by Natasha Tynes | Feb 23, 2006 | Political mayhem, The Disturbing
I am really shocked by the horrifying news today of the murder of Alarabiya reporter Atwar Bahjat and her crew in Samarra, Iraq.
Two gunmen pulled up in a pickup truck, shooting in the air and shouting: "We want the correspondent," The Associated Press quoted Al-Arabiya as reporting. "Atwar was in the news van and shouted to the crowd to help her."
"The crew tried to speak to the gunmen, but they snatched them and took them [to] an unknown location. By this time, night had fallen," Reuters quoted Al-Arabiya’s Baghdad correspondent Ahmed al-Saleh as telling viewers. Saleh said the bodies had been dumped near the town of Dawr near Samarra. All three were Iraqi citizens. Source: [CNN]
I met Atwar briefly last year in Doha, Qatar. I remember her as being so extremely friendly. I’m really just appalled by such a cold-blooded murder. May her soul rest in peace. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has issued a statement on the killings:
We are horrified by this appalling act. We will never stop repeating that journalists are neutral and vital observers. They are neither combatants nor targets to be shot down. Their work must be protected and respected, whatever their nationality and regardless of which media they work for.
… A total of 82 journalists and media assistants have been killed since the start of the war in Iraq. Seven of them have died since 1st January 2006, making this start of the year the most deadly in three years. Atwar Bahjat is the 7th woman journalist to be killed since the war in Iraq began.
The situation in Iraq seems to be getting worse by the day. When will all this mayhem come to an end once and for all!
by Natasha Tynes | Feb 8, 2006 | Political mayhem
Probably one of the most inspiring campaigns I’ve seen in the Arab world lately is the Lebanese campaign "My nationality: a right for me and my family," which is geared towards pushing for the right of Lebanese women to pass citizenship on to their children. As is the case in a majority of Arab counties:
"According to Article 1 of the Lebanese Domestic Law, only the child born of a Lebanese father" is deemed Lebanese.
While Lebanon acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1997, it placed a reservation on the article that stipulates that "states parties shall grant women equal rights with respect to the nationality of their children." The reservation exempts the government from having to implement the article. Source: [IRIN]
I have discussed this topic on my blog a number of times, primarily because I am personally affected by this sexist law and I just can’t get over it. Apparently, things in Lebanon are somewhat better than Jordan. In particular:
Since 2004, an administrative measure taken by the General Security body in the interior ministry, permits children born of Lebanese mothers and foreign fathers to obtain renewable residence permits every three years free of charge. Before this, such parents had to pay US $200 for a renewable, one-year residency permit for their children. Source: [IRIN]
This is not the case in Jordan. Even a residence permit for children with foreign fathers is not given automatically or free of charge. This campaign is appealing to the Lebanese government and parliament, asserting the full citizenship rights of Lebanese women and calling for the "amendment of the articles deemed discriminatory against women." The issue is controversial, as the primary reason behind this law is political!
"Politicians fear that if women are allowed to pass their nationality onto their husbands, many Palestinians will take advantage of this and start marrying Lebanese women en masse," said Ahmad Halimi of the Popular Aid for Relief and Development NGO that works with Palestinians in Lebanon. Source: [IRIN]
Kudos to the Lebanese for their efforts! Hopefully they will get what they want some day soon and then other Arab countries will follow suit.
by Natasha Tynes | Jan 9, 2006 | Jordan, my nation, Political mayhem
Once again Jordan finds itself between a rock and a hard place. It is an awkward position where Jordan is torn between fulfilling its commitment to international treaties and its role as a US ally. Here are the opposing arguments:
"Jordan’s parliament should firmly reject this strong-arm attempt by the United States to exempt its own citizens from international law," said Richard Dicker, International Justice Director at Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International noted in a statement: "No one should enjoy impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, regardless of their nationality."
And the current reality on the ground, as seen by Jordanian politicians:
Jordanian politicians, however, insisted that ratification of the accord was crucial to maintaining its current levels of US aid. US law requires the suspension of military and economic aid to states signatory to the ICC treaty if they refuse to ratify the exemptions. Last July, US President George W. Bush used his executive authority to grant Jordan a six-month grace period in order to give it time to ratify the agreement. In the same month, the US awarded US $333 million in aid to the Hashemite Kingdom for the coming year.
Source: [IRIN]
Which is more important in this case? US aid or respecting international agreements? Is safeguarding our economy more important than satisfying human rights organizations? Frankly, I’m glad I was not in a position where I had to make this decision, as the simple reality is: Doomed if you do. Doomed if you don’t! Here are some reactions from the Jordanian blogosphere: Khalaf, and Ameen.
by Natasha Tynes | Dec 13, 2005 | Political mayhem
In its editorial condemning the assassination of Lebanese journalist Gibran Tueni, The Jordan Times came down hard on believers of conspiracy theories. Here is an excerpt:
The criminals who are orchestrating all these attacks are definitely doing Syria no favour. Still, this is no time for conspiracy theories. Only backward elements, sad dinosaurs entrenched behind a long-gone cold war mentality and naïve enough to think that anyone could believe them in this 21st century of ours, would point the finger at their usual suspects: The Zionist enemy, imperialist America, or both.
Thinking that serious allegations could be brushed off merely by resorting to decades-old rhetoric and propagandistic slogans is as ridiculous as irresponsible.
Indeed. I voiced similar sentiments in an earlier post published after the release of Melhis first report, saying then:
I wonder how believers in conspiracy theories in the Arab world (and there are loads of them) will spin this one? How will they find a way to pin the blame on the favorite Middle East culprits, the US or Israel? It will be interesting to watch. Never underestimate the creativity of analysts in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, I’m starting to believe that conspiracy theories will never die in this part of the world. They will always find a niche in the Middle East.
by Natasha Tynes | Dec 11, 2005 | Film, Political mayhem
I had been looking forward to watching Syriana since I’d read an article about it nearly three months ago. Back then, the movie seemed to have all the elements that would prompt me to eagerly await its release: Middle Eastern politics, the relationship between US and Arab leaders, and, of course, George Clooney (I hope the husband is not reading).
After we watched it last night, I came to the conclusion that while the movie is intriguing, with an engaging script, it could have been directed better as I found some parts of the film confusing and extremely hard to follow. The film revolves around oil and the world of corruption that surrounds it, sending one central message: Oil affects us all. However, I could not fully understand the behind-the-scenes politics of the oil industry in the US. Maybe it was just me, but for some reason I could not connect the dots on a number of occasions.
A number of my friends expressed concern that the movie might be condescending to Arabs, but after watching it I felt that despite some Arab clichés, the flick was more critical of the US pursuit of oil than anything else. Actually, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee thought the movie was acceptable and highly recommended it. Here is an excerpt from their press release.
The overriding plot does not vilify the Arab world, its people, religions, or cultures, but rather creates a world in which evil feeds off of itself, much to the detriment of Arab and American societies. Money determines everything, and individuals, including oil company executives, Arab princes and covert CIA operatives, are expendable.
Syriana is an entertaining, if not always completely lucid, thriller, representing many of the anxieties in post-9/11 America. It represents a commendable effort to deal seriously with numerous troubling aspects of the relationship between US and Arab societies, and as such is highly recommended by ADC.
The use of the Arabic language in the film was an issue for me, as it wasn’t consistent, proving a bit annoying at times. The Arab-speaking characters in the movie spoke both classical and colloquial dialects, which I thought undermined the authenticity of some situations. Also, Alexander Siddiq, the actor playing the role of prince Nasir, spoke with an accented Arabic that really got to me. Was it really that difficult to find someone that spoke proper Arabic? Hearing George Clooney speak in my native tongue was really priceless, although I could not understand a word of what he was saying beyond ‘Shukran’ and so had to revert to subtitles.
All in all, despite its glitches, the movie is worth your time and money. It’s insightful and touches upon a basic commodity that is currently making our world go round if not ruining it at times.
UPDATE: Here are some reactions from the blogosphere: Moorish girl, Black Iris, Raja, and Darren Barefoot.
by Natasha Tynes | Nov 28, 2005 | Jordan, my nation, Political mayhem
The dominate topic in the Jordanian blogosphere as of late is the newly appointed Jordanian cabinet. It was discussed here, here, here and here. I really don’t have that much to add to what my fellow bloggers have already said. But I do want to highlight the fact that, sadly enough, I’m losing interest in cabinet-related news. Since I left Jordan in October of 2003, three new cabinets have been appointed. That is three changes in two years, which means an average Jordanian cabinet life span is down to about eight months.
Since my exodus, the changes went as follows: First, Faysal Al Fayez’s and his cabinet followed by Adnan Badran and now Ma’rouf Bakhit. When I first left, any minor cabinet change would grab my attention immediately, prompting me to religiously follow the story and all the developments. But three in two years is wearing me down. I’m starting to view cabinet reshuffles as more of the "same old, same old" in terms of Jordanian political development.
It does seem, however, that reform is the name of the game this time around as everyone is talking about it. The new government is promising real change while a major think-tank urges the kingdom to adopt quick reforms before it is all too late. Will it actually happen this time? Will the terrorist attacks of Jordan’s 9/11 wake officials up to the urgent need for reform? Only time will tell, but frankly there is a jaded skeptic in me that is not that hopeful.
One change that is really notable is the reduction in the number of women in the current government to a lonely one. That’s a disturbing drop from previous governments such as the days of Al-Fayez, when there was a record four female ministers. Why this drop? Is this part of the promised reforms? I wonder.
Probably one of the most inspiring campaigns I’ve seen in the Arab world lately is the 