Former Nobel official: Obama prize failed to achieve goals
Ynetnews/September 18/15/Breaking with official tradition, the former secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize says Obama failed to live up to the panel’s expectations. In a break with Nobel tradition, the former secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize committee says the 2009 award to President Barack Obama failed to live up to the panel’s expectations. Geir Lundestad writes in a book released on Thursday that the committee had expected the prize to deliver a boost to Obama. Instead the award was met with fierce criticism in the US, where many argued Obama had not been president long enough to have an impact worthy of the Nobel. “Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake,” Lundestad wrote in excerpts of the book read by The Associated Press. “In that sense the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for.” Lundestad, who stepped down last year after 25 years as the non-voting secretary of the secretive committee, noted that Obama was startled by the award and that his staff even investigated whether other winners had skipped the prize ceremony in Oslo. That has happened only on rare occasions, such as when dissidents were held back by their governments. “In the White House they quickly realized that they needed to travel to Oslo,” Lundestad wrote. Speaking to AP on Wednesday, Lundestad said he didn’t disagree with the decision to award the president but the committee “thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn’t have this effect.” It is rare for Nobel officials to discuss the proceedings of the secretive committee or publicly criticize each other. But in the book Lundestad also fired a parting shot at Thorbjorn Jagland who was the committee chairman for six years and is now a regular member. Lundestad said that as a former Norwegian prime minister and sitting head of the Council of Europe human rights organization, Jagland should never have been appointed to the committee, which frequently emphasizes its independence. Jagland declined to comment, said Daniel Holtgen, his spokesman at the Council of Europe.
Al-Qaeda vs. ISIS: Will the West be the punching bag?
Baker Atyani/Al Arabiya/September 18/15/
The latest audio message by Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, which appeared on 10 September, can be best described as raising the battle flag against ISIS.Zawahiri’s exasperation over the so-called Islamic State and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was quite evident in his audio message.
“We do not see Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi worthy of the Caliphate,” he said in the 45-minute audio message. Baghdadi came “by force and with explosions and car bombs,” rather than “the choice of the people,” Zawahiri added.This message was Zawahiri’s first episode in what he called “The Islamic Spring” series, which the As-Sahab Foundation – Al-Qaeda’s media wing – has started broadcasting. The message was probably recorded before June 2015, after Baghdadi refused to heed the advice of the chief of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) – Nasir Abdel Karim al-Wuhayshi, alias Abu Basir, who was killed on June 16 – who was also Zawahiri’s deputy. For Al-Qaeda to come back as the world’s leading ‘militant group’, the easiest way is to target its traditional enemies: the U.S. and the West.Abu Basir had urged Baghdadi and Syrian militant factions – in a public letter published on 27 Feb., 2015 – to stop fighting and unite against the Assad regime.
9/11 is missing!
Zawahiri’s audio message, which came a day before the 14th anniversary of the deadly New York and Washington attacks, did not address 9/11. The Al-Qaeda chief’s prime concerns expressed in his audio message were very clear: ISIS and Baghdadi.Zawahiri tried to reach out to global Al-Qaeda branches. He paid greeting to them all by name, and summarized what happened in the first half of 2015. He wanted to appear as a leader who exercised complete control over all the branches of Al-Qaeda, despite the fact that even when Osama Bin Laden was alive, it was difficult to control Al-Qaeda franchise branches as they expanded over the world. This was abundantly clear in the Abbottabad letters.
AQIS was the first move
Before Zawahiri’s public declaration of war against ISIS, he took a counter-step in South Asia by establishing Al-Qaeda in the Indian subcontinent (AQIS).AQIS was a natural consequence of the death and outflow of senior Arab members of the organization. The vacuum was filled by South Asians. Al-Qaeda was trying to close the door on ISIS, and recruit from South Asia. AQIS claimed responsibility for attacking a Pakistan Navy dockyard in Karachi in September 2014, and the killing of several Bangladeshi bloggers. Bringing in Bin Laden’s son to speak to Al-Qaeda branches is a clear indication of the internal and external crisis faced by Al-Qaeda.
The Bin Laden legacy
In another Zawahiri audio message dated August 14, he introduced Bin Laden’s son, Hamza bin Osama Bin Laden, who must be in his mid-twenties now. In his first ever audio message – ‘Greetings of Peace to the People of Islam’ – Hamza sent his greetings and praises to Al-Qaeda branches across the world. The undated message was recorded before the death of AQAP’s Abu Basir. Bringing in Bin Laden’s son to speak to Al-Qaeda branches is a clear indication of the internal and external crisis faced by Al-Qaeda. The Bin Laden legacy was used to give legitimacy to Zawahiri among both his own ranks and with ISIS. “I greet with reverence the friend of my father, may Allah have mercy on him, and his companion on the path, the honorable … the Sheikh Emir Ayman al-Zawahiri,” Hamza Bin Laden was heard saying.“On this occasion, following my father… I want to renew my [loyalty] to Emir al-Mumineen (leader of the Muslims) Mullah Mohammad Omar,” he continued, in reference to the late Taliban leader. The message was recorded before the news of Mullah Omar’s death was announced in July 2015 (although he died earlier, in 2013). This signifies that the “Emir al-Mumineen” – which is equal to the Caliph – is not ISIS’ Baghdadi in the eyes of the younger Bin Laden, and suggests he does not recognize Baghdadi or his ‘state’.Later on, after the news of Mullah Omar’s death was announced, Zawahiri swore allegiance to the new leader of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, describing him as “Emir al-Mumineen”.
Not good news!
Al-Qaeda confronting ISIS is seen as good news by those who think the groups will weaken each other, such as former CIA Director General David Petraeus. He has urged U.S. officials to use members of Al-Qaeda in Syria to combat ISIS.But this declaration of war between Al-Qaeda and ISIS will work contrary to this popular presumption. For Al-Qaeda to come back as the world’s leading ‘militant group’, the easiest way is to target its traditional enemies: the U.S. and the West.It is clear that Al-Qaeda is desperately trying to win in this competition with ISIS. And despite its current weakness, it will keep trying.
MCF and the Al Arabiya News Channel “Exceptional Courage in Journalism” awards.
What if the Arab Spring had never happened?
Abdullah Hamidaddin/Al Arabiya/September 18/15
What if the Arab Spring had never happened? This is a recurring question asked by many people in Arab countries affected by the revolutions or observing them. As hopelessness mounts and suffering worsens, people wonder if it was worth it. There were those who believed freedom and liberty should be sought at any cost, but even they could not imagine the human cost that would be paid. As reality hits harder against their revolutionary fervor, they too are now in doubt. Three years ago, every Syrian I met supported the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. Today, I hear more and more Syrians whispering things such as “at least we were safe,” and “unless you were in politics your livelihood was protected.” Some even say: “Change would have come had we waited.” ‘What if’ questions are not easy to answer – history is neat but reality is complex and unpredictable – but it is important to ask such questions, especially about the Arab Spring. The purpose is not to imagine an alternative history, but to discuss other means of bringing change and reform. They thought the social and institutional structures of Arab communities could absorb the shockwaves and continue to function. They are realizing they were wrong.
When the Arab Spring started, those of us who supported it did so from a moral perspective. We believed people should resist oppression, and in the process tolerate the human cost. However, there was another underlying belief that led many of us to encourage change by whatever means. Many assumed it was enough for people to want change and to topple opposing regimes. They thought the social and institutional structures of Arab communities could absorb the shockwaves and continue to function. They are realizing they were wrong. More and more are waking up to the fact that the human cost has gone beyond what is justifiable, and that Arab social and institutional structures are more likely to accommodate religious fundamentalists than civil and democratic activists.
‘The people’
Many thought it was all about the people. Very few thought of the fragile social and institutional structures that would fall apart amid chaos and unpredictability. Had the Arab Spring not happened, we would still have had disruptions here and there as the situation was reaching boiling point. However, those disruptions would have most likely led to gradual reform rather than revolutions that wreaked havoc.Had the Arab Spring not happened, Syria would not have been decimated. All Arab Spring countries were hit badly, but none more so than Syria and Libya. Before the uprising, Assad was already making steady reforms – not enough, but there was some progress. Had there been no revolution, Syria would have gradually improved, and in 10 or 15 years things would have been much better. In the process of that gradual reform, there would have been oppression, disappearances and torture. However, there would not have been some 300,000 deaths, millions injured and half the population displaced. Had the Arab Spring not happened, Syria would not have been decimated. I am not telling people to lie down and die while dictators do as they please, but to consider whether there is any chance of reasoning with the dictator in question.Arabs wanted hasty change, and were overconfident with the power of the people, paying no attention to the power of structures. We realized that ‘the people’ was an empty phrase, that it is social and economic structures that matter. It should not be what the people want, but what the structure allows.
I am all for reform, but I am also for appreciating what we have, and for softly pushing for more. I am also for a deeper understanding of the structures within which we live, and for appreciating their value even if they are not perfect. Without them, we are left with chaos and misery.