BBC Panorama: Syria Inside the Secret Revolution

Apologies for being MIA. Have been taking on a few projects these past few weeks and life has been a little hectic. Need to catch up with news and reading!

This BBC report is brought to you via The Revolting Syrian:

In the Name of Nationalism: Thoughts on the Oslo Bomber

My blood boiled as I watched the shifting media coverage in lieu of the Oslo Bombing late last week. Every major news network had their own 'expert' and every right-wing crank was crying 'jihad' until it was discovered the 'jihadist' was a white Norwegian right-wing extremist. I haven't yet seen any apologies for misguided speculation or assumptions. In fact, it was rather annoying how quickly the framing of the story changed once it was discovered the 'terrorist' was a white guy. And we should call Anders Behring Breivik out for exactly what he is - a terrorist - a man who acted with full intent on a political agenda he believed to be right at the expense of the lives of others he thought he was sacrificing for his twisted utopian vision.

But, no, saith the 'News Gods': we need criminal psychologists to examine him, his lawyer even insists he's clinically insane, mentally ill, etc. etc. Soon they will seek to lighten the culpability with some sob story about his youth because being a 'white guy' of course he's not a terrorist! He is an exceptional case. However, no one brings out psychologists to examine Osama bin Laden as an equally deluded exceptional head case or considers the trials and travails of his childhood. No, Bin Laden is a terrorist linked to a bigger religio-ideological war against the West, therefore, the implicit assumption the media frames is that 'terrorism' is endemic to Islam.

Let's take this apart with the use of common sense: terrorism is a means to a political or ideological end.  It is the use of violence to make a point, to get attention, and to terrorize people into adopting your point of view. And guess what? Islam does not hold the monopoly over violence. Breivik was a terrorist in every sense of the word, equal to Bin Laden. He published a 1500 word manifesto against European multiculturalism, Western feminism, and Islam echoing romantic notions of the medieval crusades to restore Europe to it's former Christian glory. He even posted a video on Youtube prior to the attacks depicting paintings of crusader knights, deriding liberals as cultural traitors, and then calling for other far-right wing believers to join his 'crusade' with the use of violence against liberal traitors and multiculturalism.

If this doesn't echo the same fundamentalism that inspires Salafists who condone violence in re-establishing a universal Muslim ummah and calling other extremists to join in the 'jihad' then read the above paragraph again because it is the exact same logic.

So, please, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck! Breivik is a terrorist and we should all be concerned of other right-wing extremists who buy the political agenda he's selling. Fundamentalism of any sort is blinding and it is in our best interest to fight it and to challenge right-wing pundits who sell us discrimination, exclusionary politics, and inspire hatred. 

My heart goes out to the Norwegians. I pray this is not a foreshadow for Europe in the future. I hope that out of a terrorist act, people will stand in unity against justifying their politics through violence. Extremism, whether it is nationalistic or religious, must be challenged for the sake of all of us living within the same borders and stuck in this world together.  

Story Highlights: looking to the future

I couldn't help but look at the newsstand in amusement today. We are very future looking this month. Enjoy the following highlights for this week:

The Economist - "The Future of News"

The New Yorker - "Plus: The Future of Marriage"

Time - "The Future of Fish"

Story Highlights: Arab Revolutions & More

This month's issue of National Geographic has published some pretty fabulous features worth sharing:

Baghdad After the Storm: a former U.S. Army sergeant returns to Baghdad to reflect on how much has changed since the 2003 invasion. Despite the continued hardships and sectarian divisions facing the city's residents development and daily life go on. A mixture of illustrative emotion, flashbacks, and photography.

Middle East Youth Rising - Young, Angry, and Wired: A brief feature with an overview of a budding tech-savvy Arab generation, political and economic dissatisfactions, and revolt. "Some 60 percent of the people in the Middle East are under 30 years old, and many of them are angry. Like young people everywhere, they have ambitions. They want, they need, they crave. They feel constrained—especially, perhaps, when they watch satellite television or surf the Internet. There they can see how the rest of the world lives. Social media (including personal blogs, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and more) allow young men and women to share their frustrations in ways they couldn't in the past."

The Search for Cleopatra: She is infamous because she is illusive. A woman of a thousand faces, National Geographic follows archaelogists on a quest to uncover the real Cleopatra dissecting myth and legend from reality.

And, finally, recent clippings of interest:

Coalition of Factions From the Streets Fuels a New Opposition in Syria: NYT's Anthony Shadid reports on the swiftly changing political landscape in Syria.

'Saudi Arabia is simply a very different society from Egypt, Tunisia or Syria': Why isn't revolution occurring in Saudi Arabia? The Guardian's Jason Burke examines the social and political factors that have kept Saudi citizens from revolting.

Yanar Mohammed—Iraqi Women’s Vigilant Champion: An interview by Marcia G. Yerman of the Women's Media Center of Yanar Mohammed, founder of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), in lieu of the recent harassment and violence against women's rights protesters in Baghdad's Tahrir Square.

The Birth of 'Free Media' in Eastern Libya: a report in PDF available via Reporters Without Borders.  

Osama bin Laden is dead. Now what?

A recent cartoon by Carlos Latuff politically summarizing the impact of Osama bin Laden's death has gone viral. The cartoon depicts bin Laden's coffin wrapped in an American flag with George W. Bush weeping over it declaring he will be missed and Obama consoling him. Reactions to the cartoon vary greatly, some Americans probably even find it offensive. 

But consider the metaphor: for the past decade, Osama bin Laden has been at the center of American policy as the leader of Al Qaeda, the embodiment of terrorism.  Bin Laden gave the Bush administration justification to beat the war drums into Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11.  It created Guantanamo Bay flouting Geneva Conventions, established 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (see, Torture), and the CIA's Extraordinary Renditions.  It left millions of travellers facing long arduous security procedures at airports and Americans watching a fear-mongering conservative media with lack of any real substantial news reporting. It left America with new debates concerning personal privacy, civil liberties, government transparency and disclosure with the passage of the USA Patriot Act and later amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. Not to mention, Muslim Americans became victims of racism, bigotry and racial profiling across the country.

With a lynchpin for most of American policy for the past decade is gone, now what? Are we any safer than they were before? Does having the ambiguous enemy of 'terrorism' make any of us more secure with where American policy is heading for the next decade? 

Bin Laden's death is in some ways a relief. We can hope that many Bush-era policies will be dismantled. We can hope that American media, with recent criticisms by Hillary Clinton earlier this year, will start focusing on reporting facts and cease the spouting of talking heads that has only aggravated bigotry and been divisive rather than remedial in providing greater public accountability. We can also hope the racism and negative biases that have been stamped on Muslims in America will fade out. Ultimately, we can hope that the hatred, enmity, and divisions that Bin Laden created will also die with him.    

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.

'Body Politic': Culture Wars Unveiled

The French niqab ban has aroused a high level of controversy in Europe as well as among women everywhere. Some cheer it on as a defense of feminism and the gains of the feminist revolution, others view it as an attack on Muslims in Europe. Personally, I don't believe a government should have the right to legislate what a man or woman can or can't wear whether it's in Paris or Riyadh yet we often take for granted norms concerning clothing (i.e. you can't go out naked, it's socially unacceptable and even illegal in most countries). I would like to think the niqab ban is more of a security issue than anything having to do with sexual mores as it's far better reasoning to ban a face-veil than arguments for 'female emancipation.'

What's interesting about the debate is the ire it's rousing among different groups of feminists who frame female emancipation in entirely different terms. Personally, I believe in a woman's free will and her right and responsibility to exercise it. Yet, ironically, 'free will' may not exist at all given that we are social creatures often taking for granted the fact that one of our chief motivations is to 'fit in' with whatever group our identities are pegged. But shouldn't adult women be allowed the right to define their identities and values? It's easy for many academics to quickly tack women to a certain set of socio-cultural circumstances based on what religion, ethnicity, or family political leanings they were born into and try to neatly divide them between the 'oppressed' and the 'liberated.' I believe these generalizations, and dare I say stereotypes, underestimate the ability of humans to reshape or cast off identities at will.

The counter-argument is that 'free will' is exceedingly limited or even perhaps an illusion. When a girl grows up and is subjected to community standards and peer pressure to 'cover up', harassed by men and threatened with 'hell fire' by right-wing preachers if they don't do so, where is 'free will'? Yet women are not powerless and voiceless. A woman can take risks to fight against anything they don't like or agree with. When a woman reaches adulthood she is neither an incapable puppet of her family or community nor is she a victim unless she chooses to be one. She is not bound by circumstance or culturally-determined. One can turn this argument around and equally say that in a hyper-sexualized liberal Western culture women face peer pressure to be thin and sexy and compete with each other in these terms. Does that make them 'victims' objectified by men?

A really interesting story came out today on the first Turkish woman to pose for Playboy in Germany. The Turkish actress and model, Sila Sahin, was raised Muslim. The author of the Die Welt article notes: "Because the legitimate debate over if or when the display of naked female bodies starts to hurt female dignity or, on the contrary, promotes it, presumes the ability of the woman to decide for herself whether she wants her naked body to be depicted or not."

In regards to her decision to pose for Playboy, she stated:

"For me, these pictures are an act of liberation from the cultural constraints of my childhood," says Sahin. "I have tried to please everybody for too long. With these images I want to show young Turkish women that it is OK to live the way they are; that it is not cheap to show skin; that you should pursue your goals instead of bowing down to others."

Some feminist groups are aghast at this statement and see Sahin's actions as an act of bowing down to please men. I see Sahin's actions as an exercise of her ability to reshape her identity. Can we identify Sahin as a Turk, a Muslim, an actress and a nude model? Or do we view her as hypocritical for having identities that are apparently inconsistent with one another? Why does a nude female body provoke such controversy? Equally, on the other end of the spectrum, why should covering up a female body arouse such controversy?

Conservative Muslims would declare Sahin no longer a Muslim by virtue of not following regulations on modesty - she's a blasphemer. She has drawn criticism not only from her own family but also from the conservative Turkish Muslim community. Yet, there are Catholics who use condoms and engage in sex before marriage, yet still identify themselves as Catholics. There are also Christians who are pro-choice and pro-gay, and still identify themselves as Christian. Identity is not a neat little box where all our beliefs need be consistent with each other. People pick and chose every day what they believe in and what defines who they are and many don't care to be pinned down by social or cultural conventions based on their birth, family origins, or religion. In regards to women, society always seeks to define her in terms of the mores framing her sexuality, whether implicitly or explicitly. 

Many arguments and laws on abortion, dress, or regulating sexual behaviour assume women are incapable of making their own adult decisions or of wielding responsibility over their own free will. Yet, our judgments concerning a woman's choices over her sexual determination are not solely culturally-defined, but the result of hard-wired by evolutionary biases. Those biases inform our cultures, social mores, and even religious regulations. They are the cause of a collective madonna/whore complex across cultures. 

Different groups have entirely opposing views as to what 'oppresses' or 'liberates' women, values seemingly at odds with one another but I would argue there is a striking similarity in the histories of double standards globally. These arguments have historically been defined by men and more recently women who believe they know what's 'right' for other women. The danger lies that if the other side is right then the social mores of one's own side is worthy of stigmatization - a flawed logic. 

When discussing 'women's liberation' fingers often point at conservative countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. Yet consider that in the United States, in Texas, up until 1974 there was a law in the books that allowed a husband the right to kill his wife if he caught her in flagrante delicto with a lover. But this law did not function the other way around. A woman did not have the right to murder her husband or his paramour if he was caught cheating on her. Sexual double standards transcend cultures. Cultures around the world are  similar in their sexual double standards, distinctions existing only in gradations.

We shouldn't rely on experts to make blanket-statements defining any one group, especially in regards to women. It's easy to forget that individuals can cast off their former identities and recreate new ones and chose to live by entirely different values that may have been anathema to the communities to which they were born. It may not be a simple matter to drop one's family values for new ones but it's not an impossible task. Women are free agents of their own destinies and not necessarily bound by culture, religion, or politics.

Story Highlights: Anti-Corruption Warriors & More Blogger Arrests

Really loving some of the investigative pieces The New Yorker has come out with this month:

A Murder Foretold: The story of the murder of lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg who fought against Guatemalan corruption and violence. Rosenberg was murdered while hotly pursuing justice for the violent murder case of Lebanese businessman, Khalil Musa. Upon his death he left a video recording with a former spy chief accusing the Guatemalan President and his wife for the murders of Musa and himself. The video was posted on YouTube and tweeted resulting in public protests and launching a major investigation by the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) Absolutely riveting.

Net Impact: The story of Alexey Navalny, lawyer and blogger, who is fighting Russia's government corruption head on through his blog RosPil which utilizes the Russian public examine documents and to call out dodgy business deals and government tenders.

Recent news clippings of interest:

UAE blogger who called for reform taken from his apartment - CNN reported that Ahmed Mansoor was abducted from his apartment by 10 men who also confiscated his lap top and his passport.

Egypt blogger arrests set "dangerous precedent" - Reuters reported that Maikel Nabil was arrested for "insulting the military" and faces three years in prison.

'Jasmine' Blogger Arrested - The Standard reported the arrest of writer and blogger Ran Yunfei for challenging the Communist Party.

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.

Rape as a Weapon of War: Women Fight Back in Libya

A terrible story came out of Libya earlier last week of a woman who was raped by government troops in Libya. Iman al-Obeidi, however, would not be silenced by shame. She stormed into a hotel in Tripoli where foreign journalists were based to openly disclose her identity and tell her story. Government minders in the hotel started a brawl with her as foreign journalists sought to protect her. She loudly declared that she had been detained at a check point, tied up, abused, and gang raped.  Hadeel Al-Shalchi of the Associated Press reported: "The woman, who appeared in her 30's, wore a black robe and a floral scarf around her neck and identified herself. She had scratches on her face and she pulled up her black robe to reveal a bloodied thigh. She said neighbors in the area where she was detained helped her escape."

At the end of the scuffle however, al-Obeidi was dragged out by the government minders who then came back and claimed to the journalists that she was drunk and mentally ill. These comments were later retracted and a government spokesman claimed it was a case of rape and it was being investigated and that al-Obeidi was "safe and well." A recent follow-up to the story by Al Jazeera today noted that al-Obeidi was still missing that that government officials were trying to bribe her family with large sums of money to convince their daughter recant the story. Her mother declared publicly that she told her daughter to "keep silent" (in regards to recanting), and her family had noted that she had been targeted after she had participated in a pro-democracy protest. Furthermore, while government spokesmen declared to journalists that al-Obeidi was a "prostitute," her family furnished Al Jazeera with photos of her receiving her law degree.

Al Jazeera reported: "Iman is rapidly become a cause célèbre in Libya. Highly unusual in a culture that traditionally secludes its women and exercises a code of honor."Moreover, the Al Jazeera reporter noted that "other women" had been detained along with al-Obeidi and their status is unknown. 

Libyan state TV, predictably, has not been kind to al-Obeidi. A friend shared with me the following link to a state TV response to the rape story. The newscaster had the gall to declare: ‎"From a psychological perspective, we know that any woman who has gone through any kind of rape it's impossible that she would have acted like this woman right after being raped" and claimed she had received this opinion from "doctors." Furthermore, today Libyan state TV aired what the claimed was 'secret footage' of al-Obeidi being interviewed by officials which appears to be some actress with her face covered up in al-Obeidi's scarf. 

Iman al-Obeidi's case is a reflection of a larger issue that often occurs in war - rape used as a weapon against women. This is not unique to Libya although certainly in a culture where rape victims shrink back in shame and silence, al-Obeidi's courage is astounding, more so in front of pro-Gaddafi minders and international journalists. She gives a voice to rape victims who have otherwise chosen to remain silent. Al Jazeera reporters talking to doctors in Libya discovered that Gaddafi soldiers had "condoms and viagra" in their pockets suggesting that they were intending to rape women on rebel territory. Doctors also noted that they were treating rape victims. 

Of course, the drama is just unfolding. In a diabolical twist, today, The New York Daily News just reported that al-Obeidi is to face criminal charges for slander, her accusations a "grave offense" to the 15 men whom she claims raped her.  British-based Telegraph further detailed that a Libyan government spokesman stated, "The boys accused of doing this are furious. They want to kill her. They have filed a case to defend their family name. In our culture these are very serious charges that will last for generations." The Libyan government response is stupefying. To blame the victim as a perpetrator against national honor after she faced horrific trauma at the hands of Gaddafi troops is appalling. There is no honor in raping and abusing a woman.

Bourzou Daragahi, writing on the LA Times Blog, stated, "Human Rights Watch, a New York-based advocacy group that has been trying unsuccessfully to gain access to Libya, demanded that her family and international media be allowed to independently verify the official claim that she is free and safe." He also added: "Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division of the rights group, said that 'Libya has a history of mistreating women who have been raped or sexually abused and often jails them for what it describes as their own protection. Libyan judges also have an unfortunate practice of arranging for rapists to marry their victim, with the consent of her family, to 'save' her from ... an otherwise tainted future,' Whitson said in an email. 'The marriage also allows the rapist to avoid jail time.'" 

Libyan women have come out onto the streets to rally in support of al-Obeidi and her family has taken a decidedly non-traditional stance in publicly supporting their daughter and seeking her release. It will be a matter of time before we find out what's become of her and the other women that have been detained with her. 

The Cyber War Against Political Oppression & Censorship

In good news, Al Jazeera English reported this past January that Slim Amamou, a Tunisian blogger, was appointed Minister for Youth and Sport in the new Tunisian government. Under the censorship strictures of ex-dictator's Ben Ali's regime, Amamou was an active blogger and a CEO of a Tunisian web development company. According to Al Jazeera, he and several other Tunisian bloggers were circulating news and videos supporting protests in opposition to Ben Ali's government. Their Facebook passwords were hacked, accounts deleted and Amamou, along with another Tunisian blogger, were subsequently arrested and later released with Ben Ali's disgraceful exit from Tunisia.

Although the Internet has brought a tremendous amount of opportunity for the exchange of news, views, and ideas on a global scale it has also proven to be politically ambiguous territory and a more contentious ground for political battles especially in oppressive countries where individual bloggers are transforming into revolutionaries. Bloggers have proven to be a potent political force in countries with stringent censorship policies and state-run media, so much so that they are subject to arrest, threats on their lives, and torture. Amamou is not the first blogger to be arrested in consequence of writing or spreading information criticizing government actions or rallying support for protests. In June 2008, The Guardian reported that that record numbers of bloggers had been arrested by repressive governments, such as China, Burma, Iran and Mubarak-ruled Egypt at the time.

More recently, several Syrian bloggers have been arrested or reported missing in light of the uprisings and protests taking place in the Middle East. They have proven to be courageous and outspoken. According to the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) cited in the last link above, one Syrian blogger, 28 year-old Hadifa (http://ahmadblogs.net/) "appealed... for support for recently detained bloggers and for political prisoners in the Golan Heights (a region that Israel occupied in 1967 and annexed in 1981). He had also posted demands to the Syrian authorities, comments about the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, and advice on how to circumvent online censorship." The Daily Star also recently reported Lebanese bloggers were subjected to unprecedented crackdowns in 2010. In China, blogger and Guardian contributer, Ran Yunfei, has been arrested on the charge of 'subverting state power.'

Author Robert Greene wrote a particularly timely essay on his blog, The Descent of Power: An Interpretation of the Global Economic Crisis. His essay emphasizes that the Information revolution with the advent of the Internet and its ensuing social networks, forums, and news sharing platforms is devolving traditional centers of power by placing information access into the hands of individuals and in the process empowering them politically. A few relevant excerpts from his essay:

"In anthropology there is a concept known as historic fatality. What this means is that occasionally there emerges a certain idea, a certain way of doing things that is so immensely seductive to human beings that eventually it spreads around the globe and forever changes our way of life... We can make three generalizations at this point. When a group of people is given power, it forms a power center. This means, for instance, that a team of military leaders tends to think in two directions–how to promote the interests of the ruler, while also advancing its own agenda. Things now become political, as their interests will clash with other power centers. The ruler must now manage this growing complexity. The power environment becomes increasingly dangerous. 

Second, once people have been given power on this level, they do not want to give it back or return to an older way of governing. They work to keep what they have and extend their power base. And finally, once power becomes diluted and divided this way, it tends to keep on dividing, like a split atom. More and more people must be brought in to keep the whole functioning. And so over the course of centuries, power slowly became less and less concentrated... To a lesser degree we could talk of modern media as another power center that came to prominence in the 20th century, which in turn acted to dissolve and dilute previous concentrations of influence... Of course there remain concentrations of power and wealth in the world today. But on the other hand, there is no denying the remarkable evolution and dilution of power from that time millennia ago when it was mostly in the hands of one man. 

From this position in the present we can project into the future a period of even greater dilution, as more and more people around the globe feel the right and necessity to have more control over their lives... What interests me here is not the technology, but how it changes our relationship to power and authority, altering in so many ways the social dynamic–how people interact with one another. In this instance, the Internet is flattening out relationships that were once hierarchical and funneled through various centers. This tends to eat away at the prestige and authority of traditional sources of information such as newspapers, or expert opinions. It calls into question the need for so many middlemen in the world, and reveals the dubious source of their power."

The Internet is one of those historic fatalities. Individuals no longer have to go through media "middleman" to get their information and therefore politically bias media bureaus and state-run media are no longer the primary source of information. Moreover, younger generations who have been educated outside their countries are more tech savvy and more likely to figure out ways around government censorship programming and firewalls. In the long run, that means even the most oppressive governments will be unable to control the access individuals have to information. Bloggers, "twitterers", Googlers, and Facebookers all now hold a stake on information - its sourcing, framing, and dissemination - and they have power. This makes the Internet a space of serious political impact and influence and that means that the war against political oppression is not just on the streets in protest but in the cyber sphere against censorship.

It will be interesting to see how the cyber war will develop over time in the century and who will ultimately win. It is not just the philosophical and legal ramifications of freedom of information which must be considered but also the political empowerment of individuals in the face of traditional pillars of information control, namely governments and big corporate media outlets.
___________

Please visit the Committee to Protect Bloggers and the Committee to Protect Journalists to see what you can do to support politically dissenting bloggers around the world. 

Daniel Ellsberg Defends Wikileaks

A really interesting interview with Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, by Anti-War Radio. You can listen to the interview on the link provided above or read the transcript on the same page. Ellsberg defends Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, a US soldier accused of leaking war documents to Wikileaks and who is currently in prison.

An excerpt of Ellsberg's take on the Wikileaks drama:

"To say that Julian Assange is guilty of treason has some problems since he’s an Australian citizen. But anyway, I was called a traitor, which was no more true of me than it is to say Bradley Manning, who is accused now of leaking, sitting in a jail in Quantico – he’s no more a traitor than I am, and I’m not. Neither of them are terrorists any more than I am, and I’m not. 

So I did get these comments. I didn’t get the “terrorist” at the time, because that wasn’t in vogue as a demonizing label then 40 years ago, but I would be called a terrorist now. I have no doubt at all, if I put out the same documents now, they would call me a terrorist, because that’s the bad thing now. 

Now, more than that, of course, I was – they’re searching now for a law with which to indict Assange for what he did, and of course Assange’s role is that essentially of the New York Times in the case of the Pentagon Papers or of WikiLeaks. There really is no basis in law that they’re going to find that can nail or can entrap or indict Assange that doesn’t apply to the New York Times exactly as well, since they have put out these clearly classified documents to the public.  

In fact, they’ve made the choice, along with the other four newspapers, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and El Pais in Spain – they made the choice so far which documents in this Cablegate series to put out. Assange has put out on his own website essentially only those, with a few exceptions, but almost entirely those that have been chosen to be referred to or put out by these mainstream newspapers. 

So there is no judicial basis, no legal basis, for charging Assange with anything that doesn’t apply equally well to the New York Times, and it’s clear that the administration is not anxious to get in a legal fight with the New York Times. So they’re trying to distinguish Assange not only from me and the Pentagon Papers, but from the New York Times, and that’s really pretty impossible to do."

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.

Bye Bye 'Broadsheet,' I will miss you!

I missed out on the fact that one of my favorite women's issues blog is about to shut down. I would like to give props to Salon.com's feminist blog, 'Broadsheet.' Salon.com is a liberal online publication and Tracy Clark-Flory has been covering controversial women's issues for Salon since 2005 with dedication and pizzazz so I've been reading her on and off since university. Unfortunately, she's moving on to bigger and better things. I will miss the Broadsheet immensely! Three cheers to a an amazing blog!

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.

Burlesconi's Women: On Fidelity, Monogamy, Sex, & Power

Italy's Prime Minister, Silvio Burlesconi, has been under a lot of fire over his extramarital affairs with and gift-giving to beautiful younger women, and recently for allegedly having sex with an underage prostitute. Italian women are rallying against him and accusing him of demeaning women through his "bad boy" behaviour and "bunga bunga" sex parties.  The protesting women have put up some fabulous signs such as "We Like Sex, Not Bunga Bunga!"

The Burlesconi scandals highlight fascinating contradictions of Western culture, society, assumptions about morality, and also emphasizes the dynamic of how democracy actually instituted monogamy (fact). Italian women declare they 'like sex' but view Burlesconi's conduct towards women as demeaning. Yet, sexuality is intrinsically tied to this view of 'demeaning' and Burlesconi's mistresses are portrayed as victims of his 'predatory lusts' rather than willing agents in their affairs with him. The traditional and popular view of women as the sexually passive victims of male lusts prevails. It would be funny if news stories, rather, portrayed Burlesconi as being a victim of women's overpowering beauty and unable to control himself which is probably closer to the truth.

Bill Clinton escaped his scandals by claiming to have an uncontrollable sexual addiction. I say, if that's the case, then all men must suffer this incurable fact of nature. Should we so admonish men for their natural weaknesses, and should we display women as victims of male lust? Should we curse nature with such public outcries against natural human urges, against the facts of human sexuality? True, instinct can be controlled and these men should know better given their offices, but it's the fact of their offices, of their power, that they have the option to stray outside their marriage beds. I am not condoning the practice, simply stating a fact. And I hardly view women as passive victims. I'm skeptical of the way the media paints mistresses, either publicly scorning them or viewing them as helpless. My view of feminism is that human sexuality, in all its splendour, is precisely what gives women power and plenty of it.

Consider the following hypocrisy: Burlesconi's current wife Veronica Lario was formerly one of Burlesconi's mistresses back in the 80s before marrying him after his subsequent divorce in 1990. Truly, hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn and Lario has incited a serious public shaming of her husband for his flirtations, affairs, and mixing and mingling with underage minors. I truly admire Lario's candor, courage, and lack of mincing words although part of me finds it difficult to be sympathetic to her given that she began her relationship with Burlesconi under dubious circumstances. She knew what she was signing up for, a man with an obvious weakness for women. I am not supporting Burlesconi in crap behavior but I think deeper issues of sexual evolution, politics, religious morality, need to be considered before sending him to the scaffold.

It is a fact of nature that a man who has money and power, essentially resources, will have access to many women and women will willingly gamble their hearts (and sex) for a powerful man, married or not, than for a weak one. Polygamy was the status quo of ancient societies because powerful men would have a monopoly over beautiful young women who would bear their offspring in exchange for his resources and protection. The moral impetus to monogamy was first seen with the establishment of modern democracies. Matt Ridley writes the following in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - 

... the long interlude of human polygamy, which began in Babylon nearly four thousand years ago, has largely come to an end in the West. Official concubines became unofficial mistresses, and mistresses became secrets kept from wives. In 1988, political power far from being a ticket to polygamy, was jeopardized by any suggestion of infidelity. Whereas the Chinese emperor Fei-Ti once kept ten thousand women in his harem. Gary Hart, running for the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth, could not even get away with two. 

What happened? Christianity? Hardly. It coexisted with polygamy for centuries and its strictures were as cynically self-interested as any lay man's. Women's rights? They came too late. A Victorian woman had as much or as little say in her husband's affairs as a medieval one. No historian can yet explain what changed, but guesses include the idea that kings came to need internal allies enough that they had to surrender despotic power. Democracy, of a sort, was born. Once monogamous men had a vote against polygamists (and who doesn't want to tear down a competitor, however much he might also want to emulate him?), their fate was sealed.

My Chinese grandmother once told me that when a woman picks a man she should do so wisely. She was frank in noting that if a man is too handsome and has too much money he's "no good" for the fact that he'll have many women on the side. A woman who marries a man of this calibre will have to spend a lifetime defending her prize or be willing to look the other way to his extramarital affairs in order to maintain her marriage. Power and monogamy are rarely bedfellows.

If anyone should nail Burlesconi on anything, corruption is a more substantial place to start, but his affairs with women, similar to the Clinton scandals, are rather trifling. If you're going to send Burlesconi to the scaffold for sex, then send all heterosexual men with him because as one old wise cabbie noted to me earlier this week quite frankly: "My dear, men don't stop looking [at and for women], if they stop looking they're dead. Sex is the most powerful force in the world, my dear. If you are a beautiful woman with a brain you can take down the most powerful men in the world." Fact. Women are not the victims of powerful men, powerful men are victims of beautiful women.

Mubarak has shown his true colors...

...and the Egyptian army has shown whose side they're on. After spending a week remaining essentially neutral and seeming to befriend the anti-Mubarak protesters, last night, the Egyptian army allowed pro-Mubarak supporters into Tahrir Square and according to one source the military "blocked the anti-Mubarak [protesters] from exiting." Additionally, pro-Mubarak thugs armed with machetes and other weapons also inflitrated the square. Official estimates suggest that one soldier was killed and over 400 injured. [Update: According to Al Jazeera medical sources, as of midnight in Cairo, 2000+ have been reported injured in clashes.]

The possibility exists that the army may be working with Mubarak by creating disorder on purpose to claim it has legitimate right to later crack down on the civilian population to restore order. If that's the case, we could be seeing a massacre later on. I pray that's not the case and that the army remains neutral but that may be wholly wishful thinking.

Earlier today, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs took some questions where answers were decidedly shallow as the Obama administration sits the fence in a bid not to alienate their strategic allies in the Middle East (see Abu Saleh in Yemen, Netanyahu in Israel, the Saudi Monarchy, and currently Mubarak etc.) The following Q&A was truly a gem:

AP Reporter: Do you think Mubarak is a dictator? 

White House Press Secretary: We think Mubarak has the chance to show us who he is by allowing for a peaceful transition in Egypt.

As one Twitter poster pointed out simply:

Coffee_n_Cream RT @noonanjo: If bloodying innocents in the street isn't enough for Obama to drop the "orderly transition" shit, nothing is. #Jan25 #Egypt 

I urge American citizens who care about the people of Egypt to write a letter to the White House or contact your Senator or Representative supporting their bid to establish a democracy and hold transparent elections. If you wish to send an email to the Obama Administration you may do so here. You may also contact the official White House comments line at (+1) 202-456-1111 if you wish to leave a voice message. It's entirely true that your messages will be read and responded to by White House staff, but the point is by flooding the White House with responses to the crisis it will result in a collective opinion being considered. People overseas are also welcome to comment and write in.

Pax Populi: Tutoring Students in Afghanistan via Skype

My lovely cousin Lina will be spending this Spring Term at Bentley University tutoring an Afghan student in English via Skype. This student-to-student tutoring programme is spearheaded by a Massachusetts-based NGO known as Pax Populi, whose mission statement declares: "Rather than leaving peacemaking to politicians, we look to ordinary people — educators, businesspeople, people of faith, artists, scientists, and people of goodwill everywhere — to heed the call help advance peace." Launched in November 2008, Pax Populi initiated a "Food for Peace in Afghanistan" project where members of the greater-Boston Afghan community as well as non-Afghans set up a fundraiser on the Bentley University campus forwarding the proceeds to Oxfam America's food assistance programs in Afghanistan. Pax Populi has since developed to connect education institutions in the United States to Afghanistan under the greater umbrella of Applied Ethics, Inc. "established in July 2007 as a nonprofit organization based in Massachusetts, USA, with the mission of seeking ethical solutions to significant social issues through projects, education, counseling, and advocacy."

"Although many people want to support the advancement of peace, they lack the means to enable them to effectively respond," the Pax Populi's mission statement reads,  "The goal of Pax Populi is to put the tools of peacemaking into the hands of ordinary people everywhere through direct people-to-people, institution-to-institution, and community-to-community actions."

Pax Populi has since launched an educational outreach programme in Afghanistan which will bring Afghan students to the United States to advance their education. This is a partnership programme with the School of Leadership, Afghanistan (SOLA). One of Pax Populi's first candidates is an exceptional young Afghan woman named Shogofa. Read more about her story on the link.

Pax Populi's English Tutoring programme which has been launched this year will be partnering Bentley University students to students in Afghanistan using Skype to help advance their English skills. I shouldn't be bias, but I do hope Lina gets paired with a girl! Advancing education and literacy in war-torn Afghanistan is a magnificent cause, but girls, in particular, are in need of all the support they can get not only due to the decades of brutal social, cultural, and political oppression (entirely un-Islamic for the record) they faced under the Taliban, but also because in the past few years Afghan girls have risked their lives and the lives of their families by simply stepping into a classroom. The Taliban staged targeted attacks at girls' schools, including intimidating or threatening families that allowed their daughters to go to get an education. In recent developments, negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban has suggested an easing of tensions. As of January 2011, the Taliban claims to end its opposition to the schooling of girls.

The need to bring Afghan students up to speed in education is dire. The Daily Mail cited the Afghan Minister of Education, Farooq Wardak, as providing the following figures:

"The education minister admitted that historically opposition to schooling extended beyond the Taliban to the 'deepest pockets' of Afghan society. "That is the reason that in many provinces of Afghanistan we do not have either male or female teachers," he said. "During the Taliban era the percentage of girls of the one million students that we had was 0%. The percentage of female teachers was 0%. Today 38% of our students and 30% of our teachers are female."

Pax Populi's programme to connect students across the world via the use of social media and free communication technology is a platform that can be replicated by other organisations in the future. The fact that one does not have to travel to Kabul to tutor an Afghan student makes it possible for the ordinary person to get involved in changing major political realities across the world. In this case, globalisation has some very positive outcomes.

Whether she is paired with an Afghan girl or boy, bravo Ms. Lina! You're doing a great deed, lending to positive world change, and you may very well make a new friend you can email and keep for life. No one is more in need of educational and moral support than the young people of Afghanistan.

____________

To make a tax-deductible donation to the programmes run by Applied Ethics, Inc. please click here.

Academics Pen An Open Letter to President Obama

Prominent academics from the fields of politics, history, and US foreign policy have come together to write the following open letter to President Barack Obama in support of the protests in Egypt and calling for a revision of U.S. foreign policy more in line with its democratic ideals and values:

http://www.accuracy.org/an-open-letter-to-president-barack-obama/ 

Please repost or 'retweet' this letter! Make some noise.

The Lessons of the Arab Revolutions (or Why Corrupt Dictators Can't Win in the Long Run)

I've always been a believer in karma, the concept that every action has a consequence even if it's not seen immediately, that what goes around comes around. The more I delve into history and observe current events the more I am becoming convinced there's also such thing as political karma and political leaders always reap the consequences of their actions, whether they serve their people well or whether they are self-serving.

The recent revolution in Tunisia which ousted Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the massive uprising in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak, as well as the protests warming up in Yemen, Jordan, and potentially Syria were all inspired by the sacrifice of a man in despair. Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi lit himself on fire which became an act of political revolt at the state of his country wracked by rising food prices, unemployment, censorship and political repression. His sacrifice has inspired millions to have the courage to stand up against oppression and corruption resulting in a revolution in Tunisia. Against all odds collective action for social justice was incited by the sacrifice of this man who is an allegory for the despair of all those living under corrupt dictatorships. Bouazizi became a martyr for a greater political cause in the Arab world, one that is far too familiar for those living under regimes similar to Ben Ali's. 

The prerequisites to be a dictator is delusion, a certain dose of megalomania and control issues. These regimes masqueraded as democracies with their de facto dictators censoring, detaining, torturing, or outright murdering their political opposition. Social media, whether newspapers, books, or the Internet remained under varying levels of control from mere restrictions such as censorship to total blackouts. Opposition leaders who escaped with their lives have spent or are currently spending years in exile from their homelands. It is no secret that these strongmen ruled by force and repression. Moreover, through corrupt practices these dictators have stolen millions of state dollars into their own bank accounts, into the coffers of their closest henchmen, and even bought certain loyalties through sheer bribery. 

Unfortunately for the United States, these authoritarian regimes now facing potential ousters have been long-standing strategic allies in the region. While some American politicians and conservative media enjoy pointing a finger at China for supporting corrupt dictators for economic advantage in Africa, perhaps the United States should look to cleaning up their own backyard in regards to the foreign policy status quo in the Middle East. While U.S. policy makers and their PR staff paint our country as the 'beacon of democracy' for the world, American foreign policy-making has been a mixed bag of stumbles, stupidities, and outright hypocrisy since the end of World War II. This is in part a consequence of historical changes at the turn of the century: Wilsonian idealism versus balance of power politics, the ideal of collective security versus national sovereignty and self-determination, and finally, among the academic schools of thought and divisive American party lines, liberalism pitted against realism.   

A student of politics would regard the status quo as the norm. After all, Machiavelli wrote that it's better to be feared than loved and realists would argue that political realities call for political expediency. 'Of course, everyone is essentially greedy and self-serving so it's inevitable all countries will work solely for its own interests and dictators will be self-serving,' quips the cynical realist. No one learns from history, after all, regardless that we are told to. The greatest empires have been destroyed due to their greed, taking for granted their military and economic power and over-stretching it, a belief in invincibility, and willful blindness toward the greater human realities of the people beneath their reigns. The harshest dictators have fallen either by threatening too many outside their borders with aggression or by revolutionary reaction from within against their stifling oppression. Political karma in action.

It's time that the world transcends the divisive camps of liberalism and realism with a more holistic approach to politics and governing: moral realism. Political power should not be construed as a zero-sum game but as a responsibility with certain obligations in wielding it. Political leaders, whether in democracies or not, should cease viewing their role as an elitist right for ego validation but as a position where they must serve and protect the people residing within their borders in the best way possible and foster peace and prosperity for those outside their borders as well if they want national prosperity. 

The best metaphorical analogy for moral realism can be rooted in the ancient Chinese concept of the mandate of heaven, a philosophical concept concerning the legitimacy of rulers: "The Mandate of Heaven postulates that heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best." While in today's world we no longer believe in divine right, ideally a political leader's legitimacy should be based on his conduct toward his people, his ability and willingness to serve them and his disposition at being just and wise and balanced in his or her actions.

Whether this concept is applied or not, political karma exists and those who do follow a path of moral realism are far better off than those who truly believe it's better to be feared. In the long-run, corrupt and self-serving dictators can't win. Eventually, they'll reap their political karma. Similarly, nations that support dictators need to reconsider and weigh the consequences of that support because it's a short-term plan for the long-term problem of protecting their own interests. The day politicians realize that the interests, prosperity, and peace of others are in their own interests will be the day the world becomes a better place to live.

In the meantime, the mandate to rule has been withdrawn from the likes of Ben Ali, Mubarak, and all those who believe repression and torture are the order of the day and who, in sheer self-deception and perhaps denial sincerely believe they are supported and loved by millions. In Cairo, one National Democratic Party (NDP) spokesman told an Al Jazeera correspondent amid anti-Mubarak protests:

NDP Spokesman: "Millions of Egyptians want the president to stay." 

Al Jaazeera Correspondent: "Where are they?"

As one friend put succintly, concerning these dictators and their cronies: 'Muppets taking the piss.'