سمعة السعوديين

الإتصال الخارجي من أمريكا إلى أي مكان في العالم ليس بالمكلف – شكرا لـ "سكايب" و "ماجيك جاك" وغيرهما من الخيارات. ولذلك وفي عطلة نهاية الأسبوع تختفي خطيبتي للتحدث إلى أهلها عبر سكايب لتطمئن عليهم وتسمع إلى آخر الأخبار. من تزوج من، ومن ذهب إلى أين، وماذا فعل فلان، وكيف حال علان. لا، خطيبتي ليس حجازية ولا نجدية ولا حتى عربية من الأساس. نعم هناك نوع من الألفة عندما نقترن ببنات البلد ولكن روح المغامرة تتغلب عندما نجد رفيق الروح في الغريب؛ خطيبتي أمريكية من أصول جنوب أفريقية – السؤال المحير هو: هل هي بيضاء أم سمراء؟ سأترك للقارئ الاستمتاع بالحيرة.

إعتزمنا زيارة والديها الصيف المقبل في بريتوريا لكي أتعرف على  العائلة ولكي تتاح لهم الفرصة ليطمئنوا على إبنتهم. تلقوا خبر الزيارة في محادثة "سكايب" السبت قبل الماضي بسعادة بالغة. ولكن في محادثة هذا الأسبوع "راحت السكرة وبدأت الفكرة" كما يقول المثل فكان السؤال الدبلوماسي الأول من والدتها "ماذا يأكل وليد – لحم خرفان؟" بعد نهاية المحادثة سألت خطبيتي "لماذا سألت والدتك ذلك السؤال؟" بدأت بتفسير السؤال لتشرح أن سمعة السعوديين في جنوب أفريقا ليست بالسمعة الجيدة وأن ذلك ليس أهم شيئ طلما أنها ستقوم بواجب الضيافة بتوفير اللحم الحلال مثلا. استغربْت لكون أن هناك سمعة للسعوديين هناك في الأساس فضغط عليها كي تخبرني عن تلك السمعة.

قالت لي أن العديد من الجنوب أفريقيين يعملون في السعودية ولكنهم – في العموم – يعودون إلى بلدهم محملين بقصص سلبية عن السعودية وأهلها. “مثل ماذا؟" كان سؤالي لها. في الحقيقة لم يعجبني ما سمعت ولن أغوص في تفاصيله هنا ولكن من الواجب علي أن أشارك أبناء جلدتي تلك "الملاحظات" إن جاز التعبير، فلا يمكن للسعودية أن تتقدم دون أن "تواجه شياطينها" كما يقول المثل الأمريكي "face your demons”.

أذكر هنا أن خطيبتي عاشت في الأردن والعراق والكويت بالإضافة إلى زيارات لفترات متفاوتة لدول شرق أوسطية أخرى لكنها لم تزور السعودية قط وأن كل ما تعرفه عن المملكة كان من باب القيل والقال ومن خلال الأخبار والمقالات الصحفية ومؤخرا من خلال معرفتها بي وبعائلتي. على العموم؛ قالت أن   السمعة هي أن الرجال السعوديين متسلطين وظالمين لنسائهم وأنهم متطرفين دينيا وغير منفتحين ذهنيا. ثم بدأت بالمزاح بقولها أن أهلها لا يعلومون ما إذا كانت ستعود إليهم بحجاب أو أنها ستعتنق الإسلام. ثم ذكرتني بأن سمعة التسلط هي السمعة السائدة "لا تنسى أن الناس يظنون بأنكم تستقدمون  الخادمات وتستغلونهم كعبيد كأنهم ملك أيمانكم".

قلت كاسرا لحدة الجدّية "ولا تنسي بئر البترول في الحديقة الخلفية" ثم عاد النقاش إلى الجد لتقول "لا يمكنك أن تلومهم فهم لا يعرفون ولو شخص سعودي واحد وأنهم ليسوا من المهتمين بالمملكة". ذلك صحيح فكون السعودية بلد منغلق على نفسه يجعل من الصعب على أي باحث عن الحقيقة أن يرى جوانب الدولة الإيجابية. كما أن العديد من السياح السعوديين هم أسوأ سفراء للبلد بإسرافهم واستحقارهم لأهالي الدول التي يزورونها. العديد منهم يختلط عليه كرم الضيافة والتواضع فيعتقد أنه يشتري الناس بماله في بلدهم. هؤلاء هم الذين لا يستثمرون الوقت ولا العناء في فهم قوانين البلدان التي يزوروها فيقعون في الخطيئة ويتسببون في الإساءة إلى بقية الشعب السعودي لسذاجتهم وجهلهم أو لعنجهيتهم واستكبارهم.

هذا ليس كل شيئ فأنا  كسعودي لدي العديد من الإنتقادات التي تغوص في أعماق هذا المجتمع وليس فقط في القصص العابرة التي تهدف إلى "شيْطنة" الشعب السعودي. أنا على علم بأن هناك من سيتهمني بعرض "غسيلنا" على الملأ إلا أنني لن أجاهر بالنصيحة هنا، لعلي أقوم بذلك في المستقبل القريب؛ ولكن ليس اليوم.

اليوم؛ سأقول أن لو المشاكل هي فقط تلك التي تدور في فلك السمعة والقصص المشاعة لكانت "محلولة" إلا أن المشاكل تتعدى ذلك إلى عدم وجود دستور (أو ملكية دستورية)، وسوء توزيع ثروة البلاد التي تؤدي إلى تفرقة إجتماعية بناءً على الدخل بين الأغنياء والمغلوبين على أمرهم، وإنعدام النظام القانوني المستقل العادل إلاّ المبني على أهواء القضاة وليس كلهم من أصحاب الحكمة والعقل. بالطبع القائمة تطول ولكن يجب حل المشاكل الهيكلية أولا لأن ذلك سيؤدي إلى إنهاء المشاكل الثانوية واليومية. هل قيادة المرأة للسيارة إحداها؟ بالتأكيد ولكنها مشكلة ثانوية أساسها يكمن في عدم إعطائها الإستقلالية ولا الأهلية.

سؤالي الأخير لخطبيتي "ما رأيك في السعوديين الآن بعد أن تعرفتي علي؟" صمتت للحظة ثم قالت "أنتم شعب ثري بألوانه وأطيافه هناك الكثير من الخير ومجال كبير لإحراز الإنتصارات". نعم ذلك صحيح فمن الصعب أن لا تحرز السعودية تقدما وهي في قاع العديد من القوائم العالمية مثل حقوق الإنسان وحرية التعبير والحرية الدينية إلخ. في النهاية سألتني ضاحكة "إذن أنتم تأكلون غير لحم الخراف؟" قلت لها "أنا آكل بالإضافة إلى لحم الخروف ما يألكه غيري من البشر فسعوديتي ليست إقصاءُ بل إثراءً"

   

من ليس له قصة ليس له وجود

من هو العربي؟ سؤال طرحه قبل أيام أحد الحاضرين لمهرجان السينما العربي في واشنطن لهذا العام مستعجبا كيف أن الفيلم المغربي "الدار البيضاء حبي" كان باللغة الفرنسية وأن الفيلم العراقي "بيكاس" باللغة الكردية. شرحت أن التعريف التاريخي هو أن العربي أي شخص يتحدث اللغة العربية ولكن ذلك التعريف المبسط أخذ أبعادا جيوسياسية فمثلا غير العربي الذي يقطن في مصر ويتحدث العربية كان يعرف بأنه "خواجه" وذلك كان الحال بالنسبة للمتحدثين بالعربية من أهل الغرب. بالنسبة لي لم يكن الطرح حول العروبة وتعريفها أهم ما أثاره المهرجان؛ ببساطة العربي هو أي شخص يحمل جنسية تلك الدول الأعضاء في الجامعة العربية وكل من تحدّر منها مثل العرب الأمريكيين من الجيل الثاني ومن تلاهم ممن لا يتحدثون العربية. ولكن المهرجان طرح عدة مواضيع حرية بالتأمل والنقاش.

معظم ما طرحه المهرجان من أبعادا هي تثقيفية للجمهور وسياسية بالنسبة للعالم العربي من ضمنها إعادة التذكير بالوضع غير الموزون للفلسطينيين من خلال فيلم "الإرث" وهو فيلم حول حياة أسرة فلسطينية في صراع من أجل الإبقاء على العادات والتقاليد في وجه التحديات اليومية في مجتمع مدني في ظل حرب بين إسرائيل ولبنان. تكاد لا تسمع عن القضية الفلسطينة في الأخبار الأمريكية لولا أن هناك تحركات متثاقلة من قبل الخارجية الأمريكية. في المقابل إسرائيل تتمتع بتغطية إعلامية مستمرة خاصة من خلال الشأن السوري المأساوي. لا أستغرب لو اعتقد المواطن الأمريكي بأن الصراع الفلسطيني الإسرائيلي قد تم حله أو لو تساءل "من هم الفلسطينون؟". إختفاء الفلسطينيين من الساحة الإعلامية الأمريكية هو بالتأكيد خسارة للجانب الفلسطيني في أي محادثات لأن صانع القرار الأمريكي في نهاية المطاف يستمع إلى رغبات وآراء الناخب الأمريكي. الحال الآن أن الناخب الأمريكي يكاد لا يذكر المعاناة الفلسطينية ولكنه قلق على إسرائيل - يا ترى لصالح من سيكون الضغط الأمريكي؟!

مفاجأة المهرجان كانت في فيلم "عن يهود مصر" وهو فيلم وثائقي حطم ذلك الجدار الوهمي الذي يفرق العرب عن اليهود كأصحاب عقيدة. الكثير يستذكرون تاريخ الأندلس مؤكدين على التعايش بين الأديان ولكن التاريخ المعاصر أصدق في أنه يلامس حياتنا بتأكيده على أن مبدأ التعايش لا يعيش فقط في كتب التاريخ على رقعة جغرافية لم يعد الاسلام له فيها مكان بل في أن هناك من يعرفون باليهود العرب الذين كانوا (وقلة مازالت) يعيشون في دول عربية عديدة. بل الخلاصة تؤكد على أكثر من ذلك على أن هناك "يهود عرب" أي عرب القلب والقالب ذوي عقيدة يهودية لم يهجروا مواطنهم عن رغبة منهم ولكنهم رحلوا بعد أن خانهم القادة العرب بعد تكوين دولة إسرائيل. الفيلم خدم كنقطة نقاش حول الفرق بين اليهود كأصحاب عقيدة وبين اليهودية السياسية أي الصهيونية. هناك فرق واضح بين اليهود كأهل كتاب وبين الإسرائيليين كمواطنين (ومنهم الإسرائيليين العرب أي الفلسطينيين الذي بقوا في أراضيهم) وبين الصهيونيين وهم مجموعة ذات فكر سياسي إستعماري.

الطرح الأكثر أهمية لدى الجمهور الأمريكي هو عن تبعات الربيع العربي وكيفية تعامل صناع السينما العربية معها. المهرجان أعطى الإنطباع أن العالم العربي في صراع بين رجعيين يخافون من الآخر فانغلقوا على أنفسهم وبين من يسعى إلى الإنفتاح والتقدم. في فيلم "بيكاس" العراقي الكردي وكذلك في المغربي "الدار البيضاء حبي" كانت أمريكا وهوليوود المحور الأساس في سعي شخصيات البطولة نحو نهاية الفيلم. ولكن أمريكا هنا ليست الدولة بحد ذاتها بل نجم الشمال الذي يستعينون به في مساعيهم من أجل حياة أفضلا. فبالتأكيد لا يسعى هؤلاء إلى الغربة تحديدا ولكنهم يسعون إلى حياة كريمة تتوفر فيها الفرص لكل إنسان لديه عزيمة ورؤيا. بالفعل ذلك كان أحد ما رغبت منسقة المهرجان شيرين غريب العربية الأصل من إيصاله إلى المتلقي الأمريكي؛ أن السعي من أجل الحرية والسعادة هي قيم مشتركة بين الأمريكيين والعرب.

قالت غريب بأن "الهدف من مهرجان الفيلم العربي السنوي هو توفير تلك الأفلام العربية الأهم التي لا تتاح للمشاهد الأمريكي رؤيتها" شارحة أن ثلث الحاضرين هم من ذوي الإختصاص الإعلامي والشرق الأوسطي والثلث من المسؤولين والموظفين الحكوميين والثلث الآخر من المهتمين والممتهنين في الصناعة الفنية تتخللهم مجموعة من المشاهدين العابرين. في كل عام تواجه شيرين تحديات مالية كبيرة تهدد عقد المهرجان ولكنها على مر الثمانية عشر عام الماضية واجهت التحدي واستطاعت طرح المهرجان شكرا للتبرعات الصغيرة التي توفر بالكاد الميزانية الكافية (إنه أمر مزري أنها تواجه تحدي لجمع تبرعات لميزانية بهذا الحجم المتواضع). المضحك المبكي أن غالبية المتطوعين للعمل على المهرجان ليسوا حتى من أصول عربية. يجب أن يحكي العرب قصصهم للعالم أجمع في كتب وعلى الإنترنت وفي الإعلام وعلى شاشات التلفزيون وفي السينما وفي المسارح فمن ليس له قصة ليس له وجود.

نشرت في إيلاف يوم ١٦ نوفمبر ٢٠١٣ هنا: http://goo.gl/zniH1c

The three-ring circus of American politics

The three-ring circus of American politics

Sunday, 27 October 2013

Walid Jawad

The circus that was the partial government shutdown and debt ceiling debate in the U.S. Congress was hard to watch. The ring master, John Boehner the Republican speaker of the House, commanded the three rings of the House, Senate and White House and mistook the jeers of the American people for cheers and the hysterical laughter of shock and amazement for support until the very last possible moment before the tent of the U.S. economic structure was about to tumble down onto everyone’s head.

The absurdity of what happened in Congress over the budget; i.e. debt ceiling and partial government shutdown, might be a preview for what’s to come. For the past three years the Republicans have been pushing for their legitimate ideology in a twisted fashion as the Party’s leaders tried to capitalize on the Tea Party movement. Instead of co-opting the grassroots movement, the Republican leadership had to pander to the movement’s vocal minority; enter Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.

Cruz, although vocal, was unable to impose his will on the Democratic controlled Senate, so he played the role of the Wizard of Oz. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the fable, Oz proclaimed wisdom, knowledge and power, but in reality he was a buffoon. Dorothy, the duped heroine, sought out the wizard for help only to find a trickster playing the role of a wizard. As such, Cruz professes to have the answer the American people are seeking; how to strike the right balance for an effective and efficient government working for all citizens within the constitution. Obviously, this is a tall order, or just about impossible to achieve. The fact of the matter is that efficiency and effectiveness mean different things to different people. This inherent illusiveness of the goal has only made the country stronger over the years, but it is no longer the case today with the likes of Cruz and his Tea Party caucus.

Holding the nation hostage

Disagreeing with politicians’ tactics does not necessarily detract from the honor of public service nor does it make them less patriotic than the politicians we agree with or support. But the failed Republican attempt to defund the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, by holding the nation hostage is raising some doubts over their intentions and loyalty to the nation. Senator John MacCain described some of his Republican colleagues as “wacko birds,” he further said in the aftermath of the budget debate that “it’s one of the most painful chapters that I’ve seen in the years I’ve spent here in the Senate.” It is rare for members to publicly criticize their own Party, but McCain is not the exception. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said about the extremist voices in his Republican party: “A number of us were saying back in July that this strategy could not and would not work, and of course, it didn’t.” This was echoed by Senator Lindsey Graham who said, “I think the tactical choice that [Boehner] embraced hurt our party,” he further pointed to the fact that the Republican “ brand name’s at the lowest ever.” Indeed, independent polls show the Republican Party stooping in popularity to the lowest levels ever recorded.

This path where the actual loyalty to country and people is second to self-interest fueled by a prepackaged, hollow motto of working-for-the-people is delusional at best and treasonous at worst

Walid Jawad

The minority Tea Party faction of the Republican Party is not heeding the calls of the majority. Cruz stated post-shutdown that “what I intend to do is continue standing with the American people to work to stop Obamacare.” It is hard to comprehend how he and his rowdy minority are willing to threaten the wellbeing of the nation for their narrow political goals. In fact, they are willing to bring down the American economic tent, leading to a destruction of the United States. The similarities between the Tea Party and emerging democracies can’t be overlooked. We’ve seen a number of emerging democracies with newly elected governments either turning their backs on the system that brought them to power or being ousted by another group all in the name of advancing the will of the people; which people, I ask. This is exactly what Cruz has proclaimed, doing this “for the people.” This path where the actual loyalty to country and people is second to self-interest fueled by a prepackaged, hollow motto of working-for-the-people is delusional at best and treasonous at worst. Either way it is indeed a “suicide pact” as Republican strategist Charles Krauthammer had described it. I have no problem with the Tea Party committing to a suicidal pact, but they have no right to cause a complete destruction of the system. As it stands, the equation is that these ideologues are committed to having it their way without regard to country and people; their way or the highway, and this highway leads to the end of the American way of life.

What next?

The American people now understand what this group is capable of doing, but what are they going to do about it. Typically, the American people are able to correct the course of the nation in the following election cycle; midterm elections are scheduled for Nov. 4, 2014. At that time, all 435 members of the House of Representatives are up for reelection as well as a third of the 100 Senate seats, not to dismiss the 38-member governorship and other public offices. Today, the Republicans control the House of Representatives. I would venture to say that if the midterm elections were to be held today that the Republican Party would have serious challenges to keep their majority in the House. But the American people don’t have to wait that long to signal their discontent with the Republicans. In less than two weeks, on Nov. 5, the limited off-year election of 2013 will be held. The race that is of significance is the Virginia race for Governorship (gubernatorial races) where a win for either party is a bellwether for what is to come in the 2014-midterm elections.

Elections cannot come quick enough for the American people to have their say at the ballot box. Likewise, a grassroots effort will take time to pick up steam and cause the desired effect. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the levelheaded Republicans in Congress to reign in the extremist faction in their midst and prevent further harm to the U.S. economy. I am encouraged by Senator Graham’s reassurance that tactics leading to government shutdown are a thing of the past and that the Republican party should demand of Cruz: “Don’t do this again, Ted.” If for some reason by Jan. 15, when the government will run out of money, we have a repeat of the circus in congress, the American people will make Republicans pay the ultimate political price in midterm and presidential elections.


Published on AlArabiya.net on Oct 27, 2013 here http://goo.gl/WyWfvW

Is America turning into a failed state?

Is America turning into a failed state?

Monday, 14 October 2013

Walid Jawad

The United States might not make the 2014 list of Failed States, but it might as well try if Congress and the president don’t stop playing a game of chicken with the country’s future. The current partial shutdown of the U.S. government is an unfathomable concept even for citizens of failed states. It is true that governments in those failed countries are incompetent, but most are facing staggering odds should they act on behalf of their citizens. This is not the case for American politicians; at the time of the government shutdown some two weeks ago, the country was in a healthy state and was getting stronger.

There are many ways to observe the fallout of a government shutdown. An increased number of people are in coffee shops spending the day sipping on drinks and reading the news because they have been furloughed. In fact, around 800,000 government workers have been forced to take an unpaid leave of absence or to work without pay during this time. Coffee shops become a haven for many as national parks are off limits. If you should drive down 17th street between the Washington Monument and the Abraham Lincoln Memorial, for instance, you will find metal barricades fending off tourists and locals from walking onto the different national sights.

Pandering to the extremist voices within one’s own party and engaging in a do or die game strikes an eerie similarity to new democracies grappling with the golden rule of democracy: compromise

Walid Jawad

But that pales in comparison to more serious government functions, such as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that should have been investigating a Washington DC Metro Rail accident where a worker was killed over the weekend in what was reported to be routine maintenance work. We will have to accept the Metro system’s own conclusions, which will be arrived after an investigation conducted without the NTSB’s oversight. This is the same dilemma for many other services connected with different government agencies. The spillover extends to services used by people located overseas, such as “digital” services. Visitors to NASA’s website will read the following message: “Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not available.” I guess stargazers will have to look up at the sky for now.

The staring contest in Congress between the two parties, the Republicans and Democrats, was so compelling to the leaders of both sides that they lost sight of their responsibilities toward the American people. No side wants to show their perceived weakness if they compromise. The blame is not equally distributed though. The Republican Party had their chance a couple of years ago to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act they dubbed as “Obama Care,” when it was debated in Congress. Believe it or not, American’s are not provided public health care. Some 40 million Americans are uninsured while those who are pay high premiums for the privilege of fighting insurance companies to receive the health services they signed up for. In the end, the Democratic Party, the president’s party, won the day and got the bill passed and signed into law. The program, which goes into affect on January 1, is designed to lower the cost of health care and guarantee medical insurance to all Americans. The Republican Party decided to use the power of the purse; i.e. the appropriation bill to fund the government, to prevent Obama Care from taking effect.

Congress learns from new Middle Eastern democracies

A small group of Republican “Tea Party” members have been emboldened by an over represented, very vocal, electorate that demands less government spending. The Republican majority leadership in the House of Representatives acquiesced to this unyielding minority leading to the current shutdown. Perhaps its understandable as part of political posturing as the Republican Party jockey for a favorable position in their bid to win major U.S. elections, specifically the presidential race of 2016. But, the more hardline positions they take, the worse their chances become.

Pandering to the extremist voices within one’s own party and engaging in a do or die game strikes an eerie similarity to new democracies grappling with the golden rule of democracy: compromise. In Iraq, as in and Lebanon and Libya for instance, political challengers are eliminated in the most extreme way; forcefully. In other places, such as Egypt, the military took over and excused the legitimate president of the country, Mohammad Mursi. None of these examples have allowed for the democratic process to take its course. In reality, they all sidestep the established system to gain an unearned advantage. Although American politicians are not sidestepping the democratic process, they are taking the country down a road that would end with a complete meltdown of the economic system, which amounts to a betrayal of the trust the people placed in them. Without trust democracy becomes just another word for tyranny. Sad is the day when the oldest functioning democracy takes its cues from dysfunctional democracies in the Middle East.

A game of political chicken: A government default

President Barack Obama and his democratic party’s unconvincing resolve encourages the Republicans to engage in a game of chicken. The game is afoot when two drivers race toward a cliff, the looser is the first to swerve or apply the brakes. In this high stakes game of political chicken both the Republicans and Democrats are speeding toward the cliff of default.

Not to make things more complicated, but the shutdown, which I talked about above, is one thing and the default is another issue all together. The U.S. government will not be able to pay its bills if the debt ceiling is not increased by October 15 when the U.S. Treasury would run out of money to meet its financial obligations. The most probable result of such a default is a complete meltdown of the international financial system forcing a global recession. The U.S. government currently has a debt ceiling of around $16 Trillion, which is roughly just over its annual budget.

On Thursday, the Republicans offered Obama a plan to increase the debt limit through November 22; i.e. pushing back default deadlines to fight another day. If this Republican made crisis is not averted they will be blamed, but so will the Democrats to some extent. Politicians are elected to do the hard work on behalf of the people, but currently Americans do not think Congress is doing a good job. Overall, Congress’ job approval fell to 11%, according the latest Gallup survey. It is hard for their job approval rating to get any worse. If they don’t pull their act together and find a way to stop playing childish games with the future of the country then the American people will be better served with a complete shutdown of the government. It is easier to deal with the aftermath stemming from incompetence than from selfish and malicious acts. 

Published by Al-Arabiya.net on October 14

عفواً، الحكومة الأمريكية مغلقة الآن!

الديمقراطية تفشل في الغرب كما نراها تفشل في مشرق الديمقراطيات الجديدة. تفشل لذات الأسباب عندما يقرر أصحاب الآراء المتطرفة أن النقاش والتنازل يعني ضعف موقفهم أو إهانة لشخصهم. هذا ما يحدث في أمريكا عندما تعنت الحزب الجمهوري في الكونغرس رافضا تمرير الميزانية السنوية لـ ٢٠١٤ عندما أضاف الجمهوريون في مجلس النواب بندا إلى قرار الميزانية يلغي التأمين الصحي الجديد المعروف للعامة بـ "أوباماكير" بالرغم من أنه قانون قد تم إقراره والتتداول حوله ومن ثم التصويت عليه إيجابا في الكونغرس في عام ٢٠١٠.

 في بداية شهر أكتوبر الحالي تم الغلق الجزئي للحكومة الأمريكية والذي أدى إلى تهميش قرابة المليون موظف حكومي إما بوضعهم من ضمن قائمة الموظفين ذوي الإجازة دون مرتب أو هؤلاء المجبرين على العمل دون راتب طوال فترة إغلاق الحكومة. الحكومات لا تغلق أبوابها طواعية حتى في الدول الفاشلة، ولكن ذلك ما يحدث الآن في أمريكا حيث تأثرت جميع الوزارات وأجبرت على تجميد العديد من الخدمات. فعلى سبيل المثال لم تحقق هيئة المواصلات في حادث قتل عامل صيانة كان يعمل على تحديث قضبان الحديد في مترو أنفاق واشنطن في عطلة نهاية الأسبوع المنصر لأنها لم تحصل على ميزانية العمليات اليومية. السياح والزائرين سيتعترضهم حواجز حديدية تمنعهم من الوصول إلى بعض المعالم الوطنية المشهورية والمنتزهات والحدائق الوطنية المعروفية بسبب تجميد الخدمات العامة في فترة الإغلاق الحكومي. حتى بعض الخدمات الإلكترونية لم تعد متوفرة مثل موقع ناسا على الإنترنت. إذا كنت من المهتمين بالفلك والنجوم فعليك الآن أن تنتظر المساء وتنظر إلى السماء كما كان يفعل الآباء والأجداد.

 لو أن المشكلة وقفت على هذا الحد لكان الوضع بسيطا - ليس على الأمريكيين بل بالنسبة للمواطن العالمي. ولكن هناك مشكلة أكبر وأخطر فوق مشكلة الإغلاق الجزئي للحكومة وهي أن الخزانة الأمريكية سوف "تفلس" أي أن رصيدها من الأموال السائلة سيصبح "صفرا" بعد بضعة أيام؛ بحلول ١٥ أكتوبر. هذه المطامة الكبرى ستؤدي إلى فشل النظام المالي الأمريكي وإلى إنهيار النظام الإقتصادي العالمي ولكن الخزانة الأمريكية لديها الحل. كانت الخزانة دائما تستدين أو تستلف الأموال اللازمة لتمويل الحكومة ولكن القانون الأمريكي يسمح للخزانة بالإستدانة إلى سقف محدد وهو إلى ما دون الـ ١٧ ترليون دولار. الدين العام الأمريكي بالفعل الآن وصل إلى هذا الحد ولكن هذا الرقم الفلكي ليس كبيرا كما يمكن أن نتخيله لأن الميزانية السنوية الأمريكية تتجاوز الـ ١٥ ترليون دولار.

 بإمكان الكونغرس إصدرا قرار برفع سقف الدين العام وهو ما اقترحه الجمهوريون على الرئيس الديمقراطي باراك أوباما يوم الخميس المنصرم. ولكن الزيادة المقترحة سوف تدفع تكاليف الدولة إلى الـ ٢٢ من نوفمبر المقبل أي لشهر إضافي تقريبا. هذا التنازل المؤقت هو نتيجة للضغط الذي تقوم به الشركات الكبرى التي تهدد بدعم الديمقراطيين إذا لم يمتنع الجمهوريون من عرقله توفير المال العام لتمويل الحكومة ولأن الإحصاءات الأخيرة كشفت عن أن ٢٨٪ من الأمريكيين فقط راضين عن أداء الحزب الجمهوري وهو أقل مستوى إطلاقا منذ عام ١٩٩٢ حين بدأت شركة جالوب في إجراء إحصاءاتها الشهرية حول أداء الحزبين.

 من المتوقع أن يستدرك الحزب الجمهوري بقيادة جون بينر في مجلس النواب أن تخاذله في الوقوف في وجه القلة في حزبة في مجلس النواب من أتباع توجه "تي بارتي" أو ما يترجم إلى "حزب الشاي" سيؤدي إلى الإساءة إلى فرص الحزب الجمهوري في الانتخابات المحلية والوطنية المقبلة وعلى رأسها الإنتخبات الرئاسية لعام ٢٠١٦. إنه لأمر مهين لأقدم ديمقراطيات العصر الحديث بأن تتبع إستراتيجية إقصائية كما يقوم بها دعاة الحرية في الديمقراطيات الحديثة في العراق ومصر وليبيا وغيرها. تلك الحكومات الديمقراطية تعتمد على أساليب ملتوية للإستمرار في الحكم أو لقلب ميزان القوى دون أي إكتراث بمصير الشعب. في نهاية الأمر لن يسمح الأمريكيون لأقلية متصلبة تريد قلب موازين القوى بأساليب متطرفة بالتسبب في هدم نظام يهدف إلى تحسين أوضاع مواطنيه ولذلك فلن يقع النظام المالي العالمي ضحية لثلة غير مستعدة لتقديم التنازلات. ألا يعلمون أن الديمقراطية هي لعبة لا تستوي إلا بالتوافق والتنازلات؟ 

نشرت في إيلاف ١٢ أكتوبر ٢٠١٣ هنا http://goo.gl/L8eySy

Dignity for Iran equals an Iran free of nuclear weapons

Dignity for Iran equals an Iran free of nuclear weapons

Monday, 7 October 2013

Walid Jawad

"Either you let me play or I will spoil your game!"

This is the sound of an unhappy child that no one wants to play with but who just won’t take “no” for an answer; a sound that has been heard repeatedly in just about any unsupervised ball game. Sometimes the child even charges onto the field to snatch the ball.

This has been Iran for decades, playing the role on a global scale. Although, the difference is that Iran never wanted to play by the rules of the game, it wanted others to adhere to its version of the game, one where it could relive the “glory” of its past.

Iran of the past

The Iranian puppeteer, Ayatollah Khamenei, is still pulling the strings despite Rowhani’s assertion of Khamenei’s support.

Walid Jawad

Iran’s attitude has long been guided by animosity and steeped in mistrust causing its policies to come across as irrational. Indeed, for the last eight years, such a view has been confirmed by the words and deeds of its public face, former president Ahmadinejad, who made policies that seemed to do nothing to advance Iran’s national interest.

There is no justification for the self-inflicted economic sanctions and the resulting marginalization Iran’s people have been suffering from. Verbally, Iran made a few outlandish statements including threatening Bahrain earlier this year, homophobic declarations and denial of the holocaust in addition to interfering in sovereign states affairs as it propped up proxies to do its bidding in the region, i.e. Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Among Iran’s questionable deeds was its threatening posture in the waters of the Persian Gulf not to mention the U.N. General Assembly theatrics of Ahmadinejad among other colorful events and statements.

The prevailing wisdom is that the previous president didn’t represent the Iranian people. The people’s unsuccessful revolt protesting the 2009 presidential election results was a clear indication of where Iranians stood. The Green Revolution further emphasized the extent to which the Iranian people were unhappy with Ahmadinejad’s erratic leadership. Despite the protestors’ valiant efforts, the outcome wasn’t in their favor. When the electorate was given the chance to choose, they elected a rational candidate to move the country back to the realm of reality: Hassan Rowhani. The global community received the Iranian people’s choice with glee, so much so that the U.S. President Barack Obama placed a call to Rowhani, a first in over three decades between the leaders of the two countries. This didn’t come in a vacuum, the U.S. positive impression of Rowhani dates back to some 27 years ago ago when he was a senior defense official participating in secret meetings with President Reagan’s National Security Council staff. Then senior NSC staffer, Howard Teicher, said that “[Rowhani] said many things at the time that showed he wanted to deal with us and we could deal with them.” At its core, the U.S. wants to deal with a rational party and they found it in Rowhani.

U.S. and Iran

It is interesting to see the American and Iranian presidents’ dance to a wishful tune, but reality will halt the music sooner than they would like if they don’t act quickly. The Iranian puppeteer, Ayatollah Khamenei, is still pulling the strings despite Rowhani’s assertion of Khamenei’s support. There is no independent verification confirming a change in direction by the supreme leader yielding to the Iranian electorate or to the global community on the thorny issue of its nuclear program.

Last week’s nuclear talks offered U.S. Secretary of State Kerry an opportunity to engage Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarifin in diplomatically flirtatious banter. Kerry said “I think all of us were pleased that Foreign Minister Zarif came and made a presentation to us, which was very different in tone and very different in the vision that he held out, with respect to the possibilities for the future,” and insisted that a resolution could be reached within a matter of months if Iran is forthcoming. No doubt the U.S. will hold Iran’s feet to the fire to guarantee a peaceful nuclear program, but consideration for regional politics has to be front and center to address the concerns of many of Iran’s neighbors.

It is easier for the U.S. to give Iran the benefit of the doubt considering that Iran’s regional influence is receding with a weak Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a bleak outlook for Hezbollah in Lebanon and a scrambling Hamas. But the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states and Israel have more immediate issues to deal with. Israel has its finger on the trigger ready to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and according to its PM Netanyahu “will keep all action on [the] table ... We will do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves.” He confirmed that “Israel will stand alone if it needs to” to ensure an Iran that is free of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is cheerleading the U.S. to do what it can to deny Iran the chance to be a nuclear bully in the region, including the use of force. Further, Turkey al-Faisal was quoted as saying that Saudi is prepared to procure “off the shelf” nuclear weapons if Iran should be allowed to gain the nuclear advantage. The odds of Iran joining the nuclear weapons club are very limited.

The future

It is time for Iran to accept the limitation of its nuclear ambition; it is not the only avenue for earning respect. Iran is poised to gain the respect and dignity it has been seeking should it work within the margins offered for a peaceful nuclear energy program. The Supreme leader’s reliance on adversarial tactics has backfired leading to Iran becoming an isolated rogue state. The Persian empire of the past will never be allowed to rise again to conquer and dominate, particularly not by becoming a nuclear power. But it can relive its glorious past as a contributing member of the global community with respect and pride. The two opposing examples of Libya, which was welcomed to the family of nations after it relinquished its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program in 2003, and the North Korean example, which is still suffering economically due to its nuclear obsession, should provide the Ayatollah a clearer vision of the choice he must make. Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy will become a reality if it cooperates with the international community. Having said that, it’s a matter of saving-face for Iran which must be fully embraced by the international community.

The Obama administration, along with the international community, will have to help Iran to feel dignified as it contemplates the upcoming P5+1 talks scheduled for Oct. 28, without compromising on the verifiable actions it must agree to insuring a peaceful nuclear program. Rowhani is the ideal interlocutor to mediate for his country. He knows what needs to be done and the margins the Ayatollah is willing to work with; he knows not to appear defeated and to deny the “West” the appearance of imposing its will over his country and the need to announce a triumph for the Iranian people. The P5+1 must bring to the table proposals that offer Rowhani the leverage he needs to persuade the supreme leader to agree to the demands made of Iran.

Published by Al-Arabiya on Oct 7, 2013 here  http://goo.gl/jYDMQH

Arab Spring breezes in Saudi Arabia

By Walid A. Jawad

As Saudis celebrate their national day on September 23 they are reminded of their status among other Arab nations, including those of the Arab Spring revolutionary club, which are not faring well at the moment. As much as progressive Saudis crave freedom and human rights, they are not willing to commit to a revolutionary strategy that would push the country to protracted civil unrest. As a result, reform efforts focus on expanding the narrow margins of freedom of speech in the country to include more voices.

This is no easy task in a country that frames its social and political discourse within a religious context. Reformists arguing their case are systematically shunned and sidelined by religious conservatives in the name of adhering to Islam and preserving Saudi culture. They quickly accuse most reformers as being I’lmania, which is a concept akin to that of separation of church and state. It is used as a synonym for being ungodly. After all, it is easier to demonize those with differing opinions than to engage on the merit of their arguments.

Only recently with the advent of Twitter have Saudi liberals been able to participate in a national discussion that goes beyond the framing set by religious forces. These reformers, especially those using their real names, show courage on social media by risking the wrath of the government and the religious establishment.

Saudis are challenging a lifelong system of indoctrination in formal schooling from teachers and textbooks that promote religious intolerance and suspicion of the ‘other.’ Although Saudi school textbooks were criticized for religious intolerance a few years ago, Western interest in following up on the Saudi government’s declared textbooks reform has waned.

Educational indoctrination makes youth vulnerable to the ideology of terrorist masterminds, who encourage them to sacrifice their lives for “God.” The groundwork has already been laid in years of schooling. Terrorists need only to methodically manipulate the narrative by emphasizing injustice and suffering of Muslims around the world, then call for action on the basis of personal and religious duty.

Saudi Arabia has been burned by terrorism over the years. The Al-Saud royal family faces a self-inflicted dilemma in its insistence on legitimizing their governance of this vast and fragmented country on religious grounds. Saudi Arabia’s few political detainees are mainly reformers who publicly called for a constitutional monarchy.

The monarchy seems to prefer dealing with security threats versus shaking its foundation for governance. This requires the ruling family to walk a tightrope of appeasing the religious establishment while suppressing those who question its legitimacy.

Short of a serious restructuring of the country’s political and educational systems, Riyadh needs to continue to manage the fallout of its textbook problem, which typically spills over to the general public in Friday sermons. As if being indoctrinated in schools in not enough, Saudis listen to fiery, emotional sermons that move some of them to “gift” their lives as human bomb fuses in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria.

These galvanizing sermons have created such an image problem that the government decided to require imams to apply for a permit to give a politically charged sermon and to punish those who do not comply. The Saudi Gazette’s latest report cites that the Ministry of Islamic Affairs “has noticed some imams focused on sensitive political topics related to the ongoing political incidents in a number of Arab countries” and has “dismissed a number of mosque imams in six cities after they delivered sermons that touched on sensitive issues of a political nature…The rulings affected 18 imams in total.”

At least the royal court has considerable leverage over imams, as it pays their salaries, but it cannot control young religious zealots who claim Hisba. This Islamic doctrine is grounded in commanding what is morally right and forbidding what is morally wrong, making it the responsibility of each Muslim to do something or say something to correct whatever is contrary to Islam.

This exponentially spreading phenomenon is manifesting itself in the actions of individuals who take it upon themselves to disrupt or spoil any events or activities they believe do not agree with Islam. They consistently reference religious texts or principles as the basis for their actions, which they believe provides a legal authority and immunity from prosecution despite their sometimes aggressive style.

This trend is seen frequently and occurred at the large annual book fair organized by the government and in smaller venues such as cultural centers. The latest significant event affected by Hisba was the screening of the first Oscar-nominated Saudi feature film in the foreign language category, “Wadjda”. In acquiescence to the Hisba campaign against showing the movie, a Riyadh cultural center abruptly announced postponing the film after its first showing, citing technical issues according to news reports.

The movie is directed by a Saudi woman and highlights the struggles of women and girls in the patriarchal kingdom. It is unusual for an Oscar-nominated film to be prohibited from public showings in the country of origin. Saudi Arabia does not have public movie theaters; they are banned. And cultural centers have no capacity to receive the general public for such a movie.

Liberal Saudis took to the Twitter-sphere voicing their opposition to the ban and sparking a discussion on the issue. In the public sphere, Hisba activists and their official counterparts, known unofficially as the religious police, continue to suppress any expression that contradicts their narrow interpretation of Islam.

Year after year, Saudis test their freedoms as the calendar approaches February 14 – Valentine’s Day. The color red becomes suspect as couples celebrate their love. Stuffed teddy bears, heart-shaped chocolate and red roses become the target for religious police as shop- keepers feed the temporary black market from their back doors and loading docks.

More liberal voices are gaining ground, particularly on social media. Their fight is not for a blanket Western-style freedom of expression, but to broaden language used in Saudi Arabia to go beyond the religious context. Once such a language is accepted then reformers can engage in a dialogue over rights and responsibilities, leading to discussions on the right to celebrate love, the virtues of filmmaking, and constitutional monarchy, among other pressing issues. Saudi Arabia does not appear to be close to joining the Arab Spring club but it is definitely enjoying the breeze it created.