New America Media - Eye on Egypt

La Opinión Calls for 'Cool-Headed' Diplomacy in Middle East

2012-09-17T16:29:41Z

An editorial in Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión argues that the wave of protests in the Middle East requires an American diplomacy that is realistic and cool-headed.

The wave of protests by Islamic demonstrators in front of U.S. Embassies reflects the volatility of the political climate in this part of the Middle East. This situation requires a flexible diplomacy in changing times, in order to maintain a viable U.S. presence in the region.

The United States played a positive role in the progress of the "Arab Spring," especially in Egypt and Libya, helping end decades-long dictatorships. These changes were inevitable; therefore, it was important for Washington to have the political foresight not to remain uninvolved.

This is a delicate time when every country undergoing these transformations must deal with changes that mean new internal balances of power.

In Egypt, the new Muslim Brotherhood government walks a tightrope to govern in a way that is responsive to political expectations without falling into radicalism. In Libya, a democratic-and more secular-government is still not in control of the entire country and even less the extremist armed groups that want an Islamic nation.

Given this outlook, all that was needed was the spark of a deliberately offensive film insulting Muslims to set the region on fire. Today it is necessary to get through this storm, as happened with other previous demonstrations caused, for example, by an accidental burning of the Koran.

As we have said before, here there is a conflict between the value placed on respect for freedom of expression-even the most hateful expression-and those who consider Muhammad's image as sacred. People with a more radical agenda are now taking advantage of this clash of values, which has happened several times. It is important not to fall into the unfair generalization that all Muslims react violently to this type of situation.

Therefore, it is necessary to keep a cool head and a politically realistic perspective. There is no point in reviving centuries-long conflicts with Muslims or invoking American "exceptionalism" to call for a flag-waving global leadership that is unrealistic.

Obama’s Fleeting Cairo Moment

2012-09-17T08:00:00Z

In April 1980, a U.S. helicopter crashed into a transport plane in the Iranian desert, sealing the fate of a rescue mission ordered by President Jimmy Carter to save 53 American hostages in Tehran. The debacle that was Operation Eagle Claw also sealed Carter’s re-election chances because it demonstrated once again that he had allowed events to overtake his presidency.

The killing of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of September 11 should provoke a similar examination of the Obama presidency. Here was a quintessential ambassador – an Arabic speaker, popular among ordinary Libyans, who had worked with the revolutionaries to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi – killed in the line of duty, inside the diplomatic mission along with three other Americans. It was a colossal failure, marking a nadir in a presidency that boasted a break with Bush-era unilateralism and a promise to “commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground” with the Muslim world.

That sustained effort began five months into his presidency, in Cairo, on June 4, 2009: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” He was placing the Middle East and an outreach to the Muslim world at the centre of his foreign policy ambitions.

Cairo was on his mind again this past week after the Egyptian government appeared less than keen to stop repeated attacks on the U.S. embassy there. A clearly frustrated President Obama said of Egypt on Thursday, "I don't think we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy.” It was a stunning public rebuke of a nation that has received $2 billion in aid annually ever since Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David accords in 1979 and ranks with Israel, Australia and Japan as a “major non-NATO ally.”

As a venue for his first major address on America’s public diplomacy, Cairo was meant to be a leitmotif for a new overture to the Middle East, one designed to balm the Bush-era campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of that came to naught last week with the killing of Ambassador Stevens and the disapproval delivered by Obama himself to newly-elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. It took Morsi another 24 hours to realise that he had to be more forthcoming if he wanted the aid to continue.

It is instructive to go back to that historic speech – historic because those words helped Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize the same year – to look at three specific touch points and see what progress has been made in US-Muslim relations. The first, “Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.”

That assertion made not a whit of difference to the bloodthirsty killers of Ambassador Stevens. It has not persuaded the thousands of others in more than 20 countries that have rioted in Muslim nation capitals, railing against America. It would be worthwhile to ask how many more churches, synagogues and temples have been built in predominantly Muslim nations since June, 2009.

The second bellwether: “Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.” In fact, nations like Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan are less tolerant of religious minorities than before. Ironically, the removal of dictators has made life for these vulnerable populations even less hospitable.

And, the third test: “The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.” Extremists and provocateurs are as welcome as they have ever been as is demonstrated by the ongoing violence targeted at American interests in capitals across the Muslim-Arab arc of nations in Asia and Africa stretching from Mauritania to Indonesia. The Arab Spring has seemingly made matters worse. The pretext: an amateurish, high school-calibre film that ridicules Prophet Mohammed.

Of course, Obama’s declaration in Cairo to provide fresh impetus to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians has gone nowhere amid mutual recriminations and stonewalling. He has been no more successful than his predecessor who was a much more vocal supporter of Israel.

All of this points to a hard truth. Substantial sections of the Muslim world see America as Israel’s proxy – not the other way around – and can see nothing good ever coming out of Washington. Large swaths still cling to the notion that 9-11 was either self-inflicted or a Jewish plot. It’s not that they don’t understand the distinction between a private film-maker and the American government. They absolutely do, but almost any provocation is good enough to start a riot, take a few lives, and most importantly, burn the American flag. Burning of Korans, defecating on the Taliban, Abu Ghraib and the Danish cartoon controversy are all good enough reasons to spill blood and play spoiler.

The conclusion is inescapable: Other than helping win a Nobel Peace Prize, Obama’s Cairo speech was just another demonstration of soaring rhetoric and relativistic parsing. As Robert Lieber, Georgetown University’s international affairs professor, told Konrad Yakabuski of Canada’s Globe and Mail, “The Obama administration had a view if only we showed the Arab and Muslim worlds that we cared, things would change… But public opinion shows that the United States is no more popular in large chunks of the Middle East than it was under George W. Bush.”

If Bob Woodward’s latest chronicle The Price of Politics is an indictment of President Obama’s economic policy, the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the continuing anti-American tumult in the Middle East are a similar black mark on the foreign policy front. To paraphrase Woodward, Obama has not worked his will – neither in economic policy, nor in public diplomacy.

George Abraham is an Ottawa-based commentator who worked as a reporter and editor in the Middle East for 10 years.

Arab American Media: Egyptian People Will Not Accept ‘Old Regime’

2012-06-23T07:10:00Z

Photo: Tahrir Square protests in 2011

Sixteen months after the toppling of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, ending his 30-year rule, throngs of Egyptians have returned in protest to Cairo’s Tahrir Square, where the revolution began on Jan. 25, 2011.

For nearly a week, people have demonstrated in opposition to actions of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) and the country’s delay of declaring a new president. The country’s presidential election was conducted May 23 and 24, with the final runoffs held on June 16 and 17.

Representing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, (FJP) was Mohammed Morsi, who was educated at the University of Southern California and taught at California State University, Northridge. The other candidate was Ahmed Shafiq, a senior commander in the Egyptian Air Force and the last prime minister in President Mubarak’s administration.

Early morning last Monday, Morsi declared victory with 52.5 percentage points, five more than Ahmed Shafiq’s 47.5 percent. Yet the Supreme Presidential Elections Commission has announced that the final decision will be made by Saturday or Sunday of next week. This decision has exacerbated political tensions as it comes just a week after the SCAF has ordered the dissolution of Egypt’s parliament, which was newly elected earlier this year and had majority of its members from the FJP.

Also, the SCAF Constitutional Declaration included amendments giving them powers previously to be held by the new president, such as legislative responsibilities, the power to write the new constitution, powers of arrest, control over the armed forces and the right to veto wars.

New America Media asked members of the Arab American media in the United States for their views on the significance of Egypt’s presidential elections and the subsequent social unrest.

Mansour Tadros, Publisher, The Future Newspaper, Chicago, Ill.

I am not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is a game going on [with SCAF] and Ahmed Shafiq’s agenda. It’s not going to be easy for SCAF to give up power. They’ve got something up their sleeves.

If the Freedom and Justice Party won, they should be given a chance. I hope Egypt does not go back to square one. I hope the military does not underestimate and undermine the Egyptian people and their intelligence, as they have been. The military is playing a game with the constitution, now, and it’s [making the Egyptians look] as if they’ve done nothing over the past year and a half.

If Ahmed Shafiq does win, I hope it is because he earned it, not because of some monkey business, which I suspect. If the Muslim Brotherhood wins, we can’t take that away from them--and the votes, they have legally earned that. They are Egyptian. They are a legal entity.

Yes, there is a fear that Egypt might become a religious Islamist government, but that’s ridiculous. That would never happen. They are all PhDs and aware of the repercussions.

The Egyptians would go back to the streets immediately, just like they did when they demanded an end to the Mubarak regime--and everyone with The Brotherhood knows that.

At the moment, Mubarak’s health has taken tremendous attention in the media, but the truth is he has practically been dead for 12 years. His current health (and eventual death) is not an issue. The main issue is the Egyptian people and their future, and that’s where the attention should be.

Fatmeh Atieh, Publisher, Al Enteshar Newspaper, Los Angeles, Calif.

This is completely political theater. SCAF… pre-empted [the democratic process] with the recent Constitutional Declaration, which grants them legislative powers as well as greater control over the constitution-drafting process.

I’m not in support of the Brotherhood, and I’m not against the view that the majority of Parliament should not be held by the same party represented by the president. And the Brotherhood initially pledged that they wouldn’t push for their party to pursue the presidency. But I am with the freedom of the people.

You must respect the voice of the people. If the people voted for the Brotherhood, if they voted for the Devil or for a monkey, we must respect that and only that. There is no room for voter fraud and games.
Morsi, to the people, is largely the lesser evil, and he is winning because he’s got the people’s support.

If Shafiq is somehow is announced as the winner that could cause a blood bath and severe chaos. He represents the Mubarak regime, and that is everything the people want to see changed. Did hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets in revolution to overthrow a regime only to bring it back into power?

Amani Ghouleh, Publisher, The Arabic Horizon Newspaper, Chicago, Ill

The key issue is to make sure that everybody’s vote is counted. The people must feel and know this was a fair election. The public chooses the president. It seems that most of the votes went to Morsi. What needs to be taken in to consideration is that this is who people voted for.

SCAF cannot undermine the people of Egypt, but it is [trying to do so]. The people should know that after the president is announced, they should focus on rebuilding Egypt.

If Morsi is the winner, he has the chance to put the right people in the right place. Just like the U.S. Elections, or any election really. Presidents have advisers—they can’t rule the country all alone. Everybody now is looking forward to the next steps.

Shafiq is a copy of the old regime, and if Morsi loses, I feel that it would be a big problem. I fear for another revolution with more bloodshed. But it’s also difficult to predict the future. What I can say is that whether Mubarak dies or not will not change anything, that’s not the issue, people want to turn the page and move Egypt forward.

Ahmed Tharwat, Producer and Host, BelAhdan, Minneapolis, Minn.

SCAF has made one too many mistakes by dissolving the parliament. They are acting the same way that Mubarak did and are abusing power. Everything they have done has been counterproductive to the revolution.

As an Egyptian living abroad, it’s just amazing that my home country is not getting what it deserves. It is disheartening and ridiculous. There is no way they can declare Shafiq as the winner.

SCAF has really succeeded in dividing the majority of Egyptians against the revolution. They are sacrificing the country, abusing their own people, just for a few crumbs of power.

The Brotherhood needs to show the people that they mean business. This is their last chance to show that they are there for Egypt, not for the power. Egypt needs someone to strengthen the institution. That doesn’t have to be someone with strong political background. We need a new look, someone who represents us. We’re sick and tired of the people who come and try to cater to the West and yet don’t care about their own people.

What’s impressive is that what you see in Tahrir has been going strong for 18 months. After people have been killed and tortured, they still--and will--have the energy. That is scaring the military. The voice of the street is coming back.

The Constitutional Declaration is nothing but an admission by the military that it is losing to the Brotherhood. That declaration helped Morsi bring people who would have otherwise stayed home to vote for him and against what SCAF is doing. But change will happen no matter who is in power because people will not accept the old regime.

Carnage in Syria: Not In Our Name

2012-06-06T08:55:00Z

“Massacre in Syria Was America’s New Mission for al-Qaeda,” read a recent, front-page banner headline in Kayhan (Universe), an Iranian newspaper that doubles as the daily personal mouthpiece of the country's “spiritual leader,” Ali Khamenei.

The news – falsely attributed to the authoritative magazine Foreign Policy – was further proof that, despite the pretense of Islamic piety, the newspaper is as firm a believer in the Big Lie as was the Nazi propaganda machine. The far more credible Iranian daily, Shargh (East), on the same day carried an item on the recall of foreign ambassadors from Syria in response to the carnage.

Yet, Kayhan’s invention holds the tiniest grain of truth. The loathsome violence perpetuated by Hafiz al-Assad’s criminal regime on innocent Syrians will in the end serve America’s corporate interests, as the United States continues to destabilize the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) under the guise of the “Arab Spring.”

The final intent of the U.S. is to redraw the regional map of the oil-rich MENA swath from the heart of the Middle East to the westernmost reaches of North Africa, a strategy that would allow Big Oil to negotiate on more advantageous terms with far weaker, local interests—such as the separatist Barqa state in oil-rich eastern Libya—a far cry from the days of dealing with such greedy strongmen as Moamar Gadaffi and Hosni Mubarak. Quite tellingly, the latest financial sanction imposed on Syria has frustrated the country’s oil exports, which at 263,000 barrels a day, is a vital revenue stream.

It is incumbent upon all Americans who find killing women and children for better oil deals repugnant, to ask President Obama to take decisive action to stop the violence.

The United States, in addition to the sanctions, has expelled the Syrian charge d'affaire and may soon recall its own ambassador. Yet these diplomatic and financial moves are no match for the Syrian military and intelligence apparatus that is hell bent on preserving the status quo.

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) has issued an ultimatum to the al-Assad regime to observe the ceasefire terms as agreed upon with the United Nations representative Kofi Annan. Yet the FSA displays neither the military might nor the decisive public support to back its words with effective action.

The only way to stop killing the innocent is for NATO to contain the Syrian military and police to their bases with sufficient air cover while its special forces go after the thugs of al-Shabiha (the Similar) who excel in spreading terror by invading towns and cutting the throats of anyone in sight.

Syria is one of many MENA hot spots that is pitting Washington against Russia and China in a new configuration with the potential to spread the war and violence globally. Clearly the days of dictators, sheiks, kings and emirs in the Middle East and Africa are numbered. Yet the United States and its allies have no long-range plans to shape the regional future beyond their ambition to take the oil and run.

Today, Americans must ask themselves if they are willing to be participants in a military-industrial empire, which is reconstructing the world to serve its own benefit. As the empire’s citizens, they can hold on to their privileged position only for so long before they become one with the rest of a subjugated people. Most alarmingly, they are sure to provide the cannon fodder when China and Russia move to fill the power vacuum in a contested MENA.

Headlines similar to Kayhan’s, which have no other intent but to buttress unpopular regimes by spreading anti-American venom, are not rare in the Middle East. They are not meant for the educated who have access to a wide variety of news sources, but for the semi-literate, volatile street crowds who provide the power base for the pseudo-Islamic movements from Tehran to Cairo.

As “useful idiots,” they not only serve the myopic interests of their own rulers, but also are helpful to the long-range imperial designs that benefit from feeding the fires of regional strife. It is high time for Americans to raise their voices against their own corrupt and calculating rulers to say: Not in our name.

Islam and the Egyptian Presidential Election

2012-05-07T17:26:26Z

CAIRO -– It is a few minutes before midnight on Friday and calm is far from being able to make its way back to the street of this Egyptian capital. Teargas fills the air and the shrill sound of ambulance sirens fills the neighborhood surrounding the Defense Ministry, as hundreds of protestors seek shelter, and hundreds of military policemen hunt high and low for them.

Egypt’s military junta had about three hours earlier declared a curfew over this neighborhood, but few of the citizens who started coming here to protest the April 26 decision of the Higher Election Presidential Commission, a committee of judges tasked with monitoring and supervising the poll, observed it.

“Either they bring Hazem Abu Ismail back to the presidential race or we will not stop protesting,” said one of the supporters of the Salafist hopeful, who was excluded from the list of presidential candidates because his mother had an American citizenship. “This is not a war for Abu Ismail but one for Islam.”

In a few weeks, Egypt will elect a president for the first time since a popular uprising toppled a three-decade-old authoritarian regime under Hosni Mubarak. Violence is engulfing the country, claiming lives and spreading fear.

Egypt’s Islamist forces, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and their more conservative Salafist peers, are sharpening their fighting tools and preparing their well-articulated arguments for what seems to be an imminent clash, one that ostensibly takes center stage in the presidential election. And this clash is sure to go beyond the election to define the direction of how Egyptians will rule themselves.

“The Islamists want to radicalize this country by applying Islamic law, but the military will never be happy with this,” said Sharif Hafez, a liberal political analyst. “Islamists know that their chances in the next presidential election are dim, hence [they] desire to turn the table on everybody.”

The Head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces which took over after President Mubarak stepped down last year, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi had declared that the army would return to its barracks when power is handed over to an elected civilian president.

But Islamists who, having gotten rid of Mubarak’s fetters, want to dominate Egypt’s political life, like Assem Abdel Maguid, a senior member of Jamaa Islamia, an Islamist organization that masterminded the assassination of the late president Anwar Sadat in 1981. He had recently turned to politics. “Those who say the chances of the Islamists in the presidential election are weak are mistaken,” he asserted.

Two of the three frontrunners are Islamists. Should an Islamist become president on May 24, it would be a small step in a major move to do away with Egypt’s secular political and economic system. Egypt’s Islamists are pained to see their popularity spiraling down so soon after they managed to win a majority in the two chambers of the Egyptian parliament.

The economic and political utopia the Islamists had promised voters has not happened, with unemployment and poverty rising, and parliament proving an extreme failure in addressing the needs of ordinary people.

“I will never vote for these people again,” said Akram Mahmud, a university student from Cairo. “They do nothing but lie and waste our time.”

But this is perhaps why Islamists are desperate to form a government. They accuse the current government of intentionally neglecting the needs of the public and depleting the nation’s financial resources in ways that discredit parliament.

On Friday, most of the people who clashed with military policemen outside the Defense Ministry were bearded Islamist executives. They pelted the military policemen with stones, even as they chanted “Alahu Akbar” (God is Great). Some of them retreated as determined soldiers kept them away from the offices of the military council, but others surged forward. More than 300 demonstrators were injured and one army soldier was killed.

The demonstrators seemed to be settling old scores with the military, which has all along opposed the formation of a government by Islamists.

People like Hafez, who said he had received death threats from Islamists for his severe criticism of them, think the next few days will be full of surprises.

“I do not think the military will hand Islamists this country on a silver platter as these Islamists expect,” Hafez said. “They [the military] said Egypt’s secular system is a red line and in saying this they do not joke.”

This is why other analysts, including leftist writer Abdullah el-Sinawy, think the big confrontation between the military and the Islamists is yet to come when Egypt embarks on writing its new constitution.

So far, Islamists have demonstrated a keen desire to dominate the constitution-writing panel, something that has been strongly opposed by liberals, secularists and leftists like el-Sinawy.

“I think the major confrontation is yet to come,” el-Sinawy said. “This is why I say to all political forces, ‘your unity is the only way out (for) this country, or we can find ourselves locked in a civil war.’”

Sex, Drugs and Revolution -- Top Foreign Films That Didn't Make the Oscars

2012-02-17T08:15:00Z

Editor's Note: The Academy Award nominations for best foreign-language film may say more about the U.S. than they do about the countries where the movies were made. New America Media asked U.S. ethnic media editors about the films that didn't make the Oscars list, but made waves in their home countries.

This year's favorite for the Best Foreign Language Oscar depicts a couple battling an emotional separation and the theocracy that governs them. Set in Tehran, the film's warm reception in the United States says more about us -- and our unease with the wider world - than it does about Iran.

Asghar Farhadi's “A Separation” vindicates our view of Iranians on some level, which is likely why it resonates with the Academy.

But what about the films that don't? The past year saw a slew of movies that made waves with audiences in their home countries for reasons that have nothing to do with us.

“Cater to Hollywood, Lose Self.” That was the headline of a recent op-ed in China, in reference to Zhang Yimou's latest endeavor, “The Flowers of War.” Almost by design, writes Zhu Xudong, the film was made with an eye to a global audience, meaning, the Academy.

“In the past few years, a number of Chinese filmmakers have worked hard to show that they too are worthy of the Hollywood title,” writes Zhu. “Pouring in more money, drawing bigger names, and relying on special effects, have added up to a string of cinematic failures.”

“The Flowers of War” is one of them, he says. The film, China's most expensive to date, failed to win over fans at home and was derided by American critics as a blatant paean to Chinese nationalism.

What did do well in China? Zhu notes that despite its low budget and obscure cast, “Love Is Not Blind” by newcomer Teng Huatao opened to packed houses from Beijing to Shanghai, topping the 20 million mark in ticket sales on its first day.

A romantic comedy about the relationship between a young gay man (played by Wen Zhang) and his female colleague, the film has sparked intense discussion among women in China.

“Why are women falling for the lead male character?” is the headline of a recent posting on a popular blog site that caters to Chinese women. “It's because they see [in Wen's character] the possibility for an intimacy not even shared with female friends.”

Lisa Tsering writes on entertainment for India West, which covers the South Asian community in the United States.

Describing India's Oscar submission, “Abu, Son of Adam,” as “well-meaning but ponderous,” she says the film that has captured the most attention among Indian critics and fans alike is Milan Luthria's “The Dirty Picture.”

The film, based loosely on the life of the late actress Silk Smitha (played by Vidya Balan), has won all the major industry awards in India, Tsering says.

Writing for the online news site First Post, author M. Svairini connects the film's subject matter to recent protests in the southern Indian state of Karnataka after several lawmakers there were discovered watching porn on their mobile devices.

“Today in India, hypocrisy is the only moral constant,” says Srivani, who describes himself in his byline as the author of online “naughty stories.”

Taking issue with India's sexual taboos, Srivani quotes from the film's lead protagonaist. “You call me ghatia, sexy, dirty. … But it's you who make sex films, sell them, watch them, distribute them so others can watch, even give awards for them.”

No awards were forthcoming for Korea's “The Crucible,” by Hwang Dong Hyuk. What the film did do was unleash a firestorm of anger and unease over its graphic depiction of the real-life molestation of children at a school for the deaf in the southern city of Gwangju from 2000 to 2005.

“I expected the film would generate discussion and debate, but I didn't think the response would be this quick and explosive,” said Hwang in an interview after the film's release. “The growing repulsion and rage that people feel every time they hear about such injustices seem to have come to a boil with my movie.”

It's clearly not Oscar material, though the subject matter's similarity to recent events at Penn State may connect with American audiences.

Korea's official submission to the Oscar committee, “Frontline,” tells the story of South Korea's ongoing conflict with North Korea from the perspective of soldiers on the ground. Like Zhang's film, it conceals more than it reveals, offering international audiences the heroic narrative of a country rising from the ashes.

Forget the dirty laundry, it says. We'd rather you not see that.

Which brings us to Gerardo Naranjo's “Miss Bala,” about the true story of a beauty queen recruited by Mexico's drug cartels. Described in the Huffington Post as a “tense, dark, and realistic meditation” on the violence engulfing that country, “Miss Bala” failed to make the shortlist of films up for contention in this year's Oscars.

“It was a surprise,” says Josep Parera, entertainment editor with the Spanish-language papers La Opinion and La Vibra, who adds that such films are rarely a hit with Latino moviegoers who tend to prefer Hollywood blockbusters to grim portrayals of what, for some, is an all too familiar reality.

He adds that Brazil's “Tropa de Elite 2” made a strong showing in the box office there, an “impressive” action flick that nevertheless “lacks the political touch required to get a nomination in the [Oscars'] Foreign Language race.”

If there's a film that does pack a political punch, says Ahmed Tharwat, it's “Microphone,” by Egyptian filmmaker Ahmad Abdallah, whose own real-life experience informs much of the plot.

The film revolves around Khaled, a young man who returns to Egypt after studying abroad in the U.S. and immediately senses a personal disconnect from the many changes that have swept across his homeland.

“It's a movie about any Egyptian who has lived abroad,” says Tharwat, who hosts the weekly Arab-language program BelAhdan on Minneapolis TV. Released in 2010, its premier in Cairo was slated for Jan. 25 of last year, coinciding with the first day of Egypt's revolution.

Describing it as “prophetic,” Tharwat says the film explores Egypt's resistant youth as they fight for recognition from a government staunchly opposed to their calls for justice and equality.

It also gets into the “darker side of the revolution,” he says.

In Iran, that revolution has so far been kept at bay, though the country remains at the forefront of our collective unease. As talk of war grows louder in Washington, on Feb. 26 the film academy will announce its decision. Whether it bridges our separation is another question.

Additional reporting by Summer Chiang, Viji Sundaram, Elena Shore and Suzanne Manneh.

One Year On, Arab Pride and the Long Road Ahead

2012-01-25T09:00:00Z

SAN FRANCISCO – Tareq, a Syrian American graphic designer living in Silicon Valley, says his life has “completely changed 100 percent over the past year,” a change he credits to protests in Egypt’s Tahrir Square exactly one year ago today. That date has since been enshrined as a pivotal moment in the evolution of the Arab Spring.

The toppling of Tunisia’s Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, followed by the fall of Libyan strongman Moammar Ghaddafi have defined what Tareq, who requested that his last name be withheld because of safety concerns for relatives in Syria, calls “the most important time of the region’s history.”

“[These events] have broken the barriers of fear for Arab Americans and Arabs abroad against oppression and reinforced pride in being Arab,” says Tareq, before striking a note of caution.

The road ahead, he says, is long and unpredictable. Events in his native Syria, where an ongoing struggle to oust President Bashar Al-Assad has claimed over 5,000 lives, checks his optimism.

The Year that Changed Everything

Mohammed Bouazizi was not unlike many young Tunisians. A recent college graduate, he was reduced to selling fruit to support himself and his family. On December 17, 2010, Bouazizi immolated himself to protest policies blamed for rising unemployment and poverty.

That singular event launched a wave of protests, beginning in Tunisia and rapidly spreading across the region, culminating in an 18-day rally that drew on Egyptians of all stripes and from all corners who descended on Tahrir and eventually succeeded in ending Mubarak’s 30-year rule.

Egyptians have since celebrated their gains, recently holding the country’s first, if controversial, democratic elections, with the moderate Egyptian Brotherhood sweeping into power ahead of secular and more religiously conservative rivals.

Tunisia also held elections in October 2011, with the moderate Islamist Ennahda Movement winning a majority of the vote.

But for others in the region -- including Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria -- the ripple effects of the Arab Spring continues to make waves.

“These uprisings toppled the whole idea of Arab equals terrorist, backwards, or illiterate,” said Momen El-Husseiny, an Egyptian and currently a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Berkeley in Architecture and Global Metropolitan Studies. “All these notions that had been so potent were no longer so. We are now in communication with the entire world,” he said.

El-Husseiny, who spent the past year in Egypt and recently returned to Berkeley to complete his dissertation, said he immediately saw those changes within himself and in others.

The Role of Women

Mokhtar Alkhanshali, of Yemeni descent, says the Arab Spring has altered the way Arabs are seen globally, dispelling widespread notions including that of Arab women being absent from the realm of civic engagement.

Nobel Peace Prize winner and head of the Yemeni organization Women Journalists Without Chains, Tawakkol Karaman, he noted, was “one of the first voices that came out in this movement in Yemen,” having “led the first protests in front of the University of Sanaa.”

Women also played an active and prominent role in Egypt’s Tahrir protests. Such actions, broadcast for a global audience thanks to the proliferation of mobile technology and social media, “changed the face of Arabs,” says Alkhanshali.

“For a Yemeni woman to be the first Arab woman and youngest person to win a Nobel Peace Prize, and play such a role…I feel very proud of that,” he added.

Alkhanshali shared another experience, one closer to home, that spoke to the new light under which Arabs are now being seen. It was last Halloween, he explained, when he encountered a stranger dressed in military fatigues and a Kiffyeh, a traditional unisex headscarf.

“He told me he was a Libyan revolutionary,” Alkhanshali recalled, saying it was then he realized that mainstream society was beginning to replace the image of Arabs as “riding camels and oppressing women” to “fighters for democracy.”

Inspiring Unity and Occupation

“I take my daughter to a (private) Arabic school,” says Hany Elhak, originally from Egypt and now living in San Jose. Recalling the events of the past year, he says that when the revolution first swept through Tunisia, students and parents with roots spanning the entire Arab world celebrated.

“People were bringing in food… We never felt that close,” he says, adding that a resurgent pride in Arab American identity and culture, long overshadowed by conflict in the region and fears of terrorism at home, were evident in recent protests in San Francisco.

“During demonstrations in support of the Syrian struggle, there have been Yemeni’s, Egyptians, everyone there in solidarity. There has definitely been a renewed sense of Pan Arabism, a sense of Arab pride,” noted Tareq.

And inspiration. For if nothing else, the Arab Spring helped precipitate what has become the largest protest movement to hit America since the Vietnam War.

At a recent Occupy Oakland rally, Tareq remembers hearing protestors chanting “The people want to topple Wall Street.” That chant, he says, found its precedent in Tahrir and Tunis, where protestors cried, Asha’ab ureed isqaat anizaam. “The people want to topple the regime.”

“Of course we can’t take the credit, but I do believe that if the Arab revolutions were not this powerful, the Occupy movement would not have been (as powerful) either,” he notes.

Celebration and Reflection

Arabs across San Francisco and the Bay Area are preparing to commemorate the anniversary of the Arab Spring with an event that organizers say will “bring the community together… to reflect on this last year of revolution in Egypt and honor all Arab struggles.”

Janaan Attia, a community organizer and one of the individuals responsible for putting on Wednesday’s event in the city’s Mission District, says it is “vital that Arabs gather and connect” with one another.

Discussions are sure to touch on issues of democracy and the continuing violence in countries like Syria, though many are hopeful and say they’d like to return when conditions improve.

Others are more cautious.

“I’m sure we will see democratic states,” said Tareq in reference to Syria, “but unfortunately (the violence) will continue. We won’t get democracy for free.”

Has Western Media Overhyped Divide Between Egyptian Copts, Muslims?

2011-12-05T09:25:00Z

Janaan Attia, a second generation Egyptian American and Coptic Christian from Oakland, California, is concerned about what the future holds for Egypt following that country’s parliamentary elections last week. But Attia, like many Egyptians both here and back in Egypt, is becoming equally concerned by how the country is being portrayed in the western media.

That’s because a good amount of the media coverage before and during the first round of parliamentary elections -- some Egyptians have referred to it as their country’s “first free election” – has focused on religious tensions, both real and perceived, between the country’s Muslim majority (90 percent) and Coptic Christian minority (10 percent).

One incident that generated much international media attention and continues to be referenced is the “Maspero Massacre” of October 9, which was sparked when Egyptian Copts decided to stage a sit-in outside the state television station building in Cairo’s Maspero Square. They were there to protest the burning of one of their churches in Aswan, south of Cairo, and the vandalizing of other Coptic churches throughout Egypt earlier this year. The sit-in ended in violent clashes between demonstrators and Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). By the time the dust settled, at least 25 civilians were killed, and hundreds more injured.

Attia says the massacre is proof that Egyptian’s fears of religious conflict and discrimination amid the current political turmoil are valid, but she insists that internal religious conflict is not the primary challenge facing Egypt, nor should the media be depicting it that way.

“As a Copt, of course, it adds another layer. My family felt marginalized [under] the Mubarak regime,” said Attia. “[Religious discrimination] is a concern, and it is a reality. However, state repression is state repression, and economic justice is the key point for all Egyptians.”

Ironically, said Attia, as the western media has had its gaze focused on conflagrations like the Maspero Massacre, it has overlooked unprecedented moments of unity between Mulsims and Copts that have been on display for the duration of the revolution.

“During the October 9th demonstrations, lots of Muslims were in support [of Copts],” recalled Attia. She points also to various Arab media reports showing Muslims and Christians protecting each other during the revolution’s start in January, and Attia is convinced that there is ongoing mutual support between Egypt’s religious communities.

“Had there been this true (religious) divide as (it was) depicted, the revolution and getting Mubarak out of power wouldn’t have been so successful,” she said.

Ahmed Tharwat, a professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis and host of a local Arab-American community television program, BelAhdan, said religious differences have always been an issue in Egypt, “but always in a civil liberties context.” Furthermore, said Tharwat, the religious conflict perceived in Egypt today is less a product of the current revolution than it is “a remnant of the Mubarak regime.”

Perceptions are further complicated when media generalize, said Hany Amin, a recent graduate of American University of Cairo, currently studying at the Institute of International Studies in Monterey, Calif.

“We cannot deny that [religious discrimination] is a problem. [But] you cannot say that all Christians in Egypt will suffer from it. This is what I would call generalization.”

According to Amin, when he was in Cairo during the revolution, American and Western media were “generalizing and highlighting the Islamic Brotherhood as if they had all the power.”

Only once the parliamentary elections drew near, he said, did the same American and Western media begin addressing the other parties involved, including Copts, liberals and various moderate parties. “But they should have done that much earlier,” said Amin. Initially showing only one side “created a perception, and perceptions are hard to break,” he said.

That perception has become troubling to Yasmeen Daifallah, an Egyptian ex-pat currently residing in Berkeley, Calif.

She said the skewed media focus could cause American’s to misunderstand the “bigger picture in Egypt.”

Michigan resident Atef Said, a civil rights lawyer in Egypt prior to coming to the U.S. 7 years ago, was in Cairo from February through April of this year. He said he’s been concerned about the western media’s “lack of context,” and is particularly bothered by how the media has ignored the wrongdoings of SCAF. Egypt’s current military apparatus, he said, is no different from the Mubarak regime in their “cracking down on everything,” and negligence in addressing the country’s public interest issues such as equality, education and the economy.

“Media blame Egyptians for their own mess, as if SCAF is not responsible,” he said.

Said, like many others, is worried about Egypt’s immediate future. But he looks forward to the day when, “elected officials can be held accountable, unlike army officials who cannot be.”

Peter Mikhail, a Coptic youth who has been active in the demonstrations at Tahrir Square, summed up his generation’s vision for Egypt’s future as thus: “Before the [revolution] there were Christians and Muslims, but after there are (only) Egyptians. The revolution succeeded in uniting us as well as exposing a lot of deceiving groups.”

Chaos in Cairo Plays to the Advantage of U.S., Big Oil

2011-11-29T09:00:00Z

The darkness now descending on Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the epicenter of a disastrous “Arab Spring,” augurs well for a future that President Obama and his allies desire to see unfold in the Arab world. The Tahrir Square of today is a place of rampant violence and sexual assault, perpetrated by the state terror apparatus and street thugs alike. The recent toll: 40 dead, 2,000 seriously wounded and countless others intimidated, beaten and raped.

The 18 days Egyptian protesters endured on the square last winter, after Hosni Mubarak stepped down under direct pressure from President Obama and the Egyptian people began to claim a revolution they did not entirely own, are now being remembered with sweet nostalgia; celebrated as a time when “intellectuals” were the guiding light of the protests as opposed to today’s rule by thugs. (Yet even back then, a mob of Egyptian men assaulted and raped CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan.)

Today, women risk their dignity and personal safety by going to Tahrir, a place where rapists roam freely and assault at will. One of the more vocal and prominent victims among them is Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy, who had her left arm and right hand broken before being sexually assaulted by Egyptian riot police. Eltahawy later told NPR, “We are experiencing a political revolution in Egypt, but we need a cultural and social revolution.”

Yet, perhaps Eltahawy is too close to events at Tahrir to realize that it was pressure from the United States that ultimately led to Mubarak’s fall – the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back -- and it was the U.S. that also ordered the Egyptian military to measure its response against the protesters. Moreover, to say that “we need” any kind of revolution comes across as naïve and foolish on its face. Positive change comes only after years of preparation, organization and sacrifice, very little of which has been seen in the Arab world. Indeed, true change defines rather than demands its necessity.

These instant revolutions threaten to bring only more long lasting pain to an “arc of instability” which is now being drawn from the heart of the Middle East to the westernmost reaches of North Africa. If any meaningful and lasting change is to occur, the millions in this vast region surviving on a dollar or two per day must first gain the wherewithal to think beyond their next meal, let alone “democracy.”

Early next year, this catastrophic “spring” is to reach its first anniversary, and a starry-eyed global media is still describing the events as an Arab “awakening” toward “democracy.” Yet the stark death tolls, massive disruption of lives and lack of a clear, constructive plan to move forward in such countries as Libya, Syria, Egypt and Yemen tell an entirely different story: What little these beleaguered nations have enjoyed in terms of stability and prosperity--albeit under the thumbs of abject autocrats--is being deliberately and systematically destroyed in a bald power grab by the United States, its allies and Big Oil.

Wishful thinkers at home and abroad are quick to dismiss any “conspiracy theory,” even as they watch endless scenes of violent clashes and funeral processions on their TV screens. They still want to believe that elections – held in the midst of state terror and mob violence carried out by a people fiercely divided by unresolved class, ethnic, religious and tribal differences -- will magically bring about rule of law, government by consensus and civil debate.

Yet the very words of President Obama, the major architect and spokesperson of a design that is ultimately against even America’s own best interests, betray his true intentions.

In his address to the nation on March 28, 2011, the president justified America’s impending intervention in Libya by saying, “Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."

According to Obama’s outlook, Libya is a resounding success done on the cheap: Overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi took only months to accomplish and did not cost a single American life. Yet today, as he was in March, the president remains “hopeful about Iraq’s future” even after eight years of American occupation during which Iraq has become a failed state with rampant corruption. Meanwhile, the largest beneficiaries of the war in Iraq remain ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Petronas, who enjoy the spoils of war via lopsided contracts written in their favor, which they negotiated with the puppet regime on the take.

Eight years from now, if “everything goes right” from the point of view of Obama and Big Oil, Libya and the rest of the “Arab Spring” nations should be in precisely the same predicament as Iraq is today.

Tear Gas and Stones Fly in Egypt's Tahrir Sq.

2011-11-21T23:22:18Z

Ed. Note: Bloody riots in Egypt’s Tahrir Square entered their third day Monday, nine months after protests toppled former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and just a week ahead of the nation’s first parliamentary elections. Amid the violence, media reports say the country’s interim government has tendered its resignation, bowing to the demands of protestors angered over the military's continued grip on power. Estimates put the crowds in the tens of thousands, while Egyptian authorities say upwards of 30 people have been killed, with more than 1,500 injured.

North Koreans in Libya Barred from Going Home

2011-10-26T21:29:21Z

TRIPOLI, Libya - North Korea has banned its citizens in Libya from returning home in an apparent attempt to prevent the popular uprisings in the Arab world from reaching the isolated regime, a source said Wednesday.

The development illustrated the North’s concern about possible social unrest inspired by the Arab Spring, which has also toppled longtime autocratic leaders in Tunisia and Egypt.

Last week, Muammar el-Qaddafi was killed in his hometown of Surt, months after a public revolt began against the former Libyan leader.

North Korea, which maintained close ties with Qaddafi’s regime, has so far been silent on his death. It has yet to officially recognize Libya’s rebel-led National Transitional Council as the North African nation’s legitimate governing authority.

About 200 North Koreans have been left in limbo in the war-torn country by Pyongyang’s order, the source familiar with the issue said.

The North Korean doctors, nurses and construction workers were sent to Libya to earn hard currency for their impoverished communist country.

North Korea has also taken similar steps for its officials in Libya, Egypt and other countries, said the source.

In recent months, North Korean defectors and other South Korean activists have sent leaflets calling for an uprising against North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, who rules the country with an iron fist.

Still, many experts are skeptical about an Arab Spring-style uprising in the isolated country, citing North Korea’s intolerance of dissent and tight control over any information spread within and across the country’s borders.

From Tahrir With Love

2011-10-21T20:35:32Z

More than 10 months after the start of the Arab Spring, when millions of Arabs took to the streets demanding change, people in America are finally waking up to the harsh reality: the biggest threat to their lives and their futures are not Arabs or Muslims.

For the first time Arabs are being seen here in a positive light, an inspiration to a new movement in America that challenges the old system. Occupy Wall Street was sparked by an editorial in the Canadian magazine AdBusters calling for protests modeled on events in the Middle East. “If we want to spark a popular uprising in the West – like a million man march on Wall Street – then let's get organized…”

The same call went up from a young Egyptian activist named Asmaa Mahfouze, who called on his fellow Egyptians to turn out at Tahrir Sqaure on Jan. 25th, a date now remembered as the start of the Revolution. Like Tahrir, the protest on Wall Street began with a few hundred hard-core activists, later expanding across the country and coinciding with similar protests in Italy, England, Greece and Spain.

It took Obama three weeks before he acknowledged the Wall Street movement, saying it “reflects peoples frustration.” As if they are complaining about traffic tickets. It took two weeks for national public radio to offer more than just perfunctory coverage, while Fox News continues to insist that those protesting are just a bunch of “hippies.”

In the prophetic words of India’s Mahatma Gandhi, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win…”

Who could have imagined that 10 years after 19 Arabs hijacked four airplanes, driving two of them into the heart of the world’s financial system, thousands of Americans would take to the street on that very same site to denounce the country’s predatory brand of capitalism? And that they would be inspired by millions of Arabs who put life and limb on the line to topple a brutal network of dictators.

I will leave it to academics to debate the differences between the Arab and American springs. But without doubt, no other political group in this country or around the world has affected the Occupy Wall Street movement as the Egyptian revolution that toppled ex-dictator Hosni Mubarak. Even the Tea Party, once lauded for its grassroots connections to a nation fed up with the financial shenanigans of Wall Street bankers and brokers, has been a no show at Zuccotti Park or at any of the other sites.

The tactics used by protesters, furthermore, bears echoes of Tahrir: the mass occupation of public spaces, as well as the changing of place names such as from Zuccotti Park to Liberty Plaza, or Hennepic County Plaza here in Minnesota to People’s Plaza. Moreover, families have come with their children, while protesters have relied on social media to speak directly to the people, circumventing the traditional press. Most important has been the emphasis on adhering to Sylmayah, Sylmayah… peaceful, peaceful. As in both cases, the violence has been entirely one sided, coming via the state and its official security apparatus.

Earlier this month I went to cover the Occupy Minnesota rallies. Standing amid the crowd – awed by the diversity and palpable camaraderie – I felt myself transported back to Tahrir, a proud Arab in post 9/11 America. Just then two helicopters buzzed overhead above People’s Plaza, and I distinctly remembered Mubarak in his waning days sending two fighter jets over Tahrir to drown out the cries of the protestors. Instead, the reaction of millions went up in one unified voice: “Hosni Etgannen, Hosni Etgannen.” Hosni is mad.

Ahmed Tharwat is host of BelAhdan, which appears on Minnesota Public Television's Arab American TV. He blogs at in the middle.

Arab Media: Gaddafi’s Death a Relief and a Concern

2011-10-21T02:25:29Z

Ed Note: New America Media surveyed Arab media, editors and publishers, across the country for their reactions to the death of Libya’s former leader, Muammar Gaddafi, Thursday. While most agree that Gaddafi’s death is a relief and a possible first step for a new democratic system in Libya, Arab media are unanimously concerned about this North African country's immediate future.

Amal David, Co-Founder, Arab America, Dearborn, Mich.

It’s the end of an era of 42 years of rule. We’re hoping it’s a new beginning for Libya. I got the news from Al -Jazeera English and we were very relieved to know this [Gaddafi was dead], most people have said they’re happy about it. For the Libyan revolution to have closure, this had to happen. It has to be a true democracy. We’ve had an Arab Spring slowly become an Arab Winter, and we’re hoping the winter turns into a spring again. There is still a lot of unknown and we have to be cautious. It’s going to take time. I talked to an Iraqi-American who worked in Iraq the past three years about his opinion whether he thought Iraq has improved with out Saddam. He said it’s worse. He said with Saddam at least there was no ethnic cleansing and internal divisions. Of course that’s not an excuse for him, Saddam was a tyrant, but we don’t want to see this happen in Libya.

Mansour Tadros, Publisher, Future Newspaper, Chicago, Ill.

My main concern is to stop the bloodshed, and as long as he was alive Libya had a problem. His death was a step. I was relieved to see that. His death is very important to the Libyan Spring, but now we need to start building. We are anxious to see our Arab brothers and sisters in Libya and all over the Arab World have better lives. As Arabs, we underestimate our ability to deal with these situations—yes we can adopt democracy and live in democracy. I hope the media coverage cools off, the style of coverage increases the turmoil. Instead, let’s focus on learning and building.

Ahmed Tharwat, Host and Producer, BelAhdan TV, Minneapolis, Minn.

I was checking the Egyptian Newspaper, Al-Masry Al-Youm earlier this morning, I wasn’t sure at first, then I saw it on Al -Jazeera and BBC Arabic. I was expecting it. It was a matter of time. But when I saw Obama’s speech following the news, I was disappointed. He was giving credit to NATO, the West. We underestimated Libya. They’ve turned out being the best so far in these revolutions. It gives us hope that this chapter is over and now this is a message for all Arab dictators. Revolution is a messy business and this is going to be a long and messy situation, they’ll have to start from scratch, but that’s also refreshing. I hope media cover this in context of what’s going on in the Arab World, the whole world—that everyone is waking up. It’s been a lousy year for dictators and that’s a beautiful thing.

Amani Ghouleh, Publisher, AlOffok AlArabi/ The Arabic Horizon Newspaper, Chicago, Ill.

I knew it was going to happen, but it took a long time. I’m relieved that he’s dead, and the community is relieved. I think he got what he deserved and I’m glad it’s over. Other leaders, like Al-Assad, have to consider that there are deadly consequences, just like Gaddafi’s, but I hope with Syria it ends with him stepping down. I hope for Libya this stage turns over and they start building their new nation, not to look back at Gaddafi, his family, not to proceed in agony. I also hope the media focus on the issues that need correcting, what can be improved in Libya, and not on what Gaddafi did in the past. Don’t look back, look forward.

Fatima Atieh, Publisher, Al-Enteshar, Los Angeles, Calif.

It was expected, he was either going to be arrested or get killed, there was no other way around it. We are for the people in the Arab streets, for achieving their rights and dignity. Personally, I’m against all Arab dictators, but I’m also against foreign involvement. I had hoped that the Libyan people would have kept the situation under their control. I expect that there will be tribal wars following his death, as well as strong influence and control from the West, NATO, and the United States.

Antoine Faisal, Publisher, Aramica, Brooklyn, NY

I believe it’s the normal end to an abnormal person. It was just a matter of time. Right now the Arab Spring is trying to propagate the image that we are not people who can be dominated indefinitely, and propagating the image of civilized democracy. A few days ago, I was interviewing people in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. I asked them if they were influenced by the Arab Spring, and an overwhelming majority said it was the main inspiration. But now [in Libya] there might be vendettas. People could be accused of being Gaddafi supporters and get killed. This has happened in other countries before.

Gaddafi Leaves Behind a Legacy of Rage and Dysfunction

2011-10-20T17:37:45Z

Muammar Gaddafi was of a Bedouin tribe, raised in a tent near the Libyan city of Sirte, where he met his bloody demise. His end came after nine months of NATO bombing which supported a rag tag, unruly and abusive group of rebels who fanned out across Libya to challenge his authority by claiming bombed out territories and capturing cities.

Ruling the country with an iron fist for more than four decades, his cult of personality was ubiquitous as the purported face, voice and soul of Libya. He ran an oil-rich, rentier state that allowed him to spend his billions in revenues to buy loyalty, reward friends and punish foes.

The stream of oil money, first and foremost into his own pocket, did not create an impetus for him to institute effective educational and economic plans to make a genuine difference in the lives of ordinary Libyans. As a number of other despots across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), he saw a prosperous, civil society as a direct threat to his own authority.

His tribal roots also made him wary of progress. Raised among a self-sufficient people, he had a suspicion of retail stores and contempt for economies based on consumer spending.

Humorist Michael Palin of Monty Python fame compared his narcissism to that of Mick Jagger as he commented in his African travelogue, Sahara, “Gaddafi’s survival owes much of his ability to reinvent himself. He’s been at various times scourge of the West and leader of the Arab world; currently he is the great Pan-African. The change can be charted on the billboards. It is not quite the old communist-style cult of personality, but there is a lot of him about.”

The great Pan-African spent billions to solidify his position on a continent-wide basis. Yet he did not have a high regard for black Africans. Inspired by Mao Zedong’s “Red Book,” Gaddafi authored his own “Green Book,” in which he opines, “The black race is at present in a dire and backward social condition… Their backward social traditions are responsible for the absence of restrictions in marriage leading to an unchecked and high birth rate.” He goes on to attribute black Africans’ “lassitude” to “living in a constantly hot climate.”

His brand of racism is rampant among the rebels as lighter skinned North Africans who see the continent's blacks as inferior. Scores of black Africans who came to Libya as workers are currently detained by the rebels under appalling conditions on charges of being pro-Gaddafi mercenaries.

Along with racism, Gaddafi leaves young Libyans as an angry generation with little understanding of a civil society, the rule of law and the responsibilities that come with freedoms of expression and conduct. The rebels killed Gaddafi and his former defense minister Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr, their summary executions without trials representing a violent pattern that has targeted numerous Libyans high and low since the beginning of the rebellion. Many ordinary Libyans who did not side with the rebels are hunted down in house-to-house searches as they are accused of remaining loyal to the fallen regime.

It is highly unlikely that after months of bloodshed, Libya is going to settle down any time soon into constructive patterns of fiscal and economic growth that would promote better health, education and better living standards for the majority of people. A Transitional Council has proved itself not to be in control of the country and is certain to be challenged by any number of rebel power centers the moment it attempts to exert authority.

The probable breakdown of Libya, which may make of the country another failed MENA state similar to Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, does not bode well for the entire “Arab Spring” scenario which has been championed so vociferously by President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and America’s European allies. Championing sudden change without presenting clear, workable alternatives may well have the hidden neo-colonial agenda of keeping MENA nations poor, unstable and therefore ripe for exploitation of their abundant natural resources by supranational conglomerates.

This crass approach is not lost upon al Qaeda in West Africa as well as al Shabaab, groups that find sanctuary among the disaffected people of failed states who live in abject misery as their natural wealth is looted before their eyes. Fighting these forces in an endless, asymmetrical war against “terror” bears every promise of creating a power vacuum in MENA, with China and Russia arraying themselves against the United States and the European Union in an attempt to fill the void. This new bipolar configuration holds dangerous possibilities for the first world war of the twenty-first century.

Indeed the legacy of Gaddafi and similar dictators, combined with supranational corporate opportunism, imperils people far beyond their borders of failed, exploited states to put the entire planet at risk.

Coptic Christians Share Agony Via Facebook

2011-10-13T08:00:00Z

CAIRO, Egypt – A day before bloody clashes between mostly Coptic protestors and soldiers sent by the interim military regime, I was on a tour of ancient mosques organized by a Coptic friend. In less than 24 hours, his Facebook updates – and those of many Egyptian friends – included photographs of mangled corpses with the hashtags #NoSCAF and #FuckSCAF.

“I don’t have hate for any Muslims, but I do have hate for SCAF [Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Egypt’s interim ruling military regime] and Egyptian TV,” my friend – who will remain anonymous for his own safety -- wrote in Arabic.

Another activist tweeted a sentiment I’ve seen online and heard often this week. “Yesterday was NOT a sectarian fight. It was the army against peaceful protesters. It was an inshallah failed trial for divide and conquer.”

Despite Western media depictions of Sunday’s fatal clashes as “sectarian,” many Egyptians – including families of the slain – are directing their rage at state television and military officials, who had been informed of plans for a peaceful protest march by the organizers.

The mother of Coptic activist Mina Daniel, who was killed Sunday, told reporters, "[The military] started firing at us as soon as we arrived in front of the media ministry. They were shooting and throwing rocks at the same time, while the armored vehicles chased us and ran people over."

A photo of her 20-year-old son laughing in a pink shirt before the march is circulating on Facebook – along with a photo of him in the morgue. Social media continues to be the main tool for Egyptians challenging official narratives, which often blame victims and incite divisions.

Video and photos uploaded on Facebook and Twitter during the clashes – which left an official count of 22 mostly Copts dead (many say the number is higher) – countered broadcasts on state television, some urging Egyptians to take to the streets to “protect the army” from Coptic protestors. During the violence, my Coptic friend tweeted, “Christians are not carrying weapons. They are carrying the cross.”

Egypt’s Coptic community dates to the 4th century, when the country was under Roman rule, and accounts for up to 10 percent of the population. It is the Arab world’s largest Christian community, and one that many here insist exists mostly in peace with the Muslim majority.

Except when political agendas fan the flames of sectarian hostility.

When Religion Meets Politics

Well before Sunday’s military-led violence, Coptic Web sites and news agencies carried several articles accusing conservative Islamists of intolerance and attacks. One article reposted in September and originally taken from a conservative American publication even expressed fear that Islamists were turning Egypt into “an Iranian-like theocracy.”

“The Revolution has been hijacked,” said the co-founder of the April 6 Youth Movement, which played a prominent role in the protests that toppled former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak. “The military regime is using divide and conquer, and they’re succeeding.”

A poster displayed prominently in the April 6 headquarters announced his aim to run for a parliamentary seat, along with other members. They are competing against a much larger coterie of Islamic organizations.

Among the 27 political parties now vying for power are groups like the Salafis, ultraconservative Muslims accused by Egyptians Against Religious Discrimination (EARD), among others, of inciting rural hatred against Copts. There are also attempts by a younger generation of Muslim conservatives to reach more deeply into the masses.

During the Tahrir sit-ins in July, I encountered a tent set up by the “Costa Salafis.” The name is taken from the Costa Coffee brand, with the logo altered to show a bearded man instead of coffee beans. “We’re always paying for your drinks,” is their slogan, in reference to the group’s belief that Salafis are being unfairly blamed for problems since the Revolution.

Post-Revolution Sectarianism

Before the Revolution, Salafis and other Islamist groups – including the Muslim Brotherhood – were persecuted by the Mubarak regime. During the Revolution, Christians and Muslims protected one another from police and military attacks, particularly while praying.

Since then, however, media reports of sectarian clashes have heightened tensions, while suspicions increasingly point to the one group that stands to benefit most from sowing seeds of division.

“To instigate chaos and religious strife in order to show that without the military there will be more chaos, is the oldest and most villainous trick of authoritarian regimes,” a 21-year-old Muslim activist wrote on her Facebook page, “Shimaa from Tahrir Square.”

This type of sentiment has been tweeted and re-tweeted by young activists, including well-known blogger Hossam el-Hamalawy. “We must remain united as Muslims and Copts against Mubarak’s army generals, who are in effect the leadership of the Counterrevolution,” he wrote beneath videos he posted Monday of Coptic funeral processions.

SInce Mubarak's ouster, Egypt has been under the control of an interim military-led regime headed by Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who is commander in chief of the armed forces.

Such unity is being hampered, however, by the actions of the country’s religious and political leaders.

One of the main calls of Coptic protestors has been for swifter government investigations into the bombing of a church in January in Alexandria that left 24 dead. It’s been reported that documents seized after the Revolution implicated the ex-Interior Minister in the attack.

Such news reports and a steady stream of on-line postings – including a Youtube video of a lone Coptic man being beaten by a group of military police – have cast government statements that Sunday’s clashes were fueled by Coptic protestors provoking a mostly Muslim military under a shadow.

Many here are greeting the news of Sunday’s violence with a typically Egyptian mixture of anger and irony.

One of the more shocking Facebook jokes shared across the dinner table in recent days goes: “We used to take pictures on tanks. Now we take pictures under tanks.”

A more pointed cartoon inspired by Sunday’s events has also gained traction on Facebook. Drawn by Brazilian Carlos Latuff, beloved by Egypt’s social media generation, it shows Khaled Said – a Muslim whose brutal death at the hands of Egyptian police contributed to the Revolution movement – wearing a sweatshirt with the hashtag of the Revolution, #Jan25. He is dangling a tiny Mubarak.

Next to Said is Mina Daniel – the Coptic activist killed Sunday – wearing a red Che Guevara style hat with #Jan25 in gold. Daniel is dangling a tiny Tantawi.

Below the cartoon, Facebook users have added the caption, “In your Death, our Freedom.”