The UAE and the Formulas of Power and Success: New Age Islam's Selection, 23 February 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
23 February 2017
• The UAE and the Formulas of Power and Success
By Abdullah Bin Bijad Al-Otaibi
• Why Europe Conquered The World
By Jonathan Power
• Haftar’s True Agenda in Libya
By Osama Al-Sharif
• Milo and the Hypocrisy behind Free Speech Claims
By Rachel Shabi
• Struggle over Aleppo's Story Takes To the Skies
By Alhakam Shaar
• Are Green Zone Powers Aware Of This?
By Adnan Hussein
• When A Politician Falls By His Sword He Should Put His Public Persona To Rest
By Trisha De Borchgrave
• Change or Be Changed and Opportunity for Arab Youth
By Khaled Almaeena
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
The UAE and the Formulas of Power And Success
By Abdullah Bin Bijad Al-Otaibi
22 February 2017
The United Arab Emirates’ international and regional power formulas are a lot different than the past. It is currently a very strong and influential state thanks to the awareness of its leaders, special alliances and rapid development. The UAE has emerged as a model to the world of our times.
Under the leadership of President His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum and His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed efforts are on to further develop this model of a state. They are fully aware and keen to chart the future with innovative solutions to all the problems the world suffers from.
Keenness to undertake development projects and succeeding at innovation are important traits but what is parallel to it is maintaining heritage and culture and strengthening values. Adhering to the tenets of Islam and defending it is parallel to openness and co-existence with all religions, cultures and civilizations.
As the world takes pride in modern communication, the UAE takes pride in embracing different nationalities, which amounts to more than those recognized by an international organization the size of the UN.
The World Government Summit recently concluded in Dubai. The International Defense Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) kicked off in Abu Dhabi. This is an effective way to build and develop the Emirati model, which can be added to other models of cultural, political, military and economic development in modern times, such as the Japanese or Singaporean models or other models around the world.
Conscious thoughts and comprehensive vision are what make nations, governments and people’s lives different. Finding creative solutions to realistic and philosophical problems are what either push toward success and victory or loss and defeat. Imagination and its capacity to deliver must be governed by balanced realism and rationalism in order to achieve distinguished success and create a unique model.
The UAE found its special solution focusing on development in all its dimensions and which, at the same time, depends on gradual political development. This is an exemplary solution for many countries in the region. It’s a solution through which future can be easily foreseen without having to leap into the unknown. The models that sought to leap into democracy are shameful models. The Afghani and Iraqi models are examples of this and they do not inspire anyone across the world.
Tradition and Modernity
The UAE has also created its special solution in terms of tradition and modernism. The UAE is a modern and civil state by all standards. There is tolerance and co-existence among all religions and cultures and everyone finds their chance there on the condition that they abide by law and do not harm anyone.
At the same time, many programs have been launched and included in the work of governments, public institutions, charity organizations and others to teach young people the established habits, inherited traditions, values and high morals. The aim is to raise generations that stand on solid ground in terms of their awareness and culture and that look forward to a bright future.
As for the military aspect, the Emirati army has been well-known for its efficient participation in UN forces in different areas across the world, such as its participation in the second Gulf war, liberation of Kuwait in addition to its participation in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
All this was culminates into its major participation in the Operation Decisive Storm, which aims to restore legitimacy in Yemen by working with the Arab coalition. The UAE is the second country, after Saudi Arabia, to fully participate in defeating Iran’s agents, Houthi militias and forces loyal to deposed president Ali Abdullah Saleh, in Yemen. As a result, victory is near.
This is the Emirati model, which despite all its distinctions, continues to undergo development and renewal.
Abdullah bin Bijad al-Otaibi is a Saudi writer and researcher. He is a member of the board of advisors at Al-Mesbar Studies and Research Centre.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/22/The-UAE-and-the-formulas-of-power-and-success.html
----
Why Europe Conquered the World
By Jonathan Power
23 February 2017
Europe was a backwater 1,100 years ago. There were no grand cities apart from Cordoba in Spain, which was Muslim. The Middle East was much further ahead, still absorbing the intellectual delights and challenges of Greek science, medicine and architecture, of which Europeans were largely ignorant. In southern China, agriculture advanced and trade in tea, porcelain and silk flourished.
By 1914 it was a totally different world. The Europeans ruled 84 percent of the globe and had colonies everywhere. How was it that Europe and its offspring, the US, became the dominant dynamic force in the world, and still are today in most things?
If I walk round my university town and stop the first 10 students I meet and ask them why this was so, they would probably say because of the Industrial Revolution. But in 1800, when the revolution was only just beginning, Europeans already ruled 35 percent of the world and had armed ships on every ocean and colonies on every continent.
If they did not say that, they might say it was the way the Europeans spread their fatal diseases, smallpox and measles, to which they had gained a good deal of immunity, and this enabled them to lay low native peoples. But all the major Middle Eastern and Asian civilizations had this same advantage. In Africa, it was local diseases that attacked Europeans more than vice versa.
Maybe one of the 10 students would say it was because the Europeans were ahead in the development of gunpowder technology. After all, the military revolution preceded the industrial one. But even though on the right track, I doubt this one student could explain why.
Gunpowder was invented in China, and by the 16th century the Ottomans were making high-quality artillery. But they could not keep up with the pace of European technological development. Europe had military competition and thus innovation baked into it.
Europe, unlike the Ottoman Empire or China, was a very un-unified place. Since the fall of Charlemagne, there was no one strong enough to hold Europe together. Moreover, the popes preferred divide and rule, and did not want one strong European leader to diminish their power.
In Europe, dozens of small states and principalities, often each vying to be top dog, were stimulated to nurse their competitive instincts. This pushed research and gunpowder technology forward at a much faster pace than anywhere else in the world.
In contrast, China was a massive hegemon; Japan and the Ottoman Empire were sizable ones. A hegemon inevitably comes to believe that since it is politically dominant far and wide, it does not have to work so hard at maintaining superior arms. But when it came to gunpowder technology and its adaption to warships, the smaller European powers, each seeking to outscore each other, could often call the shots against Asia’s hegemons.
Philip Hoffman, professor at the California Institute of Technology, argues in his new book “Why Did Europe Conquer The World?” that Europe’s pace of innovation was driven by a peculiar form of military competition that he calls a “tournament” — the sort of competition that under the right conditions can drive contestants to exert enormous effort in the hope of earning a prize.
This is what happened in Europe, but not elsewhere. European rulers raised taxes and lavished resources on armies, navies and gunpowder technology, and pushed forward research. Moreover, unlike in Asia, private entrepreneurs faced few legal, financial or political obstacles to launching expeditions of conquest and exploration. This is why the British East India Co. could conquer much of India.
The wars that led to Europe’s and particularly Britain’s domination of the world made possible the Industrial Revolution (although there were other important factors too), not vice versa. Victory in battle had given Britain a large share of Europe’s intercontinental trade. That created jobs in British cities. That raised wages and agricultural demand.
High wages stimulated the invention of labor-saving machines such as spinning machines and steam energy. Then there were the huge deposits of coal. Hence the Industrial Revolution. Some historians add into the mix the immense profits from the Caribbean and North American slave trade, which provided much of the capital needed to build machines and factories.
Others would add the long European tradition of the separation of church and state. Hoffman himself stresses the importance of Britain’s uniform legal and fiscal system, and Parliament’s control of the purse.
Well, as they say, that is history. Now we have a new struggle for dominance. If only it could be done without another round of gunpowder technology, and within the legal framework of the UN Charter.
• Jonathan Power is a British journalist, filmmaker and writer.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1058271
----
Haftar’s True Agenda in Libya
By Osama Al-Sharif
23 February 2017
As he managed to stretch his control over most of eastern Libya, including the oil fields, after ridding Benghazi of militant threats, Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar is now looking to capitalize on his gains in a bid to have the final say on his country’s future.
His entry into the Libyan political fray, following the toppling of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, was relatively late. He was once close to the defunct regime, but then spent two decades in exile in the US. Supported by various factions in the eastern part of the war-torn country, Haftar is quickly emerging as a political and military powerbroker who has become essential to reaching national reconciliation and preventing Libya from disintegrating.
Since he launched his offensive against the militants in Benghazi in May 2014, Haftar has managed to form what is now called the Libyan National Army (LNA). His recent victory over Al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar Al-Shariah, and other militant groups vying for control of the east, has affirmed his power while undermining efforts by the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) led by Fayez Sarraj in Tripoli.
His negotiating position became stronger when his forces took over the so-called Oil Crescent in September 2016, putting him in control of Libya’s only source of foreign currency. He has long opposed the GNA, which includes representatives of militant groups, and his main ally, the speaker of the Tobruk Parliament Agilah Saleh, has derailed attempts by the UN and Sarraj to fully implement the Skhirat agreement of December 2015.
Tilting things in his favor is Russia’s recent announcement that it was interested in mediating a solution in Libya. A few weeks ago, it invited Haftar to visit one of its warships in the Mediterranean, sending a message that it now stands with the 73-year-old general.
A recent attempt by Cairo to host a face-to-face meeting between Sarraj and Haftar was a failure. The latter made clear that he is against political Islam and in particular the Muslim Brotherhood, whose loyalists have considerable influence over the Presidential Council and the GNA. Today Libya has three governments — only one is internationally recognized — and two armies, in addition to a dozen armed militias with tribal affiliations.
Russia has been critical of NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011, which it saw as the reason for the chaos that followed. US and European efforts to stop the ensuing civil war, mainly between rival tribal factions, have achieved little as Libya inched closer toward partition.
The Sarraj government has failed to win recognition by rivals in Tripoli, and is yet to implement the Skhirat agreement. On Monday, it was reported that Sarraj’s convoy was shot at in the capital by unknown assailants.
The administration of former US President Barack Obama had reduced its involvement in Libya following the killing of its envoy in Benghazi in 2012 by radical groups. But now there are signs that the administration of his successor Donald Trump may actually work with Russia on Libya.
It is not farfetched that both Moscow and Washington may be entertaining the idea of backing Haftar to emerge as Libya’s strongman. His credentials as a fierce opponent of the Brotherhood who controls a sizable military force are appreciated by the US and Russia.
Sarraj, who has called on Moscow to help influence Haftar, is facing growing opposition from his own supporters. Still, his tribal allies in western Libya, led by the Misrata brigade, were able, with the help of US Special Forces, to limit the threat of Daesh, especially in their stronghold of Sirte. NATO still believes he can succeed in uniting various factions under the umbrella of one Libyan army.
But now Haftar, who is also supported by Egypt, appears to be backing away from a proposal to create a joint committee to negotiate national reconciliation and hold elections by February 2018. He may be waiting for the Trump administration to unveil its policy on Libya, while hoping that the Sarraj government will eventually be abandoned by NATO.
For the Europeans, Libya’s political stability is essential to controlling the crossing of illegal immigrants, and possibly militants, from Libyan shores into Europe. In addition, creating a well-trained national force will ensure that Daesh and its ilk do not establish a foothold in Libya.
This is also important for the country’s immediate neighbors. This week, the foreign ministers of Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria met in the Tunisian capital to discuss the Libyan crisis. They agreed that any solution must be achieved by Libyans themselves.
But that is easier said than done. Libya is a vast tribal country with weak national institutions. The eastern part has long entertained calls for independence. And with militant groups still active in the western part, reconciliation with Haftar seems remote.
But by leaning toward Haftar, Russia, Egypt and others could be foiling the last possible chance for a power-sharing agreement that seems to be the best formula to run the country until fresh elections are held. Haftar may be delaying an accord with his rivals in a bid to jockey for ultimate control of most of Libya, a risky gamble that could easily backfire.
• Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1058301
---
Milo and the Hypocrisy behind Free Speech Claims
By Rachel Shabi
Even with his name splashed in the headlines and his story cast as "breaking news", the last thing this is about is Milo Yiannopoulos. To precis, in case you sensibly missed the whole thing: this hate-spouting, Donald Trump-supporting, far-right trollster had a lucrative book deal cancelled and a major speaking engagement at the American Conservative Union's CPAC conference revoked after comments he made, apparently saying sex between "younger boys" and older men was OK, surfaced online.
He then resigned from the far-right Breitbart news - following reports that some of his colleagues had threatened to quit if he wasn't sacked over those comments seeming to condone paedophilia (though Milo says they were taken out of context).
The internet is replete with background and detail on this story - and has been for some time. But, again, this isn't about one individual far-right provocateur. It's mostly about the busting of a persistent myth, that the far-right, in strange symbiosis with some liberals who should know better, are the new champions of free speech.
You know, that noble far-right cause cheered by US TV host Bill Maher just the other day, when he so agreeably had Milo on his HBO Real Time talk show and they both told us to stop being so sensitive over things such as racism and misogyny.
Truth to Be Told
In truth, it is rare that reality so neatly punctures a point. For commentators have repeatedly cautioned that far-right hate speech around Muslims and minorities gets absolved in a way that nobody would dream of doing if the subject were, just by way of stark illustration, child abuse.
Well, now here's the proof. Previously supportive conservatives and publishers couldn't back away from Milo fast enough once those comments about sex with underage boys came to light.
Those who had previously insisted we should debate the hate, not shut it down, seemed to vanish into thin air. It turns out that - who knew? - there are limits to free speech, after all, and even for the far-right.
Conservative movements that have been politically revitalised by accommodating and thus rehabilitating the far-right need to do their own reckoning with this equation and its consequences.
But meanwhile, what of all the liberal-minded insistence that characters such as Milo are really a test of our commitment to free speech and the right to offend?
Of course, this was always a terrible conflation of free speech principles with the decision to provide platform and airtime to people who use these to mainline hateful bigotry - support for free speech confused with actively giving someone a megaphone.
But it's now up to those who insist it was a free speech issue to begin with, to explain why those limits didn't apply when the abuse and harassment campaigns were directed only at women, ethnic minorities or the transgender community.
The hard currency of all this, meanwhile, is the outrage, the reaction to having conversations ambushed and derailed by trolls for whom the sole purpose is to ambush and derail.
This is one of many reasons why there is little point in engaging with the hate preachers of the far-right: even when you think you've won the argument, it will be cast as losing, slapped on YouTube with a headline about being "owned" or "destroyed" by the hater.
In this context, there is a certain arrogance in thinking that you will be the one who prevails, who will "win" using calm logic and clear reasoned debate - when in reality, all that's ever achieved by such an exchange is amplification of hate, giving it more platform, more reach and more legitimacy.
When American journalist Jeremy Scahill pulled out of Bill Maher's Real Time, because the show was also hosting Milo, it was premised on this understanding.
As Scahill wrote, the alt-right provocateur "has ample venues to spew his hateful diatribe. There is no value in 'debating' him."
As every shock jock and far-right agitator knows, there is something compulsive about the shock in this context, a morbid fascination combined with a sort of earnestly breathless anthropological drive to understand why the spewer of hate is so awful.
This is what the erroneous invocation of "free speech" is effectively providing cover for - it operates as a seemingly principled and intellectual framing of something that is often propelled by less worthy impulses.
Again, it works only if you are not a target of the abuse and don't comprehend the harm in it. But this does in part explain why toxic far-right talk is so ubiquitously sought out and hosted - it might advocate the most appalling hatred against Muslims, or women but, wow, look at those re-tweets.
It's why lucrative book deals and TV slots are available. And it's why there will always be Milos - because we seem intent on making sure that they will always have an audience.
Rachel Shabi is a journalist and author of Not the Enemy: Israel's Jews from Arab Lands.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/02/milo-hypocrisy-free-speech-170222081617243.html
----
Struggle over Aleppo's Story Takes To the Skies
By Alhakam Shaar and Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick
New technologies open new windows for political action. They give new tools to the powerful and their challengers. In the Syrian city of Aleppo, the struggle to frame the conflict for the international community ran parallel to the battle for control over the land itself.
While drone footage from Russia Today showed videos of rebel-held and heavily-bombed eastern Aleppo, Syria's Ministry of Tourism published footage of the city's intact western half, complete with the soundtrack from HBO's hit show Game of Thrones. The contrast was stark. Life with the regime was normal. Life with the rebels was hell.
Monther Etaky remembered that "the regime was always looking down from the drone". An Aleppo native, working as a journalist during the siege, Etaky and his colleague Abdalrahman Ismail were frustrated by this distortion. They were not alone. They joined a handful of independent journalists to tell the other side of the story.
The next step was as simple as it was familiar to activists the world over: they bought their own drone. Suddenly, the journalists were working simultaneously along two frontlines; one physical and the other symbolic.
"When I first flew the drone for myself, I saw the destruction of the city. I'm used to seeing the destruction from the ground, but not from the sky … it looks wider than from the ground," Monther says. At the time, both men were contributing to Life in Aleppo, a grassroots effort to raise awareness of the siege.
"The regime is the greatest criminal on the planet," Monther told us. With Assad's planes occupying the skies every day of the past five years, Aleppo earned titles such as the world's most dangerous city and Syria's barrel-bomb capital.
Undermining Official Narratives
The group's footage undermined official narratives of the war's progress while challenging humanitarian consciousness worldwide.
This is true in struggles well beyond Syria, as new technologies give regimes new means of control, at the same time challengers gain new tools for documenting abuses and spreading the word about important causes.
Long gone are the halcyon days in which tech boosters could claim that the information highway would deliver the democratic goods.
In the United States, the 2016 election has removed any doubt that new digital technologies cut both ways.
Drones are no exception: most viewed drone footage of Aleppo is not from Monther, Abdalrahman and their colleagues. What folks watch the most is Youtube footage from Russian outlets like Russia Today and Ruptly.
Some titles are generic "Drone footage captures devastation of east Aleppo" and others are clearly political: "Drone footage shows fierce clashes between Syrian Army & US-backed Islamic terrorists."
That contrast couldn't have been clearer, Abdalrahman remembered, "When we are besieged, we, all the time, see the drones of the Assad regime flying over the city," their footage "telling lies".
Taking to the sky
A recent analysis of non-violent drone use found that around the world Abdalrahman and Monther's usage is growing, as drones provide new perspectives on factory farming, industrial animal facilities, environmental degradation, and poaching (PDF).
Drones allow advocacy groups to see over walls, peer deep into inaccessible rainforests, and capture footage from just across town. Indeed, one of the first things Monther and his young colleagues did was to fly a drone over their university, which they hadn't seen in five years.
Around the world, drones are taking to the sky, increasing public apprehension about the devices. Syria is no exception.
When they first started flying, people assumed it belonged to the regime, "They said it's a spy drone, we should shoot that drone down, so it's not targeting our neighbourhoods."
Frequent flights and some neighbourly outreach prevented the drone's downing by friendly fire.
Nevertheless, Abdalrahman and Monther estimate that they lost 20 drones over the course of the conflict. These losses are due to risky flights that basically involves "gambling to take good footage from regime areas," but they are also the result of the regime's efforts to shoot down their devices, or jam their control signals.
Such are the basic back and forth struggles between regimes and challengers.
For now, the struggle has subsided, as both Abdalrahman and Monther fled Aleppo as Syrian and Russian troops moved in.
Their departure was marked by a final insult, Monther remembered: "I lost three laptops and a drone - the Russian officer stole it from the bus where I was. As part of the forced evacuation agreement, they were not allowed to open bags - guns weren't allowed, and I didn't have guns, but they saw the laptops, which is the worst gun for them."
The cat and mouse game of emancipatory uses and state control of new technologies plays on. Both men continue their efforts from the north-western Syrian countryside; only this time without a drone.
AlHakam Shaar is research fellow for The Aleppo Project at the School of Public Policy at Central European University. He studies Aleppians' narratives of the war and the rebuilding of the city.
Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick is a writer and professor at the Kroc School of Peace Studies at the University of San Diego. He is writing a book about drones and other protest technologies.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/02/struggle-aleppo-story-takes-skies-170221105309042.html
----
Are Green Zone Powers Aware Of This?
By Adnan Hussein
22 February 2017
As Iraq launched an offensive to liberate West Mosul, General Stephen Townsend, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, said in a statement published by the American embassy in Baghdad on Sunday that the coalition supporting Iraqi troops is made up of “more than 65 nations unified to defeat ISIS.”
This strengthens the Iraqis’ hope that this terrorist organization’s defeat will be certain and that their armed forces will crush ISIS - as long as it has the support of 65 countries - including all superpowers.
However, this statement also highlights a major paradox. As the world unites to support us on the military, intelligence, political and financial fronts, and to enable us to liberate ourselves and our cities and territories from this terrorist beast we, on the domestic front, which is the most important in this war like every other war, are not united. There aren’t even the lowest levels of harmony to achieve a coherent domestic front that provides strong support or at least moral support to the troops which are fighting battles and paving the way towards the peace and stability which are required post-ISIS phase that will be decisive in deciding Iraq’s fate and future.
Quarrels and Propaganda Wars
Today, political parties, particularly those which are influential in authority, seem to be busy with their disputes over power, influence and money – just like they’ve always been. They’re preoccupied with their quarrels and propaganda wars which are often insulting. These struggles go beyond the society’s components, Shiite, Sunnis, Kurds and others and include those who present themselves as the only legitimate representative of these “components.” There are struggles, quarrels and moral and political battles among different political Islam parties, whether Shiites or Sunnis. This is also the case among Kurdish, Turkmen and Assyrian-Chaldean groups.
These parties, groups and blocs are busy with their partisan interests and are preoccupied with their leaders’ personal concerns. They don’t look after public concerns or national interests as their entire focus is on gains and posts. They seem uninterested in the details of the national liberation war that’s currently happening in Mosul.
Follow up on this matter from now on and count how many politicians and members of parliament, including Nineveh politicians and politicians of the Sunni “components,” will bother travelling to the liberated eastern side of Mosul or neighbouring areas to personally supervise the course of battles and manage the services provided to those displaced? How many politicians and members of parliament will at least control their words and abstain from sectarian incitement? How many television channels and dailies - which are funded by these parties and their leaders from mostly stolen public funds – will calm down and stop propagating hate speech?
The 65 nations working with the coalition provide military, logistical and political support to troops fighting to liberate Mosul. However if 10 or 15 influential parties quit their struggle over authority, money and power, it will be as important, if not more so, than what these 65 countries provide.
Adnan Hussein is the executive editor-in-chief of Al-Mada newspaper and head of the National Union of Iraqi journalists. Previously, he has held the position of Managing Editor in Asharq al-Awsat newspaper.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/22/Are-Green-Zone-powers-aware-of-this-.html
----
When A Politician Falls By His Sword He Should Put His Public Persona To Rest
By Trisha de Borchgrave
22 February 2017
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech last week, in which he pronounced it his “mission” to persuade his fellow citizens to “rise up” and change their minds on Brexit, will have a minimal impact on rallying Remainers, and even less on convincing Brexiteers.
The backlash against expert thinking during the referendum campaign is still felt when it comes to taking direction from an ex-prime minister, especially when most Britons across the political spectrum view Tony Blair as the leader who dragged the country into a disastrous war not of their own choosing and certainly not of their own wanting.
So his grasp of Brexit as a complex and historically significant event, with far-reaching implications for British security and prosperity, comes across as unsolicited advice from the reckless decision-maker of fourteen years ago.
Many of the three million who signed a petition to remain in the EU following the Brexit vote also marched on the streets of Britain in 2003 to protest against his commitment to back President George W Bush. And, for Brexiteers, Blair’s informed reasoning is the cherry-picking trickery that hoodwinked them over the war in Iraq that now blind-sides what they clearly see as their right to uphold their decision to leave the EU.
There are understandable reasons why he feels he should step in. His Labour Party is non-functional, with a leader who is at best indifferent to the EU; the Conservatives are ignoring the interests of the 48 percent who voted to remain; Europe’s cohesion is under threat, facing a series of populist-led elections and thrown off balance by an authoritarian US president who equates Russia with America’s allies, and a NATO alliance that seems powerless in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine and growing interference in its ex-Soviet satellites.
‘Citizens of Nowhere’
Blair, however, has become the personification of May’s “citizens of nowhere”; speaking with an accent that hovers above the waters of the mid-Atlantic, making statements that may accurately reflect the complexities of an inter-connected world but that have little to do with the everyday reality of the opportunity-starved, and possessing the personal wealth that under the auspicious appointment of “Middle East envoy” grew by the millions in contrast to his lackluster performance in the job.
Britons’ animosity is such that his sagacious imploring to re-consider the decision to leave the EU is no reparation for the true act of contrition he has avoided even in the wake of the verdict of the Chilcot Inquiry.
Sometimes politicians need to accept that they will never be appreciated again, let alone exert influence. Just as former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron will be judged in future history books as having risked the undoing of his country and Europe in the name of political ambition, with just a footnote about his earnest belief in the “big society”, so Blair will be forever tainted with a war that people were deceived into supporting by means of double-speak and arm-twisting. His argument that Brexiteers were fed unsubstantiated and misleading facts by the Leave campaigners smacks of hypocrisy.
Blair’s intervention on Brexit is further complicated by his role in creating some of the woes that swayed Britons to abandon the EU. Not only did he strongly support the EU’s enlargement to ten new countries in 2004 - mostly from Europe’s much poorer east - he then contributed to the overwhelming feeling of powerlessness and loss of national identity that motivated many Brexiteers by choosing to open access for immigration into Britain from these countries.
The Brexiteers Impression
While other EU member states chose to implement the process over a seven-year period, 1 million people arrived on British shores in two years, leading to the palpable impression among many Brexiteers that they were sidelined when it came to public sector services and benefits, in favor of EU nationals. A talented negotiator-tactician can still make strategic mistakes.
Furthermore, in 2006, Blair reneged on his promise to hold a referendum that would decide Britain’s ratification of the proposed treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. He instead supported the new Lisbon Treaty that parliament voted in without a referendum. This helped generate the obsessive Conservative fervour and UKIP momentum to re-capture the chance to hold one. Blair primed the gun; Cameron pulled the trigger.
The thick-skinned hutzpah that drives politicians to secure a seat at the cabinet table, or indeed the premiership, can often prevent them from deferring to their new status if they should fall from grace. Even with the combined experience, magnanimity and wisdom of their older selves, those who die politically were never wise or selfless enough when it mattered; few ever re-gain trustworthiness in the limelight, and rarely get a second chance.
Blair’s mind and experience should be put to good use, at most as a byline, and more importantly, in dogged, quiet legwork behind the scenes in formulating persuasive arguments that others can voice and express. A dinner lady from Stoke-on-Trent, where 70 percent voted to leave, has genuinely more chance of converting the swathe of Britain that is blind and deaf to the exertions of Blairite rationalising.
Then again, it might be too much to ask from a man who is atonal to the divisive effects of his name; a name that today blocks a country’s receptors to the perilous consequences of Brexit.
Trisha de Borchgrave is a writer and artist based in London.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/22/When-a-politician-falls-by-his-sword-he-should-put-his-public-persona-to-rest.html
----
Change or Be Changed and Opportunity for Arab Youth
By Khaled Almaeena
22 February 2017
Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is one of the few Arab leaders who calls a spade a spade. He puts forward ideas that are relevant, not only to the present but to the future. Addressing a panel of the World Government Summit held in Dubai, he said that the Arab world possesses great potential including human resources, education, fertile lands and willpower.
The only thing missing is management: the management of governments, economy, resources, infrastructure and even sports. We are 300 million strong, almost equal to the population of the USA, but look how many medals they win in the Olympic Games. We have failures in certain areas that need to be addressed. He could not be more right.
The Arab world despite its “brimming coffers lacks one thing which money cannot buy – leadership.” This was a line in an editorial in the London Telegraph after the June 1967 War.
And here today leadership would apply to management, which Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid referred to as the missing link. And leaders, innovators and pioneers can only be nurtured in societies that are free and where critical thinking is encouraged from childhood. And this is what we should all strive for, and what should be the prime goal of those in power.
Security and Economy
Security and stability come only when there is a flourishing economy and where the free flow of ideas and thoughts are encouraged. Societal development occurs when people’s ideas and opinions are not strapped and harnessed.
Communities grow, develop and perform when people are made to realize that they are stakeholders in society and when the decision-making process encompasses their ideas and thoughts. It is critical that diversity be the pillar of society that will then enhance its growth.
Arab governments should realize that no matter what their power or size, they cannot hold on to power without the will and aspiration of the youth. Hence, their attention should be focused on the young.
Gone are the days of totalitarianism and one-man rule, as social media is the equalizer and this tool should be utilized to spread goodness rather than become a vehicle for extremism.
Around me, I see young men and women, second to none. They want to participate in nation building. They are not less than their counterparts in the West and the East. All that they need is an opportunity. It’s time to give them that.
Khaled Almaeena is a veteran Saudi journalist, commentator, businessman and the editor-at-large of the Saudi Gazette. Almaeena has held a broad range of positions in Saudi media for over thirty years, including CEO of a PR firm, Saudi Television news anchor, talk show host, radio announcer, lecturer and journalist. As a journalist, Almaeena has represented Saudi media at Arab summits in Baghdad, Morocco and elsewhere. In 1990, he was one of four journalists to cover the historic resumption of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Russia. He also traveled to China as part of this diplomatic mission. Almaeena's political and social columns appear regularly in Gulf News, Asharq al-Aswat, al-Eqtisadiah, Arab News, Times of Oman, Asian Age and The China Post.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/22/Change-or-be-changed-and-opportunity-for-the-Arab-youth.html
---
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/the-uae-formulas-power-success/d/110171