Foreign Policy of Dignity

[muse]

Friends:


Given the editorial above and the fact that now so many around the world see and understand, that there is an imperial project at work -- but that does not mean everyone is on board this imperial project - not just in the US or Europe or Asia, but also such global insurrectionists
as Al-Qaida --- consider the pieces below:


April 17, 2011
Al Qaeda Stirs Again
By JUAN C. ZARATE

Washington

MANY in the West had taken comfort in Al Qaeda’s silence in the wake of the uprisings in the Muslim world this year, as secular, nonviolent protests, led by educated youth focused on redressing longstanding local grievances, showcased democracy’s promise and seemed to leave Al Qaeda behind.

Indeed, the pristine spirit of the Arab Spring does represent an existential threat to Al Qaeda’s extremist ideology. But Al Qaeda’s leaders also know that this is a strategic moment. They are banking on the disillusionment that inevitably follows revolutions to reassert their prominence in the region. And now Al Qaeda is silent no more — and is taking the rhetorical offensive.

In recent statements, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command, and Qaeda surrogates have aligned themselves with the protesters in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere, while painting the West as an enemy of the Arab people.

In North Africa, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claimed that while protesters flooded the streets of Tunis and Cairo, it had been fighting in the mountains against the same enemies. Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric affiliated with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, declared that in the wake of the revolutions, “our mujahedeen brothers ... will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation” and that “the great doors of opportunity would open up for the mujahedeen all over the world.”

Mr. Zawahri has denounced democracy, arguing that toppling dictators is insufficient and that “justice, freedom, and independence” can be achieved only through “jihad and resistance until the Islamic regime rises.”

The chaos and disappointment that follow revolutions will inevitably provide many opportunities for Al Qaeda to spread its influence. Demographic pressures, economic woes and corruption will continue to bedevil even the best-run governments in the region. Divisions will beset the protest movements, and vestiges of the old regimes may re-emerge.

Al Qaeda and its allies don’t need to win the allegiance of every protester to exert their influence; they have a patient view of history.

Although Washington must avoid tainting organic movements or being perceived as a central protagonist, the United States and its Western allies should not be shy about working with reformers and democrats to shape the region’s trajectory — and ensuring Al Qaeda’s irrelevance in the Sunni Arab world, the heart of its supposed constituency.

In countries where autocrats have been toppled (as in Egypt and Tunisia), we must help shape the new political and social environment; in nondemocratic, allied states (like the region’s monarchies), we need to accelerate internal reform; and in repressive states (like Iran, Libya and Syria), we should challenge the legitimacy of autocratic regimes and openly assist dissidents and democrats.

This is not about military intervention or the imposition of American-style democracy. It is about using American power and influence to support organic reform movements.

The United States Agency for International Development and advocacy organizations can help civil society groups grow; human rights groups can organize and assist networks of dissidents; and Western women’s groups and trade unions could support their counterparts throughout the Middle East. Wealthy philanthropists and entrepreneurs who are part of the Middle Eastern diaspora could make investments and provide economic opportunities for the region’s youth, while technology companies interested in new markets could partner with anticorruption groups to aid political mobilization and increase government accountability and transparency. Hollywood and Bollywood writers and producers should lionize the democratic heroes who took to the streets to challenge the orthodoxy of fear.

A focused campaign to shape the course of reform would align our values and interests with the aspirations of the protesters. More important, it would answer the challenge from Al Qaeda to define what happens next and reframe the tired narratives of the past.

In 2005, Mr. Zawahri anticipated this battle for reform and noted that “demonstrations and speaking out in the streets” would not be sufficient to achieve freedom in the Muslim world. If we help the protesters succeed, it will not only serve long-term national security interests but also mark the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda.

Juan C. Zarate, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was the deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism from 2005 to 2009.



March 30, 2011
Islamists Are Elated by Revolts, Cleric Says
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni-American cleric who is a top propagandist for Al Qaeda, broke his silence on the uprisings in the Arab world on Wednesday, claiming that Islamist extremists had gleefully watched the success of protest movements against governments they had long despised.

“The mujahedeen around the world are going through a moment of elation,” Mr. Awlaki wrote in a new issue of the English-language Qaeda magazine Inspire, “and I wonder whether the West is aware of the upsurge of mujahedeen activity in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Arabia, Algeria and Morocco?”

Mr. Awlaki’s four-page essay, titled “The Tsunami of Change,” is among a handful of statements by Al Qaeda’s leaders countering the common view among Western analysts that the terrorist network looks irrelevant at a time of change unprecedented in the modern Middle East. In ousting the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt and threatening other Arab leaders, a core of secular-leaning demonstrators have called for democracy and generally avoided violence — all at odds with Al Qaeda’s creed as it tries to instill rigid Islamist rule across the world.

In an audio statement this month, the Egyptian deputy to Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahri, pleaded with the Egyptians who toppled President Hosni Mubarak to shun the United States, reject democracy and embrace Islam as the answer to their problems. Arguing that Al Qaeda deserved some indirect credit for the uprisings, he said the United States’ willingness to drop its support for Mr. Mubarak and other authoritarian leaders was a “direct result” of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Awlaki’s essay is more colloquial and confident, asserting that the momentous change in Arab countries left Western leaders “confused, worried, and unhappy for the departure of some of its closest and most reliable friends.”

He quotes American commentators who describe the uprisings as a refutation of Al Qaeda, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion last month that “the success of peaceful protests has discredited the extremists.”

Mr. Awlaki, who is thought to be hiding in Yemen, argues that such conclusions are premature. “The outcome doesn’t have to be an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step in the right direction,” he writes.

By “breaking the barriers of fear” and toppling leaders who protected “American imperial interests,” he asserts, the uprisings should play to the long-term advantage of Al Qaeda’s philosophy. He points to Yemen and Libya, where embattled leaders are clinging to power, as places where turmoil could open possibilities for jihadists to organize.

Mr. Awlaki’s statement comes as some American officials have expressed anxiety about just that possibility. In Libya, an American military official said this week that there were “flickers” of intelligence suggesting that Qaeda or Hezbollah operatives were among the rebels fighting Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. And in Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s weakening grip on power could take pressure off Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Expressing hope that revolution will spread from Yemen to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Awlaki asks, “Doesn’t the West realize how the jihadi work would just take off as soon as the regimes of the Gulf start crumbling?”

Jarret Brachman, a counterterrorism analyst and author of “Global Jihadism,” said the Qaeda propagandists are “consummate opportunists — no matter what happens, these guys will try to spin it to their benefit.” But he said several influential Qaeda theorists appear to believe that the departure of authoritarian leaders will prove advantageous.

“Al Qaeda recognizes how marginal they are on this,” Mr. Brachman said. “But it could open the kind of operating space they’ve wanted for a long time.”

Inspire magazine, five issues of which have been posted on militant Web sites, is believed to be the work primarily of Samir Khan, a Saudi-born American who grew up in Queens and North Carolina before moving to Yemen in 2009. It is a slick, graphics-heavy, irreverent publication aimed at young Muslims attracted to the extremist cause; the latest issue includes an invitation to readers to e-mail questions to Mr. Awlaki and a two-page primer on how to use an AK automatic rifle.

Mr. Khan himself contributed to Inspire an appeal to Egyptians not to stop after overthrowing Mr. Mubarak but to impose religious rule.

“The question now comes: what do you do if your government decides not to rule by Shariah?” he asks, referring to Islamic law. “Who does your loyalty go to? The state or Allah?”


With that statement, Mr. Khan whom the article suggests is a Saudi Born American from Queens (though from his name he is more than likely either Pakistani, Indian or Afghan) poses the classic question all Pakistani Islamicans and the insurectionn in Pakistan is inspired by --

Now note the date of the piece below:


Bin Laden deputy sends message
AL-JAZEERA
June 18, 2005

Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant urged Muslims to press on with their jihad against U.S. and Western interests in the "land of Islam," saying that Islamic nations must be allowed to run their own affairs without foreign interference.

The Arabic language television network Al-Jazeera aired on Friday portions of the video by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 man in al Qaeda -- his first message in four months.

The gray-bearded, bespectacled terrorist leader looked healthier and fuller than he did in his last message, which aired February 20.

An assault rifle sat propped up against a wall behind his right shoulder as he spoke.

"Kicking out the invading crusader forces and the Jews will not only happen by demonstrations and by shouting in the streets. Reform and expulsion of the invaders out of the Muslim land will only be accomplished by fighting for the sake of God," said al-Zawahiri.

He then cited a Quranic verse: "God said fight them and God will torture them through your hands."

Al-Zawahiri did not make a specific date reference. The tape does include his mention of protests in Egypt last month, the Al-Jazeera anchor said.

Al-Zawahiri appealed to Muslims with what he called al Qaeda's three pillars for reform: following Islamic law (Sharia); freedom of the "land of Muslims" and allowing the "Islamic nation" to run its own affairs without foreign interference.

He was sharply critical of U.S. embassies in Islamic countries, accusing them of "meddling."

He said, "We cannot imagine any reform while our land is occupied by the crusaders who are stationed on all our land, from end to end."

To Palestinians, he said they should continue to fight and not "be dragged into the secular game of elections under a secular constitution."

"I salute my brothers in the Muslim stronghold of Palestine, and I ask them by God not to abandon their jihad and not to lay down their weapons and not to believe the advice given to them by the secularists."

Al-Zawahiri, who turns 54 on Sunday, is one of the most wanted men in the world.

The U.S. government has posted a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture. In addition to being bin Laden's top adviser, he is believed to be bin Laden's personal doctor.

Al-Zawahiri has been indicted in the United States for his alleged role in the August 7, 1998, bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya that killed 225 people and wounded thousands of others.

 

[muse]

Now that it's become clear that the Arab Spring has devolved into a US project and that any Arab country allied with US has not a snow flake's chance in hell of being a free or even a modestly free society - and that the Pakistan establishment will find themselves buying into the counter revolutionary paradigm spear headed by Saudi Arabia - where do relations between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan stand?:



Warmth is back in ties with Saudi Arabia?
By Syed Rashid Husain


RIYADH: Hina Rabbani Khar, the minister of state for foreign affairs, is to begin an official visit to Saudi Arabia on Saturday.
In normal circumstances, a visit by a Pakistani minister to Riyadh would make no news at all. But these are interesting, although not abnormal, times in Pakistan-Saudi relationship.

There is a consensus among political observers that after the inception of the PPP-led government in 2008, Islamabad’s ties with Riyadh had lost the warmth that had defined their partnership for the past six decades.

But the chill has apparently given way to a thaw, the observers think, and Islamabad now seems to be back on the regional radar — for more than one reasons.

The visit is taking place in the backdrop of the so called ‘Arab spring’ which has almost stalled and appears to be going nowhere. Old regional alignments are being revived and new alignments have been emerging on the wider Middle East chessboard as a new cold war between regional
heavyweights gets stickier.

The ongoing popular uprising in a number of countries have all lent a new meaning to the Arab-Iran gulf. And Pakistan’s role in the scenario has come under a renewed focus.

Events over the past few years have only helped reinforce and entrench misgivings within the Arab world about the growing Iranian influence. The departure of Saddam Hussain from Baghdad and the fostering of Maliki government in Iraq, has led many to look at the development from a different perspective- the growing Shia influence in the Arab world.

King Abdullah of Jordan once referred to it as “the expanding Shia crescent” in the region. Arab governments feel apprehensive on that account.
And recent events seem to have only reinforced their fears.

In Lebanon the influence of the pro-Iran Hezbollah is ascending — at the expense of the Saudi-backed Hariri. This was regarded by many here as a strategic loss.

Riyadh has also been complaining, for long, of the growing Iranian influence in Hamas-ruled Gaza. And to counter Tehran’s growing clout, Riyadh had little option than supporting the pro-West Abbas set-up in the West Bank. Then the upheaval in Egypt turned out to be the last straw on the back of the proverbial camel. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia supported Hosni Mubarak till the end.

The US failure to support Mubarak, not only soured the political relations between Riyadh and Washington, but also forced the Kingdom to play its cards rather aggressively. There was no room for further complacency — many felt here.

When the uprising began in Bahrain, everyone here in Riyadh realised the stakes were too high. The option of watching things take its own course was definitely not on the table. Riyadh acted and acted swiftly.

WAR OF WORDS

An explosive war of words erupted between Riyadh and Tehran. Events in Bahrain exacerbated tensions between Saudi Arabia, its Arab allies and Iran, dragging relations between them to its ebb in at least a decade and setting the stage for confrontations elsewhere in the region.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, comprising six Arab states around the Gulf, was also dragged into action. The GCC explicitly warned Iran of dire consequences, if it continued endeavouring to make inroads into the Arab world.

Back-channel diplomacy was also used to send the message in rather clear terms to Tehran. Gulf governments were no more ready to give in and vowed doing everything at their disposal to protect their ‘legitimate interests’.

Hands off the Arab world — was the clear message to Iran. And in the meantime, the Arab world also went into full gear to galvanise support and muscle to block Tehran’s inroads, into what is being termed here the ‘Arab territory’ – through the Shia soft belly of the Arab states.

And it is here that Pakistan and Turkey got into the loop too. For after all these are the two strongest countries — as far as muscle is concerned — within the Sunni world.

A stream of events took place in a short span of time. Saudi National Security Council chief Prince Bandar bin Abdul Aziz came over to Islamabad, immediately after the meeting in Kuwait of President Zardari and Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz, the second deputy premier and the long-time interior minister.

And Prince Bandar’s visit was preceded by a visit of the Saudi chief of staff to Pakistan. In the meantime, the Bahraini foreign minister also dashed to Pakistan, despite the ongoing strife in his country.

Something was indeed brewing. Islamabad was again on the radar in Riyadh. Interestingly, the visit of Hina Rabbani Khar to Riyadh was announced after Prince Bandar sent a letter to Prime Minister Gilani — following up on his meetings in Islamabad late last month. In the letter, Prince Bandar reiterated Saudis’ desire to further strengthen relations with Pakistan in all areas of mutual interest.

In the aftermath of Prince Bandar’s regional visit, Riyadh has already signed a security agreement with Malaysia, vowing to enhance the level of security cooperation between the two countries. And after his Beijing trip, Saudi Arabia and China too announced signing an agreement on nuclear cooperation for peaceful purpose.

And Prince Bandar is no ordinary diplomat. He is often regarded as a trouble-shooter for Riyadh. John Hannah, writing in the Foreign Policy magazine, says: ‘Saudi Arabia’s legendary former ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is once again a major presence on the world stage.’

And his previous visit to Pakistan did not escape world attention and generated considerable interest. In the same story Hannah says: “More interestingly – and undoubtedly more worrisome – at the end of March, in the wake of the Saudi intervention in Bahrain, Bandar was dispatched to Pakistan, China and India to rally support for the kingdom’s hard line approach to the region’s unrest.

“Bandar’s formidable skills in the service of a Saudi Arabia that feels itself increasingly cornered and unable to rely on US protection is a formula for trouble — made even worse when the likes of Pakistan and China are thrown into the mix.

“No one should forget that, in the late 1980s, it was Bandar who secretly brokered the delivery of Chinese medium-range missiles to the kingdom, totally surprising Washington and nearly triggering a major crisis with Israel. The danger today, of course, is that the Saudis feel sufficiently threatened and alone to engage in similar acts of self-help.

“Would they seek to modernise their ballistic missile force? Even worse, would the kingdom go shopping for nuclear weapons or, at a minimum, invite Pakistan to deploy part of its nuclear arsenal in the country?”

As the Middle East convulses and Iran relentlessly inches closer to achieving a nuclear weapons capability, has that time finally arrived? Even short of these extreme scenarios, other troubling possibilities exist. During his trip to Pakistan, Bandar reportedly discussed contingencies under which thousands of additional Pakistani security forces might be dispatched to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to crush the uprising.

So it appears Pakistan is getting sucked into a regional cold war — and Washington may not mind it this time too. When Hina Rabbani Khar lands in Riyadh today, she can expect the red carpet to roll — once again. The talk of chill seems a distant story.

 

[Vinod2070]

Bandar reportedly discussed contingencies under which thousands of additional Pakistani security forces might be dispatched to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to crush the uprising.

So will the request be conceded if the contingency materializes?

Would there be a choice at all?

 

[muse]

Well, obviously we all hope that Pakistan will not accede to this - however, we can't just forget that there are other interests, and they see the world through different lens, they have different priorities - Personally, I think all these societies, even their Brinces and Brincesses will be better served by just coming clean, once and for all, liberty will not be denied, it just will not - so lets embrace it and move on -- but there is another fact at work and that is that The Arbi and the Iranian are in reality much closer to each other than they are to those who seek liberty and open societies - see both the Arbi and the iranian are religious tyrannies - they are fighting over what they say is "the truth" - the rest of us just want to the opportunity to discover or not, any "the truth" for ourselves.

 

[muse]

Bad News - in the present context, yes, unfortunately, this is not just bad but terrible news


Pakistan and Saudi Arabia agree to enhance ties
By Syed Rashid Husain

Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar meets her Saudi counterpart Dr Nizar bin Obaid Madani in Riyadh.—Dawn

RIYADH: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia agreed on Sunday to get over the irritants of recent past and take their relations to a much enhanced level.

A meeting between Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar and her Saudi counterpart Dr Nizar bin Obaid Madani agreed that concrete steps would be taken to dispel an impression that there was a ‘chill’ in ties between the two countries.

The Saudi Press Agency reported that the ministers discussed ways of enhancing relations and reviewed regional and international issues of common interest.

Diplomatic circles are of the opinion that a perception in Riyadh and other Gulf capitals that Iran was interfering in internal affairs of Arab countries must have also come under discussion.

“That was the prime reason for the flurry of diplomatic exchanges between Islamabad and Riyadh. And Iran must have figured prominently during the discussion,” a senior diplomat said.

According to sources, Saudi Arabia asked Pakistan to use its influence and good relations with Iran to persuade it to avoid interfering in Arab internal affairs.

The two sides stressed that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had the capacity to lead Ummah during these turbulent times.

Saudi Arabia also assured Pakistan that it would support its endeavours to safeguard its interests in Afghanistan.

Pakistani sources confirmed that Saudi Arabian political leadership had categorically stated that Pakistan’s interests would be taken care of.

Ms Khar was reportedly told that Saudi Arabia considered its relationship with Pakistan as strong and ‘special’ and that no other country could come even close to this level of political understanding.

Ms Khar also meet Saudi Vice Finance Minister Dr Hamad bin Sulaiman Al-Bazai. They discussed cooperation in economic areas and means of bolstering economic ties. The two sides agreed to increase the volume of the current Pakistan-Saudi business.

The director-general of the Export Programme of the Saudi Fund for Development, Ahmed Al-Ghannam, acting deputy of the Ministry of Economic Affairs Dr Sulaiman Al-Turki, Saudi Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Aziz Al- Ghadeer attended the meeting.

Ms Khar was aided by Pakistan’s Charge de Affaires Ayaz Mohammad Khan.

 

[muse]

April 29, 2011 01:53 IST
Guantánamo leaks undo the al-Qaeda myth
Jason Burke


Hidden deep in the leaked Guantánamo files is a small but important trove of information, too historical and too technical to have commanded much space in newspapers keener on hyperventilating about “nuclear al-Qaeda hellstorms” this week. Each of the 700-plus files includes a short biography of its subject. These cover his “prior history” and “recruitment and travel” to wherever he became fully engaged with violent extremism and, with brutal if unintended efficiency, demolish three of the most persistent myths about al-Qaeda.

The first is that the organisation is composed of men the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) trained to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan who then turned on their mentors. In fact among the bona fide al-Qaeda operatives detained in Guantánamo Bay there are very few who are actually veterans of the fighting in the 1980s, and none of these were involved with groups that received any substantial technical or financial assistance from the U.S., even indirectly via Pakistan.

The second is that an “international brigade” of Islamist extremists was responsible for the Soviet defeat. The records make it clear that their combat contribution was negligible.

The third myth is that most of those currently waging “jihad” against the Crusader-Zionist alliance or the “hypocrite, apostate regimes” of the Muslim world were actively recruited by al-Qaeda and brought, brainwashed, to Afghanistan to fight or be trained. The descriptions of almost all those in Guantánamo genuinely associated with al-Qaeda shows that in fact they spent much time and money overcoming many difficulties to find a way to reach al-Qaeda. They were not dumb or vulnerable youths “groomed” to be suicide bombers; they were highly motivated, often educated and intelligent, men.

Waves of mythmaking

Such details are easy to dismiss as irrelevant to the threat posed by Islamist militancy today. But they are not. For one of the elements marking the evolution of the discussion and analysis of the phenomenon that al-Qaeda constitutes is the extraordinary degree to which it has been informed by myths.

There have been various waves of mythmaking about al-Qaeda. The first wave came in the late 1990s, when the group gained international notoriety with attacks on U.S. embassies in east Africa and a warship off the Yemen.

It was then that the idea that al-Qaeda was “blowback” from the Afghan war became conventional wisdom. After 9/11 came a new, massive surge of fearful fantasy. There was the normal derogatory propaganda expected in wartime — that Bin Laden has deformed g******* or partied wildly with prostitutes — which gained no real purchase. A more pernicious myth was the idea that al-Qaeda was a “tentacular organisation” with sleeper cells across the world waiting for the moment to strike with weapons of mass destruction. This minimised the role that both ideology and a variety of historical factors (ranging from demographics in the Islamic world to a discourse that stressed the “humiliation” of Muslims by the West) had played in the success of the group.

The emphasis on the agency of Bin Laden and his entourage discouraged interest in the broader causes of terrorism and thus made the fundamental strategic errors made by the U.S. and other policymakers in the early part of the last decade much more likely to happen.

New Delhi's claim

Many myths were deliberately generated by governments. In 2002 and 2003, repressive and dictatorial regimes around the world scrabbled to uncover or rebrand local militant movements with long histories as al-Qaeda offshoots. New Delhi claimed that Bin Laden, a 6ft 4in Arab and one of the most recognisable fugitives for centuries, had hidden in Kashmir, a smallish part of India crawling with 500,000 soldiers and police.

Chemical, biological weapons

The Russians claimed the Chechen conflict was not about centuries of territorial wars in the Caucasus but about “global jihad.” The discovery of a local branch of al-Qaeda guaranteed major financial, diplomatic and military pay-offs from Washington — or at the very least a blind eye turned to domestic repression. So the Macedonians rounded up some Shia Pakistani immigrants, clothed them in combat outfits and shot the “al-Qaida operatives” dead.

Finally, there were the most egregious examples of mythmaking: the spurious connection of al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and the non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Most of the documents in the Guantánamo files date from 2003 to 2005, and reflect the concerns of the time. The assessments of each detainee reveal a particular focus on the threat of a mass casualty attack involving chemical and biological weapons.

For those who remember the headlines announcing al-Qaeda plans to smear ricin, a poison, along parts of the London underground nine years ago, the stories this week announcing the existence of an al-Qaeda nuclear device hidden in Europe, or that London is a “hub” for al-Qaeda activity, seem from a distant era when every reported scare provoked panic.

Indeed, many of this week's scare stories, based on the “confessions” of tortured Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, were leaked at the time, and now appear to have been made up or even the product of al-Qaeda's own myth machine. Now, thankfully, the public is better informed and less prone to being scared. Given that terrorists' primary aim is to terrorise, this is to be welcomed.

The events of this spring have shown that Bin Laden and his cronies are definitively drifting to the geographic, political, cultural and ideological margins of the Islamic world. Their attempt to radicalise and mobilise hundreds of millions of people has failed. Crowds shouting slogans of democracy, not of violence, have succeeded in forcing the departure of two dictators and shaken several more. The Arab spring started with a public self-immolation, an act of spectacular violence which impressed because it harmed no other and was thus a clear repudiation of the suicide attacks of the last decade. The few statements from al-Qaeda's leadership or affiliate groups have sounded tired and irrelevant.

One reason for the group's current weakness is the gradual unpicking of the myths that contributed to the fear al-Qaeda once inspired and the aura it had for the alienated and the angry of the Islamic world. Happily, it is unlikely those myths can be rebuilt.

 

[muse]

Friends: below is an important piece, yes it reaffirms what we all realize, but do trust me that a majority of Americans do not understand -- for God's sake, if they understood would their policies not reflect it?? IS the US RELEVANT?? How can it regain it's relevance? for the likes of the S2, thge US should not even try - but for less emotional peoples, should it even try?:


But what about Pakistan - where should Pakistan stand, with whom, against whom, and WHY? How can Pakistan earn relevance, How can it win empathy and serious consideration for her positions??



June 8, 2011
A Post-American Day Dawns in the Mideast
By RAY TAKEYH

WASHINGTON — Even as Washington struggles to come to terms with the Arab Spring, the Middle East is imperceptibly moving to a post-American era. Both allies and adversaries in the region are growing largely indifferent to America’s prohibitions. And as the Middle East’s shifts become more pronounced, it will become ever more difficult for the United States to pursue traditional security concerns such as disarming Iran or reinvigorating the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Let’s take a tour of the region:

On the surface, there is nothing particularly novel about Iranian or Syrian hostility to the United States. The theocratic Iranian state has long abjured America’s entreaties and seems determined to obtain a bomb at all cost. The Syrian regime has always been more ambivalent, but pledges of moderation made to successive U.S. administrations have somehow never materialized.

In any case, given the changes in the region, both of these states are now essentially beyond America’s diplomatic outreach. The clerical rulers of Iran, sensing an opportunity to project power in an unsettled region, will not allow themselves to be seen as conceding to American mandates. In Damascus, Bashar al-Assad’s brutal repression of his citizens has simply put him beyond the pale. Should he manage to survive, the so-called “Syria option” — whereby Israel and Syria trade land for peace — is all but dead.

For nearly 60 years, Saudi Arabia predicated its security on its American patron. The pledges of solidarity always concealed an incongruous relationship between a liberal democracy and a traditional monarchy. The oil-for-security compact, however, was underpinned by a more formidable alliance that worked effectively against common foes ranging from Soviet Communism to Saddam Hussein’s revisionism.

Today, Riyadh and Washington see the region in starkly different terms. The Arab Spring that has generated hopes in the West for responsive governance in the Middle East is seen in Saudi Arabia as an existential threat.

Riyadh is not just questioning the utility of its American alliance, but is moving beyond it. As the Saudi state rethinks its security, it is likely to conclude that it has to rely on its own resources as well as alliances with like-minded states rather than a United States that it increasingly views as unreliable. Alternative external patrons such as China, or a league of conservative Arab monarchies, or even an independent nuclear deterrent, are likely to be seriously contemplated in the House of Saud.

The Palestinian Authority’s decision to seek statehood at the United Nations has drawn much consternation in Washington. The Palestinians have lost the “armed struggle,” but the notion that American-led dialogue can relieve their burden has a diminishing audience among the Palestinians.

Nor is America likely to find much solace among emerging democracies such as Iraq and Egypt. The well-demonstrated nexus between nationalism and democracy makes it difficult for leaders whose position rests on serving their people’s interests to also embrace Washington’s priorities.

Such sentiments are becoming obvious in Iraq. At a time when public opinion in Iraq is averse to continued American presence, it is unlikely that politicians seeking votes in a competitive electoral environment will defy such nationalistic sentiments.

Similarly, the post-Tahrir Egypt is already defying the United States by forging diplomatic ties with Iran. The Egyptian hostility toward Iran was an indulgence of President Hosni Mubarak; the emerging Egyptian government sees little reason to sustain the fallen despot’s enmity toward a regime that enjoys popular acclaim on the Arab street.

All this is not to suggest that new democracies will rupture relations with the United States, but that in certain important respects their policies could challenge American parameters.

The trend away from American dominance predated the Obama administration, and its ramifications are likely to unfold long after it leaves office.

As America’s influence gradually recedes, and its alliance system deteriorates, the U.S. will find itself less capable of realizing some of its objectives. Washington may not have sufficient leverage to prevent the Syrian regime from abusing its citizens, compelling Iran to reverse its nuclear ambitions, or for that matter dissuade the Saudis from obtaining a bomb of their own.

The post-American Middle East may be more democratic in some of its corners, but it is also likely to be more turbulent and unstable.

The struggle of the Middle East during the past century was a determined quest to exempt itself from great-power rivalry and superpower dominance. This is a populace that eagerly participated in bloody anti-colonial struggles, lent its sympathies to those calling for neutralism from the Cold War power blocs, and expressed its solidarity with third-world revolutionary resistance.

The era of self-determination may have finally arrived. But, it is likely to be an era accompanied by its own set of challenges and perils.

Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

[muse]

Published: June 30, 2011 23:26 IST | Updated: June 30, 2011 23:26 IST
Saudi Arabia's three worries
Jason Burke

In a speech, Prince Turki al-Faisal outlines Saudi Arabia's concerns relating to the Arab spring, its foreign policies and Iran.

It was a very discreet meeting deep in the English countryside. The main speaker was Prince Turki al-Faisal, one of Saudi Arabia's best-known and best-connected royals. The audience was composed of senior American and British military officials. The location was RAF Molesworth, one of three bases used by American forces in the U.K. since the Second World War. Now a Nato intelligence centre focused on the Mediterranean and the Middle East, the sprawling compound amid green fields was an ideal venue for the sensitive topics that Turki, former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence, wanted to raise.

After an anecdote about how Franklin D. Roosevelt was told by Winston Churchill that nothing between them or their countries should be hidden, Turki warmed to his theme: “A Saudi national security doctrine for the next decade.”

For the next half an hour, the diplomat, a former ambassador to Washington and tipped to be the next foreign minister in Riyadh, entertained his audience to a sweeping survey of his country's concerns in a region seized by momentous changes. Like Churchill, Turki said, the kingdom “had nothing to hide.”

Even if they wanted to, the leaders of the desert kingdom would have difficulty concealing their concern at the stunning developments across the Arab world. Few — excepting the vast revenues pouring in from oil selling at around $100 a barrel for much of the year — have brought much relief to Riyadh.

Stability

Chief among the challenges, from the perspective of the Saudi royal rulers, are the difficulties of preserving stability in the region when autocracies that have lasted for decades are falling one after another; of preserving security when the resultant chaos provides opportunities to all kinds of groups deemed enemies; of maintaining good relations with the west; and, perhaps most importantly of all, of ensuring that Iran, the bigger but poorer historic regional and religious rival just across the Gulf from Saudi Arabia's eastern provinces, does not emerge as the winner as the upheavals of the Arab spring continue into the summer.

“The [Saudi king], crown prince and government cannot ignore the Arab situations, we live the Arab situation and hope stability returns,” the al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper quoted Prince Nayef, the second in line to the throne and Minister of the Interior, as saying in Riyadh last week.

Iran, a majority Shia state committed to a rigorous and highly politicised Islamist ideology, remains at the heart of such fears in Saudi Arabia, a predominantly Sunni state ruled by the al-Saud family since its foundation in 1932. Recent moves such as the Saudi-inspired invitation to Morocco and Jordan, both Sunni monarchies, to join the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a group of Sunni autocratic states, are seen by analysts as part of Riyadh's effort to bolster defences against Tehran. So too is the deployment of Saudi troops under the umbrella of the GCC to Bahrain, where largely Shia demonstrators took to the streets to demand greater democratic rights from the Sunni rulers.

One fear in Riyadh is that the 15 per cent or so of Saudi citizens who are Shia — and who largely live in the oil-rich eastern province — might mobilise in response to an Iranian call to arms.

“It is a kind of ideological struggle,” said a Ministry of Interior official. Describing Iran as a “paper tiger” because of its “dysfunctional government ... whose hold on power is only possible if it is able, as it barely is now, to maintain a level of economic prosperity that is just enough to pacify its people,” Turki, according to a copy of his speech at RAF Molesworth, said the rival state still had “steel claws”, which were “effective tools ... to interfere in other countries.”

This Tehran did with “destructive” consequences in countries with very large Shia communities such as Iraq, which Turki said was taking a “sectarian, Iranian-influenced direction”, as well as states with smaller ones such as Kuwait and Lebanon. Until Iraq changed course, the former intelligence chief warned, Riyadh would not write off Baghdad's $20bn debts or send an ambassador.

More worryingly for western diplomats was Turki's implicit threat that if Iran looked close to obtaining nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia would follow suit. “Iran [developing] a nuclear weapon would compel Saudi Arabia ... to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences,” Turki said.

A senior adviser said it was “inconceivable that there would be a day when Iran had a nuclear weapon and Saudi Arabia did not”.

“If they successfully pursue a military programme, we will have to follow suit,” he said. For the moment, however, the prince told his audience, “sanctions [against Iran] are working” and military strikes would be “counterproductive.”

One alternative, Turki told his audience, would be to “squeeze” Iran by undermining its profits from oil, explaining that this was something the Saudis, with new spare pumping capacity and deep pockets, were ideally positioned to do.

Money

Money has long been a key foreign policy tool for Saudi Arabia. Turki's speech reveals the extent to which the kingdom is relying on its wealth to buy goodwill and support allies. In Lebanon, to counter Syrian influence and the Shia Hezbollah movement, the kingdom has spent $2.5bn since 2006.

The aim of such expenditure — only a fraction of the state's $550bn reserves — is to minimise any potential ill-will towards Saudi Arabia among populations who have deposed rulers backed previously by Riyadh.

King Abdullah, who has ruled Saudi Arabia since 2005, initially backed long-term ally Hosni Mubarak, reportedly personally interceding on his behalf with President Barack Obama.

“The calculation in Riyadh is very simple: you cannot stop the Arab spring so the question is how to accommodate the new reality on the ground. So far there is no hostility to the Saudis in Tunisia, Egypt or elsewhere, popular or political,” said Dr. Mustafa Alani, from the Gulf Research Centre, Dubai.

One difficult issue is that of the “unwanted house guests.” Saudi Arabia has a long tradition of offering a comfortable retirement home to ex-dictators, and two of the deposed leaders — Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen — are now in the kingdom. Ben Ali is reported to have been housed in a villa on the Red Sea coast. Saleh is in a luxury hospital receiving treatment for wounds caused by the bomb that forced his flight from the country he ruled for 21 years as president, and is now under pressure from his hosts to retire permanently.

Other regional rulers are being gently pressured to ease crackdowns, in part in response to western outcry over human-rights abuses, one official said.

Yemen, however, remains a major security concern to the Saudis, who worry about the presence of Islamic militants and Shia rebels who, again, they view as proxies of Iran.

“It is very important to make sure Yemen is stable and secure and without any internal struggle,” said one Interior Ministry official.

In his speech in the U.K., Turki worried that Yemen's more remote areas had become a safe haven for terrorism comparable to Pakistan's tribal areas.