Political Quake in Morocco

Mustapha Ajbaili

Morocco’s Islamist Justice and Development Party (PJD) prevailed in local elections on Friday, scoring landslide victories in the country’s major cities of Casablanca, Rabat, Tangier, Marrakech, Fes and Agadir. In a major development, the Islamist party dislodged the opposition leader Hamid Chabat from his stronghold of Fes, which has been the political power base of the Istiqlal Party since independence and the hometown of Morocco’s aristocratic leadership for decades. Now it has fallen whole-heartedly to Islamists.

In Rabat the Islamist party also routed the Socialist Union and its iconic strategist and prominent economist Fathallah Oualalou, whose socialist activism propelled him to operate as the engine of Morocco’s privatization program, what an irony this is!!!  

In Casablanca, the PJD captured most seats and is now set to manage the economic hub of the kingdom unchallenged!

In Marrakech, the tourist hub with a vibrant night life, the Islamist party ousted the the Authenticity and Modernity Party (PAM), which was formed in 2008 and quickly shot to power nationwide in 2009. PAM is the most controversial party in the country. PJD leader Benkirane refers to it as a “gang” of suspected big money launders and drug dealer and bankers!

In Agadir, the southern tourist magnet, and the hometown of this author, the PJD overthrew the socialist Union which ruled the city for 34 years

This is a major development in Morocco’s democratic experiment. Now the question is: what does it mean that the Islamist party has won?

This will be the subject of my following blog post later today.  Stay tuned.

Egypt Brotherhood’s presidential victory claim seen as preemptive maneuver

By Mustapha Ajbaili

Muslim Brotherhood’s presidential candidate Mohammed Mursi’s surprise dawn media appearance in which he claimed victory in Egypt’s first free election was seen as a “preemptive maneuver” to thwart possible vote rigging by the election commission backed by the ruling generals.

The vast and well-organized network of the Muslim Brotherhood began releasing instant results of the vote count shortly after the polling stations closed at 10 p.m. on Sunday. The results showed Mursi advancing in most of the provinces.

His rival and former air force commander Ahmad Shafiq was shown to be leading in few but sizable areas, including the Sharqia province, which is home to both candidates.

About six hours into the vote count, Mursi’s campaign, which had delegates in all the 13,000 plus polling centers across Egypt, compiled results and announced its victory in a press conference at dawn.

After a campaign spokesman said Mursi had secured 52.5 percent of the votes, against 47.5 of Shafiq, the Brotherhood candidate surprisingly appeared to make the announcement himself.

Surrounded by senior Brotherhood members, including the president of the dissolved People’s Assembly, Mursi promised to be the president of all Egyptians and offered a message of “peace.”

“Hand-in-hand with all Egyptians for a better future, freedom, democracy, development and peace,” Mursi said, without clearly stating that he had won the election, apparently leaving it for the electoral commission to formally announce.

“We are not seeking vengeance or to settle accounts,” he said, adding that he would build a “modern, democratic state” for all Egyptian citizens, Muslims and Christians.

Veteran Egyptian journalist Ahmed Abdallah, said Mursi’s “prompt declaration of victory was a smart move against any possible attempt to rig the results in favor of Shafiq.

“Because everything is possible in Egyptian politics, the Brotherhood moved quickly to claim victory and present results from their widely effective network of delegates across the nation,” he said.

“If they had waited until the morning, the results could have been different,” Abdallah said.

In the same vein, deputy editor-in-chief of AlArabiya.net, Farrag Ismail, said the Brotherhood’s quick move to declare victory was “a precautionary measure for fear of fraud.”

In the first round of the elections, Brotherhood held a press conference every hour to announce the latest results “with the January 25 television channel covering the press conferences as a testimony,” he said.

“The Brotherhood’s announcement early this morning was seen by some as a precipitous declaration, but they did it because they did not trust the high electoral commission which oversees the elections and they did not trust the military council, believed to favor Shafiq.”

Supporters of Mursi flocked to Cairo’s iconic Tahrir Square on Monday morning to celebrate their candidate’s self-proclaimed victory.

Any different result in favor of Shafiq, if announced by the election commission this week, would likely anger Mursi’s supporters already celebrating in the streets and would plunge the country deeper in turmoil.

Spokesman for Shafiq’s campaign, Ahmed Sarhan, told the media this morning that the Brotherhood’s declaration was designed to establish a de facto situation to discredit any possible different results that could be announced later by the independent election commission.

(Published on English.AlArabiya.net Monday June 18, 2012)

Egyptians are as polarized today as they were under Mubarak

By Mustapha Ajbaili

Torn between the choice of a former air force commander who promised to restore stability with an iron fist and an Islamist who pledged to implement “God’s law” if elected president, many secularists in Egypt turn to Tahrir Square to seek refuge from an excruciating reality.

Following the ouster of Hosni Mubarak last year, liberal democrats shifted the focus of their ire to the generals who took over power. However, the refusal by the Muslim Brotherhood to join the protests for an immediate end to military rule essentially aborted the “second revolution.”

Observers in both the West and the Arab world should have understood then that the Islamist movement is the key to any major change in the country. Mainstream Arab and Western media portrayed the conflict in post-revolutionary Egypt as one between the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and the liberal revolutionaries.

Reality indicates that this is a major conflict but not a defining one.

Recent results from the presidential elections coupled with the verdict in former president Hosni Mubarak’s trial reveal that a decades-old fight between the Brotherhood and the former regime is far from over and that it continues to dominate and shape the country’s political scene.

Egyptians are as polarized today as they were during Mubarak’s decades-old rule. The old regime, with its links to the military, has served the interests of many people who continue to support it. The Brotherhood relies on a wide base of staunch supporters and members linked in a web of complicated shared interests as well.

The liberals who dream of a Western-style democracy find themselves on the periphery with the painful reality of having to choose between Mohammed Mursi and Ahmed Shafiq or boycott the elections.

George Friedman, of Stratfor Global Intelligence, recently wrote that Westerners misunderstood the popular movement demanding an end to the military rule as one that was “driven by the spirit of Western liberalism.”

“The result is that we have a showdown not between the liberal democratic mass and a crumbling military regime but between a representative of the still-powerful regime (Shafiq) and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

(Published on English.alarabiya.net on June 11, 2012)

Egypt’s ‘trial of the century’ a warning for revolutionary forces

By Mustapha Ajbaili

 

Following today’s ruling that sent Hosni Mubarak and his interior minster, Hababi al-Adly, to prison for life and the acquittal of Mubarak’s two sons’ Alaa and Gamal and other senior members of the Central Security (SS), revolutionary powers were dealt another blow and it is time they put their differences aside and re-collect themselves in a powerful mass to push back against the old regime that is now forcefully returning to Egypt. 

The ruling military in Egypt has succeeded in driving a wedge between revolutionary forces as it drove the battle from the streets of Cairo to a legal maze and a network of constitutional paths and hedges.

 

Legal immunity for Morocco’s armed forces rings alarm bells

                                               (Photo courtesy of Hespress)
By Mustapha Ajbaili

A Moroccan draft law that seeks to grant members of the armed forces legal immunity for “military operations” carried out inside the kingdom has sparked criticism by human rights organizations who say it violates the principle of equal justice under law.

The “basic guarantees for the military” draft law states that “criminal investigation shall not be applied to members of the Royal Armed Forces who are executing the orders of their commanders…during an operation inside the national territories.”
The proposed legislation also states that military members will be “entitled to state protection … against threats, prosecution, or abuse during or after their duty.”

The participation of military forces in the crackdown on pro-democracy protests in some Arab Spring countries like Libya, Yemen and currently Syria, has left many people in the region increasingly suspicious about their armed forces.

The Egyptian army, for instance, had noticeably sided with protesters in the early days of the country’s anti-regime uprising, but was later accused of violently cracking down on protests and of committing extra-judicial killings and imprisoning revolutionaries.

A coalition of 18 human rights organizations in Morocco last week sounded alarm bells by warning that the proposed legislation would “legitimize the rules of impunity” if passed.

In a joint statement, the rights groups dismissed the draft law – prepared and submitted by the minister delegate for defense in the Islamist-led government – as a “dangerous step that would jeopardize freedoms and threaten the safety and the lives of the citizens.”

The Moroccan Coalition for Human Rights Groups urged the parliament not to approve the draft legislation, which it said needed “substantial amendments to conform to basic principles of human rights and the state of law.”

“Issuing and executing military orders has to be in accordance with the rules of professionalism and responsibility attached to members of the armed forces in protecting civilians during states of war and peace,” the rights groups added.

The groups also said that the government should not allow human rights violations to take place under the pretexts of military discipline.

Families of victims who died in the Western Sahara War during 1975 -1991 also criticized the proposed legal immunity for members of the army, saying it “goes against the spirit of the new constitution and the recommendation of the Equity and Reconciliation Commission with regards to the questioning of security services and international treaties signed by Morocco.”

Ibrahim Asaidi, Arab world defense policies analyst, told Al Arabiya that Article 7 of the proposed legislation “clearly” violates Morocco’s new constitution, which states that all citizens, including members of the armed forces, are equal under the law.

Asaidi said the legislation is designed to protect high-ranking military officials, including powerful generals, from being questioned in high profile corruption cases nationally and internationally.

In February, Morocco’s King Mohammed pledged to improve the conditions of the serving and retired military personnel following small-scale protests by veterans and a few cases of soldiers burning themselves to death.


(Published on English.alarabiya.net May 28, 2012)

Has Morocco’s gov’t hit a brick wall in reform mission?

By Mustapha Ajbaili


Since assuming office nearly five months ago, Morocco’s moderate Islamist-led government has worked arduously to punch a hole in an old system resistant to reform. It has failed almost at every attempt, disappointed many of those who saw in them a glimmer of hope, and created enemies with various social forces, including largely the unemployed graduates.

The pessimists are gaining ground and the protest movement, once thought to be dead, rebounded last Sunday with sizeable rallies in several cities.

The much publicized “participatory governance” ─ a shared decision-making process between elected officials and the royal court ─ has turned into a euphemistic expression for a post-Arab Spring form of collective totalitarianism.

Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane has walked a tightrope for almost five months, trying to satisfy the public without upsetting the king and the coterie of oligarchs running the political show from behind a curtain.

During the election campaign, Benkirane’s Justice and Development Party (JPD) promised to mend the state budget by fighting corruption, inequality, and privileges.
Benkirane must have known well that he was up against a system set up in a way to ensure that no political party wins an outright majority and is thus unable to form a government by itself.

Benkirane found himself in a coalition with one of Morocco’s most corrupt and powerful political parties, the Istiqlal (Independence) party and the populist Islamist leader will see his coalition breaking apart the moment he begins to touch sensitive nerves of corruption.

We saw that recently when PJD Minister of Information Mustapha el-Khalfi came up with a proposal to reform the media sector. The proposed bill contained new audiovisual media guidelines devised to ensure the transparency, independence and competitiveness in the sector. Media hawks orbiting the establishment, best known locally as the Makhzen, hit back at the minister’s proposed plan and rejected it entirely.

Why?
Mediated explanations focused on the fact that the new guidelines sought to “Islamize” the Moroccan media and that the hawks were defending the values of modernity, openness and liberty.

However, such values are the least of their concerns. They are more concerned about money and about losing their privileges, because the new guidelines call for the transparency of audiovisual production contracts and that they be awarded on merit, not favoritism.

What happened next?

The hawks appeared to have won the skirmish. The minister was summoned to the palace and all we heard later was that his proposed bill was ordered to be shelved.

This is just a small example of the government’s failure to reform the system and while it is still early to make a definitive judgment about its performance, its tendency to surrender each time it provokes a fight is frustrating to the people.

Implicit alliance of Egypt’s Islamists and military rulers shows cracks

By: Mustapha Ajbaili


An alliance that was formed following the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak between Egypt’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood group and the intractable ruling generals has exhibited cracks in the recent weeks as the country moves closer to the presidential race.


Both parties built up their strengths in the shade during Mubarak’s 30-year rule. The military took advantage of billions of dollars in U.S. military aid to strengthen itself far from the public limelight, while the Muslim brotherhood built up a massive underground network that brought it closer to the lives of millions of Egyptians.


In the wake of the Jan. 25 revolution, both forces made their presence felt in the country’s political center stage. Both appeared to understand one another’s might, agenda, and the need for mutual cooperation, which developed into an alliance – however implicit this might be. The coming together of the two forces in the post-revolutionary Egypt spared the country a clash of the titans.


Coming under fire from liberal groups last year, the military moved closer to the Brotherhood and succumbed to its “less painful” demands in several occasions to win their support. For the generals, winning the support of Egypt’s most powerful political bloc was essential for steering the boat in the direction of their intended objective, which looks more like a democracy, but not a democracy. They want a system in which elected officials manage domestic affairs but have little say on strategic matters.


While everyone was busy talking about a “Turkish model” that reconciles Islam with democracy, the generals in Cairo appeared to be heading towards a “Turkish model” in which a "pasha" general – like the leader of Turkey’s 1980 military coup, Kenan Evren – acts as the custodian of the state’s strategic issues, especially when it comes to foreign policy, including primarily the relation with the United States and Israel.


Muslim Brotherhood leaderships, appearing to have learned from decades of enmity with Egyptian rulers, decided this time it was in their best interest to support the military in the path to democracy, because they are all but certain to emerge as the victors.


The two forces had interests in joint collaboration during the transitional period, but their starkly different – if not opposing – visions of the future dictated their inevitable breakup – and the cracks are emerging.


The Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), has expressed cynicism over the military council’s staunch support for the cabinet of Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri.


“Is it a desire to abort the revolution and destroy the people’s belief in their ability to achieve their goals? Or is there an intention to defraud or influence the forthcoming presidential election?” the Brotherhood’s party asked in a statement.


“If anyone intends to reproduce the former corrupt regime with new faces, the people are ready to move in order to revive their revolution,” the Islamist party threatened.


The military and the Brotherhood have worked together – or rather played together – in an often climate of distrust, which never burst into the open until last week.


Egypt’s military ruler Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi said he could not take it anymore. “We were careful not to be provoked, but what happened recently is enough.” Sounding the warning bell, he called “on all to be aware of history’s lessons not to repeat past mistakes.”


At this stage in Egypt’s transition, the Muslim Brotherhood likely realized that it and the military have two different understandings of democracy.


Unlike the generals, Islamists want a democracy in which elected officials and public institutions would have full power over the military and the country’s foreign policy. The ruling generals, under pressure from Washington, will never accept this…at least without a fight. It is Israel’s security here which is at stake!



(Published in English.alarabiya.net on March 2, 2012)

مغرب "الأوراش الكبرى"... إلى أين؟

مصطفى اجبيلى

 

ميناء طنجة المتوسط، تي جي في طنجة - الدار البيضاء، موروكو مول... إلخ، كلها مشاريع كبيرة من شأن أي بلد أن يفتخر بمثلها. لكن إلى أي حد يمكن لمثل هذه المشاريع أن تسهم حقاً في التنمية الاقتصادية للبلد؟ وما مدى نجاعتها في تقليص البطالة ومحاربة الفقر وتعزيز التنمية البشرية في بلد يتذيل بلدان شمال إفريقيا والشرق الأوسط في نسب التعليم؟ 

من بين عشرات المقالات اليومية في الجرائد المغربية نجد النقد والنقد المضاد في الشأن السياسي والاجتماعي وغيره, دونما التطرق بشكل كافٍ للسياسات الاقتصادية التي ينتهجها البلد. 

وقد أثار موضوع "الأوراش الكبرى" بالتحديد اهتمامي كونها تكلف دافعي الضرائب في المغرب أموالاً طائلة، وتجعل البلد برمته عبداً دائماً للدول والمؤسسات المالية العالمية المانحة للقروض دون أن تقدم هذه المشاريع "العملاقة" مردوداً إيجابياً ملحوظاً للشعب، خصوصاً الفئات الفقيرة منه. ربما تساعد هذه المشاريع في خلق بضعة آلاف من فرص العمل وتشجيع بعض الاستثمارات الأجنبية هنا وهناك, لكن الثمن باهظ جداً على المغرب. فمعظم تلك المشاريع عبارة عن صفقات سياسية أكثر منها اقتصادية. 

فمشروع القطار السريع يوهمني بأن المغاربة كلهم في عجلة من أمرهم كي يقطعوا المسافة من طنجة إلى الدار البيضاء في ساعتين عوضاً عن أربع. هذا المشروع - بحسب مراقبين - هو صفقة لإرضاء فرنسا الغاضبة من شراء المغرب طائرات إف 16 الأميركية بدلاً من "رافال" الفرنسية.. ببساطة هكذا تبدو الأمور. فرنسا أقرضت المغرب ملياري يورو كجزء أكبر من ميزانية إنشاء المشروع. ومعظم هذا المبلغ سيعود إلى فرنسا من خلال الشركة الفرنسية المكلفة بإنشاء المشروع والمهندسين الفرنسيين الذين سيعملون في المشرع.  

هكذا تعمل الدول والمؤسسات الكبرى، تقرض الأموال للدول الفقيرة من خلال اتفاقيات رسمية وتستعيدها في البداية  بشكل غير مباشر من خلال شركاتها التي تعمل في إنشاء هذه المشاريع، وبعدها بشكل مباشر حيث تقوم الدول الفقيرة بسداد الديون والفوائد المفروضة عليها، وحين تشتد الأزمات الاجتماعية على هذه الدول الفقيرة وتتخلف عن سداد ديونها في الوقت المطلوب تعاد جدولة هذه الديون بشروط عادة ما تكون سياسية كشراء الذمم في الأمم المتحدة والتبعية المطلقة، أو اقتصادية كفرض مزيد من الفوائد على القروض وفتح المزيد من القطاعات أمام الشركات الغربية، وفى بعض الأحيان تفرض عليك أن تقبل أن تكون مزبلة لنفاياتها النووية أو مستنقعاً لصناعاتها الملوثة للبيئة.. وكل هذا طبعاً باسم التنمية الاقتصادية العمياء. 

هذا ما يحدث في المغرب للأسف الشديد، نقترض فنتورّط ثم تُفرض علينا شروط من قبيل أن نفتح مولاً كبيراً لتسويق الماركات العالمية وامتصاص المزيد من دماء المغاربة، أو منح هكتارات شاسعة من الأراضي لهذا الغربي أو ذاك الخليجي.

أتساءل ما إذا كان بإمكان فرنسا أن تقرضنا ملياري يورو لكي نطور بها صناعاتنا الوطنية ونبني بها مؤسسات لتكوين طاقات بشرية في أعلى المستويات العالمية. غالب الظن أن فرنسا سترفض؛ لأنها لو فعلت ستكون بذلك تساعد المغرب على أن يكون مستقلاً ذاتياً ومنافساً لها ولشركاته ولطاقاتها البشرية.

لقد آن الأوان لمن يرعى سياسات التنمية الاقتصادية في المغرب أن يدرك أن المغرب ليس دبي ولا أمريكا لكي يبني مولات وقطارات سريعة تورطنا أكثر مما تفيدنا. فلو كانت فيها فائدة لوجدنا تركيا كلها مولات وقطارات سريعة، فمثل هذه المشاريع عادة ما تكون عبارة عن مظاهر وليس دوافع للازدهار الاقتصادي، وهذا ما يجب أن يدركه المغرب، حسب رأيي المتواضع.

‘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)