‘Selmy document’ rekindles violence in Egypt, raises calls for army’s swift exit

By Mustapha Ajbaili

A proposed legislation that sought to shield the Egyptian army from public scrutiny has rekindled the violence in the country and increased calls for a speedy exit of the ruling military council from power.

Groups across the Egyptian political spectrum, from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists to secularist el-Ghad Party, rallied in a million-man march in Tahrir Square last Friday demanding that the legislation proposed by Egypt’s Deputy Prime Minister Ali al-Selmy be withdrawn.

Many suspect that Selmy indirectly proposed the draft law on behalf of the ruling military council.

At the end of the rally, a few thousand activists decided to camp at Tahrir Square until their demands were met, prompting a violent move by military police and security forces to evict the area. The move resulted in deadly clashes and escalated the situation to popular calls for the ouster of Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi.

The excessive approach by security forces to the peaceful protests evoked the brutality of ousted president Hosni Mubarak and led to prominent political figures and observers adopting a tougher stance on the ruling generals and their suspected dubious behind-the-scene plans.

Tarek al-Bishry, the chairman of Egypt’s constitutional panel, on Monday described the proposed supra-constitutional principles law as “invalid”.

Bishry told Al Arabiya that last Friday’s mass protest at Tahrir Square “has nullified” the legislation, known as the Selmy document.

“Selmy is trying to impose a document that has been rejected by the people and by the political elite. It is, therefore, invalid, and there is no need for him to talk about making amendments to it,” Bishry said.

“The important question to ask Selmy is why the persistence on this document after the Egyptian general public told you we don’t want it; why the persistence on amending something that has wholly been rejected?”

Egyptian presidential candidate and head of el-Ghad party Ayman Nour denounced the military-proposed draft law as unacceptable.

“We will not allow another dictator to rule the country,” Nour said in comments reported by Egyptian media.

“We will fight against only one power claiming authority in Egypt. We will not accept any attempt to divert the attention from the next parliamentary elections,” he added.

Veteran Egyptian journalist and political commentator Farrag Ismail said, “The catastrophe from the ongoing violence in Tahrir Square lies not in the death toll that continues to rise but in the possibility of the army containing the revolution by force.

“Eight months of military rule has given an impression that their appetite to remain in power has grown despite pledges to transfer power to civilians.”

Major General Mohsen al-Fangary has said the Supreme Council of Armed Forces would relinquish power by the end of 2012 provided there is calm in the country during the elections.

Ismail said the condition placed by the army on the transfer of power was a sign the ruling generals were looking to remain in power.

The powerful Muslim Brotherhood on Monday called on the Egyptians to be “alert” against “attempts to re-produce the previous regime in a different form.”

Addressing SCAF, the Brotherhood said, “The people entrusted you to lead the country during the transition period ... and we are not ready to extend it beyond the second half of 2012.”

The movement also urged the ruling military council break its silence and tell the people about their intentions to transfer power to a civilian authority.

(Published on english.alarabiya.net  on Nov.21, 2011)

Has Spain switched gear on the Western Sahara conflict?

By Mustapha Ajbaili

Spain appeared to have switched gear on its long-time policy regarding the Western Sahara conflict when it called Tuesday for a U.N. committee to evaluate the security situation in the Polisario-controlled refugee camps in Tindouf and probe possible corruption in the distribution of international aid there.

“We have asked the United Nations to send a mission to Algeria to assess the security situation in the camps of Tindouf,” Spanish Foreign Minister Trinidad Jimenez told reporter after talks in Rabat with her Moroccan counterpart Taieb Fassi Fihri, Al Arabiya reported.

The statement by Jimenez came two days after two Spanish aid workers and one Italian were kidnapped by suspected al-Qaeda members in Tindouf, which is under the control of Polisario Front, which seeks the independence of Western Sahara from Morocco. Polisario has been largely supported by Algeria, Spain and Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya.

Algeria has reportedly deployed both ground and air forces in an “urgent” operation along its borders with Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Libya to prevent the escape of the kidnappers.

Morocco annexed Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony, in 1975 and it has since become the subject of a dispute with the Polisario Front backed by Algeria, where many Sahrawis live in refugee camps.

Morocco has warned several times of suspected cooperation in arms and drug smuggling between al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Polisario Front. Both Algeria and the Polisario have dismissed the Moroccan claims as sheer propaganda. Spain supports the secessionist movement, but often in a way that does not outrage its southern neighbor, Morocco, with which it enjoys strong economic and security ties.

Possible corruption in the distribution of international aid or ties with terror groups or drugs or weapons smuggling networks operating in the Sahara within the refugees camps controlled by the Polisario will likely deal a major blow to the movement’s quest for independence from Morocco.

(Published on English.alarabiya.net on Oct. 25, 2011)

Mustapha Ajbaili: Libyan NTC chief’s ‘liberation’ speech raises eyebrows

By Mustapha Ajbaili

During his speech at Libya’s ‘liberation’ ceremony held in the city of Benghazi on Sunday, the head of the interim National Transitional Council (NTC), Mustafa Abdul Jalil made a few announcements that must have raised eyebrows among people with hopes for a moderate system that respects basic human rights and democratic governance of the country.

Abdul Jalil began his speech with a religious edict, telling the crowd that firing guns in the air as a way of thanking Allah for victory is Haram, meaning prohibited. He then went on to announce that Libya’s future legal system would be based on Islamic Shariah law, and that banks will be required to follow the Islamic banking system, which bans charging interest. But the most seemingly surprising part of the speech is the NTC chief’s announcement of reinstating polygamy. The statement highlighted the importance of polygamy in the new Libya, and Abdul Jalil, an inexperienced politician, evidently did not forget to “liberate” men in Libya’s day of “liberation.”

If Libyan women, who make up more than half of the country’s population, were asked to vote on a polygamy law, most of them would likely oppose it. Polygamy is a practice most Muslim women detest, but remain silent about it for fear they would be accused of going against Shariah.

When Libyans rose up against Muammar Qaddafi and fought eight months of war, with tremendous sacrifices, they did so for the sake of dignity and self-rule. If they want a legal system based on the Islamic Shariah law, they have the right to have it through a democratic process; it should not be imposed on them.

The NTC chairman enjoys wide support in Libya. He was one of the first to desert Qaddafi’s regime when he gave up his post as justice minister and joined revolutionaries in Benghazi. Since then, Abdul Jalil has had “revolutionary legitimacy” to represent Libyans and make urgent decisions on their behalf. In order for him to be able to make decisions on how Libyans should be governed for years to come, he now needs “electoral legitimacy.”

Abdul Jalil’s “liberation” speech should have been a historic one. Instead of reminding Libyans of the lofty principles of democracy, freedom, dignity, and nation-building, he addressed details that should be left for elected lawmakers to discuss.

But it should be noted that Abdul Jalil is an inexperienced politician; and both Libyan and international observers should cut him some slack. He has made some blunders before. 

(Published on English.alarabiya.net on Oct. 24, 2011)

What’s behind division in U.N. Security Council on Syria?

By Mustapha Ajbaili

The often muted rivalry between Russia and China, on one side, and Western powers, on the other, honed into a clash in the United Nations Security Council this week when the eastern powers vetoed what would have been the first legally-binding resolution against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad since the start of the uprising in Syria.

American ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice delivered a combative response to the Russian and Chinese decisions, accusing the two countries of wanting to continue arms sales to Syria at the expense of civilians demanding freedom. “During this season of change, the people of the Middle East can now see clearly which nations have chosen to ignore their calls for democracy and instead prop up desperate, cruel dictators,” Rice said.

The last time Russia and China together vetoed a U.N. council resolution was in 2008 when they opposed proposed sanctions against Zimbabwe. Their latest move reflects serious fears of increased Western influence and domination in the Middle East and highlights Syria's strategic importance between rival world powers.

“Both countries are known for brutal crackdowns on dissent. Both will lose out if the Assad regime goes. Both have military trade and other economic interest with Syria. Both have close relations with Syria's big brother, Iran. Both are hedging their bets that Assad will survive this. Both countries will be shut out of Syria for some time after Assad is ousted,” said Paul Sullivan, professor of economics at National Defense University and an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University.

Asked why Syria, unlike Libya, turned out to be so divisive in the Security Council, veteran journalist and Professor Emeritus at the American University in Cairo, Abdallah Schleifer, said both countries were concerned “that a U.N. Resolution might provide the justification for a subsequent American or Anglo-American-French intervention in Syria, since the intervention in Libya has turned out to be successful at minimal cost and now America has a positive relationship with the new leaders of Libya.

“Even commanders of the revolutionary Libyan forces with Islamist backgrounds have good words for America, and both Russia and China are rivals for world influence with the Americans-though at present Syria does not resemble Libya,” Schleifer added.

He said that what made U.S. intervention a success story in Libya was that a rebel political authority existed in Benghazi, and not in Istanbul as is the case of the Syrian opposition leadership; this was made possible because there was enough of a cohesive armed rebel force to have liberated Benghazi and that too doesn't exist in Syria.

“A more likely reason is that both Russia and China are nervous about any U.N. interventions, be they peace protests or sanctions since both countries have their own local uprisings in outlying districts to contend with,” Schleifer said.

Russia and China have expressed concern that a more aggressive approach towards Syria will only throw the region into unpredictable turmoil, especially since Syria shares borders with Israel and has strong allies in the region, mainly Hezbollah and Iran. By saying they are afraid of more people being killed if tough measures are taken against Assad, Russia and China sought to coat their stances in a humanitarian perspective, which is essentially what the West has been doing for a long time.

On the surface the difference between the two camps appears to be clear. The West says Assad must be punished because he kills; Russia and China say if he is punished there will be more killings. However, differences on humanitarian issues, as the Syrian one is proclaimed to be, often rarely develop into bitter disputes in the United Nations. Often times, only deeply strategic issues involving major geopolitical and economic interests provoke such bitter rebukes in the United Nations.

(Published on http://english.alarabiya.net/ Oct. 08, 2011)

Is Syria heading towards civil war?

By Mustapha Ajbaili

The latest series of assassinations in Syria, including the recent murder of the son of the grand mufti, reveals a muddled and complex picture of the state of the uprising in the country. The killings could lead Syria spiraling down the path of a bloody civil war, with sectarian vendettas likely to characterize the next chapter of the revolution. If, however, it turns out that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime is behind the targeted murders, these acts will likely backfire and unite religious sects against the regime.

The flashpoint city of Homs was last week the scene of several targeted assassinations. On Sept. 25, a surgeon at Homs’ general hospital, Hassan Eid, was shot dead as he got into his car. Aws Abdel Karim Khalil, a nuclear engineering specialist and charge d’affaires at al-Baath University, was gunned down as his wife drove him to work. Mohammad Ali Aqil, deputy dean of the architecture faculty, and Nael Dakhil, director of the military petrochemical school, were also killed last week, both the Syrian official news agency and activists reported.


Khalil and Eid are said to belong to the Alawite sect of Islam, to which Assad is also affiliated, while Aqil was a Shiite Muslim and Dakhil a Christian.

It is possible that armed dissidents were targeting suspected regime informants and collaborators. But it is equally possible that the regime was carrying out targeted killings against leading members of minority Shiite, Alawite and Christian sects to create tensions between them and the majority Sunni Muslims. If the revolution develops into a sectarian war, the regime will likely present itself as an independent party seeking to unite a divided nation and thus emerge as victorious in the mayhem. 


Anti-government activists have repeatedly accused the regime of attempting to derail the revolution by pitting religious sects against each other. 

A statement posted on Syria’s Youth Forum (shababsyria.org) on Monday denied any knowledge of the person(s) behind the murder of the grand mufti’s son. Although the forum described the mufti as a “heretic apostate” who collaborates with the regime, it said Salafist Islamists and armed dissidents were unlikely to be behind his son’s death because these groups do not want to be seen as inciting sectarianism.

Al-Ghad, a coalition of dissidents, has held the regime responsible for the targeted assassinations in Homs, according to AFP. The coalition said that these have “failed to provoke confessional discord in Homs and is again trying to arouse it by targeting these scientific personalities.”



But a statement by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights suggested that “extremists” possibly among dissidents could be responsible for the murders. The group called on “everyone to denounce and stop extremists from committing such acts of violence.” 

(Published in http://english.alarabiya.net on Oct. 3, 2011.)

Arab Revolts and the Western role

By: Mustapha Ajbaili

This past Tuesday I attended a lecture by the Swiss Muslim public intellectual Tariq Ramadan on the future of Political Islam in The Arab World. In reflection on the revolutions taking place in the Arab world, Ramadan said that we should neither be naive to think that what is happening is an entirely innocent and domestic cry for freedom, nor be blinded by conspiracy theories that blame the West for all mishaps of the Muslim world.

As he tried to situate himself in the “middle,” Ramadan appeared to fall, possibly unconsciously, into the same pit he was trying to avoid, namely, the extreme. He dedicated most of his speech to the Western influence on the Muslim uprisings, pointing to the participation of Arab youth in U.S.-funded training programs on online public mobilization, blogging and citizen journalism. He also mentioned Google’s role in making available several creative tools people in Egypt could use to get around the shutdown of communications by Hosni Mubarak’s government.

Ramadan added that the Western interference to bring about change in the Middle East is part of a strategic struggle for domination over the Middle East between the West on one side and China and china on the other. He said the West is encouraging uprisings in the Middle East because in part dictators there were moving closer and closer to China and Russia, which, unlike the West, do not ask for democratic reforms as preconditions for economic partnerships

This argument appears rather simplistic, because in varying degrees neither China and Russia, nor the United States, France, and Britain, take democratic reforms much into account when signing economic deals with other nations. In fact, Western countries have notorious track records of cooperating with the most brutal dictators on the planet. In democratic capitalist countries, foreign policy double standards are the norm, with the latest example being Muammar Qaddafi of Libya.

Documents found in the Libyan regime’s intelligence ministry after the fall of Tripoli revealed a meeting between two Qaddafi officials and David Welsh, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state) who brokered the normalization of ties between the Qaddafi regime and the George W. Bush administration. Welsh was reportedly providing public relations services to the Qaddafi regime three weeks before rebels overran Tripoli with the help of NATO.

Other documents exposed security and business cooperation between Western governments and Qaddafi’s regime. All three deposed dictators – Ben Ali of Tunisia, Mubarak of Egypt and Qaddafi – enjoyed in varying degrees comfortable ties with the West before the uprisings that ousted them. If Western powers were interested in changing dictators in the Middle East as Ramadan argues, it would have made sense for them to go after Syria or Iran first rather than allies in Tunisia and Egypt.

The fact the West is backing revolutions in the Arab world does not necessarily mean that they contributed to their rise. It could simply mean being on the right side of history. They did not want to commit the same mistake France did when it stood with Ben Ali of Tunisia. Western powers now watch the revolts, and when the winner becomes clear enough, they jump on his side. Noam Chomsky explains this by saying that the “playbook” of American foreign policy concerning dictators reads thusly: “Whenever a favored dictator is in trouble, try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides.”

What is behind Algeria’s stance on Libya’s National Transitional Council?

By: Mustapha Ajbaili

The nascent political leadership in Libya has found itself in an early, simmering diplomatic row with neighboring Algeria, sparked when the latter refused to recognize the National Transitional Council (NTC), as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people, until it forms a government and pledges to fight al-Qaeda.

The NTC has reacted to Algeria’s position with strongly worded statements from several council members. NTC spokesman Mahmoud Shamman denounced Algeria’s position as an act of aggression.

“We have promised to provide a just trial to all those criminals and therefore we consider this an act of aggression,” Shamman was quoted by the Tripoli Post as saying. “We are warning anybody not to shelter Qaddafi and his sons. We are going after them ... to find them and arrest them.”

Rebel army spokesman Col. Ahmed Bani said Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika “does not even recognize the law of God,” so it is not surprising he does not recognize the NTC.

Algeria said it was afraid that al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), whose members had fought the state in the 1990s under the banner of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, might exploit the unrest in Libya to obtain weapons and plan terrorist attacks. The authorities in Algiers even suspect that some al-Qaeda members were fighting alongside the rebels against Col. Qaddafi.

While the Algerian fears are not entirely preposterous, they do not clearly account for the stance against the rebels in Libya.

Algeria’s refusal, or rather hesitation, to recognize the NTC is likely better understood in the light of the changing political dynamics and shift of alliances in North Africa with the fall of Qaddafi.

Qaddafi has long been allied with Algeria in funding, arming and providing political support for the Polisario Front, which is seeking the separation of Western Sahara from Morocco. Qaddafi and the Algerian government had lobbied successfully to bring the separatist movement into the African Union, prompting Morocco to withdraw.

Now, since the crisis in Libya began, Morocco has supported the rebels, albeit not too overtly. Rabat has participated in all Libya Contact Group meetings and supported an Arab League call for imposing the No-Fly Zone over Libya. A day after Tripoli was overrun by rebel forces, Morocco dispatched its foreign minister to Benghazi and recognized the NTC as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.

The NTC expressed appreciation for the swift move on the part of Morocco and promised to support Morocco’s stance on the Western Sahara issue and cease cooperation with the Polisario Front.

So with Qaddafi out of power, Algeria finds itself isolated. It will now have to bear most of the burden in dealing with the Polisario Front. Besides, with the winds of freedom blowing in North Africa – Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Morocco are all in the midst of rapid change – Algeria remains a quasi-socialist, reclusive dictatorial military regime that is unlikely to integrate with its neighbors in building common regional economic and political policies.

Mustapha Ajbaili: To whom this may concern: Social problems as contagious as epidemics

MUSTAPHA AJBAILI

In today’s fast-moving news cycles we accept—not expect—that things will change at any moment and will do so in a dramatic fashion. And we accept that change is looming, often not by design but due to the intrinsic volatility of our social, economic and political system/systems.

The unrest that has swept the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) shows that the traditional forces of domination, often entrenched through opaque internal politics, are in fact vulnerable to measly social earthquakes.
The unrest shows also that we now live in a world where no one is in charge. Revolutions, wars, economic crises are no longer but predictable, they are also part of our reality. The very recent developments in the telecommunication industry, primarily the Internet, have turned social and economic phenomena into epidemics. They have become like measles, little of which can spread like wildfire. They are contagious and their change can be dramatic, not gradual.

It took 13 years of sanctions, total embargo, and devastating wars to topple Saddam Hussein. It took two months for the popular anger to oust two dictators in the Middle East and drive three others to the verge of collapse, the point of no return, the tipping point of dramatic change.

Today, any popular demonstration—no matter how small it is—and any individual wrath is contagious and can consume our social jungle and shatter its laws. The lessons are for whom this may concern.

(Published in English.alarabiya.net June 29, 2011)

Mustapha Ajbaili: ‘Welcome home,’ said the gendarme in my native Morocco

MUSTAPHA AJBAILI

Driving on a curvy and dangerous road along one side of a deep gorge carving of a mountain range toward the south of Morocco, I was pulled over by a Royal Gendarmerie officer forming a security checkpoint in the entrance of the city of Bouizakarne. The officer saluted me and asked me to step out of the car and join him inside the gendarmerie office built on the roadside.

It was my first time ever to be pulled over by a police officer while driving in Morocco. Inside the building, the young officer asked if I knew why I was pulled over. The only reason I could think of was that I overtook a truck while driving on a section of the road now left behind. But my reason seemed to lack some logical sense because I was the fourth in a series of drivers who all overtook the truck when the road appeared to be sufficiently clear ahead; yet no other one of those drivers was stopped at the checkpoint. I told the officer the reason I had in mind, anyway.

“Yes, that is why I stopped you,” he said.

“But excuse me, officer, are you being selective in implementing justice?” I replied.

He stretched his right hand and grabbed my papers I had placed on his table. After examining my papers, he said, “Welcome home, this is how it goes here.”

He proceeded with the question, “What do you do in Dubai?”

“I am a journalist,” I replied and handed him my journalist ID card.

“Ahhh, you are a shadow soldier,” he said.

[silence]
“And how much do you get paid over there?” he asked.

“I will tell you, if you promise not to fine me,” I said.

He smiled, handed back the papers to me and wished me safe trip.

I stood up, walked a few steps and stopped. I turned my head toward him and asked, “By the way, how do you people know if someone does a traffic violation in those mountains…any hidden cameras?”

“We have a man sitting on that cliff and watching cars driving through that curvy road. He calls us if he sees someone does something wrong,” the officer said.

I laughed and walked out.

“I told you welcome home,” the officer shouted.

Mustapha Ajbaili: What to do about Morocco’s youth movement? Rebranding needed, of course

MUSTAPHA AJBAILI
 
When Morocco’s pro-democracy movement first took to the streets on February 20, the government was fighting a war behind the scenes to destroy it, while in the meantime it was embracing it in public.

On the one hand, security services and their servants tried to sow divisions within the group and launched a smear online media campaign against it. On the other hand, they were embracing it in public. During a visit to Washington, Foreign Minister Taieb Fassi Fihri said, referring to the group, “We are proud of them.” The government initially did not expect a movement born in the sphere of virtual communication to gain momentum and reach a level where it would threaten its political agenda and the interests of those in power.

In the recent weeks, when the movement grew in power and became seriously challenging to the status quo, authorities started to brand it as a collective mass of extremists made up mainly of the outlawed Islamist Justice and Charity Group and the Marxist Democratic Path.

These groups are perceived as threats to the democratic process, and because they are part of the February 20 movement the latter is also lately portrayed as an obstacle to stability and to the alleged democratic course taken by the government. By the government I mean the ruling establishment not the cabinet, which is made up of ministers who come and go.

Following last Friday’s speech by King Mohammed VI in which he unveiled a daft constitution and called upon political parties to mobilize the people to vote “yes” for the project in a referendum scheduled for July 1, there was speculation that the protest movement would disintegrate as the demands of some of its components, mainly the Amazigh cultural movement, were allegedly answered in recognizing Amaizgh as an official language of Morocco.

The speculation proved inaccurate as thousands of people took to the streets in different cities to denounce the constitutional reforms and to demand a genuine democratic change in the country.

Almost all the components of the February 20 movement criticized the draft constitution and called the changes cosmetic. The giant masses of people who marched peacefully in the cities of Casablanca, Tangiers, Fes and even Marrakesh, which is still recovering from the shock of a terrorist attack, are a proof that the conflict between the establishment and the opposition is still alive. Even more, the protests and the recent government reaction to them signaled that Morocco is going down a dangerous slope.

The establishment will rely on the elites revolving in its orbit and on the majority illiterate and low-educated masses to support the constitutional reforms. But the educated people from student unions and opposition groups, who tend to be conduits of political change, are unlikely to be tamed.

Before the draft constitution is passed, I see that there is a door of opportunity to revise things and engage in an honest dialogue with the only real opposition group we currently have in Morocco, the February 20 movement. After the constitution is passed, the chances to diffuse tension will be less.

(Published in english.alarabiya.net on June 20)

Morocco’s opposition youth group beaten in Rabat, protests in other cities

 For the first time in Morocco, protesters call for regime change

MUSTAPHA AJBAILI

Activists of a Moroccan pro-democracy youth group were broken up in the capital Rabat on Sunday as they prepared to hold a protest march against a draft constitution unveiled by King Mohammad VI two days ago, two members of the group from Rabat said in a telephone interview with Al Arabiya.

The security forces and dozens of “recruited thugs” attacked members of the February 20 movement who had gathered in Taqaddom neighborhood in Rabat to protest against the draft constitution in which the King seemed to have relinquished some of his executive and legislative powers, Najib Shawki said.

Mr. Shawki added that after 40 members of the group were wounded, the activists decided to withdraw in order to avoid more casualties.

Another activist, Jalal Al Makhfi, said the security forces have used “thugs” for the first time to clamp down on demonstrations organized by the youth group. “Agents and servants of the interior ministry have recruited thugs and paid them money for the first time to attack our demonstrations throughout the country,” he said.
But a security source who refused to be named denied the government recruited people to attack protesters or to demonstrate in support of the draft constitution. He added that “ordinary residents may have chased away those who want to cause unrest in their neighborhood.”

Mr. Makhfi said protesters in the cities of Casablanca, Fes, Asfi and Tangier were also subject to similar harassment but that in those cities the youth activists were able to hold on and continue their rallies.

The groups said in Facebook page that about 25,000 people had joined the protest in the country’s biggest city, Casablanca.

All government officials—including senior ministers—and virtually political parties of this country of about 32 million people have voiced support for the new draft constitution, which will be put to referendum on July 1. (Morocco’s GDP is about $154 billion, and the per capita income is about $5,000.)

Under the new draft constitution, the king would remain head of state and the military and still appoint ambassadors and diplomats, while retaining the right to name top officials of unspecified “strategic” administrations.

The prime minister, now to be called the “president of the government,” will have the power to dissolve parliament, hitherto the monarch’s prerogative.
Mohammed VI also pledged an independent judiciary.

The 47-year-old monarch, who took over the Arab world’s longest-serving dynasty in 1999, currently holds virtually all power in the Muslim North African country, and he is also its top religious authority as the Commander of the Faithful.

(Published in English.alarabiya.net on June 19)

How progressive is Morocco monarch’s proposed constitutional change? Not very

MUSTAPHA AJBAILI


I waited eagerly for hours to watch the King of Morocco unveil a new draft constitution according to which my country will be governed for years to come. The king described the draft constitution as progressive. The national media and the predominantly domesticated political parties said it was advanced, democratic and even revolutionary.

For me and for thousands of those Moroccans who have dreamed of a democratic constitution that grants the power to the people, the unveiled reforms were indeed progressive. But the question is, how progressive are they?

The answer is: Very little. I found the long-awaited royal speech quite disappointing in many ways.

It was designed to stave off democratic protests that have swept the Arab world and was expected to introduce fundamental reforms that would strengthen an elected government, strip the king of many religious and political powers and ensure the separation of powers, including judicial independence.

But as I read the draft constitution, I discovered that the king has barely surrendered any meaningful powers.

The draft constitution elevates the prime minister to the “head of government’’ and ensures he is selected by the king from the party that received the most votes. Previously the prime minister is selected by the king regardless of election results.

The head of government will have the new powers of choosing and dismissing cabinet members—with the approval of the king—and will be able to fill a number of other government positions. The selection, however, of the powerful regional governors will remain in the King’s hands.

The king will also remain the supreme commander of the armed forces and the “commander of the faithful.”

The new constitution introduced the Supreme Security Council — which will make security policy—and it will be chaired by the King.

The unveiled constitutional amendments are undoubtedly progressive, but they are insufficient to satiate popular demands for reform. The King remains to have almost indefinite ruling powers. He appoints the cabinet (executive), can dismiss the parliament (the legislative) and he is the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. Besides, he has the military and security forces in his hand.

To make sure his new draft constitution is passed, the king called for a “yes” vote in a referendum to be held on July 1. He also instructed political parties and media to campaign for the project.

In response, the youth-led February 20 movement, which has brought thousands of people onto the streets in unprecedented calls for change, has opposed the constitutional reforms, which it described as cosmetic. The group called for nationwide protests on Sunday against what sees as a “granted” constitution.

The group is unlikely to cease demonstrating in the streets, and if it continues to do so, the regime will eventually lose its patience and will likely resort to cracking down on protesters. The consequences of this are unpredictable, but violence only yields violence.

(Published in english.alarabiya.net June 18, 2011)

Mustapha Ajbaili: Erdoğan and Turkey’s quest for greatness

MUSTAPHA AJBAILI


Al Arabiya

I spent one day in Istanbul on my way from Dubai to Morocco last month. I stayed in a two-floor house converted into a pension located on a charming, cobblestoned street in a quiet area of Istanbul’s historic Sultanahmet district. The owner, Orhan, greeted me with a Turkish cup of tea, and then we began talking about the change taking place in the Arab world.
As we spoke, an election campaign van passed by. The van bore the slogan of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) “İstikrar sürsün” (let the stability continue). I asked Mr. Orhan if Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan would be re-elected. He replied: “Oh yeah, there is no doubt about this. With Erdoğan, Turkey will be great again.”

For the ordinary man, Orhan, elections in Turkey were not merely about improving economic conditions or creating more jobs but more about restoring to the nation the greatness it had once enjoyed during the Ottoman Empire.

Mr. Orhan’s remarks made me reflect on the history of the power struggle in Turkey and how differing parties all unite around the common goal of building a great state.

Modern Turkey came to being following a war of liberation fought by Turkish nationalists against the Allies. Turkey was partitioned by the Allies following the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I.

The Ottoman Sultanate was overthrown and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk came to power seeking to build a great state. Most successive leaders followed Mr. Kemal’s quest and ambition to build a great state but none was ever compared to him as Mr. Erdoğan has been.

Suzy Hansen, an American journalist based in Istanbul recently wrote of Mr. Erdoğan: “By now, Erdoğan is more than merely popular. He is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon, with all the political genius of a Bill Clinton and none of the personal excess […] If the AKP wins the June 12 elections, as is widely expected, Erdoğan will become the most powerful Turkish leader since Kemal Atatürk.”

(Mustapha Ajbaili, a senior editor at Al Arabiya English, can be reached at Mustapha.ajbaili@mbc.net)

Mustapha Ajbaili: In Morocco, ‘Say the year is good!’

During a two-week visit to the North African Kingdom of Morocco, there have been music festivals of international grandeur, royal inaugurations of development projects and soccer celebrations across the country. The events widely publicized in the national broadcast media conveyed an image of normalcy being enjoyed by a country situated in a region swept by revolutions and social unrest.

But this type of publicity is often described by ordinary people as part of an official policy known as “goulou al-aam zeen” (Say the year is good!). This policy, people say, imposes a blackout on what the “Makhzan”—a word used to refer to the ruling establishment—sees as the kingdom’s dark side, which if brought to light could spur unrest, hurt the economy and the image of the regime abroad.


Indeed, there have been many more developments in the kingdom but these have received comparatively little media attention despite their high newsworthiness. There have been pro-democracy protests all over the country, brutal security crackdowns, and quasi paralysis in the sectors of health, education, judiciary and fisheries due to repeated nationwide strikes. Even the imams leading religious prayers in mosques have taken to the streets for the first time to demand better treatment by the government.

King Mohammed VI, the commander in chief of the armed forces and the “commander of the faithful,” distances himself from those problems, leaving an incapable government to deal with them. He appears on the national TV channels to highlight achievements and to deliver beautiful tidings. Watching the national media it takes no brilliance to recognize that the “good things” are attributed to the king and the “the bad things” are attributed to the government and to “radical elements” of the civil society. But regardless of who does what, the national broadcast media often highlight three active parties in the Morocco’s political scene—the king, the government and the civil society. The “makhzan”—or the hidden hand is never a player in the game.

At the time of writing hundreds of school teachers across the nation are in an open strike. They describe themselves as prisoners in “cell number nine.” Most of them have spent years in “grade nine” and have never been promoted to “grade 10” at a time when the ministry of education occasionally recruits waves of unemployed graduates straight to grade 10.

According to the law, a person first has to undergo a period of training as a teacher before he or she can be sent to class but the minister of education has issued exceptions to unemployed graduates constantly demonstrating before the parliament and government buildings and placed them in grade number 10, thereby angering teachers who have undergone training and still in grade number nine. Was the education minister not aware that his decision would plunge his sector into turmoil? A few teachers who spoke with the writer said it was impossible that the minister was not aware of his wrongdoing but that he had “no choice.”

“Our ministers have no choice, they do what they are asked to do and shut up even if it is wrong. When a problem breaks out in a government sector, the responsible minister can only wait for a call from the hidden man of the makhzan to tell him what to do,” a school teacher said.

Today there is much talk about a new constitution, the separation of powers and the institution of a system of regionalism that seeks to buttress local governance. Some people say the new reforms will take the nation to new heights in democracy building. Others cast a jaundiced eye on the anticipated reforms saying what the country needs most is strong law enforcement on all without exceptions.

On Friday, June 10, a columnist at Al Massae newspaper, whose executive editor was recently handed a one-year jail term for “criticizing the performance of the security forces,” asked whether it was acceptable for the interior ministry to crackdown on unauthorized peaceful demonstration demanding reforms while allowing another unauthorized demonstration to celebrate a soccer victory—a legitimate question that highlights a law enforcement problem.

(Mustapha Ajbaili, a senior editor at Al Arabiya English, can be reached at Mustapha.ajbaili@mbc.net)

The Obama Speech: Israel rejects peace plan, Palestinians wary, Arabs indifferent

MUSTAPHA AJBAILI

President Barack Obama initially didn’t quite get the enthusiastic response in the Arab world that some of his supporters may have expected as he outlined his vision of US foreign policy in the Middle East against the backdrop of pro-democracy uprisings sweeping the region.

Some Arab media pundits saw the Obama speech, the steps he has taken to impose sanctions on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and his pledge of support for the nascent democracies in Egypt and Tunisia, as encouraging and demonstrate a change in the US foreign policy.

But other commentators said the speech reflected the same time-honored US foreign policy approach of supporting a favored dictator until it became clear that he was losing control—then switching sides, claiming to be on the side of people, providing aid and doing whatever possible to re-instate the old system under a different name. In politics this is called: being on the right side of history.

Commenting on President Obama’s speech both Amr Hashem Rabie, of Al‐Ahram Center for Strategic Studies, and Hisham Melhem, the Washington bureau chief of Al Arabiya, agreed that the initiative in the Middle East today was in the hands of the people regardless of whether the US was genuinely siding with the people or not.

The Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai revealed on Thursday that during a discussion earlier this week between President Obama and Jordan’s King's Abdullah II, the two leaders agreed that “It was impossible for the Assad regime to survive,” and that “the attention of Washington and its allies should now be focused on ensuring a smooth power transition stage in Syria.”

The newspaper quoted Tony Badran, expert on Syria, Lebanon and Hezbollah at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, saying, “Assad’s regime is finished” and that “it may hold on for a few months or more but it will eventually surrender to the wide opposition to its rule.”

This, according to the newspaper, explains the shift of the US policy toward Mr. Assad. President Obama seeks to position the United States on the side of the winner—the people.

In his speech, President Obama made it clear that the goals of the US Mideast foreign policy will remain the same, but that the strategy to achieve those goals will need to be fine-tuned.

“The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace,” President Obama said.

He added that the US “will continue to do these things” but in a slightly different way.

“We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future—particularly young people,” Mr. Obama said.

Israel on Thursday rejected President Obama’s call for a peace deal based the 1967 borders, as the Palestinians said their leadership would hold a meeting to discuss the US leader's policy speech.

Mr. Obama’s address, billed as an announcement of reoriented US policy in the Middle East after a slew of regional uprisings, focused heavily on the stalled talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

He called for a negotiated solution based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Six Day War, but also warned the Palestinians that a bid for UN recognition of a unilateral proclamation of statehood would not work.

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,” said Mr. Obama. “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, due to fly to Washington just hours after Mr. Obama’s speech, immediately called on the White House to guarantee Israel would not have to withdraw to the 1967 lines.

He urged Mr. Obama to commit to the assurances laid out in 2004 by then president George W. Bush, who said “new realities on the ground,” meant a “full and complete return” to the 1967 borders was “unrealistic.”

“Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of US commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress,” Mr. Netanyahu’s statement said.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, however, welcomed Mr. Obama’s efforts to renew talks with Israel that collapsed last year, a senior Palestinian official said.

“President Abbas expresses his appreciation of the continuous efforts exerted by President Obama with the objective of resuming the permanent status talks in the hope of reaching a final status agreement,” said the official, Saeb Erekat.

Mr. Erekat, responding to Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy address, added that Mr. Abbas would soon convene “emergency” talks with Palestinian and Arab officials to consider further steps.

The Islamist Hamas movements immediately called on President Obama to take “concrete steps,” not merely issue “slogans” in support of Palestinian independence and an end to Israeli occupation.

“What Obama needs to do is not to add slogans but to take concrete steps to protect the rights of the Palestinian people and the Arab nation,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told Agence-France Presse.


The New York Times reported:

“His message is clear,” said Muhsen Awajy, a dissident Islamist lawyer in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. “Do the job, and when you finish — when you have paid the price — we as Americans are ready to support our interests in a new phase.” He added: “It is a great country with great values, and he should translate that into timely intervention.”

The financial support that the president offered Egypt in the speech — forgiveness of $1 billion in debt — met with appreciation, but it was tempered for some Egyptians by memories of the tens of billions of dollars in aid that the United States gave to the authoritarian government of former President Hosni Mubarak over the years. Others said that Mr. Obama’s talk of support from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund was likely to remind Egyptians of the economic liberalization under the Mubarak government — led by Mr. Mubarak’s banker son, Gamal — which enabled a small elite to accrue vast wealth.

“The Egyptian experience with both these institutions is totally negative, because the so-called structural economic adjustment that had been done only made the rich richer and the poor poorer,” said Hassan Nafaa, a political scientist at Cairo University who attended Mr. Obama’s speech in Cairo two years ago. “It seems that he is helping the capitalist system, and not taking into account the social situation in Egypt.”

In contrast to the fascination with President Obama’s address to the Muslim world in Cairo two years ago, or the rapt suspense at his comments toward his former ally Hosni Mubarak during the Egyptian revolution, Egyptians, Syrians, Libyans and Saudis generally professed only a dim awareness on Thursday of what was being said in Washington.

Even in Libya, where American-backed air strikes rain down on the forces of Col. Muammar Qaddafi, most patrons of a café in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi were more concerned with a local street protest against a man from the city who was still supporting Colonel Qaddafi as an anchor on state television.

“We’ve had long experience with American policy in the region, and we don’t trust Obama’s call for change in Syria,” said Abdel Majid Manjouni, head of the opposition Socialist Democratic Arab Union Party in Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city. “Only the Syrian people can impose change, not the powers abroad.”

Still, some close observers said they detected a “new strategy” from Washington.

“We felt that for the first time that he was taking to us, and not to the leaders, as he did before,” said Mona Makram-Ebeid, a professor at American University in Cairo and a former member of the Egyptian parliament from a legally recognized liberal party. “This time he put his hands on the real problems that are affecting the different countries.”

Ms. Makram-Ebeid applauded Mr. Obama’s talk of tracking down the money stolen by ousted dictators and combating corruption.

“He is not just talking about democracy and human rights, he is talking about throwing back the shackles of the past and looking for hope for the future, and he spoke about the risks,” she said.

Some others around the region agreed that Mr. Obama’s professed support for the democratic movements in the region — “two leaders have stepped aside, more may follow” — sounded unlike the statements they heard during the first days of the uprising in Egypt.

“Everybody still has it in the back of their minds how America flip-flopped in their position toward these Arab revolutions,” said Amr Jarrad, 28, a banker in Amman, Jordan. “If you were so good in supporting autocratic regimes, why can’t you be so good in telling them to leave?”

In Riyadh, the Saudi capital, the speech fell awkwardly between two evening prayer times as the Arab weekend was beginning, so it was not easy to find people who had heard Mr. Obama speak. A few Saudi women dispatched Twitter postings underscoring that the president stressed gender equality in his remarks, and a few Saudi men said they thought the point might have been directed at them.

Saudi activists noted that Washington had already, as long ago as 2004, taken the line publicly that the Saudi monarchy had no choice to reform, but nothing tangible had come of it.

“With all these nice words, will it be transformed into policy?” said Mohammad F. al-Qahtani, a political activist. “That is a big if.”

That was the widespread reaction to the sections of the speech dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. In general, Arabs find it galling that American presidents rarely criticize Israel; while Mr. Obama did say, “the dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation,” some viewers found that insufficient.
In Cairo, Essam el-Erian, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood and its newly formed Islamist political party, said the message to the Arab world was: “Do not wait to get any support from the White House, maintain your efforts and achieve your freedom.”



(Published in http://english.alarabiya.net/ on May 19)

Egyptian media blame ‘anti-revolutionaries’ for clashes between Islamists and Christians

MUSTAPHA AJBAILI


Egyptian media blamed the recent deadly violence between Islamists and Coptic Christians on “anti-revolutionaries” as the country’s grand mufti and chief interpreter of Islamic law warned the country could descend into a civil war.

“We are facing the anti-revolutionary groups who are convinced that any success of the revolution was an even greater threat to their interests and so are trying to fuel confessional conflict,” wrote Al Ahram newspaper, the most widely circulating Egyptian daily publication.

Justice Minister Abdel Aziz Al Gindi has vowed the government would strike with an “iron hand” those who threatened the country’s national security and warned that “Egypt has already become a nation in danger.”

On a day when casualty figures relating to clashes between Islamists and Coptic Christians over a controversial interfaith marriage kept rising, Prime Minister Essam Sharaf postponed a trip to the Gulf to hold an emergency meeting with his cabinet members.

Ali Gomaa, Egypt’s grand mufti and chief interpreter of Islamic law, was quoted in main independent daily Al Masri Al Yom as warning of the potential for civil war, “because of outlaws who want to defy the authority of the state,” according to Agence France-Press.

Meanwhile Interior Minister Mansur Al Issawi denied reports that weapons had been stored in Saint Mena church.

“Contrary to rumors that there were weapons inside the church, it was the owner of a cafe near the church who fired a gun,” he told the government daily Al Akhbar.

Security officials said police arrested a man they identified as the Muslim husband of the alleged convert, saying he had spread the word that his wife was being detained in a building next to the church.

Saturday’s incident, in which 12 people were killed and 232 were wounded, was the second deadly sectarian clash since the January 15 revolution, in which Muslims and Christians joined hands in Tahrir Square to demand the departure of then President Hosni Mubarak.

The clashes were triggered by a controversy over interfaith marriage concerning a 26-year-old woman, Camilia Shehata. She is the wife of a Coptic priest, Tadros Samaan, and disappeared in July 2010 after reportedly converting to Islam, possibly on account of an unhappy marriage. Divorce is forbidden by the Coptic Church, and some Christians have been known to convert to Islam in order to remarry.

Islamists, charging that she was forcibly confined in a church, protested several times. They gathered in front of the Saint Mena Church, which was where the clashes occurred.

But Ms. Shehata has appeared in a new picture published by Al Ahram newspaper with Naguib Gebrael, of the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization. Mr. Gebrael, a lawyer, told Al Ahram that he would represent her in a court where a complaint was filed against the church for allegedly holding her in forced confinement.

Ms. Shehata also appeared on a Christian broadcasting channel, with her husband and child.

“Let the protesters leave the church alone and turn their attention to Egypt’s future,” she said, adding that she had never converted to Islam.

In March, Muslims and Christians clashed in the town of Helwan near Cairo. Thirteen people were killed and a church was torched. The cause of the fighting was a rumored romantic relationship between a Muslim woman and a Christian man.

In swift response by the country’s military rulers, 190 people were arrested in Saturday’s violence and were sent to trial, as security was stepped up at houses of worship, amid indications that Egypt’s conservative Islamic movement, led by Salafis, was becoming increasingly restive about the country’s traditionally secular environment.

Inter-faith relationships among faiths are frowned upon in Egypt, where Christians make up about 10 percent of its 80 million people. Such relationships are sometimes the source of deadly clashes between the faiths, said The Associated Press.

If a Christian woman marries a Muslim, she is expelled from the church. A Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a Christian man, according to state law.

Because divorce is banned under the Coptic Church, unless under extenuating circumstances, many women resort to conversion as a way to get out of a marriage.
Christians complain about unfair treatment, including rules they say make it easier to build a mosque than a church.
In 2010, Egypt saw more than its usual share of sectarian strife, and a rights group has said such clashes have been on the rise. Muslims and Christians had been brought together during the protests that ousted Mr. Mubarak.

(Published by Mustapha Ajbaili on http://english.alarabiya.net/  May 9, 2011)

Tunisia elections declared in doubt amid row over possible coup remarks

MUSTAPHA AJBAILI

Tunisia’s planned July elections to form a new government after the ouster of the former president could be delayed amid renewed unrest, interim Prime Minister Beji Caid Essebsi said on Monday.

Protests erupted against Mr. Essebsi’s government last Thursday after former interior minister Farhat Rajhi claimed a military coup was being prepared should the Islamist Ennahda (Renaissance) win the July election.

Mr. Rajhi, in a video interview posted on Facebook, said some members of the ruling elite still in power were preparing a military coup should the Islamist Ennahda (Renaissance) win the July 24 election.
“Since independence, political life has been dominated by the people of the Tunisian Sahel,” such as former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, toppled in January.

Despite Mr. Ben Ali’s ouster these people were not ready to cede power, Mr. Rajhi said.
“If the results of the forthcoming elections go against their interests, there will be a military coup,” he said.

Mr. Rahji also said that Mr. Essebsi had discussed the military coup issue during a visit to Algeria in mid-March. Algeria and Tunisia , neighbors in North Africa, have had a tenuous relationship.
“The nomination on April 18 of General Rachid Ammar as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is only in preparation of the coup,” Mr. Rahji said.

Mr. Essebsi responded on Sunday saying, “Farhat Rajhi is a liar and his statements are dangerous and irresponsible and (he) deserves to be prosecuted.”
In a bid to reassure protesters he reiterated commitment to the July poll but said logistical problems could delay the vote.

“The government made a commitment by choosing the date of July 24 and we intend to keep to that date but if the reform committee says there are technical and logistical hitches, there will be another probability to discuss,” he said.
“It is true we have been slow in dealing with this but the high commission charged with preparing these crucial elections in July is independent and the government is only giving it material and logistical support,” Mr. Essebsi said.
The election will appoint an assembly to draw up a new constitution after the January 14 ouster of Mr. Ben Ali, who held power for 23 years. His authoritarian rule, according to his critics, was characterized by corruption.
The uprising that toppled Mr. Ben Ali sparked revolts across the Arab world, such as in Egypt.
Mr. Essebsi said the work of the provisional government would cease on the day of the vote.
(Published by Mustapha Ajbaili o nhttp://english.alarabiya.net/ May 9, 2011)

Morocco: On the arrest of suspected Marrakesh bombers

By MUSTAPHA AJBAILI

The Moroccan government has arrested three individuals allegedly responsible for the deadly Marrakesh bombing and hailed the “swift” response of the security services in coordination with international intelligence services from France, Spain and the United States.

Moroccan Interior Minister Taieb Cherkaoui said the main suspect was “loyal” to al-Qaeda and that he tried several times to travel to Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia and Turkey before opting to carry out his attack in Morocco after having learned from the Internet how make explosives.

The bombing came at a time when Morocco was witnessing growing popular anger at the corruption thriving in the higher echelons of the government and security services. Public trust in the government and its security organs has fallen to its lowest levels in many years. In the wake of the bombing many people went around speculating that the “Makhzan”—an Moroccan Arabic term for the governing elite consisting of businessmen, wealthy landowners, high-ranking military personnel, security service bosses, and other well-connected members of the establishment—may have masterminded the attack to regain control of a stage gradually being overtaken by the populace.

But Thursday’s arrests may dispel those speculations and the government has sought to regain public confidence by commending its response to the bombing and its ability to capture perpetrators “within one week.”

Mr. Cherkaoui said the security forces “again demonstrated efficiency and ability to repel terrorism and all forms of crime and to maintain and protect the security of citizens and their safety.”

The interior minister must have forgotten that the Marrakesh bombing qualifies to be a disastrous failure to repel terrorism.

In the wake of the attack Moroccans wanted to know who was responsible. The government opened a probe to find out who carried out the bombing but failed to investigate who in the security services and in the government failed to protect public safety.

Today the government—and I do not mean the cabinet—seeks to claim credit on the basis of finding out who committed the bombing while forgetting that it was responsible for having failed to prevent the attack at the first place.

The United States formed a bipartisan national commission in 2002 that uncovered various security failures that led to the Sept. 11 attacks. The failures were made public in the 9/11 Commission Report and those individuals and security bodies that failed the nation were identified. The United States hasn’t been attacked in its mainland ever since.

In Morocco, this is the third major terrorist attack in the country in less than 10 years after the ones that happened in 2003 and 2007. Without exposing the failures of its security services and holding those officials, including the interior minister, responsible for having failed to protect the nation against terrorism instead of beating peaceful protesters in the streets, the deadly Marrakesh bomb attack may not be the last.

(Published on http://english.alarabiya.net/ on May 7, 2011)

Media & Mass Communications: What does the death of Osama bin Laden mean for the Arab world?

By MUSTAPHA AJBAILI


Arab news media have reacted to the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden with considerable speculation on its consequences in the Arab and Muslim world.



While most of the voices in the region agree that the death of America’s “Most Wanted Number One” had dealt a blow to the terror network, many have warned that various Al-Qaeda affiliates, which tend to operate independently from the network’s top leadership, would likely continue to threaten the security in the region for months to come.



The news media in the region have also engaged in much discussion about the timing of bin Laden’s death.



Jamal Khashoggi, journalist, writer and former editor-in-chief of the Saudi newspaper al-Watan, told Al Arabiya TV that if Mr. Bin Laden had been killed before the wave of pro-democracy uprisings in the region, some people would have protested against America. The march for freedom in the region has damaged Al-Qaeda’s agenda and showed to the world the freedom-loving spirit of the majority of Arab and Muslim youths, he said.



Mohammad Abu Rumman, a columnist and an expert on Islamist groups, said, “The death of Mr. Bin Laden came during the downfall of dictatorial regimes and the rise of freedom in the Arab world.”



Mr. Abu Rumman told Al Arabiya that Mr. Bin Laden had lost his self-claimed image as the champion of the Muslim world with the demise of dictatorships, which were responsible for creating some of the conditions that allowed extremism to breed. When political dissent can’t be expressed in words, resort to violence becomes likely, Mr. Abu Rumman added.



Abdullah Al-Mutair, father of al-Qaeda militant Ibrahim al-Mutair who was killed earlier this year by Saudi authorities, said that he had received the news of bin Laden’s death with “joy.” Mr. al-Mutair added that Mr. Bin Laden has killed more Muslims than non-Muslims and that everyone should be please with his death.



Saudi journalist Khaled al-Moshawah, meanwhile, said that the effect of the rise of freedom in holding back extremism in the Arab world was yet to be seen.



He said: “It is still early to say that al-Qaeda will not exploit the revolutions. The death of Mr. Bin Laden is certainly a blow to the terror network, but it remains to be seen how the man’s followers will respond.”



Regardless of speculation, Mr. Bin Laden’s death will likely be a sense of triumph for some in the United States and a relief for many Muslims who are tired of seeing a violent man speak for their faith.



(Published in english.alarabiya.net on May 2, 2012)

Media & Mass Communications: Coverage of Marrakesh terrorist attack displays a more analytical approach by Moroccan media

By MUSTAPHA AJBAILI


Al Arabiya

When it comes to terrorist attacks, mainstream news media tend to be guided by official accounts—be it in the Arab world, the United States or in Europe. But covering the recent bombing that occurred in Morocco’s tourism hub city of Marrakesh, there was a discernible effort in local media coverage toward analysis.



The media tackled difficult questions about why the bloodshed happened. One key question that the media raised: Whose interests were served by the café blast?



Government fingers pointed to Al-Qaeda as the suspected mastermind of the attack, which killed 16 people, but voices in the news media, primarily in the electronic and printed press, exercised caution not to be dragged into misleading the public by presenting an official version of a story. The media noted that the blast was still under investigation by US, French and Spanish intelligence services.



In part, the caution displayed in the local media coverage was likely a result of early reports from Egypt two months ago that now-jailed former Interior Minister Habib el-Adly had a hand in last New Year’s Eve bombing of al-Qiddissin Church in Alexandria in which 24 people were killed. The report was unsubstantiated.



Another explanation of the Moroccan media’s more thoughtful approach to coverage of the blast could lie in the timing of the attack. Morocco has witnessed in the past three months growing public discontent with the government and widely expressed anger at “symbols of corruption,” such as some friends of King Mohammad VI.



One of the most popular independent news websites in Morocco, www.hespress.com, has said that “the terrorist bombing in Marrakesh has taken the reform process into a new stage because of the challenges it raised, requiring a cautious and responsible approach to dealing with the consequences of this attack.”



“The party behind the attack—be it foreign or domestic—has put several goals, first of which was to obstruct political progress in Morocco,” the website said.



Another likely reason why journalists this time appeared to be writing outside the orbit of government influence was the detention of Al-Massae newspaper’s executive editor Rachid Nini on the eve of the Marrakesh bombing. Several journalists and human rights activists recently organized a sit-in in front of the parliament to demand Mr. Nini’s release and demand more press freedom. It just so happened that the day happened to be last Thursday, the day of the attack on the café in Marrakesh.



Could it be that the news media in some countries not yet affected by popular uprisings are seeking to break free of their long-time obsequious coverage in order to avoid the embarrassing situation of waking up one day and finding one’s sacred cows gone?



(Published in english.alarabiya.net in 01 May 2011)

Media & Mass Communications: Coverage of popular uprisings in Arab world under spotlight as never before

By MUSTAPHA AJBAILI


Al Arabiya

Media coverage of the popular uprisings sweeping the Arab world has revived debate about what role should the Fourth Estate—in its print, broadcast and electronic iterations—play in Arab society.



While print media’s role as a credible source of information and insightful analysis has dwindled over the years—due mainly to continuing government control in most countries of the 22-member Arab League—broadcast and electronic media have emerged in the “Arab Spring” not only as sources of information but, sometimes more, as conduits or vehicles of social change.



During an Arab media forum recently held in Kuwait to discuss the trends in media coverage of Arab revolutions, Abdel Wahab Badrakhan, a noted journalist and author, said that broadcast TV channels were the most prominent during the Arab uprisings. He was, of course, referring to the two most popular networks, Al Arabiya (which is privately owned) and Al Jazeera (which is funded by the Emir of Qatar).



Mr. Badrakhan said that increased role of electronic media over the last several months was not only due to increased users but more to a reliance of TV broadcasters on electronically-communicated information to deepen their coverage of the socio-political developments.



Some of major Arab TV broadcasters, such as Al Arabiya TV, were either temporarily suspended or were subject to jamming in Libya, Egypt and Syria, prompting them to rely on videos and information communicated via the Internet.



Not all views concerning the mass media have been supportive.



For example, the editor-in-chief of the al-Liwaa daily newspaper, Salah Salam, said some prominent news media “fabricated some testimonies to mislead the public opinion.”



Mr. Salam added, however, that other media outlets were more committed to obtaining and spreading credible information.

Akram Khozam, a prominent journalist at Al-Hurra TV (which is sponsored by the United States Government), said during the forum in Kuwait that some Arab broadcast TV channels were more concerned about influencing the course of events, even if they carried flawed reporting, than covering the developments from an independent and unbiased angle.



While such views will undoubtedly continue to shape the debate on the role of the mass media in the Arab world, commentators and academics will increasingly turn to examining how the “social media”—Twitter and Facebook, in particular—shape social and political change.



In a classic sense, these vehicles represent “vox populi” because they are a verbal way of mobilizing and transmitting genuine voices of everyday people.



But such mobilization can carry hazards: What if there are no filters to shape social and political debate? Can the sheer momentum of popular discussions project and propel misguided ideas about change? What are the built-in safety measures to protect those being accused in the growing courts of global public opinion? Is there recourse for those whose names get tarnished? How do falsely accused people restore their tarnished reputations?



And perhaps the central question: If mass media shapes social and political and even economic change, what happens to existing institutions of governance?



These are heavy issues, ones that will have a powerful impact on the level of societal discourse in the months and years ahead in the Arab world.

(Publish in english.alarabiya.net April 30, 2011)

Will Marrakesh attack dash hopes for reform in Morocco?

By MUSTAPHA AJBAILI


Al Arabiya

Following an attack in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh on Thursday that left 17 people killed and 23 wounded, Moroccans fear their hopes for freedom could be dashed by a likely increase in security around the country.



While the interior ministry and its security organs were busy searching for the traces of the perpetrators, political observers and independent media were busy trying to answer two main questions: Who might benefit from the attack? And what are the implications of the bombing on the process of political reform?



The questions were raised after the interior ministry announced that the attack was “criminal,” and were repeated when the bombing was termed “terrorist” by the authorities.



Initially the reports suggested the explosion that happened in Argana café in Marrakesh’s Jamaa el-Fna Square was an accident caused by the explosion of several gas canisters. But the authorities quickly changed the cause of the explosion. An “explosion” of gas canisters simply doesn’t sound as terrifying as “criminal act,” or “act of terrorism.” If the authorities wanted to deter more street demonstrations, then the episode—however tragic in terms of loss of lives—played into their hands.



Abdelilah Benkiran, the secretary general of the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party, has condemned the attack but warned it should not turn Moroccan’s eyes on the need for political reform. He said the event would likely not have an effect on the growing popular demands for political reform and the fight against corruption.



Mustapha Al-Khalfi, an expert in the affairs of Islamist groups, said the bombing happened at a sensitive time marked by intense political activity for democratic reforms. Mr. al-Khalfi added that the timing of the attack justifies the fears about its implications on the democratic reforms.



“Whatever the party that stands behind this terror act and its goals, the state should carry further deep the process of political and democratic reforms and overcome the effect of the shock,” he said.



Morocco’s pro-democracy “February 20” movement has condemned the attacks and announced on a statement posted on its Facebook page plans to hold a “national rally” on Sunday, May 8, in Marrakesh to denounce terrorism and to renew its demands for democracy.



The movement has recently organized mass demonstrations in 80 cities and towns across the kingdom—of 32 million people, a GDP of $153 billion and a GDP per capita of about $5,000. Demonstrators called for putting an end of corruption.



Just how much would-be demonstrators fear public “explosions” such as the sad one in Marrakesh remains to be seen.



(Published in english.alarabiya.net on April 29)

 

Early elections in Morocco?

By MUSTAPHA AJBAILI

Al Arabiya

The Moroccan Prime Minister, Abbas El Fassi, has called for holding the upcoming legislative elections immediately after a referendum on constitutional reforms this year in response to protests against corruption and against his government.



Mr. el-Fasi said at a meeting with members of his Istiqlal (independence) party that it was impossible to wait until 2012 to hold the legislative elections amid increasing public anger against his government, local media reported on Monday.



Mr. El Fasi said it was necessary to respond to the “dynamism” in the Moroccan streets, and that an early election “must be held to start a new era.”



On Sunday tens of thousands of Moroccans staged peaceful protests across the country to demand more democratic reforms, justice and an end to corruption despite steps taken by King Mohammed VI to reform the constitution and release political prisoners.

Morocco braces for protests as unrest moves west

DUBAI (Mustapha Ajbaili)

A coalition of Moroccan youth groups called “The February 20 Movement” has called for mass peaceful protests in cities across Morocco on Sunday, to demand amendment of the constitution, dissolution of the government and parliament, and recognition of the Amazigh (Berber) language as an official language, among other things.

In a recent interview with France 24, Prince Moulay Hicham, a cousin of King Mohammed VI, said Morocco was not immune to popular uprisings currently sweeping the region and expressed his support for the planned peaceful protests on Feb. 20.

Inspired by the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the movement has used social media to spread the word about the protests and has recently published several videos of young men and women from different regions and social classes expressing their demands and aspirations.

Moroccan historian and former palace spokesman Hassan Aourid has thrown his weight behind the planned peaceful protests, calling for a change to a constitutional democratic monarchy, such as that in the UK, Spain, or in other democratic countries.

In response to what was seen as a smear campaign against its members accusing them of conspiring with “enemies of national unity” and threatening to destabilize national security and public order, the movement released another video on Saturday further explaining its background, goals and course of action.

"We are Moroccan youth, we love this country and we call for change and dignity," said a young man in the video following writings that read "Who are we?" in both Moroccan Arabic and Amazigh (Berber).

"We want a democratic constitution and we want to try the leaders of the country who have exploited the people and stole the country's wealth," another man said.

The movement reported on its Facebook page late on Friday that three of its members had withdrawn from the movement and were urging canceling the protests. 

The movement called those members “infiltrators” and said in its video released today it was going ahead with the protests.

A member of the movement said in a telephone interview from the coastal city of Agadir that leftist, Islamist and Amazigh groups have joined forces throughout the country to organize protests on Sunday.

The groups have managed to put their political and ideological differences aside and united around political change that will benefit them all, the man told Al Arabiya, adding that it was hard for him to predict how many people would take part in the protests.

He said the youth were determined to remain in the streets until their demands are met. He insisted that the protests will be peaceful but added that “things may become out of control if security forces resorted to the use of force.”

Most political parties have expressed reservations over the planned protests. The governing Independence Party criticized the February 20 Movement as lacking clear-sighted vision and responsible leadership.

Reports suggest that there are more than 30,000 civil society groups in Morocco with some having more members than political parties.

(First published at: www.alarabiya.net/English)

Mubarak should be told: “C’est La Revolution, Sire!”

Mustapha Ajbaili

 
Stubborn Egyptian President Housni Mubarak needs someone in his circle to tell him what the Duke of La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt told the French King Louise XVI. When crowds stormed Bastille in July 1789, the surprised king told the Duke, “That is a revolt!,” the Duke replied, “no Sire,” “C’est la revolution.”


The possibilities, however, that someone in Mubarak’s powerful military, business and political circles will tell him that the people want him gone is difficult to predict. The case of Tunisia, where army chief Rachid Ammar told ousted Ben Ali that the time was up for him to quit, is unlikely to happen in Egypt.

Unlike Tunisia, the military in Egypt is part of the corrupt regime, but what is more saddening is the undeniable fact that the military is a respected institution among the Egyptian public. The old guards in the Egyptian army are basking in what they see as historical achievements in their 1973 war against Israel, which led to the “liberation” of Sinai. (The word Liberation between quotes because until now Egyptian army is still banned under the peace accord with Israel from deployment in some parts of Sainai).


During the ongoing popular upraising in Egypt, army generals are keeping the public at an arm’s length to tell them that they love them, but not to get too close to upset some allies at home and around the world.


Besides, army generals have a vested personal interest in the status quo in partnership, of course, with the business class, which Gamal Mubarak, a banker, brought to positions of political decision making through membership in the ruling National Democratic Party.


As the marriage of politics and business was formalized, the economic growth went above 6% but the benefits of such growth did not trickle down to the poor working class and about 40% of the population continued to live under two dollars a day. The economic growth in the last few years widened the rift between the rich and the poor making the eruption of a revolt simply a matter of time.


Now that it has erupted, what would it achieve? Certainly the rich and politically powerful upper class is all behind Mubarak, not only because he protects their interests, but more because he is their symbol drawing all the popular anger and attention away from them.

If Mubarak falls, the popular anger and attention will likely be re-oriented and directed towards them, and many of them would likely be brought to justice and driven out from positions of power in the government, in business, and in the media. It would be a reshuffling of the whole society not just of the regime. That is why Mubarak is stubborn and unwilling to surrender to the will of the people.


Despite all this, things can never be the way they were before January 25.The Egyptian revolution may not change everything overnight, but it has certainly fractured the old regime. Whether Mubarak’s succeeds to keep his post or not, he will never be the same Mubarak he was before January 25. The change is happening already and will continue, even slowly, and the powerful corrupt business, political and military elites will be divorced. The people have broken the fear barrier and they will continue to protest fearlessly for their rights.

The major fear is that if the regime becomes excessively irresponsive to the demands of the people, as expressed in the ongoing peaceful protests, we may see a shift toward the use of violence by protesters. We should keep in mind that thousands of arms were stolen from the central security buildings that were attacked by protesters on Friday of Rage and it is just a matter of time before they get to the hands of terrorists if security is not restored as soon as possible with the departure of Mubarak.

It is high time America told Mubarak “C’est la Revolution, Sire” if no one in his circle is willing to tell him so.