Feeds:
Posts
Comments

links for 2009-07-05

links for 2009-07-02

links for 2009-07-01

links for 2009-06-30

links for 2009-06-29

links for 2009-06-28

links for 2009-06-26

links for 2009-06-25

Arabs Lose In Any Iran Outcome

I couldnt let this one by with just a delicious bookmark. Rami El Khouri comments on Arab (regime and popular) perceptions of and reactions to the events unfolding in Iran. I think he hits a crucial point whith this article in highlighting that they’ve trapped themselves in a lose-lose situation regardless of the outcomes in Iran. I’ve reproduced the vast majority of it here:

All of them, without exception, react to events in Iran with fascination, confusion, and concern, reflecting self-inflicted political incoherence and mediocrity that are hallmarks of the modern Arab world. Broadly speaking, the Arab world has maneuvered itself into a lose-lose situation vis-à-vis developments in Iran, despite different views of the Islamic Republic.

The uncomfortable common denominator is that for both the people and the ruling power elites of the Arab world, whatever happens in Iran will largely be perceived negatively by the majority in our region. This is a sad commentary on the condition of Arab political culture, which remains autocratic and rigid at the top, and passive and frustrated at the grassroots.

Most Arab regimes do not like Iran or even fear it, because of its capacity to inspire revolutionary Islamism or at least mildly insurrectionary movements within Arab countries. A few Arab leaders even speak of Iran’s predatory or hegemonic ambitions in the Gulf region, Lebanon, Iraq and other lands. Only isolated pockets of power in the Arab world like or support the Iranian regime, including Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and some other Islamist or nationalist forces. Yet even the few isolated exceptions like Hamas and Hizbullah that have effectively carved out small domains of their own sovereignty are in an uncomfortable zone regarding events in Iran.

Arab public opinion, for its part, views Iran with much more nuance. Many Arabs cheered the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah 30 years ago, and continue to enjoy Iran’s defiance of the United States, Israel, UN sanctions and conservative Arab leaderships. Others in the Arab world see the Iranian Islamic revolution as a nasty export commodity that only spells trouble for Arab societies. Places like Lebanon and Palestine, especially, are offered the unattractive option of perpetual warfare with Israel, which entails the regular destruction of swaths of their society.

The irony today is that the Iranian regime and its policies are viewed very differently throughout the Arab world; but removing or reconfiguring the Islamic regime through street demonstrations or even through democratic elections seems problematic for virtually everyone in Arab society.

Most Arab governments dislike the current Iranian regime, so you would think they would be pleased to see it toppled, or tempered by its own people. Yet, if such change were to occur through street demonstrations choreographed via a web of digital communications, whispered messages, and rooftop religious chants in the middle of the night, Arab leaders of autocratic regimes would be unhappy — because they would sense their own vulnerability to similar mass political challenges. The fact is not lost on anyone that the Iranian regime effectively withstood and defied American-Israeli-European-UN pressure, threats and sanctions for years, but found itself much more vulnerable to the spontaneous rebellion of many of its own citizens who felt degraded by the falsification of election results by the government.

(An intriguing side note: Events inside Iran picked up steam at the same time as the Iranian presidential elections coincided with the Obama administration’s change of policy — as Washington backed off the threats and aggressiveness of the Bush years — and offered to engage with Iran on the basis of mutual respect. Would a more detached US policy towards Arab autocrats similarly open space for Arab domestic effervescence and indigenous calls for more liberal, honest politics?)

Arab regimes and leaders have worked themselves into a lose-lose situation whereby they would be unhappy if the Iranian regime stayed in power, and unhappy if it were removed through popular challenge. The same awkwardness defines the perspectives of Arab citizens. Most Arabs do not want to live in an Iranian-style political system that blends theocracy with autocracy; but many were pleased to see the pro-American Shah overthrown by Quran-carrying demonstrators. They would also be unhappy to see the Iranian regime overthrown because they enjoy its defiance of the United States, Israel and the UN in particular, along with its development of a nuclear capability.

At the same time, ordinary Arabs would feel jealous were the demonstrators in Iran able to topple their regime for the second time in 30 years — because this would highlight the chronic passivity and powerlessness of Arab citizens who must suffer permanent subjugation in their own long-running autocratic systems without being able to do anything about it. Whether Iranian street demonstrations challenged the Shah or the Islamists who toppled him, Arabs watch all this on television with a forlorn envy.

links for 2009-06-24

AUC adds Israeli to Trustees

Here’s the announcement from the AUC website:

Retired U.S. Diplomat Named to AUC Board of Trustees

June 21, 2009, Cairo, Egypt – The American University in Cairo announced today the appointment of former US ambassador to Egypt Daniel C. Kurtzer as a member of its Board of Trustees.  Kurtzer, the S. Daniel Abraham Professor of Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, served as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt from 1997 to 2001.

During 29 years of public service, Kurtzer held a number of senior policy and diplomatic positions. In addition to serving as U.S. ambassador in Egypt, Kurtzer also served as U.S. Ambassador to Israel, deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. Throughout his career, Kurtzer was intimately involved in Middle East peace negotiations and the formulation of US policy in the Middle East.

B. Boyd Hight, chair of the university’s Board of Trustees, noted that the board continues to strengthen its ranks with distinguished members drawn from public service and business professions in Egypt, the region and the world. “The appointment of someone of Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer’s caliber represents a valuable addition to our board and will play a vital role in advancing AUC’s goal to become a leading global university,” Hight said. “All of us on the board are extremely pleased to welcome him as a trustee as he joins the AUC community at this time of extraordinary transition in the life of the university.”

Since leaving government service, Kurtzer has authored numerous articles on U.S policy in the Middle East.  He served as an advisor to the Iraq Study Group and currently serves on the Advisory Council of the American Bar Association’s Middle East-North Africa Rule of Law Initiative.  He is the co-author, with Scott Lasensky, of Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East, published in 2008.  He also serves on a number of business and public service boards.

Ambassador Kurtzer received his B.A. from Yeshiva University and his M.A., Middle East Certificate, M.Phil. and Ph.D. from Columbia University. In recognition of his outstanding work in public service, Kurtzer received several of the U.S. government’s most prestigious awards, including the President’s Distinguished Service Award, the Department of State Distinguished Service Award, the National Intelligence Community’s Award for Achievement, and the Director General of the Foreign Service Award for Political Reporting.
Distinguished for their professional accomplishments in the areas of business, law, education, philanthropy and scholarship, members of AUC’s Board of Trustees are all volunteers who dedicate their time and resources to supporting the university.

Primarily Egyptians, Saudi Arabians and Americans, the trustees do not receive a salary and provide their own financial support to the university. AUC’s trustees include Moataz Al-Alfi, chairman of the Americana Group; Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Prize winner and director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency; Mohamed Ibrahim, founder and chairman of Celtel International; and Dina Habib Powell, managing director and global head of corporate engagement at Goldman Sachs; and Dr. Ahmed Zewail, also a Nobel Prize winner and the Linus Pauling Chair Professor of Chemistry, professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and the Director of the Physical Biology Center.

He’s also, supposedly one of the chief architects of Obama’s AIPAC elections speech. Oh and he was appointed commisioner of Israel’s new Baseball League. (wiki)
Really now, AUC is becoming utterly shameless about its political role. While universities in the UK, Europe and even the US are moving towards divestment from and boycott of Iraeli institutions, AUC, formerly in the “heart of Cairo”, is increasingly moving towards normalization. Coupled with the complete cowing to Egyptian Security and the unapologetic disregard for the opinions of the AUC community, the administration’s policies are becoming quite frustrating to faculty, alumni and students alike.

links for 2009-06-23

links for 2009-06-22

links for 2009-06-21

links for 2009-06-19

Older Posts »