G8 Summit and Iran’s Nuclear Program

21 05 2012

The symbolism of the G8 summit members calling on Iran to “come clean” with its nuclear program has been lost.  While Iran’s nuclear program embodies both a legal right under the NPT to use nuclear energy for civilian purposes, as well as legal restrictions for enriching weapons-grade uranium for military use – the latter of which is the source of the dilemma – when eight powerful countries dictate demands to a war-ravaged (Iran-Iraq War 1980-88) and sanctions afflicted developing country, much doubt, suspicion, and cynicism pervades especially in the developing world.  Iran, in many eyes, is viewed as the underdog in this case, and the precedent of the WMD-based military campaign in Iraq 2003 has left a bad taste in the mouths of many people.

On Saturday, G8 countries meeting in Camp David issued a statement, according to Haaretz:

“’We desire a peaceful and negotiated solution to concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, and therefore remain committed to a dual-track approach’,” the G8 leaders said as their summit came to a close at the US presidential retreat. 

The dual-track refers to the combination of heavy sanctions and serious talks.”

The G8 consists of France, Italy, Germany, UK, Japan, Canada, US, and Russia.

Although the case of Iran is contextually different, the policy approach to the problem resembles Iraq in many ways, especially in terms of the strict economic sanctions regime.  In Iraq, nearly twelve years of harsh economic sanctions rendered a devastating impact on the Iraqi people.

On the part of the P5+1 (permanent 5 UN Security Council members – UK, US, France, China, Russia – plus Germany), who have been involved in negotiations concerning Iran’s nuclear program, a certain reality must be grasped:  while there are valid concerns for Israel’s security, given Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s verbal threats against Israel, there are equally valid national security threats and worries that the Iranian government accounts for when considering its nuclear program.  In order for comprehensive negotiations and resolutions to work, Iran’s national security concerns must be included in the calculus.  Only then could a viable resolution be derived.

Right now, the balance is tipped in favor of the GCC countries and Israel, with little regard to Iran’s security concerns.  Everything on the table, including missile defense systems and weapons sales, caters to the security concerns of the GCC states, Europe, and Israel, but if western powers want to give realistic incentives for Iran to cooperate and comply, they must also consider Iran’s security priorities and concerns.  These priorities pertain to hostile neighbors, including the GCC states (traditional rivals, with the exception of Oman), ensuring the rights and protection of Shia populations in the region, the presence of foreign troops in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, the crisis in Baluchistan, the crisis in Syria (Iran’s strong Arab ally), the regional arms race, and nuclear powers Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and Russia.  In addition, the ideological frictions between Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular (representing the Shia-Sunni schism), and the crisis in Bahrain, along with recent unity plans between Bahrain and Saudi, underscore the high sensitivities pertaining to regional politics, ideologies, and security issues.

In other words, Iran is surrounded by provocations and antagonists.  This is not to say that the Iranian regime is innocent.  Of course, it engages in its own brand of provocations and antagonisms.  However, in the framework of conflict resolution, a viable solution to a problem and potential conflict cannot be reached without considering and empathizing with the circumstances of all parties involved.  In this case, the P5+1, the G8, and others must consider Iran’s national security concerns.  At the same time, in the context of these considerations, the ideal opportunity arises to press Iran to cease all verbal threats to Israel and provide assurances that it will not attack Israel.  Also, Israel would have to reciprocate with similar assurances regarding Iran.  These points should be kept in mind when the P5+1 hold another round of talks with Iran’s delegation in Baghdad on May 23.

The champion of Peace Studies, Johan Galtung, famously said:  “Peace equals ability to handle conflict, with empathy, nonviolence, and creativity.”

There is far too much at stake to fail in the simple gesture of empathizing.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.






Custodians of Vali Gujarati’s Legacy – the Three Alvi Cousins

7 05 2012

Lovers of Urdu literature may be interested in this…

Three of my uncles in India have been awarded this year’s prestigious Bahadur Shah Zafar Award by the Delhi Urdu Academy.  They were front page on the DNA Indian newspaper, which you can see here:

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/EpaperImages//ahmedabad//07052012//6ahm_main_edition-pg1-0.pdf

The full article is here:

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/EpaperImages//ahmedabad//07052012//6ahm_main_edition-pg2-0.pdf

Varis Alvi

Muhammad Alvi





Why Do They Hate Us? The Real War on Women is in the Middle East — Mona Eltahawy’s Article in Foreign Policy Magazine

24 04 2012

PLEASE READ this piece by Mona Eltahawy in Foreign Policy Magazine… It’s provocative and extremely important:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/why_do_they_hate_us?page=0,1





A Decade of Justice Denied in Gujarat

12 04 2012

This now famous photo is of a Muslim man pleading for his life during the 2002 Gujarat massacres in India.  The madness that drove the indiscriminate killings and mass rapes in March 2002 is beyond belief and comprehension.  The judicial process to bring the perpetrators to justice has been painfully slow, rubbing salt in the wounds of many victims and their families.

In a February 24, 2012 report, this is what Human Rights Watch (HRW) says about the ten-year anniversary of the massacres:

“Authorities in India’s Gujarat state are subverting justice, protecting perpetrators, and intimidating those promoting accountability 10 years after the anti-Muslim riots that killed nearly 2,000 people, Human Rights Watch said today. The state government has resisted Supreme Court orders to prosecute those responsible for the carnage and has failed to provide most survivors with compensation.

The violence in Gujarat started on February 27, 2002, when a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob and caught fire, killing 59 people. In a retaliatory spree by Hindu mobs, hundreds of Muslims were slaughtered, tens of thousands were displaced, and countless Muslim homes were destroyed.

… Efforts to investigate and prosecute cases inside Gujarat were stalled and activists and lawyers involved in the cases have been harassed and intimidated, Human Rights Watch found. It has taken repeated interventions by the Supreme Court following appeals by activists and victims’ families to order re-investigations, oversee independent inquiries in some cases, or shift trials out of Gujarat to ensure progress towards justice.

In the past decade, increasing evidence has emerged of the complicity of Gujarat state authorities in the anti-Muslim violence, Human Rights Watch said. In 2002, Human Rights Watch, in its report on the riots, quoted a police officer who said that there were no orders to save Muslims. Human Rights Watch also reported that the government’s political supporters had threatened and intimidated activists campaigning for justice.

While investigations in the Godhra train attack proceeded rapidly, investigations into cases related to the anti-Muslim riots that followed were deliberately slowed down or simply not pursued, Human Rights Watch said. Officials of the Gujarat state government, led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is serving its third term running the state government in Gujarat, failed to conduct serious investigations and obstructed justice. State courts dismissed many cases for lack of evidence after prosecutors effectively acted as defense counsel or witnesses turned hostile after receiving threats.

… Strong evidence links the Modi administration in Gujarat to the carefully orchestrated anti-Muslim attacks, Human Rights Watch said. Rioters had detailed lists of Muslim residents and businesses, and violence occurred within view of police stations. An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

… In 2005, the US government denied Modi a visa to visit the United States.”

In its April 30, 2002 report, HRW alleges:

“State officials of Gujarat, India were directly involved in the killings of hundreds of Muslims since February 27 and are now engineering a massive cover-up of the state’s role in the violence.”

In 2003, HRW issued a 13-page report (a follow-up to earlier reports) documenting Hindu-Muslim violence in Gujarat, and state complicity in the bloodshed and subsequent cover-ups:    http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/06/30/compounding-injustice.

Today, BBC News reports that:

“A court in India has sentenced 18 people to life imprisonment for the murder of Muslims in religious riots in Gujarat state 10 years ago.  Five others were given seven years and another 23 were acquitted earlier.

The group were found guilty of burning 23 Muslims to death in a house where they had taken shelter from rioting mobs in the village of Ode.”

Appeals in higher courts are expected for the convicted, and if they are acquitted, it could trigger more communal violence.  Emotions are still very raw, and fanatical loyalties are obstinate.

Everyone – Hindus, Muslims, and everyone else – deserves to live in peace and security.  And everyone who has suffered deserves real and swift justice.  The decision of the United States to deny Modi a visa was the right one.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.





Dialogue about “Shariah” vs. Secularism

9 04 2012

Pakistan is not the only country that is debating the nature of its national identity, as religious or secular, but the intensity of its internal divisions has been cause for worry for a long time now.  The mullah-versus-secularist rivalry is truly a fight for rights and freedoms, and the right to live without religious bullying.  To be fair, most of the Middle Eastern dictators who have shown their ruthless authoritarianism have ruled “secular” states, but the vicious and violent totalitarian religious theocracies of Saudi Arabia and Iran are no less brutal.

The ambiguity and subjectivity of calls for “implementing Shariah” make me extremely apprehensive, whether it’s in Pakistan, parts of Nigeria, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, or even in the US.  I have asked people what they mean by wanting Shariah in the US, for example, and I never get an answer.  This is very alarming.  Even the silence itself is cause for concern.

A young Pakistani economist has this to say about the matter, which I am sure will spur further debate … take a look:

http://dawn.com/2012/04/09/en-route-to-secularism/ 

I vote for neither Shariah nor secularism, but I embrace humanism.  Too many grandiose claims have been made by all these “ism’s” that have only proven to be the worst violators of human rights.  Isn’t it about time that the world embraces the “human” in human rights?

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.





Let’s Reward Rapists and Thugs with Our Tax Dollars

23 03 2012

It has been announced that the United States will resume military aid to Egypt.  In fact, the announcement came from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who, in many public statements over the years, has claimed to uphold women’s rights.

This decision, which is contrary to the stance that Congress has taken against the Egyptian military junta (called SCAF), smacks of political expediency in the guise of “national security interests,” at the expense of human rights and democracy in Egypt.  It undermines the pro-democracy ideals and the struggle to pressure SCAF to transfer power to civilian rule.

In a recent public speech, I actually said that:  “The U.S. must wean itself from any residue of ‘Cold War’ era thinking and policies.  The slate has been erased clean.”

And, in my December 2004 interview with pro-democracy activist Saad Eddine Ibrahim, in response to my question about what the US role should be pertaining to democratization in Egypt, he unequivocally stated:  to avoid support for dictators, even if they still appear as friends.”

This decision to resume military aid to Egypt’s military junta resembles Cold War era policies.  It also conveys the message that policy makers have learned nothing from history.  Throwing money at a power broker does not translate into actual sound and sincere policies coming out of that entity.

But, what’s worse is that this is the same regime that has violated so many women, including with the atrocious “virginity tests” of detainees, and then recently acquitting the “doctor” who performed them.  Under the watch of this regime, women have been assaulted with what can only be described as gang rape.  From Egyptian women, to foreign correspondents, like Lara Logan, working for the news media, all have been victims of these vicious assaults.  And remember the young woman wearing the blue bra?  Her brutal beating and stripping was caught on video.  This regime is also responsible for the deaths of many innocent people.  This regime has also tried repeatedly to undermine the pro-democracy movement, at times in the most ominous and sinister ways.

And yet, we reward them with $1.3 billion in military aid?  That’s absurd.

Supposedly, this deal has to do with preserving the “integrity” of the 1978 Camp David Accords, the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement signed between the late President Anwar al-Sadat, Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and mediated by US President Jimmy Carter.  The accords led to a cold peace, rather than warm normalization of relations between Egypt and Israel, but nonetheless, it has prevented the outbreak of hostilities over the years.  That might the key ingredient that matters most to the US and Israel right now.  The accords have come with years of US foreign aid to Israel, the top recipient, followed by Egypt.  However, it’s hard to convince me that there are no alternatives to dumping more money in the laps of the military generals in Egypt, especially in the current political climate.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy agrees.  According to Al Jazeera

“Patrick Leahy, the Democratic senator who sponsored the legislation that tied conditions to aid [to Egypt], said he was ‘disappointed’ by Clinton’s decision.

‘I know Secretary Clinton wants the democratic transition in Egypt to succeed, but by waiving the conditions we send a contradictory message,’ Leahy said in a statement.

‘The Egyptian military should be defending fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, not harassing and arresting those who are working for democracy,’ he said.

Now that she has taken her decision, he said, Clinton should release funds in increments as Egypt demonstrates its commitment toward democracy following the revolution that overthrew former president Hosni Mubarak in February last year.”

Meanwhile, an Egyptian military court has acquitted and will release Ayman Zawahiri’s brother, Mohammed Zawahiri, along with a militant convicted of planning attacks in Egypt, Mohammed Islambouli, brother of Khaled, who killed Sadat.  According to Dawn Newspaper –

“In 1998, Zawahiri and Islambouli were sentenced on charges of undergoing military training in Albania and planning military operations in Egypt.

…The trial also acquitted several other former militants, including Sayyed Imam Fadl, once the spiritual leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and mentor of Ayman al-Zawahiri.

But Fadl, like the others acquitted, had shunned violence in the late 1990s and engaged in a war of letters with Ayman al-Zawahiri, denouncing Al Qaeda’s use of violence.

Islambouli returned from exile in Iran after a popular uprising overthrew president Hosni Mubarak in 2011, joining a number of Egyptian Islamist militants returning to the country after the ouster of their nemesis.”

For each baby step forward, there are giant leaps backward.  And, while militants, or supposedly “ex-militants,” are being acquitted and released, the worst of the violators of women and men continue to never see the inside of a jail cell.  This is contrary to American values of human rights and justice, and by giving the military junta money, we are sending the wrong message.  Have we learned nothing since the Cold War?

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.





Tunisia’s Secret Weapon for Success: Women

8 03 2012

 

Happy Women’s Day!

It’s not difficult for me to assess a simple yet significant element in Tunisia’s progress and future success as a flourishing democracy.  It was very noticeable and visible in the public sphere:  the empowerment and integration of women into society.

Renowned economist Amartya Sen contends that no society will progress to its fullest potential without freedoms.  And freedoms must facilitate mobility and empowerment of all segments of society.  In Tunisia, I could see how comfortably and routinely men and women interact and give each other space in the public sphere.  It’s not a perfect gender mainstreaming model, but it is by far one of the most progressive that I’ve seen throughout my travels in the Middle East.  Tunisia still has a stream of conservatism, but the cosmopolitan north, including the capital Tunis, and upscale areas like La Marsa and Gammarth, and even the older quarters like Medina and Bardo, all teem with women and men from all walks of life working, walking, driving, and directing.  I saw three female traffic police directing traffic in Bardo, and I also saw a woman in military uniform walking in Medina.  I saw a woman waitress in a traditional cafe in Bardo, where all the patrons, besides me, were men.  I met a dynamic young fashionista with a red bow in her hair, riding the tram and speaking to me in English.  She is studying fashion at the local university.  And, I sat in the audience when Rashid Ghannouchi, head of the ruling En-Nahda Party, spoke at the Center of the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) in Tunis, and during Q&A a famous diehard feminist came to the mic and pounded the podium, expressing her concerns about the Islamization of Tunisian society.

Tunisia must continue to embrace progressive gender parity.  Failing to do so will be the failure of the Tunisian model.  The rest of the regional actors should learn from this model, if they wish to succeed in their post-dictator political and socioeconomic systems.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers