The Internet and IT are soon going to be old-fashioned. Robotics, biotechnology and genetics are the new sciences. When are we going to catch up? Where are our research centers to deal with these new disciplines.

The absence of research centers and statistics, no free flow of information, data kept secret: all these factors are excellent and insurmountable obstacles. While Israel exports $10 billion worth of software, there are many in the Arab world who pass valuable time worrying about the dangers of the Internet and whether women should exercise!

In the West, there is a 'marriage' between academia and the captains of business and industry while in our part of the world, there are almost no relations whatsoever. Thankfully, however, there are now some moves among us for that same kind of cooperation.

My reason for writing this is not to be critical but to make people aware that sticking blindly and uncritically to old rules without innovation or creativity will do us only harm.  To top this all, we have UN highlighting some very s uncomfortable truths for Arab world in it's UNDP report of 2002. It's apt analysis of the Arab states which have long been deprived of political freedom, isolated from the world of ideas and with science and development stunted, they  will find it difficult to fault the conclusions of a UN report which all too accurately sums up the barren, ossified life of so many Arab countries.

The UN's Arab Development Report was prepared by Arab intellectuals and partly sponsored by the Arab League, so there is no way the Arab dictators and oligarchs can pretend to ignore its findings.

But they will. For although the report does not say so in quite these words, it is the dead, often cruel, rule of their regimes which have long used the pretext of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict to postpone indefinitely any democratic reform. The document, released in Cairo yesterday and covering 22 Arab countries containing 280 million people, says damningly that the Arab world is "richer than it is developed".

With appropriate irony, the report coincided with a Unesco conference in Beirut which drew almost identical conclusions. Speakers condemned the "backward narcissism" of the Arab world, the failure to produce a society which has room for self-doubt, which forbids the teaching of philosophy in universities because – in the words of Mohammed Sbila, a Moroccan academic – "it epitomises awareness and doesn't hold anything sacred".

The UN report talks about a less tolerant social environment, thus avoiding any discussion of Islam and its fundamentalist believers, in which per capita income growth has shrunk over the past two decades to a level little above that of sub-saharan Africa. Productivity is declining.

Science is comatose, along with technology. Research and development is often non- existent. Intellectuals shun the repressive, closed societies of the Arab world. Half of all Arab women are illiterate and the maternal mortality rate is four times that of east Asia.

Rima Hunaidi, a former Jordanian minister, says she asked the authors of the report "to come and look at this problem and decide why is Arab culture, why are Arab countries lagging behind?" Most Arabs, however, will wonder why it took a one-year study to come up with the answers. Indeed, just a look at the past week's developments in the Arab world should be enough. On Sunday, Kuwait, despite repeated pleas for clemency from Amnesty International, hanged three Bangladeshis convicted of murder and then displayed the corpses on the gibbet. In Egypt, policemen beat back Islamist voters trying to cast their ballots in a rigged election.

Syria sent an intellectual to prison for daring to suggest that the country should be more open to democratic debate. In Jordan, trade unionists were warned not to involve themselves in politics after demonstrations calling for a boycott of America. With the exception of only one nation – Syria – all the others are among the "friends" of the West.

Even in France, we have the spectacle of General Khaled Nezzar, perhaps the top man in the Algerian regime, taking to court a second lieutenant in the Algerian army for "slandering" him in a book on Algeria's dirty war. Already Habib Souaida, the former soldier, has given evidence of watching soldiers throwing petrol over a boy aged 15 and burning him alive. Yet General Nezzar, who fled Paris when civil suits were filed against him for torture, is now allowed back. Meanwhile, in Algeria, Spain's Foreign Minister, representing the EU, has welcomed "notable progress in the protection of human rights".

Credits: Khalid Al Maeena and Robert Fisk 

OIC - A mirage in the desert

   The Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), is a mirage in the desert. OIC has never been known as a tiger which does anything more than roar. It does pack a powerful punch – albeit  a verbal one. 

Ever since its formation in 1969, it has been put to test numerous times, but never has it had the kind of impact on situations as it would have liked to. Long on rhetoric and short on action, the OIC is once again faced with a herculean challenge in the shape of the renewed repression of Palestinians by Israeli occupiers. Will its performance be any different?

In a sense, the situation in Palestine has been the raison d'etre of the organisation. It came into being in reaction to Israel's attempt to burn down Al Aqsa mosque on August 21,  1969. The first meeting of the leaders of the Islamic world was held in the wake of this tragic incident  on September 25, 1969. Six months later in March 1970, the OIC Secretariat was established in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The headquarters are supposed to shift to Al Quds Al Sharif after its liberation.

The Doha gathering in Nov-2000, was the ninth OIC summit meeting since its inception.

The OIC has 56 members spanning the entire Islamic world. According to its charter, OIC aims to strengthen:
a) Islamic solidarity among member states;
b) Cooperation in the political, economic, social, cultural and scientific fields;
c) The struggle of all Muslim people to safeguard their dignity, independence and national rights.
It also aims to coordinate action to safeguard the Holy Places; and support the struggle of the Palestinian people and assist them in recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories.

If words were tanks, the OIC would have been a superpower. "Sadly, Muslim countries, representing more than a third of the membership of the United Nations, watch helplessly as Israel continues with impunity and arrogance to kill innocent Palestinians," Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said, citing a glaring example of the OIC's weakness.

"Such is the dire state of Muslim countries," he added. "There are more intra-Muslim conflicts within Muslim countries and between Muslim countries, than there are between Muslims and their detractors," he pointed out. "Islamic civilization seems to be at it's lowest ebb in the starting of the 21st century".

But 31 years after its formation, the OIC has members who enjoy full diplomatic relations, and even military ties, with Israel. Others have opened trade offices and interest sections which tie their relations with Israel. They have developed differing positions towards Israel and conjured a variety of justifications for building bridges with the arch-enemy. In what was indeed a supreme irony, the host of the current summit created a furore among OIC members when it refused to close down an Israeli trade office on its territory. Only pressure and threats of boycott from leading countries compelled the host to close down the Israeli office. Even now it is not known whether the closure is temporary or permanent.

The timing of the summit has made it an even greater focus of attention. With nearly 200 Palestinians butchered by Israeli troops in six weeks, and the intensity of the conflict being raised by Barak, Palestinians are going through one of the most difficult periods in decades.

"Tribal hatred" has been a term used by Jewish commentators to describe the nature of the conflict. The expression was doubtless intended to convey the intensity of feelings on both sides. But "tribal" is a word which resonates in the West. "Tribal" has connotations of "primitive" and "black". 'Tribal' views most in the West are white, and therefore not tribal, and Israelis are (like) Westerners. So it must be those Palestinians who are "tribal". This makes it easier to dismiss their views as unimportant. In fact, whispers a small voice from an imperialist past, so primitive are they that all they really have is blind emotion: "tribal hatred". The sub-sub-text is that among primitive, tribal groups life is cheap, and so the death toll is not really so awful. By its adamant refusal to meet minimum Palestinian terms, Israel, while talking about peace fosters war. The Palestinians, who have recognized Israel's right to exist and simply want something more than a Bantustan, are accused of extremism and wanting to "drive the Jews into the sea". As Big Brother would surely have said: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength".

Diplomatic moves to exert pressure on Israel have also been blocked by America, thus freeing Israel from any responsibility to answer to the world's concerns. A very basic Palestinian demand, that a UN force be sent to protect Palestinians from Israel's wrath, has been contemptuously shrugged aside by President Clinton. As if on a cue, Israelis have now started using helicopter gunships to target Palestinians for assassinations.

Yasser Arafat is playing on a weak wicket. His only constituency is the Islamic world, represented by the OIC. Arab leaders have pledged financial and moral support, but obviously this is not enough to deter Israeli aggression, or even strengthen Arafat to an extent that he can declare an independent Palestinian state. The OIC meanwhile has spent a day and a half debating whether to use the word "invite" or "request" in the final joint communique in reference to breaking ties with Israel. Islamic diplomacy, it appears, is completely out of tune with the situation on the ground.

What then can the OIC do? For starters, it should issue a strongly-worded statement which minces no words in condemning Israel's barbarity and demanding an immediate withdrawal from occupied territories. This is the part that the OIC is good at, and therefore a statement like this can be expected.
While this may convey the OIC members' sentiments, it has no practical value. What will have some practical value is announcing a complete boycott of Israel, including severing of all diplomatic relations by those member states which do have them. The boycott should also extend to all events attended by Israel, as suggested by Iran. Such a step will hurt Israel, which should be the purpose. It will also signal to the world that the OIC is ready to move beyond verbal fury. But there is one slight problem. It will never happen.

Countries like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey have made it clear they are not willing to snap ties with Israel. Their whole foreign policy approach is based on breaking away from the pack, so to speak, and presenting themselves as 'mediators' as opposed to outright 'supporters'. Recognising Israel brings with it a lot of 'rewards', mainly from one very rich and very powerful source - Any guesses as to who is it?
Which brings us to the original question: what can the OIC do to make its presence felt? The unfortunate answer is that if the organisation cannot even agree on a unified position on Israel, there is very little of practical value it can do. It didn't do anything significant when Bosnian Muslims were being slaughtered, it resorted to empty rhetoric when Kosovars were being 'ethnically cleansed', it has made no major contribution to settling the Afghanistan conflict and neither has it played a role in resolving the Kashmir dispute.

In all these issues, individual Muslim (and in some cases even non-Muslim) countries had to step forward and save the victims. Palestine is not going to be any different. Israel has proved time and again that force is the only language it understands, and respects. Force should always be the last resort. But Palestinians have exhausted all other options. They have tried to talk peace, they have appealed to the international community and laid their hopes on the United Nations and its resolutions. They have depended on the United States and its promises. And what have they gained? Two hundred coffins in six weeks.

Not an effective strategy by any measure. When the situation deteriorated to such an extent in the past, Arabs went to war against Israel. They lost. For a number of reasons, not the least of which is a better armed and better prepared Israel, war is an unlikely option now. But what does remain an option, and definitely a more effective one against Israel than verbal fencing, is armed resistance. The Afghan mujahideen used this to expel a superpower from their country. They were not terrorists, because they did not go after the civilian population. Instead, they targeted Soviet troops, and Soviet military installations. They bled the Soviet army and forced it to withdraw.

Palestinians have now been pushed into a corner by Israel, and their options are shrinking. They cannot depend on outside help, because such help is not forthcoming. If they want their land, they will have to fight for it. And they will have to raise the stakes in this fight. This is where they require all the help they can get – practical help, that is.

Courtesy - GNews

Our Foolish War in the Middle East - by Ron Paul

The West has been at war with the Muslim world for over a thousand years. Following the British lead from the first half of this century, the United States has attempted to dominate the Middle East since World War II. The U.S. government has not hesitated to use its military might in the region, justifying its actions by claiming a right and need to protect "our" oil.

The result of our actions has been a growing resentment of America, for obvious reasons. Sadly, our policies make our soldiers across the globe more vulnerable. No one should be surprised by the terrible USS Cole tragedy. If the administration understood the history of the region, it would see the total folly of anchoring a war vessel in an enemy port. This lack of understanding of Middle Eastern history and religion, combined with our policy of aggression and empire building, has led to a dangerous interventionist attitude.

It is clear that we are not in the Middle East for national security reasons, but rather to protect powerful commercial interests. This assures we protect oil supplies for the West, and provides us with an excuse to keep the military industrial complex active.

To put this in a proper perspective, consider how Americans, especially Texans, would feel if the Gulf of Mexico were patrolled by warships of a foreign power. What if that same power proceeded to build air bases in Texas and Florida with our government's complicity to protect "their" oil? Imagine the rightful anger this would spark among most Americans! This anger would be directed at both the foreign occupiers of our territorial waters, and our own government for permitting it. Yet this is exactly what has been happening in the Persian Gulf region. For religious, historic, and sovereignty reasons, the Muslim people harbor great resentment toward us.

The USS Cole disaster was needless and preventable. The loss of this vessel and the tragic deaths of 17 Americans were a direct consequence of an interventionist policy. This policy has led to a lack of military readiness by spreading our forces too thin, increasing the danger to all Americans and our servicemen in that region in particular. It's positively amazing we do not have the ability to protect a $1 billion dollar vessel from a rubber raft, despite our $300 billion military budget. Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets, and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd if not insane. It is obvious that our navy lacks the military intelligence to warn and prevent such an event. It is incapable even of investigating the incident, since the FBI was brought in to try to figure out what happened. This further intrusion will only serve to increase the resentment of the people of Yemen and the Middle East toward all Americans.

Our policy in the Middle East cannot possibly be successful. It's obvious there will be an inevitable conflict between our support for the moderate Arabs- which antagonizes the Islamic fundamentalists in the region- and our special treatment for Israel. It is clear that powerful financial interests in this country want to use our military force to protect their commercial and oil interests in the region, while at the same time there always will be powerful U.S. political support for the State of Israel. The two sides never will be reconciled by our attempt to support both.

Our many failures in the last fifty years should prompt us to reassess our entire foreign policy of interventionism. We must end our efforts to police the world. Our failures in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and the Middle East, and our failures yet come to in Bosnia and Kosovo should alert all Americans to this great danger. Instead we continue to expand our military adventurism into more sovereign nations (this time it's the 30-year civil conflict in Columbia). Congress and the administration must understand that the greatest threat to our national security is our own bad policy.

A debt never paid in full

   With the Arab population increasing, more foreigners arrive here daily. As this influx is absorbed into society, so also are behavioural attitudes alien to the customs, culture and religion of the country. This invidious inculcation can also be aggravated if the country's youth have studied abroad in countries with an entirely different society.

Unfortunately, though, a less than desirable trait that has permeated the UAE society is one that has existed for a number of years in the west notably, but is now becoming a global problem. It is the abandonment of the elderly once the "children" have grown up and produced families of their own.

It is part of Arab culture and religion that the elderly, especially parents, should be looked after in their old age by their offspring. Regrettably, more and more youth are relying on the state to provide care for the elderly, leaving relatives there and often not even bothering to visit them.

This is in total contradiction of all that has been taught the youth from an early age. While recognising the need to adapt and adopt modern practices, this is one that Arab youth must shun. Caring for elderly relatives is the least reciprocation for the love given them.