Blogs
UK pull out from Sangin
There has been much discussion in the press about the British pull out from Sangin in early July. It was the area in which the UK suffered its heaviest losses; around 100 deaths since 2001. Though only having a tenth of British troops in Afghanistan, it contributed almost a third of total British military losses.
In some ways, the move seems entirely logical – even routine. The US has recently increased troops in Afghanistan by 30,000 which means that the ratio of British to US troops has shifted and so the ratio of responsibilities should shift too. Furthermore, British troops need to consolidate the gains they have made in Central Helmand and freeing up troops from Sangin would help do that.
However, there are some worrying things to be noted from this episode. The first is the reaction from the military itself; they were insistent that it be called a re-deployment, and not a retreat. In some ways, by vehemently claiming it was not a retreat, the military actually made it look more like a retreat. The phrase “methinks he doth protest too much” really comes to mind!
Another area for concern is that many of the problems faced by British troops in Sangin are similar in other areas of Afghanistan. The volatile mix of clans around Sangin highlighted the lack of planning in Britain’s venture, as they did not have the adequate knowledge to deal effectively with these local tribes. The difficult terrain required more British helicopters, which never came. Local militants, who knew the lay of the land, were able to kill British troops through mastering two tactics, the use of the sniper rifle and the use of the Improvised Explosive Device (IED). Asked about the vulnerability of British troops in Sangin, Brigadier George Norton said: “We are all vulnerable to IEDs, but the insurgents are increasingly using long-distance small arms.” Major General Gordon Messenger, the Ministry of Defence’s chief military spokesman, said Taliban-led insurgents were resorting to what he described as an “increasing use of single shots at range”. The issue is, if British troops couldn’t think of adequate tactics to deal with this type of insurgency in Sangin, how can we have much hope for the rest of Afghanistan?
Finally, the reaction of the Taliban to this is absolute delight. Over and above the physical workings of the war, the war to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Afghans is raging. Afghan support for coalition troops is already very strained, not helped by the “collateral damage” by which thousands of Afghans have been killed. Now, what the Taliban will portray as a coalition failure, will further encourage ordinary Afghans to switch their allegiance; why wouldn’t they if they think the Coalition forces are beginning their retreat?
In some ways, the move seems entirely logical – even routine. The US has recently increased troops in Afghanistan by 30,000 which means that the ratio of British to US troops has shifted and so the ratio of responsibilities should shift too. Furthermore, British troops need to consolidate the gains they have made in Central Helmand and freeing up troops from Sangin would help do that.
However, there are some worrying things to be noted from this episode. The first is the reaction from the military itself; they were insistent that it be called a re-deployment, and not a retreat. In some ways, by vehemently claiming it was not a retreat, the military actually made it look more like a retreat. The phrase “methinks he doth protest too much” really comes to mind!
Another area for concern is that many of the problems faced by British troops in Sangin are similar in other areas of Afghanistan. The volatile mix of clans around Sangin highlighted the lack of planning in Britain’s venture, as they did not have the adequate knowledge to deal effectively with these local tribes. The difficult terrain required more British helicopters, which never came. Local militants, who knew the lay of the land, were able to kill British troops through mastering two tactics, the use of the sniper rifle and the use of the Improvised Explosive Device (IED). Asked about the vulnerability of British troops in Sangin, Brigadier George Norton said: “We are all vulnerable to IEDs, but the insurgents are increasingly using long-distance small arms.” Major General Gordon Messenger, the Ministry of Defence’s chief military spokesman, said Taliban-led insurgents were resorting to what he described as an “increasing use of single shots at range”. The issue is, if British troops couldn’t think of adequate tactics to deal with this type of insurgency in Sangin, how can we have much hope for the rest of Afghanistan?
Finally, the reaction of the Taliban to this is absolute delight. Over and above the physical workings of the war, the war to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Afghans is raging. Afghan support for coalition troops is already very strained, not helped by the “collateral damage” by which thousands of Afghans have been killed. Now, what the Taliban will portray as a coalition failure, will further encourage ordinary Afghans to switch their allegiance; why wouldn’t they if they think the Coalition forces are beginning their retreat?
Isolating Iran
Current attempts at dealing with Iran are based on the aim of isolating it from the rest of the international community. This is why the UN, as well as the US and EU, have imposed sanctions which seek to harm Iran’s international trade. The EU sanctions, approved on the 17th of July, seek to hit investment in Iran’s major source of income, the oil and gas industry. As a result of the UN sanctions, the UAE Central Bank told financial institutions in the UAE to freeze 41 Iranian bank accounts. Indeed, under pressure by the international community, the Dubai Financial Services Authority further warned companies to conduct risk assessment when dealing with banks and other clients domiciled in Iran. This is significant because trade between Iran and Dubai has historically been highly profitable for both countries. The effect of such sanctions and international pressure can be seen in the fact that trade between Iran and the UAE will halve to $6 billion in 2010 from 2008, according to Dubai’s Iranian Business Council. The US has imposed some of the harshest measures aimed at stopping any lucrative investment in to Iran. For example, any company that provides Iran with refined petroleum products will not have access to US markets. Such measures have meant that major companies have stopped investment in to Iran; we recently saw BP refusing to supply Iran Air with jet fuel.
However, the West has also tried more political and diplomatic measures in trying to isolate Iran. It has increasingly tried to undermine the alliances which Iran has made with other countries. China and Russia were the biggest thorns in the side of the West over dealings with Iran. The US soon realised that any attempt to isolate Iran would be severely damaged without the cooperation of these two powers. This is because they can block UN sanctions (through their veto in the Security Council), supply Iran with more investment (compensating for the effect of sanctions) and trade military goods with Iran. Indeed, in February this year, the Financial Times reported that China was set to overtake the EU as Iran’s largest trading partner. Equally alarmingly for the West, Russia has continued to supply Iran militarily; in 2005 Russia and Iran signed a £386 million contract for Russia to sell it 29 Tor-M1 missile systems. Russia has sold Iran a vast array of military equipment, including T-72 tanks and MiG-29 aircraft. Let us also not forget that the nuclear reactor at Bushehr is Russian built! It is therefore unsurprising the both Russia and China were initially reluctant to support sanctions on Iran. Early in 2010, China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi said, "Pressure and sanctions are not the fundamental way forward to resolving the Iran nuclear issue.”
However, both these countries did give in to international pressure and voted for the latest (tougher) UN sanctions. Russia in particular has recently been happier to tow the American line. Russian president Dmitry Medvedev even conceded on the 12th of July that Iran was closer to being able to make nuclear weapons. It is still unclear whether the planned shipment from Russia to Iran of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles (which would make an Israeli/US strike on nuclear targets in Iran much more difficult) is going ahead. China has maintained opposition to any unilateral imposition of sanctions such as the US ones. It is unclear where China will go from here but it seems unlikely, given economic ties, that China will allow any further measures against Iran. One effect of cooperation by Russia and China with the UN sanctions, however, is that the role of Brazil and Turkey has become an increasingly important issue. It is yet to be seen what impact they will have on resolving the nuclear issue, having both voted against the latest round of sanctions.
But whether or not the policy of isolating Iran is working, it is simply the wrong policy to adopt in the first place. What the West has not understood is that support for Iran’s defiant attitude is premised on the idea that Iran is surrounded by enemies. Since the early days of Western meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, many Iranians have felt manipulated, feeling that everyone always to get something out of Iran. An early sign of this was the British and American backed coup which removed Mussadiq from power in 1953. This was clearly linked to the nationalisation of the oil industry and led Iranians to believe that the West would do anything to maintain its strategic interests in Iran. The event which still generates anger amongst Iranians today is the Iran-Iraq war of 1980. This was a war which Iran fought in self defence, in which up to 1 million Iranians ended up dead and yet the US publicly supported Iraq and bankrolled their war effort. Not only this, but the USA actually attacked an Iranian civilian airliner (Iran Air Flight 655) in 1988, murdering 290 civilians. It is no wonder that Iranians feel that it is the West which is aggressive and threatening in light of these events. More recently, the US have surrounded Iran with its military. The US now has a military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia as well as use of military facilities in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. From an Iranian perspective, they are surrounded by around 200,000 US troops. In addition to this, members of the Arab GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) continue to buy large amounts of weapons from the US and the UK, further militarising the Persian Gulf.
In essence, the Iranian psyche is one of victimhood. It is the notion that Iran continues to suffer the shrewd attempts of the West to exploit it and remove its sovereignty. This is coupled with the fact that Iran is surrounded by Arab countries who all (except Syria) backed Iraq’s aggressive military expansion in to Iran in 1980. This is why trying to isolate Iran does not work as a policy in trying to stop their nuclear development, because it is that isolation which drives them to defy the West in the first place.
However, the West has also tried more political and diplomatic measures in trying to isolate Iran. It has increasingly tried to undermine the alliances which Iran has made with other countries. China and Russia were the biggest thorns in the side of the West over dealings with Iran. The US soon realised that any attempt to isolate Iran would be severely damaged without the cooperation of these two powers. This is because they can block UN sanctions (through their veto in the Security Council), supply Iran with more investment (compensating for the effect of sanctions) and trade military goods with Iran. Indeed, in February this year, the Financial Times reported that China was set to overtake the EU as Iran’s largest trading partner. Equally alarmingly for the West, Russia has continued to supply Iran militarily; in 2005 Russia and Iran signed a £386 million contract for Russia to sell it 29 Tor-M1 missile systems. Russia has sold Iran a vast array of military equipment, including T-72 tanks and MiG-29 aircraft. Let us also not forget that the nuclear reactor at Bushehr is Russian built! It is therefore unsurprising the both Russia and China were initially reluctant to support sanctions on Iran. Early in 2010, China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi said, "Pressure and sanctions are not the fundamental way forward to resolving the Iran nuclear issue.”
However, both these countries did give in to international pressure and voted for the latest (tougher) UN sanctions. Russia in particular has recently been happier to tow the American line. Russian president Dmitry Medvedev even conceded on the 12th of July that Iran was closer to being able to make nuclear weapons. It is still unclear whether the planned shipment from Russia to Iran of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles (which would make an Israeli/US strike on nuclear targets in Iran much more difficult) is going ahead. China has maintained opposition to any unilateral imposition of sanctions such as the US ones. It is unclear where China will go from here but it seems unlikely, given economic ties, that China will allow any further measures against Iran. One effect of cooperation by Russia and China with the UN sanctions, however, is that the role of Brazil and Turkey has become an increasingly important issue. It is yet to be seen what impact they will have on resolving the nuclear issue, having both voted against the latest round of sanctions.
But whether or not the policy of isolating Iran is working, it is simply the wrong policy to adopt in the first place. What the West has not understood is that support for Iran’s defiant attitude is premised on the idea that Iran is surrounded by enemies. Since the early days of Western meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, many Iranians have felt manipulated, feeling that everyone always to get something out of Iran. An early sign of this was the British and American backed coup which removed Mussadiq from power in 1953. This was clearly linked to the nationalisation of the oil industry and led Iranians to believe that the West would do anything to maintain its strategic interests in Iran. The event which still generates anger amongst Iranians today is the Iran-Iraq war of 1980. This was a war which Iran fought in self defence, in which up to 1 million Iranians ended up dead and yet the US publicly supported Iraq and bankrolled their war effort. Not only this, but the USA actually attacked an Iranian civilian airliner (Iran Air Flight 655) in 1988, murdering 290 civilians. It is no wonder that Iranians feel that it is the West which is aggressive and threatening in light of these events. More recently, the US have surrounded Iran with its military. The US now has a military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia as well as use of military facilities in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. From an Iranian perspective, they are surrounded by around 200,000 US troops. In addition to this, members of the Arab GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) continue to buy large amounts of weapons from the US and the UK, further militarising the Persian Gulf.
In essence, the Iranian psyche is one of victimhood. It is the notion that Iran continues to suffer the shrewd attempts of the West to exploit it and remove its sovereignty. This is coupled with the fact that Iran is surrounded by Arab countries who all (except Syria) backed Iraq’s aggressive military expansion in to Iran in 1980. This is why trying to isolate Iran does not work as a policy in trying to stop their nuclear development, because it is that isolation which drives them to defy the West in the first place.
Grassroots Efforts for Peace
With the focus so often on governmental policy, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at some grassroots movements for peace in Israel and Palestine.
Oasis of Peace (Neve Shalom / Wahat al-Salam.)
Situated between Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, this village community of 200 people aims to prove that Israel's Jews and Arabs can live peacefully side by side. Autonomous and self-governed, the village claims to have no political affiliation. Instead their aim is to construct an "humane, egalitarian and just society." To this end they have set up the School for Peace which educates young Arab and Jewish Israelis. In turn governed by a Jewish and Arab director, the school has educated some 35,000 students since it opened its doors for the first time in 1979. Their work is guided by four basic assumptions:
1.The beliefs and outlooks on which a person’s identity and behavior are constructed are deep-seated and stable, and generally resistant to change. Our work attempts to expose these outlooks and permit people to grapple with them.
2.The conflict rests on an encounter between two national groups, not between individuals; hence we see the group as having an essential importance, beyond the sum of the individuals comprising it.
3.The group is a microcosm of reality and thus offers an avenue for learning about the society at large.
4.The encounter group is an open entity, linked to and influenced by the larger reality outside.
The village also operates a humanitarian aid programme for those, primarily palestinians, who have been affected by the ongoing conflict.
Their website can be found here.
Also interesting to look at is:
The Parents Circle-Families Forum
The Muslim Council of Britain
A furore has emerged regarding the Muslim Council of Britain’s advice for state schools during the month of Ramadan. It recommends that schools reschedule swimming lessons during the month of Ramadan “as the potential for swallowing water is very high”. The report which also cautions against Muslims involvement in dance lessons can be seen in full below:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
See Page 31-32:
http://www.mcb.org.uk/downloads/Schoolinfoguidancev2.pdf
Given the current climate in the United Kingdom at the moment, the suggestions have attracted criticism from all quarters of the British media. It is interesting, however, to note the way in which different new outlets are critiquing the MCB’s recommendations.
The BBC’s online report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/stoke_and_staffordshire/10596808.stm
Daily Express: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/186387/Schools-forced-to-delay-exams-to-avoid-insulting-Muslims-at-Ramadan/
Also, fascinating is the comment sections on the respective articles by readers. This news report is hardly sensational; it follows on from countless other reports where it seems that the perception is that Muslims dictate much of the agenda in Britain. Of course this is silly. This report is after all, guidance. However, having made several trips to the Middle East over the last twelve months it is clear that MCB’s guidance is overbearing. Many commentators in the Middle East have spoken out, stating that in places like Damascus regulations such as avoiding swimming simply don’t exist. What then is the relevance of this article, apart from the cheap headlines it generates? Well, it does seem to suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain’s vision of Islam in Britain is not as adaptive as they would have us believe. The makeup of the MCB’s executive board has attracted much scrutiny in recent years, in particular, its Deputy Secretary-General made inflammatory remarks regarding Israel’s military (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/23/muslim-council-britain-gaza). The MCB does itself no favours. They continue to write reports that attract criticism, which in turn feed into the feeling of “Islamaphobia”. Nevertheless, whilst some of the negativity the MCB receives in unwarranted – recommending that primary schools pupils avoid swimming during Ramadan is ridiculous.
Rory Stewart: Afghanistan & Western Policymaking
He was born in Hong Kong and raised in Malaysia. He recounts tales of ham and cheese sandwiches followed by raft building deep in the Malaysian wilderness - aged four years old. He served in the British Army as an officer and studied at Oxford University reading History and Philosophy. Since then he has enjoyed a prestigious career in the Foreign Office - working in places such as Kosovo and Indonesia. He has penned two critically acclaimed books. He has walked over 6000 miles in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India and Nepal. At the age of thirty he was made Deputy Governer in a province in Southern Iraq subsequent to the US-led invasion of Iraq. In academia he has excelled holding the distinguished Directorship of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. And in 2010 he was elected to the UK parliament.
His name, if you do not know yet, is Rory Stewart. And this is only a brief sketch of his career and life thus far. Incredibly he is only thirty-seven years old!
And his analysis of Western policymaking, in particular, the much heralded "Afpak Strategy" is at times powerful:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/rory-stewart/the-irresistible-illusion
An Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu's Father
Follow the link below and read a fascinating interview with Bibi's father. Simply imagine the discussions at the kitchen table when Bibi was growing up. Whilst many of his father's sentiments are obviously not all shared by his son Bibi they do give an indication of the enviroment in which Bibi grew up in and do not bode well for an Arab-Israeli peace process under his leadership.
http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=803<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah: Some Sense at Last
In the last week the UK ambassador to Lebanon as well as an CNN Middle East Editor have been censured for their positive comments in relation to Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah since his death on the 4th July (the latter lost their job altogether).
The first part of this excellent blog by Andrew Exum is well-reasoned and addresses the issue in a manner that somewhat been missing in the last week:
Two Quick Thoughts on Unrelated Topics <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The first part of this excellent blog by Andrew Exum is well-reasoned and addresses the issue in a manner that somewhat been missing in the last week:
Two Quick Thoughts on Unrelated Topics <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
July 8, 2010 Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:22am 68 Comments
A CNN editor trying to express her admiration for Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah on Twitter is just silly. (The name and title alone are 42 characters!) One should not try and explain what seems to have been a nuanced opinion in a text message. Firing her for it, though, also seems silly. Also silly, though, is continuing to describe Fadlallah as Hizballah's spiritual mentor. That may have been kind of true in the 1980s but has probably not been the case since then. My guess is that the young and relatively undistinguished religious scholars who formed Hizballah's leadership in the early 1980s -- Musawi, Tufaili, Nasrallah, etc. -- needed someone of high religious stature like Fadlallah to beef up their Islamic bona fides.* Fadlallah, in turn, benefited from his relationship with Hizballah within civil war-era Lebanon. By the 1990s, though, both groups more or less outgrew one another. Fadlallah no longer needed Hizballah's support, and Hizballah no longer needed his blessing. Both Fadlallah and Hizballah had enough stature to stand on their own. Even Martin Kramer, who once wrote a long monograph on the man titled "Oracle of Hizballah", is highly sensitive to the way in which Fadlallah's stature and relationship with Hizballah has changed over time. Personally, I think Hizballah and Fadlallah are best understood as separate if overlapping phenomena within Shia Lebanon. Fadlallah's ministry and activities, for example, long precede those of Hizballah.
*I should add here that I am hardly the only person who has come to this conclusion. I do not have any citations handy, but I do not want to be accused of plagiarizing someone else's research either. So let me just say, again, that my take on this is not unique
It can be seen in its original format at:
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2010/07/two-quick-thoughts-unrelated-topics.html
Iran's Bloggers
Last week international media was united in condemning the Iranian government for sentencing Sakineh Mohammadi Astiani to death for adultery. Correctly the execution to be carried out by stoning was loudly criticized and under international pressure was halted. Fears are now growing for the safety of her son who was integral in starting the campaign to free his mother from the shackles of a regime that day-by-day is isolating Iran from the international community in a manner unprecedented since the darkest days of the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.
Whilst it is easy for the Western media to portray Iran as a soon to be nuclear pariah, care must be taken to remember that the regime is not always representative of the people. Some samplings of recent Iranian blogs testify powerfully to this:
Fariborz Shamshiri on Rotten Gods today writes:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
While these useless summits are held around the planet, Iran has become the only country in the world to go totally Green & we are proud of it.
Yet these comments are rare. I decided to do this blog on humour amongst Iranian bloggers. The website where Iranian bloggers write in English is pooled on http://www.iranianbloggers.com/.
However, whilst I found these three comments what is clear is that many of the blogs have simply ceased to be updated. Whilst many bloggers lose interest, many of the blogs on the website were critical and then just stopped being updated. Such developments could be innocuous, yet it must be the case that at the very least, a climate of fear has enveloped some would-be Iranian bloggers who are critical of their government.
A rough survey of the English blogs on the above mentioned website show that:
· There are 67 Iranian blogs writing in English.
· Of them only 15 have been updated in 2010.
· Five of them are writing on non-political topics - for example, technology and tourism.
· Two are writing from a pro-government stance.
· Only eight are active and critical of the government.Therefore, only eleven per cent of the blogs are active and simultaneously critical of the government.
No doubt this is not definitive analysis, the reasons to stop blogging are numerous. Nevertheless, combined with endless reports documenting the tightening of the media in Iran - this statistic seems to confirm these trends.
Qatar vs. Egypt in Sudan
On Sunday it was announced that Qatar is donating approximately $13.7 million dollars worth of humanitarian aid to Sudan’s conflict-plagued Darfur region. This has come after a flurry of Qatari economic activity in Sudan. Most notable is the Al Difaf project, situated on the banks of the Nile River, a prime location in Khartoum. The project stretches over 200,000 square metres and will comprise of offices, residential and retail units in addition to a five-star hotel. Nasser Hassan Al-Ansar, CEO of the Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company that is in charge of the project, recently addressed an audience pronouncing that the “Sudanese are our brothers and we are not strangers here. We are feeling perfectly at home here”. Indeed, Qatar is clearly “at home” in Sudan. In an economic environment that many Western governments find inhospitable, it is conservatively estimated that Qatar has pledged to invest billions of dollars in Sudan. Of comparable significance is Sudan’s role as mediator between the Darfuri rebels and the Khartoum government, traditionally regarded as Egypt’s prerogative in part due to its geographical proximity. So why does Qatar have a role in Sudan? Firstly, it must be noted that this development has happened with the blessing of the United States which views Egypt as too involved in Sudanese politics to act as an “honest broker”. For Qatar, such mediation offers a mean gaining prestige and recognition as a major player in Middle Eastern and international diplomacy (only last month, Qatar was accepted as a mediator in the border conflict between Eritrea and Djibouti). <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
However, Egypt has not relinquished its role as the mediator in Sudan without a fight. Angry editorials in Al-Gomhouriyya have accused Qatar of bribing the rebels to participate in negotiations. Likewise, the Qatari media have vehemently retaliated by ignoring any Egyptian-led breakthroughs. Qatar-based Sudanese Al-Raya columnist Hamed Ibrahim Hamid openly stated that Egypt’s motives for interfering Sudan were dubious: “A question arises that the Sudanese must answer before the Egyptians, namely, what Egypt seek in Darfur? Does it really wish to resolve the crisis through their latest initiatives, whose object, it contends, is to unite Darfuri armed movements? Both of these articles hint at positions articulated at the highest levels in both the Qatari and Egyptian political elites. Yet such polemic is unhelpful in the actual settlement of the Sudanese crisis. Egypt’s role as Sudan’s patron is inescapable and therefore must be respected. Nevertheless, precisely as a result of this Egypt is compromised. Therefore, the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the United Nations must persuade Egypt to, at the very least, remain silent whilst Qatar attempts to negotiate between the rebels and the Khartoum-based government in Sudan. Not do so endangers the tentative peace agreements that are already in place. If the participants in the Sudanese conflict are given mixed signals by the Egyptians even the referendum on Southern Sudan’s independence expected in 2011 could be endangered.
Sad little CNN story
"In case you missed this" writes Colin Bickler who forwards this item about the sacking of a CNN editor. Sad really. Sacked for an indiscreet tweet. We live in a Western World where media freedom is much impaired. Perhaps we should put our own house in order:
CNN Drops Editor After Hezbollah Comments - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/cnn-drops-editor-after-hezbollah-comments/?hp
CNN Drops Editor After Hezbollah Comments - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/cnn-drops-editor-after-hezbollah-comments/?hp
Broadcasting Conference Report
Attached, after much deliberation, are the final proceedings of the NCF Mid East Broadcasting conference held at the same time as the International Media Awards under the auspices of the International Council for Press and Broadcasting
Executive Summary for The State of Broadcasting in The Middle East:Conference Conclusions
The key difference between the established media and the blogosphere is that established media are accountable. This difference will develop as time passes because it maintains a raison d’être for the establishment as opposed to the radical internet citizen journalist. In the Middle East:
● Objective coverage Subjective reporting is not a problem peculiar to the Middle East. It is very difficult to find a truly objective channel, since all journalists operate within a cultural milieu. Fact-checking is essential in the West as well as the Middle East and whatever the source of information. What may appear to be a fair story for one group may appear intolerable to another. The job of the news editor is to try and balance the news report by, for example, the studio presenter interviewing people with differing opinions. Opinion and analysis is a separate branch of news, but the basic rules of good journalism still apply.
● While press laws are ostensibly designed to protect journalists, they can actually be used to hinder their work or even jeopardise their personal safety. This is particularly the case for local journalists who are not protected by large international media bodies.
● Political Interference is an ever greater problem. The two major satellites in the Middle East are Nilesat and Arabsat. Nilesat now carries around 540 channels. These providers are commercial businesses, which prefer not to control content, despite international pressure to stop the broadcast of extremist channels such as al-Zawra’. There is currently some discussion about creating a semi-judicial committee of satellite operators to oversee content and identify programmes inciting violence or racism. There has also been a decision in the League of Arab States under the terms of which the Arab Ministers of Information are to impose a set of ethical standards on broadcasters.
● The consequences of jamming. There is currently no cooperation between satellite companies to address the problem of signal interference. There is also no precedent on how to resolve signal interference carried out by a sovereign government. The major satellite providers should be encouraged to work together to establish similar codes of conduct and responsibility with regard to the stations they are carrying and oppose efforts by governments to limit broadcasts. As commercial enterprises, many of these companies are hesitant to sanction those few countries which jam broadcasts or otherwise attempt to prevent free transmission of programmes.
● The way forward for a freer press. An initial step in the development of this process would be the convening of an international meeting to expose the problems and advance common ground as a means of addressing them. This meeting would be held at a neutral site, so as not to prejudice its legitimacy.
● Media Credibility Index The conference recommends the creation of an audience driven Media Credibility Index. The Index would index media (in all formats) on the basis of: 1. Accuracy (with particular attention to un-sourced material) 2. Incitement 3. Balance 4. Sensitivity e.g. women’s rights, civil rights, children’s rights (the latter with regard to exposure to violent imagery) 5. Transparency (no hidden agenda)
● International Organisation. International efforts to defend journalistic freedom necessitate the creation of a new international body, an International Media Ethics Institute which would become a point of reference and research into media ethics and journalistic freedom. Member states of the United Nations would be encouraged to adopt measures to protect journalistic freedom, and in some instances to protect journalists physically. These might include offering asylum to journalists in their embassies.
● The Individual Broadcaster - Ensuring ethics in journalism are not compromised Disinformation and xenophobia are both worldwide phenomena hindering progress in broadcasting. An effective media ethics code is one way to tackle this problem. The workshop suggested the following elements should form part of such a code: 1. Write the facts as you see them 2. A story without a source is a source of trouble 3. A source is not a source when the story is based on rumour 4. When in doubt, cut it out 5. Prejudge no one 6. Be objective 7. Divorce comment from news and label it as such 8. Commentators are not exempt from the duty to be accurate 9. Never incite racial or religious division 10. Enlighten, lest we fail to understand one another
● Desensitisation Controversy over the desensitisation of children to sex and violence is not new. However, some satellite television channels in the Middle East repeatedly broadcast graphic real-life violence as a form of propaganda. A causal link between real life violence and repeated viewing of television violence has never been statistically proved
● Terrorist exploitation Satellite television can have the effect of exaggerating the reach of even a minor terrorist group, enabling it to spread its message to a much larger audience than previously possible. Following the December 2009 failed Detroit bombing, for instance, Internet footage from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was widely used by broadcast news networks, inadvertently dramatically exaggerated the group’s strength in the region.
The State of Broadcasting in the Middle East
The main objective of this conference, which was held to mark the first twenty years of Arab satellite television, was to draw together experts from the field of Middle East broadcasting in order to gain insights into the challenges and key trends in broadcasting in the region. The one-day conference was followed by a second day of workshops which tackled themes of objectivity, political interference, technical interference and disinformation. These were identified prior to the conference as the key areas of concern for those operating in this sphere.
Part 1: Summary of Conference proceedings
Session One Middle East Satellite Television: Objective coverage or media myopia? Chair William Morris Next Century Foundation. Panel: Jim Muir - BBC, Beirut Falah Al Thabhi, Al Hurra TV Iraq Jeena Al Ammo – Oman TV, formerly Al Hurra Ben Wedeman CNN
Session Two Political Interference - censorship, intimidation and assassination Chair Robin Williamson - International Communications Forum. Panel: Bahielden HZ Elibrachy – Ibrachy & Dermarkar, Cairo. Soran Aziz APTN (Alirqiya TV). Itai Anghel – Channel 2 Jihad Ali Ballout, Communications Manager, BBC Arabic
Session Three The consequences of jamming and of the deportation of journalists Chair Louisa Brooke - Senior World Affairs Analyst, the BBC. Panel: Salah Hamza – Chief Technical Officer, Nilesat. Adel Darwish – Broadcaster
Session Four Ethics of Broadcasting – the impact of xenophobia and disinformation
Chair Russell Twisk – Editor at Large, The Reader’s Digest. Panel: Maysa Baransi-siniora and Mossi Raz - Peace Radio Israel Abdalrahman Dheyab Abdullah- Al Sharqiyah Issam Abdullah – formerly MBC and BBC Arabic
• Session One: Middle East Satellite Television: Objective coverage or media myopia?
The main point emphasised by speakers in this session was that subjective reporting is not a problem peculiar to the Middle East and that it is very difficult to find a truly objective channel, since all journalists operate within a cultural milieu. If this is born in mind when viewing or using the raw data provided by media outlets in the Middle East then they will operate as crucial sources of information and primary data. Speakers agreed fact-checking is essential in the West as well as the Middle East and whatever the source of information.
There are also a number of other pressures that impact on the objectivity of any channel. These include commercial interests and political or ideological agendas. Funding is one way of influencing media. Falah al-Thabhi of Al Hurra said Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria use money to influence media in Iraq and thereby sway public opinion, He contrasted this with his own US government-funded station and said he had not encountered official pressure to conform to any specific agenda. Al-Thabhi highlighted further difficulties. Even while he felt no ideological or political pressure, he experienced suspicion among Iraqis of collaboration with foreign-linked media. This was the primary reason why the channel has been unable to give more comprehensive coverage of Iraqi Sunni issues. Before 2007, it was hard to make contact with Sunni figures and some of those who did appear on the channel were later assassinated. The Iraq case illustrates the challenge of maintaining objectivity and giving a platform to all sides in the midst of violent conflict. It also illustrates the personal risk taken by journalists in trying to ensure this objective coverage.
A further point raised was that while press laws are ostensibly designed to protect journalists, they can actually be used to hinder their work or even jeopardise their personal safety. In cases such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, the press laws tend to restrict rather than protect. In Egypt, the position of journalists is further undermined by the ongoing use of emergency laws. Ben Wedeman of CNN said that Egypt’s press laws are clearly severe, there is a tendency to use the wide-ranging powers accorded the police and government by the emergency laws to intimidate and legitimise intimidation, physical bullying and fining of journalists. This creates a climate of fear from which emerges a culture of self-censorship that hinders objective and honest reporting. This is particularly the case for local journalists who are not protected by large international media bodies.
• Session Two: Political Interference – censorship, intimidation and assassination
The first session identified the two main problems in objective broadcasting as foreign interference and censorship/intimidation. This was developed in the second session which addressed the degree to which the work of journalists is at risk of censorship and the journalists themselves are often the direct target of violence. Examples were given of the deliberate targeting of journalists in Serbia and Iraq. Beyond personal safety, the lack of freedom of speech and the tendency for television channels and newspapers to be owned or aligned to political blocs means that media are often used to influence the public rather than to simply inform.
Speakers identified a major new form of censorship - direct interference with satellite broadcasts though jamming. There has been massive growth in the number of satellite channels and there is increasing recognition of the potential of such channels, in combination with the spread of Internet technology, to reach more people. One result is the at least partial loss of government monopolies over media. A further result is the large number of extremist channels now being broadcast. The two major satellites in the Middle East are Nilesat and Arabsat. Nilesat now carries around 540 channels. These providers are commercial businesses, which prefer not to control content, despite international pressure to stop the broadcast of extremist channels such as al-Zawra’.
However, it has become increasingly clear that it is in their interest to adapt to new rules to maintain their profitability. Both regional and western governments are now pressuring satellite companies to play a role in controlling content. In the past standards of regulation have been weak and there is currently some discussion about creating a semi-judicial committee of satellite operators to oversee content and identify programmes inciting violence or racism. There has also been a decision in the League of Arab States under the terms of which the Arab Ministers of Information are to impose a set of ethical standards on broadcasters.
Despite these challenges, speakers argued that satellite television has had an impact on the social/cultural taboos that contribute to self-censorship and has challenged some political red lines. In some respects it has also had a negative impact - encouraging a quantity of channels of dubious quality, each of which is owned by someone who often has an agenda and is also concerned with being commercially successful. This pressure encourages channels to appeal to popular discourse. In Israel, there is a chauvinistic tendency among a portion of the media that runs counter to efforts for achieving a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
• Session Three: The consequences of jamming and of the deportation of journalists
Speakers in this session highlighted the need to tackle jamming of satellite channels if broadcasters are to overcome political interference. Salah Hamza of Nilesat pointed out that a signal cannot be blocked, but can be distorted by overlaying it with a signal at the same frequency. This means it is impossible to distort an individual channel, but only the signal of a whole bouquet of channels. So when BBC Persian was targeted on Eutelsat, fourteen channels in total were affected. One hour after BBC Persian was taken off air, the interference stopped. There is currently no cooperation between satellite companies to address the problem of signal interference. There is also no precedent on how to resolve signal interference carried out by a sovereign government. There are commercial reasons why a satellite provider would not want to prosecute a government and furthermore a government cannot be sued except in its national courts, Hamza pointed out. There is some pressure for satellite providers to boycott channels but generally there is reluctance on the part of the providers to act as a political entity.
On the question of the deportation of journalists, Adel Darwish noted that governments will often deport foreign journalists or correspondents, but also use subtler methods: not renewing visas; refusal to grant visas in the first place; or granting visas deliberately too late to allow a specific news even to be covered.
• Session Four: Ethics of Broadcasting – the impact of xenophobia and disinformation
The main focus of this session was the hindering effect of disinformation and xenophobia on achieving an Israeli Palestinian peace settlement. Maysa Baransi-siniora and Mossi Raz established the joint Israeli-Arab station “All For Peace Radio”. The channel, funded mainly by America, Germany and the Netherlands, currently has tens of thousands of listeners online. However, the impact is hard to measure. A decision was taken to split the frequencies – one for Arabic and one for Hebrew – and to tailor content to both sides.
Abdalrahman Dheyab, correspondent for the pan-Arab station Al Sharqiyah, also stood as a candidate in this year’s parliamentary elections in Iraq. He argues that since 2003, the new media system in Iraq often has made journalists victims and the media is being exploited for political reasons. Its prime objective is not to serve people but to influence them, he said.
Part 2: Outcomes of the Workshops
1. Government and Broadcasting: The way forward for a freer press. Led by Hon. Mark Hambley - Former Ambassador to Lebanon former US Spokesman for the Middle East: How do broadcasters respond to censorship, jamming, intimidation and deportation?
2. Broadcasting Organisations in a safer world: Mechanisms to foster balanced press coverage. Led by Adel Darwish - Broadcaster: How do broadcasting organisations maintain integrity around disinformation and political bias?
3. The Individual Broadcaster: Ensuring ethics in journalism are not compromised. Led by William Morris - The Next Century Foundation: How do broadcasting organisations reinforce peace and not hatred?
4. The Mission of Satellite Television: Governments have been challenged by satellite TV. Is that its purpose or is the BBC approach of attacking social taboos more pertinent? Led by David Powell – Deputy Head of the Media Outreach Center, US State Department
• Session One: Government and Broadcasting: The way forward for a freer press
The working group concluded that process to increase media freedom in the Middle East would be served by using an institutional model to promote journalistic freedom and integrity and to enshrine universally accepted principles concerning the safety and ability of the media to report freely, whilst undermining hostile state intervention in the media. An initial step in the development of this process would be the convening of an international meeting to expose the problems and advance common ground as a means of addressing them. This meeting would be held at a neutral site, such as the Initiatives of Change in Switzerland, so as not to prejudice its legitimacy in the eyes of foreign governments. The meeting or conference would then operate on the Davos model , and would include a wide-ranging variety of stakeholders:
• Columnists, journalists and other media practitioners, including bloggers, Internet news agencies, and other non-orthodox elements
• Commercial media groups
• Satellite broadcasters
• Print media
• Representatives of government,
• Representatives of civil society
• Technical experts
Improving the Media Environment
An improvement in the media environment in the Middle East would be facilitated by a concerted international effort, perhaps using the aforementioned conference or international meeting as a starting point, to combat the most overt form of negative state interference with the media. Such behaviour consists of, but is not limited to:
• Assassination
• Jamming
• Harassment and Intimidation
• Deportation
Media Credibility Index
One outcome of the conference would be the creation of a Media Credibility Index. The Index would index media (in all formats) on the basis of:
• Transparency
• Resourcefulness
• Ethical Code
• Accuracy of facts
A media credibility index would act as incentive for national governments to uphold journalistic freedom through both reward and censure. The process of censure and reward would impact upon the international standing of Middle Eastern countries, as most Middle Eastern countries do seek to develop and encourage a positive reputation within the broader international community.
International Organisation
International efforts to defend journalistic freedom within an officiated framework might necessitate the creation of a new international body, possible working under the auspices of the United Nations. One idea put forward was the creation of an International Media Ethics Institute which would become a point of reference and research into media ethics and journalistic freedom. Such a body would be able to compile a Media Creditability Index and act as bridge between non-governmental civil society and international government.
The International Media Ethics Institute would also produce research papers and engage members in sector-specific initiatives. The International Media Ethics Institute would also hold periodic (most likely annual) conferences covering media issues. The output of these conferences would be disseminated and live-streamed through satellite television the internet and social media.
By making maximum use of new media for propagation of conference output, the findings, conclusions and reports of the conference would further evade governmental censorship. Furthermore, if senior governmental figures from around the world were to attend such a conference, it would become increasingly difficult for individual governments to justify its censorship.
Member states of the United Nations would be encouraged to adopt measures to protect journalistic freedom, and in some instances to protect journalists physically. These might include offering asylum to journalists in their embassies.
In addition, governments should be encouraged to implement laws, rules and regulations concerning press freedoms and the sanctity of journalism as a profession. Many Middle Eastern governments, for example, have ample laws on the books which address these issues but which have not been brought into force.
Similarly, the major satellite providers should be encouraged to work together to establish similar codes of conduct and responsibility with regard to the stations they are carrying and oppose efforts by governments to limit broadcasts. As commercial enterprises, many of these companies are hesitant to sanction those few countries which jam broadcasts or otherwise attempt to prevent free transmission of programmes.
• Session Two: Broadcasting Organisations in a Safer World – Mechanisms to foster Balanced Press Coverage
This working group debated the question of whether news can ever be neutral or balanced? They concluded it is possible for news treatment to be neutral, but it cannot be guaranteed to be balanced, because everyone always has a “side” to take.
TV/ Radio:
Whilst it is preferable to make each news item balanced, this goal is often unrealistic and laden with many inherent difficulties: What may appear to be a fair story for one group may appear intolerable to another. The job of the news editor is to try and balance the news report by, for example, the studio presenter interviewing people with differing opinions on the subject in a report. Opinion and analysis is a separate branch of news, but the basic rules of good journalism still apply.
Training of Journalists:
A fund should be created to invest in the training of journalists. A committee should be established to ensure that this fund is administered correctly. In the UK, the fund would be administered by the journalists unions, NGO’s and other similar organisations. Some of the BBC licence fee could be apportioned to this fund. There could also be a membership fee for the fund. The fund would also enable journalists to conduct research.
The training of the journalists will be undertaken by a separate committee established under the umbrella of the fund. The journalists will be trained by experienced members of the International Media Council, the British media and NGO’s. Journalists should be brought over from the Arab world and trained in the UK for about one year. Apprenticeships should be set up to train foreign-based journalists and those within the UK,
• Session Three: The Individual Broadcaster - Ensuring ethics in journalism are not compromised
Disinformation and xenophobia are both worldwide phenomena hindering progress in broadcasting. An effective media ethics code is one way to tackle this problem. The workshop suggested the following elements should form part of such a code:
The Media Ethics Code:
1. Write the facts as you see them
2. A story without a source is a source of trouble
3. A source is not a source when the story is based on rumour
4. When in doubt, cut it out
5. Prejudge no one
6. Be objective
7. Divorce comment from news and label it as such
8. Commentators are not exempt from the duty to be accurate
9. Never incite racial or religious division
10. Enlighten, lest we fail to understand one another
It was strongly felt that an audience-driven Media Credibility Index might facilitate the development and implementation of such a code. Two indices were discussed as possible ways to facilitate this end.
The Media Credibility Index - Criteria:
1. Accuracy (with particular attention to un-sourced material)
2. Incitement
3. Balance
4. Sensitivity e.g. women’s rights, civil rights, children’s rights (the latter with regard to exposure to violent imagery)
5. Transparency (no hidden agenda)
The Iraqis in the group felt that a Media Credibility Index was of little value without a corresponding Media Freedom Index which focuses on the working environment. This should not be merely censorship focussed like that attempted by Freedom House, nor should it be merely press freedom focussed like that initiated by Journalists without Borders. This should be journalist driven. Thus:
The Press Intimidation Index - Criteria:
1. Assassination and violence
2. Legal repression
3. Denial (or delay) of visa rights
4. Loss of job (closure of bureau)
5. Denial of access to sources of Information
An independent, international body was suggested to take these ideas forward. Existing structures could implement it. Governments should be solicited to come on board in tangible ways (e.g. by agreeing to grant asylum in their embassies to journalists who become severely persecuted and whose lives may be in danger).
• Session Four: The Mission of Satellite Television - Governments have been challenged by satellite TV. Is that its purpose or is the BBC approach of attacking social taboos more pertinent?
This working group discussed the problem that many television channels in the Middle East exist only to further the political agenda of certain governments, groupings (religious, ethnic or political) or powerful individuals. These channels may propagate views from across the political spectrum. However, as the basic function of these channels is agitation and propaganda, the news content is often marred by disinformation, incitement and lack of balance.
Private enterprise
The group also identified the problem that private, profit-driven satellite television networks which have no national public service remit lack original content. The reason is that Western television programmes, often with much higher production values, can be licensed by a regional satellite broadcaster at a much lower cost than creating original content locally.
Furthermore, locally-produced content will either be made cheaply or be based on easy-to-export Western formulae, The “X Factor” format, for example, stimulated other pan-regional Arab talent shows. But local cultural development on television may be hindered by this lack of original programming. For the time being, local content is still predominantly produced by the established terrestrial TV stations.
Effects of foreign TV
The working group discussed the effect of satellite television in exposing the Middle East to Western culture and lifestyles, often in exaggerated or distorted forms. This cultural disparity between the domestic social order and imported western culture can cause frustration in certain segments of society. It can also give a warped view of Western culture, for instance leading many in the Middle East to consider Western women to have loose morals because of the way they are depicted.
Debate and Education
Exploration of social issues on satellite television has sparked more public debate in Middle Eastern countries of issues such as terrorism, female emancipation and religious freedom. Satellite television also has the capacity to educate: unbiased news coverage can educate the general public constructively, and socially-aware soap operas can educate the public about social issues in a less overt way. This means of debate can educate the young on subjects they are unable to discuss in the traditional family environment. However, the educational value of television stations dedicated to agitation and propaganda can be extremely detrimental to social development.
Desensitisation
Controversy over the desensitisation of children to sex and violence is not new. In fact, Plato proposed the banning of poets from the ideal republic, due to their ability to corrupt young minds. However, it is certain that television, particularly in multi channel format, can broadcast disturbing imagery at a vastly inflated volume and to ever expanding global audiences.
Some satellite television channels in the Middle East will repeatedly broadcast graphic real-life violence as a form of propaganda, incitement of value reinforcement, for example the broadcast of victims of Israeli aggression on the Hamas-controlled Al Aqsa TV. A causal link between real life violence and repeated viewing of television violence has never been statistically proved. But the working group discussed the use of such violence as a means of incitement, perhaps in conjunction with parental and societal influences.
Terrorist exploitation
Satellite television can have the effect of exaggerating the reach of even a minor terrorist group, enabling it to spread its message to a much larger audience than previously possible. Following the December 2009 failed Detroit bombing, for instance, Internet footage from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was widely used by broadcast news networks, inadvertently dramatically exaggerated the group’s strength in the region.
The Future for Middle Eastern Satellite television
The working group concluded that satellite television in the Middle East will likely continue to develop its local and pan-regional platforms. These two are not mutually exclusive and do not necessarily compete for the same broadcast space. Another likely variant to Middle Eastern broadcasting will be the growth in international partnerships between local and global communications providers such as BBC World or News International (which has not had significant market penetration in the region as yet)
Multi-platform broadcasting
In the future Middle Eastern broadcasting is likely to follow the pattern that has been set by Western media outlets in diversifying their output onto the Internet, digital radio, mobile phone and other forms of new media. Multi-platform broadcasting is likely the increase loyalty towards particular networks as consumers are likely to become attached to particular online formats. Both Al Jazeera and BBC Arabic now have substantial online presences and loyal consumer bases. Multiplatform news consumption has the effect of increasing the number of times content is accessed, but dramatically decreasing each individual viewing as consumers tailor and customise their media viewing to their own habits.
The growth in multi-platform broadcasting will force the advertising industry in the Middle East to adapt and possibly force the pan-regional satellite broadcasters into the ownership of individual wealthy investors. This will take place as the advertising industry in the Middle East adapts to the general state of uncertainty in which it finds itself during the transfer period form old to new media.
Humour and Satire
The satire and humour in Middle Eastern societies is notably absent from the air waves. The working group concluded that after many decades of authoritarianism, broadcasters are reluctant to engage to risk censure by satirical programming. Even when Middle Eastern stations are not subject to strict censorship or controls, the staff are still reluctant to engage in mockery of public figures and political humour.
This state of affairs is gradually changing, however, as the group heard. Palestine TV has introduced a satirical programme, which has become very popular. Kuwait’s recent banning of a political comedy programme, however, illustrates the long way to go before authoritarian culture allows space for satire.
Inward or outward looking?
Many in the region believe modern media will make the population more open to the outside world, since modern media works together with the process of globalisation. But the group concluded that the question of whether it will make the Middle East more outward looking or more insular is still open.
Executive Summary for The State of Broadcasting in The Middle East:Conference Conclusions
The key difference between the established media and the blogosphere is that established media are accountable. This difference will develop as time passes because it maintains a raison d’être for the establishment as opposed to the radical internet citizen journalist. In the Middle East:
● Objective coverage Subjective reporting is not a problem peculiar to the Middle East. It is very difficult to find a truly objective channel, since all journalists operate within a cultural milieu. Fact-checking is essential in the West as well as the Middle East and whatever the source of information. What may appear to be a fair story for one group may appear intolerable to another. The job of the news editor is to try and balance the news report by, for example, the studio presenter interviewing people with differing opinions. Opinion and analysis is a separate branch of news, but the basic rules of good journalism still apply.
● While press laws are ostensibly designed to protect journalists, they can actually be used to hinder their work or even jeopardise their personal safety. This is particularly the case for local journalists who are not protected by large international media bodies.
● Political Interference is an ever greater problem. The two major satellites in the Middle East are Nilesat and Arabsat. Nilesat now carries around 540 channels. These providers are commercial businesses, which prefer not to control content, despite international pressure to stop the broadcast of extremist channels such as al-Zawra’. There is currently some discussion about creating a semi-judicial committee of satellite operators to oversee content and identify programmes inciting violence or racism. There has also been a decision in the League of Arab States under the terms of which the Arab Ministers of Information are to impose a set of ethical standards on broadcasters.
● The consequences of jamming. There is currently no cooperation between satellite companies to address the problem of signal interference. There is also no precedent on how to resolve signal interference carried out by a sovereign government. The major satellite providers should be encouraged to work together to establish similar codes of conduct and responsibility with regard to the stations they are carrying and oppose efforts by governments to limit broadcasts. As commercial enterprises, many of these companies are hesitant to sanction those few countries which jam broadcasts or otherwise attempt to prevent free transmission of programmes.
● The way forward for a freer press. An initial step in the development of this process would be the convening of an international meeting to expose the problems and advance common ground as a means of addressing them. This meeting would be held at a neutral site, so as not to prejudice its legitimacy.
● Media Credibility Index The conference recommends the creation of an audience driven Media Credibility Index. The Index would index media (in all formats) on the basis of: 1. Accuracy (with particular attention to un-sourced material) 2. Incitement 3. Balance 4. Sensitivity e.g. women’s rights, civil rights, children’s rights (the latter with regard to exposure to violent imagery) 5. Transparency (no hidden agenda)
● International Organisation. International efforts to defend journalistic freedom necessitate the creation of a new international body, an International Media Ethics Institute which would become a point of reference and research into media ethics and journalistic freedom. Member states of the United Nations would be encouraged to adopt measures to protect journalistic freedom, and in some instances to protect journalists physically. These might include offering asylum to journalists in their embassies.
● The Individual Broadcaster - Ensuring ethics in journalism are not compromised Disinformation and xenophobia are both worldwide phenomena hindering progress in broadcasting. An effective media ethics code is one way to tackle this problem. The workshop suggested the following elements should form part of such a code: 1. Write the facts as you see them 2. A story without a source is a source of trouble 3. A source is not a source when the story is based on rumour 4. When in doubt, cut it out 5. Prejudge no one 6. Be objective 7. Divorce comment from news and label it as such 8. Commentators are not exempt from the duty to be accurate 9. Never incite racial or religious division 10. Enlighten, lest we fail to understand one another
● Desensitisation Controversy over the desensitisation of children to sex and violence is not new. However, some satellite television channels in the Middle East repeatedly broadcast graphic real-life violence as a form of propaganda. A causal link between real life violence and repeated viewing of television violence has never been statistically proved
● Terrorist exploitation Satellite television can have the effect of exaggerating the reach of even a minor terrorist group, enabling it to spread its message to a much larger audience than previously possible. Following the December 2009 failed Detroit bombing, for instance, Internet footage from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was widely used by broadcast news networks, inadvertently dramatically exaggerated the group’s strength in the region.
The State of Broadcasting in the Middle East
The main objective of this conference, which was held to mark the first twenty years of Arab satellite television, was to draw together experts from the field of Middle East broadcasting in order to gain insights into the challenges and key trends in broadcasting in the region. The one-day conference was followed by a second day of workshops which tackled themes of objectivity, political interference, technical interference and disinformation. These were identified prior to the conference as the key areas of concern for those operating in this sphere.
Part 1: Summary of Conference proceedings
Session One Middle East Satellite Television: Objective coverage or media myopia? Chair William Morris Next Century Foundation. Panel: Jim Muir - BBC, Beirut Falah Al Thabhi, Al Hurra TV Iraq Jeena Al Ammo – Oman TV, formerly Al Hurra Ben Wedeman CNN
Session Two Political Interference - censorship, intimidation and assassination Chair Robin Williamson - International Communications Forum. Panel: Bahielden HZ Elibrachy – Ibrachy & Dermarkar, Cairo. Soran Aziz APTN (Alirqiya TV). Itai Anghel – Channel 2 Jihad Ali Ballout, Communications Manager, BBC Arabic
Session Three The consequences of jamming and of the deportation of journalists Chair Louisa Brooke - Senior World Affairs Analyst, the BBC. Panel: Salah Hamza – Chief Technical Officer, Nilesat. Adel Darwish – Broadcaster
Session Four Ethics of Broadcasting – the impact of xenophobia and disinformation
Chair Russell Twisk – Editor at Large, The Reader’s Digest. Panel: Maysa Baransi-siniora and Mossi Raz - Peace Radio Israel Abdalrahman Dheyab Abdullah- Al Sharqiyah Issam Abdullah – formerly MBC and BBC Arabic
• Session One: Middle East Satellite Television: Objective coverage or media myopia?
The main point emphasised by speakers in this session was that subjective reporting is not a problem peculiar to the Middle East and that it is very difficult to find a truly objective channel, since all journalists operate within a cultural milieu. If this is born in mind when viewing or using the raw data provided by media outlets in the Middle East then they will operate as crucial sources of information and primary data. Speakers agreed fact-checking is essential in the West as well as the Middle East and whatever the source of information.
There are also a number of other pressures that impact on the objectivity of any channel. These include commercial interests and political or ideological agendas. Funding is one way of influencing media. Falah al-Thabhi of Al Hurra said Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria use money to influence media in Iraq and thereby sway public opinion, He contrasted this with his own US government-funded station and said he had not encountered official pressure to conform to any specific agenda. Al-Thabhi highlighted further difficulties. Even while he felt no ideological or political pressure, he experienced suspicion among Iraqis of collaboration with foreign-linked media. This was the primary reason why the channel has been unable to give more comprehensive coverage of Iraqi Sunni issues. Before 2007, it was hard to make contact with Sunni figures and some of those who did appear on the channel were later assassinated. The Iraq case illustrates the challenge of maintaining objectivity and giving a platform to all sides in the midst of violent conflict. It also illustrates the personal risk taken by journalists in trying to ensure this objective coverage.
A further point raised was that while press laws are ostensibly designed to protect journalists, they can actually be used to hinder their work or even jeopardise their personal safety. In cases such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, the press laws tend to restrict rather than protect. In Egypt, the position of journalists is further undermined by the ongoing use of emergency laws. Ben Wedeman of CNN said that Egypt’s press laws are clearly severe, there is a tendency to use the wide-ranging powers accorded the police and government by the emergency laws to intimidate and legitimise intimidation, physical bullying and fining of journalists. This creates a climate of fear from which emerges a culture of self-censorship that hinders objective and honest reporting. This is particularly the case for local journalists who are not protected by large international media bodies.
• Session Two: Political Interference – censorship, intimidation and assassination
The first session identified the two main problems in objective broadcasting as foreign interference and censorship/intimidation. This was developed in the second session which addressed the degree to which the work of journalists is at risk of censorship and the journalists themselves are often the direct target of violence. Examples were given of the deliberate targeting of journalists in Serbia and Iraq. Beyond personal safety, the lack of freedom of speech and the tendency for television channels and newspapers to be owned or aligned to political blocs means that media are often used to influence the public rather than to simply inform.
Speakers identified a major new form of censorship - direct interference with satellite broadcasts though jamming. There has been massive growth in the number of satellite channels and there is increasing recognition of the potential of such channels, in combination with the spread of Internet technology, to reach more people. One result is the at least partial loss of government monopolies over media. A further result is the large number of extremist channels now being broadcast. The two major satellites in the Middle East are Nilesat and Arabsat. Nilesat now carries around 540 channels. These providers are commercial businesses, which prefer not to control content, despite international pressure to stop the broadcast of extremist channels such as al-Zawra’.
However, it has become increasingly clear that it is in their interest to adapt to new rules to maintain their profitability. Both regional and western governments are now pressuring satellite companies to play a role in controlling content. In the past standards of regulation have been weak and there is currently some discussion about creating a semi-judicial committee of satellite operators to oversee content and identify programmes inciting violence or racism. There has also been a decision in the League of Arab States under the terms of which the Arab Ministers of Information are to impose a set of ethical standards on broadcasters.
Despite these challenges, speakers argued that satellite television has had an impact on the social/cultural taboos that contribute to self-censorship and has challenged some political red lines. In some respects it has also had a negative impact - encouraging a quantity of channels of dubious quality, each of which is owned by someone who often has an agenda and is also concerned with being commercially successful. This pressure encourages channels to appeal to popular discourse. In Israel, there is a chauvinistic tendency among a portion of the media that runs counter to efforts for achieving a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
• Session Three: The consequences of jamming and of the deportation of journalists
Speakers in this session highlighted the need to tackle jamming of satellite channels if broadcasters are to overcome political interference. Salah Hamza of Nilesat pointed out that a signal cannot be blocked, but can be distorted by overlaying it with a signal at the same frequency. This means it is impossible to distort an individual channel, but only the signal of a whole bouquet of channels. So when BBC Persian was targeted on Eutelsat, fourteen channels in total were affected. One hour after BBC Persian was taken off air, the interference stopped. There is currently no cooperation between satellite companies to address the problem of signal interference. There is also no precedent on how to resolve signal interference carried out by a sovereign government. There are commercial reasons why a satellite provider would not want to prosecute a government and furthermore a government cannot be sued except in its national courts, Hamza pointed out. There is some pressure for satellite providers to boycott channels but generally there is reluctance on the part of the providers to act as a political entity.
On the question of the deportation of journalists, Adel Darwish noted that governments will often deport foreign journalists or correspondents, but also use subtler methods: not renewing visas; refusal to grant visas in the first place; or granting visas deliberately too late to allow a specific news even to be covered.
• Session Four: Ethics of Broadcasting – the impact of xenophobia and disinformation
The main focus of this session was the hindering effect of disinformation and xenophobia on achieving an Israeli Palestinian peace settlement. Maysa Baransi-siniora and Mossi Raz established the joint Israeli-Arab station “All For Peace Radio”. The channel, funded mainly by America, Germany and the Netherlands, currently has tens of thousands of listeners online. However, the impact is hard to measure. A decision was taken to split the frequencies – one for Arabic and one for Hebrew – and to tailor content to both sides.
Abdalrahman Dheyab, correspondent for the pan-Arab station Al Sharqiyah, also stood as a candidate in this year’s parliamentary elections in Iraq. He argues that since 2003, the new media system in Iraq often has made journalists victims and the media is being exploited for political reasons. Its prime objective is not to serve people but to influence them, he said.
Part 2: Outcomes of the Workshops
1. Government and Broadcasting: The way forward for a freer press. Led by Hon. Mark Hambley - Former Ambassador to Lebanon former US Spokesman for the Middle East: How do broadcasters respond to censorship, jamming, intimidation and deportation?
2. Broadcasting Organisations in a safer world: Mechanisms to foster balanced press coverage. Led by Adel Darwish - Broadcaster: How do broadcasting organisations maintain integrity around disinformation and political bias?
3. The Individual Broadcaster: Ensuring ethics in journalism are not compromised. Led by William Morris - The Next Century Foundation: How do broadcasting organisations reinforce peace and not hatred?
4. The Mission of Satellite Television: Governments have been challenged by satellite TV. Is that its purpose or is the BBC approach of attacking social taboos more pertinent? Led by David Powell – Deputy Head of the Media Outreach Center, US State Department
• Session One: Government and Broadcasting: The way forward for a freer press
The working group concluded that process to increase media freedom in the Middle East would be served by using an institutional model to promote journalistic freedom and integrity and to enshrine universally accepted principles concerning the safety and ability of the media to report freely, whilst undermining hostile state intervention in the media. An initial step in the development of this process would be the convening of an international meeting to expose the problems and advance common ground as a means of addressing them. This meeting would be held at a neutral site, such as the Initiatives of Change in Switzerland, so as not to prejudice its legitimacy in the eyes of foreign governments. The meeting or conference would then operate on the Davos model , and would include a wide-ranging variety of stakeholders:
• Columnists, journalists and other media practitioners, including bloggers, Internet news agencies, and other non-orthodox elements
• Commercial media groups
• Satellite broadcasters
• Print media
• Representatives of government,
• Representatives of civil society
• Technical experts
Improving the Media Environment
An improvement in the media environment in the Middle East would be facilitated by a concerted international effort, perhaps using the aforementioned conference or international meeting as a starting point, to combat the most overt form of negative state interference with the media. Such behaviour consists of, but is not limited to:
• Assassination
• Jamming
• Harassment and Intimidation
• Deportation
Media Credibility Index
One outcome of the conference would be the creation of a Media Credibility Index. The Index would index media (in all formats) on the basis of:
• Transparency
• Resourcefulness
• Ethical Code
• Accuracy of facts
A media credibility index would act as incentive for national governments to uphold journalistic freedom through both reward and censure. The process of censure and reward would impact upon the international standing of Middle Eastern countries, as most Middle Eastern countries do seek to develop and encourage a positive reputation within the broader international community.
International Organisation
International efforts to defend journalistic freedom within an officiated framework might necessitate the creation of a new international body, possible working under the auspices of the United Nations. One idea put forward was the creation of an International Media Ethics Institute which would become a point of reference and research into media ethics and journalistic freedom. Such a body would be able to compile a Media Creditability Index and act as bridge between non-governmental civil society and international government.
The International Media Ethics Institute would also produce research papers and engage members in sector-specific initiatives. The International Media Ethics Institute would also hold periodic (most likely annual) conferences covering media issues. The output of these conferences would be disseminated and live-streamed through satellite television the internet and social media.
By making maximum use of new media for propagation of conference output, the findings, conclusions and reports of the conference would further evade governmental censorship. Furthermore, if senior governmental figures from around the world were to attend such a conference, it would become increasingly difficult for individual governments to justify its censorship.
Member states of the United Nations would be encouraged to adopt measures to protect journalistic freedom, and in some instances to protect journalists physically. These might include offering asylum to journalists in their embassies.
In addition, governments should be encouraged to implement laws, rules and regulations concerning press freedoms and the sanctity of journalism as a profession. Many Middle Eastern governments, for example, have ample laws on the books which address these issues but which have not been brought into force.
Similarly, the major satellite providers should be encouraged to work together to establish similar codes of conduct and responsibility with regard to the stations they are carrying and oppose efforts by governments to limit broadcasts. As commercial enterprises, many of these companies are hesitant to sanction those few countries which jam broadcasts or otherwise attempt to prevent free transmission of programmes.
• Session Two: Broadcasting Organisations in a Safer World – Mechanisms to foster Balanced Press Coverage
This working group debated the question of whether news can ever be neutral or balanced? They concluded it is possible for news treatment to be neutral, but it cannot be guaranteed to be balanced, because everyone always has a “side” to take.
TV/ Radio:
Whilst it is preferable to make each news item balanced, this goal is often unrealistic and laden with many inherent difficulties: What may appear to be a fair story for one group may appear intolerable to another. The job of the news editor is to try and balance the news report by, for example, the studio presenter interviewing people with differing opinions on the subject in a report. Opinion and analysis is a separate branch of news, but the basic rules of good journalism still apply.
Training of Journalists:
A fund should be created to invest in the training of journalists. A committee should be established to ensure that this fund is administered correctly. In the UK, the fund would be administered by the journalists unions, NGO’s and other similar organisations. Some of the BBC licence fee could be apportioned to this fund. There could also be a membership fee for the fund. The fund would also enable journalists to conduct research.
The training of the journalists will be undertaken by a separate committee established under the umbrella of the fund. The journalists will be trained by experienced members of the International Media Council, the British media and NGO’s. Journalists should be brought over from the Arab world and trained in the UK for about one year. Apprenticeships should be set up to train foreign-based journalists and those within the UK,
• Session Three: The Individual Broadcaster - Ensuring ethics in journalism are not compromised
Disinformation and xenophobia are both worldwide phenomena hindering progress in broadcasting. An effective media ethics code is one way to tackle this problem. The workshop suggested the following elements should form part of such a code:
The Media Ethics Code:
1. Write the facts as you see them
2. A story without a source is a source of trouble
3. A source is not a source when the story is based on rumour
4. When in doubt, cut it out
5. Prejudge no one
6. Be objective
7. Divorce comment from news and label it as such
8. Commentators are not exempt from the duty to be accurate
9. Never incite racial or religious division
10. Enlighten, lest we fail to understand one another
It was strongly felt that an audience-driven Media Credibility Index might facilitate the development and implementation of such a code. Two indices were discussed as possible ways to facilitate this end.
The Media Credibility Index - Criteria:
1. Accuracy (with particular attention to un-sourced material)
2. Incitement
3. Balance
4. Sensitivity e.g. women’s rights, civil rights, children’s rights (the latter with regard to exposure to violent imagery)
5. Transparency (no hidden agenda)
The Iraqis in the group felt that a Media Credibility Index was of little value without a corresponding Media Freedom Index which focuses on the working environment. This should not be merely censorship focussed like that attempted by Freedom House, nor should it be merely press freedom focussed like that initiated by Journalists without Borders. This should be journalist driven. Thus:
The Press Intimidation Index - Criteria:
1. Assassination and violence
2. Legal repression
3. Denial (or delay) of visa rights
4. Loss of job (closure of bureau)
5. Denial of access to sources of Information
An independent, international body was suggested to take these ideas forward. Existing structures could implement it. Governments should be solicited to come on board in tangible ways (e.g. by agreeing to grant asylum in their embassies to journalists who become severely persecuted and whose lives may be in danger).
• Session Four: The Mission of Satellite Television - Governments have been challenged by satellite TV. Is that its purpose or is the BBC approach of attacking social taboos more pertinent?
This working group discussed the problem that many television channels in the Middle East exist only to further the political agenda of certain governments, groupings (religious, ethnic or political) or powerful individuals. These channels may propagate views from across the political spectrum. However, as the basic function of these channels is agitation and propaganda, the news content is often marred by disinformation, incitement and lack of balance.
Private enterprise
The group also identified the problem that private, profit-driven satellite television networks which have no national public service remit lack original content. The reason is that Western television programmes, often with much higher production values, can be licensed by a regional satellite broadcaster at a much lower cost than creating original content locally.
Furthermore, locally-produced content will either be made cheaply or be based on easy-to-export Western formulae, The “X Factor” format, for example, stimulated other pan-regional Arab talent shows. But local cultural development on television may be hindered by this lack of original programming. For the time being, local content is still predominantly produced by the established terrestrial TV stations.
Effects of foreign TV
The working group discussed the effect of satellite television in exposing the Middle East to Western culture and lifestyles, often in exaggerated or distorted forms. This cultural disparity between the domestic social order and imported western culture can cause frustration in certain segments of society. It can also give a warped view of Western culture, for instance leading many in the Middle East to consider Western women to have loose morals because of the way they are depicted.
Debate and Education
Exploration of social issues on satellite television has sparked more public debate in Middle Eastern countries of issues such as terrorism, female emancipation and religious freedom. Satellite television also has the capacity to educate: unbiased news coverage can educate the general public constructively, and socially-aware soap operas can educate the public about social issues in a less overt way. This means of debate can educate the young on subjects they are unable to discuss in the traditional family environment. However, the educational value of television stations dedicated to agitation and propaganda can be extremely detrimental to social development.
Desensitisation
Controversy over the desensitisation of children to sex and violence is not new. In fact, Plato proposed the banning of poets from the ideal republic, due to their ability to corrupt young minds. However, it is certain that television, particularly in multi channel format, can broadcast disturbing imagery at a vastly inflated volume and to ever expanding global audiences.
Some satellite television channels in the Middle East will repeatedly broadcast graphic real-life violence as a form of propaganda, incitement of value reinforcement, for example the broadcast of victims of Israeli aggression on the Hamas-controlled Al Aqsa TV. A causal link between real life violence and repeated viewing of television violence has never been statistically proved. But the working group discussed the use of such violence as a means of incitement, perhaps in conjunction with parental and societal influences.
Terrorist exploitation
Satellite television can have the effect of exaggerating the reach of even a minor terrorist group, enabling it to spread its message to a much larger audience than previously possible. Following the December 2009 failed Detroit bombing, for instance, Internet footage from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was widely used by broadcast news networks, inadvertently dramatically exaggerated the group’s strength in the region.
The Future for Middle Eastern Satellite television
The working group concluded that satellite television in the Middle East will likely continue to develop its local and pan-regional platforms. These two are not mutually exclusive and do not necessarily compete for the same broadcast space. Another likely variant to Middle Eastern broadcasting will be the growth in international partnerships between local and global communications providers such as BBC World or News International (which has not had significant market penetration in the region as yet)
Multi-platform broadcasting
In the future Middle Eastern broadcasting is likely to follow the pattern that has been set by Western media outlets in diversifying their output onto the Internet, digital radio, mobile phone and other forms of new media. Multi-platform broadcasting is likely the increase loyalty towards particular networks as consumers are likely to become attached to particular online formats. Both Al Jazeera and BBC Arabic now have substantial online presences and loyal consumer bases. Multiplatform news consumption has the effect of increasing the number of times content is accessed, but dramatically decreasing each individual viewing as consumers tailor and customise their media viewing to their own habits.
The growth in multi-platform broadcasting will force the advertising industry in the Middle East to adapt and possibly force the pan-regional satellite broadcasters into the ownership of individual wealthy investors. This will take place as the advertising industry in the Middle East adapts to the general state of uncertainty in which it finds itself during the transfer period form old to new media.
Humour and Satire
The satire and humour in Middle Eastern societies is notably absent from the air waves. The working group concluded that after many decades of authoritarianism, broadcasters are reluctant to engage to risk censure by satirical programming. Even when Middle Eastern stations are not subject to strict censorship or controls, the staff are still reluctant to engage in mockery of public figures and political humour.
This state of affairs is gradually changing, however, as the group heard. Palestine TV has introduced a satirical programme, which has become very popular. Kuwait’s recent banning of a political comedy programme, however, illustrates the long way to go before authoritarian culture allows space for satire.
Inward or outward looking?
Many in the region believe modern media will make the population more open to the outside world, since modern media works together with the process of globalisation. But the group concluded that the question of whether it will make the Middle East more outward looking or more insular is still open.
No stoning
Well here's good news. The girl who was slated to be stoned for adultery is to be spared. Stonings are rarer in Iran these days which is good.
Sakineh was convicted of adultery, like all the other 12 women and one of the men awaiting stoning. But her children and lawyer say she is innocent and that she did not get a fair trial -- they state her confession was forced from her and, speaking only Azerbaijani, she did not understand what was being asked of her in court.
Despite Iran's signing of a UN convention that requires the death penalty only be used for the "most serious crimes" and despite the Iranian Parliament passing a law banning stoning last year, stoning for adultery continues.
Sakineh's lawyer says the Iranian government "is afraid of Iranian public reaction and international attention" to the stoning cases. And after Turkey and Britain's Foreign Ministers spoke out against Sakineh's sentence, it was suspended.
Sakineh's brave children are leading the international campaign to save their mother and stop stoning. Massive international condemnation now could finally stop this sickening punishment. Let's join together today across the world to end this brutality. Sign the petition to save Sakineh and end stoning here:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_stoning/?vl
Sakineh was convicted of adultery, like all the other 12 women and one of the men awaiting stoning. But her children and lawyer say she is innocent and that she did not get a fair trial -- they state her confession was forced from her and, speaking only Azerbaijani, she did not understand what was being asked of her in court.
Despite Iran's signing of a UN convention that requires the death penalty only be used for the "most serious crimes" and despite the Iranian Parliament passing a law banning stoning last year, stoning for adultery continues.
Sakineh's lawyer says the Iranian government "is afraid of Iranian public reaction and international attention" to the stoning cases. And after Turkey and Britain's Foreign Ministers spoke out against Sakineh's sentence, it was suspended.
Sakineh's brave children are leading the international campaign to save their mother and stop stoning. Massive international condemnation now could finally stop this sickening punishment. Let's join together today across the world to end this brutality. Sign the petition to save Sakineh and end stoning here:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_stoning/?vl
Half a decade on from the "Cedar Revolution": What has changed?
Following the assasination of Rafik Hariri in February 2005 and the unprecedented mass demonstration in Beirut against Syria's overt influence over Lebanese politics, commentators familiar to the region heralded it as landmark in Lebanon's crisis-ridden history. The withdrawal of Syrian armed units from Lebanon as well as a promise from Bashar Al-Asad that the new political landscape in Lebanon would be respected, in particular, seemed to mark a divergence from the past. Nonetheless, much like the renaissance that Syria and its political elite has enjoyed since the dark days of 2005 (principally, a recognition of the fact that Syria is integral to any future Arab-Israeli Peace), the changes that Lebanon experienced in 2005 have also dramatically altered. There are many indications that seem to show that the crassly named "Cedar Revolution" was far from what its name suggested.
Saad Hariri's external and internal support, manifested in the March 14 coalition, has melted away as regional powerhouses such as Saudi Arabia have willingly prioritized reconciliation with Syria over respecting Lebanese sovereignity. In turn, those humbling treks that Nicholas Blanford impressively documents in Killing Mr. Lebanon have also resumed. Most notably, Walid Jumblatt, who once described Bashar Al-Asad as a butcher has made several trips to Damascus to meet Bashar and discuss the future of Lebanon (similarly, Saad Hariri has taken several members of the Lebanese cabinet in a similar vein to Damascus). Syria's proxy Hezbollah also continues to go from strength to strength in Lebanese politics. And within the March 8 alliance, Hezbollah wields 13 seats out of a total of 57 and there is no doubt that its arms gives Hezbollah additional influence to act on Syria's behalf (although this relationship is far from one of subservience). Even Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, who died yesterday, and is widely credited with being a spiritual guide for Hezbollah, recognized that Lebanon would be persistantly weak whilst the "state within a state" syndrome was perpetuated by Hezbollah. The simple reality is that many of the gains, such as the removal of the divisive and corrupt Rustem Ghazali (former head of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon) pale in comparison to the reality that Syria has been allowed to reassert itself in Lebanese politics as a consequence of regional powerplays that do not prioritize Lebanese sovereignity.
The paradox faced by the Obama administration and regional allies such as Saudi Arabia is thus: by reconciling themselves with the Syrian government in order to advance the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, isolate Iran and encourage Syria to curb its support for groups such as Hezbollah, Bashar Al-Asad and his advisors get more breathing space to act as they please to undermine Lebanon and consequently Israel's unease increases - making it more likely that another war on Lebanese soil will occur (although political commentators now see 2011 as a more likely year for confrontation given that Israel is aware of international opinion in light of the flotilla crisis). Thus, despite Obama's Cario's Speech that marked a new beginning, his administration like countless others before it is now coming to realize the intracacies of Middle Eastern politics.
Saad Hariri's external and internal support, manifested in the March 14 coalition, has melted away as regional powerhouses such as Saudi Arabia have willingly prioritized reconciliation with Syria over respecting Lebanese sovereignity. In turn, those humbling treks that Nicholas Blanford impressively documents in Killing Mr. Lebanon have also resumed. Most notably, Walid Jumblatt, who once described Bashar Al-Asad as a butcher has made several trips to Damascus to meet Bashar and discuss the future of Lebanon (similarly, Saad Hariri has taken several members of the Lebanese cabinet in a similar vein to Damascus). Syria's proxy Hezbollah also continues to go from strength to strength in Lebanese politics. And within the March 8 alliance, Hezbollah wields 13 seats out of a total of 57 and there is no doubt that its arms gives Hezbollah additional influence to act on Syria's behalf (although this relationship is far from one of subservience). Even Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, who died yesterday, and is widely credited with being a spiritual guide for Hezbollah, recognized that Lebanon would be persistantly weak whilst the "state within a state" syndrome was perpetuated by Hezbollah. The simple reality is that many of the gains, such as the removal of the divisive and corrupt Rustem Ghazali (former head of Syrian intelligence in Lebanon) pale in comparison to the reality that Syria has been allowed to reassert itself in Lebanese politics as a consequence of regional powerplays that do not prioritize Lebanese sovereignity.
The paradox faced by the Obama administration and regional allies such as Saudi Arabia is thus: by reconciling themselves with the Syrian government in order to advance the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, isolate Iran and encourage Syria to curb its support for groups such as Hezbollah, Bashar Al-Asad and his advisors get more breathing space to act as they please to undermine Lebanon and consequently Israel's unease increases - making it more likely that another war on Lebanese soil will occur (although political commentators now see 2011 as a more likely year for confrontation given that Israel is aware of international opinion in light of the flotilla crisis). Thus, despite Obama's Cario's Speech that marked a new beginning, his administration like countless others before it is now coming to realize the intracacies of Middle Eastern politics.
Executing women
Ambassador Hambley was the first to raise this issue. Then Mehrtash, the famous Iranian blogger, raised the same matter. We will do what we can to follow it up. Mehertash writes:
Mehrtash Rastegar LLB (Hons); LLM International Human Rights Law
http://www.seektruthandjustice.blogspot.com/
- Zeinab Jalalian: Based on her membership of a Kurdistan political party she was accused of Fighting God and was given the death penalty. Correction: to be hanged, not stoned.
- Sakineh Mohammadi: To be stoned for having sexual relations with a man outside of wedlock - as they put it 'illicit relations'.
Mehrtash Rastegar LLB (Hons); LLM International Human Rights Law
http://www.seektruthandjustice.blogspot.com/
Radar - So What
We get our knickers in a twist about all sorts of things in the West. But now we are uptight about nations having radar? Really for goodness sake.
Iran moves radar to Syria: US official
Agence France-Presse - 03 July, 2010
Iran has moved radar to Syria that could provide early-warning against a possible surprise Israeli air attack against Tehran’s nuclear sites, a US defense official said on Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLICK HERE
Iran moves radar to Syria: US official
Agence France-Presse - 03 July, 2010
Iran has moved radar to Syria that could provide early-warning against a possible surprise Israeli air attack against Tehran’s nuclear sites, a US defense official said on Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLICK HERE
On go the US sanctions
Well the USA has signed up to its own tougher sanctions regime to crush the people of Iran. They have even added refined petroleum products though everyone told them not to because it would hurt ordinary people and not the government and be grossly counter-productive. It seems Obama is a little short on wisdom these days:
Obama signs toughest-ever US sanctions on Iran - Agence France-Presse - 02 July, 2010President Obama signed into law the toughest ever US sanctions on Iran, which he said would strike at Tehran’s capacity to finance its nuclear program and deepen its isolation. >>>>>>>>>>>> CLICK HERE
Obama signs toughest-ever US sanctions on Iran - Agence France-Presse - 02 July, 2010President Obama signed into law the toughest ever US sanctions on Iran, which he said would strike at Tehran’s capacity to finance its nuclear program and deepen its isolation. >>>>>>>>>>>> CLICK HERE
Ribal moves into the limelight
Interesting to see Ribal al Assad moving out of the shadows and into the limelight of late. The son of Dr Rifat Al Assad who heads the United Nationals Allaince, he is opposition of course. And of late he's been the most active of all the various opposition figures.
Click here >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Click here >>>>>>>>>>>>>
