Saudi Arabia, Before 1979 And After 2017 By Mamdouh Almuhaini: New Age Islam's Selection, 30 October 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
30 October 2017
• Saudi Arabia, Before 1979 And After 2017
By Mamdouh Almuhaini
• Palestinian Reconciliation ... Anew!
By Hussein Shobokshi
• Some Answers And Ambivalence From The ‘Saudi Davos’
By Frank Kane
• Moving Militants From One Place To Another Is No Solution
By Abdellatif El-Menawy
• As Iran’s Proxies Capture The Entire Iraq-Syria Border, It’s Time To Sit Up And Take Notice
By Baria Alamuddin
• Re-Defining The Near East’s Borders
By Eyad Abu Shakra
• What Next For Iraq After The Failed Kurdish Referendum?
By Zaid Al-Ali
• The Future Investment Initiative And The New Saudi Arabia
By Raghida Dergham
• Spain In Crisis: Long Live The Catalan Republic?
By Francisco De Borja Lasheras
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
------
Saudi Arabia, Before 1979 And After 2017
By Mamdouh AlMuhaini
29 October 2017
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently discussed the phase before 1979 and clarified that the Saudi society is not how extremists promoted it. He then made those historical words: “We are returning to what we were before -- a country of moderate Islam that is open to all religions and to the world. We will not spend the next 30 years of our lives dealing with destructive ideas. We will destroy them today.”
The crown prince’s statements are important because when Saudi Arabia moves forward, it does so based on its history and culture while remaining linked to its religious and national identity. From Japan under Meiji, China under Deng Xiaoping and Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, people have risen because they based their efforts on their bright past which inspired them to prosper rather than obstructed them. They were also inspired by the progress which other successful countries achieved before them.
Saudi Arabia before 1979 is the base and the pillar for Saudi Arabia after 2017. However, many non-Saudis are unaware of this bright historical and social phase before the Khomeini revolution erupted and before the infection of extremism spread in the entire region.
Before 1979, education curricula urged openness, co-existence and independent thinking. The Sahwa (awakening) preachers and the Brotherhood attacked this approach and destroyed this enlightening educational spirit and replaced it with a culture that encourages hatred and death.
My generation – i.e. the ones born in the end of the 1970’s – lived through this phase when the original Saudi culture clashed with the intruding extremist ideology. Our parents’ behavior and practices were based on their pure nature. I don’t recall that they ever incited hatred or labeled those from different religions, sects and cultures as rivals and enemies. We thus had a naturally optimistic spirit. In school, however, we clashed with an ideology that aimed to create hateful people who oppose others through the curricula, teachers and different activities.
Our parents and grandparents simply express that Saudi spirit of real piety that is not contaminated with politics or moral bids. This is why these old generations were open to the world. It was easy for them to integrate in different cultures and we saw this happen with students who went to study abroad in the 1960’s and 1970’s. These students did not fall prey to extremism and terrorist organizations like what happened with later generations when Saudi terrorists joined organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIS and carried out attacks inside their country killing their own people.
The culture before 1979 was moderately religious, and it was open to life and to the future. It rejected extremist doctrines that attempted to infiltrate the society and expand in it. However this culture of tolerance then disappeared and a culture of hatred spread. Pessimism and bleak death reigned after happiness and optimism filled the air.
During that phase, Saudi women reflected their best image. They reflected a strong and confident character before getting besieged and restrained in terms of how they dress and how they behave. Their status thus regressed and they were no longer present in the society, which really needed them. The same applies to creative arts which were active and prosperous. They were also suffocated although Saudi Arabia had produced great artists likes Talal Maddah and Mohammed Abdo. You do not see these artists on official television channels and you need to travel outside the kingdom to attend their concerts.
Saudi Arabia 2017
Many factors distinguished that happy phase of Saudi life and they were obliterated and replaced with strange and intrusive aspects that do not express the spirit of the young society at the time. Extremists did not only work on convincing the society that this old lifestyle is impure but they also promoted this dark image outside Saudi Arabia in an attempt to create a huge cultural gap that’s difficult to bridge between the kingdom and the civilized world.
The new Saudi Arabia in 2017 is linked to its happy past before 1979 thanks to the recent huge decisions such as allowing women to drive, reforming education, destroying powers of extremism and violence, allowing arts to return to their natural position in the kingdom and developing massive projects like NEOM, the Red Sea tourism project and others.
Life restored its glimmer. The Saudi society is living through its best time after it restored its social values, optimism and hope in the future. The spirit of 1979 braces with the spirit and future of 2017.
This does not only serve the interest of Saudi Arabia but it also serves the region and the world as Saudi Arabia leads the project of development and endeavors towards the future by confronting the Iranian, Qatari and Brotherhood project and terrorist organizations which call for extremism, backwardness and death.
As inventors and creators of the future like Richard Branson, the founder of Virgin, and others visit Riyadh, men like Soleimani come out of Tehran to deploy terrorist militias in the region and spread a culture of violence and death.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/2017/10/29/Saudi-Arabia-before-1979-and-after-2017.html
------
Palestinian Reconciliation ... Anew!
By Hussein Shobokshi
30 October 2017
Finally, the Palestinians reconcile with Fatah and Hamas agreeing to unite. I do not know how many times have they joined forces but the important aspect is they are reconciling. Egypt had put all its political weight and pressed the parties to reach a settlement. Now everyone has his hand on his heart for fear of failure of this agreement as many of the earlier agreements on rapprochement has failed. The situation of Palestinian inter-factional conflict is a sad picture of the most important and noblest issue in the Arab world.
Instead of talking about salvation from occupation, the talk was about trying to find a solution between the fighting Palestinian forces. I do not know anyone who would appreciate and imagine the extent of pain and suffering of the Palestinians, who are bearing the great injustices of the Israeli occupation. But it is also necessary to recall here the political folly committed by the Palestinian leadership and the high cost the Palestinians have paid.
The foolishness and mistakes began since the sin of Black September and the attempted coup against the regime in Jordan, followed by the biggest folly in Lebanon, which was the cause of the outbreak of civil war, and then belonging to the Assad regime (the criminal regime that killed Palestinians more than Israel camp wars in Lebanon).
However, the Palestinian leadership did not dare to condemn this, and only denounced the massacre of Sabra and Shatila and accused Israel and the Lebanese battalions. After this black history of the Assad regime and its allies, the follies of political Palestinian continued with Hamas joining Hezbollah and Iran.
Hamas continued its political follies to cooperate with the coup regime in Qatar, by becoming a tool for it, and antagonizing the Egyptian government, which historically has provided the Palestinians support. Egyptian soldiers have been wounded and martyred over the years in Palestine battles more than Qatar’s population itself. Hamas has not only resorted to political hooliganism, but has dealt explicitly with terrorist factions to kill Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai and to smuggle arms. Over the past years, some Palestinian factions have been tools in the hands of crazy rulers and regimes such as Muammar Qaddafi, Bashar Al-Assad and Saddam Hussein.
Some factions have been employed to carry out the dirtiest of operations. This has harmed the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian people. Today it is seen in their promotion to the Palestinian people that Qatar and Assad and Hassan Nasrallah and Iran are allies, while Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are its enemies, and this act is not innocent. It is clear today the biggest enemy of the Palestinian cause is the Palestinian political foolishness that has cost the noblest issue dear.
As described before, no one can imagine the magnitude of the suffering and the injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people under a brutal, unjust and bloody occupation. But there is moral and humanitarian responsibility for the Palestinian politicians to bear and recognize that they have become a contributor in a clear tragedy of the Palestinian people. It is no longer believable when they blame others. Perhaps, this latest reconciliation between the Palestinian factions is a last chance, for if the Palestinian politicians do not fully understand their interests and priorities, no one else would.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/30/Palestinian-reconciliation-anew-.html
-----
Some Answers And Ambivalence From The ‘Saudi Davos’
By Frank Kane
30 October 2017
As the stands were being dismantled at the King Abdul Aziz International Conference Center and the last items of luxury luggage were being loaded into airport-bound limos outside the Ritz Carlton last Thursday evening in Riyadh, I bumped into an old banker friend.
He works for one of the big American banks that has done business in the Middle East for decades, but this was his first visit to the Kingdom. His verdict: “They told me Saudi Arabia was more different from the US than any other country in the world, but that’s not true. This could be any big conference, anywhere in the world. It was definitely not what I expected.”
I got the feeling that many among the 3,500 attendees would have had a similar reaction after the three-day event. Even those who have been traveling regularly to the Kingdom for many years must have been pleasantly surprised at the way the Future Investment Initiative (FII) played out.
With multibillion-dollar deals almost an hourly occurrence and historic policy statements from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, there was much to digest from the event, which was nicknamed the “Saudi Davos” by some, likening the event to the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering.
Before it began, I wrote my “wish list” of questions I wanted answered at the FII. Here is my post-event assessment of how successful it was in those areas.
1. I wanted to know whether Saudi economic policymakers would heed the advice of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and ease up on some of the “austerity” measures the IMF recently said were slowing Saudi growth, especially in the non-oil sector. The answer, from Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan, was clear: The 2018 budget would be expansionary, in response to the needs of the private sector, which has been battered by government spending cuts. Box one ticked.
2. I asked what would be the future direction of strategy by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the Kingdom’s ambitious sovereign wealth fund (SWF), which is moving to a more dynamic role in the SWF world. Again, I think the answer was unequivocal: PIF intends to invest big, in glamorous areas such as high-tech and artificial intelligence, but it will keep its financial feet on the ground. The most mind-boggling unveiling at the FII was the $500 billion Neom mega-city, and PIF also announced it is aiming at the stars with a $1 billion investment in Richard Branson’s space project. But there were also some rather more down-to-earth pledges too, such as the $20 billion investment in infrastructure alongside Blackstone of the US. And there was a solid commitment to financial performance, keeping an eye on the bottom line. Box two ticked as well.
3. Here things get a little less certain. I wanted to get some hard detail on the $200 billion privatization program the Kingdom is proposing under the Vision 2030 strategy to reduce dependency on oil and the public sector. I had expected at least one major initial public offering (IPO) to be announced during the FII, but unless you count the long-distant plan to put Neom on a public market, I was disappointed. Put a cross in box three.
4. I also hoped for clarity on the biggest privatization of them all — the $100 billion IPO of shares in Saudi Aramco, which was promised by the end of next year but has been complicated by reports of a possible private sale to Asian investors. Was the Aramco IPO on track? The answers varied according to the responder. Yes, said Amin Nasser, the company chief executive, there will be an IPO by the end of 2018. Would it be on international markets? He declined to say. The Finance Minister Al-Jadaan was more nuanced. An international IPO was only one option being discussed at the highest levels in the Kingdom, he said. Tadawul chief Khalid Al-Hussan and the Capital Market Authority Chairman Mohammed El-Kuwaiz came out with the strongest statement of intent. They were confident the biggest IPO in history could be staged on the Saudi market, with its new foreigner-friendly approach. The thinking seems to be that, rather than Aramco going out to the world, the world will come to Riyadh for Aramco. But nothing, it seems, has been finally decided. Mark box four “don’t know.”
5. Finally, I asked how the FII might change the view of the banking community toward Saudi Arabia. Would banks and financial institutions open offices and recruit local staff to deal with the rush of business expected as part of the great diversification? I think the answer there is a qualified “yes.” There was certainly enthusiasm for the great Saudi project, and a consensus that the change planned for the Kingdom was a good thing. A couple of big global firms — including ratings firm Standard & Poor’s — announced plans to begin operations in the Kingdom. Much depends on the eventual answer to the fourth question above. If Aramco stages its IPO exclusively on the Tadawul, every bank and broker in the world will have to be in Riyadh. Mark box five a provisional tick.
So, while there were many positives to come from the “Saudi Davos,” there was also much to chew over. Expect much greater clarity at the next instalment of what is promised to be an annual event.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1185286
-----
Moving Militants From One Place To Another Is No Solution
By Abdellatif El-Menawy
29 October 2017
For the past four decades, the phenomenon of militant extremists returning from wars and terrorist campaigns in Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq and Yemen has posed a serious threat to their societies because a significant number of them bring their terrorism home with them.
Many Arab countries faced a wave of terrorist attacks when the war in Afghanistan ended in 1989. Large numbers of militants returned to their home countries and carried out violent attacks there. Egypt was at the forefront of the countries that suffered, especially in the mid-1990s. When the Soviet troops left Afghanistan and the Egyptian militant leaders returned home, they formed what was called Al-Qaeda Jihad Organization, the earliest seed of Al-Qaeda.
After that, many young men went to war in the Balkans under the banner of defending the Muslims of Bosnia. When that war ended in 1995, the same post-Afghanistan scenario happened again. Is it likely to recur when the war in Syria ends?
The region’s future is in grave danger with the return of terrorists from Syria and Iraq. We are looking at tens of thousands of militant individuals blinded by extremist ideology, most of them completely unknown to Arab security bodies. The world can expect to face a new wave of violence.
Sixteen Egyptian police officers were killed in a shoot-out with Islamist militants last week at El-Bahariya Oasis in the Western Desert. The incident will naturally lead Egypt to insist on continuing its war on terror: Combining decisive, strong and continuous military and security action and partnering with other countries that are serious about combating militants. Waging the real war on terrorism means developing a strategy for besieging and exposing terrorist ideologies, fighting them at an intellectual level and protecting society, especially younger generations, from them. I must remind you here of the importance of calling for the renewal of religious discourse in a scientific manner and with serious continuity.
Meanwhile, two important questions need to be answered, and they are inextricably linked. First, we must ask the international and regional forces who are allegedly fighting terrorism how serious they are, or is the war against Daesh a hoax? Second, where will the militants of terrorist groups – Daesh above all – go after they have been driven out of the territories and cities they have controlled for the past few years?
In the search for answers, let us review reliable reports that track the actions of Daesh militants in the past few months, where there was no longer any need for its existence. There has been a series of victories against it on all fronts; Assad regime, opposition, Russians, Americans, Turks … everyone started to win. Even those who in the past handed their cities over to Daesh and retreated in a disgraceful and surprising manner are today winning one victory after the next and raising one flag after another.
These battles were supposed to be zero-sum games, in which the fighting parties do not stop until one of them eliminates the other. The forces that fought Daesh were not only expected to regain control over cities and villages, but also to eliminate the organization and ensure it would never be able to rise again. In their battles, Daesh’s goal was to completely eliminate those they considered enemies, a policy they have acted on before.
Instead, a new trend has emerged. Countries that were fighting Daesh began seeking safe shelters for the organization’s militants. Not only that, but they also transferred them in air-conditioned buses by protected routes. In emergencies, and for speed, they used helicopters – perhaps the same helicopters used to attack the militants not long ago.
Almost three years ago, a US intelligence official said up to 40,000 Daesh militants from 104 countries controlled an area larger than the United Kingdom. Today, the battles against Daesh are almost over, but the corpses of those militants are not on the roads, and there are few prisoners either. The arrest of a Daesh militant with a US passport was actually important news at the time – one out of 40,000! Where are the rest?
US-led coalition aircraft transferred militants from Raqqa to unknown destinations in July. I also believe many of you followed the controversial deal between Hezbollah and Daesh in which, in exchange for the safe passage of Daesh militants and their families from the Lebanese border to eastern Syria, Daesh agreed to reveal the fate of nine Lebanese soldiers captured by the organization in 2014.
The message that we must pressure authorities to turn into action, and on which we must insist, is that terrorism is a global threat, and allowing terrorists to move from one place to another for someone else to deal with is not the solution. What Egypt has experienced in the past, and is still experiencing, is more proof that real efforts are necessary to establish serious cooperation between international parties to eliminate terrorism.
But where will those militants go? That is a different matter.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1185276
------
As Iran’s Proxies Capture The Entire Iraq-Syria Border, It’s Time To Sit Up And Take Notice
By Baria Alamuddin
29 October 2017
In past months Iraq observers have been warning that Iran-backed militias were engaged in a land-grab of limited areas along the Syria-Iraq border.
It turns out these predictions were wrong. Tehran would not be satisfied with just a foothold — today their proxies have seized almost the entire Iraq-Syria border zone, toward Turkey in the north and adjoining the Sunni province of Anbar to the south. All those worst-case scenario predictions failed to grasp the bigger picture of Tehran’s brazenly ambitious objectives.
Iran’s big opportunity came within the context of recent operations to retake vast swaths of land that had been in Kurdish hands since 2014. I discussed these developments in my article last week; detailing how Kurdish forces had been coerced into withdrawing by a mixture of threats and inducements personally delivered by Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Western politicians told us not to worry, everything was under control and would return to normal once these readjustments had been consolidated. However, Tehran and their affiliates had other ideas.
First there was a rapid military push to Makhmour, almost at the gates of the Kurdish capital of Irbil, which halted only after clashes between the two sides.
Of arguably greater geostrategic importance were a further series of operations, led by Al-Hashd Al-Shaabi units, capturing territory all along the Iraq-Syria border. These same units in May 2017 first recaptured a stretch of the Syrian border west of Mosul. However, in past days several Hashd divisions moved south toward Al-Qaim and north toward Faysh Khabur (where the Iraq, Syrian and Turkish borders meet) amid reports of fierce fighting between Hashd forces and the peshmerga. The Hashd divisions involved include Badr, the Imam Ali Brigades and Hezbollah Al-Nujaba – that is, those forces most closely beholden to Tehran. The presence of Hashd leaders Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis and Hadi Al-Amiri indicate the importance of these operations.
What emboldened Iran to make these immense strategic gains? Let’s forget about moral rights and wrongs; what matters to Tehran is what it can get away with in aggrandizing its regional posture. Tehran has concluded that the world is unwilling and unable to restrict its freedom of maneuver. Is Iran correct?
When we hear of atrocities by the Myanmar army against the Rohingya, fleeing children drowning or dying of starvation and thousands of women subjected to gang-rape; when we see Vladimir Putin meddling with impunity in Western elections; when we see an abandonment of even the pretense of a serious international process to address crises in Syria, Libya and Yemen – we perceive a global system of “Might is Right” that has long since lost its moral compass in enforcing international justice.
This was brought home to me during recent days in the US. From inside the Washington media bubble it can feel as if the outside world has ceased to exist. The liberal US media appears ill-equipped to handle any news story that doesn’t involve feigning outrage at Donald Trump’s absurd tweets. I wouldn’t want to trivialize the shocking Harvey Weinstein scandal, but is it inopportune to inquire whether anything else is going on in the world?
Americans across the political spectrum appear so consumed with their shattered and polarized national identity that they struggle to pay attention to complex international developments. The White House is obsessed with self-generated crises and own goals, dominated by a president who, if he were suddenly minded to lash out at Tehran and Pyongyang, might struggle to find them on a map.
Trump’s foreign policy guru Rex Tillerson, during his recent jaunt around the region, called for foreign forces in Iraq to go home - indicating his ignorance that Al-Hashd Al-Shaabi is made up of Iraqis. European nations appear similarly disengaged. Britain, for example, has veered from grand delusions about its massive global importance under Tony Blair’s hubris to a mania of Brexit-driven introversion under its current political nonentities.
Iraq’s Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi had been seen as a moderate bastion against Iranian influence. Tehran cleverly made Abadi the figurehead for the operations against the Kurds – with senior Iranian politicians cynically lauding Al-Abadi as the strongman who saved Iraq. When Al-Abadi visited Riyadh a few days ago, he made sure to turn up in Tehran immediately after. When Tillerson denounced the Hashd and referred to Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis as a terrorist, Iraqi statements condemning Tillerson were put in Al-Abadi’s name. This could be interpreted as a Machiavellian attempt to exploit these developments to co-opt moderate Shiite politicians ahead of elections next year. Indeed these elections promise to be a show of force between relative moderates and sectarian factions aligned with Tehran. The winner of this contest will dominate the government at a crucial moment for defining Iraq’s identity. In the past we could have expected to see substantive Western efforts to empower non-sectarian entities – but the world is not paying attention.
Tehran’s gambit for capturing the entire Syria-Iraq border zone fulfils several goals. It sets pro-Iran forces up for recapturing eastern Syria, while opening up a choice of land routes from Tehran to Damascus, Beirut and the Mediterranean for unrestricted transport of military hardware.
Iran is obsessed with access to strategic choke-points: Hormuz, Mandib, the eastern Mediterranean and key routes through Iraq. Routes between Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan have been a vital supply route important in the fight against Daesh. US allies will find their transport options are limited if Iran dominates this border, control of which the Revolutionary Guards will profit from for smuggling and weapons proliferation.
Iran and Turkey have a shared interest in stifling Kurdish autonomy and joint Kurdish action. Turkey and Iran may be pleased to see Syrian and Iraqi Kurds isolated from one another. Although Turkey is certainly chastened by Iran’s recent strategic gains, these nations usually avoid unnecessarily antagonizing each other. Washington meanwhile neither knows nor cares that it spent two decades cultivating the Kurds as a strategic ally – before thoughtlessly abandoning them to abject humiliation at Iran’s hands.
Few outsiders will have heard of the Iraqi town of Tuz Khurmatu, but it is a key junction between Iran, Kurdish areas and central Iraq. There have been bouts of factional bloodletting there since 2014, particularly between Hashd forces and Kurds. In the past two weeks Hashd fighters unleashed a particularly brutal vengeance against citizens, as documented by Amnesty International, with thousands of Kurds forced to flee as their homes went up in smoke behind them. Hashd human-rights violations habitually serve strategic goals, and in this case Tuz is a valuable prize for exerting control across the region. Yet the world barely noticed.
One state that is watching very carefully, of course, is Israel, meaning that each bout of Iranian expansionism brings us closer to an inevitable regional conflict, which would be devastating for citizens of states such as Lebanon and Syria – even if it didn’t significantly weaken the two principal protagonists. That is because Israel prefers to carpet-bomb enemies and civilian targets from a distance, while cowardly Iran fights its battles through mercenaries and proxies.
One doesn’t have to be a fortune-teller to realise that recent events will define patterns of conflicts and tensions for decades to come. Analysts will look back at these events with far greater attention than self-proclaimed experts are currently doing, and wonder why the international community failed to lift a finger.
American liberals deride Trump’s foreign policy incompetence and worry that his belligerent language toward Iran is setting us on the path for conflict. On the contrary, it is this vacuous rhetoric in the absence of coherent policy – or even elementary-level understanding of these developments – that is emboldening bully states such as Iran, North Korea and Putin’s Russia to walk all over us and redefine the global balance of power for decades to come.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1185281
------
Re-Defining The Near East’s Borders
By Eyad Abu Shakra
29 October 2017
Recurring calls by Lebanese President Michel Aoun and his son-in-law Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil for the “return” of the Syrian displaced persons, remind me of the campaigns of Eastern and central Europe’s extreme right leaders against Syrian refugees. These calls are issued, however, against a background larger than Lebanon, even possibly larger than the Arabs.
What underlines this impression is the campaign orchestrated by security services associating most crimes and transgressions committed with those displaced; which makes weak souls and dimwits believe the President and his camp are right.
However, the most dangerous aspect of the Aoun-sponsored campaign is that it intentionally ignores what created the “displacement” phenomenon and the identity of the Lebanese culprits responsible for it. These culprits are none other than those who pushed for Aoun’s election to be president, while hiding behind his, his son-in-law’s and some security services’ pressure for two reasons:
The first, is their wariness about future regional developments, since Moscow has now overtaken Iran as the main power broker in Syria.
The second, because they want to perpetuate the lie that they value “Muslim unity”, while working to destroy the credibility of moderate Sunni leaders, who are deluding themselves by acting as if they occupy positions of real authority.
Last week, the Lebanese President, repeated his now familiar tune against the Syrian displaced, but this time he added another ominous sentence, when he said: “We are not going to wait: neither for a political nor a security solution in Syria, as it is our duty to defend our nation’s interest”. These words were uttered at a ministerial session in front of Prime Minister Saad Hariri and all the ministers, including those who represent parties that presumably opposed and still oppose Hezbollah’s fighting inside Syria. In other words, these are the same parties which know enough about Hezbollah’s role in uprooting and displacing tens of thousands of Syrians, beginning with the border town of al-Qusayr and continuing with Greater Damascus and Barada River Valley. Yet, some Sunni leaders are playing a waiting game, not only compromising, appeasing and conceding to Hezbollah, but also accusing of hypocrisy and outbidding, anyone who criticizes their appeasement and concessions.
Such a weird situation is inseparable from a regional picture where “border lines” are collapsing and the ground is being prepared for new “partition lines”!
It would be absurd now to talk of a “pre-2003 Iraq” or a “pre-2011 Syria”. The tragic play is finished, against a background of rivers of blood, mountains of hatred, and a dawn of adventurism, subservience, sectarianism and racism of every color, shape and form.
Last week, even Arab intellectuals found themselves torn between supporting the Iraqi Kurds’ referendum from a standpoint of respect to the right of self-determination in light of Iraq being dominated by Iran’s mullahs and Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) through their henchmen in the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF); and supporting the Iraqi army’s reclaiming of “the Disputed Territories” by force because it was its duty to save Iraq’s sovereignty from the Kurdish secessionist threat.
In the meantime, there were those expressing doubts as to whether the Baghdad government would be able to rid Iraq of Iran’s hegemony over the country’s armed Shi’ite militias, unless western powers led by the US deal decisively with Tehran’s aggressive policies. In fact, until now, and despite the change in Washington’s handling of the Iran file under Donald Trump, its positions have so far been more like a “letter of intents” rather than a courageous practical strategy in a highly sensitive region; and is becoming even more sensitive as Moscow tries to reclaim its lost influence.
In the same vein, it is clear that one reason behind the latest Kurdish setback in Iraq was their over-confidence that Washington was now supportive of their cross-border dream of “Greater Kurdistan”. Regardless whether the insistence of Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani on going ahead with the referendum was or was not a wise decision, one might say that ambiguous American messages to Kurds in northern Syria encouraged Barzani to go far.
Even a less clever Kurdish leader than Barzani, I reckon, would have never taken such a huge gamble had these messages been there, given old Kurdish divisions, open Iranian and Turkish aggressive opposition, and the hesitation of the international community in partitioning Iraq at this stage.
Well, What About Syria Then?
Ever since Washington “invented” a militia, and gave it the attractive name “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF); even before that, ever since it chose to back the “People's Protection Units” (YPG) Kurdish militia – which is the backbone of SDF – in the battles in Ain al-Arab (Kobane), with no regard to Turkey’s reservations and criticisms, it encouraged Kurdish dreams of “Greater Kurdistan”. Dreams that would create an entity extending from Alexandretta (Iskenderun) on the Mediterranean to Kermanshah in Western Iran, and from Diyarbakir in Eastern Turkey to Urmia in Northwest Iran, including all of Northern Syria and Iraq.
Moreover, Washington’s backing of the YPG in the battle of Ain al-Arab against ISIS, took place shortly after former US President Barack Obama openly made light of the potential and capabilities of the Syrian opposition, namely the Free Syrian Army. One would argue however that had Washington given this opposition a quarter of what it gave the YPG the situation in Syria could have been different.
Anyway, all this is in the past now.
The Obama presidency is over, while Moscow’s engagement with the “peoples” of Syria is now a vital element of how Syria, along with Lebanon, may look like in the future in cooperation with both the US and Israel.
The Geneva peace process and its UN envoy Staffan de Mistura are now nothing but a meaningless show after Washington had allowed Moscow to make the “Astana talks” (sponsored with Turkey and Iran) as the real alternative; and after the demise of ISIS, that sham organization the Great Powers used to justify partitioning the region after uprooting and expelling around 20 million Sunni Arabs from Syria and Iraq.
In short, what we are dealing with today is redrawing the map of the Arab Near East, from Lebanon to Iraq; a project much bigger than the local players as Mr. Masoud Barzani has now discovered.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/29/Re-defining-the-Near-East-s-borders.html
------
What Next For Iraq After The Failed Kurdish Referendum?
By Zaid al-Ali
28 Oct 2017
The punditry world has never been as united as it is today: virtually everyone agrees that the independence referendum that was organised on 25 September in Iraqi Kurdistan was an unmitigated disaster. There is also a consensus on what factors caused Kurdistan Regional President Masoud Barzani to miscalculate so badly, so there is little point recounting those arguments here.
The short-term consequences of the crisis also appear to be fairly obvious. Federal authorities, with associated paramilitary forces, will reassert its authority over most if not all of the disputed territories, strategic oil fields, and border points, including airports. Large population centres within the Kurdistan Region proper are unlikely to be directly impacted, but they will be made to feel the economic consequences of the reassertion of federal control. Meanwhile, Kurdish politics have already completely fractured, with the regional president and his party losing virtually all claim to legitimacy (having lost legal legitimacy a long time ago) while a series of actors continue blaming each other for the disaster.
The real question is how Baghdad and Erbil can resolve their dispute peacefully and in a sustainable manner. A long-term resolution of the dispute between the two sides will depend on a number of factors, very few of which are likely to materialise without massive intervention from the international community, the likes of which have only rarely been successful in the past, and certainly not in Iraq.
Identifying A New Form Of Federalism
The first step towards resolution is for both parties to properly define their interests, which is far easier said than done. Both sides will need considerable time and effort to deflate their egos and coalesce around interests that can reasonably be satisfied. Baghdad's current sense of hubris, and the chauvinistic taunting that has been taking place on the airwaves and the halls of government increase the likelihood that the federal government will present maximalist demands. On the other hand, Erbil will have serious trouble getting used to its reduced clout after 14 years of an oversized role in Iraqi internal politics.
A serious constitutional reform effort will have to follow, mainly for the purpose of identifying a new form of federalism that everyone can live with. This will have to involve a fair and transparent revenue sharing mechanism, the establishment of a fair and impartial dispute resolution mechanism that both sides can rely on, etc. That process on its own is likely to take years, and that assumes that both parties are willing to go through the exercise, which is far from certain at this point.
Based on past experience, there is a serious risk that none of these objectives will be met, and that the current crisis will be allowed to simmer for years before finally boiling over once again. Since 2005, when the current constitution was adopted, Baghdad has tried and failed to revise the text on a number of occasions, including in far happier and more stable times. It has also failed to make any serious progress in establishing the institutions that it is theoretically obligated to establish by the Constitution, including the upper chamber of parliament and a whole slew of others.
Moving From Crisis To Crisis
In the current environment, left to its own devices, Baghdad will live day by day, moving from crisis to crisis, rather than seeking a major resolution of its relationship with Erbil. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) is yet to be defeated; then there will be parliamentary elections, which will be followed by the inevitable government formation crisis, which will then lead to a struggle for control over security policy and institutions. All of which means that any serious effort to resolve the crisis with Erbil will not appear on the radar for years.
The regional context will not help either, given how angry virtually all governments appear to be with Erbil. All of these countries will always prioritise their own personal interests and relations with Baghdad over any sympathy or sense of loyalty they might have for the Kurds. That was made extremely clear by the way in which all regional airlines cancelled their flights to the Kurdistan Region's airports at Baghdad's request after the independence referendum. Plus, a renewed anti-Kurdish chauvinism, fuelled by the Peshmerga's embarrassing retreat from Kirkuk and other areas, will certainly not help.
Therefore, if there is to be a solution, it will have to come from the international community. If the United Nations and countries of goodwill wish to prevent the current seething tensions from exploding into a new conflict in the immediate or long term, they will have to invest significant resources, first to convince Baghdad that it has an interest in a long-term solution, and second to find one or several options that Baghdad, Erbil and Suleimania can live with.
This will require a multi-pronged approach that will be as difficult to devise as it will be to implement.
It will require deploying massive goodwill, resources, patience, imagination and determination, not all of which are in plentiful supply at the moment. While a successful outcome remains unlikely, it is not impossible, so perhaps the best approach for the rest of us is to cling to whatever hope we can muster.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/iraq-failed-kurdish-referendum-171028092628081.html
-----
The Future Investment Initiative And The New Saudi Arabia
By Raghida Dergham
28 October 2017
Saudi Arabia is determined to “amaze,” as part of its strategy for national renaissance based on social and economic liberalization, and next-generation innovation, moving the kingdom away from the constraints of traditionalism to fascinating horizons of science and technology. During the Future Investment Initiative launch in Riyadh this week, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman unveiled the Neom mega-city project, fearlessly embracing pioneering futuristic technology unprecedented in the Arab region, in partnership with top international talent and leading global investment minds.
In his remarks on Neom, the Red Sea city for “dreamers,” the crown prince, who is the brain behind Vision 2030, expressed political and social gravity when he spoke of 1979 as a turning point in the rise of Islamic extremism and the spread of the “Sahwa” religious awakening project across the region. He said: “Saudi was not like this before 1979. Saudi Arabia and the entire region went through a revival after 1979 … All we are doing is going back to what we were: a moderate Islam that is open to all religions and to the world and to all traditions and people … Some clear steps were taken recently and I believe we will obliterate the remnants of extremism very soon.”
Such clarity about confronting extremism carries domestic, regional, and international implications. It comes amid an engagement with Iraq and an estrangement with Qatar, with the conflict in Yemen still raging. It also comes amid a strengthening of Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States, but also the opening of new chapters in Saudi policy, for example in Africa. Nothing short of a quiet, pragmatic revolution is taking place in the kingdom, to execute a calculated leap toward radical change. However, obstacles, pitfalls and resistance are to be expected.
Several interesting observations can be made about the Future Investment Initiative, attended by more than 3,500 international figures from the worlds of finance, technology and entrepreneurship. One of the first things visitors noticed was that the Saudi women in attendance were not wearing the traditional black robes, but colorful garments. This is important because the theme it captures is the right to self-expression. Saudi women, who were recently were given the right to drive in the kingdom, have worked quietly and patiently behind the scenes, lobbying for important rights, and the emancipation from the logic of conformism behind black robes that all Saudi women must adhere to captures this, and is no superficial matter.
Everyone expected the crown prince to attend his session, make his speech, then leave, as is the habit especially in Saudi Arabia. Instead, he sat on a panel that brought him together with three others, and responded to spontaneous questions that brought him closer to the audience and Saudis at large, launching himself as one of a new breed of rulers in the kingdom. At the dinner banquet later, Prince Mohammed also surprised those attending, interacting with the guests and taking pictures with them for over an hour. Again, this is unusual in these occasions in the kingdom.
Certainly, the conference worked as an advertisement for the Neom project and more importantly, the new Saudi Arabia as imagined by Vision 2030. There were deliberate stunts such as granting the robot Sofia Saudi nationality, a precedent anywhere.
Expectedly, reservations were expressed about the massive Neom project, to be located in the northwestern corner of the kingdom over an area of 26,500 sq km, with 469km of shoreline on the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. The sunlight and wind the area receives make it possible for its entire energy needs to be met by renewables. Some voices said the project was in the realm of science fiction, with no specific timetable set to bring it to reality, although the talk behind the scenes was that it would take 15 years to materialize. Some expressed concern over the huge funds that would be poured into the “dreamers’ project,” given that the long-term economic reality is not stable. Some also spoke about the gap between the fantastical aspirations of the project and the very real problems faced by Saudi Arabia, from the differences with Qatar to the conflict in Yemen and the rivalry with Iran.
Thanks to Uber, the taxi-app company, there was a chance to survey the opinions of some Saudi youths. The first surprise came when it turned out that the majority of Uber drivers are young Saudi men, rather than foreigners, usually from the Asian subcontinent. Their views were not homogeneous, which is also unusual when surveying Saudi citizens publicly. One protested at the situation, saying he held an MA in law and had to work as a taxi driver after failing to find work in his field. He said he was opposed to the crisis with Qatar and the intervention in Yemen, and expressed reservations over the structure of absolute power concentrated in one individual, no matter how visionary he may be. In contrast, another driver said he absolutely supported the concentration of leadership and its boldness in tackling extremism and moving the kingdom forward. He said he was a dentist but needed to work as an Uber driver because he needed two jobs, which he said he did not mind, and hated indolence. He was full of enthusiasm for the new Saudi Arabia, which would attract top talent and innovation.
The change in the Saudi mindset is not absolute. But something is happening, namely the downscaling of that high-handedness that many had the impression was the norm in the kingdom’s leadership. This change has not yet reached Saudi foreign policy, but important steps have been made especially with Western leaders in various fields as evinced by the Future Investment Initiative.
Clearly, the new leadership wants to strike deals with various nations, and no longer deal exclusively with the US and Europe. The three main contractors that signed deals with the Public Investment Fund for the Neom project are Germany’s electronics giant Siemens, America’s financial group Blackstone, and Japan’s SoftBank – the third largest corporation in that country after Toyota and Mitsubishi.
Knocking on the doors of tomorrow with such major partnerships seeks to make Saudi Arabia a global magnet for futuristic investments. It is a leap from an inert past to a dynamic and bold future.
Such a leap to new Saudi liberalism from politics to the economy will no doubt have regional implications. It is the precursor of a new regional order that will be led by the Gulf nations and Egypt, and the private sector across the region, and Iran will not be able to ignore it. The leap forward is taking place in all sectors, in health, education, manufacturing, agriculture and employment. Saudi Arabia has finished reorganizing its ministries and has established mechanisms to monitor their performance. Riyadh has launched a revolution in the relationship between the public and private sectors. The first major test for the leap was when control of the oil sector was shifted from government hands to a corporation, with 5 percent of Aramco’s shares to be offered in an international IPO.
Saudi Arabia’s gradual upturning of traditional notions and policies is part of a collective workshop based on an executive approach, to effect a historical shift from a welfare state in which citizens have automatic privileges, to a dynamic, modern economy unprecedented in the history of the kingdom.
This quiet revolution is far from the populist coups, and seeks to topple the culture of complacency, while also confronting resistance from the traditionalists opposed to liberalization. Vision 2030, which was launched in April, is not even a year old yet. Nevertheless, only six months later, it has proved itself to be a serious and astounding vision that is determined to create a renaissance in the kingdom, by rewarding the dreamers and inventors, and boldly going in a new direction instead of complacent catching-up.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1184751
-----
Spain in crisis: Long live the Catalan Republic?
By Francisco de Borja Lasheras
28 Oct 2017
In a way, what happened yesterday at the Catalan Parliament was the second act of a drama that started during the session on the eve of 6-7 September, when the so-called "disconnection laws" - one law allowing for the referendum and another on the "Legal Transition" (with the elements of an independent Catalan Republic) - were passed. Then, the pro-independence bloc, which enjoys a wafer-thin majority (short of the two-thirds required to amend the Statute of Autonomy), passed these laws riding roughshod over Catalonia's parliamentary rules, its own Statute and the rights of opposition MPs, in a grotesque late-night plenary, against the warnings of the lawyers of the Catalan Parliament and ignoring the Council of Statutory Guarantees (binding under Catalan law). The anti-independence opposition bloc left the session in protest and did not vote. The disconnection laws and the referendum were declared null and void by the Spanish Constitutional Court.
This is pretty much what happened yesterday. The secessionist bloc, again on the basis of their parallel legislation and a very disputed referendum on October 1st, tabled a resolution to proclaim the "Catalan Republic", thus moving forward with a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). Most of the opposition parties, led by Ciudadanos (non-nationalist liberals, second political bloc in Catalonia), boycotted the session and left the chamber - together with its lawyers, who warned that the resolution violated both the Statute of Autonomy and the Spanish constitution and could trigger legal responsibility. The 11 members of Catalunya Sí Que Es Pot (leftists, mostly against independence, especially a UDI) stayed, with 10 voting "no" and one blank vote.
In the end, the resolution garnered support of 70 MPs out of 135. That is roughly around 35 percent of the census and provides a good measure of actual support for independence in Catalonia, with recent polls showing very limited support for UDI - especially when the option of more home rule is on the table.
What Happens Now: Article 155 And Judicial Response
Right at the same time, the Senate approved the implementation of Artice 155 of the 1978 Constitution, based on the federal coercion principle and similar to Article 37 of the German constitution upon which it is based and other constitutions. Contrary to widespread assumptions, the measures requested by Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy do not amount to a full suspension of autonomy, which would eliminate the Generalitat (the Catalan executive body, restored prior to the entry into force of the 1978 Constitution) and the Catalan Parliament. The 2006 Statute of Autonomy remains in force, with the powers and competences contained therein.
The measures approved do nonetheless severely restrict the autonomy at the highest political level, chiefly with the dismissal of the entire Catalan government of President Carles Puigdemont, of the head of the Catalan Police (defendant in a judiciary process on his actions on October 1st), as well as of the Catalan government's foreign delegations (with the exception of Brussels) and its PR body, "Diplocat", widely perceived to be engaged in a very effective pro-independence (and anti-Spanish) lobbying campaign abroad. The powers of the Catalan government are now temporarily assumed by the authorities in Madrid.
Nonetheless, the actual roadmap approved by the Senate is a somewhat watered down version of the proposal submitted by the Council of Ministers, after an amendment of PSOE (Socialists, first opposition party). This amendment took out an initial proposal to take control over the main Catalan TV channel, TV3, also perceived as having become a propaganda outlet.
As a result of close negotiations between Rajoy's government, keen on amplifying political support for Article 155, and PSOE, these steps now enjoy the legitimacy provided by two-thirds of the Spanish Parliament. They are nonetheless opposed by Podemos (leftists, somewhat caught wrong-footed given their opposition to both Article 155 and the UDI), and the nationalist parties. In turn, as a result of this UDI, Artice 155 enjoys support in Catalonia from Ciudadanos, Rajoy's PP (a small force, though) and the main leaders of PSC, Catalan Socialists.
In parallel but distinct to Article 155, the judicial response to some of the actions by Puigdemont and other core leaders goes on. The Spanish Prosecutor could file charges against Puigdemont - in theory, and until yesterday, the highest representative of the Spanish state in Catalonia- on grounds of provisions applicable to coup d'etats and rebellions.
It goes without saying, these measures will probably lead to different measures of resistance by secessionist leaders and their mobilised constituencies, concentrated around the platforms of Catalan National Assembly (ANC), Omnium Cultural as well as CUP, an anti-system party against any negotiated settlement. This is coupled with the fact that many Catalans, though opposed to independence and UDI, also reject what they perceive an abridging of their self-government. In turn, the presence of the Spanish state in Catalonia, an essentially self-ruled region, is very limited, complicating the equation.
Authorities in Madrid are eager to avoid violence and thus mainly focus on law enforcement through police forces. But some level of violence and pockets of resistance, hopefully peaceful, cannot be ruled out. Symbolic images of martyrdom that are surely to further incense secessionists and their narrative on Spanish oppression.
Elections: Stalemate Or Beginning Of New Political Settlement?
Rajoy, a nimble, old guard politician, is mindful of the stakes. This is why, right at the same time he announced the dismissal of Puigdemont and the entire Catalan government and also under 155, he announced early elections in Catalonia for December 21, earlier than anticipated, which should also mark the beginning of the end of Article 155 phase and the return to order and rule of law in Catalonia. This move is seen as shrewd, if risky, aimed to hollow out the secessionist narrative, with pro-independence parties now faced with the dilemma on whether to boycott "elections by Madrid", but in accordance with Catalonia's own laws, or take part.
It is unclear what will happen. Some polls show that parliamentary forces of pro-independence and non-secessionists could roughly remain even, a tad up, a tad down - though minor changes could be a game-changer for any majority in Catalonia, given the fragmented political space. The call for elections enjoys majority support in Catalonia and could provide an opening for returning to political normalisation, including progress towards constitutional reform in the mid-term - a process Rajoy agreed to with PSOE a few weeks ago, including more home rule in Catalonia. The main Catalan newspaper, La Vanguardia, welcomed the move, noting that "on this occasion, it cannot be denied to Rajoy, so often prone to slow motion, a fundamental virtue: the speed with which he seeks to protect, through electoral means, the rights of all Catalans, half of which have been abridged, in an unacceptable and repeated manner, by the government of Puigdemont".
Long live the Catalan Republic?
Time will tell whether this Catalan Republic proclaimed yesterday, not recognised by a majority of Catalans or any relevant actor, will survive 2017. Some argue that this is the end of the secessionist process' leap forward. It is evident that in their naked assertion of plebiscite majoritarianism over pluralistic democracy; in their contempt of other Catalans' preferences; in a post-truth that spins "Spanish oppression", asserted by an elite firmly in control of power in Catalonia for nearly un-interrupted 40 years, that denies the dramatic capital flight, this process has done much to both impoverish and divide Catalonia, as shown by a semi-empty Catalan Parliament voting UDI, but little to further its legitimate self-government claims.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/spain-crisis-long-live-catalan-republic-171028122116564.html
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/saudi-arabia-1979-after-2017/d/113062