peers, if they express any support of the West. These people walk a tightrope. On the one hand, they want to keep their visa prospects high. On the other hand, they want to look as anti-Western as their oppressors want them to look.

The double-face theory explains a good deal of the social behavior of many Arabs. It explains why, even though the majority of Arabs appear to hate America, American multinational franchises are booming in Arab countries.

Whether it is Starbucks, McDonald's, Burger King, or KFC, they are all in high demand in the Arab region. Hollywood movies are widely watched. American pop culture is as widespread in the Middle East as it is here in the US. Most Arabs know Ross and Rachel from the TV sitcom "Friends." Many of them know the rapper 50 Cent and often sing his tunes. Many of them strive to enter the US universities mushrooming across the region.

If you ask these Arabs about the dilemma of loving America and hating it at the same time, the most common answer would be: We love America, but we hate its foreign policy.

American foreign policy, however, does not always work against what many of these Arabs want to see. Only a few would oppose the removal of their tyrant.

When American troops first stormed into Baghdad, the most common footage on TV was that of Iraqis hailing the invaders and often praising President Bush. True, there was no throwing of petals and sweets on US troops. But there were no insurgents either. Violence in Iraq did not break out until the third month after the American invasion – once insurgents had grouped themselves and planned their action.

When jubilant Iraqis saw another form of tyranny, that of the insurgents replacing Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, they put on their double-faced characters again.

How do we know what the majority of Iraqis and Arabs feel about America? It's simple. Take the number of insurgents and compare them to that of the Iraqi population. Insurgents are estimated at 15,000 militants, heavily supported and funded by intelligence groups of their neighboring countries. The number, however, is negligible if compared with Iraq's population of 27 million.

Even under Hussein and his 1-million- strong army and intelligence personnel, his entourage would not account for more than 1/27th of the population. That Iraqis hated Hussein is an undisputed fact. Yet they praised him, elected him (Hussein "won" 100 percent of the vote in 2002), and protested against America under him. It was all fear, and part of the double-face strategy.

In any given nation, it takes only a handful of troublemakers to bring everyone to their knees. Iraqi insurgents terrorize the people who are fleeing the country by the thousands. Insurgents coerce the population to look as though they are anti-American. Without them and the support of neighboring intelligence forces, Iraq could have been the strongest democracy in the region and perhaps Operation Iraqi Freedom would have succeeded.

My cousin Kamal loves America, but he is forced to hate her, just like the protesters who hide their faces. There are more than 300 million Arabs, yet only 19 of them were enough to show the world on 9/11 that Arabs and Muslims hate America, an impression that is not necessarily true.

• Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a media analyst, is a former reporter for The Daily Star of Lebanon.

Read more...

Ask the 2008 presidential candidates better foreign-policy questions

By Clinton Whitehurst, Thu Jun 14, 4:00 AM ET

When it comes to foreign policy, the 2008 presidential candidates have focused almost exclusively on the Middle East. Given the public debate about America's engagement in Iraq, that's understandable. But such myopia is also deeply regrettable. There's another world out there besides the Middle East, one with major problems and flash points that cannot be ignored by the public and a future US president.

It's imperative that voters and the media ask all of the candidates tough questions about issues other than the ones they already ask about the Middle East. Some of the important ones include these:

How should the United States (1) Maintain a balance of power in East Asia, (2) Respond if China tests a second anti-satellite weapon, (3) Respond to a Chinese military action against Taiwan?

If China does act against Taiwan, whoever becomes the next US president will have to respond in a matter of hours – not days – as to whether the US honors the Taiwan Relations Act and whether it becomes militarily involved in the conflict.

Looking elsewhere, we should also ask candidates how they intend to ensure that a politically divided Ukraine continues toward integration with Europe and not move closer to Russia. How should the United States respond to an increasingly authoritarian Russia, remembering that it has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, that Siberia is a treasure trove of minerals yet to be exploited, and that Russia is a military superpower? How should the US respond if Russia covertly threatens Poland for allowing a potential American anti-ballistic missile defense system on its territory?

Should a conflict arise between Kosovo and Serbia – which could involve Russia – where stands the United States?

And what about NATO? Should the US insist on a greater European contribution in terms of personnel and funding? The same question could be asked about the United Nations.

What should be America's policy toward India, a nation with the second-largest population in the world, a fast-growing economy, and a military with an increasing capability, all the time remembering its contentious and continuing border dispute with Pakistan, an American ally in the fight against the Taliban?

If North Korea reneges on its promise to give up its nuclear-weapons program, should the US encourage Japan to develop nuclear weapons? Should the United States continue a policy of downsizing the number of its troops in South Korea while, at the same time, South Korea is considering significant decreases in its active and reserve forces? Both nations insist the new force structure will be more capable than the present one. Will it?

Other areas of the world present their own share of tough questions. In the Western hemisphere, for example, should the United States lift its embargo against Cuba? Would such a move enhance America's image in Central and South America, or would it be seen as a sign of weakness? How should the US respond to aggressively populist/leftist movements such as the one in Venezuela? And will the US continue to spend billions to fight the drug trade in Colombia?

Those are just some of the critical issues that the next president must confront.

Some observers may claim that presidents today don't need to know such complexities because the White House has an abundance of experts on hand to advise the president on every possible foreign-policy scenario. That excuse, however, misunderstands the nature of real leadership. The commander in chief should have a basic understanding of all major foreign-policy issues, and then rely on advisers to discuss details and determine options. As has been frequently noted, American presidents can find themselves in deep trouble when they depend only on advisers with respect to unfamiliar problems and issues.

As long as the foreign-policy questions on the campaign trail – whether at televised debates or at diners in Iowa – don't extend beyond the Iraq war, the candidates themselves won't be inclined to discuss many of the other critical global issues that confront America.

That's why the media, the blogs, and the voters must challenge the candidates with non-Middle East foreign-policy questions. Imagine the expression on a candidate's face if he/she were asked, "What is your position with respect to the United States establishing air bases and stationing personnel in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan?" A follow-up questions might be, "And what was the original rationale for the bases?"

The motivation here isn't to stump the candidates and make them look foolish. Rather, it's an effort born out of a desire to have better-informed presidential candidates and a better-informed public.

• Clinton Whitehurst is a senior fellow at The Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University.

Read more...

Religious extremists in 3 faiths share views: report

By Claudia ParsonsWed Jun 13, 5:49 PM ET

Violent Muslim, Christian and Jewish extremists invoke the same rhetoric of "good" and "evil" and the best way to fight them is to tackle the problems that drive people to extremism, according to a report obtained by Reuters.

It said extremists from each of the three faiths often have tangible grievances -- social, economic or political -- but they invoke religion to recruit followers and to justify breaking the law, including killing civilians and members of their own faith.

The report was commissioned by security think tank EastWest Institute ahead of a conference on Thursday in New York titled "Towards a Common Response: New Thinking Against Violent Extremism and Radicalization." The report will be updated and published after the conference.

The authors compared ideologies, recruitment tactics and responses to violent religious extremists in three places -- Muslims in Britain, Jews in Israel and Christians in the United States.

"What is striking ... is the similarity of the worldview and the rationale for violence," the report said.

It said that while Muslims were often perceived by the West as "the principal perpetrators of terrorist activity," there are violent extremists of other faiths. Always focusing on Muslim extremists alienates mainstream Muslims, it said.

The report said it was important to examine the root causes of violence by those of different faiths, without prejudice.

"It is, in each situation, a case of 'us' versus 'them,"' it said. "That God did not intend for civilization to take its current shape; and that the state had failed the righteous and genuine members of that nation, and therefore God's law supersedes man's law."

COMMON WORLDVIEW

This worldview was common to ultranationalist Jews, like Yigal Amir, who killed Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, to U.S. groups like Christian Identity, which is linked to white supremacist groups, and to other Christian groups that attacked abortion providers, it said.

"Extremists should never be dismissed simply as evil," said the report. "Trying to engage in a competition with religious extremists over who can offer a simpler answer to complex problems will be a losing proposition every time."

Harvard University lecturer Jessica Stern, the conference's keynote speaker, spent five years interviewing extremists for her 2003 book "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill."

She said it was dangerous for U.S. President George W. Bush to use terms such as "crusade" or "ridding the world of evil."

"It really is falling into the same trap that these terrorists fall into, black and white thinking," Stern told Reuters on Wednesday. "It's very exciting to extremists to hear an American president talking that way."

Stern said to compare violent extremists from the three faiths was not to suggest that the threat was the same.

"These are not equivalent," she said. "The problems arising from Christian or Jewish extremism are not threatening to the world in the same way as Muslim extremism is."

Conference organizers say their aim is to develop a nonpartisan strategy to combat religious extremism.

The guest list includes representatives of the State Department, Homeland Security, the New York Police Department and the U.N. missions of Israel, Iraq, Britain and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Read more...

Burger King Woes

Last weekend, I was treading along the freeway to Chicago, IL. I stopped at a local Burger King somewhere in the middle for a quick bite against my better judgment. Past experiences at KFC, Burger King and Pizza Hut have been horrible. I asked specifically for no tomatoes, extra pickles and a (un)healthy dose of mayo. I grab the sandwich and run towards the freeway again. At a rest stop nearby, I quickly discover that the BK guy couldn't take a simple order. Oh' well. That's the last I ever go back to the King. Apparently he's like our current dictator, Mr. Bush. All gold and show, no substance, no results.
Read more...

News Clips - March 13, 2007

House GOP try to halt Muslim seminar

Halliburton's Dubai move sparks US political ire

Read more...

Toronto Eateries

It's been almost 3 months now in this metropolitan colossal called Greater Toronto Area, or aptly Toronto. Being me, I've obviously played scavenger at a couple of eateries, most notably Licks, Imperial Chinese, Duffs (1604 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON M4G 3B7), Pickle Barrel (5941 Leslie St, North York, ON M2H 1J8), Hafez (4924 Yonge Street, North York), Farhat Shawarma, Madina Mediterranean, and Shawerma Max (4969 Yonge Street, North York, ON M2N 5N6).

By a "civilian" standard, Pickle Barrel and Shawarma Max barely made it. Duffs failed miserably. In fact, tonight I just ordered a takeout from Duffs. The waitress took my card, swiped it, and almost threw it so that it slid back to me. Strike One. I took the wings out, and took them home. Barely 20 minutes from order to takeout to home. Wings were dead cold. "Crispy sandwich with fresh fries" was a joke. The sandwich was bland and the fries tasted like they were reheated under the lamp. Hafez is OK but like most Mediterranean eateries, the place is rough and not exactly consistent. Shawarma Max is like tap water - consistent, OK, but not really something to write home about. Pickle Barrel is like a step-sister of Denny's (or IHOP). Imperial Chinese is GOOD. Definitely a place where I can go back to (and I have).

McDonald's, I swear, tastes better and fresher in Canada. Don't know why? Maybe in the US, they take their customers for granted?
Read more...

SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL

Tue Jan 2, 8:03 PM ET

The Fatal Hazing of a Dictator

NEW YORK--Take note, dictators considering an alliance with the United States: we'll throw you to the wolves as soon as you cease to be useful.

Saddam Hussein's order to execute 148 men and boys in Dujail, in northern Iraq, in 1982 was his nominal casus morti. Actually, he was the fatal victim of a labor-management dispute.

Anyone who works for a difficult boss can sympathize with Saddam. After unsuccessfully attempting to reach President George H.W. Bush and other top officials (who were on vacation) to ask for permission to invade Kuwait, he finally touched base with Bush's ambassador to Iraq on July 25, 1990. At the time Hussein was a close American ally, receiving billions of dollars in arms shipments and subsidies. Baath Party-ruled Iraq, a U.S. client state, had waged the 1980-88 war against Iran largely at Washington's behest.

Then as now, human rights were not a consideration of U.S. foreign policy.

Tensions with Kuwait, whose territorial legitimacy had not been recognized by any Iraqi leader since the country's founding in 1920, had been rising over alleged "slant drilling" beneath the border into Iraqi oilfields and Kuwait's refusal to reduce oil production to raise prices as requested by the OPEC cartel.

At the fateful meeting, Saddam asked Ambassador April Glapsie: Would the U.S. object to an invasion? "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait," she replied. "Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

The signal was clear. Bright green.

When Iraqi forces entered Kuwait one week later, President Bush stayed mum. He only turned against Saddam later, in response to diplomatic pressure from Britain, which had close economic ties to Kuwait, and Israel, which considered Iraq a mortal enemy. Everything that followed--the Gulf War, the sanctions of the 1990s, the 2003 invasion, the deaths of 3000 American servicemen and the Iraqi dictator's execution--resulted from Saddam's decision to rely on Glaspie rather than waiting for the boss (Bush) to return from vacation.

In the old days, a tyrant could torture and loot his country, secure in the knowledge that his American masters would dispatch a military helicopter to spirit him off the roof of his palace before falling into the hands of a raging mob, plunder-stuffed duffel bags in tow. In 1986 the U.S. Air Force delivered two of our pet dictators--Haitian strongman Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier and the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos--to exile in the French Riviera and Hawaii, respectively. U.S. Customs turned a blind eye to Marcos' 24 suitcases of gold bricks and diamonds stashed in diaper bags. Duvalier was similarly well provisioned, although he eventually lost his chateau, villa in Cannes and two luxury apartments in Paris to a bitter divorce. Reza Muhammed Shah Pahlawi of Iran, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, and Nguyen Van Thieu--the last president of South Vietnam--also jetted off on Air America.

Leftist complaints that the government was shielding men who had murdered and looted on a grand scale were ignored. Years of doing America's bidding, reasoned the wise men of Langley, earned a dictator the right to a safe (and plush) retirement. Moreover, golden parachutes were attractive incentives when they tried to recruit new leaders.

The system of residual lèse majesté started to unravel in 1989. President Bush ordered American troops to depose Panamanian leader General Manuel Noriega after murders of political opponents had turned him into an international embarrassment. Previously his long pro-U.S. resume--he'd been on the CIA payroll since the 1950s--would have entitled him to preferential treatment. But Bush, a typical CEO, tried to lowball Noriega with a $2 million dollar payoff to go into exile in Spain. Insulted by the offer, Noriega refused.

Bush arranged for his former employee to be imprisoned for 15 years for drug trafficking and money laundering, charges that are now believed to have been wildly exaggerated if not entirely invented. Stripped of his dignity and treated like a common criminal, the former head of state was reduced to federal inmate no. 38699-079.

Now we use the veneer of legality to dispose of our former lap-dog leaders in circumstances that recall the mob that killed Mussolini and his mistress. Saddam's American-paid executioners failed to grant him basic courtesies traditionally extended to the condemned. The deposed dictator was denied his request to die by firing squad, not permitted the right to wear his military uniform, even refused a farewell visit from his wife.

Years of abuse by American guards who photographed him in his underwear and deprived him of sleep followed the release of humiliating videos of his capture and "medical exam" after he'd obviously been forcibly drugged. In 2004 American troops had murdered his sons and 14-year-old grandson, and released photos of their bloodied faces--an insult to Islamic tradition--on Iraq's collaborationist television. Death must have come as something of a release.

Hazing of high-profile prisoners isn't new. Albert Speer, the German architect and armaments minister sentenced to 20 years in prison at the Nuremberg Trials, recalled having been subjected to the same 24-hour lights and no-eye-covering torture as Saddam. Speer was dragged into the gymnasium where General Keitel and other top Nazis had just been hanged, and ordered to clean up the mess made by the dead men's loosened bowels and bladders.

Like Saddam, Speer had it coming. That's why it's so remarkable that the world recoils in disgust at their mistreatment. The New York Times reported that Saddam's hanging had deteriorated "into a sectarian free-for-all that had the effect, on the video recordings, of making Mr. Hussein, a mass murderer, appear dignified and restrained, and his executioners, representing Shiites who were his principal victims, seem like bullying street thugs." Only a nation run by frat boys could elicit sympathy for such monsters.

(Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)

Read more...