PORTRAIT OF A COFFEE HOUSE: People engage in conversation, for it is there that news is communicated and where those interested in politics criticize the government in all freedom and without being fearful, since the government does not heed what the people say. {Jean Chardin, 17th Century French Traveller}
Showing posts with label Bahrain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bahrain. Show all posts

24 June 2011

Silenced: the choice between dissidence or living a 'normal' life

Here's a thought worth reflecting on: if you had the choice to make a decent wage, live a 'normal' untroubled life in exchange for silence and lack of political expression, would you do it? Is it worth fighting for a cause if it means the end of your livelihood, the harassment and blackmail of your family members, possible detention, torture, or even your death? This is the choice many people face every day living under repressive regimes and many choose the security of a maintaining a 'normal' life to openly challenging government malpractices, abuses, and corruption.

The New York Times published two stories recently illustrative of the costs of the choices dissidents face. In one story Azeri blogger and opposition activist Emin Milli was freed from prison only to find that his entire life had been robbed from him. Those who feared government retaliation for association to Milli cut off ties with anyone remotely linked with him. "His wife’s father had been fired from his government job because of Mr. Milli’s political activities. His own father had died while he was in prison. His wife, her own future in turmoil, had asked for a divorce. Mr. Milli spent much of this spring in his apartment, free time gaping before him like a chasm." More recently, the release of Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei appears to be a victory, however, the New York Times added that the artist has since "muzzled" himself. The New York Times quoted Nicholas Bequelin, a Human Rights Watch researcher in Hong Kong, as noting that the artist “has a Damocles sword hanging over his head. That means any time he opens his mouth, he puts himself in danger.”

Given the costs of challenging a repressive and corrupt government one would have to weigh when the benefits of posing a public challenge to the status quo outweighs the costs. Everyday, opposition activists, bloggers, and other dissidents in countries with limited freedoms are detained or killed with little outside support and only with a few international NGOs advocating campaigns on their behalf. Burma has a particularly nasty track record on the index of civil liberties according to Freedom House, garnering one of the worse ratings for freedom by the rights' organisation. More recently, in Syria and Bahrain, arbitrary detentions and torture of suspected opposition activists and their associates have become the norm. Yet the mass movements in the Arab world sparked in Tunisia has resulted in a change of popular consciousness whereby people realize that collectively by casting off fear they have power to cast off bad governments, revolution.

In countries where governments create an atmosphere of public fear through secret police mechanisms, arbitrary arrests and the threat of detainment or violence, individuals are careful not to challenge their governments because they don't know whether their neighbors are informants who would turn them in for dissent. On the flip side, what individuals living in such an atmosphere probably don't realize is that many of their neighbors are probably as equally dissatisfied with the current political state of affairs as they are but given that no one voices it that status quo prevails. Furthermore, repressive governments are usually quick to make examples of individual dissidents as seen in the case of Milli and Ai Wei Wei. Dissidents and opposition activists only have force if they're popularly backed, but this requires collective courage from an entire population and the willingness of individuals to put their neck on the line or an individual with such powerful charisma he or she inspires collective action. Such movements are not always successful as seen from the 2007 anti-government protests in Burma, the so-called 'Saffron Revolution' which ended with the military junta willing to talk to the opposition but unwilling to cede any power. A pyrrhic victory. More recently, Libya portrays the potentially heavy costs of challenging a dictator, all out bloody civil war.

We hail individual courage and martyrdom for a cause. In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi has become an international hero for wanting to bring democracy to her country and having paid the price with nearly 15 years of house arrest until her release in 2010. The more iconic image of Buddhist monk, Thích Quảng Đức, committing an act of self-immolation in protest of the persecution of Buddhist monks in Vietnam back in the 1960s is also very telling of the sympathy popular consciousness has for those dying for an idea, a human sacrifice in the name of protest. The public reveres those who can and will sacrifice their lives and livelihood if it means saying 'No' to a system which does not acknowledge the uniqueness of human individuality and giving us a life worth living.  It is the choice of defining what type of life is worth living and what gives us meaning through the recreation of our political systems and the right to express our beliefs openly.

Not everyone is willing to take the risks. When the choice is between your life, the life of your family and friends, keeping the roof over your head and having the job which will feed your children, most of us would pick survival over challenging a repressive regime or they would challenge the status quo but only from the apparent safety of exile. The question all dissidents must ask themselves is if what they believe in is worth the costs and, if it is, whether they have the courage, tenacity, and creativity to inspire others to join them.

05 May 2011

Thrashing Media Freedoms & Arbitrary Arrests: Eye on Syria and Bahrain

The Trump v. Obama bonanza and the recent death of Osama bin Laden (carefully timed to be announced in the middle of The Apprentice) has been drowning out a lot of more important ongoing news. World Press Freedom Day has gone by this May 3rd and, lest we forget, journalists in Syria and Bahrain are facing rough odds. Paris-based Reporters Without Borders issued this year's list of press freedom "predators" this past Tuesday. Who's new to the list this year? The King of Bahrain.

Yesterday, Toby C. Jones published a great piece on the Arab Reform Bulletin, a publication by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, with an analysis and overview of Bahrain's censorship measures. To name a few, Al Wasat, Bahrain's leading independent paper is expected to close down on May 10 and, according to The Media Line, "the Bahrain Center for Human Rights reported on Tuesday that 68 journalists have been laid-off, arrested and threatened." Even medical personnel and staff are not immune to the repression. The Guardian reported that medics have become targets of retribution simply for helping injured protesters. The Media Line further added that about 50 medics would face military trial for 'subversive acts.'

In Syria, a similar pattern of response against media and opposition supporters has taken place. This past Wednesday, Al Jazeera confirmed that one of its journalists, Dorothy Parvaz, was arrested in Syria. Al Jazeera has launched an online campaign on Twitter with the tag #FreeDorothy as well as a Facebook page. Today, the Neiman Foundation, of which Parvaz is a fellow, has also called for her release. For the past month, arbitrary arrests of journalists and suspected opposition supporters has been the norm in Syria with the addition of violent crackdowns against protesters, especially in Deraa, which some observers are calling a 'massacre.'

If these regimes believe that arbitrary arrests, violent retribution, and thrashing media freedoms will maintain the status quo they really ought to reconsider their tactics. Historically, such actions only result in strengthening the resolve of those who genuinely seek political reform for their countries building up international criticism for the regime and sympathy for the victims of crackdowns. Is there any political sense in detaining journalists, bloggers and medics, shooting at unarmed protesters, and even using torture and blackmail to threaten opposition supporters? Do these tactics ever provide a desired outcome in long-run? While in the private sphere individuals are expected to act with civility towards one another, the same ethics and rules of behavior never apply in the political realm which is a sad sight. If the governments of Syria and Bahrain continue to take "desperate" measures against protesters and media representatives they will surely find themselves committing political suicide.

05 April 2011

Crowd Intelligence: The Case for Supporting a Free Web Globally

In a previous post regarding civil liberties, I mentioned that philosophically one could argue that total freedom of information could reasonably be dangerous to society especially in democracies where lines can be blurred between what constitutes a criminal action versus what is simply freedom of expression (the ambiguous term 'terrorist' being one such issue). Although, I suggested we should look at what actions constitute the intent to actually harm or impede on the rights of others versus actions that promote public accountability of one's government policies.

Currently, in Bahrain where protests are ongoing, the government has violently cracked down on opposition supporters and the media. The Bahrain Human Rights Council claims that 370 people have been arrested since the imposition of the emergency law on March 15. These include bloggers, human rights activists, and journalists. On March 28, the military public prosecutor imposed a media gag, banning "any publishing, through print, audio, video and online media, based on the requirements of discretion and commitment to the principle of confidential investigation." Here we have a government which instead of empowering and serving its people seeks to serve its own selfish interests by suppressing them. This is an unwise policy that is likely to backlash in the long-run. Moral realism and political karma will eventually prevail. No government can succeed or have stability for the long-term without seeking to serve the population on which its legitimacy depends, whether it's a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy.

Consider this, right now the Internet is not a free medium globally. Censorship imposition and information regulation varies in different countries and government monitoring is quite common. I am not against monitoring the web if it is to prevent crime with proper privacy laws in place to protect innocent individuals. However, if monitoring is utilized to root out, blackmail, arrest, or even kill political opposition leaders such technology should not be sold by democratic countries to non-democratic ones. 

A free web benefits everyone politically, socially, and culturally because it empowers individuals. If people globally were to have open access to information, without political censorship, exchange ideas, have public forums of free debate then collectively the Internet becomes a powerful catalyst to transform societies simply by granting individuals the responsibility to verify fact from fiction and to organize collective decision-making in keeping their own governments accountable. Of course this depends on a population that has access to the Internet and who are literate, something that should be encouraged and promoted. Above all, greater civil liberties on the Internet also means inspiring greater creativity in individuals through collective exchange. This has massive impact not merely among artistic and literary groups, but also among corporate, business, and civil society groups who can connect through the Internet. Problems that have gone unresolved through isolated decision-making can benefit by access to crowd intelligence.

In 2004, James Surowiecki published a fascinating book The Wisdom of Crowds. Surowiecki argues that  the aggregation of information in groups results in decisions that are often better made than any single individual in the group. He argues that four elements are necessary for a 'wise crowd': 1. diversity of opinion, 2. independence of opinion (i.e. one's opinion is not influenced by others), 3. decentralization (i.e. people can draw from their unique local knowledge), and 4. aggregation (i.e. mechanisms are in place to turn private judgments into a collective decision). 

In corporate cultures, even among NGOs and in government departments, decision-making can be easily isolated, 'cliquefied', and threatened by the possibility of group-think. Surowiecki addresses the cases where crowd intelligence has failed: where opinions in a group are homogenous rather than diverse, where hierarchies are too strict, where groups are protective of their 'turf' or specialization and don't allow outsiders to contribute, where decisions are imitated, and where emotionalism or herd instinct can take hold. 

Now consider the massive resource potential of collective intelligence the Internet provides if it were a free medium globally. People across the world could easily provide for at least three of Surowieki's conditions for a 'wise crowd.' Already, mediums such as Wikipedia and Twitter allow people to cross reference information, cite sources, share news and opinion, and debate dubious points. Twitter and Facebook have been cited as factors helping aid the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. Although their influence has been questioned in regards to the current Arab revolutions taking place, one can't underestimate them as powerful tools or organization or to rally public opinion among a younger generation of net users.

Governments do themselves a disservice through the imposition of censorship and fail to tap a significant resource when they limit forums of information exchange. What if these online crowds were properly utilized to resolve major political, social, and economic problems globally instead of relying solely on 'experts'? The possibilities the Internet provides for this is endless. A politically uncensored Internet globally could well transcend language barriers and provide for collective creativity and problem-solving as well as for social, cultural, and political transformation. 

29 March 2011

Crackdowns on Bloggers & Journalists Amidst Protests

Syrian blogger Ahmed Abu Al Khair (http://ahmadblogs.net/) has been arrested in Syria earlier last week. Global Voices Advocacy contributer, Anas Qtiesh, reported that Ahmed was previously arrested in February and has been subsequently re-arrested amidst protests in Daraa last week. Qtiesh also reports that journalist, Khaled Elekhtyar has gone missing.

To read the full story and support these individuals please click here.

Al Jazeera has also covered the status of Arab bloggers amid crackdowns here.

Update: It appears that one of Bahrain's most influential bloggers, Mahmood Al-Yousif (http://mahmood.tv/), has also been arrested last night.

17 March 2011

The end of the world? No, just the continuity of history. Fukuyama was wrong. History didn't end.

Catching up with news this week has left my head dizzy. The recent tragedy in Japan is set to earmark the world's most expensive natural catastrophes at USD $170 billion. What makes this all the more tragic is that Wikileaks released cables highlighting Japan had been warned by an IEAE official back in 2008 that some of its nuclear plants were not ready for earthquakes and had not updated their safety procedures. Japanese politicians and nuclear industry heads turned a blind eye to the warnings for the sake of business and expanding Japanese nuclear projects.

Developments in the Middle East and North Africa are also not looking positive. Libya, in the meantime, has exploded into civil war and recent news suggests that Libyan rebels are beginning to lose ground to Gaddafi forces. Some commentators are opining that Obama is missing out on a golden moment to intervene in the Libyan crisis, although the US President is calling for Gaddafi to make an exit. I honestly believe the US is delaying any action because of our recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention it's a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation per usual in international intervention considerations.

In Bahrain, the royal family is calling for the aid of Saudi security forces in a protest that is getting out of hand. Literally, this morning, there were photos of Pearl Square up in smoke and the Bahraini government declared a state of emergency and martial law. Speaking of Saudi Arabia, we're not getting much information concerning protests in Saudi, although Reuters noted that Saudi Shi'ites marched in support of Shi'ites in Bahrain. There was also a rumor circulating a week or so ago, of a 27-year old Saudi Facebook activist who was allegedly shot dead by Saudi security forces, although no one has been able to confirm this story.

Palestinian protesters called for an end to their divided government and to corruption in the Palestinian Territories although protesters were apparently met by Hamas security forces who fought to disperse the crowd. This amidst the publicity surrounding the Palestine Papers, which revealed the mess of backdoor negotiations between the Palestinian Authority, the US, Israel, and Britain, and other regional players with a stake in a potential settlement.

One would think that the whole 2012 hype had an inkling of truth, that the world is heading for a cataclysmic end, just from reading the news lately between consecutive natural catastrophes, potential nuclear meltdown in Japan, and major political transformations in the Middle East. I take from the Oswald Spengler school of thought: change is the only constant, history is cyclical and, unfortunately, repeats itself. It's interesting to note, at least in recent history, turns of centuries marked dramatic changes. From 1800 into 1900, we suffered two great wars; from 1700 into 1800, revolutions; from 1600 into 1700... well, actually, in 1700 the Pacific Northwest happened to be struck by a magnitude 9 earthquake and Japan by an ensuing tsunami.

Goes to show, some things never change but we could well be better prepared for them.

21 February 2011

The Cliff Notes Version of Events: Gaddafi has gone mad, Saleh is sad, Saudi is stunned, Obama and Hillary are baffled and everyone else is pissed off...

For anyone who has been keeping track of the protests that have exploded across the Middle East, since Ben Ali's and Mubarak's disgraceful exits, every other country in the region has basically exploded. Protests have spread across to Yemen, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Syria, Algeria, Libya, Sudan, and now Morocco. Obama administration officials are scrambling to find a proper response to what's going on (or rather trying to figure out what is going on).

To be entirely frank, I lost track after Egypt. I think every other news junkie is also taken aback by information overload from the major international bureaus, news forums, Twitter, and Facebook feeds.

In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi has decided to take from the authoritarian playbook and violently crack down against protesters which of course has only served to make them angrier. Reuters just reported that Gaddafi has declared that he will fight protests against his rule until the "last man standing" a quote by his son who appeared on state television to deliver the message. Gaddafi has to be mad considering his 'dic' neighbours have been kicked out and that people have essentially lost their fear. An update by Iranian news states that according to an unnamed 'report' Gaddafi has left Libya for Venezuela or Brazil although this is entirely unverified. It appears these rumors are still flying this afternoon. I'm convinced the media is trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by headlining Gaddafi's exit prior to it actually happening. 

Recent events in Bahrain have utterly baffled the Obama administration. The Al Khalifa ruling family is rumored to be divided on how to respond to the protests. Emile Nakleh, a former member of the intelligence community, wrote a critical piece in the Financial Times today on the Al Khalifa family urging US to 'not fear forces' behind the protests in Bahrain. "The ruling family believed that Saudi and western support would shield it from accountability to its people.... But now events in Tunisia and Egypt are giving a clear indication to the al-Khalifas and other 'princely' regimes in the neighbourhood that such outside support cannot shore up a government if it has no legitimacy with its people. It should not, therefore, be surprising that the opposition is drawing wide support across Bahraini society. As in Tunisia and Egypt, it is neither driven nor controlled by Islamist ideology. Of course since the Shia are the majority, many of the demonstrators are Shia. But it is also true that the protesters include liberal Sunnis."

Speaking of baffled, Saudi Arabia has taken a lukewarm stance toward Bahrain declaring its "absolute rejection" in meddling in Bahraini affairs according to the Saudi Gazette. Saudi Arabia sits uncomfortably sandwiched between several protesting countries and I suppose the Saudis themselves don't want to incite any internal unrest within their own borders by taking sides with anyone in Bahrain.

In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh is talking big about making compromises with the protesters, first by declaring he would not run for elections again in the fall (the man's been in office since 1978) and more recently making offers to open up negotiations with his political opposition, an offer which has just been rejected.

Meanwhile, Team Obama appears entirely confused and the term a 'balancing act' has been so overused by foreign policy analysts it's become cliché. Truly, if Obama policies are to be compared to gymnastics then Middle East policy is a Chinese acrobat. The US recently vetoed a UN resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal a move that was condemned by Palestinian protesters. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has urged restraint on the Al Khalifa family in regards to protesters and furthermore demanded that Gaddafi punish any security personnel responsible for violence against protesters. US foreign policy can't go back to the same old business of funding dictators' high-flying life style. I hope that the uprisings taking place across North Africa and the Middle East will give American policy-makers from now on into the future a shake-up. Supporting those who oppress their own people is never a lucrative investment for the long run. Of course, I'm being optimistic. Politicians will never change although there's nothing more amusing than to watch them reap the consequences of their own bad policies.