Egypt Uprising 11-2-2

Uprising in Egypt – Country at the Cross Roads

Mirza A. Beg

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

The Tuscaloosa News Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110202/NEWS/110209918

The American Muslim, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/uprising_in_egypt_country_at_a_cross_roads/0018368

Media Monitors Net, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://world.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Uprising-in-Egypt-Country-at-the-Crossroads

Cross Currents, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

http://www.countercurrents.org/beg010211.htm

Inspired by the spontaneous revolution in Tunisia, thousands of young Egyptians took to the streets in Cairo on January 25^th 2011, congregating in Tehrir (Liberation) Square. A 20^th century dictatorship was overwhelmed by 21^st century technology. Facebook and Twitter facilitated instant communication to overcome the government censors. Their protest against poverty, unemployment and government corruption erupted as a peaceful revolt against the thirty years of autocratic rule of President Hosni Mubarak. In unison they demanded Mubarak to leave.

Eighty-two year old Mubarak, caught by surprise sent his family to England, shut off the Internet and imposed a curfew. He employed his usual means to suppress the peaceful protesters by sending the feared police and Special Forces. Police used water cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets, but to their surprise they could not intimidate as in the past. It was reported that about a dozen protesters were killed. This simply made the protesters even more determined and the crowd grew even larger and at places the police were overwhelmed and even beaten.

Out of fear, or as a matter of policy, the hated police were withdrawn on the third day and the army was called out. Some damage to the government buildings was reported, including the world famous Museum of Antiquities. Looting of richer neighborhoods by nefarious miscreants is widely believed to be the act of agent provocateurs and the police, to discredit the peaceful revolution.

The military is one of the most respected and egalitarian institutions in Egypt. People welcomed the soldiers in their tanks and armored carriers as protectors. They did not interfere with the peaceful protest. It was amazing to see protesters joyously riding on the tanks along with the soldiers.

Three days later Mubarak reconstituted his government, appointing a Vice President for the first time. Omar Sulaiman, the new Vice President is respected in some US circles, but the Egyptians know him as the former intelligence chief known for his role in torture of prisoners, particularly in the US extraordinary rendition-for-torture program. Mubarak also replaced the Prime Minister. and the police chief.

Though the spontaneous revolution started with the young, gradually men and women of all ages and people of all political leanings have joined in. On Tuesday the 1^st of February, millions of Egyptians marched throughout Egypt, demanding Mubarak’s resignation with sporadic anti US slogans for the long US support for Mubarak. The newly appointed Vice President Sulaiman has offered to meet the leaders of the revolution to discuss ways to proceed with the reforms.

The army has announced that it would patrol to protect people and property, but would not fire on peaceful protest, confirming that Mubarak’s weakening power.

Though the revolution was spontaneous and leaderless, gradually Egyptians from all shades of the political spectrum, including the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communists have coalesced behind an internationally respected figure, El Baradei, a 2005 Nobel Laureate and former Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency.

Western governments, especially the United States were also caught flatfooted. Secretary of State Clinton’s first statement was insipid, but by the second day the US administration could read the writing on the wall. Obama strongly urged Mubarak to respect people’s right to peaceful protest and asked for the restoration of the internet connections. He also diplomatically threatened Mubark to behave or jeopardize the annual largess of one and a half billion dollars.

The US has traditionally considered Egypt as one of the most important allies in the Middle East for four reasons. First - Egypt is by far the most populous Arab country. Second - The US considers it a bulwark of peace with Israel. It provides enormous leverage to Israel’s occupation and activities in the occupied Gaza and West Bank. Third - After 9/11, Egypt has toed the US line in the war on terrorism, to the extent that it was one of the most important destinations for torture of “extraordinary rendition prisoners” in the Bush administration. And fourth – Suez Canal is a strategic passage for oil and commerce for Europe.

The nervousness in the US is understandable. The Obama administration is very carefully playing its cards. The US realizes that the era of preaching democracy and supporting dictators in Latin America, Middle East and Asia is over. The much-maligned Wikileaks expose, though embarrassing, shows that the US did urge dictators like Mubarak to ease up on the draconian laws and move towards democracy. It has not gone un-noticed among the intelligentsia in the Middle East and it bodes well for the future of US standing among the people in the region and puts potentates on notice. But the average Egyptian does not consider the US to be a friend. Obama administration needs to be more proactive and on the right side of the unfolding history.

Israel is naturally terribly concerned and considers Mubarak to be a close ally. NPR has reported that it is strongly encouraging the US and others to fully support Mubarak.

Leaders of most of the important parties, especially El Baradei have emphasized that they would honor all treaty obligations, including the peace treaty with Israel. In a democratic Egypt the government would be answerable to its people and would not be pliant to the US policy towards the Palestinians, and would not support Israel’s strangulating blockade of Gaza as Mubarak has. This would bring greater urgency to the peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and give impetus to the US efforts.

Obviously a major change in the power equation cannot be fully predicted. It poses new challenges and new opportunities. No one doubts that democracy with all its problems and flaws has proven to be a better form of government. It takes time to take root and find its stride.

Some in the West are afraid that Egypt would follow the example of Iran. It is based on ignorance of history as well as geography. The Iranian revolution sprang against a tyrant that suppressed Islam. As it unfolded, instead of looking to the future, the US and Iranian policy makers became prisoners of their past, rooted in the1953 US interference in suppressing the budding democracy in Iran.

Egyptians have no such history. In 1956 Eisenhower forced the withdrawal of the tripartite invasion of Egypt by Britain, France and Israel. To its credit Obama administration has carefully supported the right to peaceful revolution. Though the death toll has reached more than hundred, a whole-sale suppression has not occurred because of a blunt US warning to Mubarak use of force on peaceful demonstrators will not be tolerated.

If handled with care democracy in Egypt is more likely to follow the Turkish model. The Muslim Brotherhood since 1960s has abjured force and has followed political means under an oppressive dictatorship. It is more akin to the Christian right in the US than the theocratic clergy in Iran. Though in a new democracy respect for constitution needs time to take root.

Democratic Egypt would be a positive force in bringing democracy to countries that have educated populations with large-scale unemployment and poverty, such as Syria, Algeria, Jordan, Yemen, and Sudan. The Gulf Countries and Saudi Arabia have small populations rich because of petro-dollars and would not follow the current wave of revolutions.

Egyptians are a proud people with a five thousand year of great history, and one of the best-educated young generations in the Middle East. Two years ago when I was in Cairo, I talked to Egyptians from a broad cross section of generational, educational and economic and religious background. They were friendly talkative and inquisitive. They talked about everything under the sun, but could not voice opinions on their government. Liberation is in the air and Egyptians have found their voice.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and comments may be posted on mirzasmusings.blogspot.com

Nobel Prize-Obama 09-10-08

Nobel for Obama - Perhaps Premature, But Good

Mirza A. Beg

Friday, August 9 2009

The American Muslim, Friday October 9, 2009

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/nobel_for_obama_perhaps_premature_but_good/0017596

Tuscaloosa News, Tuesday October 13, 2009

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20091013/NEWS/910139997/1007?Title=MY-TURN-Obama-deserves-prize-but-has-plenty-of-work-remaining

President Obama was awakened by his press secretary to an announcement from the Nobel committee that 2009 Peace Prize goes to President Obama. Perhaps no one was more surprised than the recipient. Those who have supported Mr. Obama’s ideas, ideals and style are also pleasantly surprised, but some wonder if the recognition is not a bit premature.

In the nine months he has been in office, Mr. Obama has put in motion a very ambitious and much needed plan of action to achieve not only the objectives, spelled out during the presidential campaign, but also had to save the economy from the abyss of depression. He knows that taking on one problem at a time, as the experts would have it, may be seasoned advice, but considering the gravity of challenges he does not have the luxury of putting any of the pressing problems on the back burner.

Perhaps no world leader had inherited so many problems on the first day in office. Even Franklin Roosevelt did not have to contend with what came to be known as the Second World War until late in his second term. President Roosevelt’s main problem on entering the office was the economic depression.

Mr. Obama had to contend with two wars of hubris that his predecessors unleashed and conducted them with such incompetence and ferocity that it has not only killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but has left the US bleeding in an expensive quagmire from which extrication appears to be elusive. It has weakened American power and prestige around the world and an impression has taken hold that United States knows only the language of bullying, not of cooperation.

Even before taking the office of the president Mr. Obama had to face a complete economic melt down of US economy, with the possibility of a world wide depression, because of decades of irresponsible deregulations allowing the Wall Street gurus to turn it into a gambling casino. He took swift actions that appear to have stemmed the looming tide of economic disaster, but the road to recovery will be long and full of pitfalls.

He has not yet been able to put forward a clear policy to bring peace to Afghanistan and extricate the United States with honor. The Iraq war is still simmering and Israel has cavalierly defied his very modest request to halt the settlement activity and to engage in honest dialogue with the Palestinians.

So none of the pressing problems have been solved yet, but by virtue of his stance and thoughtful policies, the world has again started to put faith in the words of an American President and has taken his extended hand of peace and friendship. The decades of war of words with North Korea and Iran, after an initial flare-up in early 2009, have simmered down leading to initial constructive dialogues.

The Nobel committee recognized this sea-change in American policies and the concurrent change in the attitudes of other countries to award the peace prize to President Obama.

The Nobel citation reads, “President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the United States is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”

Even if the Peace Prize is premature, Mr. Obama certainly deserves admiration and support for all he has accomplished so far, with much more heavy lifting to be done for the fruition of his efforts. We have yet to leave the wars and famines of the 20^th century behind to usher a new century of peace and justice. One can not but admire the way President Obama has conducted himself with elegance and grace in the rough and tumble of the political process.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at, mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com

Iran at Cossroads 09-06-22

Iran at the Cross Roads – What should the US Do

By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009

Part I -The Tuscaloosa News, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090625/NEWS/906249887
Part II -The Tuscaloosa News, Friday, June 26, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090626/NEWS/906259938

Media Monitors. Network, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/63766

Part – I, The American Muslim, June 25, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_1/0017427
Part – II, The American Muslim , June 25, 2009 http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_2/0017428

Part I – Iran at the Cross Roads

The tenth presidential election in Iran was on the 12th of June. A few months ago, it was widely thought to be an easy win for President Ahmadinijad. Though his popularity had some what declined, because of the economic pressures on an average Iranian, but his very simple unostentatious life style and his strong stand against the tirade of the Bush administration were very popular. It was a matter of national pride. The very fact that Iran was able to withstand the massive American pressure, made Iran look strong and the US appear weak.

The most popular person to challenge President Ahmadinijad was the former two-term President Khatami, who was very popular when first-elected in 1997. Considered a reformer, but by the end of his second term his followers were disappointed. On the domestic front he failed to loosen the grip of the clergy on the levers of power. On the international front his friendly overtures to United States, including his offer of support against the Talibans in Afghanistan were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Instead of taking the hand of friendship, the Bush administration inanely branded Iran to be a part of the Axis of Evil. Mr. Ahmadinejad won the presidential elections of 2005, by painting the reformers as ineffective appeasers of the United States.

The dynamics of the presidential election changed when in March 2009 the former President Khatami, having problems even getting the approval of the Guardian Council to run, withdrew and threw his support to Mr Moussavi.

The other important factor was the end of the Bush era and the election of President Obama, along with the change in the US foreign policy from belligerency to diplomacy. Mr. Obama’s overtures for a civil dialogue with Iran left President Ahmadinejad without an easy mark to rail against. Mr. Moussavi, a loyal supporter of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, was approved by the clerical establishment. He started gathering the support of all who were dissatisfied with the status-quo. It included the intellectuals, liberals, young people asking for the easing of what they considered onerous regulations, but most of all, many average Iranians suffering the economic hardship because of the western embargo on Iran and fall in oil prices since last November.

In this contentious election, almost 40 million Iranians, eighty percent of the electorate voted. The pre-election polls indicated a very close race, with a chance of Mr. Moussavi winning. The election results started trickling in even before the polls closed. Surprisingly, President Ahmadinejad won by a thumping majority of 62% to Mr. Moussavi 33%. To the shock of many, Mr. Moussavi, as well as the other candidates lost by big margins even in their hometowns.

Those who had voted for Mr Moussavi, felt strongly that the election had been rigged. In Iran the system did not allow observers from the campaigns to monitor the voting and tabulation. It fed the dissatisfaction. The authorities refused to entertain any doubts. Within a week the dissatisfaction burgeoned to wide scale protests and civil demonstrations. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenie first rejected the demand for recount, then accepted a partial recount, again without the monitors.

In the mean time, the government arrested an untold number of people. Many well known names from the 1979 revolution, such as the daughter and some family members of Ayatollah Rafsanjani, and many others former ministers have been detained.

The strong arm suppression of hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters was beamed the world over, including the beating and killing of silent marchers. According to the Iranian government 17 people have been killed, the opposition and other sources claim hundreds killed.

In this budding revolution, many supporters of the Iranian regime see the hand of the CIA, as it had overthrown Prime Minister Mosaaddeq in 1953 to restore the Shah to the throne. There concerns are legitimate, as the Bush administration had left no doubt that it would use any means to change the regime in Iran. It is quite possible that the Bush policies and spies in place in Iran may have a hand in stirring up the pot.

It is also possible that the election was very close and President Ahmadinejad may have won the election by a small margin, but it is becoming clearer by the day that there was wide scale rigging to ensure the results. On the 22nd of June, the 12 member Guardian Council, that oversees the election, accepted that three million votes may have been miscounted and there were 50 places, where the number of votes cast exceeded the eligible voters. Yet it declared the elections to be fair, allowing only a limited recount. Once people loose faith in the honesty of the process, they can not be satisfied by the promises of unsupervised rectification by the same people.

From the fast changing scene in the past twelve days, it is evident that the CIA may have had its designs, but this wide spread movement was neither planned, nor controlled by anyone including its reluctant leader Mr. Moussavi. The wide spread pent up frustration of a large populace has found an avenue to express itself. Mr. Moussavi finds himself at the head of a budding revolution that he did not plan. He is in no position to contain it without loosing face and his leadership.

Ayatollah Khamenie is in a precarious position. By taking a strong stand against a total and open recount, he missed a great opportunity to control the events peacefully and to co-opt the opposition. One great advantage of democracy is that it allows change to take place without tearing up the fabric of the society. It tolerates a certain level of corruption, nepotism, even small irregularities in vote counting. By taking a strong stand Ayatollah Khamenie is in danger of loosing control or suppressing and closing the country, harming Iran and the people of Iran, to retain power by the force of arms. Iran may lurch from a theocratic democracy to a dictatorship.

Iran is finding it difficult to run a system as part democracy. Half free responding to the will of the people, such as popularly elected president and the Assembly (Majlis) albeit allowing only the candidates approved by the Guardian Council, and half controlled by the Supreme leader, indirectly elected for life, by an elected Assembly of Experts.

When the fog of the fast moving events clears, Iran would have changed, no matter who wins. If the present structure of the government survives by closing the doors shut to the outside world, it would be detrimental to the Iranian people. If it incorporates the opposition, it will be a desirable change; otherwise it may turn out to be a bloody revolution that no Iranian wants.

The Iranian regime is trying to shut the news of demonstrations and repression, but inter-connective technology of the 21st century is proving to be an impediment. The cell phones are ubiquitous, more than 80 percent of the people, especially the young have it and can twitter the information and pictures world wide. The government cannot shut the technology portal to the rest of the world without severely wounding its own economy and communications.

One hopes that the rulers in Iran will remember that violent repression of the voice of the people exposes the bankruptcy of the government. The US may dislike and may have been helping elements opposed to the government within Iran, but the enormous uprising and peaceful demonstrations in support of the opposition is the voice of Iran and its future.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com


Iran at the Cross Roads – What Should the US Do

By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009

Part II - What should the United States do

Iran has been in turmoil since the election on June 12th. For the rest of the world, especially for the US, it is important to understand, it is about Iran and not about the United States. It is the 21st Century, not the 20th, when the super powers manipulated the events in the world with impunity.

Events in Iran are moving fast. Most of the popular punditry in the United States was initially flummoxed, interpreting events with the US-centric biases; particularly the Neo-Con infected Republican Party. In spite of all the horrible mistakes of the eight Bush years, miring the country in un-necessary and terribly mismanaged wars and driving the country to near bankruptcy, they have learned no lessons, certainly not humility. They are taking pot shots at President Obama to be more belligerent towards the Iranian government.

They do not understand that the history of US orchestration of the overthrow of the first democratically elected Iranian regime in 1953 is as fresh in the Iranian psyche as the hostage taking of Americans by Iran in 1979 is for the American mind. The US supported brutal war waged on Iran by Saddam Hussain during the Reagan administration in the1980s has not faded from Iranian memory. Iran lost about a million of its youth affecting most families in Iran. The countries that the Iranians mistrust the most are Great Britain and the United States.

The Neo-Con mindset argues, “The Mullahs in Iran accuse the US anyway, so why not support the opposition”. They do not understand an important distinction. It matters less what the government propaganda machine puts out, it matters enormously what the people believe. So far it appears that because of the election of President Obama and the change in course of the US foreign policy, the Iranian public opinion towards the US has changed from completely negative to largely favorable or ambivalent.

Obviously the killing of peaceful protestors and bystanders in Iran is of concern to all decent human beings. But it is in the interest of the Iranians, the US and the world, that the events in Iran should be handled by Iranians peacefully. If the situation deteriorates in chaos, it is the Iranians who will suffer the brunt. The Iranian opposition has asked for moral support not belligerency towards the Iranian regime.

The United States is, and has been a super power for the last seventy years with world wide interests. It has often supported corrupt dictatorships over democracy in Asia, Africa and Latin America, while paying lip service to the idea of democracy. Mr. Reagan’s opposition of the Soviets is often highlighted by the Neo-Cons, but they never acknowledge his support of the South African apartheid regime while branding Nelson Mandela a terrorist, the support of the murderous Contras in Nicaragua and a deafening silence after the rape and murder of five US nuns and the murder of the Archbishop by the government death squads in El Salvador.

It is important to understand the present crisis in Iran and the role of major players in historical context. The Islamic Republic of Iran was born thirty years ago in a people’s revolution against the corrupt and brutal regime of the Shah wedded solely to aggrandizement of his personal power helped by the western interests. Iran is not a dictatorship as some exaggerate, but a theocratic democracy, not to our liking.

Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has had ten presidential elections, and six presidents. Three of the presidents were elected for two terms each. All the previous elections were largely considered to be fair. The office of the President in Iran is not the highest office. It is more like the office of the chief executive officer, under the ultimate authority of the Supreme Leader (literally, the leader of the revolution).

The Supreme Leader is elected for a life time by the 86 members, Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is elected from a list of screened candidates by a direct election for an eight year term. That is how the theocracy controls the democracy. The former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani is the current chairman. He along with many in the religious establishment are supporting Mr. Moussavi.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who led the1979 revolution was unanimously elected as the first Supreme Leader. He held the office until his death in June 1989. The Assembly of Experts filled the vacancy by electing Seyyed Ali Khamenei (the president at the time) as the Supreme Leader by a two thirds majority. After twenty years he is still in power. He can only be replaced by impeachment. The reformers have unsucessfully tried to limit the term of the Supreme Leader.

The candidates for presidential election in contention are the children of the revolution and were strong supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini. Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president was seeking a second term. The challenger Mr. Mir Hossein Moussavi is a former foreign minister who became the prime minister, during the presidency of, no other than the present Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Khameini from 1981 to 1989.

Many in the US, particularly in the Neo-Con circles are making the mistake of grouping the Moussavi followers to be an anti Islamic revolution. One of the most potent symbols used by the Moussavi supporters is the green color, popularly considered to be the color of Islam. This is an internal Iranian struggle for power in the Iranian context of freedom; the limit on the power of the state and for the bread and butter issues. Both the candidates are Iranian patriots who support the 1979 revolution and do not disagree with the ideas of constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran; though gradually it is evolving as a struggle for the check on the near absolute power of the Supreme Leader.

Their foreign policy is not likely to be substantially different. While Mr. Ahmadinijad was reactive to the belligerency of President Bush and finds it difficult to change, Mr. Moussavi will perhaps be more nuanced and soft spoken in the Obama mode, but will not yield Iranian interests to the Western pressure. President Obama is appropriately using the soft power words, rather than the bluster and empty threats of the Bush era.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com

Obama to Muslims 09-06-04

A Critique of President Obama’s Speech in Cairo

Mirza A. Beg

Friday, June 5, 2009

Media Monitor Network, Friday June 5, 2009
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62997

Counter Currents, Saturday June 6, 2009
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg060609.htm

The American Muslim, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_critique_of_president_obamas_speech_in_cairo/0017369

Pine Magazine, Atlanta, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.pinemagazine.com/site/article/2036

The Tuscaloosa News, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090609/NEWS/906099997/1004/SPORTS?Title=Give-Obama-time-to-prove-himself

Al Jazeerah, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2009/June/9%20o/A%20Critique%20of%20President%20Obama's%20Speech%20in%20Cairo%20By%20Mirza%20A.htm

The speech by President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, on the 4th of June billed as, “An Address to the Muslim World” is indeed historic. It appears that the speech has been largely well received by his intended audience.

There are many critics of the speech. As usual the right wing critics in the US lament that he should not have accepted any mistakes in the past US policies. Most of the thoughtful criticism from the Muslims, his intended audience is about some of the things he said, but mostly what he did not say or did not say with more emphasis.

That includes me as well. While talking of violence by Palestinians, I wish he would have also commented on much worse violence inflicted on the Palestinians by Israelis, as is obvious by the death toll in many of the Israeli military operations. The toll of violence in Gaza last January was approximately1300 Palestinian killed, mostly civilians, to about 6 Israeli soldiers. How can one ignore it? Since it was billed as an address to the Muslim world and not only to the Arabs, I wish he would have also covered the conflicts in other parts of the world where Muslims are being persecuted.

Having said that, critics should keep in mind that President Obama has been in office for barely five months; he has inherited from his predecessor two wars, and an economy that was teetering on the precipice of depression. Deregulation by the successive US governments starting in 1980, become completely irresponsible in the last administration. It encouraged and lauded unbridled greed on Wall Street that left the American economy in shambles with the fear of possible depression, rippling through the world markets.

One should keep in mind that President Obama is a president of a Democratic Republic and not a dictator with unlimited powers. The American President is perceived to be the most powerful man in the world, but his power in the US is circumscribed and checked by the other two branches of the government. He can be powerful domestically only if he can convince the American electorate that his policies are in their self interest.

There is a difference in being an idealistic critic and an idealistic politician or even a statesman. As President Lincoln once equated the navigation of the ship of State to navigation through the Mississippi River; by necessity one has to follow the path of the river. Even though one may be traveling south, but when the river meanders to the north, one has to go along that short distance. It takes time and sustained effort by a visionary leader to gradually institute new policies while educating and carrying the people along. It is not easy to challenge wrong policies and the propaganda of decades. Those idealistic politicians who get too far ahead and do not take appropriate time to educate the people are overwhelmed by the entrenched opposition and court failure. The good policies and noble intents find a place on the dust heap of history.

It is unrealistic to expect that in a fifty-five minute speech President Obama could have covered all the nuances and details of the accumulated problems of many decades. As he acknowledged, “I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point.” He added, “Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all. “

Of course if he does not follow up with concrete policies, these lofty words and ideas, the critics would have been proven right, but one needs to give him some time.

Generally speaking, it appears from the myriad polls over the years that about 25 to 30 percent of Americans, (as voters in most other countries) belong to “my country right or wrong” group. They abhor the idea of acknowledging any mistakes. Mr. Bush’s intransigence was mistaken for strength. Their idea of patriotism is rooted in the supremacy of their religion and blind nationalism. They are adept at ignoring reality and confuse their interest with the universal morality.

Another 20 to 30 percent understand universal morality and do think of right and wrong in terms of “Do unto others, what one wants for himself”. The struggle is to convince the 40 percent or so apathetic voters who do not follow the news of international events closely. They are essentially concerned with the pocket book issues. They tend to follow the leader who can convincingly promise a better economy and hopefully deliver it.

One should keep these political realities in mind and that President Obama has inherited the most ominous problems from his predecessor, an economy that was in a free fall from October 2008 to March 2009, two wars spiraling towards endless quagmires and rotting infrastructure. He has not only made bold efforts to tackle them, it is remarkable that against the conventional wisdom that the president should not tackle more than one or two problems at a time, he considered the dialogue with the Muslim world and tackling the Palestine-Israel problem of such paramount importance that he made such a bold speech and has raised expectations.

Critics who find no difference between President George W. Bush’s rhetoric and President Obama’s speech have a very short memory. President Bush appointed right wing ideologues and known enemies of Islam, such as Elliot Abrams, Daniel Pipes and General Boykin to name just a few, to important positions and their rhetoric were incendiary. President Obama has shown by his action and many speeches that he does not skirt contentious issues, but speaks clearly and cogently to make people understand his thoughts and actions.

Thoughtful criticism of leaders is very important. That is how the leaders learn and try to meet the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people, but one should temper it with an understanding of the leader’s character and consideration of the facts on the ground.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.comOr read this at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Congrats Pres Obama 08-11-4

Congratulation President-Elect Obama

Mirza A. Beg
Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Dear President-elect Obama,

Congratulations on a very well deserved victory. More importantly, it is a very convincing affirmation of the lofty ideal of the founding of the United States of America.

The ideals that led to the declaration of independence, later enshrined in the American constitution have often suffered on the shoals of populism constricted by deeply ingrained prejudices. It has been a protracted struggle for the United States as well as other democracies. It has taken America a long time to overcome many deep-rooted prejudices to elect you as the next president.

It is indeed a new dawn for our country. The world has looked up to the idea of America and the ideals of the American creed, but has been disappointed and rebuffed many times. Particularly the last eight years have been an antithesis of American Ideals.

This is a bitter sweet moment for you. The passing of your grandmother, a day before your well earned victory is indeed very sad. A modicum of satisfaction for you is that she knew you are what she had dreamed and hoped for you to be.

You are about to assume the leadership of a great country that suffered the indignity of being lead by a coterie of narrow-minded thugs who violated every principle this great country stood for. They were able to do it by fear mongering to exploit the tragedy of 9/11. The foreign policy is in shambles. In the name of fighting terrorism they abandoned all moral principles to the extant that the world sees us as a nation led by a rogue President. They handed the economy to the Kleptocrats on the Wall-street in the name of deregulation. These are very tough times for our country and the world.

The good news is that the world still is waiting for a sane and principled leadership. The greatest gift of our democracy is that every four years we get a chance to chart a new course. About four years ago in the last election Americans stirred from a nightmare but were frightened into closing their eyes to fall into a deeper nightmare. Finally we have been shaken up from our worst nightmare to reject the purveyors of fear.

This is our opportunity to pull back from the precipice of the misguided Bush doctrine of leading by brawn in the manner of a small-minded street fighter. A great leader leads by thoughtful principled analysis of problems. You have proven your capabilities in the last two years of grueling campaign.

You are starting with a national mandate and universal goodwill. The challenges are enormous and our resources are stretched very thin. You have no time to relax in the glow of this historic victory.

You have to devise an economic program that gives people hope, provides job, rewards hard work, curbs greed and punishes those who exploit our freedoms and the economic system.

You have to reassure the world that America values principles and respects all nations and peoples who want to live in peace and justice. You need to take strong steps to resolve the festering Israeli-Palestinian problem equitably. It is the key. It has not only hampered the American ability to solve many other problems, but has helped create many of the festering problems of the last few decades.

The wars are not always avoidable, but they should be the last resort, only when all else fails and the nation is in mortal danger. Unprincipled wars of supremacy are feudalistic and can not succeed in the age of instant communications. The Iraq war needs to end as you promised. The war in Afghanistan needs a very strong component of diplomacy and mercy towards those who can be drawn back from Taliban’s cruelty, so that we do not create more enemy as we have been doing by indiscriminate bombing of civilians almost on a monthly basis. It only weakens our cause and makes the enemy stronger. As you said we need to negotiate with our enemies on the basis of equity and not supremacist ultimatums.

We have supported you in the hope that you will govern with courage, thoughtfulness and justice. We will offer our constructive criticism as citizens of a great and free nation. We stood up against the intimidation of the last eight years to elect you. We intend to protect that precious right and will show dissent in the best and most valuable American tradition when warranted. With best wishes to you and our country, Mirza

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or through the blog http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/