Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by 153den » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:16 pm
by JackRiddler » Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:04 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/world ... nted=print
December 20, 2011
Mass March by Cairo Women in Protest Over Abuse by Soldiers
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
CAIRO — Several thousand women demanding the end of military rule marched through downtown Cairo on Tuesday evening in an extraordinary expression of anger over images of soldiers beating, stripping and kicking female demonstrators in Tahrir Square.
“Drag me, strip me, my brothers’ blood will cover me!” they chanted. “Where is the field marshal?” they demanded of the top military officer, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. “The girls of Egypt are here.”
Historians called the event the biggest women’s demonstration in modern Egyptian history, the most significant since a 1919 march against British colonialism inaugurated women’s activism here, and a rarity in the Arab world. It also added a new and unexpected wave of protesters opposing the ruling military council’s efforts to retain power and its tactics for suppressing public discontent.
The protest’s scale stunned even feminists here. In Egypt’s stiffly patriarchal culture, previous attempts to organize women’s events in Tahrir Square during this year’s protests almost always fizzled or, in one case in March, ended in the physical harassment of a small group of women by a larger crowd of men.
“It was amazing the number of women that came out from all over the place,” said Zeinab Abul-Magd, a historian who has studied women’s activism here. “I expected fewer than 300.”
The march abruptly pushed women to the center of Egyptian political life after they had been left out almost completely. Although women stood at the forefront of the initial revolt that ousted President Hosni Mubarak 10 months ago, few had prominent roles in the various revolutionary coalitions formed in the uprising’s aftermath. Almost no women have won seats in the early rounds of parliamentary elections. And the continuing demonstrations against military rule have often degenerated into battles in which young men and the security police hurl rocks at each other.
On the fifth day of clashes that have killed at least 14 people, many women in the march said they hoped their demonstration would undercut the military council’s efforts to portray demonstrators as little more than hooligans, vandals and arsonists. “This will show those who stay home that we are not thugs,” said Fadwa Khaled, 25, a computer engineer.
The women’s demand for a voice in political life appeared to run counter to the recent election victories of conservative Islamists. But the march was hardly dominated by secular liberals. It contained a broad spectrum of Egyptian women, including homemakers demonstrating for the first time and young mothers carrying babies, with a majority in traditional Muslim head scarves and a few in face-covering veils. And their chants mixed calls for women’s empowerment with others demanding more “gallantry” from Egyptian men.
Egypt’s military rulers came under fire from international human rights groups soon after they took power in February for performing invasive, pseudo-medical “virginity tests” on several women detained after a protest in March. But in Egypt’s conservative culture, few of the women subjected to that humiliation have come forward to criticize the generals publicly.
The spark for the march on Tuesday came over the weekend, when hundreds of military police officers in riot gear repeatedly stormed Tahrir Square, indiscriminately beating anyone they could catch. Videos showed more than one instance in which officers grabbed and stripped female demonstrators, tearing off their Muslim head scarves. And in the most infamous case caught on video, a half-dozen soldiers beat a supine woman with batons and ripped off her abaya to reveal a blue bra. Then one of them kicked her in the chest.
Recalling that event at a news conference Tuesday, the woman’s friend Hassan Shahin said he had told the soldiers: “I’m a journalist, and this is a girl. Wait, I’ll take her away from here.” But, he said, “nobody listened, and one of them jumped on me, and they started beating me with batons.”
No doubt fearful of the stigma that would come with her public humiliation, the victim has declined to step forward publicly, so some activists now refer to her only as “blue bra girl.” The photos of her beating and disrobing, however, have quickly circulated on the Internet and have been broadcast by television stations around the world.
In Washington on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the recent events in Egypt “shocking.”
“Women are being beaten and humiliated in the same streets where they risked their lives for the revolution only a few short months ago,” Mrs. Clinton said.
“Women are being attacked, stripped and beaten in the streets,” she added, arguing that what she called the systematic degradation of Egyptian women “disgraces the state and its uniform.”
As recently as Tuesday morning, however, many activists here said that because relatively few Egyptians have access to the Internet, read independent newspapers or watch independent satellite television news, the blue bra video was far more widely familiar in the United States than in Egypt.
“Four blocks from here, no one knows about this,” said Aalam Wassef, a blogger and an activist, at a meeting Tuesday morning in which activists announced a plan to set up screens in cities and towns around the country where people could see that video and others that contradict the generals’ version of events. (Other scenes include security forces hurling rocks and gasoline bombs, military police officers firing rifles and handguns and protesters bloodied by bullets.)
Some men who had seen the images questioned why the woman had been in the square, suggesting that her husband or father should have kept her at home. Other men have argued that she must have wanted the exposure because she wore fancy lingerie, or they have said she should have worn more clothes under her abaya.
But the woman’s ordeal began to receive new attention on Monday when Gen. Adel Emara, a member of the ruling military council, acknowledged what had happened during a news conference on state television. General Emara argued that the scene had been taken out of context and that the broader circumstances would explain what happened.
At the same news conference, a veteran female journalist who reports on the military stood up to ask the general for an apology to Egyptian women. “Or the next revolution will be a women’s revolution for real,” the journalist warned. The general tried to interrupt her — he said the military had learned of a new plan to attack the Parliament — and then he brushed off her request.
Many Egyptian women said later that they were outraged by his response.
When core activists called for a march Tuesday evening to protest the military’s treatment of women — organizers on Twitter used the hash tag “#BlueBra” — few could have expected the magnitude of the response.
The crowd seemed to grow at each step as the women marched, calling up to the apartment buildings lining the streets to urge others to join them. “Come down, come down,” they shouted in an echo of the protests that led to Mr. Mubarak’s ouster in February.
“If you don’t leave your house today to confront the militias of Tantawi, you will leave your house tomorrow so they can rape your daughter,” one sign declared.
“I am here because of our girls who were stripped in the street,” said Sohir Mahmoud, 50, a homemaker who said she was demonstrating for the first time.
“Men are not going to cover your flesh, so we will,” she told a younger woman. “We have to come down and call for our rights. Nobody is going to call for our rights for us.”
Along the sidewalks beside the march, some men came out to gawk and stare. Others chanted along with the women, “Freedom, freedom.”
“I came so that girls are not stripped in the streets again,” said Afa Helal, 67, who was also demonstrating for the first time, “and because my daughters are always going to Tahrir. The army is supposed to protect the girls, not strip them!”
Mayy el-Sheik contributed reporting.
by AlicetheKurious » Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:01 am
JackRiddler wrote:Are you and yours well?
Were you at the women's march?.
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. (John 12:25)
by Hammer of Los » Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:23 am
by crikkett » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:54 am
by Allegro » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:19 pm
by crikkett » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:59 pm
AlicetheKurious wrote:Songs and poetry have been incredibly important to the Egyptian revolution. Some were incorporated into chants, some were played constantly in Tahrir and the other public squares where protesters gathered. Even before Mubarak was removed from power, some were made into ring-tones and posted on Youtube. After February 11, the television and radio airwaves were filled with them. They replaced commercials between programs.
These are the songs that raised people's morale and helped them to keep going even against daunting odds. Today, they serve as a constant reminder of those heady/scary days and of the need to continue what was started. I hope the spirit of the songs shines through the foreign words.
Here is a sampling of my favorites, in no particular order:
"Ezzay?" ("How?"), an angry, outraged song bravely written by Mohamed Mounir and performed at the height of the revolution, after the bloody events of January 28th, and circulated on Youtube. After the Mubarak regime fell, it became a staple on television and has been widely adopted as a ring-tone on Egyptian cellphones.
A final note: One of the most important slogans of the Egyptian revolution, quoted constantly throughout, consists of the closing words of the Tunisian national anthem, which were written by the famous Tunisian poet Aboul-Qacem Echebbi:If, one day, the people will to live,
then Destiny must respond.
the dark night must end
and chains must break.
In Arabic it sounds hypnotic; to me it resonates as a spell. Even prosaic speech is nearly impossible to translate accurately from Arabic to English; how then can the music of poetry be conveyed?
No thread on the Egyptian revolution would be complete without it.
by JackRiddler » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:39 pm
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/30/ ... bers/print
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
Weekend Edition December 30-32, 2011 [Is that today, Dec. 32?]
Numerical Narrative of an Uprising
Bahrain by the Numbers
by RANNIE AMIRI
Population of Bahrain: 1.2 million
Number of citizens: 535,000
Percent of citizens who are Shia Muslim: 70
Percent of those in government: 13
Number of senior positions they fill in the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, the National Guard, the Supreme Defense Council and the Royal Court: zero
Percent in the Ministry of Finance: 10
Percent in the Ministry of Information: six
Percent in the judiciary corps: five
Of the 1,000 National Security Apparatus employees, percent who are non-Bahraini: 64
Percent who are Shia Bahraini: less than five
Of the 20,000 paramilitary Special Security Forces, percent who are non-Bahraini: 90
Percent who are Shia Bahraini: zero
Number of elected Bahrainis from all sects who sit on the country’s all-powerful Shura Council: zero
Day pro-democracy protests began in Bahrain as part of the Arab Spring: Feb. 14, 2011
People who took to the streets: 300,000
Proportional equivalent if Egyptians had done likewise: 40 million
Evidence that Iran instigated the demonstrations: zero
Day Saudi Arabia invaded to put down the uprising: March 14, 2011
Number of Saudi, UAE and Qatari troops who arrived in armored vehicles: 1,500
People killed since Feb.14: 50
Fatalities as a result of teargas shot into residential homes or birdshot fired at close range: 30
Age of youngest victim: five days
Arbitrary arrests: 1,500
Civilians sentenced by military courts: 208
Physicians sentenced for offering medical treatment to demonstrators: 20
Cumulative jail term levied: 2,500 years
Citizens currently accused of violating freedom of speech or assembly laws: 1,000
Documented cases of torture and ill-treatment since the revolt began: 1,866
Bahraini officials held responsible for killings or the systemic use of torture: zero
Mosques destroyed: 40+
Journalists targeted: 90+
Workers fired for supporting, taking part, or suspected of having taken part in pro-democracy activities: 2,710
University students expelled for the same reasons: 477
Prisoners of conscience: 500
Where Bahrain ranks among countries with the highest number of political prisoners per capita: 1st
Proposed U.S. arms sales to Bahrain: $53 million
Years the al-Khalifa family has ruled Bahrain: 228
Days left in power: numbered
Thanks to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and other NGOs for helping compile these figures.
Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator.
by Allegro » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:10 am
Bahrain is only 34 miles long by 11 miles wide.JackRiddler wrote:counterpunch.org wrote:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/30/ ... bers/print
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
Weekend Edition December 30-32, 2011 [Is that today, Dec. 32?]
Numerical Narrative of an Uprising
Bahrain by the Numbers
by RANNIE AMIRI
by Peachtree Pam » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:53 pm
Media coverage of the Arab Spring somehow depicted the U.S. as sympathetic to and supportive of the democratic protesters notwithstanding the nation’s decades-long financial and military support for most of the targeted despots. That’s because a central staple of American domestic propaganda about its foreign policy is that the nation is “pro-democracy” — that’s the banner under which Americans wars are typically prettified — even though “democracy” in this regard really means “a government which serves American interests regardless of how their power is acquired,” while “despot” means “a government which defies American orders even if they’re democratically elected.”
It’s always preferable when pretenses of this sort are dropped — the ugly truth is better than pretty lies — and the events in the Arab world have forced the explicit relinquishment of this pro-democracy conceit. That’s because one of the prime aims of America’s support for Arab dictators has been to ensure that the actual views and beliefs of those nations’ populations remain suppressed, because those views are often so antithetical to the perceived national interests of the U.S. government. The last thing the U.S. government has wanted (or wants now) is actual democracy in the Arab world, in large part because democracy will enable the populations’ beliefs — driven by high levels of anti-American sentiment and opposition to Israeli actions – to be empowered rather than ignored.
So acute is this contradiction — between professed support for Arab democracy and the fear of what it will produce — that America’s Foreign Policy Community is now dropping the pro-freedom charade and talking openly (albeit euphemistically) about the need to oppose Arab democracy. Here is Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a very typical member of the National Security priesthood, writing on Friday in The New York Times about Egyptian elections (via As’ad AbuKhali):
" Many in Israel and America, and even some in Egypt, fear that the elections will produce an Islamist-led government that will tear up the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, turn hostile to the United States, openly support Hamas and transform Egypt into a theocracy that oppresses women, Christians and secular Muslims. They see little prospect for more liberal voices to prevail, and view military dictatorship as a preferable outcome.
American interests, however, call for a different outcome, one that finds a balance — however uneasy — between the military authorities and Egypt’s new politicians. We do not want any one side to vanquish or silence the other. And with lopsided early election results, it is especially important that the outcome not drive away Egypt’s educated liberal elite, whose economic connections and know-how will be vital for attracting investment and creating jobs.
Our instinct is to search for the clarity we saw in last winter’s televised celebrations. However, what Egyptians, and Americans, need is something murkier — not a victory, but an accommodation."
I love this passage both for its candor and for what it lamely attempts to obfuscate. Why should “American interests” determine the type of government Egypt has? That it should is simply embedded as an implicit, unstated assumption in Alterman’s advocacy. That’s because the right of the U.S. to dictate how other nations are governed is one of the central, unchallenged precepts of the American Foreign Policy Community’s dogma and it thus needs no defense or even explicit acknowledgment. It simply is. It’s an inherent imperial right.
But Alterman here is expressly admitting the reality that most media accounts ignore: that the U.S. does not, in fact, want democracy in Egypt. It fears it. That’s because public opinion polls show overwhelming opposition among the Egyptian populace to the policies which the U.S. (for better or worse) wants to foist on that country: animus toward Iran, preservation of the peace agreement with Israel, ongoing indifference to the plight of the Palestinians, and subservience to U.S. goals. Indeed, according to the 2011 Pew finding, “nearly eight-in-ten Egyptians have an unfavorable opinion of the U.S.” That tracks opinion in the Arab world generally, where the two nations perceived as the biggest threat are — by far — the U.S. and Israel (not Iran), and the three most admired foreign leaders are Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, followed by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinijad.
But even more significant is Egyptian public opinion specifically on the issue of greatest concern for American (and Israeli) foreign policy officials: a nuclear Iran. A 2010 Brookings/University of Maryland/Zogby poll found vast, overwhelming Egyptian support for the view that Iran has the right to have a nuclear weapon, and for the view that a nuclear Iran would be a net positive for the region. That, too, tracks general public opinion in the Arab world, which supports Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons. In light of these facts, does anyone believe that the U.S. government and its pool of experts that exist to justify what it does — the Foreign Policy Community — have even a slight interest in actual democracy in Egypt specifically or the Arab world generally?
Of course not. As Noam Chomsky put it recently: “The U.S. and its Western allies are sure to do whatever they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world” because “if public opinion were to influence policy, the U.S. not only would not control the region, but would be expelled from it.” That’s why Alterman is urging what he delicately calls “a balance — however uneasy — between the military authorities and Egypt’s new politicians” – meaning: ensuring the ability of the Egyptian military to prevent the country’s democratically elected leaders (“Egypt’s new politicians”) from implementing the will of the citizenry. The fear of (and desire to stop) Arab democracy has been openly expressed for some time by many American neocons and even Benjamin Netanyahu; that it is now spilling over into America’s mainstream Foreign Policy experts is telling indeed.
In calling for a force to constrain democratic rule, Alterman doesn’t mean here the kind of Constitutional protections that exist in the U.S. to safeguard (in theory) minorities from the tyranny of majority rule, at least not primarily. Those are legitimate issues balancing democracy and minority rights — for the Egyptians to resolve. What Alterman advocates is a bulwark against the ability of the Egyptian people to free themselves of military rule, choose their own government, and decide their own fate. He wants democracy to exist in Egypt to extend only to the point where Egyptians “choose” to do what the U.S. wants them to do and to end at the point where they want to do something different (in that regard, his vision for “freedom” in Egypt is not unlike what many “freedoms” have come to mean in the U.S.: you can exercise them provided they do not contradict the interests of the U.S. Government). Thus, Alterman announces, in Egypt we must avoid the “clarity” of democracy in favor of something “murkier.”
Even if you’re indifferent to the moral questions involved in actively trying to impede democracy in Egypt — suppose you’re a hard-core adherent of Henry Kissinger and realpolitik and want to the U.S. to act only to advance its interests without regard to moral and ethical questions – the foolishness of this approach is manifest. It’s what the U.S. has been doing, so disastrously, in that part of the world for decades: feigning support for democracy while working against it.
The Obama administration paid pretty lip service to the Egyptian revolution but then worked to install Mubarak’s chief torturer Omar Suleiman in power, who, for obvious reasons, is viewed with great disfavor among Egyptians. That propaganda ruse fooled one of its chief targets (the American electorate) but failed miserably among Egyptians, who knew exactly what the U.S. was up to. As a result, Egyptians now view the U.S. even more unfavorably than they did during the Bush years, while “more Egyptians — 64 percent — said they had low or no confidence in President Obama in 2011 than they did last year, up five percentage points.”
Nothing will ensure ongoing anti-American sentiment in Egypt (and the Muslim world generally) than following the approach prescribed by Alterman of working actively to impede democracy. Egyptians yearn for democracy and will scorn those who impede it. That they continue so bravely to protest in the streets even with Mubarak gone is dispositive proof of that fact, but for those who want empirical data: in the 2011 Pew poll, 71% of Egyptians say “democracy is preferable to any other kind of government,” while only 17″% say that “in some circumstances, a nondemocratic government can be preferable.” In other words, the vast majority of Egyptians do not want Alterman’s “murkier” framework where military rule “balances” democracy; they want democracy. In this extremely informative analysis of the current situation in Egypt, Issandr El Amrani notes: “The military’s claim to be guardian of the revolution has been weakening since soon after Mubarak was toppled.” While the U.S. Government can trick Americans into believing that the U.S. is on the side of Freedom and Democracy even as it works against it, it cannot fool the citizens in those nations it seeks to suppress.
Alterman claims that he wants to impede Egyptian democracy in the name of “what Egyptians, and Americans, need” — right: because Jon Alterman and his fellow denizens in America’s National Security priesthood want only what’s best for The Egyptian People, and that means preventing them from living autonomously. But one need not even bother with that pretense to see the huge deficiency in this approach. Having the U.S. impede democracy in Egypt no more fulfills what “Americans need” than it does what “Egyptians need.” It’s a self-perpetuating, self-inflicted dilemma: the more the U.S. impedes democracy in other nations, the more it is disliked in those nations, which in turn means it needs even more to impede democracy in those nations, etc. ad infinitum. This is exactly the behavior (along with blind support for the actions of the Israeli government) that has led to such vast anti-American sentiment (which in turn is what fuels Terrorism and support for it).
It’s just extraordinary how our nation’s Foreign Policy Experts never learn the lesson. Either that, or they view anti-American sentiment in that part of the world as an agenda-enabling positive. It’s hard to know which is worse.
by JackRiddler » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:48 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa- ... print=true
Africa
17 October 2011 Last updated at 07:44 ET
Q&A: Tunisia elections
Tunisian voters head to the polls on 23 October to vote in the first comprehensive general election to emerge from the "Arab Spring" - this year's pro-democracy protests in North Africa and the Middle East.
The elections follow the ousting of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and his Democratic Constitutional Rally (RCD) this January, after 23 years in power.
Voters will choose representatives for the new Constituent Assembly which will draw up a new constitution and appoint a new transitional government until further elections return a permanent government.
Why are these elections significant?
The elections are hugely significant in Tunisia because of the almost unfettered remit of the Assembly and the influence this will have on Tunisia's political future.
It is also of huge interest to outside observers and other Arab states with democratic ambitions of their own. A free, fair and peaceful election is likely to further encourage democratic movements in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere.
External powers will also be keeping a keen eye on Tunisia's future political make-up, particularly the performance of Islamist parties. Tunisia has been run by a transitional government since the overthrow of Mr Ben Ali.
What will the Assembly do?
The Constituent Assembly will have a one-year mandate to draft a constitution.
It is free to decide how it goes about drafting the constitution and whether it will subject it to a referendum.
The original constitution, dating from 1959, was heavily weighted in favour of the president.
The Assembly is also expected to appoint the transitional government of the country for the duration of its term.
How do the elections work?
Voters are choosing 217 members for the Constituent Assembly.
Of these, 199 seats will be contested in 27 constituencies in Tunisia and 18 seats will be marked for Tunisians abroad voting in six overseas constituencies.
Under the system of proportional representation, individual parties have already stated in which order their candidates will take up the party's share of the seats in each constituency. Half the candidates on each list must be women.
What are the main parties?
Ennahdha (The Renaissance) is an Islamist party which is widely acknowledged as having the largest support network and public profile of all the Tunisian parties. It is expected to win the largest number of seats.
Ennahdha was previously banned under Mr Ben Ali, and its leader, Rached Ghannouchi, recently returned home from 20 years in exile in the UK. Mr Ghannouchi has said that his party would "respect democracy and modernity", adding that his movement was one that could "find a balance between modernity and Islam".
He also promised to show tolerance towards "women's equality and liberal moral attitudes". Tunisia is considered one of the most liberal Arab countries, with high levels of female participation in public and political life.
The Progressive Democratic Party (PDP) is the most well-established secular party and was one of the few that were legal under Mr Ben Ali. Its founder and spiritual leader, Naguib Chebbi, has been Tunisia's regional development minister since January.
He had been barred from running in the 2009 presidential elections. The party, which describes itself as social-democratic, has been less than enthusiastic about the prospect of sharing power with Ennahdha but has not rejected it outright.
The Democratic Forum for Labour and Liberties, or Ettakatol, is a social democratic party which has been gaining ground in recent weeks and is now almost level with the PDP in the opinion polls. Its leader, Mustafa Ben Jafar, was briefly health minister this year.
Ettakatol was founded in 1994 but did not become a legally registered party until 2002. Its stated core values are transparency and openness and the party has said it is willing to form coalitions with other democratic parties.
How have the media covered the elections?
The Higher Independent Authority for the Elections (ISIE) has banned "comments and journalistic analyses directly or indirectly related to the elections" although political commentary is still appearing in Tunisian papers. The commission said the ban was due to the "lack of a legal framework regulating the running of opinion polls of a political nature".
Tunisia's independent media reform body, the National Council for Media and Communication Reform, pushed the interim government to pass two new decrees before the election to guarantee free and fair coverage. Political advertising has been banned since 12 September.
Who is monitoring the elections?
Because of the significance of these elections and the widespread belief that transgressions occurred in previous ones, there will be a large internal and external observer presence.
Formal Tunisian observation efforts will be organised by the Higher Independent Authority for the Elections (ISIE) but a number of civil society-led initiatives have also emerged. International elections observers include an EU mission as well as two US organizations, the Carter Centre and the Republican Institute.
Both organizations were considered controversial by Tunisians as both oversaw elections in Iraq and Afghanistan where wide irregularities were reported. ISIE chief Kamel Jendoubi says there will be about 5,000 election observers in total, with over 1,000 of them being foreigners.
Have the elections gone smoothly so far?
The elections were delayed by three months because of voter registration issues which saw 400,000 Tunisians with outdated ID cards unable to register in time.
Voter registration turnout for the October election has still been lower than expected. After the initial registration period was extended, 3,882,727 Tunisians - around 55% of the total number of Tunisians eligible to vote - were registered.
Eventually it was decided that domestic voters, including those who had not registered, could vote with their ID cards on the day.
BBC © 2012 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa- ... print=true
Africa
28 October 2011 Last updated at 10:06 ET
Tunisia's Islamists 'reaffirm commitment to women'
The leader of the Islamist party that won the most seats in Tunisia's elections has said women's social gains would not be reversed.
Ennahda leader Rachid Ghannouchi promised to strengthen the role of women in Tunisian politics.
Mr Ghannouchi appealed for calm in Sidi Bouzid where violent protests broke out after election officials disqualified candidates from a rival party.
Tunisian troops fired in the air to disperse hundreds of protesters.
There were no reports of casualties.
The BBC's Chloe Arnold, in North Africa, says the protests have marred what was otherwise praised by international observers as a peaceful, free and fair election on Sunday.
Policy change fears
Since its victory in Sunday's vote, Ennahda has sought to reassure secularists and investors, nervous about the prospect of Islamists holding power in one of the Arab world's most liberal countries, by saying it would not ban alcohol, stop tourists wearing bikinis on the beaches or impose Islamic banking.
But despite the reassurances, Ennahda's victory is causing concern in some parts of Tunisia, who fear the party could later change its policies, our correspondent says.
"Ennahda reaffirms its commitment to the women of Tunisia, to strengthen their role in political decision-making, in order to avoid any going back on their social gains," Mr Ghannouchi said at a news conference.
No attempt would be made to force women to wear the headscarf, including in government, he added.
The party, which won more than 41% of the vote and 90 seats in the 217-member parliament, is in coalition talks, reportedly with its nearest rivals, the CPR and Ettakatol.
Correspondents say both are left-wing secularist parties which have insisted they will maintain Tunisia's Muslim identity.
'Ben Ali link'
Violent protests broke out in the southern city of Sidi Bouzid overnight after candidate lists from the fourth-placed Popular List were disqualified.
Protesters smashed doors and windows of the Ennahda headquarters in the town, attacked local government headquarters and burned tyres on the streets.
Troops fired tear gas and shots in the air to disperse the protesters.
A nighttime curfew has been imposed on the town from 18:00 until 04:00 GMT, officials said.
Mr Ghannouchi said the violence was provoked by forces linked to ousted President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, Reuters news agency reported.
Popular List is led by London-based businessman Hachemi Hamdi.
One of the disqualified lists was headed by an ex-member of the former governing party, the Rally for Constitutional Democracy, prompting claims in the media that Mr Hamdi was a supporter of the former president.
Sidi Bouzid is the birthplace of the unrest which erupted earlier this year, triggering the Arab Spring uprisings. In December last year, street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself alight in protest at harassment from the authorities.
He died in January 2011, a few weeks before large-scale street protests forced long-time President Ben Ali to stand down.
BBC © 2012 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/28/ ... ng-tunisia’s-elections-results/print
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
Weekend Edition October 28-30, 2011
Flowering of the Arab Spring
Understanding Tunisia’s Elections Results
by ESAM AL-AMIN
In early 1994 a small Islamic think tank affiliated with the University of South Florida (USF) planned an academic forum to host Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of the main opposition party in Tunisia, Ennahdha. The objective of this annual event was to give Western academics and intellectuals a rare opportunity to engage an Islamically-oriented intellectual or political leader at a time when the political discourse was dominated by Samuel Huntington’s much hyped clash of civilizations thesis.Shortly after the public announcement of the event, pro-Israeli groups and advocates led by Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, the head of the local B’nai B’rith, and a small-time journalist for the local rightwing newspaper began a coordinated campaign to discredit the event and scare the university.
According to Arthur Lowrie, a former State Department official who was an adjunct professor at USF at the time, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups exerted enormous pressure on the State Department to rescind its visa to Ghannouchi two weeks after it was issued in London. Consequently the university had to cancel the event, despite the strong protests by more than two-dozen scholars and academics. As a result, a valuable encounter between western intellectuals and opinion makers on the one hand, and a major figure in the Islamic world on the other, was obstructed because of a foreign agenda of a small but powerful interest group. This episode foreshadowed the anti-intellectual movement in subsequent years that sought to limit the ability of Islamic groups and figures to contribute to the national dialogue, especially after 9/11.
Since that day in 1994, Ghannouchi has never been issued a visa to enter the United States, although he had been to the country several times in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At the time, he was living in the United Kingdom after being granted political asylum and cleared by the British authorities of any links to violence. He had also won a defamation lawsuit in the U.K. against detractors and regime loyalists who accused him of fomenting violence and strife inside Tunisia.
Seventeen years later, Ghannouchi’s Islamically-oriented Ennahdha movement has won the elections in Tunisia with a commanding 42 percent of the vote. In effect, it received three times as many seats as the next highest party. These elections were largely praised by all relevant parties and international observers as democratic, free, fair, and transparent.
But these free and fair elections could not have taken place without the popular revolution that erupted last December17 in Sidi Bouzid following decades of repression and rampant corruption. It quickly spread throughout the country, ultimately culminating on January 14 when the long-time dictator Zine al-Abdine Ben Ali and his family fled to Saudi Arabia.
Since Tunisia’s independence from France in 1956, the country has been ruled by a one-party system that imposed its autocratic version of strict secularism. But when Ben Ali took power in a bloodless coup in 1987, he treated the country to a brief period of political openness until the security apparatus cracked down on all political opposition, particularly Ennahdha and other pro-democracy and human rights groups.
So who were the major contenders in these elections? What was the main platform of each party? How did each one fair in the end? What do the results mean for Tunisia? And what happens next?
On October 23rd, Tunisians went to the polls for the first time since their revolution to elect a Constituent National Assembly (CNA) consisting of 217 seats, including 18 representing more than one million expatriates living abroad, out of 11 million Tunisians. The main role of the CNA is to write a new constitution for Tunisia that embodies the democratic aspirations of the popular revolution.
There were about 91 party lists as well as independents distributed over 27 geographical districts around the country and 6 districts abroad, mainly in Europe. According to the Tunisian Independent Elections Commission, the voter turnout exceeded all estimates, as nearly ninety percent of all registered voters participated, with some waiting as long as four hours to cast their votes. Amidst the dozens of lists, there were actually four major contenders. But a win of nine percent of the votes by a newly formed party with questionable leadership, was a major surprise to all political observers in Tunisia. Here is a list of the elections’ major winners and losers.
1) Ennahdha Party was the successor to the Tunisian Islamic Trend Movement that was once affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s and has been led by Ghannouchi, 70, since the mid 1970s. In 1989 it changed its name to Ennahdha or Renaissance Party and declared its commitment to democracy and pluralism. The movement considers itself a moderate Islamic party concerned with the preservation of Tunisia’s identity as an Arab and Islamic nation. For much of the past decade it has called for a political model similar to the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Prime Minister Recep Tayeb Erdogan in Turkey. More recently, it has advocated the accommodation of liberal and secular-humanist values with Islamic principles, especially in social and economic spheres. It also favors a parliamentary system of government.
After almost gaining a fifth of the vote in the 1989 elections, Ben Ali banned the movement and cracked down on its institutions, imprisoning around thirty thousand of its members over the span of two decades. As the main opposition group in the past three decades, Ennahdha was well organized and known throughout the country. Its leaders were respected and admired not only in urban centers but also in rural areas. Consequently, in this election it won overwhelmingly in all districts but one, gaining 90 seats, including half the seats abroad.
2) Congress for the Republic (CFR). Established in 2001 it has been led by Moncef Marzouki, 66, a charismatic physician and human rights advocate. The CFR is considered a leftist party that emphasizes Arab nationalism and identity as well as mainly secular values. Moreover, it calls for public accommodation of moderate Islamic principles and groups. It also advocates for a presidential system with strong parliamentary powers. Marzouki is well known for his fierce advocacy of human rights, democracy and transparency. CFR came in second in voting, receiving 30 seats across the country.
3) Block (Takattol) for Labor and Liberties. Established in 1994 by progressive and leftist activists and professionals, Takattol rejected dictatorship and advocated for socialist and nationalist policies. Its leader is Mustafa Bin Jaafar, 71, who was named Health Minister in the cabinet appointed shortly after the revolution. Although very secular in its policies, it recognizes the importance of Islam in society and has a moderate and accommodationist view on the inclusion of political Islam in public life. It gained 21 seats in the elections.
4) The Progressive Democratic Party (PDP). Established in 1998, PDP was considered the main opposition party challenging the corrupt ruling party during the reign of Ben Ali. It advocated strict secular principles and was regarded as the main ideological nemesis of Ennahdha. Its historical leader was Ahmad Nejib Chabbi, 67, a well known attorney, and leftist politician. Since 2006 it has been led by Maya Jribi, 51, a biologist, human rights activist, and a feminist with enormous political skills. During the campaign PDP leaders challenged Ennahdha and pledged to come first. However, it was crushed in the elections receiving only 17 seats. After the elections it conceded defeat and congratulated Ennahdha, but vowed not to join any governing coalition and to remain in the opposition.
5) Popular List (Al-Aridha Chabiyya). The elections result of this list was a complete surprise to all observers. This list, which has only existed for few months, was led by Al-Hashmi Al-Hamdi, the owner of a TV satellite channel based in London and a former Ennahdha member who broke with the group in the mid 1990s. Since then he has openly attacked Ennahdha and worked closely with Ben Ali’s regime. His group gained 19 seats in the elections.
Many political observers charge that this party was financed and supported by the remnants of the old regime and Ben Ali’s banned Constitutional Party. After announcing the results, the Elections Commission invalidated the seats of the Popular List in six districts charging the party with elections violations, including bribery.
The remaining seats were distributed over twenty other parties including tribal, liberal, communist, and other far-left parties. But most significantly the main loser was the coalition of eleven rigidly anti-Islamic secular parties and former communists under the name the Democratic Modernist Pole (DMP). Throughout the country DMP could not garner more than five seats.
The huge win by Ennahdha, followed by CFR represents a total break from the parties and political movements of the corrupt and repressive era of Ben Ali. The collective will of the Tunisian people as embodied by the results of this election was to empower the main groups that associated strongly with moderate Islamic principles and Arab-Islamic identity.
By choosing moderate political groups that were not corrupt or part of the old archaic political structure, the Tunisian people sent an unsmbiguous message that they want moderate Islamists and secularists to work together in establishing democratic governance and building a just socio-economic system, while preserving hard-won freedoms and liberties, as well as respecting human rights and the Arab-Islamic identity of Tunisia.
Upon winning the elections in convincing fashion, Ennahdha gave assurances that it will not impose Islamic social and moral edicts on society, but rather intends to preserve the legal rights given to women with regards to personal status law. It also announced that it would not ban alcohol or bathing suits as its opponents had charged. The day after announcing the elections results Ghannouchi himself met with the leaders of Tunisia’s stock market to assure them of his party’s strong support for vigorous economic growth, especially in the tourism sector. His party’s platform calls for a robust annual economic growth of eight percent.
Ennahdha announced that its Secretary General Hamadi Jebali, 62, a former journalist and engineer by training, would be its candidate for prime minister. He pledged to form a national unity government within a month that will include as many of the elected parties as possible. At minimum, the three major winners with a commanding majority of 141 seats have pledged to work together for the future of Tunisia. Furthermore, in a spirit of reconciliation Jebali announced that Ennahdha’s candidate for interim president would be either Marzouki of CFR or Bin Jaafar of Takattol.
But the major challenges facing the next government are three-fold. Not only should Ennahdha be able to form a unity government, but an effective government that will be able to deliver to the common man and woman in the street physical and economic security as well public services at a moment of tremendous political turmoil and social change. Luckily for the new government the economic challenge was softened this week when Qatar – as a state that has been at the forefront of supporting the Arab Spring – has pledged an immediate economic assistance package of $500 million.
Simultaneously, the elected Assembly must write the new constitution for Tunisia’s second republic within one year. Although the will of the Tunisian people was determined in this election by favoring a moderate Islamic movement and other moderate secular parties, how this might translate into a constitution that will yield a national consensus is a major undertaking and cannot be underestimated.
But perhaps the major immediate challenge facing the new government will be the reaction of the foreign powers, especially in the West, that for decades have been warning against the days where “Islamists” will be empowered.
The memory of the siege and boycott of Hamas following its victory in the Palestinian elections in 2006 is still very vivid. So far, the U.S. administration and its European allies have had a wait and see attitude, despite the noise coming from neo-conservative, Zionist, and right-wing circles. In a span of two weeks, Israeli leaders Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Tzipi Livni were warning the West against the upcoming “radical Islamic groups” taking charge throughout the Middle East and threatening Israel and Western interests.
The same old Islamophobic voices, that raised false alarms echoing Israeli hyped fears over twenty years ago and poisoned the atmosphere between the West and moderate Islamic groups, are back at it again. The real question now is: Have Western political leaders learned anything during this time or are we about to initiate a predictable sequel to the clash of civilizations?
Esam Al-Amin can be reached at alamin1919@gmail.com
by JackRiddler » Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:43 pm
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/06/ ... ants/print
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
Weekend Edition January 6-8, 2012
Sacrificing Principle to Expediency
The Arms Merchants
by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI
Arms sales are not as straightforward as one might think. For one thing, Russia and the United States are both eager to maintain their respective positions as the most successful merchants of death dealing devices. That causes them to sacrifice principle to expediency. And there’s a good reason why they are eager to sell lots of arms. It boosts their respective economies. And times were bad in 2010 and needed a boost in 2011.
In 2010 worldwide arms sales dropped by 38 percent from their 2009 levels to the lowest levels since 2003. In 2009 $65.2 billion in worldwide arms sales agreements were signed compared with $40.4 billion in 2010. Of those amounts the U.S. had $21.3 billion in arms sales whereas Russia had only $7.8 billion. Happily, 2011 turns out to have been a much better year. Projections for Russian arms sales for 2011 were more than $9 billion and by year’s end it had contracts to sell approximately $3.8 billion in arms to Syria.
The United States is not happy that Russia is supplying arms to Syria, a country of whose leader, Bashar al-Assad, the United States and other Western leaders strongly disapprove. Commenting on Russia’s selling arms to Syria, Secretary of State Clinton said in August 2011: “We want to see Russia cease selling arms to the Assad regime.” Russia is unaffected by her comments. It knows that to remain competitive with the United States in the arms sale competition it needs to sell arms wherever there’s a market. Since the United States is more principled than Russia, it does not sell arms to Syria. Instead it sells them to countries that it thinks are in tune with its goals on the international stage-like Iraq.
Iraq is the country the United States devastated in order to help it out. Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is its Prime Minister and we are happy to sell him arms. At the end of December 2011 it was disclosed that we were selling the Iraqi military about $11 billion worth of arms and training. We sell to Iraq because it is our friend. We refuse to sell to Mr. Assad because he is not our friend. Mr. Maliki, has let it be known that he supports President Assad even though Mr. Assad is busy slaughtering his citizens in order to keep them in line. Mr. Maliki supports Mr. Assad because Iran, a country to which the United States has not sold arms since Mr. Reagan was president, encouraged Mr. Maliki to befriend Syria. So now the United States is arming Iraq which is allying itself with Iran and supports Syria whom the U.S. thinks Russia should not arm.
A few weeks ago it was disclosed that that United States had put on hold a planned sale of $53 million of arms to the Kingdom of Bahrain. Bahrain has proved itself a good friend of the United States since it is home to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. Bahrain’s ruthless ruler is King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. He brutally put down an Arab spring uprising that took place in Bahrain beginning on Valentine’s Day in 2011. More than 40 of those participating in the uprising were killed by the King’s forces. Thousands more were imprisoned and brutalized. When news of the proposed arms sale reached members of the United States Congress, they demanded that the sale be put on hold pending a detailed report of what went on during the uprising to determine whether an arms sale to Bahrain was appropriate. As a result, the arms sale has not yet taken place.
King Hamad was aided by Saudi Arabia in putting down the uprising. According to a March 15, 2011 report in the Los Angeles Times, one month after the revolt began, “hundreds of troops from Saudi Arabia and police officers from the nearby United Arab Emirates. . . entered Bahrain at the request of the ruling family. . . .” to help put down the uprising.
On Christmas Eve it was announced that the administration would sell $30 billion in fighter jets and other arms to Saudi Arabia. This was part of a $60 billion arms sale that was approved by Congress in October 2010. Although the sale to Bahrain was put on hold, there was no need to put the sale to Saudi Arabia on hold since it is a REALLY good friend to the U.S. even though it helped King Hamad put down the uprising in his country.
There are some countries to which the United States will not sell arms-like Syria or Bahrain. It does not hesitate, however, to sell arms to their supporters-like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Go figure.
by JackRiddler » Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:57 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/world ... nted=print
January 14, 2012
Nobel Laureate Drops Bid for Presidency of Egypt
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
CAIRO — Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel-prize winning United Nations diplomat who helped galvanize the demands for democracy here, said on Saturday that he was dropping his presidential bid in protest over the military’s continued hold on power nearly a year after the ouster of the strongman Hosni Mubarak.
“The former regime did not fall,” Mr. ElBaradei said in a statement, arguing that the military council that took power in the name of the revolution had instead proved to be an extension of the Mubarak government. “My conscience does not permit me to run for the presidency or any other official position unless it is within a real democratic system.”
On the eve of the anniversary of the Jan. 25 uprising that forced Mr. Mubarak from power, Mr. ElBaradei’s announcement may help rally support for the protests planned for that day to demand the exit of the ruling military council.
Awarded the Nobel peace prize for his work as chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. ElBaradei is a widely admired and influential figure here, especially among liberals, and he was perhaps the only one to predict the Egyptian revolution in the weeks before its outbreak. His exit from the presidential race could also open the way for an endorsement that would strengthen the hand of another contender.
Activists here have speculated for months that Mr. ElBaradei might throw his support behind a candidate like Abdel Moneim Aboul el-Fotouh, a charismatic former top official of the Muslim Brotherhood who calls himself a liberal Islamist.
In practical terms, Mr. ElBaradei’s decision to drop out of the race was also a bow to the long odds he faced. Polls showed that many Egyptians harbored doubts about him. The years he spent in Western capitals as an international diplomat raised questions about his authenticity as an Egyptian, and he continued to travel extensively even after his return to Egypt. And the parliamentary elections set to conclude in the coming days, in which moderate and ultraconservative Islamists won about 70 percent of the seats, have illuminated the small base of support for secular-seeming Western-style liberals like Mr. ElBaradei.
He has criticized the military-led transition since it began last February, in part because of the military’s jumbled timetable for drafting a constitution and electing a president. Under the current plan, candidates are expected to begin campaigning for president even before the drafting and ratification of a new constitution that will define the duties, powers and requirements of the office.
The document is expected to be submitted to a referendum on the eve of the presidential election, by the end of June, while the military council is still in power. The council has repeatedly sought to use its control of the interim government to influence the drafting of the constitution in order to preserve special powers and privileges even after the election of civilian leaders.
In recent months, Mr. ElBaradei has repeatedly attacked the council for the brutality of its crackdown on protesters demanding an end to military rule; soldiers and security police officers have killed more than 80 demonstrators since early October. In his statement on Saturday Mr. ElBaradei also blasted what he called the inept stewardship of the interim government. “The randomness and the mismanagement of the transitional period are pushing the country away from the aims of the revolution,” he said.
But Mr. ElBaradei also said that he would continue to agitate for democratic change, continuing the catalytic role he has played since he returned home to a hero’s welcome at the Cairo airport in February 2010.
Mr. ElBaradei declared then that he would challenge Mr. Mubarak for president if the rules were changed to allow fair elections, a provocative gesture that was considered hopeless at the time, but challenging enough to land a less prominent figure in prison.
He helped found an umbrella group, the National Association for Change, which became a rallying point for many of the young activists who later helped lead the uprising against Mr. Mubarak. And he helped build crucial bridges between liberal activists and the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, previously the principal political opposition.
His sometimes aloof style disappointed those who expected fiery speeches and massive rallies. But Mr. ElBaradei appears to have been one of the few who publicly anticipated the revolt that forced out Mr. Mubarak. In a widely circulated online video he released weeks before the revolts broke out in Tunisia and then Egypt, Mr. ElBaradei bluntly told the Mubarak government that it faced its “last chance,” predicting “there will be violence.”
“A day of reckoning will come,” he said. “And I am asking the Egyptian people to keep a record of every case of torture and oppression and the violation of personal liberty.”
In an interview in December 2010, about a month before the uprising began, he repeatedly invoked his visits to the Tehran Hilton on the eve of the Iranian revolution in 1979. “Things were boiling underground, and that is what I see here in Egypt,” he said. “I would not be surprised if you saw violence in a couple of weeks, or in a month or two.”
by slimmouse » Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:46 pm
by AlicetheKurious » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:49 am
JackRiddler wrote:I like how despite that he gets the bum rap that he's out of touch with the people!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.