Sunday, 29 April 2007

Where we are going?

Mustafa Hamido

 

All leaked stories about the last war in Lebanon (summer 2006) proved that "Arabs" were supporting Israel and trying to destroy the legal resistance in Lebanon. If we know those who supported Israel, We can guess or even expect the next step for America in the Middle East. The "moderate Arabs" are the natural allies of America in the Middle East. Those are who gave it all imaginable and unimaginable facilities to invade Iraq and destroy its system. Those also who are criticizing the Iranian interfering in Iraq and which is a consequent of the The American Invasion. From the Wide view, We can say that America is going to use the Gulf states against Iran as a card to bargain on it . Iran is a regional super power and it is very difficult to neglect it and it is more difficult to defeat it.

 
Share:

عزمي بشارة و الطائفية البدعة

مصطفى حميدو

 

في شرقنا العربي ،غالبا ما يصنف الرجال حسب أديانهم او معتقداتهم. هكذا ربينا و هكذا أراد من أراد أن يزرع ذلك فينا. هي نقطة انتحارنا الرئيسية و عامل ضعفنا الداخلي التي تظهر إرهاصاته على امتداد هذا العالم العربي المبتلى و الممتحن بالطائفية و الاثنية . عزمي بشارة العربي المسيحي نما وسط أناس غالبهم من المسلمين لكنهم و بمجرد أن سمعوا صوته الجهوري المحبب لكل نفس صافية التفوا حوله و جعلوه رمزا لهم في زمن اللارموز و زمن التيه العربي المزمن. هذا الرجل الذي لم أعرف بمسيحيته إلا منذ مدة قصيرة دغدغ فينا مشاعر ظنناها غير موجودة فإذا بكلماته الساحرة تعيد لنا الأمل و تعيد إلينا ما ظنناه أنه غير موجود فينا.يكرس نموذج عزمي بشارة الوطنية عندما تتحرر من أسر الطائفية و تصبح هموم الجمع مقدمة على هموم الطائفة أو المذهب أو التجمع ألاثني. لهذا يحارب بشارة و لهذا يحاولون أن يشوهوا سمعته و أن ينالوا منه لأنه الأخر المختلف عما يريدونه لنا و عما يحيكونه لهذا الشرق التعس.

Share:

Thursday, 26 April 2007

U.S. House approves Iraq pullout date, despite likely veto

WASHINGTON: The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly approved a $124 billion war spending bill that would require American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by Oct. 1, setting the stage for the first veto fight between President George W. Bush and the Democratic majority in Congress.

Only hours after General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, told lawmakers he needed more time to gauge the effectiveness of a troop buildup there, the House voted 218 to 208 Wednesday to pass a measure that sought the removal of most combat forces by next spring. Bush has said unequivocally and repeatedly that he will veto it.

"Last fall, the American people voted for a new direction in Iraq," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "They made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do their jobs, but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely and soon."

Republicans accused Democrats of establishing a "date certain" for America's defeat in Iraq and capitulating to terrorism.

"This bill is nothing short of a cut and run in the fight against Al Qaeda," said Representative Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky.

On the final vote, 216 Democrats and 2 Republicans supported the bill; 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats opposed it.

The Senate is expected Thursday to approve identical legislation, which provides more than $95 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30, with the money conditioned on the administration's willingness to accept a timetable for withdrawal and new benchmarks to assess the progress of the Iraqi government.

Democratic leaders plan to send the bill to the White House early next week - coinciding with the fourth anniversary of Bush's May 1, 2003, speech aboard an aircraft carrier when he declared the end of major combat operations before a banner that said "Mission Accomplished."

At the White House, Dana Perino, the deputy press secretary, released a statement minutes after the vote, calling the bill "disappointing legislation that insists on a surrender date, handcuffs our generals and contains billions of dollars in spending unrelated to the war."

With the outcome essentially preordained, advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were readying campaigns to try to shape public opinion as the showdown unfolds.

Groups aligned with the Democrats plan to capitalize on the connection between the veto and the "mission accomplished" anniversary. Americans United for Change has produced a television commercial that replays scenes of Bush on the carrier and says: "He was wrong then. And he's wrong now. It's the will of one nation versus the stubbornness of one man."

Allies of the president are mobilizing as well. The conservative Web site Townhall.com was organizing an online "no surrender" petition, and urging visitors to the site to tell the Democratic Party's "rogues' gallery that we will not stand for their defeatism," adding, "While they may lack courage, our troops do not and they deserve the resources needed to win this war."

With the vote barely behind them, House Democrats were already considering how to respond legislatively to Bush's veto. Though there are differing ideas, Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who oversees defense appropriations, said his preference would be to "robustly fund the troops for two months," and include benchmarks but no timetable for withdrawal.

The briefing by Petraeus and other senior Pentagon officials appeared to do little to influence the House vote. Lawmakers said the commander had made no overt plea for them to oppose the legislation, which provides more money for the Pentagon than the president had sought for the war as well as billions of dollars for other unrelated projects.

"I'm not going to get into the minefield of discussions about various legislative proposals," Petraeus told reporters at the end of the two briefings. "I don't think that is something military commanders should get into."

The general pointed to a drop in sectarian killings and security gains in Anbar Province as improvements in recent weeks but referred to reversals as well. "The ability of Al Qaeda to conduct horrific, sensational attacks obviously has represented a setback and is an area in which we are focusing considerable attention," he said.

Lawmakers, speaking on condition of anonymity because the briefings in the House and Senate were classified, said that while the general had pointed to successful weapons seizures and a substantial drop in killings as evidence of progress, he and the others could not quantify how they would evaluate future success.

Lawmakers who attended a session said Petraeus had said he would need until September to judge whether the troop increase was meeting its goals in quelling the sectarian and terrorism-related violence in Iraq.

In addition to Petraeus, lawmakers in the House and Senate heard from the deputy secretary of defense, Gordon England; the deputy secretary of state, John Negroponte; and Admiral Edmund Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

As they walked into the House briefing, the officials were greeted by about a dozen war protesters, some of whom shouted: "War criminal! War criminal!" One woman walked alongside the general, urging him in a softer tone to consider her point of view.

After the briefing, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, disputed criticisms that Democrats were trying to end the war before giving the administration's plan a chance to succeed.

"Nobody is saying get out tomorrow," Hoyer said, noting that the legislation would allow American troops to stay in Iraq to battle terrorist groups.

He and Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, differed on what emerged from the briefing as the most significant cause of violence in Iraq. Hoyer attributed it to sectarian strife, while Boehner cited Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, calling the group "the major foe that we face in Iraq today."

Republicans took issue with the absence from the briefing of Pelosi, who had talked by telephone to Petraeus. "This latest insult to our troops should come as no surprise since others in the Democrat leadership have declared the war lost," said Representative Geoff Davis, Republican of Kentucky. A similar message reverberated on talk radio and cable television news programs on Wednesday.

Aides said Pelosi was working on the vote count in her office, and meant no disrespect to the military commander, but had already heard his Iraq report. Democrats also noted that Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a defender of the war, was out of town, announcing his presidential campaign in New Hampshire.

Democrats sought to portray their approach as reasonable and called for Bush to reconsider before sending the bill back to Congress, where Republicans hold enough votes to sustain his position.

"I believe that this legislation, if people were to just take their time and read it, is the exit strategy that the president ought to be pleased to receive," said Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip.

But Republicans called it a dubious attempt at micromanaging the war and said Democrats were also seizing the opportunity to stuff the bill with home-state spending.

The president's allies, aware of public dissatisfaction with the war, acknowledged the difficulties on the ground in Iraq while portraying the Democratic approach as a prescription for defeat.

"It's been ugly, it's been difficult, it has been very painful," said Representative David Dreier, Republican of California. "We all feel the toll that has been taken and are fully aware of the price we are paying, especially in a human sense. But we do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning the mission."

The House vote Wednesday, and the preceding debate closely resembled those of one month ago, when the House passed its initial version 218 to 212.

Share:

ماذا إذا طلبوا أن يغيروا العلم؟

مصطفى حميدو

 

العلم هو الرمز لأي سلطة أو حكم أو وطن. غالبا ما ترتبط السلطة و مدى بسطها على منطقة ما بالعلم المرتفع على الدوائر الرسمية. هذه السلطة يمكن أن تكون سلطة قهر أو حياد أو رضا. أكراد العراق و بمجرد احتلال العراق طالبوا بتغيير العلم العراقي لأنه و كما يقولون يرتبط بسلطة "قهر النظام العراقي السابق" و "جرائمه بحق الأكراد". وصل الحد في تمادي الطلب الكردي إلى منع رفع العلم العراق في كامل شمال العراق الواقع تحت النفوذ الكردي. دعونا هنا نحاول أن نقتبس ما يقوم به الأكراد و جعله ورقة تفاوض في يدنا في موجهة الإسرائيليين. تخيلوا أن يتجرأ المفاوض العربي"و هو لن يفعل" في جعل طلب تغيير العلم الإسرائيلي شرطا لأي صلح.أعرف أن هذا الطلب هو حلم صعب التحقيق في هذا الزمن لكنه يمكن أن يكون أمنية كي نقول عن أنفسنا أننا موجودون.

Share:

Wednesday, 18 April 2007

The future of kurds after the American defeating in Iraq

Mustafa Hamido

There is no major sign that America is going to win in Iraq. It is undoubted that it is going to the most serious disaster for its troops outside its soil since Vietnam War. The major question which is erupting is the future of the Kurdish existed territory in North Iraq and the future of Kurdish ambition in creating their own independent state. We can say that the future of their ambition is like their past. There is no hope for their state. All regional powers are against their project. From the historical facts we can conclude that no Independent state had been created without a major regional or even international war. After the defeating of the American troops, the future of Kurds will be dark. Their only protecting power will be expelled outside the region and that which will ease the mission of the regional power to destroy any hope for independence.

Share:

في الانتخابات السورية: المال و الدين

مصطفى حميدو

 

تختلط المشاعر أحيانا لأخذنا إلى أمكنة قد لا نريد الوصول إليها. أحيانا تكون هذه الأماكن أماكن للسخرية من الواقع الذي نعيش فيه و الذي قيد لنا المعاناة في عيشه و الجهاد للتغلب عليه. واقعنا في سورية و نحن مقبلون على الانتخابات التشريعية في 22 نيسان الجاري هو مر. يكفي أن نلقي نظرة على المرشحين و برامجهم و ما وضعوه في لوحاتهم الإعلانية من آيات قرآنية و أساليب تسويقية لتثار الشفقة على أولئك المتلقين لهذه الشعارات و المنخدعين بمظاهر براقة تغري من دون مضمون يسند ما بها من إغراء.ليست العملية عملية ناخب و منتخب. إنها عملية دور المال الذي يتيح لمن يملكه وضع صوره كبيرة الحجم في أزحم مناطق المدن و أكثرها اكتظاظا ليضمن رؤيته من أكبر عدد ممكن من الناس و عملية توظيف الدين لخدمة السياسة و الوصول إلى الكرسي .   النتيجة العامة التي أريد أن أصل إليها مما سبق هو أن الدين و المال يتحكمان في اللعبة الانتخابية. انه تكريس للمفهوم السائد في الدول العربية و هو مفهوم سيطرة المال و الدين إلى جانب قوة السلطة التي تحاول خلق نوع من التوازن مع هاتين القوتين الكاسحتين. هذا التوازن يجب أن يظل قائما طالما ظل الوعي السياسي للناس يعتمد على أية قرآنية أو ورقة نقدية عالية الفئة تسير و تنوم و تفرض السيطرة .

Share:

Tuesday, 10 April 2007

What if your relative was a communist? Call him comrade!

Mustafa Hamido

 

What your action if you discovered once a day that your relative was a communist. In our unconscious feeling, communist means unbelievable in God. This meaning is widely rejected from the people in your community who are deeply believing in God and fighting using words and actions against communists. I was shocked when I discovered that one of my relatives was communist and was organizing marches against the government. I asked myself a lot, was he fasting in Ramadan as we used since our childhood and was he believing in God? They are tough questions still unable to answer it. I am not going to condemn his past. It is his freedom in choosing his former doctrine. I know that he is paring now and fasting. He is a believer now.

Share:

Monday, 9 April 2007

يتهكمون و عاجزون

مصطفى حميدو

ايران تتقدم و هم يشمتون بحصارها و يتهكمون لعزمها الدخول الى العالم الحديث القائم على العلم و المعرفة بينما يكتفون هم بالتنظير لما يعتقدونه حضارة و تقدما و هو أبعد ما يكون عن ذلك. بمرور الأيام أزداد قناعة بأن أسباب تخلفنا هم نخبتنا التي تحبط العزائم و تروج للانتحار الذاتي عبر الدعوة للمهادنة و التهكم على كل ما هو ذو فائدة لنا. ما زالوا حتى الأن يتهكمون على صواريخ عبد الناصر التي يزعمون أنها واجهات اعلامية خدعت الناس و يقارنون بينها و بين تلك الايرانية التي ينبهرون في دواخلهم عند رؤيتها لكنهم يلجؤون الى المواربة و التهكم حتى لا تضيع مكتسبات لهم تؤمن لهم سيجارهم الكوبي وربطات عنقهم الفرنسية. هم لا يؤمنون أصلا بأوطانهم و لا يؤمنون بالناس الذين خرجوا منهم و أدعوا أنهم سيحاربون لمصلحته و لتقدمه. الدول من حولنا تتقدم و نحن في مكاننا نراوح غير قادرين على أي فعل مكتفين بردود أفعال وقتية لا تلبث أن تصبح ذكرى مرة و قاسية و كاريكاتورية مضحكة لواقع مرير سيء لا أمل من الفكاك منه حتى الأن.

Share:

Sunday, 8 April 2007

Pawns in a losing game: Britain's policy in tatters

The Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_

If anything symbolised the degree to which Tony Blair's adventurous foreign policy has embroiled Britain in dangerous, unpredictable conflicts and wholly unintended consequences, it was the juxtaposition of joy and horror last Thursday.

The television news channels ran endless footage of 15 sailors and Royal Marines, freed by Iran after a two-week hostage saga that had taken almost daily twists and turns. But scrolling across the bottom of the screens was the news that four other service personnel, two of them women, and an Iraqi interpreter had been killed by an explosion in southern Iraq, the worst British loss of life in a single incident there for several months. A fifth soldier remains in a critical condition.

With two other soldiers having been killed, and another badly hurt, by small arms attacks in Basra, it meant Britain had lost six troops in Iraq during a single week for the first time since June 2003. It brought the number killed in Iraq to 140, with 109 having died in combat. This was a shock to the public at home, whose attention had been diverted by the hostage crisis from the forces stationed in southern Iraq to those patrolling the Gulf. No soldier had been killed in Basra for nearly a month, and the Government had announced that 1,600 troops would shortly be withdrawn; the pullout will begin this month, leaving the remaining contingent at about 5,500.

Any day now, British troops will hand over the Shatt al-Arab hotel, one of their last forward operating bases in central Basra, to their Iraqi counterparts. Urban patrols of the kind that make our soldiers vulnerable are expected to dwindle, with the emphasis switching to protecting the main base at Basra airport, which is outside the city.

But last week's deaths, and the fact that one of the women killed was a close friend of Prince William - Second Lieutenant Joanna Yorke Dyer was at Sandhurst with him - emphasised that Iraq remains unfinished business. Not only that: it leaves Britain entangled with Iran in a relationship far more complicated and sinister than the wranglings over the sailors and Marines seized in the Gulf. In time the latter episode will come to be seen as a minor part of a much wider struggle.

Forced to react to both events at the same time, the Prime Minister spoke of the welcome return of the captured servicemen and one woman, "safe and unharmed", before turning to the "sober and ugly reality" of Iraq. It was far too early to say that any elements of the Iranian regime had been involved in the Basra attack, but "the general picture ... is that there are elements at least of the Iranian regime that are backing, financing, arming, supporting terrorism in Iraq".

This is an accusation that has been made regularly in the past four years, but in the absence of specific proof, such claims tend to fade away after an initial flurry. Basra 's police chief said the device that destroyed a Warrior armoured vehicle, killing most of its occupants, had not been seen in the area before, and was a shaped charge of the kind the US has accused Iran of supplying to insurgents further north. British military sources did not confirm his claim, however.

What Mr Blair was at pains not to say in his reaction, but many would have been thinking, was that neither the hostage drama nor the bombing in Basra would have happened if he had not taken the decision to invade Iraq in partnership with President George Bush in 2003. For television viewers, what linked the two events was the glee of Iraqis and Iranians at having British forces at their mercy.

In Basra, local people smilingly held up trophies, including an army helmet, after the explosion. In Tehran, it was the sight of Faye Turney and her 14 male colleagues having to thank the hardline Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for graciously agreeing to forgive their transgressions and let them go. Both spectacles would have heightened doubts about why we are still in Iraq - doubts that will not have been allayed by the familiar assurances of an outgoing Prime Minister that going there was "the right thing to do".

For all Mr Blair's insistence that Britain had not negotiated or been humiliated, the outcome of the naval crisis will add to the impression that the Iraq adventure has weakened not merely his position, but that of the country. That is uncomfortable when so many other issues need to be resolved with Iran, not least the world's fears that it is seeking to make nuclear weapons, despite its angry claims to be exercising its right to develop civil nuclear power.

Yesterday the Iranian ambassador to Britain, Rasoul Movahedian, called for a goodwill gesture following the release of the 15 captives. "We played our part and we showed our good will," he told the Financial Times. "Now it is up to the British government to proceed in a positive way."

In Tehran, meanwhile, a top Iranian official has said Britain apologised for entering Iranian waters in a secret letter that was a condition for the captives' release. "They didn't make a threat to us," said Ali Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister who now advises Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, on foreign policy. "They said sorry, we won't trespass again." Mr Ahmadinejad said at his press conference on Wednesday that "the British government sent a letter to our Foreign Ministry, and said that this will not be repeated".

The Foreign Office flatly contradicted Mr Velayati, who also claimed Britain sent a delegation to negotiate in Tehran. He was seeking to defend the Iranian government from hardliners' anger at the release of the sailors, and went on to suggest the crisis arose in response to Iranian fears about a Western military build-up in the Gulf.

For all the British denials, the remarks look certain to fuel speculation about a back-room deal. Both sides have said the release - which Mr Ahmadinejad called a product of "Islamic compassion" - was unconditional. But Tuesday's release of an Iranian diplomat, kidnapped in Iraq in February, was seen by many Iranians as a precursor to the sudden announcement that the Britons would be freed.

The propaganda war has scarcely let up since. Iranian channels broadcast Friday's press conference by the freed captives, now in uniform rather than their Iranian-issue suits, in which they spoke of being blindfolded, kept in isolation and led to believe that their execution was imminent. Ms Turney, who was not present, was said to have been told that all her colleagues had gone home, and that she was the only one still being held. But viewers in Iran saw a banner that warned that the freed personnel had been coerced into their statements by the Ministry of Defence.

The latest shot in this war was the appearance yesterday of the freed Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, who said he had been tortured by the CIA during his detention. He was questioned about Iran's relations with Iraq, and assistance to various Iraqi groups. "Once they heard my response that Iran merely has official relations with the Iraqi government and officials, they intensified tortures, and tortured me through different methods days and nights," he said.

Whatever the truth or otherwise of his claim, it underlines that this was never simply a bilateral spat: there were four parties to the dispute, with the US and Iraq in the other two corners. They, rather than Britain, were in a position to give Iran rewards for letting the service personnel go. Along with Mr Sharafi's sudden reappearance, five Iranians seized in Arbil in northern Iraq - diplomats, according to Tehran; special forces operatives, according to Washington - were allowed the consular access Iran had vainly been demanding.

Britain insists its only written communication during the crisis with Iran, sent last Saturday, restated that the incident happened in Iraqi waters, refused to admit responsibility for the crisis and did not offer an apology. However, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett did express "regret" that it happened, and the tone of the note is understood to have been conciliatory.

The softer message coming from the Foreign Office contrasted with the tough language used earlier by Mr Blair, and gave Iran room to back down. Iranian insiders say that it was Mr Blair's decision to take the matter up with the UN Security Council that prompted a harder Iranian line in the first week of the crisis. A conversation on Tuesday night between Iran's top security official, Ali Larijani, and Mr Blair's senior foreign policy adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, then laid the ground for the surprise release of the prisoners on Wednesday.

But the Iranians kept the British guessing until the last minute. Mr Larijani told Sir Nigel that people should watch Mr Ahmadinejad's intervention until the very end. Only after the President had spent more than 40 minutes denouncing Britain's historic interference in Iran, and had awarded medals to the Revolutionary Guard officers who captured the sailors and Marines, did he suddenly announce that they were to be freed.

Aware that Mr Ahmadinejad's gracious pardoning of the 15 was a propaganda coup beamed live around the world, and a humiliation for British diplomacy, officials went on the offensive, explaining that the release had been a vindication of Britain's "dual track" strategy: dialogue plus consolidating international and regional support.

Some positive developments have emerged from the two-week crisis, it is said, not least a continued improvement in relations between the UK and Syria, whose offer to mediate was taken up by Britain. There is also some hope that Britain can exploit its new channel with Iran to help with Iraq. The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshair Zebari, was "very active" in passing messages to the Iranians, said a senior government source, who denied any link between the hostage release and the positive developments inside Iraq with the "Arbil five" Iranians.

But now that the hostages are home, there will be concerns in Whitehall that Iran will seek to press its propaganda advantage on the nuclear issue, with an announcement expected at a nuclear facility tomorrow. One senior source said ruefully: "They caught us on the hop when they seized our guys, and now they have caught us on the hop the way they have been freed."

But according to some hardliners in Iran, it is their country that has been made to look weak. They interpreted Mr Blair's comments on Tuesday, talking about a "critical 48 hours", as an ultimatum. When the Britons were released, in their view, it seemed that Tehran had backed down. They had wanted to see the sailors and Marines tried and a public apology forced from Britain.

"The release of the sailors gave the message to the West that in negotiations with Iran they need to respect its dignity," said Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, a former newspaper editor who is close to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's powerful former president. "Iranians say the map of their country looks like a cat - and this cat needs to be petted and stroked rather than cornered. Because that makes it scratch and fight."

In an occupation of Iraq that veered off course almost as soon as Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in Baghdad, the greatest unintended consequence of all has been the trump card it has handed to Tehran. Having alienated Iraq's Sunni minority and given power to a majority Shia community which will always see Iran as its natural ally, Britain and the US have no choice but to seek Iranian co-operation if they are to extricate themselves without ignominy. For Mr Blair, that means restraining Mr Bush as much as seeking to restrain Iran.

Far more is at stake here than Britain's dwindling force in southern Iraq, or jousting between British inflatables and Iranian speedboats in the Gulf. The American-led "surge" in Baghdad, which is aimed at curbing violence at least to a level that might make an exit strategy possible, depends on some degree of Iranian acquiescence.

America's most hostile Shia opponent, the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, might or might not have gone to Iran to escape the security crackdown, but the political wing of his movement has spoken in favour of giving the "surge" a chance to succeed. If Tehran had shown open hostility, it would also have been difficult for the US to secure the co-operation of the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, for Sunni-friendly measures such as reinstating former Iraqi army officers and paying pensions to sacked Baathist officials.

The days are long gone when Washington's triumphant neo-conservatives, having seen the Iraqi regime fold within weeks, talked openly of conquering Iran next. But Tehran still complains that it has Western forces to both its west and east, in Iraq and Afghanistan, while two US carrier groups are in the Gulf to keep alive President Bush's implicit military threat on the nuclear issue. Britain and the US are both accused of supporting separatist groups who have carried out bombings and kidnappings on Iranian soil.

Dealing with the Tehran regime and its passive-aggressive approach to the rest of the world has never been easy. But Britain, which is about to dispatch Prince Harry into the dangerous environment of southern Iraq, where Iran has unquestioned influence, is compelled to grit its teeth and do its best. Explaining this to a public which is already bemused about the reasons for Britain's continued presence in Iraq is another matter.

Victims of war: The dead

Rifleman Aaron Lincoln

Age 18. Died as a result of injuries sustained during a security patrol in Basra on Monday.

Rifleman Lincoln, 2nd Battalion, the Rifles, was shot when a gunman opened fire on part of the patrol. He was evacuated to the field hospital at Basra air station, where he died from his injuries. The Newcastle United fan from Durham had joined the Army, following in his grandfather's footsteps, last July and was deployed to Iraq in January 2007.

Kingsman Danny John Wilson

Age 28. Died as a result of injuries sustained during a patrol of Basra City last Sunday. The Cumbrian father of one began his second tour of duty in Iraq with the 2nd Battalion, the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, in March. His wife, Tracey, received an anniversary card from her husband days after he was killed. She said: "Saturday was our sixth wedding anniversary. He phoned me five times that day because he was thinking about me being on my own."

Kingsman Adam James Smith

Age 19. Died alongside colleagues in the Warrior armoured vehicle hit by a roadside bomb on Thursday. Kingsman Smith, who grew up in Liverpool, joined the Army in 2004 and was deployed to Iraq last November with the 2nd Battalion, the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. Kingsman Smith's family said: "Adam, our hero, our star. He had everything to live for. We keep thinking, hoping, it's not real and at any moment we will wake up from this nightmare."

Corporal Kris O'Neill

Aged 26. Died on Thursday in Basra when the Warrior armoured vehicle he was travelling in was hit by a roadside bomb. Cpl O'Neill, of the Royal Army Medical Corps, was the father of twins and husband to Tina. He had worked hard to recover from a knee injury in order to be deployed in January to Iraq, where he taught first aid to Iraqi police. The medic's squadron commander, Major Phil Carter, said: "I could always depend on Cpl O'Neill."

Private Eleanor Dlugosz

Age 19. Died providing medical support to a Warrior patrol on Thursday. From Southampton, she was on her second tour of duty in Iraq with the Royal Army Medical Corps, returning in March after completing her Class 1 Medics Course in the UK. Her colleague and friend Private Stella Lee said: "She brightened up everybody's day with her cheesy smile. She was a privilege to work with and know. She will always be in our hearts." Her troop commander, 2nd Lt Vinny Ramshaw, described her as "a strong and morally courageous woman".

Second Lieutenant Joanna Yorke Dyer

Age 24. Died alongside Corporal Kris O'Neill, Private Eleanor Dlugosz and Kingsman Adam James Smith when their Warrior armoured vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb during a patrol in Basra on Thursday. Second Lieutenant Yorke Dyer trained alongside Prince William at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. A spokesperson for Clarence House said: "Jo was a close friend of his and he is very much thinking of her family and friends right now and they will remain in his thoughts and prayers." Second Lieutenant Yorke Dyer was attached in December 2006 to the 2nd Battalion, the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, in order to gain operational experience in Iraq. A keen hockey player, Second Lieutenant Yorke Dyer was born in Berlin and went on officer training at Sandhurst after completing a degree in politics, philosophy and economics at Oxford University.

Share:

مراجعة كتاب : الاقتصادي الخفي لتيم هارفورد

مراجعة كتاب : الاقتصادي الخفي   لتيم هارفورد

 

مصطفى حميدو

 

موجة الغلاء تجتاح العالم و الهوة بين الفقراء و الأغنياء أخذة في الاتساع.ربما تساءلت و أنت تشتري فنجانا من القهوة من إحدى محطات القطار الرئيسية أو احد العقد الرئيسية في المدن العالمية الكبرى عن سبب هذا الارتفاع في سعر سلعة يفترض أن تكون رخيصة. محلات بيع القهوة   المقصودة هنا بارتفاع أسعارها هي تلك صاحبة العلامات التجارية  العالمية ككوستا و ستار بكس...... أحد الاقتصاديين يقول بأن تكلفة الفنجان الواحد   لا يتجاوز الأربعين بالمائة من سعر مبيعه و لكن ما السر في هذه الأسعار؟ تيم هارفورد  يناقش في هذا الكتاب تلك العوامل التي تسهم في شرائنا القهوة و غيرها من السلع بهذه الأسعار المبالغ بها غالبا واصفا أولئك الذين يشترون القهوة في المحطات الرئيسة للقطارات و العقد الرئيسية للمدن ب "Price Blind Customers" . ينطلق المؤلف من نظرية " لديفيد ريكاردو " الاقتصادي الذي عاش في بدايات القرن التاسع عشر و نشر نظريته في العام 1817 عقب انتهاء الحروب النابليونية في أوروبا  و حدوث ارتفاعات كبيرة في الأسعار خصوصا في القمح و المنتجات الزراعية في بريطانيا. نظرية ريكاردو بسيطة  و حاولت تفسير هذه الارتفاعات " الصاروخية" في الأسعار.ترتكز النظرية  على مبدأ العرض و الطلب. المثل الذي يسوقه ريكاردو  هو عن مزارع يسعى لاستئجار أرض في منطقة لا تشهد اقبالا كبيرا على الاستئجار. بتوافد أعداد اكبر للاستئجار يبد أ   أصحاب الأراضي الخصبة برفع قيمة الإيجارات و بالتالي يجد المستأجر نفسه مضطرا لمسايرة المؤجر و بالتالي رفع قيمة الإيجار و لاحقا المنتج الذي تنتجه الأرض المستأجرة   و ما ينتج عن ذلك من رفع عام للأسعار. يقوم المؤلف في هذا الكتاب بتطبيق نظرية ريكاردو على فنجان القهوة الذي تقف وراءه معارك لا نكاد نشعر بها في الغالب.  في محطة قطارات واترلو الانجليزية   تتخذ شركةAMT للقهوة مقرا لأحد فروعها. القهوة التي تبيعها تتصف بالمبالغة في سعرها. يفسر المؤلف ذلك بتلك المنافسة الحامية على المكان و القيمة المرتفعة للإيجارات. شركات كثيرة تعمل في مجال القهوة فاوضت و مستعدة للتفاوض على المكان الذي تشغله   ال AMT لا لشيء سوى أن المكان مزدحم و يقصده الآلاف  يوميا.المعادلة بسيطة إذا مكان جيد ذو  نسبة إقبال جيدة مع ديكور داخلي فخم(معظم ديكورات محلات القهوة تركز على الديكور الداخلي حتى أن هذه الديكورات يمكن أن تدرس في الجامعات كنماذج للدراسة أو Case Study) و بضع ماكينات قهوة و علامة تجارية و الأموال تأتي لوحدها. الزبائن في الثامنة صباحا غير مستعدين في الغالب للبحث عن مكان أرخص. إنها ببساطة إستراتيجية المكان و أهميته. هذا النموذج لا يمكن تطبيقه مثلا على مطاعم الاكلات الصينية مثلا، فهي  غير مستعدة لدفع مبالغ كبيرة للإيجارات و ذلك لأنها ببساطة  تستطيع أن تؤمن خدمة التوصيل للمنازل و التي تجعل من الازدحام في المكان الذي تتواجد فيه أمرا غير مهم. عوامل كثيرة أخرى طرحها المؤلف في الكتاب انطلاقا من فنجان القهوة و قصته الكبيرة   التي بدأت تشغل العالم و خصوصا تلك المتعلقة بالظلم الذي يقع على المزارعين الذي يجنون القليل بينما يتقاسم معظم الكعكة الوسطاء و أصحاب العلامات التجارية الكبرى. و من هنا يمكن تفهم ما قامت به ستار بكس من مقاومة شرسة لخطط أثيوبيا تسجيل علامة تجارية خاصة بقهوتها. هنا لا بد من الإشارة إلى نمط أخر من التجارة يسمى بالتجارة العادلة و الذي طبقته سلسلة كوستا عبر الغاء  الوسطاء بين المزارعين و أصحاب شركات القهوة  عبر نظام Café Direct .

 

 

 

 

·        Book's Information:

The Under cover economist by : Tim Harvord

First published in UK by little ,Brown in 2006

Paperback edition  in 2007 by Abacus

ISBN/978-0-349-11985-4

 

 

 

Share:

Thursday, 5 April 2007

قوة الإعلام و قوة السلاح

مصطفى حميدو

 

هناك مسلمة كانت تطرح على الدوام و هي بأن الإعلام إذا سيطر سيطر السلاح الذي يدعمه، بمعنى أن لقوة الإعلام السبق على السلاح. ظلت هذه المسلمة قائمة فترة طويلة و ما رسخها أكثر هو سقوط الاتحاد السوفييتي ،الذي سقط إعلاميا بشكل اكبر منه عسكريا خصوصا بعد سياسة جورباتشوف الانفتاحية و التي أتاحت لوسائل الإعلام الغربية الدخول إلى المجتمع السوفييتي و تشريحه كما لم يتح لها من قبل. لعب الإعلام دورا بارزا عقب أحداث أيلول عبر حشد التأييد العالمي لمعركة الولايات المتحدة ضد القاعدة و " الأصولية الإسلامية". كان لذلك الدور تأثيرا مهما في إصباغ صبغة العدالة لكثير مما قامت به الولايات المتحدة عقب أحداث أيلول. كان الدور تبريريا بعد أن استنفذ دور حشد التأييد و أضحى المحللون (هذه المرة تحليل عكس التحريم) يعزون كل ما تفعله أمريكا إلى محاربة الإرهاب و تجفيف المنابع و إلى غير ذلك من المصطلحات التي استحدثت و استنبطت و اخترعت. مهد الإعلام أيضا للحرب على العراق عبر اختراع الكذبة تلو الأخرى و التجييش من "خطر محدق" يمثله العراق على الإنسانية و السلم و الأمن الدوليين. من عايش تلك الفترة بتفاصيلها يعرف بلا شك طرق التدليس و الكذب التي اعتمدت و التي تورط فيها الإعلام العربي سواء عن قصد: نتيجة تقاطع المصالح، أو من غير قصد:نتيجة عدم امتلاك مصادر مستقلة للخبر غير تلك الوكالات الصحفية الغربية.قامت الحرب و ليحدث مع قيامها تغيرا كبيرا في المفهوم الإعلامي العسكري. كان التلفزيون الرسمي العراقي من أول الأهداف التي ضربت في العراق بحجة أن هذا التلفزيون لا يقوم بالتغطية المهنية للحرب على العراق و أنه بوق في يد الحكومة العراقية(ضرب في الحرب الجوية الأمريكية على يوغسلافيا السابقة التلفزيون الرسمي اليوغسلافي في بلغراد العام 1999). ربما تكون المرة الأولى التي يستهدف فيها الإعلام بهذه الطريقة.استهدفت في تلك الحرب قنوات تلفزيونية عربية أرادت أن تعطي الفرصة للعراق ليعبر عن رأيه فيما يحدث. الجزيرة (التي استهدفت سابقا في أفغانستان) و قناة أبو ظبي استهدفتا إضافة إلى مراسلين أجانب قتلوا في استهداف أمريكي واضح و ما زالت أصداؤه ماثلة في الأذهان حتى الآن. لقد رسخ استهداف الولايات المتحدة للإعلام في حرب العراق مسلمة تخالف الأولى التي أشرنا إليها في بداية المقال و هو بأن السلاح هذه المرة هو الأنجع للسيطرة و تاليا يلحقه الإعلام. فالإعلام الأمريكي في تلك الحرب لم يكن مهنيا بأي معيار كان ، بل كان جله مسخرا لخدمة السلاح الأمريكي و ردة فعل للساسة و العسكريين الأمريكيين حتى أن واحدا من كبار أصحاب الإمبراطوريات الإعلامية في العالم و هو روبرت مردوخ   جند قناة الفوكس الأمريكية لخدمة سياسة البيت الأبيض على طول الخط طوال الحرب و ما يزال. نفس المشهد تكرر في حرب تموز الأخيرة في لبنان. فالإعلام الإسرائيلي أيضا جند هو الأخر لخدمة الآلة العسكرية الإسرائيلية و حشد التأييد لها و ليضرب إعلام المقاومة لأنه -و حسب التبرير الإسرائيلي- إعلام غير مهني يروج الدعاية فقط للمقاومة. ما أود قوله هو أن منطقا جديدا يمكن أن يستنتج من كل الأحداث الماضية و هي بأن القوة تصنع الإعلام و أن الإعلام لا يصنع قوة مهما بلغت قوة هذا الإعلام و سطوته و نفوذه لأن القوة هي القوة في الميدان وليست القوة في الكلام و هذا ما أثبتته الحرب الأخيرة في لبنان و قبلها حرب العراق.

Share: