Wanted: A Leadership To Reshape The Mideast: New Age Islam's Selection, 20 January 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
20 January 2017
• Wanted: A Leadership To Reshape The Mideast
By Sinem Cengiz
• Is Iran’s Change Of Heart For Real?
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• A Strong Right-Wing Alliance On Its Way In Turkey
By Murat Yetkin
• Saudis Are Not Racists And Must Speak Out Against It
By Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi
• Has Obama Presidency Withered The Hopes Of Western Liberalism?
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
• Five Thoughts To Sober Up The Morning After Trump
By Marwan Bishara
• The Inevitable Trumputin Divorce
By Roman Dobrokhotov
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Wanted: A Leadership To Reshape The Mideast
By Sinem Cengiz
20 January 2017
The Middle East is going through a painful and chaotic phase of transformation, one that is not going to end any time soon.
The region needs to be reshaped, and there is no doubt that this should be done with a strong leadership and collaboration of all regional countries. Military moves or strategies alone will not be sufficient in reshaping the region. A diplomatic and political plan is required to reconfigure it.
The processes of regional transformations often start after an international conference in which stakeholders play their last cards.
More than half a century ago, the situation in Europe was not much different than the Middle East of today. Back then, the reconstruction and reconfiguration of Europe were only possible with the combination of a well-planned military and political strategy.
The current reality in the Middle East and the historical context of the regional countries do of course differ from the situation seen in post-war Europe. However, the question here is how a similar achievement can be reached in today’s Middle East, particularly when taking into consideration the situation in Syria and Iraq.
Where are those leaders to take initiative for the reshaping of the region? Is Donald Trump, who today takes his seat in the Oval Office, the long-awaited leader to change the balance of the Middle East?
Obama is leaving a very complicated Middle East to his successor. Trump is going to have a heavy file in his hands, and it is a region that he will not be able to ignore. The region’s challenges range from the fight against Daesh in Iraq to the multi-sided war in Syria, from fruitless Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to the US’ strained relations with its other regional allies, and from the deal on Iran’s nuclear program to an increasingly assertive Russia.
At this point not much is clear regarding Trump’s Middle East policy; however after taking the office, Trump is likely to find himself in a difficult position: Should he keep the promises he made during his campaign, or should he pursue a realist and pragmatic policy based on realpolitik in the region? Considering that Trump is a businessman, not a statesman, it becomes even harder to predict his steps. As many may remember, in one radio interview during his campaign he could not even distinguish between Hezbollah and Hamas.
Trump and the Middle East
Many of the predictions about President Trump’s stance toward the Middle East are shaped by his campaign statements. These include: His harsh criticisms over the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with Iran; his plans to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which he called “the eternal capital” of the Jewish people; his plans for less military involvement in the region, particularly Syria; his approach for close Russian cooperation in the region; his comments about stealing Iraqi oil for the US; and his Islamophobic comments and threat to ban all Muslims from entering the US.
Trump said a lot of things during his campaign, often using very strong language aimed at rallying his supporters, without thinking of the global ramifications. So whether all of the above will happen is still in question. But for the region, it would be best for Trump to avoid taking steps that could further escalate the situation in the Middle East.
In the past few years, US regional allies have expressed clear displeasure with the Obama administration’s passive stance toward crises in the region. Riyadh in particular was uneasy with the Obama administration due to its deal with rival Iran, which vies with Saudi Arabia for regional influence.
Turkey, also a NATO ally, was frustrated with the policies of the Obama administration, which hesitated to act when necessary in Syria. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also slammed the US for not standing firmly against the failed military coup, and accused it of harboring Fethullah Gülen, a cleric living in self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania whom Ankara accuses of being behind the violent coup attempt.
Turkey, along with some other traditional US allies, wants to see a US commitment that sends clear signals to regional allies. With the hope that the incoming administration will change the Obama-era policy of leading from behind, regional countries — with the exception of Iran — offered their support to Trump when he was elected. So at this point, countries in the region expect Trump to be more decisively ahead of challenges in the volatile region.
Only time will tell how the Trump presidency will keep everything on track in the region, particularly with regard to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. We do not know what policies Trump and his team plans for the region; but there is a need for a strong leadership and collaboration in reshaping the region.
----
Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes mainly on issues regarding Turkey’s relations with the Middle East. She can be reached on Twitter @SinemCngz
Source: arabnews.com/node/1041596/columns
----
Is Iran’s Change Of Heart For Real?
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
20 January 2017
“Iran and Saudi Arabia managed to stop the obstructions to the presidential election process in Lebanon. We achieved success.”
This statement came from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. Before a large international audience, he expressed his country’s desire to cooperate with Saudi Arabia in order to resolve the problems of “Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere in the region.”
What was offered to Saudi Arabia in an open forum by the Iranian minister was a proposal for joint action to end conflicts in the region. It is a new call.
Why? Are we seeing a shift in Iran’s aggressive policy, which considered its aim to put Saudi Arabia and its allies under siege? Or is it an Iranian desire to preempt developments on the international scene? Is it perhaps due to a change in US policy due to Obama’s departure and the arrival of a new US administration, which has openly expressed its intention to confront Iran?
Or is there another possibility that we should ignore the signals sent by Russia that it does not want to remain an ally and partner in the war with Iran and Syria?
The third possibility is that Zarif’s remarks about his country’s desire to cooperate with Saudi Arabia are only talk in a public relations program to improve the image of the Republic of Iran at Davos.
What was suggested by Zarif about the prospects of cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, specifically to work together to end the conflicts in the region, is not something to be condemned but it is strange that it was voiced by Iran.
It might be a positive development but for the fact that the Tehran regime’s interpretation of “cooperation” means that we accept what is imposed by Iran including, for example, its aggression in Syria and Yemen. Iran is now seeking to impose its idea of “cooperation” in Syria at the Astana conference; it attempted something similar in Bahrain but the idea was turned down by the Gulf states.
Was there, indeed, any real cooperation between the two countries in Lebanon? Was there anything that could serve as a model worthy of reproducing?
The acceptance of Michel Aoun as president of Lebanon happened after a tug of war between the Lebanese forces themselves. And after Lebanon’s being without a president for a long period which prevented action by government and state institutions, Iran’s agents were not able to achieve their aims. This was especially true when Saudi Arabia announced that it would not involve itself in Lebanon’s problems. Even when it came to removing garbage from the streets in Beirut, the Iranians were not successful.
As long as the new Lebanese government does not adopt hostile attitudes toward Saudi Arabia and does not allow hostilities and as long as the Lebanese factions are satisfied, Riyadh’s reservations will no longer apply — and that is what has happened.
As for the oil cooperation referred to by Zarif, the fact is that the cooperation occurred between Saudi Arabia and Russia without Iran’s involvement. The Russian government vowed to pressure the Iranians to respect their share of the previously agreed production.
This does not mean that what Zarif said was, in essence, wrong: “I see no reason for hostile policies between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, we can work together to end the tragic situation of the people of Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere in the region.”
In the region, Iran is the only country that has an aggressive policy. The Gulf countries and other countries in the region, on the other hand, resort to defensive policy against Iran.
Zarif does not want his country to wage wars where hundreds of thousands of people are killed and millions displaced. Surely he can discover for himself and his country that there is no reasonable cause to be in a state of animosity with its neighbors.
Tehran has succeeded in creating militias from around the region; the purpose of the militias is to wage war and perpetrate terrorist attacks. This policy has, however, produced trouble for Iran as it has led to both ethnic and sectarian conflicts.
It forced the countries in the region to shift to wars of self-defense. These wars have been caused by Iran which is directly involved in the fighting in Iraq and Syria and is also funding the rebels in Yemen.
Is it appropriate for countries in the region, specifically the Gulf, to cooperate with Iran? I think it is unlikely in light of Iran’s military offensive. What we can see now is that it is sabotaging all efforts at reconciliation. The Iranian forces on the ground tried to sabotage the Aleppo agreement between Russia and Turkey, and are putting pressure on the Houthi rebels in Yemen to reject the political solution after they accepted it.
----
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a veteran columnist. He is the former general manager of Al Arabiya News Channel, and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat where this article was originally published.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1041466/columns
----
A Strong Right-Wing Alliance On Its Way In Turkey
By Murat Yetkin
January/20/2017
I was recently having an informal chat with an important name from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) together with a number of colleagues.
“When are you going to import the MHP?” I asked half-jokingly, referring to the current close cooperation between the AK Parti and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) over the constitutional shift to an executive presidential system, as targeted by President Tayyip Erdogan.
I was expecting a cool answer pouring cold water on the suggestion and refuting jokes about political partners. But no, the experienced politician responded with a “you got me” smile on his face. He replied with another question, asking “Isn’t that question a bit late?”
Here is the dialogue that followed:
- Could the partnership go as far as a merger under a single roof with a new name?
- I’m not sure about that. But do you think that’s even necessary?
- What do you mean?
- Well, it seems that we [AK Parti] can already do whatever we want together with [the MHP].
- So you will make them share responsibility for every step you take, and vice versa?
- I believe they [MHP] will be relying on us in almost every move they make.
- And if they object to any of your projects, they would risk canceling all the support they have been giving you [AK Parti]?
- (More smiles)
- Can your cooperation be extended from the constitutional shift referendum to parliamentary elections?
- Why not? I wouldn’t rule that out.
This informal chat indicates that a closer and longer range AK Parti-MHP alliance has already been internalized as an approaching possibility on the political horizon.
Just hours after this chat, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim’s words to private broadcaster Fox TV-Turkey about the possibility of taking ministers from the MHP to the AK Parti government hit the halls of parliament. That would practically amount to a coalition without the formal need for it.
On the same day, Jan. 18, social democratic main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kiliçdaroglu visited MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli to (in vain) “remind him once again” that the presidential model would lead to “one-man rule in a party-state” Bahçeli had already stated before the meeting that he had said everything he needed to, and would remain in favor of the shift.
The next day, Yildirim added to his remarks on bringing MHP ministers into the cabinet, saying that in the referendum there would be the AK Parti and the MHP on one side for a “stronger Turkey under the presidential system,” while on the other side there would be the CHP and the Kurdish problem-focused Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). That is a smart move to give a subliminal message to voters, since the AK Parti denounces the HDP as the legal extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a terrorist organization by law, despite the fact that the objections of the CHP and the HDP against the presidential system differ in motivation, reasoning and policy.
You can read more from Gizem Karakus’s story in today’s Hürriyet Daily News about how the AK Parti has been planning to carry out a joint referendum campaign with the MHP.
What Prime Minister Yildirim is pointing to could be the largest front in Turkey’s political system, bringing Islamist, conservative, Turkish nationalist, and center-right voters under one roof.
Turkey has experienced a number of right-wing coalitions in the past, notably the three-party “Nationalist Front” coalitions in the second half of the 1970s between center-right, Islamist and Turkish nationalist parties. However, no such coalition was seen after the 1980 military coup. There was only a brief center-right-Islamist coalition in 1996-97 called “Refah-Yol,” which was brought to an end with resignations due to pressure from the military and judicial establishment of the time, labelled the “post-modern coup.”
If what Yildirim is pointing to actually happens, an unnamed coalition will be formed incorporating almost all of Turkey’s right-wing tendencies, in the still heated post-July 2016 coup attempt political atmosphere.
The rise of the right in such a form paralels the rise of the right in Europe and elswhere, in line with global tendencies. It also opens up new windows for a new set of political uncertainities.
Source: hurriyetdailynews.com/a-strong-right-wing-alliance-on-its-way-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=449&nID=108748&NewsCatID=409
-----
Saudis Are Not Racists And Must Speak Out Against It
By Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi
19 January 2017
The title of this article is taken from a video posted by the well-known media figure Kamal Abdulqadir on his Twitter account. The video talks about the ferocious racist campaign launched against non-Saudis.
In the video, Abdulqadir said that it does not befit us Saudis to launch such campaigns. He wonders why someone would launch a campaign called “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is for Saudis only”. It is a strange title, because, of course, the Kingdom is for Saudis not for any other nationality.
Some Saudis are angry because expatriate workers transfer billions of riyals out of the Kingdom every year and say that it is not fair that this money goes abroad instead of being spent inside the country. Abdulqadir asks: “Why do these Saudis want expatriate workers to spend their money locally?” After all, this is their money; they have earned it legally and have worked hard for it. We should thank them for helping us build our country and should always remember that they have the full right to transfer their money to their families back home.
I do not understand why some Saudis want expatriate workers to spend their money in the country. How can these Saudis say that? We have to remember that expatriate workers are the ones who have built our country. They have not invaded our country; they entered it legally and we asked them to come here. They have worked hard and have made this money to support their families back home.
There are expatriate workers who have been living in the Kingdom for decades and some were born and raised here. Abdulqadir says that these people deserve to be naturalized and be given Saudi citizenship because the Kingdom has become their homeland.
In the video, he states that some people will not like the things that he says and some will even describe him as a naturalized citizen who does not have original Saudi roots while some will use racist words against him although Islam is against racism. At the end of the video, he calls upon Saudis to rise up to the occasion and treat all expatriate workers with respect because they are here to help us and provide services for us.
Viral On Social Media
The video became widely popular shortly after it was posted on Twitter and many people responded to it: some supported Abdulqadir while others opposed his views. Jameel Farsi, who is considered to be an authority on jewels and who is a social media activist, said that over 165,429 people have watched Abdulqadir’s video, over 1,163 have commented on it and over 3,500 have retweeted it.
Farsi said that only five percent of the comments smacked of racism and that these comments were made by people who use fake names and have no respect for religion, ethics or other human beings. Unfortunately, the ferocious campaign against expatriate workers has not only been launched on social media but has also appeared in some newspapers.
An Arabic daily published a cartoon offending all expatriate workers and then removed it from its website following a barrage of criticism from many. Although many people asked the cartoonist to apologize for the offensive cartoon, he refused to do so. I have called many times for the cartoonist to be put on trial for his racist comments if he continues to refuse to apologize.
It seems that some people are encouraging the cartoonist to draw similar offensive cartoons. Apparently, some people have an ethics crisis and poor education, and by some I mean those who describe expatriate workers as invaders who enter the Kingdom to steal jobs from Saudis.
When I discuss this issue with people on social media websites or read the comments made by some readers on newspaper websites, I find that there are people who insist that Saudis have the right to fill the vacancies available in the market. Of course, I agree with them, but the problem that is we do not have enough Saudis to do certain jobs. We still need expatriate workers who can work as doctors, engineers, pharmacists, nurses, construction workers, street sweepers, etc.
I have noticed that when people do not have an argument to support their hostile opposition to expatriate workers, they bring up the issue of expatriate workers transferring money abroad. They keep saying that these transfers are a great loss to the national economy and that the country needs this money.
When I explain to these people that this money belongs to expatriate workers and that they have worked hard to earn it and are free to spend it on their families and children who live thousands of kilometers away from them, they do not seem to be convinced. The money belongs to expatriate workers and we have no right whatsoever to tell them how to spend it.
“We must remember that expatriate workers have entered the Kingdom legally to help us build and develop our country. They have contributed immensely to the development and progress of the nation. They deserve to be thanked and appreciated for the work that they have done. We wish them all the best. We, as Saudis, should rise up and speak up against racism and discrimination which conflict with the teachings of Shariah. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Leave it (i.e., racism), it is rotten.” He also said: “One who does not thank people does not give thanks to Allah.”
----
Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/01/19/Saudis-are-not-racists-and-must-speak-out-against-it.html
-----
Has Obama Presidency Withered The Hopes Of Western Liberalism?
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
19 January 2017
Fortune favors the bold. That is one of the most reliable lessons to learn from history, and it is especially true in politics. The last few years have also shown this to be true with astonishing frequency.
Vladimir Putin’s forays into the Middle East and Ukraine – both highly risky endeavours which paid off in spades. Russia’s increasingly assertive propaganda war against the West: Europe has been destabilized more seriously than at any time since WW2, and in the US we have an incoming President of the United States who was almost a typecast product of this propaganda and which is now closer to Putin and the FSB than he is to his own intelligence agencies.
Even in the global Islamist insurgency, ISIS has become the de facto face of global jihadism by being more assertive and brazen than any other militant group.
Unfortunately, the Obama Presidency has not been similarly bold. It was audacious, and hopeful, to be sure. But not bold. And for that, he leaves a legacy that is much diminished from what it could have been. And a legacy which his successor is vowing to dismantle completely. With it will also wither the hopes of Western liberalism.
President Obama’s final speech as President was at a rally in Chicago. The symbolism was clear, as it was here over a decade ago that he launched his political career. A political career that on the one hand went much farther than he could have reasonably expected, and on the other, delivered much less than it had promised.
What was remarkable about his speech, however, was how much it sounded like the speeches made by the candidate Barack Obama. Using the same rhetorical motifs and cadences. You would be forgiven for forgetting that this man has spent the last eight years in the Oval Office.
But of course, the tragedy is that the speech needed to be the same. It needed to appeal to hope. It needed to call on the faith that liberal values and creeds are on “the right side of history”. It needed to do these things, because neither America nor the world had moved very much toward the vision the candidate Obama set out ten years ago. And after eight years of the Obama presidency, the future of the world is now entrusted to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
‘Cardinal Sin’
Obama’s cardinal sin was his unwavering faith that the world will inevitably, ultimately bend to his vision of the future – what he called the “long arc of history”. That faith meant that he was too patient for the world to do just that. And it absolved him of the need and urgency to assert that vision of the world and defend it robustly.
Much ink has been spilled about the catastrophic decision not to enforce the chemical weapons red line in Syria. That turned out to be one of the most fundamental shifts in geopolitics since 9/11. But a similar argument can be made about his domestic governance.
Obama was right to bail out the financial system in 2008. That prevented a 1930s-style Great Depression in the US, and a potential re-run of the great tragedies of the 1930s elsewhere. The system was bruised, but it limped on. That was a good call. What was not, was what followed. Someone had to pick up the tab for bailing out the global financial crisis.
The Financial Crisis
And in the US, as in most other countries in the world, the judgement call was made to play it safe: leave the banks well alone and do not rock the boat while they still appear to be fragile. And thus, the financial sector suffered almost zero consequences for their catastrophic, and in many cases, criminal mismanagement of the American and global economy. Instead, the price was borne ordinary people, in tax, in jobs, in work security, in public services.
In the 1930s, Roosevelt was bold: he took the Crash and the Great Depression as an opportunity to restructure and rebuild American finance, the wider economy and even society as a whole. That recipe for how to organise America went on to conquer the world. Obama had the same opportunity given to him.
But he was not bold. He demurred. He caved in to pressure from Wall Street that things had to go on exactly as they had done before the crisis, and bought the line that any drive to hold Wall Street accountable for its crimes would affect the wider economy. He played it safe. And sure enough, the economy has been limping along rather well. But at what cost?
The cost is that the economy has been and will continue to be increasingly hijacked by a plutocratic oligarchy – just look at the Trump cabinet. The world has been left to chancers who have no regard for human rights and who will continue to trample on civilian lives as they jostle for regional power and prestige. And liberalism and its values have been discredited by association.
Where eight years ago the world looked like it could only get better, now it looks like it can only get worse. And Obama has to own much of that legacy and what is to come over the next decade.
-----
Azeem Ibrahim is Senior Fellow at the Centre for Global Policy and Adj Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College. He completed his PhD from the University of Cambridge and served as an International Security Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a World Fellow at Yale. Over the years he has met and advised numerous world leaders on policy development and was ranked as a Top 100 Global Thinker by the European Social Think Tank in 2010 and a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/01/19/Has-Obama-Presidency-withered-the-hopes-of-Western-liberalism-.html
----
Five Thoughts To Sober Up The Morning After Trump
By Marwan Bishara
19-01-17
If you're depressed, whatever you do, don't go for the easy escapes. Don't bother taking up yoga, watching soap operas or shopping for expensive stuff. And for all you disgruntled Americans, forget about moving to Canada. It's too cold.
If you're religious, don't bother praying for divine intervention. As former senator George Mitchell famously remarked 30 years ago: "Although he's regularly asked to do so, God does not take sides in American politics."
And do spare yourself more of the same self-help nonsense. For the self-help nation that it has become, America's helplessness today comes not from a lack of enthusiasm and drive; it comes from a lack of fairness and too much drive.
Hyperbole Won't Bring About Fairness.
What then could be done about the Trump presidency? That's a long story; perhaps a four-year ordeal; perhaps more, perhaps less. At any rate, plenty of time to think for the long term. As for this week, here are few good reasons why good people shouldn't feel too bad or mad "the morning after" the inauguration.
Driving Conservatives Mad
The Republican vote for the man their leaders called a vulgar, braggart lose cannon is the ultimate demonstration of how the liberal elites have finally driven conservatives totally and utterly mad.
Once upon a time, conservatives used to be the "reasonable" lot, the cautious, steady bunch. Those who deliberated, avoided abrupt change, and espoused "traditional values".
But since FDR's New Deal Society, Republican leadership have defied Darwin's theory of evolution. Instead of choosing better leaders, they've consistently devolved, starting with Dwight Eisenhower and ending with George W Bush and Donald Trump.
Trump's hyperbole and bravado is bound to accelerate this process downwards. Once, his base realises that the security, economy and wellbeing of the nation requires more than 140-character tweets, Republicans will understand they need change, AGAIN.
As will the country. Meanwhile …
Driving The Liberal Elites Mad
Americans have turned to Donald Trump only after Barrack Obama failed to change a rigid American establishment because he acquiesced to the liberal elites with high stakes in the rigged system.
Despite their championing of liberal values, these elites are as equally responsible for squashing the "American dream" as their conservative counterparts. Clearly, much of the country has had enough of their hypocrisy, surplus morality and so-called political correctness.
Trump's humiliation of the likes of CNN and The New York Times, the mouthpieces of the liberal establishment, is only the beginning of what promises to be a roller-coaster ride. But once all is said and done, humiliation might bring a certain humility to those snotty elites, and eventually make way for the more authentic liberal voices in American society.
Driving The Left Mad …
The left, which lost its way after Bernie Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton, has a chance to find its bearings again and return to its progressive roots. It can build on the momentum gained by Bernie, instead of lamenting the momentum lost by Hillary.
The left also has a chance to unify its ranks after it turned on itself over the past year. It tore itself apart in disagreement over whether or not to embrace "the lesser of the two evils", Clinton over Trump, and over taking sides between Hillary and Vladimir Putin, and between Trump and the CIA.
OK, not exactly taking sides, but certainly getting politically invested in losing propositions.
As the Clintons depart and Obama no longer president, the left may finally focus on the ever-more needed progressive agenda as democrats try to find their footing in Trump's America.
Driving White Evangelicals Mad
The holier-than-thou attitude of white Evangelicals was exposed in this election to be no more than a false cliche.
Their 80 percent vote in favour of known-to-be a "serial liar", casino owner, thrice-married women groper, who appeared in Playboy videos, is a testimony to their hypocrisy.
Yes, they hated Clinton and what she stood for in terms of abortion rights and women's rights, but they also liked and embraced Trump's xenophobic and indeed racist statements about Latinos and Muslims.
I don't usually prescribe literal interpretations to theological terms, but Evangelicals, who think Trump is their saviour, might discover that he is in fact a version of their much-anticipated "antichrist".
Driving Obama Mad
The Donald presidency will relieve much of the pent-up tension, bitterness and disappointed by the Obama presidency.
The no-drama Obama is telling his base that everything will be OK, when he knows nothing is OK with Trump reversing his legacy; or becoming his legacy.
He once remarked that Trump may only deliver the inauguration speech in a Saturday Night Life comedy sketch. Delusional.
But as soon as he opens his mouth to deliver the inauguration speech, people of all walks of life will be nostalgic for the days of Obama, the commander-in-speech. Those who dislike disliking Obama will rejoice the morning after the inauguration for having someone they will genuinely like to dislike.
And as I always, say/cite, in the end everything will be OK, if it's not OK, it's not the end.
And one extra thought to survive 'the morning after' is to watch The Reckoning, from Obama to Trump, Empire's film that is airing on Al Jazeera English the night and the morning of the inauguration.
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera. Follow him on Facebook.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/thoughts-sober-morning-trump-170119134306093.html
----
The Inevitable Trumputin Divorce
By Roman Dobrokhotov
19-01-17
After the inauguration of Donald Trump, media attention will be fixed on his first steps towards Russia. A lot has been said already about the difficult choice Trump faces after the hacking scandal: on the one hand, he promised voters he will improve relations with Moscow; on the other, any overture towards the Kremlin will be interpreted as a confirmation of the rumours about the alleged influence Russian President Vladimir Putin has over him. But little has been said about the dilemma that Putin himself faces, and that one is even more difficult.
On the one side, Trump's victory was an unexpected gift for the Kremlin, and it seems no one is trying to hide the fact. Russian state media are going out of their way to compliment the newly elected US president and smear his opponents.
For example, Russia's Channel One news reports portray Trump as a defender of the working class, who is harassed by deceitful media and attacked by paid demonstrators, and who will finally rescind an "unpopular" healthcare reform and defend the country against migrants. In other words, the Kremlin's propaganda defends the US president with such dedication, as if he were the Russian president.
One can understand why this is so. After all, many painful political issues are at stake. The main one is, of course, the repeal of the sanctions, which are harming not so much the Russian economy, as individuals in Putin's closest circle.
Another important issues is Ukraine. The Kremlin hopes to have Crimea recognised as Russian territory and not to have any weapon systems installed on Ukrainian territory. Of course, there are also expectations about the resolution of the Syrian question: Moscow hopes that Trump's administration won't demand that Assad steps down.
The Kremlin is happy about Trump's statements on NATO and it hopes that its expansion will stop and military deployment close to Russian borders will be curbed.
But there is another side to this coin: Trump's presidential victory could be a headache for Vladimir Putin as well.
The past 10 years, and especially since 2014, all internal Russian propaganda has been built on the concept of the external enemy - the West led by the US. The whole world believes that Russia is fighting in the Donbass region against Ukraine, but Russian media says Russia is fighting in Ukraine against the US. The whole world thinks that in Syria,Russia is defending Bashar al-Assad. But Russian media reports that in Syria Russia is resisting Washington's attempt to spread chaos through the armed groups it controls.
Looking For A New Villain
The US is the answer to all painful questions. If the opposition in Russia organises marches, of course, it is the US which wants to destabilise Russia by paying activists to protests.
An economic crisis in the country? No, the problem is not corruption and ineffective governance, it is Western sanctions! And if a law banning "homosexuality propaganda" is being voted on, then that is justified with protecting society from the "corrupting influence of the West".
In fact, there is not one problem which the sharp-tongued Russian TV hosts cannot link to the US. For example, if you get detained without any reason, even beaten up in the police station, you wouldn't blame it on Washington. But it can always be pointed out that after all, in America the police would shoot you on the spot for even the slightest resistance.
It may be possible to avoid this difficult situation by switching attention to other Western countries. To a certain extent, this has already happened: if 10 years ago, the attitude of Russians towards Europe was positive overall, today it is much more negative - even if Europe still fairs better than the US. State TV channels portray Europe as sinking in an economic crisis, suffering under the oppression of migrants, who invade the rights of citizens and promote debauchery - the Kremlin's media love to use the word "Gayropa" on these occasions.
In any case, Europe will not fit into the role of the new enemy. That is because this same propaganda regime was portraying Europe as a helpless and weak-willed marionette of the US. Then, of course, there needs to be another political figure embodying this enemy. Russians used to decorate their car bumpers with stickers insulting Obama. Who is going take his place? Angela Merkel? Theresa May? No, it won't work.
There is also another reason for Europe not fitting into the role of enemy No 1. The European Union is not really a state, but a group of counties which have different relations with the Kremlin. In the Czech Republic, Serbia, Hungary, Moldova and Bulgaria, Moscow has found some understanding. Relations with Italy are not that bad either. In Austria "our" candidate lost, but in France there will be two loyal candidates for the presidential elections - Marine Le Pen and Francois Fillon. And in Germany, there is space to challenge Merkel. In other words, the way Moscow sees it - not all is lost in Europe, and it is too early to demonise it.
'Nigeria With Snow'
The US is Russia's perfect enemy because the Cold War "feud" made Russia in the eyes of its citizens as equally powerful as the US. After all, anti-American propaganda is not a Putin invention; it was a cornerstone of Soviet ideology. The rhetoric of anti-American slogans today is cut-and-pasted from Soviet propaganda. Having Russians remember an era when their country was a superpower competing with the US is very convenient for Putin as the Russian economy has shrunk to only 1.7 percent of the world's, and loyal allies willing to recognise Crimea as Russian territory are difficult to come by.
Without a conflict with the US, Russia would lose its power status and recede to the poor outskirts of Europe, a "Nigeria with snow", as Sergey Brin, the Moscow-born founder of Google, once described it.
In other words, while the Putin-Trump honeymoon may have been enjoyable, present circumstances are pressing for the break-up of this union. Just as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's perfect Brangelina union hit the rocks, so Trumputin is destined to end. But this will be to the benefit and relief of both sides. Sooner or later, Trump will start talking about corruption and dictatorship in Russia, while Putin's media will soon discover that Trump is a Wall Street "insider", a swindler and overall an illegitimate president who won fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.
It's possible this will not happen immediately. Trump will justify the revoking of the sanctions with the opportunity to get Russia to downsize its nuclear arsenal - a quite convenient for Russia, which can't afford to maintain a huge arsenal in times of economic crisis. Moscow, itself, hinted at this to Trump so lifting sanctions doesn't look like a one-sided concession.
It is clear that both sides will continue to make overtures for a while. After all this is reminiscent of George Bush, who looked into Putin's eyes and "got a sense of his soul", and Obama, who was trying to "restart" relations. In both cases love only lasted a short while.
Sooner or later, the lovers will be forced to realise that they are more Montague and Capulet than Romeo and Juliet .
----
Roman Dobrokhotov is a Moscow-based journalist and civil activist. He is the editor-in-chief of The Insider.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/inevitable-trumputin-divorce-170119143312295.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/wanted-leadership-reshape-mideast-new/d/109782