Isn't it marvellous that all these governments are determined to do "something" about Colonel Gaddafi? For example Hillary Clinton said she supported military action once the Arab League – made up of countries such as Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia – backed the air strikes. And it is encouraging that the policy of not tolerating a dictator has the backing of so many dictators.
Some people might suggest that one way King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, for example, might reduce the number of Arab dictators, would be to stop being an Arab dictator, but that's because they don't understand how complicated these things can be.
But presumably, once Gaddafi's been dealt with, these dictators will back a UN resolution to bomb themselves, declaring, "The international community can no longer sit back and watch me trample on my own people, so I must be stopped. I give myself three days to recognise the opposition and call elections, otherwise I will assist Nato in bombing myself. Or maybe I should assist them, as they've sold me so many of their weapons they can't have many left."
Others will say the West might now turn a blind eye to repression that happens in countries which have backed the bombing of Libya, but that would mean an American government has bombed somewhere without being honest about its motives, and that would be highly cynical. For example, Hillary's comments about the need to act once the Arab League asked for help explain why no government helped Gaza when it was attacked two years ago. Because Gaza obviously forgot to ask. It's a bit shy, I suppose, and didn't want to be any trouble.
But the person to be most sorry for is Tony Blair, who must feel like one of these people who get interviewed when their neighbour's gone berserk and shot everyone in the shopping centre. Tony will make a statement soon that goes "I knew Mr Gaddafi for years. He just kept himself to himself, I had no idea he'd end up like this. I even had my photo taken with him after selling him dozens of tanks – who'd have guessed he'd use them for military reasons? I'm shocked."
The main argument for the bombing seems to be that we have to do something. This suggests that up until now we've been doing nothing, which is true if you don't count drawing the boundaries of Arab countries in the first place, installing an assortment of Kings and helping them to fire on anyone who objected, backing every Israeli invasion, arming the Shah, arming and financing a list of dictators as long as they sent us their oil, invading Iraq and then making Tony Blair the Middle-East poxy sodding peace envoy, to give his job its full title.
This may explain why most Arabs are reluctant to welcome Western backing, and why they might reply to a question from Britain and America that went "Can we just do nothing?" by answering, "Why don't you give it a go? For about a hundred years. Then we'll see how we're getting on and get back to you".
So while the people of Benghazi must have been relieved that the UN has forced Gaddafi back, it must be in the same way that if you were being attacked by robbers you'd be relieved to see the Mafia turn up and fire on them.
Then afterwards you'd have a new problem, that you owed them something. And that might be the aim of the governments involved in the bombing. Because none of them have ever seemed bothered whether the regimes in the Middle East are democratic, or brutal, as long as they're happy to trade their oil on favourable terms. They want to make sure that whatever emerges from these rebellions, there are rulers who will carry on with that arrangement.
Or maybe Britain and America have got that feeling you get at a fairground when you can't knock the tins off the shelf with the little spongy ball. It looks so easy, so after each attempt you hand over another pound and say, "Right. One more go. Surely I'll get it right this time. Here goes. Whoops!"
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Bahreini-Pearl No More: Demolishing the Infrastructure of Revolution
The Pearl Roundabout is gone. On Friday, March 18, Bahraini government forces exploded the structure that had been built in 1932 as a commemoration to the importance of pearl diving to Bahrain's pre-oil economy. The six twisted arms of the sculpture (meant to be dhow sails) that held the concrete Pearl in place symbolized the different emirates that together form the Gulf Cooperation Council. More recently, the site had become the focal point of ongoing anti-government protests and violence unleashed against these civilian protestors by both Bahraini and GCC security forces. Because of these protests, the site had experienced a re-signification of meaning for Bahrainis, the Arab world, and the international community. It became one more bone in a skeleton that joins Egypt's Tahrir square, Yemen's Sana`a University, and Libya's Benghazi. No longer a site that ties the history of the Bahraini monarchy to the history of that country's economic modernization and to the history (and successes) of the GCC, the Pearl Roundabout came to index histories of protest against the excesses of monarchical rule and the history of violence that calls for democratization will, and have been, met with. Today, the Pearl roundabout incites thoughts of uprising against oppressive regimes. It inspires people to revolution. That is why the Bahraini government, on Friday, March 18, laced it with explosives and imploded it, exposing its insides for the world and more importantly, Bahrainis, to see. It wanted to destroy this new meaning that the roundabout spoke, to silence the possibilities that the roundabout stood for. The Bahraini government and its Saudi conspirators have shown that they will destroy even the infrastructure of protest.
The Peal Roundabout is gone. But for now, the Bahraini uprising remains.
Photgraph of demonstrators gathered at Pearl Roundabout:
The Peal Roundabout is gone. But for now, the Bahraini uprising remains.
Photgraph of demonstrators gathered at Pearl Roundabout:
Mohammed Bamyeh : Is The 2011 Libyan Revolution An Exception
It is likely due to the complete disconnect between state and society that the Libyan uprising has thus far been the first of the current Arab revolutions in which an opposition government has been formed before the revolution has ended. This disconnect has been reflected in three developments during this uprising, the first two of which are traceable to extreme conditions of autocratic deafness. First, unlike the cases of Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, in Libya unrestrained state violence necessitated early on that government officials’ demonstrate their moral character by quitting their posts and joining the revolution. However, as a result, the revolution had no trusted partner within the government who, as was the case in the other Arab revolts, could be relied upon to lead a transitional period. At the same time, the defection of a large number of high-ranking state officials, including members of the diplomatic corps who had close contacts with global institutions (and also the most freedom to defect), supplied the otherwise spontaneous uprising with a body of politically experienced recruits who placed a high importance on the development of institutions to support the revolution. At the same time, the opposition’s success in liberating parts of Libyan territory created a pragmatic need for a government-like structure to run and manage these areas.
In such a way, the most institutionally-developed of the Arab revolutions emerged from a state with the least amount of institutional structures. The apparent Libyan exception is, thus, not only one of violence and bloodshed. This tremendous example of indigenous organizing, arising amidst spontaneous and fearless resistance to state violence, belies Western complaints about the alleged “absence of civil society” in Libya. As Western diplomats and commentators have struggled to identify the exact character of this movement, they have missed its most crucial and illuminating element: that it represents less a specific ideology and more the forceful rebirth of modern Libya’s long repressed civic traditions. As such, out of the most desperate of circumstances, the Libyan revolt of all the Arab revolutions thus far has made the greatest leap forward.
In such a way, the most institutionally-developed of the Arab revolutions emerged from a state with the least amount of institutional structures. The apparent Libyan exception is, thus, not only one of violence and bloodshed. This tremendous example of indigenous organizing, arising amidst spontaneous and fearless resistance to state violence, belies Western complaints about the alleged “absence of civil society” in Libya. As Western diplomats and commentators have struggled to identify the exact character of this movement, they have missed its most crucial and illuminating element: that it represents less a specific ideology and more the forceful rebirth of modern Libya’s long repressed civic traditions. As such, out of the most desperate of circumstances, the Libyan revolt of all the Arab revolutions thus far has made the greatest leap forward.
the cancer of the Middle East - is emerging a people reborn : Robert Fisk
Of course, the Sykes-Picot agreement which had already secretly carved up the Middle East, a dying Woodrow Wilson and America's lurch into isolationism put paid to any such fanciful ideas. Besides, who knows if some Arabs might have preferred the "civilisation" of Rome and, just over a decade later, of Madrid and Berlin, to the supposedly decadent democracies elsewhere in Europe? In the end, the Second World War scarred Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Lebanon and left the rest comparatively unscathed. But this is the moment to recall the might-have-beens of history. For it is now just possible to recognise a future world in which we may be able to travel from Morocco to the Iraq-Iran border without a visa in our passports. Whether Arabs will be able to do this as speedily, of course, is another matter.
What is not in doubt is the extraordinary tempest passing through the region, the spectacular break-up of the Arab world which most of us have known for most of our lives and which most Arabs have known for most of their lives. From the mildewed, corrupted dictatorships - the cancer of the Middle East - is emerging a people reborn. Not without bloodshed, and not without much violence in front of them as well as behind them. But now at last the Arabs can hope to march into the bright sunlit uplands. Every Arab friend of mine has said exactly the same thing to me over the past weeks: "Never did I believe I would ever live to see this."
But Israel is a case worth examining. Usually capable of considerable forethought, its government and diplomats and overseas supporters have been hopelessly lazy and cackhanded in their response to the events thundering across the Arab world. Instead of embracing a new and democratic Egypt, they are sullenly warning of its volatility. For Israel's government, it now appears, the fall of dictators whom they have many times compared to Hitler is even worse than the dictators' preservation. We can see where the problem lies. A Mubarak would always obey orders - via Washington - from Israel. A new president will be under no such pressure. Voters in Egypt do not like the siege of Gaza. They are outraged by the theft of Arab land for Israeli colonies in the West Bank. No matter how big the bribes from Washington, no elected Egyptian president is going to be able to tolerate this state of affairs for long.
The epic we can afford to forget, however, is the "war on terror". Scarcely a squeak from Osama's outfit for months. Now isn't that strange? The only thing I heard from "al Qa'ida" about Egypt was a call for the removal of Mubarak - a week after he had been deposed by people power. The latest missive from the man in the cave has urged the heroic peoples of the Arab world to remember that their revolutions have Islamic roots; which must come as a surprise to the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain et al. For they all demanded freedom and liberation and democracy. And there, in a sense, is the answer to Skidelsky. Does he believe they are all lying? And if so, why?
As I said, there is much blood still to flow. And many a meddling hand to turn new democracies into time-serving dictatorships. But for once - just once - the Arabs can see the broad sunlit uplands.
What is not in doubt is the extraordinary tempest passing through the region, the spectacular break-up of the Arab world which most of us have known for most of our lives and which most Arabs have known for most of their lives. From the mildewed, corrupted dictatorships - the cancer of the Middle East - is emerging a people reborn. Not without bloodshed, and not without much violence in front of them as well as behind them. But now at last the Arabs can hope to march into the bright sunlit uplands. Every Arab friend of mine has said exactly the same thing to me over the past weeks: "Never did I believe I would ever live to see this."
But Israel is a case worth examining. Usually capable of considerable forethought, its government and diplomats and overseas supporters have been hopelessly lazy and cackhanded in their response to the events thundering across the Arab world. Instead of embracing a new and democratic Egypt, they are sullenly warning of its volatility. For Israel's government, it now appears, the fall of dictators whom they have many times compared to Hitler is even worse than the dictators' preservation. We can see where the problem lies. A Mubarak would always obey orders - via Washington - from Israel. A new president will be under no such pressure. Voters in Egypt do not like the siege of Gaza. They are outraged by the theft of Arab land for Israeli colonies in the West Bank. No matter how big the bribes from Washington, no elected Egyptian president is going to be able to tolerate this state of affairs for long.
The epic we can afford to forget, however, is the "war on terror". Scarcely a squeak from Osama's outfit for months. Now isn't that strange? The only thing I heard from "al Qa'ida" about Egypt was a call for the removal of Mubarak - a week after he had been deposed by people power. The latest missive from the man in the cave has urged the heroic peoples of the Arab world to remember that their revolutions have Islamic roots; which must come as a surprise to the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain et al. For they all demanded freedom and liberation and democracy. And there, in a sense, is the answer to Skidelsky. Does he believe they are all lying? And if so, why?
As I said, there is much blood still to flow. And many a meddling hand to turn new democracies into time-serving dictatorships. But for once - just once - the Arabs can see the broad sunlit uplands.
Kim Sengupta: The resistance has foundered on its own indiscipline and farcical ineptitude
The pervading feature of the conflict in Libya has been the ineptitude of the main rebel force. Time and again they have failed to take advantage of weaknesses among Muammar Gaddafi's troops and, just as frequently, they have fled in the face of fire.
The most glaring example was the opportunity offered by the air strikes carried out by the West which destroyed the regime's tanks and artillery outside Benghazi and forced its soldiers into a terrified retreat to the next city, Ajdabiya.
Rather than press home their advantage and retake Ajdabiya, the rebel fighters – known as the Shabaab – were too busy having their pictures taken with the wreckage or looting anything left intact from the supply trucks. A desultory attack late in the day was easily repulsed by the regime's forces which then dug in around the city.
The bombardment by the US, France and Britain was meant to break the regime's forces and galvanise the rebels. Extraordinarily, it appears to have had the opposite effect, with the Shabaab retreating yet again in the next 48 hours.
There is little sign of leadership on the issue from the political hierarchy at the opposition's capital, Benghazi, where the provisional administration, with the prize of international recognition seemingly within reach, has been enmeshed in a bout of internal rivalry.
Mahmoud Jibril – a former economics official – appears to have won the power struggle against former justice minister Mustapha Abdel Jalil, to head the de facto government. Mr Jibril has, however, already been heading the "crisis committee" covering military and foreign affairs, which does not, perhaps, offer great hope of immediate and radical improvement in the conduct of the war.
The Western powers are now left with four choices. They can keep on bombing the loyalist troops until they are defenceless (a path US commanders have rejected), send in ground forces, train the rebels, or supply them with modern, heavy weapons. The last option is the one the rebels are clamouring for, but experience on the ground suggests that is anything but the answer.
And what, one may ask, has happened to the members of the Libyan military forces who, it was claimed, had defected to the revolution in droves? They, especially the officers, are increasingly scarce on the front line. The Shabaab claims that former soldiers were too slow in moving forwards, while the defectors in turn accuse the volunteer fighters of lack of discipline.
The most glaring example was the opportunity offered by the air strikes carried out by the West which destroyed the regime's tanks and artillery outside Benghazi and forced its soldiers into a terrified retreat to the next city, Ajdabiya.
Rather than press home their advantage and retake Ajdabiya, the rebel fighters – known as the Shabaab – were too busy having their pictures taken with the wreckage or looting anything left intact from the supply trucks. A desultory attack late in the day was easily repulsed by the regime's forces which then dug in around the city.
The bombardment by the US, France and Britain was meant to break the regime's forces and galvanise the rebels. Extraordinarily, it appears to have had the opposite effect, with the Shabaab retreating yet again in the next 48 hours.
There is little sign of leadership on the issue from the political hierarchy at the opposition's capital, Benghazi, where the provisional administration, with the prize of international recognition seemingly within reach, has been enmeshed in a bout of internal rivalry.
Mahmoud Jibril – a former economics official – appears to have won the power struggle against former justice minister Mustapha Abdel Jalil, to head the de facto government. Mr Jibril has, however, already been heading the "crisis committee" covering military and foreign affairs, which does not, perhaps, offer great hope of immediate and radical improvement in the conduct of the war.
The Western powers are now left with four choices. They can keep on bombing the loyalist troops until they are defenceless (a path US commanders have rejected), send in ground forces, train the rebels, or supply them with modern, heavy weapons. The last option is the one the rebels are clamouring for, but experience on the ground suggests that is anything but the answer.
And what, one may ask, has happened to the members of the Libyan military forces who, it was claimed, had defected to the revolution in droves? They, especially the officers, are increasingly scarce on the front line. The Shabaab claims that former soldiers were too slow in moving forwards, while the defectors in turn accuse the volunteer fighters of lack of discipline.
Damascus back into the international fold : Katherine Marsh
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/syria-crackdown
Leaders in Deraa had issued a range of demands to the government, including the release of political prisoners from the area, the freedom to buy and sell property without permission of local security forces and the dismissal of the governor of Deraa. So far, only the last demand has been met.
"By using such disproportionate violence against its own citizens, neither the government nor the people can be expected to negotiate," said Abdullah, adding that without talks there was no clear solution to the violence. "I am scared because I don't know how this will end. I fear escalating anger will lead to an evermore brutal crackdown."
Leaders in Deraa had issued a range of demands to the government, including the release of political prisoners from the area, the freedom to buy and sell property without permission of local security forces and the dismissal of the governor of Deraa. So far, only the last demand has been met.
"By using such disproportionate violence against its own citizens, neither the government nor the people can be expected to negotiate," said Abdullah, adding that without talks there was no clear solution to the violence. "I am scared because I don't know how this will end. I fear escalating anger will lead to an evermore brutal crackdown."
Tthe current casino inside the EU and NATO : Pepe Escobar
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC25Ak01.html
The Libyan transitional council now calls itself an "interim government" - although still committed, in its own words, to a unified Libya. But partition cannot be ruled out - because historically Cyrenaica has always been at odds with Tripolitania. If Gaddafi can muster majority tribal support, the regime won't crumble.
All eyes will be on a "green march" now announced by the one million-strong al-Warfalla tribe, Libya's largest; they had defected to the opposition but now are eager to show their loyalty to Gaddafi.
There's no guarantee the February 17 Movement, the political force at the forefront of the Libyan revolt, with a democratic platform for human rights, a state of law and free and fair elections, will have the upper-hand in a post-Gaddafi environment.
There's absolutely nothing humanitarian about the current casino inside the EU and NATO. The only thing that matters is the right positioning towards the post-Gaddafi era - the energy bonanza, geostrategic primacy in the Mediterranean and the Sahara-Sahel space, juicy business "reconstruction" opportunities.
The Libyan transitional council now calls itself an "interim government" - although still committed, in its own words, to a unified Libya. But partition cannot be ruled out - because historically Cyrenaica has always been at odds with Tripolitania. If Gaddafi can muster majority tribal support, the regime won't crumble.
All eyes will be on a "green march" now announced by the one million-strong al-Warfalla tribe, Libya's largest; they had defected to the opposition but now are eager to show their loyalty to Gaddafi.
There's no guarantee the February 17 Movement, the political force at the forefront of the Libyan revolt, with a democratic platform for human rights, a state of law and free and fair elections, will have the upper-hand in a post-Gaddafi environment.
There's absolutely nothing humanitarian about the current casino inside the EU and NATO. The only thing that matters is the right positioning towards the post-Gaddafi era - the energy bonanza, geostrategic primacy in the Mediterranean and the Sahara-Sahel space, juicy business "reconstruction" opportunities.
The consensus on intervention in Libya has shattered : Simon Tisdall
The fragile consensus on intervention achieved last week, when the UN security council approved "all measures necessary" to protect Libyan civilians against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, has shattered in the wake of large-scale US, British and French ground and air attacks. The attacks were widely seen internationally as disproportionate, careless of civilian lives, and extending beyond the agreed plan to impose a defensive no-fly zone.
The criticism is coming not only from leaders with a traditionally anti-western outlook, such as Russia's Vladimir Putin, who accused the allies of launching a new "crusade" against the Arab world. Leading developing countries such as India have deplored the escalation in fighting as likely to make matters worse, while a growing number of African leaders are highly critical of perceived western disregard for national sovereignty.
The international uproar will form the backdrop to a UN security council meeting in New York on Thursday which is due to review implementation of UN resolution 1973. Last week's decision cannot be reversed without another full vote. But Russia, China and non-permanent council members including South Africa and Brazil – from the so-called Brics bloc of countries – are expected to express strong reservations about how the UN mandate has been interpreted and executed.
While none of the opposing countries has so far expressed more than diplomatic disapproval of the government's actions in Libya, analysts suggest the row could have a potentially negative impact on Britain's political, trade and commercial relations with some of the world's most powerful emerging economies. The longer the war continues, the more damage it could do to its main western protagonists.
Chinese criticism, largely expressed through state-controlled media, has been particularly virulent, possibly reflecting second thoughts in Beijing about its unexpected decision to abstain in last week's vote, rather then use its veto.
Speaking this week, Zuma called for an immediate ceasefire, expressing concern about civilian casualties. South Africa, he said, "rejected any foreign intervention, whatever its form". The air strikes, he suggested, were more to do with regime change than humanitarian assistance.
Zuma was part of an African Union delegation that was about to travel to Libya to help mediate an end to the conflict when the bombing started. The mission was cancelled. Now the AU, generously funded by Gaddafi in the past and smarting from another galling example of western insouciance, has called for an end to military intervention, too.
Other major African and Asian countries, notably Nigeria and India, have joined the campaign demanding Britain and France back off. "The measures adopted should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation," the Indian external affairs ministry said.
The seven-country east African security and development organisation, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), warned meanwhile that the intervention was an open invitation to terrorists. "Our fear is that what is happening now in Libya may motivate terrorist groups in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq to regroup on African soil," it said.
Britain and France may try to shrug off this tidal wave of global criticism, in the way western powers historically always have. But some very influential countries, with an increasing capacity to make life uncomfortable, are now ranged against them. Ignoring them will be harder to do the longer the war continues, and the more people are killed.
While the Libyan intervention remains far from resolved, it has already notched up one remarkable achievement. It has given Zimbabwe's ostracised president, Robert Mugabe, a chance to speak out on behalf of the majority of world opinion. As usual, the war was all about oil, Mugabe said this week. Western countries were "bloody vampires".
The criticism is coming not only from leaders with a traditionally anti-western outlook, such as Russia's Vladimir Putin, who accused the allies of launching a new "crusade" against the Arab world. Leading developing countries such as India have deplored the escalation in fighting as likely to make matters worse, while a growing number of African leaders are highly critical of perceived western disregard for national sovereignty.
The international uproar will form the backdrop to a UN security council meeting in New York on Thursday which is due to review implementation of UN resolution 1973. Last week's decision cannot be reversed without another full vote. But Russia, China and non-permanent council members including South Africa and Brazil – from the so-called Brics bloc of countries – are expected to express strong reservations about how the UN mandate has been interpreted and executed.
While none of the opposing countries has so far expressed more than diplomatic disapproval of the government's actions in Libya, analysts suggest the row could have a potentially negative impact on Britain's political, trade and commercial relations with some of the world's most powerful emerging economies. The longer the war continues, the more damage it could do to its main western protagonists.
Chinese criticism, largely expressed through state-controlled media, has been particularly virulent, possibly reflecting second thoughts in Beijing about its unexpected decision to abstain in last week's vote, rather then use its veto.
Speaking this week, Zuma called for an immediate ceasefire, expressing concern about civilian casualties. South Africa, he said, "rejected any foreign intervention, whatever its form". The air strikes, he suggested, were more to do with regime change than humanitarian assistance.
Zuma was part of an African Union delegation that was about to travel to Libya to help mediate an end to the conflict when the bombing started. The mission was cancelled. Now the AU, generously funded by Gaddafi in the past and smarting from another galling example of western insouciance, has called for an end to military intervention, too.
Other major African and Asian countries, notably Nigeria and India, have joined the campaign demanding Britain and France back off. "The measures adopted should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation," the Indian external affairs ministry said.
The seven-country east African security and development organisation, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), warned meanwhile that the intervention was an open invitation to terrorists. "Our fear is that what is happening now in Libya may motivate terrorist groups in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq to regroup on African soil," it said.
Britain and France may try to shrug off this tidal wave of global criticism, in the way western powers historically always have. But some very influential countries, with an increasing capacity to make life uncomfortable, are now ranged against them. Ignoring them will be harder to do the longer the war continues, and the more people are killed.
While the Libyan intervention remains far from resolved, it has already notched up one remarkable achievement. It has given Zimbabwe's ostracised president, Robert Mugabe, a chance to speak out on behalf of the majority of world opinion. As usual, the war was all about oil, Mugabe said this week. Western countries were "bloody vampires".
Fantastic, everybody in the region, absolutely everybody : Marie Dhumières
BEIRUT: Activists are planning more demonstrations Sunday as part of a national campaign to “topple the sectarian system,” with a protest organized for the capital and a march to take place from Amsheet to Jbeil
“We are continuing the movement,” said Dyab Abu Jahjah, an organizer of the Beirut demonstration.
The protesters will meet in front of UNESCO palace at noon and head for several symbolic locations.
“We will stop at [Nabih] Berri’s house in Ain al-Tineh, [Saad] Hariri’s house in Qoreitem, and [Walid] Jumlatt’s house in Clemenceau,” he said, adding the protesters were also planning to stop by the headquarters of Ogero telecom company in Mina al-Hosn.
“The message we’re trying to pass on is that the sectarian system is the source of all the vices,” he said, explaining that aside from demanding the toppling of the sectarian system and its leaders, the activists will also protest against phone prices, “some of the most expensive in the world and a tax imposed on regular people,” as Abu Jahjah put it. High gasoline and bread prices are also targets.
He said the chosen itinerary also aimed at condemning the security perimeters around leaders’ residences that he said, are causing “incredible traffic jams and suffocating people.”
Jahjah said the activists believed all the country’s issues were linked, and related to the sectarian system.
“The corruption comes from the fact that every community in the country is trying to protect itself.
“The main cause is to topple the system because it’s allowing corruption and paralyzing the country with civil wars every 10 years. We have to change that,” he continued.
The demonstration is part of a national campaign for secular society, which has been going on for nearly a month. Last Sunday, thousands marched from Sassine Square in Achrafieh to the Interior Ministry in Sanayeh, where activists have been holding a sit-in for three weeks.
Later Sunday, other activists will gather at 3 p.m. in the main square of Amsheet, and then march to nearby Jbeil. The activists coming from the capital will meet in Dora a few hours before the later protest to take a bus to Amsheet together.
“We don’t want to just stay in Beirut, we need to spread all over Lebanon,” said Maya Muhieddine, one of the activists. “This system exists all over Lebanon, [so] we don’t want to be central.”
Abu Jahjah dismissed the notion that his group intended to undermine the march from Amsheet to Jbeil, and said many of those attending the demonstration in Beirut were planning to join the march later in the day.
“This is a spontaneous movement, with no central command,” he said.
“I hope there will be 10 demonstrations on Sunday, not one,” he continued, comparing the movement to the uprising in Egypt, where, he said, “they didn’t always coordinate.”
Muhieddine agreed. “We’re not against the other demonstration; we have to show we’re everywhere.”
The protesters will meet in front of UNESCO palace at noon and head for several symbolic locations.
“We will stop at [Nabih] Berri’s house in Ain al-Tineh, [Saad] Hariri’s house in Qoreitem, and [Walid] Jumlatt’s house in Clemenceau,” he said, adding the protesters were also planning to stop by the headquarters of Ogero telecom company in Mina al-Hosn.
“The message we’re trying to pass on is that the sectarian system is the source of all the vices,” he said, explaining that aside from demanding the toppling of the sectarian system and its leaders, the activists will also protest against phone prices, “some of the most expensive in the world and a tax imposed on regular people,” as Abu Jahjah put it. High gasoline and bread prices are also targets.
He said the chosen itinerary also aimed at condemning the security perimeters around leaders’ residences that he said, are causing “incredible traffic jams and suffocating people.”
Jahjah said the activists believed all the country’s issues were linked, and related to the sectarian system.
“The corruption comes from the fact that every community in the country is trying to protect itself.
“The main cause is to topple the system because it’s allowing corruption and paralyzing the country with civil wars every 10 years. We have to change that,” he continued.
The demonstration is part of a national campaign for secular society, which has been going on for nearly a month. Last Sunday, thousands marched from Sassine Square in Achrafieh to the Interior Ministry in Sanayeh, where activists have been holding a sit-in for three weeks.
Later Sunday, other activists will gather at 3 p.m. in the main square of Amsheet, and then march to nearby Jbeil. The activists coming from the capital will meet in Dora a few hours before the later protest to take a bus to Amsheet together.
“We don’t want to just stay in Beirut, we need to spread all over Lebanon,” said Maya Muhieddine, one of the activists. “This system exists all over Lebanon, [so] we don’t want to be central.”
Abu Jahjah dismissed the notion that his group intended to undermine the march from Amsheet to Jbeil, and said many of those attending the demonstration in Beirut were planning to join the march later in the day.
“This is a spontaneous movement, with no central command,” he said.
“I hope there will be 10 demonstrations on Sunday, not one,” he continued, comparing the movement to the uprising in Egypt, where, he said, “they didn’t always coordinate.”
Muhieddine agreed. “We’re not against the other demonstration; we have to show we’re everywhere.”
We can't just say there must be change. There must be a change in our minds : FT
IT SURE IS SPRING!!
We can't just say there must be change. There must be a change in our minds.
–Imane Zerouali, 28, actress
Rabat, Morocco
Now there is political talk
–Sophia Chraïbi, 29, designer
Rabat, Morocco
Qaddafi is not going to go easily.
–Sara Gebril, 21, student
Benghazi, Libya
I think this is the time for the youth to take matters into their own hands.
–Mousheera Abu Shamas, 25, human rights advocate
Gaza
I saw people die, I saw fights, I saw problems, for you, so you can live in a better country.
–Alia Khaled el Shammaa, 22, engineering student
Cairo
Please, please don't judge us like that.
–Arwa Alasma, 23, law student
Benghazi, Libya
Revolutions can't be copied.
Roula Salman, 23, accountant and fund-raiser
Bethlehem, West Bank
I really dream of an Islamic butsecular country.
–Mariam Abu Adas, 30, youth worker
Amman, Jordan
This freedom will be for everybody, not only for men.
–Rinad Ayed, 23, procurement assistant
Birzeit, West Bank
We can't just say there must be change. There must be a change in our minds.
–Imane Zerouali, 28, actress
Rabat, Morocco
–Sophia Chraïbi, 29, designer
Rabat, Morocco
–Sara Gebril, 21, student
Benghazi, Libya
–Mousheera Abu Shamas, 25, human rights advocate
Gaza
–Alia Khaled el Shammaa, 22, engineering student
Cairo
–Arwa Alasma, 23, law student
Benghazi, Libya
Roula Salman, 23, accountant and fund-raiser
Bethlehem, West Bank
–Mariam Abu Adas, 30, youth worker
Amman, Jordan
–Rinad Ayed, 23, procurement assistant
Birzeit, West Bank
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)