Everybody is saying no to the American President these days. And it’s not just that they’re saying no, it’s the way they’re saying no, too. The Saudis twice said no to his request for normalization gestures towards Israel [Obama's meeting with the Saudi King in Saudi Arabia, and in Washington DC at meetings with Hilary Clinton]. Who says no to the American President twice? What must they think of Obama in the desert Kingdom?
The North Koreans said no to repeated attempts at talks by test-launching long-range missiles in April; Russia and China keep on saying no to tougher sanctions on Iran; the Iranians keep saying no to offers of talks by saying they’re willing to talk about everything except a halt to uranium enrichment; Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority is saying no by refusing to meet with Netanyahu until Israel freezes all settlement construction; the Israelis said no by refusing to agree to a settlement freeze, or even a settlement moratorium until and unless the Arabs ante up their normalization gestures. Which brings us back to the original Saudi no.
The only thing Obama did manage to get Bibi and Abbas to say yes to is a photo op at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NY. Mazeltov.
So why is everyone saying no to Obama?
It’s the economy, stupid.
Everyone has worked it out by now, the great secret is out. America’s economy has made Obama a weak president, and he will likely remain weak throughout his first term. He has about two years to pull the American economy out of its free-fall before he begins his re-election campaign. If he can do it, and that’s a big if, chances are good that he’ll get re-elected, and in his second term he can try pull some geo-political strings. But for the next three years, expect to see a world that says no to Obama. No meaningful and dramatic diplomatic initiative can come out of the White House in the next three years, as long as Obama remains weak.
And that’s a real pity, because there are some serious and imminent issues that need to be addressed.
North Korea is getting more bellicose and not being punished. Pyongyang has violated every single international agreement and norm, and nothing tangible has happened to them. In Iran, this registers. ‘Look at how bad they’re being,’ the Mullahs say, and they’re getting away with it’. Even so, the Iranian government is weak internally and internationally now following their election fiasco. The US and EU could tighten sanctions against Iran without the support of Russia and China, but they would need political will for that. Sanctions, such as a ban on refined oil; banning Iranian flights to America and Europe etc, could have a serious impact on Iran and weaken the regime further. The US and EU can act now against Iran like the US and UK did against Libya several years ago when they persuaded Gadhafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions. Back then, though, the US was much stronger. Now, the US economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea have all weakened the US.
In retaliation for increased, unilateral sanctions, Iran could turn up the heat against US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will stymie Obama’s plan to win and withdraw. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has the US president by the kishkas, in a manner of speaking. And so do the Taliban.
So, when a President with so many problems comes asking for a favor, everyone finds it easier to just say no.
Arabs are Unripe for Peace in the Middle East
Sami Alrabaa
What has Tony Blair, former British prime minister, since his appointment, in July 2007, as special envoy of the Middle East Peace “Quartet” (comprising of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia), so far achieved? Nothing.
What has the former US senator, George Mitchell, who assumed his job as the United States Special envoy for the Middle East in January 22, 2009, achieved so far? Nothing.
What have all those Western officials, including Xavier Solana, the Foreign Relations of European Union Coordinator, have achieved through their shuttle diplomacy to the Middle East? Also nothing.
In the meantime, while the European Union injects billions of dollar in a corrupt Palestinian Authority, the oil Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, and Libya support Muslim terrorists with their petrodollars across the globe.
Nevertheless, the West still believes that it can help the Israelis and Arabs strike a peace deal.
While Western officials and Western media blast Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the Burmese Junta for their dismal political and human rights record and call them dictators, they do not do the same with Abdullahs of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the Moroccan Hassan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and Gaddafi of Libya. They are “kings” and “leaders”, not despotic dictators, although they rule undemocratically and tread on human rights with their feet.
I wonder if Western officials and Western media realize that Arab leaders are unique demagogues and have always been so. I also wonder if these bodies check out the Arab media.
Day in and day out, the Arab media, which most Arabs veraciously consume, highlight deficits of Western policies and practices in the Muslim world. Torturing terrorists by the CIA and killing civilians in Afghanistan by NATO troops are widely reported.
The thousands of political prisoners in Arab jails who are day and night tortured for demanding democracy and human rights are rarely reported on Arab media. Why should they? Everybody knows that torture of dissidents is quite normal in Arab jails. There is nothing sensational about that.
Consumers of Arab media are stuffed with the impression, the West is “hypocritical” when it talks about human rights. Arab leaders and their media talking heads are very good at inventing conspiracy theories.
After 0/11, the Arab regimes have discovered in radical Muslims a useful ally to advance their repressive agenda and rejection of democracy and human rights. They depict the West as “hypocritical”.
At the same time, Arab regimes, especially those friendly to the West, use radical Muslims as a ghost, and argue: if we established uncontrolled democracy, radicals like Hamas and Hisbollah would take over. Do you want that?
Hence implementing democratic and human rights values is delayed for generations to come.
The West is honest, but naïve, and follows its economic interests, in the course of which it often sacrifices human values, especially in the Arab world. The West is honest about democracy and human rights. These are civilization achievements which have arisen and developed in the West. But the West is naïve if it believes that it could achieve peace, stability, and socio-political justice with despotic regimes like the Arab. Further, the West is stuck in a conundrum: it needs the Arab oil for its economy and jobs; whole pivotal industries in the West depend on the Arab oil. All this makes the West easy to be blackmailed. Yet for the sake of credibility, the West must relentlessly force the Middle Eastern regimes to introduce democracy and respect human rights. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is the beginning, regardless how painful it is.
The Arab regimes are demagogue and do everything possible to continue in power. The oil Arab regimes (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar), and Libya have a unique leverage: oil. And the West bows to that. When it comes to money, the West forgets democratic and human rights values. Money comes first. Additionally, Egypt is using its geo-political position in the Middle East as a triumph card to avoid implementing democracy.
By the way, Saudi Arabia has a paper-tiger army. While I was teaching at King Saud University, a student of mine who was also an army officer told me that the Saudi army is big in number, but in terms of fight readiness it is the weakest in the region. It spends billions of dollars on equipment which is left unpacked and rusts in the sun. The only one who benefits from these weapons is the arms industry in the West.
The Saudi regime does not want to have a strong army. It might one day topple the regime. The Saudi clan depends entirely on the Americans in case it is threatened by an external enemy. In other words, it is the West that is keeping the Saudi regime in power.
In fact, all the Arab armies are weak and all the wars they have waged against Israel prove that. Hence, Israel can rest assured that the Arab regimes do not pose any military threat to the Jewish state. Israel is fighting paper-tiger demagogues.
The only serious threat that Israel is facing comes form the Iranian nuclear program. Both Israel and the West are watching the development of this program very closely. If the Iranians carry on with their program, sooner or later the Israeli air forces will strike.
Western politicians and the mainstream media blast China for its harsh treatment of the Uighuri Muslim separatists. The Uighuris are led by radical Muslims who incite to violence and hatred against non-Muslims and want to introduce Shari’a in their homeland. A colleague of mine, who has just returned from visiting the Uighuri region, has conformed that. He also says that he visited several Uighuri mosques and in each one of them the imam incites to hatred and violence against the West, Christians, Buddhists, and the Jews. If the Chinese do not act resolutely against the Uighuri radical Muslims, the Chinese would have their own Taliban and international terror would thrive. Of course the Arab media report extensively on all this to prove their conspiracy theory that the whole world hates Islam and Muslims.
Had the Russians not acted resolutely against Wahhabi radical Muslims in Chechnya, the situation there would like the one in Afghanistan.
Instead of following in the footsteps of the Chinese and Indians which are steadily establishing themselves as world economic powers, from scratch, the Arabs are lamenting and blaming the West for their backwardness.
Arabs are demagogues. They hail the man who threw his shoes at President Bush, who rid the Iraqis from one of the worst dictators in the history of mankind, as a hero. But none of them would dare do the same with an Arab dictator.
Americans, and the West at large, urge the Israelis to stop building settlements in the West Bank. They argue that these settlements are a hindrance to peace in the Middle East. I believe that even if Israel stops building settlements in the West Bank, the Arabs would find other excuses for not negotiating peace with the Jewish state.
Even if Israel withdrew completely from the West Bank, as it did in Gaza, would the Arab regimes normalize their relations with Israel? Of course, NOT. Although Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, these Arab countries have not yet normalized their relations with the Jewish state. It is still a crime for Egyptians and Jordanians to visit Israel. Check out http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380690535&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
If peace were attained in the Middle East, Arabs would ask, “What then?” They would start demanding political and social reforms. This implies of course the end of Arab regimes.
Arab regimes support suicide bombers, but they would never think of committing the same “heroic act”. Hence, demagogy is the name of the game in the Middle East, not rationality.
Unfortunately, peace in the Middle East has got to wait 50-100 years to come true. By then all the current Arab dictators are dead, and both oil and petrodollar have dwindled and radical Muslims are dead or at least tired.
The West must change its foreign policy toward the Arab regimes. It must unequivocally tell these regimes: change or perish! Only then peace will prevail in the Middle East. Anything else is like talking to the wall. The world is sick and tired of pampering criminals in return for petrodollars. Think of the soldiers and innocent people who are slain in Afghanistan and else where in the name of radical Islam funded by petrodollars. Enough is enough.
Obama will find that the American people will also say “no” to a second term. We are seeing, “Obama Unveiled” and we don’t like what’s behind the curtain.
This is so simple, and everyone can’t “See The Forest For The Trees”. All empires fall, always from within, and it is now our turn. It’s not “The Economy, Stupid”; it’s our self-created weaknesses within the structure that was once “The-American-Empire”. The British fell at the beginning of the last century, and we will at the start of this one.
The Word, or acronym in this case, is … B.R.I.C.
The West is Hypocritical نفاق الغرب
The Jews discriminate against other genocide victims and market their Holocaust, and the West is hypocritical
Dr. Sami Alrabaa
Undoubtedly, the “Holocaust” which was inflicted on the Jews before the II World War was a crime against humanity; it was an egregious genocide, like several other genocides inflicted on the Native Americans, African Americans, and the Armenians, for instance. But as far the Jews are concerned the Holocaust is a “unique” crime, incomparable with any other crime. Day in and day out, the Jews across the globe insist that comparing the Holocaust with other crimes is politically incorrect and impermissible.
You can question the severity of any crime, but not the Holocaust, otherwise you are branded as anti-Semitic and one of those right-wing populists.
This is reminiscent of the racial discrimination in the US until the 1960s. Racial discrimination was “politically correct” at least in the America. Critics of racial discrimination were portrayed as “anti-American” and “communists”.
Every chapter in the human history was dominated by a certain mindset, regardless how irrational and inhumane it was. What was politically correct proved later to be incorrect. Over more than three centuries, racial discrimination against African Americans was politically correct, at least in America.
After the II World War, the Jews have set out to single out their “Holocaust” as the WORST atrocity ever inflicted on a religious minority. They have insisted that any description short of that is improper and anti-Semitic. This implies a perverse discrimination against victims of other genocides. This mindset dominates the media and political life at least in the West and handled as politically correct per excellence. But, like other mindsets, sooner or later, this prevailing mindset will disappear and the Holocaust will be treated as not superior to other crimes against humanity. Many field studies, which have not been published for fear of provoking the Jewish lobby, prove without any shred of doubt that ordinary people view the Holocaust as a crime like any other crime.
In Germany and in the West at large, you are not allowed to compare any crime to the Holocaust. For the German establishment (media and politics across the board), controlled by an influential Jewish lobby, the Holocaust is a “UNIQUE” crime in the history of mankind. If someone slips and compares the Holocaust, even metaphorically, to any crime anywhere in the world, they are immediately urged to withdraw their comparison. The Holocaust is more “sacred” than the Bible and the Koran. Most recently, the Pope’s secretary compared the media campaign about child abuse in Catholic institutions to the hate campaign against Jews under the Nazis before the II World War. The Jewish lobby rushed to muzzle him and ordered him to apologize, which he did.
Discrimination of any kind is politically incorrect. But it seems that Jews insist that discrimination against other victims of atrocities is “legitimate”. It also seems that Jewish blood is more precious than other bloods.
By the way, denying the “Holocaust” is illegal and punishable in Germany and Austria. Think of the British David Irving who was jailed in Austria for simply saying that the 6 million Jews who were burned to death by the Nazis is exaggerated. Recently, a German court ruled that the British bishop, Richard Williamson had to pay a fine of € 10 million for claiming that the Holocaust never took place.
Likewise, if the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad happens to visit Austria or Germany, he would be persecuted and jailed, although he never denied the Holocaust. He simply criticized the number of Jews killed by the Nazis; Ahmedinajad believes that the 6 million is an exaggerated figure.
However, when you talk in private to Germans, they tell you, this is absurd. Nobody dare to compare the Holocaust to other crimes and genocides in the history of mankind. If you criticize that then you are branded as “anti-Semitic”!
Jewish history is omnipresent in contemporary Germany. No day passes by without a Jewish story. All kinds of stories are told in newspapers, radios, and TVs, short, long, true, and fictitious stories are told.
How about crimes committed against the Native Americans and African Americans, just to name a few? For the Jewish lobby and mainstream media, you are comparing apples to oranges.
According to the British Encyclopedia, the Belgium King Leopold II (1835-1909) ordered the killing of 12 million Africans in Congo. This is real Holocaust. But this fact is as dead as Leopold himself. African Americans, Congolese, and Native Americans never received any kind of compensation, but the Jews received huge sums of money.
Along their history until now, the Jews have always marketed themselves as victims in the Diaspora; in Spain, Europe, and the Middle East.
The Iranian nuclear program which Israel blasts, day in and day out, is a welcome opportunity to play the victim. But how about the Israeli nuclear arsenal? Neither the West nor the IAEA dare check out this arsenal.
Further, Israel in not interested in peace. Peace with its Arab neighbors would mean an end to the “victim theory”.
I have been living in Germany for the past 30 years working as a sociology and communication professor. Hence, I know what I am talking about. I could fill up volumes about the hypocrisy and contradictions reproduced by the German media and German politics.
The German mainstream media and political establishment divide the world into democratic countries and dictatorships. Countries of the so called Third World which hold elections and have a parliament are branded as democratic, provided of course they are friendly to the West. It does not matter whether these countries introduce political and socio-economic reforms or not. Despotic regimes like the Saudi, Egyptian, Moroccan, and Jordanian with dismal human rights records are rarely criticized. They are branded as “moderate” and allegedly play a “geo-strategic role in the Middle East”.
The truth of the matter, the West benefits from the Saudi billions of petrodollars. These huge sums of money are largely invested in the West. In addition, introducing real democracy in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, and Jordan would leave the West without stooge allies.
Democratic countries, like Iran, Bolivia, and Venezuela, for instance, which have introduced huge economic reforms and narrowed the gap between the rich and poor, are arbitrarily depicted by the Western media and political establishment as “dictatorships”.
Also, the West accuses Third World countries of being corrupt. But how about the West? Isn’t it also corrupt and greedy? Siemens and Mercedes, for example, have spent and still spend billions of dollars in corrupt channels in countries of the Third World. They bribe officials in these countries to gain bids. Siemens spent in the 1990s one and a half billions of dollars in corrupt transactions in Saudi Arabia alone. This was confirmed to me by a Siemens manager. Most recently, Mercedes agreed to settle corruption charges in a US court by paying a fine of 200 million dollars. Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minster ordered British courts and legislation NOT to investigate corruption charges in an arms deal of $ 20 billion instigated by the Saudi Bandar Bin Sultan. Blair argued at the time, “an investigation into the corruption charges” is not in British national interests and would harm the deal and damage thousands of jobs in the British arms industry.
Having said that, you can see that the West freezes democracy and human rights principles when their interests are in jeopardy. They use these principles when they conveniently suit them.
In the 1990s I used to teach at King Saud University and once in a while I was asked by the German Embassy to translate for German politicians visiting Saudi Arabia. In one of those visits by Juergen Moellemann, former chairman of the German Free Democratic Party (FDP), he received a gift check of 40 million dollars from Prince Salman, the governor of Riyadh. What for is the money? Moellemann distributed part of the money among influential journalists in Germany so that they keep silent as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned.
When the money, which Moellemann deposited in a secret account in Switzerland, was discovered he committed suicide in 2003.
Germany is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of Berlin wall and the unification of east and west Germany. The German media brag: East Germany is now free. However, when you talk to people from East Germany, they tell you: “yes we are free now, we can travel wherever we want, but we do not have the money to do so. 40% of East Germans are jobless.
In contrast, it is big business in Germany which has benefited most from the unification. Whole state-owned industries and agricultural cooperatives were sold for peanuts.
Since the riots in Teheran after the latest presidential elections, the German correspondent of ARD TV, Peter Mezger has reported from Iran. He still reports from Teheran and concocts lies. He interviews “dissidents”, but he never interviews supporters of the Iranian government.
If I were the Ambassador of Iran in Berlin, I would sue Mr. Mezger and his ilk for spreading lies. Certainly, the Ambassador would not win the case, where the German constitution, at least in theory, guarantees freedom of speech. But the case would instigate a debate on fair reporting.
In view of the fact that fewer people buy and subscribe daily papers and increasingly turn to the Internet for information, and in order to save costs and keep managing editors’ salaries up, many of these German papers have withdrawn their correspondents from overseas. These journalists sit now in their cozy offices and concoct distorted reports about Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, and Syria, for example. Insiders have confirmed this practice.
German TV stations, radio, and newspapers interview dissidents in Germany pretending that they were interviewed in their own home countries. People, who support their governments in the aforementioned countries and elsewhere, are sparsely interviewed. Their views seem not to be important for the German public.
I get sick when I see or read in German media that Mr./Ms. so and so is described as an expert in Iranian and Afghan affairs, for instance. When you check out their qualifications, you find out that they neither speak the language of these countries nor have studied their culture. Besides, they have never been to Iran or Afghanistan. They have read a couple of articles about these countries and hence have become “experts”.
The German media condemn violence when Germany is not involved. As the American marines attacked an American ship, kidnapped by Somali pirates and freed the crew last year, the German media rushed to condemn the attack. When recently the Dutch marines attacked a German vessel and freed its crew from Somali pirates, the German media jubilated and approved of the attack.
How honest/dishonest is the West with regard to human rights?
The West claims that human rights are universal and must be respected everywhere in the world.
But does the West really support human rights activists equally across the world?
The answer is a big NO. The West supports human rights activists selectively as long as they suit them and serve their political and economic interests. The West blasts dismal human rights records in countries that are not friendly to the West and turns a blind eye to lack of these rights in “friendly” states.
While the West awards the Sacharov prize to Chinese dissidents, it ignores human rights activists in the Arab world.
Most recently, in his latest visit to Saudi Arabia, the German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle ignored addressing the dismal human rights record of the Al Saud. Later as he was visiting China, he loudly urged the Chinese government in a press conference to respect human rights.
As far as Westerwelle is concerned, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt play a “vital strategic economic and political role”. China is an economic and political adversary.
Obviously, the Cold War is not completely dead. Western propaganda is still active towards those countries which do not submit to the will of Western establishments. Western media and political establishments operate according to the motto: If you are friendly to us, we let you do whatever you want. If you are not friendly to us, then you are our enemy, and we will do everything in our power to topple you.
In general, Western Europe has always looked down at East European countries and has never recognized Turkey as part of the European continent.
During the Cold War Turkey was a member of the NATO. After the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union, Western Europe rushed to admit East European countries in the European Union (EU) and in the NATO. Turkey’s wish to join the EU has so far been rejected, especially by Germany, Austria, and France. The EU argues Turkey is still backward and not European enough, although Turkey is not less developed than Bulgaria, Rumania, and Poland. All these countries, including Turkey have the same level of development in all walks of life. Why is this so?
Turkey has never been a “friend” of Russia (the core left of the Soviet Union) and would never ally itself with Russia. But East European countries could become allies of Russia if they were left outside the EU and NATO. Therefore, the EU was strategically more than happy to admit East European countries before they ally themselves with Russia, the old and new adversary of the West. Turkey was left out. It is politically insignificant in this equation.
The German media and the Western media at large come up with headlines like, “Tibet in Flames” and demand independence for this integral part of China. They allege that the natives of Tibet are oppressed and not allowed to practice their culture, language, and religion.
The truth of the matter is Tibet has been part of China for the past three centuries and its people are free to exercise their religion and culture. And Tibetans are not discriminated against as the Western media allege.
But how about Palestine and Kurdistan? For decades, the people of these countries have been fighting for independence. Until now, the West has ignored the basic rights of the Kurds for independence although they constitute an ethnic and cultural entity living in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Yet, until recently, the Kurds in Turkey have been forbidden to use their own language and practice their own culture. In Syria, the Kurds are not recognized as an ethnic minority.
Viva Western rationale of democracy and human rights!
ٍShort Bio: I’m a 60-year old retired sociology professor. Among other universities, I’ve taught at Michigan State University, King Saud University, Kuwait University. I’ve also published extensively in academia and print media. My latest book is “Veiled Atrocities” published by Prometheus Books, New York, 2010.