More Freedom Of Expression For The Middle East: New Age Islam's Selection, 16 March 2016
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
16 Mar 2016
• Turkey's worries about 'Kurds' proved to be true
By Mustafa Akyol
• Why Putin is ahead in Syria’s game of chess
By Joyce Karam
• Did Putin trump Obama in Syria?
By Marwan Bishara
Compiled by New Age Islam Edit Bureau
---------
More freedom of expression for the Middle East
By Daoud Kuttab
16 Mar 2016
Values of freedom and human rights must be reflected in the West's relations with the Middle East.
The strategic partnership that the international community has established with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East makes a lot of sense. But this time around, special effort must be exerted to ensure that this partnership doesn't slip away.
Human rights issues as well as the limitations on freedom of expression and assembly must not again be compromised in order to benefit Western countries' geopolitical interests. Friends must be honest with each other, and must not allow the basic values for which this friendship should stand to be compromised for political expediency.
More and more moderate Arab countries in the region are taking advantage of the special relationship with the West, to settle political scores and to keep their own people from truly and freely expressing themselves.
As the information revolution moves into an ever deeper and wider cycle, authorities are using the heavy hand of government against their own people - including politicians or journalists - using a variety of laws and measures.
Power to prosecute
The criminalisation of defamation is perhaps the most obvious case in point. The allies of Western countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Palestine are using laws designed to protect the innocent to shut down proper criticism and civil expression.
In Tunisia, Freedom House's 2015 report stated that "criminal defamation remains one of the biggest obstacles to independent reporting."
Efforts by human rights activists, civil society organisations, and independent journalists indicate that people will not remain silent. But this is not enough to make serious changes.
In Jordan - one of the closest Western allies - a recent amendment to the cybercrime law allows the government to detain anyone, including registered journalists, on defamation for online publications.
Article 11 of the law, amended in June 2015, allows the Jordanian security officials to detain journalists before presenting their evidence to a court.
While the amended Press and Publication law forbids arresting journalists for their opinions, the same reporters can be prosecuted if the same text that was published in a print publication appears online - according to clause 11 of the cybercrime law.
Three years ago in June 2013, nearly 300 Jordanian news websites were blocked as the government demanded that they apply for a licence - just like print newspapers. To justify and encourage, the government assured website owners that this would protect their journalists from arrest.
Two years later a cybercrime law was passed that opened the door for detention on accusations of online defamation. The new cybercrime law has been used a number of times against journalists and politicians to stifle freedom of expression.
In Egypt, novelist Ahmed Naji was sentenced to three years for his latest work. Blasphemy cases are on the rise according to the most recent report by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (PDF).
In Palestine, an elected member of parliament, Najat Abu Bakr, had to hide in the Legislative Council building in Ramallah for fear of being arrested as she has accused a Palestinian cabinet member of corruption.
The minister denies the charges, and the Abbas administration was adamant to arrest her in accordance with current laws.
Time for action
Criminal defamation is proving to be the easiest tool used by governments to control thought and opinion, but people are not taking things quietly any more. Egyptian writers, intellectuals and artists have launched a campaign to protest against the jail term of Naji.
In Jordan, a public effort was initiated by human rights and media freedom activists under the slogan "talk is not a crime" which consisted of online banners, animations, and radio spots. It has also focused on the need to repeal article 11 of the cybercrime law.
In Palestine, public protests to protect Abu Bakr resulted in a compromise that allowed her to return to her home on March 6 - after spending eight days in the Palestinian Legislative Council building.
Efforts by human rights activists, civil society organisations, and independent journalists indicate that people will not remain silent. But this is not enough to make serious changes.
Without support from the international community and especially powerful allies such as the United States, democratic efforts in the Arab world will be crushed by governments with the knowledge that their Western allies need them badly for a number of different reasons.
The people of the Middle East and North Africa are again being pushed into the corner of having to choose between undemocratic or partially democratic secular leaders or violent religious radicalism. People are also regularly asked to choose between stability and freedom.
This is not a fair choice. People should not be limited to seek independence and freedom while also opposing religious extremism - as well as expect both stability and freedom.
Values of freedom and human rights must be reflected in the West's relations with the Middle East both privately and publicly. The region can't be allowed to return to the dark days of restrictions on expression. The stakes are too high.
aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/freedom-expression-middle-east-160315080958029.html
------
Turkey's worries about 'Kurds' proved to be true
By Mustafa Akyol
15 Mar 2016
The way out of this bloody quagmire would be to try to restore the peace talks between Turkey and the PKK.
What is the lesson from the March 13 terror attack in downtown Ankara, which killed 37 innocent souls, including a seven-month-old unborn baby?
For journalist David Lepeska, the lesson is that Turkey is now a "failing state". For the Turkish government has proved unable to "stop terrorists from attacking the heart of ... the centre of its capital" - three times in the past five months, and for some other reasons that are scrutinised in these pages.
But by that measure, wouldn't some of the developing or developed countries be almost failed states as well, for they could not stop terrorists from carrying out separate waves of massacres in their major cities or had to deal with similar incidents on different levels over the past few years?
Refugees, terrorist cells, decimating cities are not uncommon instances in some of them.
The question is not to whitewash Ankara from the various mistakes and shortcomings in its security measures and foreign policy - especially with regard to Syria.
We Turks have to discuss these failures openly, and those in power should be able to listen to us honestly, without branding its critics as "traitors" to the nation.
Religious vs nationalist zealotry
Yet, one should also see that modern-day terrorism, with its sophisticated weaponry, decentralised decision-making, and vast number of active terrorists and sleeping cells, is very hard to defuse for any government.
Especially if that country has its longest border with Syria - home of the world bloodiest civil war - and a few million of its own citizens sympathise with the terror group that it is fighting with, the Kurdistan Workers' party (PKK), which seems to be behind last Sunday's bloody attack.
The Syrian branch of the PKK may have emerged as an ally of both the United States and Russia against ISIL, but Turkey has to worry about its own peace and long-term stability, for which the PKK is nothing but an imminent threat.
One should also see that, in the face of terror, citizens should indeed "question authority" for failing to prevent it, as Lepeska duly noted. But, alas, all of us should also question, and condemn, terror itself.
Of course, everybody has condemned the deadly car bomb in Ankara. But not everybody has admitted the political meaning of it: This incident, along with the previous car bombing in Ankara in February which killed 30 people, proves that Turkey's concerns about "the Kurds" are not unfounded.
I used the term "the Kurds" in quotation marks, for that is how the armed forces of the PYD, or the Democratic Union Party in Syria, and its mothership, the PKK, Turkey's biggest terrorist foe since the early 1980s, have often been referred to in Western media.
Numerous articles have been written lately on how these "Kurds" are the finest boots on the ground against ISIL, how progressive they are with their brave women in uniform, and questioning why in the world Turkey, a NATO ally, sees them as terrorists to fight rather than freedom fighters to support.
Well, the latest attack in Ankara gives a sad answer to that question: One of those supposedly modern, secular, progressive Kurdish women in arms was Seher Cagla Demir, the 24-year-old suicide bomber, who blew herself up in a bomb-laden car to kill dozens of innocent bystanders.
She was motivated not by the religious zealotry of ISIL, but the ethno-nationalist zealotry of the PKK - proving to us that the latter ideology is not always less lethal than the former.
Legitimate concerns
Turkey really cannot be blamed for being concerned with this ethno-nationalist threat, which is escalating from mere "guerrilla warfare" with security forces to wanton terror in Turkey's major cities.
The Syrian branch of the PKK may have emerged as an ally of both the United States and Russia against ISIL, but Turkey has to worry about its own peace and long-term stability, for which the PKK is nothing but an imminent threat - perhaps a threat bigger than ISIL, whose supporters inside Turkey are only minuscule compared with the supporters of the PKK.
The issue here, by the way, is not "the Kurds".
The PKK does not represent all Kurds, but only a fraction of them.
It is also true that while the Turkish Republic has been unforgivably authoritarian on its Kurdish citizens for decades - with senseless bans on their language and culture - many reforms have taken place in the past decade that gave Kurds all the cultural freedoms they deserve.
Moreover, Turkey has developed good relations with Iraqi Kurdistan, whose leader, Massoud Barzani, has recently blamed the "arrogant PKK" for the failure of peace talks with the Turkish government.
Of course, had those peace talks worked, everything would be much better for all of us. Turkey would have secured its peace, the PKK could have given all its energy to fighting ISIL within Syria (and even Iraq), and Western capitals would not be pressed to choose between their longtime NATO ally and their new-found friends in Syria.
Therefore, the way out of this bloody quagmire is to try to restore those peace talks - and first a ceasefire between the Turkish government and the PKK.
Western governments, in particular the US, would be only wise to work for that end, by using their apparent leverage on the PYD to force the PKK to abandon its violent campaign inside Turkey.
And this work can only begin when it is understood that Ankara's concern with "the Kurds" is not a baseless obsession.
aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/turkey-worries-kurds-proved-true-160315102003127.html
-------
Why Putin is ahead in Syria’s game of chess
By Joyce Karam
16 March 2016
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announcement of partial withdrawal from Syria on the eve of the 5th anniversary of the uprising, serves Moscow two advantages. One in dictating the terms of intervention on the Syrian regime and refusing getting stuck in a quagmire by following Assad’s military roadmap; and the second is in emerging as a key interlocutor with regional countries and the opposition in the political process.
For Putin, his intervention in the conflict last September was shaped around the political process to bolster the regime’s position in the talks and slow its bleeding in the Northern of the country. Having achieved that at a heavy humanitarian cost for the Syrians, it is not in Moscow’s interest to be permanently entangled in a war that Assad and Iran would like to continue to Turkey’s and Jordan’s borders by pursuing an long outdrawn mission to regain full control of the country.
Undertaking Assad’s full task would be a costly quagmire for Russia, who has already established ties with the Syrian rebels, and along with the United States, would rather invest in a political roadmap while protecting the current landscape giving advantage to the Assad regime.
Russia to Assad: We are not Iran
In announcing the “withdrawal of the main part of our military force from the Syrian Arab Republic,” Putin’s message appears to be directed at both, his ally the Assad regime, and his old rival Washington, the Syrian opposition and key regional players. Putin’s message to Assad is while Moscow has invested in strengthening the regime’s position in the North, it does not share its vision of a military solution, especially one that is driven by Iranian proxies and would take years and threaten confrontation with Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
Russia is not Iran in Syria, and won’t get bogged down directly or through proxy militias to save the Assad family or routes to Hezbollah. Its strategic military interests, while they are invested in the current security structure, will be better met through engaging in a political process over Syria that gives edge to the regime's interests.
Russia is not Iran in Syria, and won’t get bogged down directly or through proxy militias to save the Assad family or routes to Hezbollah
Putin’s hint in his remarks that “The effectiveness of our military created the conditions for the start of the peace process” asserts such direction. For Russia, its alliance with pro-Iranian militias on the ground in Syria helped in the short term to stabilize the regime after a brutal summer, block a safe zone on the Turkish border and make gains in Northern Syria.
In the long term, however, Russia’s goals are bound to clash with Iran. While Tehran is expanding its role in Syrian territory through Hezbollah and Iraqi militias as well a massive trained pro-regime militia, Russia’s roadmap relies heavily on saving what is left of the security and military infrastructure of the Syrian state.
Syria is Russia’s last bastion on the Mediterranean from the Cold War, and the specter of the country breaking up or Moscow losing its intel and military benefits is a red line for Putin. From the naval base in Tartous (its last outside the Soviet Union) and the new airbase in Latakia, Russia is looking to solidify its presence in Syria rather than surrendering it to militias or having it become another Afghanistan. Moscow’s arms contracts with Syrian regime amount to $700 million a year, and its military, political, and cultural influence is deeply rooted in the Syrian society.
Putin as an interlocutor?
By having shown that his military role can change the balance in Syria, Putin has Assad more dependent on him to maintain the upper hand, while Moscow will employ this advantage in the negotiations. Putin’s partial withdrawal signals to Assad that absent of political concessions, a full withdrawal by Russia could mean the regime losing the air advantage, relying heavily on pro-Iranian militias, and possibly rolling back the gains made in the North against moderate rebels.
At a time when Washington has dithered the Syrian rebel insurgency and backed down on its position asking Assad to “step aside” before any transition, Putin’s terms of settlement in Syria are largely in alignment with the Obama administration. The US has abandoned any talk about regime change in Syria and its primary objective is working towards a political solution, fighting ISIS and containing the flow of refugees. Moscow for its part is worried about more than 1,700 fighters from Russia that have joined ISIS.
Putin’s diplomatic moves indicate that he’s eying the role of becoming the key interlocutor for any political settlement in Syria. In that, he is relying on his improved ties with Arab countries, having visited Egypt, hosted the Leaders of Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar in the last two months, and prior to that convened a summit with Saudi deputy crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and deputy supreme commander of the UAE Armed Forces.
For Arab states, Russia is not Iran, and that alone can help in finding common ground on a political transition in Syria that these states would like to see it undercut Iran’s influence while accommodating the moderate opposition and fighting ISIS. A senior Arab official points out that Russia did not block the Yemen resolution that gave international cover for a war that the GCC has largely framed against Iran. Moscow has also taken into account Israel’s interests in Syria, not interjecting Israeli operations, one aimed at Hezbollah leader Samir Kuntar last December.
By changing the rules of the game and the political conversation, Putin is once again mastering the chess board in Syria. Russia’s ultimate success is contingent on how much pressure is Moscow willing to apply on a regime whose sole path since 2011 has been to bomb and kill its way into maintaining power.
english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/03/16/Advantage-withdrawal-Why-Putin-is-ahead-in-Syria-s-game-of-chess.html
--------
Did Putin trump Obama in Syria?
By Marwan Bishara
15 Mar 2016
Have you noticed how President Vladimir Putin does not prepare the political grounds or give any advance notice before he acts? Or how he seems not to give a damn about international public opinion?
True to brand Putin, the Russian leader’s decision to withdraw forces from Syria this week was as much of a surprise as his decision to deploy them back in September.
He shocked and stunned his friends and foes alike. Well, except perhaps US President Barack Obama.
Marwan Bishara: The meaning of Putin's Syria surprise
Putin, previously an officer in the former Soviet Union's main security agency, the KGB, has not given up on his style and demeanour. Old habits die hard, if at all.
Unpredictable or uncanny
He reveals little and maintains an element of surprise in much of what he does - as though he is trying to impress or awe; not exactly the way one would expect a superpower leader to act.
Yet, Putin's decisions are not random, uncanny or eccentric. In fact, he demonstrated thus far that he’s a calculating and savvy tactician and might even prove to be a successful strategist.
In this regard, Putin claims to have achieved his goals after five months of aerial bombardment, which include taking on the "terrorists" in order to save the Syrian regime.
Putin claims to have achieved his goals after five months of aerial bombardment, which include taking on the 'terrorists' in order to save the Syrian regime.
And while Russia's mainly aerial military intervention did prevent the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime, it proved insufficient to impose a Russian order in the country.
In any case, and regardless of whether Putin’s mission was indeed accomplished, the question remains: Did Putin prove Obama wrong on Syria? Or has he finally heeded Obama's advice?
Putin's calculus in Syria
Obama has warned his Russian counterpart against getting bogged down in a second Afghanistan and urged him to work with and not against those trying to take on ISIL instead.
Contrary to the warnings of the Obama administration, Putin continued to support the Assad dictatorship at a great cost to Syria and the Syrian people.
His gamble in Syria did not backfire and the country did not turn into a Russian quagmire.
Putin, who seized on Obama's hesitation to deploy military force in Syria, had succeeded in pulling the rug from under the Obama administration to dictate the way towards a diplomatic solution, and to carve a new role for Russia in Syria and beyond.
Over the past five years, as Syria descended into a fully fledged civil war with tragic consequences to its people, Putin was steadfast in his support for the Syrian regime, while Obama has been reluctant, indecisive and weak.
Since he announced back in 2011 that Assad had to go, Obama did little - if anything at all - to make this happen. Syrians expected that when the leader of the world's superpower made such an assertion, it would have more value than if Joe the Plumber uttered it.
The armchair general
Obama was even reluctant to use power against the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against its people. Even his supporters were disappointed; and his vice president, Joe Biden, admitted: "Big nations don't bluff."
Moreover, Obama rejected the idea of a no-fly zone in northern Syria to protect the refugees. His support for those whom Washington deems "moderate" has been terribly limited and inconsistent, just as his fight to "degrade and defeat" ISIL has been slow and unstrategic.
In short, unlike Putin, Obama has weighed all the angles and deliberated on the meaning and consequences of military actions after the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the military campaign in Libya. He examines all the scenarios, options and instruments available to him.
But unlike Putin, Obama did not act. His deliberation and consultation, like those of an armchair general, were mainly to spare and not to guide the US to take direct military action in Syria, other than against ISIL
One must not rush to a conclusion, as Russia will continue to maintain a serious military presence and bases in the future; it will continue to push for a friendly regime in Damascus. With oil prices dwindling, Putin doesn't have the surplus cash to fuel an open ended war in Syria.
The way forwardBut the timing of the Russian decision to coincide with the opening of Syrian talks in Geneva this week underlines its political importance.
Putin's message to Assad may be read as follows: You can no longer bank on sustained Russian effort to defeat your enemies ...
Putin's message to Assad may be read as follows: You can no longer bank on sustained Russian effort to defeat your enemies; you must instead negotiate in good faith a way out of the deadly civil war.
If Assad tries to outsmart the Russians by betting on his allies in Tehran to support his exigent stance, I would not be surprised if the Russians lifted their protection, and Assad ended up in the Hague on war crimes charges sooner rather than later.
Assad denies that he has any differences with Putin, but he is probably too cautious to make any pronouncements at this stage that might trigger Russian anger and lead to closer Russian-US realignment.
There are increasing signs that perhaps Putin and Obama are heading towards a more accommodating phase of Russian-US relations.
After all, while the calculating Obama was complaining about the Russian intervention, he has been trying through his Secretary of State John Kerry to turn the challenge of Putin's involvement into an opportunity that allows him to push forward with a co-chaired diplomatic process with better guarantees for success.
Putin might have played his cards right over the past six months, and his gamble could pay off diplomatically, but it will be Obama who will eventually cash in his chips, whether through sanctions relief, diplomatic empowerment or even cooperation in other areas of the region and the world.
aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/putin-trump-obama-syria-160315092205394.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/more-freedom-expression-middle-east/d/106662
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Womens in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Womens In Arab, Islamphobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism, Moderate Islam, Moderate Muslims, Progressive Islam, Progressive Muslims, Liberal Islam, Liberal Muslims, Islamic World News