It would be my first blog on the great transformation taking place in the Arab World, and it is a transformation long overdue. What’s happening is not a freak moment in history but it is rather a natural reaction to what has been a long suppression of Arabs by other fortunate Arab oligarchs and bands of opportunists. Leaders, they were not. I remember when Omar Suleiman, the supposed Vice President of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, announced the latter’s resignation; I screamed of joy, I was ecstatic. It can happen! It just happened! I said to myself; Arabs can remove a president if that president betrays their trust, if he deprives them from basic dignity and freedoms. It first happened in Tunisia, but it was fast and it surprised everyone, even intelligence agencies that were supposed to be intelligent in gathering intelligence were unprepared for what was brewing. We did not it see it unfold day-by–day in Tunisia, Zine-Albidine Ben Ali rushed and fled the country, leaving everyone in a state of shock. I remember listening to the prophets of CNN and MSNBC dismissing rumors of contagion of this small revolution. They were wrong; the symptoms for the political and economic ills of Tunisia were prevalent in all Arab countries, hence, the revolution spread from the Atlantic to the Gulf, shaking the throne of some kings and toppling the self-appointed king of kings Muammar Qaddafi.
Egypt, January 25th, 2010 I was home all day glued to my TV watching Aljazeera Arabic. Hoping for a repeat, I see the hallmarks, but I am not sure. I read books describing revolutions of past history but I’ve never lived during or witnessed one, will the Egyptians do what their neighbors did two weeks before them, I have to stay tuned, I am. Every time Hosni Mubarak appears on TV, I say, this is it, only to have my hopes dashed and despair overtake me. During the three weeks, starting January 25th a struggle was taking place between the forces of the despot and the forces of the common weal. Sunday through Thursday momentum subsides and remains so until Friday, bringing another meaning to TGI Fridays, when the Egyptians come out in force after Friday prayers to demand the removal of the regime.
Egyptians did remove the regime, so did the Libyans, but with a heavy price. Moroccan compromised for greater transparency and accountability to the Parliament and elected representatives of the people. Yemenis deposed of the head of the regime but not the regime. Gulf countries bought the people’s hearts and tolerance of the regimes with an expensive and expansive social safety net. The Libyans suffered huge number of fatalities in their quest for freedom. Freedom has a price. Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he miscalculated, had he shown mercy to his people and spared them the months of bombing and killing by mercenaries, they could’ve been reciprocal toward him after his capture. Alas, as the common wisdom taught us: you reap what you sow. Arrogance is blinding. Wittingly or unwittingly, Bashar El-Assad is following in Gadhafi’s footsteps, believing that mass murder will save his dynasty.
Bashar El-assad is betting on the strategic alliance his country has with the republic of Iran and the complex make-up of the sectarian allegiances in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The Middle East have seen the disastrous consequences of a civil war in Iraq, and it is trying by all means to avoid a repeat of such a scenario that could engulf the region. Russia will try it’s hardest not to break with its last ally in the Middle East. If the regime in Syria falls, Russia will lose its last totalitarian friend in the region. The people of Syria, however, are betting on their determination and the tectonic movements around them. Just like no one has predicted the spontenous start of these revolutions, no one can foretell how will they end. One year on, The transformation is still progress.

As I write these words, demonstrations are unfolding in the public squares of Syrian cities and towns, as they have done every Friday for the last eleven months, since the people of Dir’a first took to the streets to manifest their discontent at the indignities imposed upon them by the Asad regime.

Grainy scenes of crowds heaving, swaying, chanting slogans, singing revolutionary songs flash across the screens of Arab satellite channels, scenes of jubilant defiance and anger.

And, as I write, the violent repression of these protests continues. The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and al-Jazeera (in Arabic) report that 25 individuals have been killed already in the besieged city of Homs and the countryside of Damascus. Another 83 died yesterday across Syria, according to the Observatory, while the Local Coordination Councils put the figure higher still, at 126 – 107 of them in Homs alone.

Overnight, army tanks entered the Insha’at neighbourhood of Homs, prompting fears of a broader ground assault, to follow the week-long artillery campaign on the city, which activists estimate has led to the loss of more than 400 lives.

Reports emerging from the city testify to the use of long-range shells and mortar to pound the residential neighbourhoods of Bab ‘Amru, al-Khalidiyya, al-Insha’at, and Bayyada, and to a worsening humanitarian situation. Human Rights Watch reports that hospitals are unable to cope with the number of casualties, while Al-Jazeera’s Beirut correspondent Rula al-Amin reports that medical supplies and food are running dangerously low (see links above).

There is no doubt that armed contingents of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are present in several neighbourhoods of Homs. However, these deserters number no more than a few hundred or thousand men – a stark reminder of the deep asymmetries of power between these dissident forces and the Syrian regime, which has insistently claimed that it is faced an uprising by ‘armed bands’ (‘isabat), while using to the fullest its military superiority.

In other places, including the coastal cities of Banias and Latakia, in the ‘Alawi heartlands, and the Damascus suburbs of Duma and Daraya, troops have deployed to prevent demonstrators from congregating after Friday prayers.

Meanwhile, several car explosions went off in the northern city of Aleppo, killing 25 and injuring more than 175 according to Syrian state television, which has blamed the attacks on “armed terrorist gangs”.

The General Council for the Syrian Revolution, for its part, has accused the regime of plotting the attacks to foment unrest. This claim was echoed by an activist in the city itself who, citing ‘suspicious activity by security personnel’ in the moments before the explosion, told the BBC that “we hold the Syrian regime entirely responsible for this action”.

Further confusion has arisen from the conflicting claims of different contingents within the FSA. While one officer reportedly told Al-Jazeera’s Beirut correspondent Rula al-Amin that the FSA was responsible for the attacks, the Syrian National Council has issued a statement from the FSA in which it categorically denies any role in the attacks.

This latest blast will only increase the virulent controversy in the blogosphere between supporters of the regime, who see in them confirmation of government claims that the protests of the past year are born of a ‘terrorist’ ‘conspiracy’, and its opponents, who believe that they are one more cynical act of official violence, designed to keep the populations of first Damascus, and now Aleppo, quiescent.

Syria, it is clear, has entered a vicious spiral of violence. The spectre of instability, which the Baathist regimes of Hafiz and Bashar al-Asad have long boasted of holding at bay while neighbouring Lebanon and Iraq were consumed by internecine strife, is now at the door.

Many within the country, of course, had already resigned themselves to protracted unrest before the failure of the UN Security Council to reach agreement on a Draft Resolution supporting the Arab League’s efforts to secure a negotiated transition of power in Syria on the Yemeni model.

However, it does seem that the decision of Russia and China to veto this Draft Resolution has galvanized both the regime and the opposition to ramp up their activities.

While the regime has seen this veto as a license to continue in its repression, the continuing division of the international community on the vexed question of Syria has only added to the intransigence of many activists; despairing at their enforced isolation, they have become more obdurate still in their desire not to give in.

Thus, in a video message circulated on social networks on 6 February, the Humsi activist Khalid Abu Salah allied a call for assistance with a message of resilience. After appealing to ‘every noble human being to save us here in Baba ‘Amr, to save the children and the women in Baba ‘Amr’, he turns away from the camera for a brief moment, as gunfire resounds outside, and the clip seems to draw to an end.

Then, turning back, he addresses words of defiance to the Syrian president: ‘Ya Bashar, don’t think we’re going to surrender, if you killed all of us we wouldn’t surrender … if you killed all of us we wouldn’t surrender’.

Khalid Abu Salah’s “Appeal to the Free World”

There is no doubt whom Syrian opposition activists blame for the lack of support they receive. While the Local Coordination Committees have in the past berated the general inaction of the international community, naming one of their Friday demonstrations, in a sharp rejoinder to the international community, ‘Your silence is killing us’, they have chosen to call this Friday ‘Russia is killing our children’.

Russia has responded in kind to this deliberately emotive message. In a statement issued earlier today, its Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, accused the West of being “accomplices in the process of inflaming the crisis”, and insisted that the opposition’s refusal to enter into talks with the regime of Bashar al-Asad meant that it “bears full responsibility for improving the situation”.

It is clear that Russia feels stung by what it regards as a deliberate manipulation of the Security Council to prosecute regime change in Libya, and many critics of intervention have echoed its claims that any international action in Syria would be ruinous.

In a particularly caustic piece, the Columbia professor Joseph Massad has claimed that intervention of one kind or another would only serve what he calls ‘American imperialism in the Middle East’, berating the ‘exile opposition’ for having ‘hijacked the popular uprising against the Asad dynasty’.

But such claims overlook two crucial factors.

The first is that there exists no stark divide between opponents of the regime within the country and those in the Syrian mahjar, or diaspora. Opposition activists certainly disagree on key issues – not least that of international intervention – but the schism does not run along geographical lines.

The Syrian National Council itself, despite repeated assertions to the contrary, is not simply an exilic organization with few ties to those within Syria. While its figurehead, Barhun Ghaliun, has long been settled in France, other members of its executive committee, like Samir Nachar, have only very recently left Syria.

In a note posted on its Facebook page a few weeks before the official announcement of its formation on 1 October 2011, the SNC itself claimed that while 60% of its members were abroad, another 40% remained within Syria itself.

Moreover, it is clear that the SNC, far from the pipe-dream of ambitious émigré schemers, developed from reformist trends within Syria in the early to mid-2000s, such as the Damascus Declaration of 2005.

The second is that Russia and China, by blocking the proposed resolution, have themselves intervened in this internal conflict. Though some have justified their claims by pointing to the need to respect the sovereignty of the Syrian state, the notion that the West is, alone, contemplating intervention is harder to countenance.

To intervene, one need not put troops on the ground, send fighter planes or frigates – though, of course, Russia has already done so, having despatched a naval flotilla led by the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov to its own naval base in Tartus in November 2011, in a show of support for the regime of Bashar al-Asad…

Mere days after sobering official ceremonies marked the end of the U.S. mission in Iraq, America’s most dubious partner – Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki – charged his Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi with aiding and abetting terrorism and sought to remove his Deputy Prime Minister, Saleh al-Mutlaq from office. In short order, sectarian violence spread rapidly from the capital city of Baghdad, further south into Basra and north towards Mosul. Within a month, nearly 450 Iraqis had lost their lives – one of the highest tolls for short an amount of time in years.

However, the physical violence that rocked the struggling democracy concealed a major political crisis simmering below the superficial horrors of car bombs and death squads. Iraqis now face a new crisis as the fragile government juggles uncertain national unity under pressure of sectarian tension and raw competition for political leverage.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is holding a special forum, “The State of Iraq” to discuss the growing political crisis left behind in the wake of America’s military occupation. Ad Melkert, former UN Special Representative in Iraq, and Carnegie’s Marina Ottoway will discuss the prospects for quelling the gathering storm.

The United States has exited Iraq, stage left, but for the second time since the 2003 invasion disrupted Saddam’s autocracy, the state finds itself on the verge of disintegration. Thank goodness some folks haven’t forgotten our obligation to help clean up the mess we left behind.

S&P finally downgraded France’s credit rating several weeks ago along with some other EU Member States. Such decision by S&P could undeniably cost Sarkozy’s reelection in May 2012. Many see the downgrade of France’s credit rating as Sarkozy’s sole responsibility. But May 2012 is still very far away from a political standpoint. Since his election in 2007 Sarkozy has been a very polarizing political figure in France as proven by the large variety of nicknames given by the media such as President Bling-Bling, Sarko l’Américain, and so on. This blog will put into perspective Sarkozy’s first and maybe last mandate as French President by assessing his contribution to the construction/safeguard of the EU (in defense and security questions), advancing French foreign policy, and the buildup of the transatlantic relations.

Sarkozy, son of a Hungarian immigrant, rose to the highest political sphere quite quickly and unconventionally in French standard. He started his political life in the mid-1970s in the Municipal Council of Neuilly-sur-Seine, one of the richest suburbs of Paris, wherein a large segment of France’s political, economic, industrial and financial elites live. The fact that Mr. Sarkozy’s political life started surrounded by the French elite was considerable for his political career. The creation of an intellectual and support base traditionally takes place in the famous Grandes Ecoles, such as Ecole Nationale d’Administration (ENA), as it has been the case for previous French presidents and ministers, and certainly is the case of François Hollande, the Socialist Candidate. Sarkozy was able to compensate this lack with its Neuilly connections. The latest scandal connecting Sarkozy with the L’Oreal heiress, Liliane de Bettencourt, is one example of his powerful network. A paper produced by the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute counts some interesting facts on the rise of Sarkozy and his understanding of politics.

Following his election in May 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy appeared to have changed radically the direction of France’s foreign policy, especially towards the US. Sarkozy’s decision to re-establish ‘cordial’ relations with the US, still under the presidency of Bush, was in direct rupture with his predecessor, Jacques Chirac. The latter opposed his American counterpart, President Bush, in 2003 on the hot topic of the invasion of Iraq. The 2003 transatlantic and European split was real and substantial. The European unity was only reinstituted with the approval of the 2003 European Security Strategy, which symbolizes the agreement between EU Member States of a common agenda and united security vision. As per Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense at the time, Europe was then divided between Old and New Europe; France being one of the old members considering its opposition to the Iraq war. The tensions between the US and France remained high until the election of Sarkozy. Some talked at the time of ‘Sarko l’Américain,’ as he expressed at many occasion during and after the presidential race his admiration for the American model. However, Justin Vaïsse of the Brookings, argued that in fact the Americanism of Sarkozy is much more embedded into Hollywood and Elvis Presley rather than the admiration for the American political system.

The transatlantic relations between France and the US can be divided into three periods. First, from 2007 to 2008, the last part of the Bush administration, which I often refer as the ‘good Bush period,’ was favorable for a rapprochement between the two sides of the pond. Second, after the election of Obama, the honeymoon was extremely short. Very early in his presidency, Obama reoriented the attention of the US foreign policy from Europe to Asia. Such strategic move by Obama has affected the relations with his European counterparts. And the third period was since the G8 summit in Pittsburgh, following the collapse of the financial system in 2008, with closer relations on dealing at the international level with the financial crisis and with Iran. However, in general, the rupture with Chirac was over-emphasized, as Sarkozy did not change that much the direction of the French foreign policy. Sarkozy’s decision to fully reintegrate France within the military structures of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was a moderate signal of his Atlanticism considering that France was always an active and core member of the alliance. The debate in France about such move was certainly excessive.

France was also a key actor during the summer 2008 crisis in Georgia. Following the invasion of Georgia by Russia, Sarkozy played an important role in monitoring Russia-West relations and in limiting a major split between the former Cold War enemies. Sarkozy did play a central role, but made some costly decisions and compromises for not only Georgia, but also the field of international law and human right. At that time France held the EU Presidency and was the voice of the EU, undermining Javier Solana’s role. Russian-French relations have historically been good since the late 19th century and remain quite stable. The latest part of this love story was the sale by France of a French Mistral class amphibious assault ship, creating criticism on both sides of the Atlantic.

One of the highest points of his presidency will remain the gamble on the Libyan campaign. Following a disastrous beginning of the year 2011 with total miscalculations and evaluations of the importance and reality of the Arab spring in Tunisia and then Egypt, Sarkozy decided to be proactive in the support of the rebels in Libya fighting Colonel Qaddafi. The miscalculation by the prestigious French diplomatic corps and intelligence services will remain as a stain and most likely become a cas d’école of diplomatic failure for future generations. Sarkozy did play a crucial role in getting the UN Security Council to agree on the UNSC Resolution 1973 allowing the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya. Sarkozy was then able to bring the Americans on board and get NATO involved in the war in Libya. The use of NATO was critical for the success of the mission as French and British armies, navies and air forces have been considerably affected by budget cuts. For example, as of today Britain does not have an aircraft carrier, which seems quite contradictory to its historical strategic culture and heritage as a maritime power. The Libyan mission was a success and will become a template for future military interventions: short, precise, highly technologized, multilateral, and quite cheap. However, Sarkozy’s decision to use NATO was a major setback for the EU, which was completely bypassed by London and Paris, as well as discredited. The best example of the CSDP weakness is the fact that EUFOR Libya was created, but never deployed. Thus, HR Ashton remained quiet and irrelevant throughout the different steps of the Libyan campaign.

What next for 2012? Sarkozy does have a busy schedule until the first round of the presidential election. The year starts quite well for France and ultimately Sarkozy considering the fact that India decided to buy for $20bn of France fighter jet, Rafale, at the expense of the EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon. Such contract is a true illustration of Sarkozy’s understanding and mastery of politics. The Financial Times published an outstanding article on the dogfight taking place backstage in order to sale the fighter jet. In addition to his reelection campaign, several topics need to be addressed, or at least discussed: first, Iran. What should France do about it? Is it the time to empower the EEAS led-by Lady Ashton and use the similar approach of 2003 EU3+1 implemented during Solana’s mandate? Or is it the time to discuss military operation within NATO? What is certain is that Sarkozy will not get a UNSC Resolution as China and Russia will definitely oppose it. Second, the mission in Afghanistan. France has been progressively removing its troops from Afghanistan, but has actively contributed to the European Gendarmerie Force (EFG) in charge of training the Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army. With the announcement by the US to remove the troops by 2014, the Europeans will soon be following this trend. Will the EGF remain or should it come back home as well? Third, Syria. The violations of international law by the Syrian government are undeniable and some members of the Arab League monitoring team have even expressed their anger and opposition to the Assad regime. Avoiding and sidelining Syria could haunt Sarkozy in the future, the same way the Rwanda genocide has been haunting French political elites for over 15 years, but for different reasons. Sarkozy understands that the UNSC will not agree on a Resolution, but decision needs to be taken on the matter. Unfortunately until today China and Russia have favored sovereignty over humanity. Could it be done outside the laws with a NATO-led operation as it was done in 1999 in Kosovo? It would be ethically a right mission embodying the R2P concept, but wrong as it would violate international law. Fourth, Turkey. Franco-Turk relations have been at their lowest since the adoption by the French Assembly of the recent law criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide. Poor bilateral relations with Turkey will ultimately hurt and affect the overall EU and NATO relations. Turkey could block, as it has done in the past, Berlin Plus type NATO operations. Sarkozy must address the matter with Turkey and find new common ground. Fifth, the economic crisis has been painful for the Euro-Atlantic community. The Eurozone is still not safe and saved, as the financial and economic situations of Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal remain volatile. Sarkozy with his German counterpart, Ms Merkel, have a lot of work in readjusting and agreeing on the rules of the game and reforming the Eurozone. Sixth, the British headache. Since the gamble of Prime Minister Cameron back in November, the relations between Britain and France have not been of the most pleasant. The Franco-Anglo relations are central for the construction of the common EU defense polict as it was the case in the 1998 Saint-Malo Treaty creating the ESDP, and in the 2010 Defense Treaty. Both actors need one another in order to maintain their active foreign policies and keep the construction of the CSDP going. 2012 will be interesting to see how France and Britain readjust their relations either with the reelection of Sarkozy; or with the election of Mr. Hollande.

Even though, I have not been a supporter of Mr. Sarkozy’s domestic and social policies as well as fundamentally disagree with his leadership and governing style, I have to admit that he has been an interesting international leader. His approach to foreign policy is quite in the continuity of French Gaullist heritage. However, the case of the French operation in Ivory Coast, last April, has been completely under-studied and under-covered by global media. Some have argued that the Libyan mission was a simple cover-up for the real mission and French interests, Ivory Coast. I would also criticize his lack of commitment to the construction and strengthening of the EEAS. It is true that Ms. Ashton has not been the best representative as well as has been unable to establish a common EU vision, however she was appointed by the 27 Heads of State and Government. Sarkozy was part of the appointing committee, and privileged at that time the securing of the DG Internal Market to Michel Barnier rather than getting a French HR. Sarkozy’s priorities were set: French’s influence over the common market, even though the Directors are theoretically not supposed to represent their national government; l’Europe de la defense after.

Until then there is one thing that I can’t wait to see: who will be representing France at the NATO summit in May in Chicago?

What are the prospects for a diplomatic settlement to the simmering dispute with Iran over its nuclear program, now threatening to boil over?
On the positive side of the ledger, as Peter Crail spelled out in an Arms Control Association issue brief on Jan. 25, is that the P5 + 1 group (China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the US) is not insisting the Iran permanently forgo uranium enrichment–only that it agree to tighter safeguards that would guarantee its nuclear activities are purely peaceful.That position represents a welcome improvement on the Bush Administration’s pre-2006 position, which was the Iran had to give up enrichment for good.

Crail does a nice job of laying out ideas about how Iran might be persuaded to limit dubious activities in the near term, including a Russian “step by step” proposal, the elements of the proposed 2009 fuel swap agreement, and the 2006 and 2008 P5 + 1 proposals. At the same time, he says with some emphasis that “it will also be necessary to have some idea of what the end-goal of such engagement [with Iran] might be.”

Another somewhat positive element is Iran’s declared willingness to enter into talks about stopping 20 percent enrichment, though it still declines to discuss an agreed-upon mechanism that would allow it to resume enrichment following a suspension. Serious concerns linger about whether it is still just trying to “run out  the clock”–obtain relief from international pressure in the near term, leaving it free to build nuclear weapons when it is ready in the longer term.

Then too there is intelligence chief James Clapper’s recent congressional testimony, in which he declared that while Iran is continuing to pursue a nuclear weapons capability, there’s no evidence it has taken a final decision to actually build nuclear weapons as yet. That finding, as fellow blogger Jodi Lieberman pointed out this week, is sharply at variance with Israel’s assessment.

On the negative side of the ledge is Israel’s alleged readiness to take military action soon, having found that all conditions for such action are met, as reported in a lengthy New York Times magazine article by  Ronen Bergman on Sunday. What is curious about the article, let it be said, is that though Ronen claims conditions for action exist, he ends his article with a rather impressive list–albeit by no means an exhaustive one– of very bad things that might result from a raid.

What seems singularly disturbing about the Ronen article is that it appears to have been planted, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak having summoned Ronen for lengthy conversations that led to the article. Might the Israeli government be trying to push the U.S. government into taking action itself, or at least acquiescing in an Israeli strike, calculating that a pre-election Obama will be easier to influence than a re-elected Obama?

One can only hope that the Obama Administration is impressing on Israel just how badly a raid could go wrong. Many influential Israeli defense and intelligence officials concede that military action at best will slow Iran’s nuclear program, not end it for good. Retaliation by Hamas and Hezbollah is almost taken for granted. But what if Iran struck back at Iraq, which Israeli fighter-bombers would have to fly over to reach Iran and return? What if Saudi Arabia, more heavily armed with sophisticated weaponry than ever before, got involved? Or Egypt, where the military is vying with the Muslim Brotherhood for control of the country? Or the beleaguered Syrian government?

All such considerations argue for continuing diplomatic efforts at reaching both interim agreements and a final comprehensive settlement, in which many highly loaded issues will likely come into play: not just lifting of sanctions but diplomatic recognition of Iran; diplomatic recognition of Israel and acknowledgment of its right to exist; understandings about contending influences in Iraq and Lebanon; Israel’s nuclear status and prospects for a Middle East nuclear free zone.

Admittedly, it would take diplomacy of the very highest order to somehow bundle a settlement of Iran’s nuclear status with resolution of just some of those other major issues. But that kind of diplomacy is what the occasion calls for.

Iran has already incurred very high costs in its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, and that capability has become a major point of national pride. No Iranian government will not give up that ambition without being able to boast of having obtained substantial tangible benefits in return.

A recent article by Nathan Brown in the FP (Americans, put away your quills), argues very eloquently against the advocacy and promotion of ‘American constitutional ideas’ (and ideals) in Arab countries currently in transition due to the Arab Spring.  Although the history of U.S. constitutional transplantation is mixed at best (failed in Latin America in the eighteen hundreds, was somewhat more successful in Germany-Japan-Italy after WWII, remains to be seen what happens in Iraq), I respectfully disagree with Mr. Brown’s assertion that “much of our advice will be bad and most will be irrelevant.”

The Middle East – North Africa (MENA) region represents that last remaining undemocratic region of the world.  No other region has the highest concentration of authoritarian regimes and absolute monarchies.  Although the U.S. has a lot of baggage on its side, especially when it comes to its foreign policy during the past 60 years, the one thing that America can still brag about is its system of governance.  The one thing that the U.S. can still educate the rest of the world is governance!  [Do as I say, not as I do!]

Mr. Brown is right in pointing out that the U.S. constitutional experience is very idiosyncratic.  On the other hand, I would venture to say that the U.S. system of governance is what has contributed immensely to the longevity of the republic and the overall success of the American economy.

For comparison, consider Greece (my home-country, with a population of similar temperament but only slightly better luck then the Arab people) and its current sovereign debt crisis.  The true reason of Greece’s economic misfortunes (the high government spending and low tax collection) is DUE TO (what I like to call) the dictatorship of the Prime-minister.  For the majority of the past 30 years, the office of the Prime-minister exercised complete control over the Greek government – no checks and balances, no divided government between different parties, just a Westminster model tailored to the ‘idiosyncratic needs’ of the Greek society where the prevailing political philosophy/ideology demands a strong executive branch with enhanced legislative powers in order to ‘swiftly pass vital reforms.’  Greece’s system of governance, in itself a foreign transplant that has now become part of the Greek political identity, is primarily responsible for the current state of overall disrepair.

The right form of governance for the right society has never been easy to identify.  A lot of times, societies have adopted forms of governance that were imposed to them by past colonial masters or short sighted revolutionary uprisings.  The MENA region, with its long set of constitutional traditions, is no different.

The prevailing parliamentary system of governance currently in effect in most North African countries, which Mr. Brown argues should be respected because of its long routes in the various societies and the familiarity of local actors (politicians, academics, judges) with it, is also a transplant of European origin.  Parliamentary democracy where the executive and the legislature come from the same body (united against ‘the crown’) is not indigenous to Egypt or Tunisia, let alone Jordan or Morocco (not to mention Libya!).

Instead of tweaking around the edges of the current political/constitutional systems (as Mr. Brown suggests), the people of the region might be better served if their opted for a whole new system of governance!

It is time to end the experiment with the Westminster model: of government being derived, depended and tethered of the legislative branch.  American federalism is hard to implement because it demands too much from both the people and politicians – constant participation on the part of the people (at multiple levels of government) and mature restrain on the part of politicians.  However, the world has changed since Latin American countries tried to implement U.S.-style federalism, and I believe young people are now better prepared to adopt a system of governance that demands much but can deliver even more!

Constitutional Suggestions for the ‘Arab Spring’

When federalism at the national level is applied properly it leads to multiple centres of power (and thus multiple leaders), not just one strongman (a president or a prime-minister with all the power).  What could be more appropriate for the people of North Africa and the Middle East, which have suffered so much at the hands of a few dictators, than to adopt a political system that does not deify one person or one family?  The U.S. federal system of governance provides an excellent starting point for any discussion about constitutional reform in the region.

The most fundamental tenet of the U.S. federal system of governance is the complete institutional separation of powers at the national level, while at the same time every decision at the national level requires the consent of all the branches of government.  Therefore, Legislative (Congress), Executive (President) and Judiciary (Supreme Court) branches are completely separate, but laws passed by the legislature need the approval of the President), and are subject to review by the Courts.

Second, the legislative process is performed by a bi-cameral legislature, where one chamber represents the people (House of Representatives) while the other (Senate) represents the sub-national units (States), and both chambers are equal in power and responsibility.  Furthermore, by staggering the terms of legislators (2 years for House members, 6 years for Senate members) and staggering the election of Senators (one third up for re-election every two years), the legislature is being renewed every two years while being insulated from dramatic swings in popular opinion.

Third, Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officials, Ambassadors, and Judges have to be considered and approved by the legislature.  This oversight role of Congress continues after Cabinet members are appointed, when they are required by law to appear in front of select legislative committees and report on their departments activities, answer questions, and make available to legislators any and all information’s that legislators deem relevant.

Finally, the independence of the judiciary branch is guaranteed through life-time appointments.  Although judges are selected by the President and approved by the legislature, they are appointed for life, and their removal is exceptional and very hard to achieve.  Furthermore, judges have the power to review the constitutionality of laws, and through the years have many times struck down laws which were not consistent with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution.

Add to these fundamental elements of the U.S. system, term limits for politician, clear provisions for amending the constitution and removing the President, an independent Electoral Commission, and an independent and competent Office for the protection of Human Rights, and you have a recipe for political stability and economic success.

The Right Form of Governance

The history of modern economic development is full of successes and failures.  The failures appear to be more than the successes; from the many African nations that have never truly improved their condition since independence 60 years ago, to the Middle East, rich with oil but stagnant economically and democratically.  Now, the nations of the Arab world are going through some major changes to their regimes and future systems of governance.  Identifying the right form of governance for the right society has never been easy, but federalism could be the most appropriate of all possible choices for the nations of the ‘Arab Spring’!

During the 19^th century, the exportation of U.S.-style federalism was deemed detrimental to the political development of Latin America nations.  I believe the times have change, and U.S.-style federalism could serve as a future system of governance for the ‘Arab Spring’ nations.  Furthermore, by advocating for constitutional reforms that promote federalism and good governance, and by rewording those nations that truly adopt such changes, the U.S. can restore its role in the world stage as a champion of democratic principles.

We owe it to the world, whether they need our advice or not!

This is first part of a series of posts on Iran based on travel experiences in the country in 2011.

“Sir, can I ask why Iran?” asked the travel agent whom I called to book the flight for Tehran.

 “I have an interest in the culture, people and language”, I respond.

“Hmmm but people would normally go to Dubai for that… anyway”, he conveys his lack of cultural knowledge.

Just like a lot of people confuse us Pakistanis as Arabs, the Iranians have to face the same misery.

The country is so diverse in terms of culture, lifestyle and landscape that planning the trip to Iran was itself an exciting experience – from LonelyPlanet to Iranian travel agents, books and travel documentaries; I explored everything to ensure my time in Iran is well spent and I return with a better understanding of the country and its people.  With the variety it has got, its unfortunate Iran isn’t a hot tourist destination.

Getting a Visa

Iran Visa

Despite the bad press, the travel agency business seems booming in Iran. There are hundreds of them in the capital and tens in other bigger cities. They can help planning the trip, arranging accommodation, travel, guides and more. Most importantly, you may need them to get a visa. Although nationals of some countries can get a visa-on-arrival but the recommended option is to get in touch with a travel agency, email relevant documents (passport copy, itinerary etc), make the visa handling payment (30-50 Euro) and wait for them to get you a Visa Ref Number which you take to your local Iranian Embassy and get a visa stamped on the passport on-spot. I received my Visa Ref number in a week and didn’t even had to go to the Iranian Embassy. You can post your Passport, Visa Ref Number and payment details to the Embassy and they return passport with the visa fairly quick. The visa fee depends on your nationality.

I would highly recommend Shiraz based Pars Tourist Agency and specifically Marjan Owji in their Visa Department. She can help you in literally everything on your trip to Iran and she does that not from a customer-friendly-business perspective, its Persian hospitality at its best. She took only three working days to get back to me and the Embassy took another three days. The visa process was fairly straightforward. Everyone, except citizens of Israel can get an Iranian visa. The citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia and Turkey can stay for up to 3 months without a visa.  The maximum duration of tourist visa is 30 days while for the visa-on-arrival its 15 days. Once in Iran, extension is possible fairly easy.

Visa fee for every country is available here and here. We had to pay something around £20 on a Pakistani passport and £120 on a British passport. More information can be obtained by calling the local Iranian Embassy or browsing the MFA Iran website.

As a notable exception, the 90sq-km beach resort of Kish Island, south of Iran, easily accessible from Dubai, does not require advance visas for visits of up to 14 days, including Americans. This is Iran’s response to the Emirates and the state is promoting trade (by making it free-trade-zone) and tourism on the island. The island has facilities for scuba diving, jet-skiing, sailing, fishing, parasailing, reef walking, coral viewing, boating and water-skiing and offers gorgeous white sandy beaches for relaxing walks and plenty of huge malls if you fancy a retail therapy.

Air-lines

Most of the major carriers have flights to Iran but the favourite for travelling to Iran are Iran’s national carrier Iran Air, Azerbaijan airlines with stopover in Baku, Aeroflot (Russian airlines) with stopover in Moscow, Air France and other Middle East based carriers.  Other low-cost international carriers include Pegasus airlines (Istanbul-Tehran), Air Asia (Far East-Tehran), Air Arabia and Jazeera Airways both connecting through the middle East.

Launched in the mid of 20^th century, Iran Air started with domestic flights between Tehran and Mashhad. By 1970s, Iran Air was ranked amongst the safest airlines in the world (second only to Qantas; being accident free for decades). However, things changed suddenly after the revolution. Because of the US imposed sanctions, the airline could not buy new planes and even had to cancel deals setup earlier. The sanctions meant the airline had to rely on older planes, risking the security of the passengers and the staff onboard. At present, majority of the fleet is decades old with average age nearing 25 years. The Fajr Aviation and Composites Industry in Tehran is responsible for overhauling existing fleet and designing new airplanes. Recently, there have been conflicts over refuelling Iran Air planes as well when UK CAA and the Abu Dhabi Airports Company refused to refuel Iran Air planes. The EU has also recently banned Iran Air’s fleet of Boeing and Airbus because of safety concerns.

I choose to fly with Aeroflot – cheaper, good connections and short stopovers. The flight originated from London Heathrow, serving nicely done Salmon and landing three hours later in Tehran’s primary IKA airport (30KM from city). The two-hour stopover at Moscow Sheremetyevo International Airport was an interesting experience – this was by far the best airport I have seen so far. It’s so huge it could take hours walking from one terminal to the other with duty free shops spread everywhere and the airport giving a fine, shiny, glossy clean look and feel. Plenty of Iranians on the airport – some praying, some gossiping or buying stuff; looks like this the favorite route from EU to get back home for them. It took another three hours for the flight from Moscow to Tehran with an amazing Omelet served for breakfast as we approached Iran.

Note that if not staying in Tehran and planning to get to any city other than Tehran upon your arrival, you would have to change airports, from Imam Khomeini to Mehrabad, 40 km away, to get to your domestic flight.

Accommodation in Iran

Courtyard of a traditional hotel in Iran

You do not necessarily need travel agents to book accommodation for you, although that’s the easiest way. Popular travel/hotel-booking websites like booking.com, venere.com, laterooms.com do not support Iranian hotels; again because of the economic sanctions. However, there are lots of websites voluntarily setup by Iranians who like to see more people visiting their country and these provide lots of information on hotels, pictures, locations, costs etc. You can use these websites, in addition to travel agent websites to choose hotels and then book by directly calling/emailing the hotel, many of which have their own websites as well.

There is no presence of international-chain-hotels like Marriot or Holiday Inn in Iran – if you have read this far, you should know why. The hotels in Iran come in three varieties:

(i)                  Cheap bed-n-breakfasts with private or shared accommodation – These can be found in pretty much every city and are  generally located in city centre with good transport links. Tehran is scattered with hundreds of them.

(ii)                Traditional hotels – These are Iranian version of premium-posh hotels. They are generally converted Inns, older mansions/houses, travellers and traders resting spots – called Sofrekhane Sonati in Farsi. Ponds, trees and fountains in the central lawn, tinted glass windows and beautifully lit at night, these are your best bet to experience Iranian culture.

(iii)               Mid-range to top-notch modern hotels – Larger urban capitals and tourist destinations like Kish Islands have a few modern hotels to compete with multi-star international hotels. Generally, they are not located in city centre and price range vary on a large scale, so one needs to be cautious to check prices from several sources.

Travelling between cities

Transportation between cities in Iran is comfortable, safe, timely, reliable, well managed and cheap as chips. Cities and towns are connected through buses, rail network and domestic flights while port-cities and towns both in North and South also enjoy ferry connections. Depending on the distance, time available to travel and cost considerations, one can make use of flights, trains, buses or even hire comparatively cheaper private taxis.

Buses: Iran enjoys a pretty extensive and competitive bus network from most of its major cities. Major cities have bus terminals a few miles outside the city, planned on the model of airports with separate terminals and connected to city through local transport links. Buses can take you from anywhere to anywhere in Iran – pretty much anytime of the day (or night), normally without long stop-overs and running on time. Police checkpoints on the highways ensure safety. Tickets can be booked either in advance by calling the bus station or on-spot if you reach sometime before expected time of bus departure.

Iran Buses

The buses generally come in two classes: lux/Mercedes/2nd class and super/Volvo/1st class. First class buses are air-conditioned and you will be provided with a small snack during your trip, while second class services are more frequent. There is little financial incentive to opt for the second class tickets.  Among the many bus operators, Royal Safar Iranian is the best, in terms of comfort and reliability, with a fleet of modern comfortable buses. They also run sleeper buses between major cities with reclining chairs, serving Iranian meals and sweets and movies on play – e.g. Shiraz to Isfahan all for $11; while regular buses cost $6. Apparently, you can book tickets online at http://www.royall.ir/ , if you can read their Farsi website or by calling the available phone numbers. Other bus operators are named Seir-o-Safar and Taavoni. Saipa Diesel, Iran’s leading manufacturer of trucks, trailer and mini-buses provides many of the buses you see on roads in Iran. The company also imported several hundred larger buses from China to serve on longer routes.

Trains: The train network is limited but comfortable, speedy and affordable. It has been expanding at 500KM every year for few years and major cities have been connected through contracts with Chinese companies. The under construction Chabahar-Zahedan-Mashhad railway line extending from northeast to southeast will enable Pakistan pilgrims to travel by train to Mashhad instead of the long bus journey from the border. Other international links include trains to Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Afghanistan and Central Asia. It is possible to travel from London to Tehran, by train!

Tehran Railway Station

The passenger rail system is called Raja Passenger Trains. The Sleeper berths in trains allow good night’s sleep specially on longer journeys like Tehran-Mashhad; will cost almost double the bus ticket but are worth it on longer journeys. The best of the trains are called 4 pax Ghazal or Plur train. The added benefit of travelling by train in Iran, like anywhere else, is that you get to see a lot of places on the way, sample food, see tourists and unlike many places, get a chance to meet, talk with and befriend locals. This is your best option to make a few good friends in Iran.

For Train timings, ticket prices and booking information, Google is your friend. If nothing helps, travel agencies can do it for you.

Domestic Flights: A leading oil producer can of course afford to have cheap domestic flights, sometimes dramatically cheap in comparison to international market. Planes are aging, and maintenance and safety procedures are sometimes well below western standards, but it still remains the safest way to get around Iran, given the huge death toll on the roads and longer distances between cities. The average price is in the range of $50 – $80.

Iran Air

Iran’s major domestic carriers Mahan Air, Iran Air, Kish Air and Aseman Air, all have websites and online booking system but you cannot make use of online ticket booking unless you have an Iranian bank account or a debit/credit card. The reason obviously is economic sanctions imposed on Iran means no international banking relationship with Iranian companies. The best way to book domestic flight tickets in Iran before landing in Iran is (i) find local office of above stated Iranian airlines in your city/country and they can do it for you or (ii) use an Iranian travel agent to book tickets for you, they will give you eticket and you pay them into their bank account normally setup somewhere in the EU.

Off Days in Iran

Thursday is generally half-day and Friday is the weekend break. Saturday and Sunday are normal working days. The biggest and most celebrated of all events in Iran is Nowrooz – the start of new year on Persian calendar which is marked with a week off. Other holidays are linked to the revolution and religious days (Muharram/Ramzan) as well as Eid festival.

Comparison Charts

Based on all the information I gathered from websites, Lonely Planet and talking to travel agents, I composed a comparative chart with compares price offers by four different travel agencies for hotel accomodation and travelling between cities (cab/train/flight). This helped me figure out which agency works best for me. The chart can be downloaded in image format here and more detailed Excel format here.

In the next posts, we’ll explore Iran from inside…. with pictures, videos and lots of interesting stories and interpersonal observations.

Some of the travel Agencies I spoke to….

• Setareh, Lotus Travel Agency
• Iran Paradise
• Tehran based Dornagasht
• Marjan Owji, Shiraz based Pars Tourist Agency
• Sara, Iran Tour Package/Lovely Iran
•  Zohreh Souki, Tehran based Sarvineh Tours, Welcome2Iran

Some of the websites I used for hotel search…

• http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotels-g293998-Iran-Hotels.html#T_CAT_HOTEL_MOTEL
• http://www.audleytravel.com/Destinations/North-Africa-and-The-Middle-East/Iran/Accommodation.aspx
• http://www.persiatravelmart.com/
• http://www.asemangasht.com/?blog=22
• http://www.iranbudgettour.com/iran-hotels
• http://www.irantour.org/hotel.html
• http://www.southtravels.com/middleeast/iran/index.html
• http://www.hoteltravel.com/iran
• http://www.bestirantravel.com/hotel/hotels.html
• http://www.irpedia.com/iran-hotels/

Arctic Ambassador Klavs Holm

Earlier this month, Denmark appointed Klavs A. Holm as the new Arctic Ambassador, an office which will become permanent. At the same time, Danish Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal announced the closure of the embassies in Iraq, Benin, and Zambia. This move gives a strong signal that Denmark is putting forth a more visible diplomatic presence in the circumpolar north while refocusing its priorities in the Global South, where it will open embassies in Myanmar and Libya. Ambassador Holm will represent all three parts of the Danish Commonwealth: Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. He will also coordinate the implementation of the government’s Arctic strategy, released last August.

Holm previously served as the Danish Ambassador in London, Paris, and Singapore. He also represented Denmark to the EU, in Brussels, where he worked on Arctic issues. The current ambassador for Public Diplomacy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will have his work cut out for him, as Foreign Minister Søvndal made clear when he visited Thule Air Force Base last December. When asked what assignments the new Arctic Ambassador would have, he responded, “If you ask for specific tasks, we can name climate change, which means that shipping in the Arctic is increasing in scope. There are very specific tasks to perform in relation to search and rescue in these remote areas. The area is large, and first and foremost, we must prepare the new agreements.” Specifically, he added, “It is clear that we need the Americans to not block civilian usage of Thule. Now, there will be a negotiation process to clarify how far we can go” (translated from the Danish). Search and rescue will thus be an important topic for Holm, as will mining and indigenous peoples – two issues which overlap heavily in Greenland. China has lately expressed strong interest in investing in Greenland’s mineral deposits, the Wall Street Journal reports, which might be cause for Holm to visit Beijing.

Denmark can now be added to the short list of countries which have Arctic ambassadors, which includes Sweden, Finland, and Russia. The United States and Canada are noticeably absent from this list, though there have been calls in the latter country to bring back the position (see here and here). Canada had an Arctic Ambassador from 1994 to 2006, but the role was abolished, as former Foreign Minister Peter McKay then stated, “We didn’t feel we were getting good value for money from that position.”

News Links

“New Danish Arctic Ambassador,” IPS

“Søvndal udnævner ambassadør for det aller nordligste,” Politiken (in Danish)

Until the Arab spring movement and its legion of revolutionaries came to clash with President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime, demanding an end to decades of autocracy and repression, the Americans considered Yemen’s autocrat a “bulwark” against terrorism, a strategic ally in the region in the fight against al-Qaeda, the well-known Islamic organization.
When it became clear that Yemenis were determined to depose the aging dictator, no matter the amount of blood his armed forces were willing to shed, the White House started to shift its rhetoric, calling for reforms and a transition to more “democratic institutions.”

The “beautiful friendship” which united the 2 countries started to melt away at the pyre of people’s anger, threatening to damage America’s foothold in the region.
Although many democracy militants have accused the United States of America of siding with dictators for it served their middle-eastern policies, accusing them of protecting and in the case of President Saleh harboring war criminals; one could wonder whether America is not playing a much sinister game of plots and betrayals.
One does not need to go back to far up in the history book to remember another well-known autocrat whose friendship was discarded when he failed to fulfill his purpose. Mohamed Reza Shah of Iran was abandoned by his “American friends” and almost sold back to the Ayatollahs when he failed to live up to the White House foreign policies’ expectations.
Could the Obama’s administration turn against Saleh and hand him over to those who are clamoring for his arrest? Could Yemen’s infamous statesman become the new Shah of Iran in his desperate search for political asylum?
One cannot draw away from the remarkable symmetry in between the two deposed leaders. One ran away for his allegiance to the West angered his people so that he feared they would execute him, another was forced to relinquish the power America’s helped him to master for 3 decades. Both turned to the United States and were denied entry, both insisted, both were eventually allowed.
One was betrayed, one is awaiting his fate.

Mohamed Reza Shah of Iran

The very countries which are claiming to be promoting Democracy and Freedom across the Globe, saying that they will always side with those who seek to emulate western standards, are the very ones who crushed the little hope Iran had at becoming a successful democratic state.
Because Iran’s emancipation stood in the way of their economic interests, the United States and Britain decided to assert the Shah’s absolute power over his people.
When Mohamed Mosadeqq, the founder and leader of the National Front of Iran was elected Prime Minister by the Parliament, he immediately announced the nationalization of Iran Oil industry, shutting out the immensely lucrative Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which at the time was one of Britain main economic pillars.
The British then convinced the Americans of the need to overthrow Mosadeqq and re-establish the Shah of Iran as the only authority in the country, arguing that the move would serve both nations interest in the region.
Iran strategic geo-political position and its vast Oil reserves represented too much of an asset for western hegemony to let something such as democracy get in the way.

After a “coup d’état” known as the “operation Ajax” failed, the Shah was pressured into issuing a decree stating Mosadeqq’s demotion. Subsequently the Shah fled to Iraq, then Italy for he feared for his life. He later came back under the protection of his allies.
2 decades later, the Shah was ousted by his people as his attempts to westernize and secularize Iran had anger the people and the political class to such an extent that they sought his execution.
In exile and ill with cancer the monarch turned to the United States of America for safety only to be denied asylum. After he insisted for he said he needed urgent medical treatment, the Pentagon agreed to allow him in for a limited period of time. It turned out that the visit of the Royal coincided with an attack against the American Embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of some 400 American nationals.
Caught in the middle of much controversy, shun away by his former friends, a terminally ill Shah sought refuge in Latin America to finally come to die in Egypt where he is buried.

Ali Abdullah Saleh

In the wake of the attack on American soil by al-Qaeda in 2001, President Saleh realized that if he had any chance of surviving the military wave which was threatening to come his way he had to quickly seal an alliance with the Western giant.
The Yemeni-American fight against terrorism was born.
And if Saleh manipulated his new “friends” by playing up their fear in exchange for financial support the alliance cost him dearly on the political front.
As Drones attacks became more frequent and civilian casualties mounted, Yemenis started to speak of treason, accusing the autocrat of allowing foreign forces to enter Yemen air space in exchange for cash.
The seeds of revolt were planted.

And although it took Yemen nearly 2 decades to finally mobilize the needed momentum to rise up against the state apparatus, Saleh’s opponents proved impossible to stop.
Having witnessed first-hand the power of the people in Egypt, the White House decided to operate differently in Yemen, preferring to prepare the autocrat’s exit according to a specific set of terms rather than let the mob overtake the presidential palace and potentially ruin any hope of further cooperation on the al-Qaeda front.

But if Saleh successfully secured his political and financial safety as well as that of his extended family, his troubles might not be over yet.
Just as Yemen is preparing to welcome a new president, Saleh who was victim of a bomb attack in 2011 at the very heart of his presidential compound has since been suffering from ill-health, requiring extensive medical attention.
As the Shah did before him, Saleh asked to be allowed to travel to the United States to undergo some much needed medical treatment, only to be refused. Following weeks of intense negotiations and much political controversy, the White House finally agreed to allow Saleh in, providing that his visit be brief and strictly confined to the hospital.

And as the Shah before him, his countrymen are already gathering, demanding that he’d be deported to the International Criminal Court of Justice for crimes against humanity and his assets frozen for having pillage Yemen’s riches.
Only weeks after Yemen’s parliament granted him immunity, Saleh runs the risk, like the Shah did, of being sold out to his opponents for he no longer serves his purpose and has become somewhat of a liability. And since United Nations, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon declared that no immunity would stand in a court of law when it came to war crimes and gross violations to human rights, the White House could in all good conscience leave the autocrat to suffer the fate he deserves.

In Obama’s third State of the Union, foreign policy and defense achievements were only used as opening and closing components to his one hour long speech. This was not a surprise considering the current domestic and economic situation of the US as well as the successes of President Obama in foreign affairs.

Obama opened his speech by listing his accomplishments in foreign policy: return of all combat troops from Iraq; the end of the threat from Osama Ben Laden and the perpetual attacks against his operatives around the world; and the progressive removal of troops from Afghanistan. The use of the foreign policy and military successes were used as a transition towards the core of his speech: how to transform America and shape a strong economy.

Obama started the core of speech with a reference to the end of WW2 when the US “built the strongest economy the world has ever known.” He then declared that the “defining issue of our time is to keep this promise [American dream] alive.” Very quickly President Obama launched his attack against Wall Street and the unregulated economy. With no surprise this State of the Union was directly oriented towards the domestic economic problems such as health care, education, tax reform, manufacturing, immigration, consumer protection, financial regulation, and energy independence among others.

Very interestingly, President Obama spent a considerable amount of time on the theme of the reform of the government and the American institutions. As a politician and individual, Obama strongly believes in role of institutions. Despite this philosophical conviction, he rightly declared that “Washington is broken.” His institutional and government reforms did not generate a large support among elected officials present in the House. President Obama talked about the corrosive influence between money and politics. He even called for bills ending the legal inside trading benefiting members of Congress, limit and monitor economic conflict of interests, as well as controlling the lobbying of Congress. He also discussed the need for a reform of the executive branch.

The last segment of his speech went back to foreign policy, as a virtuous circle, by underlining the killing of Osama and the perpetual attacks against Al Qaeda operatives around the world. Then, Obama spoke of the return of troops from Afghanistan and the progressive transition to the Afghan government. His mention of the Arab Spring was used in order to talk about the end of old authoritarian regimes such as the one in Libya, and soon to be in Syria. His claim was that even with an uncertain transformation and political direction in the region, the US will advocate for the same values shared at home: human rights and democracy. President Obama also reinforced his opposition to the Iranian nuclear program. His main strategy remains embedded in the power of diplomacy, which has generated international consensus leading to  increasing isolation of the Iranian regime. America is determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and Obama “will take no options off the table.” However, a peaceful solution will be preferred.

For Europe, the turning point was obviously when Obama defined the US as being a ‘pacific power.’ Europe was nonexistent and never mentioned, not even the Euro crisis. President Obama did not talk about the share mission and success in Libya with the use of NATO. Two scenarios can be made from the non-mention of Europe: either, it is time for Europe to pick up the burden; or Europe was yesterday’s concerns. Let’s face it, this was not a surprise.

In the concluding segment of the speech, Obama shouted that ‘America is back,’ leading to a lasting applause. He argued that the people that speak about the decline of America “do not know what they are talking about.” Such statement put me in a strange position as I am teaching this semester a course on the decline of Great Powers, and the US is one of them. Hopefully, my students were not watching the State of the Union otherwise I may end up with a revolution in the classroom. Obama went on by declaring that US soft power and influence is still powerful across the globe and the US remains the leading world power. The closing statement of his State of the Union was based on a message and call for unity. In order to foster unity, promote success and fulfill American promises two elements were advanced: the protestant ethic and the military.

This State of the Union was a solid speech incorporating clear and feasible components for the coming years as well as points for his program of reelection. For Europe, this 2012 State of the Union is one more indication that the US is looking West; Obama has always looked towards Asia for personal and strategic reasons, rightfully so. Europe is and will remain America’s strongest ally. However, it is time for Europe to finally accept its role and responsibilities without having the US looking over its shoulder.

What should be the punishment for a person(s) who killed numerous innocent women & children? Specifically, 24 innocents killed including 10 women & children killed at point blank range. Shot in the head.

What should be the punishment?

a) Death Penalty

b) Life Imprisonment

c) Anything remotely approaching any semblance of an attempt at justice

d) A possible MAXIMUM sentence of three months of confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds of his pay for three months and a reduction in rank for the LEADER. EXONERATION for all others.

If you picked a, b or c, you failed. d) is the right answer. Ok, it was a trick question. All the dead were Iraqis, so they don’t matter. They were lesser human beings. Was this verdict juctice? No. My bad, typo. Was this verdict American justice? Oh, yes! Salute the troops, lets start the parade. The righteous and brave american warriors have saved the world (by executing babies, women & men). All hail USA.

And this is the remarkable american justice in “a case” that came to light in some of the media. The thousands others who have been massacred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan & all over the world, they have been spared this shining beacon of American justice.

US marine pleads guilty to Haditha killings

Update Edit: US marine to serve no time over Iraq killings

A US marine accused over the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians in the city of Haditha was demoted to the rank of private but will serve no time behind bars, a military spokesman has said.

Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the last squad member to face justice after all the others were cleared, was sentenced to 90 days confinement but he will not serve it for procedural reasons, the spokesman said.
…

“the last squad member to face justice”. Hmm, is that what we call this farce? Justice. Seriously? USA, USA. Salute the troops. Shooting innocent people including point blank executions of children & women nets only 1 person a DEMOTION in rank while all others walk scot free. Justice? No. ‘American’ Justice? You betcha. America <— the pits of moral depravity.