Comments on issues raised by BBC WHYS

The call of Iraqi PM Nouri Al Maliki to the USA to provide Iraqi army with more US weapons should be seen as another underlying level of differences between the Iraqi government and the White House. The US invaded Iraq in the first place because of allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It wanted to make of it a safe country for its interests and for the whole region. Ironically and metaphorically, Iraq is daily under the curse of WMD through the daily violence which up to now has claimed hundreds of thousands of people. The weapons used are simple in constructions but with devastating effects.

For the US, it will be a risk to arm the Iraqi forces as now it feels dissatisfied with the performance of the Iraqi government which has failed to unite sections of the Iraqi society. The Iraqi forces are still viewed as representing a section of society along religious grouping rather than a national force. In comparison the US forces are made of soldiers of different races and religion but they seemingly have allegiance to their country or at least act professionally.

The Americans are somewhat in control of the situation, suffering far less casualties in comparison to the Iraqi population. 600,000 are estimated to have died in violence compared to about 3,000 soldiers. Which means there is one American casualty for every 200 Iraqis. Such figures are possible because they possess key weapons. A scenario will be in case of arming the Iraqi forces as wished by PM Al Maliki, they can turn against the American forces, either because they don’t want to be under their command or they can be instigated to do so by a foreign country like Iran.

As there were warnings of a civil war in Iraq, more weapons will mean laying the basis for such a war. At anytime the forces can break up since there were instances of the forces deserting or acting in the name of their sectarian grouping. The US still needs to have a firm grip on Iraq. An Iraqi force with adequate and sufficient arms will be the last stage before a planned and final withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq is put in effect.

More weapons for the Iraqi forces has to do with the level of trust the Americans have in them. But as the Iraqi are still disunited, turning their guns and explosives at one another, for the US the safest way is to equip the Iraqi forces to the minimum. But what can bring security to Iraq is that the Iraqis as a nation should arm themselves with the will to solve their problems democratically. Continuous killing can’t be stopped as long as there is deep feud, simple ingredients for explosives and suicide bombers.

The help the Iraqis can get from the international community is that they should be given a chance to solve their problems without too much interference. Iraq shouldn’t continue to be a battleground between the US and those opposed to its wide presence in the Middle East. Iraqis once united should have the power to choose their path and not to be dictated what to do under the threat of no abating violence as a pressure to do what they are told from one side or another.

Racism is one of the attitudes that many societies in the world face because of their racial diversities. There is open racism manifested, for example, in Far Right parties, as there is implicit racism. This kind of racism shows itself when people of different races rarely mix socially each keeping to their own race despite aspects of courtesy and tolerance.

Britain as well as many countries in Europe is a multi-racial and multicultural society. It has been successful in being the home of people from all corners of the world, especially Asia and Africa. It respected the specificities of its minorities, which paradoxically made them look as societies within the major British society. This has made it look heterogeneous but not totally harmonious as there are incidences of racism that erupt from time to time in which black sport stars were the victims.

Britain is still facing racism because of the failure of the integration of minorities from Muslim countries whose some of its members refuse to join mainstream values. The most noticeable aspects of the rise of racism is the veil issue that raised a lot of debates in the UK and across the world. Terrorism is still considered attributed to Islamic fanatics. This makes people generalise their attitudes and consider Muslims as alien to their society.

Old habits die hard. There can be legislations guaranteeing the right of everyone to equal treatment. But there are the social attitudes that perpetuate racism. A person can be persecuted for showing racism. But there is no law to punish a person for refusing to make friends with another person from a different race. Despite efforts to eradicate racism there is always resistance on the part of some as they cling to their likes either because of their feeling of superiority or fear of being rejected by people of a different race.

Concerning the Indian actress who was the victim of racism, it must be remembered that Indians are still the subject of discrimination in their own country because of their social cast. Low cast Indians still live in medieval conditions despite India’s economic and technological boom.

Racism and discrimination are still obstacles to human harmony. They remain hard to end as long as there are those who hold them to feel distinction and to consider anyone with different values as not worth appreciating getting to know.

In the USA race, gender and religion are still considered of importance in politics. In the past 17 years or so, US politics looked as if breaking from stereotypes. In 1989, Colin Powel was considered as the first black to be Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then in 2001the first black Secretary of States. Madeleine Albright was the first female Secretary of States. Joe Lieberman was the first Jew to run as vice president with Al Gore in 2000. Condoleezza Rice is the first black female Secretary of States. Keith Ellision is the first American Muslim to be elected to the Congress. And the list goes on in the same way it did when during and after racial segregation a black was hailed as being the first mayor of a locality etc.

The US to show that it has shaken off its racial attitudes should be ready for a president regardless of race, colour or religion. Jessie Jackson couldn’t get the chance of being a presidential candidate for the Democrats in 1986 presidential primaries because of his colour. The Democrats, in their next presidential primaries, may have to make a choice between a black candidate in the person of Barack Obama and a female candidate should Senator Hilary Clinton run for president. In this case, there will be a race between gender and colour to make of presidential elections a history in US politics.

Politically, the US does not seem to have exhausted all political possibilities for a president. But as long as there is still a racial majority of a section of US society, it will be unlikely a president will emerge from a racial minority. Only candidate personality and the acceptance of a person on their merit can make it normal to have whatever president accepted to be in the White House assuming responsibilities without attributing his/her possible shortcomings to race or gender

The two Nichane magazine journalists Driss Ksikes and Sanaa al-Aji received their verdict. They have been fined for writing an article about religious jokes. They have been banned from working for two months and have been given suspended jail sentences of three years. The magazine is to be closed for two months. It was light in view of many compared to the uproar they caused among a large section of the Moroccan society. It also shows that the Moroccan government doesn’t want to be seen as stifling press freedom with an iron fist. In this context both side wants to be seen as winning as there was no effective imprisonment as there was no acquittal. .

They were lucky as they had the support from Moroccan Press Association and Reporters without Frontiers. They got world publicity as their case was tackled on main news organisations like the BBC. Driss Ksikes, editor of the magazine Nichane wasn’t convincing, when on BBC World Haveyoursay last Monday, he said that he was free to publish jokes common in Morocco and people are free to or not to buy this magazine. The question about such jokes isn’t one can or cannot read them, but the impact they can have in society. It’s true that Moroccan tell jokes about religion and monarchy. But they do so in private. When a newspaper publishes such jokes this means the Moroccans can tell them in public loud. Other newspapers can use caricatures on this issue. For the government, not to allow such gate to be widely open is to set Nichane as an example to other journalists not to follow suit.

In Morocco religion is still a sensitive issue. By trivialising it in such a way there is likely to be an open backlash between the modernists and the Islamists. A scenario will be the Islamists attacking pubs and discos in response to jokes about their religion.

As we say one’s freedom ends when the freedom of others starts, it’s better to deal with religion or anything constituting the identity of a nation objectively without seeking to unnecessarily raise emotions.

Morocco seeks to be an open society but the old traditions are still entrenched in people’s mentality despite aspects of modernity and openness. Morocco needn’t be the scene of clashes because of attitudes to religion. Moroccans still have to clash with the causes of their economic and social problems.

Nichane’s journalists know this well about Morocco. It’s true Moroccans accept these jokes but when they are publicized they consider the publisher as making fun of what they are.

Nichane journalists have now got more publicity than they need. It’s better for them in their next issues to continue with their critical, humouristic and sarcastic style of depicting Moroccan society but not to the point of falling from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Condoleezza Rice is starting a trip to the Middle East for a diplomatic push after the worsening situation in Iraq and the Palestinian territories.

US policy in the Middle East has always been met with difficulties because it failed to reconcile the positions of the Israelis and the Palestinians. The US has always been seen as leaning to the Israeli side while being critical of the Palestinians because of the radical views of factions like Hamas. As Hamas and Fatah are still in deep disagreement about Israel, Rice will find it difficult to create a rapprochement leading to durable peace. Her trip will bring little results to the region.Concerning

Concerning her diplomatic initiative about IraqIraqi government and American policy.

As Rice isn’t visiting Syria -one of the key players in the region because of its proximity to Iraq and a harbour to insurgents-her trip to the Middle East will have little impact. The other Arab states she is visiting are US allies with little influence on the situation in Iraq. These states (except for Kuwait) will be reluctant to show open support to US policy as they have to bear in mind public reactions which is in majority opposed to US presence in Iraq. What Saudi Arabia can do, for example, is to prevent its citizens from joining the Sunni insurgents or supporting them financially.

In general the trip is only a diplomatic manoeuvre for consultations and guaranteeing political alliance with these countries. It can also be just US assurance to these states about their stability in case the situation in Iraq worsens further.

The security situation in Iraq has reached an alarming rate. Ironically, the US military intervention despite its sophisticated weapons and apparently well-trained soldiers failed to put an end to insurgency coupled with military operations that claimed lives on all sides.

The US has to get the job finished in Iraq. The dramatic situations in it have been unexpected as it was believed with the fall of Saddam, Iraq would be a model of democracy in the Middle East.

The US achievements in Iraq have been disappointing so far. Instead of planning phase withdrawal, the Bush Administration needs more troops in the hope of calming the situation in troubled areas, especially Baghdad.

Extra troops will be just instrumental in chasing and arresting insurgents. But Iraqi problem is deeper than planting check-points, raids and arrests. There are the hearts and the minds of the Iraqis that need ways to settle their differences sectarian, political or religious. The Iraqi must agree on what country they want to live in, federal, confederate or in a broken Iraq made of new countries representing the major sections of Iraqi population: Shiaas, Kurds, and Sunnis.

The extra troops can win their battles if the locals agree to cooperate with them helping them get their hands on the insurgents. But as there are still deep divisions among the Shiaas and the Sunnis fuelled by Saddam execution, the US army will have the hard task of finding reliable intelligence sources to carry out its raid missions with success. In Iraq, there is only an Iraqi credible force that can make the difference. This means the Iraqi forces remains doubtful as they are infiltrated by insurgents or members carrying violence on behalf of their sects.

When the Iraqis agree to unite politically or come to a durable political settlement, they can have a united security force ready to act for the country and not in the name of just one section of the Iraqi society. The role of the US military will be unnecessary as the majority of stable countries depend on their own task forces.

Somalia is the only country in Africa that has been unruly since the fall of Ziad Berri regime. The American involvement in 1994 ended without settling anything. Its withdrawal after the death of 14 of its soldiers in an operation against a warlord that went wrong was only a pretext, as it seems. The US didn’t want to risk more of its military personnel and equipment in a land not constituting a major threat to its interest in the Horn of Africa.

But Somalia remains a country only in name whose territory is divided between an internationally recognised government that had a sketchy control while the warlords roam the country, some of them using religion as their asset to have more followers. It’s no wonder if Somalia has allegedly become a refuge for Islamic terrorists as they feel surrounded in other parts of the world. What is striking is that such groups thrive in troubled lands like Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and in geographically difficult lands like the borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US strike in Somalia put in question its increasing military involvement after its intervention in Iraq, which now needs according to Pt Bush more troops to stabilize the situation there. The risk is when the situation in Somalia worsens, needing more US military intervention, the US army will be overstretched.

This also brings into question US legitimacy to strike an apparently sovereign country without consulting the international community. It also shows the capability of the strong to strike wherever it pleases him. The US once again has shown it has a free hand on the international stage by carrying military strikes, invasions and pushing for sanctions against its enemy regimes, especially those in North Korea, Syria and Iran. So the cowboys who were running the Far West are still among us but with modern suits and sophisticated armours. It remains to see if such actions are still thrilling as they used to be on classical movies.

Coming back to Somalia, it is apparently an insignificant country because it doesn’t have oil among other things, such strikes didn’t get the international condemnation it should have had, had it been against another country with heavy political weight.

What is apparent is that strikes are unlikely to produce the desired effects as the insurgents have ways to escape and seek refuge. Somalia needs to return to normality and become a recognisable country with a central government all over the land.

By remaining an open gate to insurgents from different parts of the world and an easy target from the US most powerful army, its neighbour Ethiopia and by having its borders locked from Kenya, Somalia will continue to stifle, shrinking day by day. Currently its population are refugees in other countries and those staying are under the mercy of an inefficient transitional government or warlords for whom the life and death of the population is a part of their daily business.

The question remains when the Somalis will have the wisdom to unite without endangering anyone outside and inside their country. They can take the example of DR Congo and Liberia, whose respective warring factions finally agreed to democratic process instead of remaining at each other’s throats. By uniting, the Somalis can have intervention from the international community to help them rather than being rebuffed and sneered at because there is no international institution to take them seriously for lack of stability and credible regime.

Press freedom has evolved in Morocco in the past few years. Compared to the era when the press was directly controlled by the state in the person of the previous Interior Minister Driss Basri (dismissed in 1999), there is an era of relative freedom. Among the subjects that Moroccan press can talk about is monarchy. Journalists are relatively free to talk about monarchy under late King Hassan the Second and his Son the current King Mohammed the Sixth.

They write provocative articles such as the cost of monarchy. There were articles about scandals in the royal palaces. In the past years, the press was free to report about fund embezzlement in Agadir Royal Palace as well as the theft of precious items from Marrakesh Royal Palace. Such incidences used to be covered up. No Moroccan media could write about it.

In Morocco, many journalists exercise self-censorship. The good news for them is that they are no longer liable to imprisonment in case they are sued for what they have written. There is only a fine for them to pay.

Concerning Nichane magazine’s editor and one of its reporters who are accused of defaming Islam and damaging public morality in an article about religious jokes.
these jokes because of which “Nichane” newspaper was banned and prosecuted , they are widespread in Morocco. (Personally I didn’t read the issue that has been banned). Generally, the religious jokes that are widespread in Morocco are about some Muslim clerics known for their greed or sexual exploitation of women and children. Such clerics are in most cases imaginary as they can be the stereotype of a certain category. There are jokes about the Day of Judgement

For “Nichane” newspaper, it seems to have crossed the red lines as it tackled a sensitive subject in Morocco, which is mainly religion. The Moroccan government is trying to curb the influence of Islamist extremists. By allowing such publications, it will give them an opportunity to win public support as for them the Moroccan government is pro-western.

Even the Islamist newspaper Attajdid was in the middle of media storm when it interpreted last Asia Tsunami as the wrath of God as this region was according to it a bastion for sex tourism. An Egyptian cleric Al Qaradawi was attacked in Moroccan media because of his fatwa (religious edict) allowing Moroccan Muslims to take loans with interests for having a house to live in. This was considered as interference with Morocco’s religious authorities. Moroccan airliner company La RAM (Royal Air Maroc) was open to criticism because it banned its staff from praying during working hours.

So religion remains a hot issue in Morocco mainly because the Moroccan government aspires to make Morocco a free and open society, not under the grip of a particular religious grouping or party. Paradoxically by banning a newspaper claiming to incarnate the era of press freedom, which is rare in the majority of the Arab world, it opens the gate of criticism about its implementation of free speech.

As religion is the affair of the faithful and not the agenda of the government, it’s better for Moroccan press to deal with it cautiously. The Moroccans are generally sensitive about international issues like the situation in Iraq and Palestinian territories. It can be difficult to calm them down when their religion is attacked or talked about jokingly in public press although a category find no embarrassment in telling jokes about their religion. The death threat the two journalists from Nichane received is an example of what “blasphemy” can lead to in Morocco.

Gadgets are still available only to a few people around the world. Many don’t have access to the new technology because of their low income. Computers are still a luxury. In many schools chalk and blackboard are still used as the principle tools for teaching while other schools have multimedia facilities.

New technology is likely to deepen the divide between the rich and the poor as good quality technology is still the monopoly of rich nations and rich people who can easily afford it.

It will take decades before modern technology gadgets become accessible to everyone. These gadgets are still a luxury in poor countries. These countries don’t have electricity all over to make it possible for everyone to use these gadgets.

Gadgets can be frustrating. The newly acquired gadgets become quickly outdated due to constant innovations. The questions is if these gadgets are intended to make life easier or just urge people to be mere consumers, dissatisfied with what they’ve already got.

Blasphemy is still considered as an offence in many parts of the world, especially in Islamic countries. Selman Rushdie is still under threat because of his book “The Satanic Verses” considered as blasphemous. The cartoons about Prophet Mohammed are still fresh in mind.

The recent example was in Morocco. A newspaper “Nichane” has been banned and its site on the Internet blocked because it published an issue of 10 pages on jokes the Moroccans make about religion, politics and sex. So religion is still a sensitive issue.

Da Vinci Code was a controversial film because it put in question many held ideas about Christ and Christianity. The controversy it raised showed that blasphemy still matters as long as there are believers who don’t want to be offended in their faith.

Many things were taboo including sex and blasphemy. But now due to the Internet it has become possible to publish anything including jokes about what used to be too sacred to talk about irreverently.

The danger is when blasphemy becomes so widespread, religion will become outdated forcing a new society whose members will have to find new ways to link for it not to break up totally.