Comment

Iraq’s vertigo

by Ranj Alaaldin
written by Ranj Alaaldin

Amidst the ongoing tumultuous events in the Middle East, Iraq has recently attracted little coverage within the international news media and, save for some macabre event like a mass casualty suicide bomber attack or the capture and murder of foreign hostages, rarely features on our television screens.

Yet, a recent surge in terrorist attacks manifestly suggests that taking Iraq off the radar may turn out to be a reckless and complacent endeavor. The bomb in Baghdad’s Sadr City at the end of June which killed more than 70 people exemplifies the threat. Therefore, a number of key areas must therefore be re-visited and assessed to determine where Iraq’s future lies.


The so far intermittent, but increasingly frequent attacks, should serve to provide a stark warning that leaving Iraq’s still nascent security and democratic institutions to fend for themselves in the drawdown of foreign troops could prove to have unexpected consequences. A surge in attacks could prolong the presence of foreign troops, preserving a status quo of violence and uncertainty, with serious ramifications for foreign powers with vested stakes in the country, and in an increasingly volatile region as well.


But the drawdown of British and American troops suggests Iraqis are capable of governing independently. Despite the aforementioned security threats, Iraqi security forces have proved their merits on previous occasions and, critically, have the respect of the population. Operation Charge of Knights in 2008 rid resource-rich Basra of Shia militias operating under the direction of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, while elections went ahead in January without disruption and, more importantly, under the supervision of the Iraqi army, rather than American forces. Moreover, civilian casualties are down in Iraq by more than 70 percent in comparison with previous years.


Improving security becomes futile, however, in the absence of political reconciliation between Iraq’s myriad of ethnic and sectarian groups.
Of pressing concern are relations between the Kurds in the north and the federal government in Baghdad. Both continue to stand eyeball to eyeball over unresolved matters that have left the country in a state of paralysis. Iraq has yet to pass the hydrocarbons law as a result of disputes between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad over who has the right to control and manage the country’s array of resources. As a result, huge reserves of gas and oil — Iraq has a 119 billion-barrel oil reserve, making it the third largest in the world — remain unexploited and deprived of the foreign investment needed to repair and upgrade a decaying oil infrastructure.


In addition, observers are concerned about a looming power struggle. For example, along with the Kurds, the Sunni political parties are becoming increasingly wary of a more powerful Shia-dominated Baghdad government, which they fear will serve to their disadvantage should American troops leave the country completely. Prime Minister Maliki recently added to such worries when he suggested that political consensus should be sacrificed for majority rule.


While disputes have for the best part been restricted to political exchanges, uncertainty and tension are being markedly transformed into violent confrontation. The disputed territories of Mosul and Diyala, for example, still exist as terrorist hot-spots, where the last remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Iraqi insurgencies, both Sunni and Shia, remain concentrated. Continued turmoil in these provinces is already forcing American commanders to reconsider the forthcoming troop pullout from Iraq’s cities, towns and villages by June 30 to their bases, and the complete withdrawal of troops from the country by December 31, 2011.


In Kirkuk, the oil rich disputed territory, Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution, which determines the status of the province — that is, whether it should be administered by the KRG or Baghdad — is yet to be implemented. The United Nations recently submitted a yet-to-be-made-public proposal to Baghdad and the KRG which outlined suggestions for remedying the problem. But continued intransigence is costing Iraqi lives, as portrayed by a recent attack which killed 73 civilians in Kirkuk.


Economic realities may, however, inject some hope. Iraq suffers from a budget deficit, and low oil prices have required the Iraqi government to slash its budget three times this year already — Iraq also depends on oil revenues to fund 90 percent of its reconstruction. Partly in response to this, the Baghdad government recently allowed Kurdish oil exports from fields administered by the KRG, suggesting that pragmatism can dictate policy more than ideology, and help pave the way toward reconciliation.


Where does Iraq stand? And where next for this country of painful paradoxes? The unavoidable reality is that the three pillars of a stable and prosperous Iraq are security, political reconciliation and the economy; still yet to be appreciated, however, is that these cannot operate independently of each other and unless equally respected and addressed, the US will find its presence prolonged and Iraq will head back to its previous state of bloody and costly degeneration.

Ranj Alaaldin is a Ph.D. candidate at the London School of Economics focusing on post-invasion Iraq

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

Peace at a crossroads

by Claude Salhani
written by Claude Salhani

Propelled by United States President Barack Obama, the Middle East peace process is at an important and decisive crossroad. The next few months could see the greatest advances in the Arab-Israeli dispute since the conflict began 61 years ago. If successful, the outcome of Obama’s initiative could lead to a peaceful and permanent resolution of the Middle East crisis with the Palestinians finally having a homeland. The four thorny dossiers that have been holding up the process — the issue of final borders, the question of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, the status of Jerusalem as capital of Israel and a future Palestinian state, as well as the security of Israel — could all be solved. That is the optimistic view.

Pulling in favor of the optimists is the gargantuan public relations campaign that was Obama’s speech to the Arab and Muslim world delivered in Cairo last month. The one important point to underscore is the announcement by the American president that solving the Middle East dispute is first and foremost in the national interest of the US. Also pulling for the optimists’ camp is George Mitchell, the US special envoy to the Middle East, who stopped in Lebanon and Syria on his recent tour of the region, where he is quietly working to move the peace process ahead. Also trying to push things forward is John Kerry who visited Syria once more.

And depending on where you stand, Jimmy Carter calling for Hamas to be recognized as a legitimate political party and removed from the State Department’s list of terror organizations, could be seen as either good or bad.
The reverse side of the coin, the pessimistic view, is that if this round of talks fails, then it could go the other way. If history is anything to go by, then there is little doubt that the next round of violence could be more explosive and more extreme. A brief scan through the history books of the last 60 odd years will back up that statement. What began as a dispute over real estate has now turned into a war of religion and some believe into a clash of civilizations. And what initially was a regional conflict has now spilled over the borders of the Middle East and onto the streets of America and Europe.

Fodder for pessimists is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaction to Obama’s speech, and Netanyahu’s support for policies that advocate expansion of the settlements in the West Bank, which is a non-starter for resumption of the peace process.

In between the optimists and the pessimists lies much uncertainty. Yet what is clear is that the future of the Middle East is in the hands of the region’s leaders now more than it has ever been. History will remember the legacy these leaders leave behind and it will not be kind to those who miss this opportunity. The Palestinian cause has for much too long been used and abused to justify the continued status quo in parts of the Middle East, with the aim of keeping the current regimes in power. History, however, will reserve a special place for those who will ultimately bring peace and prosperity and democracy to the people of the Middle East.

It is time for the leadership in the region to realize the precariousness in which the region finds itself today, not only when it comes to the question of war and peace, but in regards to where the region stands in education, cultural development, scientific advances, social welfare and the rights of individuals.
President Obama understands the urgency of the situation and the importance of bringing peace to the Middle East. But the task is not going to be an easy one with all sides strongly entrenched in their respective positions. The fundamental reason for the difficulty in moving ahead is due to a lack of trust that permeates both sides of the conflict. Building that trust will prove to be one of the hardest steps in bringing peace to the region. Sixty-one years of hatred will require time and effort to overcome.

Arabs and Israelis are destined to live as neighbors on the same small piece of real estate. And as neighbors they have to coexist or risk perpetuating more violence in the Levant, and guaranteeing a turbulent future for their children and grandchildren. Is that the legacy by which they want to be remembered?
The two sides have no choice but to continue to live, if not with each other, at least next to each other. One does not necessarily have to love his neighbor, but one has to learn to live with his neighbor. One important caveat: all the pushing and prodding, arm-twisting and threatening, cajoling and guarantees of the United States to bring about a settlement in the region will be impossible to achieve unless there is a strong desire amongst those concerned to solve the crisis.

Claude Salhani is the editor of the Middle East Times in Washington, DC

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

Slavery to emancipation

by Paul Cochrane
written by Paul Cochrane

Expatriate labor rights and living conditions in the Gulf have become hot, contentious topics once again. The BBC was the latest media player to throw mud at the Gulf’s glitzy image when a reporter snuck into a labor camp in Dubai and secretly filmed living conditions, exposing the gritty, sewage swamped underbelly.

Dubai took badly to the coverage, as it has been prone to do whenever the international media sticks its nose in places it’s told not to, and the company involved has been at pains to show it was an unusual case. But what has driven the issue further into international prominence was Bahrain’s decision in early May to end the sponsorship system, the first Gulf Cooperation Council country to do so.


Manama decided to annul the longstanding requirement that all expatriate workers have to be sponsored by a Bahraini citizen. To be put into effect August 1, the government will be responsible for issuing work permits, which can be renewed every two years and will allow expat workers to change jobs without having to seek a sponsor’s permission. This is a significant step, ending a system known as “kafala” that effectively shackled workers to their employer, whether a construction worker or a general manager. For example, in Saudi Arabia, foreign workers cannot travel from one city to another without stamped official authorization from an employer, let alone hop on an airplane.
Bahrain’s bold move has garnered praise from human rights groups and international labor organizations around the world. The word now is that other GCC countries should do the same. Momentum is certainly picking up, with Qatar saying it is studying Bahrain’s move and wants to adopt the same policies, while the United Arab Emirates has signed an agreement with India and the Philippines to launch a project to improve contract workers’ conditions.


But as always with radical shifts in policy, Bahrain’s move is causing a great deal of controversy, foremost in its own parliament and among the local business community. One party, Al Wefaq, came under fire for failing to use its influence — it has 17 of the 40 seats in the lower house — to block a clause in the law that would require foreigners to have a minimum one-year contract. Businessmen say the ruling will be detrimental to the economy by putting the country at a competitive disadvantage, while businesses will be left to foot the bill for implementation costs.


That will clearly be the case, and Bahrain would stand to lose somewhat unless other Gulf countries do the same. On the other hand, Bahrain will become a more attractive place to work for expats, and the government won’t have to worry about embarrassing stories that scream of slavery and abuse; or face worker strikes, like the two that happened within the space of a week in Bahrain in early June. A headache in the short term is better than a migraine in the long term.


The GCC is of course easily singled out globally, given its exposure to the West and its estimated 13-15 million foreign workers, predominantly from Asia. But while the West chastises the GCC on labor rights, millions of Asians, South Americans and Africans continue to toil away in sweat shops to make cheap consumer goods for the West. Millions of migrant laborers also work illegally and often in poor conditions in the West itself.


But where the GCC is strikingly different is in the sponsorship law, and that it was foreign labor that physically built and manned the transformation of the Gulf we see today, constructing the tallest tower, one of the largest malls, artificial islands and seemingly endless real estate projects. The Gulf’s ‘unsung heroes’ have long been under-respected and underappreciated. It is also worth recalling the region’s own indentured past.


In Oman earlier this year I was reading the late British explorer Wilfred Thesiger’s book “Arabian Sands,” about crossing the Empty Quarter in 1950. He arrives at an oil prospecting camp outside of ‘Dibai’ with his two Bedouin guides, but while Thesiger is allowed to bunk down in the ‘European lines,’ his companions have to sleep in the ‘native lines.’ This disparity was further emphasized in Abdul Rahman Munif’s trilogy “Cities of Salt,” where the local Gulf Arab laborers that built the oil infrastructure slept under hot tin roofs and earned a pittance, while the Americans chilled out in air-conditioned compounds.


That period is still in living memory, as is Saudi Arabia only ending slavery in 1962. While that might be a difficult past to talk about, so is the present sponsorship system. The move by Bahrain to end it, and the discussion it has provoked in Qatar and the UAE, shows that workers rights do matter. It should also prove economically advantageous in the long run, given that old adage of “happy workers make productive workers.”

PAUL COCHRANE is the Middle East correspondent for International News Services

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

Pirated intellect bedevils WTO

by Riad Al-Khouri
written by Riad Al-Khouri

Lebanon first applied to join the World Trade Organization in 1999, but now, a decade later, the country’s accession is still not a done deal — a time lag far longer than with most other past or current applicants.

At WTO meetings on Lebanon’s accession, an often raised issue is the state of intellectual property rights (IPR) in the country. Respect for IPR is a key condition of WTO accession.


The United States Trade Representative (USTR) placed Lebanon on a “watch list” in 1999 and then downgraded Beirut to the critical “Priority Watch List” in 2001 where it remained until 2007. It then upgraded Lebanon back to the watch list in 2008, and in its 2009 annual review, the USTR maintained Lebanon on the watch list.


Other Arab countries on the 2009 watch list include Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Though piracy-related losses incurred in Lebanon by copyright-based industries are estimated to have risen last year, Beirut nevertheless made progress in 2008. For example, concerning the problem of cable piracy, about 80 percent of the approximately 700 pirate operators last year signed up to become legitimate providers.


Yet, as a cursory look around Beirut and the rest of the country will show, there is rampant piracy of books, music, films and software in Lebanon, as well as a growing problem of counterfeit pharmaceutical products on the local market. Though Lebanon was one of the first countries in the region to have IPR laws, many of which have also been updated and improved over the past decade, a main obstacle is that such measures are not properly enforced. Lebanon is a signatory to several international agreements relating to IPR, but is unable to properly implement basic anti-piracy measures.


In 2000, the Lebanese government issued a customs law that prohibits the export, import, and stocking of goods infringing copyright. Punishment imposed by the country’s IPR law includes confiscation of illegal products and closure of stores in violation, but such measures are not taken often enough. Even when they are taken, they do not exact an appropriately tough punishment. For example, it is illogical to impose a $700 penalty on a shop owner who has been caught stocking thousands of illegal copies of dvds worth many times such a derisory amount. This leniency does not deter pirates.


Lebanon’s reputation as a haven for piracy is also partly due to a lack of awareness. The state has a role to play in enforcing intellectual property rights by creating awareness among the Lebanese people on the importance of such measures. It is insufficient to simply enforce the law; people should also be informed about the issues involved. Experts (mainly from Western countries and companies) come to Beirut to address businesses, the general public, the media and information technology companies on the need to respect IPR. Promoting the benefits of using legal software and other IPR goods focuses on awareness and education more than on enforcement; yet, the going is tough in an atmosphere of economic difficulty and lack of respect for authority.


Respecting IPR is a basic condition for joining the WTO. Lebanon acquired observer status at the WTO shortly after passage of the 1999 Copyright Law, but even if WTO admission was not on the table, IPR enforcement in the country would be a boon to the country’s many artists and other innovators. Sectors dependent on intellectual innovation are crucial to the Lebanese economy. Lebanon is among the top Arab countries when it comes to intellectual innovation. Copyright industries in Lebanon account for 4.5 percent of the country’s employment, generating more than half a billion dollars annually from sectors including publishing, music, theater, video, radio, television and software. A proper IPR culture would be good for all of these — as well as help in getting Lebanon admitted to the WTO.

Riad Al Khouri is senior associate consultant at the William Davidson Institute of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

Hezbollah killed JFK

by Peter Speetjens
written by Peter Speetjens

Most people will be familiar with Joseph Goebbels’ famous line: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Yet what they may not know is how the late Nazi Minister of Propaganda advised to deliver the message: “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

Propaganda is as old as war itself and the media play an essential role in the battle for ‘hearts and minds.’ One way to prepare the public for a justifiable future war is to create an image of evil through a constant flow of negative information. Ever since the days of bows and arrows, enemy troops have been accused of killing women and children, a strategy that still proved effective in the run-up to the 1990 Gulf War.


Then, nearly all American media ran the story that Iraqi troops had stolen incubators from a Kuwaiti hospital, while leaving the babies for dead. Only after the war ended did it become clear that the story was false and had been scripted by Hill and Knowlton, a public relations firm hired by the Kuwaiti government to help prepare America for a “just” war.


Seeing this and other examples, not in the least the US invasion of Iraq, the media should be aware of the fact that the powers-that-be have an interest in playing them “like a keyboard.” Yet in their eternal race for scoops and ratings, the media are often all too willing to swallow the sensational.


Take for example the flurry of articles regarding Hezbollah that have appeared over the past year. If we are to believe every single report, Lebanon’s Party of God smuggled missiles to Gaza, plotted to bomb Egypt, established terror cells in Venezuela and is part of the Columbian cocaine mafia.


Among more recent reports was a May 24 article in Germany’s Der Spiegel which claimed — based on anonymous investigative sources — that Hezbollah was involved in the killing of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The news was trumpeted by media opposed to Hezbollah, even though the international criminal court denied having talked to any journalists and the same accusation had already been published by Le Figaro in 2006.


The article’s author, Erich Follath, who in 1983 wrote a book on the Mossad, even had Hezbollah’s fiercest opponents laughing when he claimed that the motive for the murder was the fact that “the billionaire [Hariri] began to outstrip the revolutionary leader [Nasrallah] in terms of popularity.”
In March, the media reported that Israeli jets and drones had, in January, bombed a convoy in Sudan which was allegedly smuggling rockets and missiles into Gaza. Anonymous Israeli security sources accused Iran and Hezbollah of being the masterminds. Israel did bomb Sudan, not once but three times, yet so far no proof has been given that Hezbollah or Iran were indeed involved.


This news had hardly gone quiet when the Egyptian government on April 10 announced it had arrested 49 members of a “Hezbollah cell,” including three Lebanese nationals, that planned to attack the Suez Canal, the Gaza border and tourist resorts in the Sinai. One Egyptian newspaper reported that two Palestinians amid the 49 detainees had confessed to being members of Hezbollah. Yet what are these confessions worth, seeing Egypt’s proud reputation in the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’?


If we are to believe the media, Hezbollah is not just a regional threat. The Los Angeles Times on August 27, 2008, quoted anonymous American defense sources who claimed that Hezbollah was one among many “anti-western organizations” that had moved “people and things” into Venezuela. According to the source, the development was closely linked to the partnership between Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Iran.


The same newspaper was at it again on October 22, 2008 when it reported that Columbian authorities had arrested members of a drug cartel, including the Lebanese “kingpin” and “world class money launderer” Chekry Harb. He allegedly had close links to Hezbollah, yet called himself “Taliban.”


The Hezbollah-into-cocaine story returned in April 2009, when an English language website in Holland reported that Dutch authorities had arrested 17 suspects from a cocaine gang. The report rather vaguely claimed that the gang maintained contacts with “other criminal networks, which in the Middle East support Hezbollah financially.” It also said that the suspects, mainly South Americans, invested their profits in property around the world. No further details regarding Hezbollah or properties being bought were given.


Hezbollah is certainly a force to reckon with, but it is hard to believe that Lebanon’s Party of God is a global threat. Most stories seem to have been spoon-fed by governments and security agencies interested in blacklisting Hezbollah. Meanwhile, the media forgot to ask questions — happily played as a keyboard — and instead complained that people do not read newspapers anymore.

Peter speetjens is a Beirut-based journalist

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Comment

The Dubai delusion

by Norbert Schiller
written by Norbert Schiller

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, ruler of Dubai and vice president of the United Arab Emirates, likes nothing better than foreign media reports depicting his emirate as the “economic miracle of the desert.” However, since this economic crisis hit, the foreign media has had a field day reporting everything that has gone wrong with Dubai. Headlines such as, ‘Dubai Property Scandal Claim Emerges Amid Media Blackout’ or ‘The Dark Side of Dubai,’ are just some of the stories that have made the headlines lately. In comparison, reporting within Dubai has been relatively tame and, if you didn’t know any better, the local press would have you believe that the economic situation was under control and life was as idyllic as ever. And that’s what the people at the helm want us all to think.

A few days ago, I received an email from a retired friend who until recently was an executive for a multinational based in Dubai:
“I guess Sheikh Mohammed and his marketing and PR [public relations] machine were more than happy to use the press and the [foreign] media to spread the message of the ‘economic miracle in the desert,’ but they should have realized that trying to use the media is a double-edged sword. Journalists love nothing better than a good story and what better story than the broken dream and the broken lives in the desert.”


Regardless of what the government wants you to believe, it’s no secret what is happening. There is no expatriate living in the Emirates who does not know at least one person whose “dream” has been shattered. In fact, most people could probably name a dozen friends and co-workers who were forced to pack up and leave.


For years before the financial crisis, Dubai was awash with money and the mere thought of it suddenly evaporating one day hardly crossed anyone’s mind. Dubai became a phenomenon all by itself, a place where everyone aspired to go to make more money. From the migrant laborer in India to the marketing wiz in the United Kingdom, everyone had their eyes on Dubai. For many laborers, their first brush with reality was having to repay their debt to the agency that brought them here, almost immediately upon arrival. For the well-to-do urban professionals, the first trap was spending money way beyond their means on everything from fancy cars to property. It seemed like everyone was over their heads in debt, punch drunk on the illusion that this was one of the last frontiers left in the world.


My friend was always skeptical about this line of thought and, like many others, viewed Dubai’s rapid growth as a bubble waiting to burst. I can’t recall how many times he endlessly argued at dinner parties, or while out sailing with friends. Often those who boasted about the “Dubai success story” acted as if they themselves were at the top of the food chain. In the same email he goes on: “All along, most of us knew that the Dubai miracle was nothing but an empty mirage. I really pity the suckers who got caught up in the massive real estate scam, which is what this whole mirage in the desert was really all about.”


It’s also no secret that Sheikh Mohammed surrounded himself with people who believed in his dream of transforming the desert into an oasis at any cost. The initial money was there, so too were the investors and the hand-picked team to carry out mission impossible. The list of “miracles” the ruler preformed is abundant and well documented: doubling Dubai’s coastline, building the world’s tallest tower and one of the largest shopping malls and making a ski slope in the desert. But then again, there was no one in the sheikh’s inner circle that was in a position to contradict him if they felt he had gone too far. A few years ago, the CBS program “60 Minutes” profiled Sheikh Mohammed, using interviews with him and his close advisors. Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the chairman of Dubai World, had this to say about his boss: “He’s always asking the impossible, not what you are able to do, but what you cannot do!”


The sad fact is that nobody can really afford to see Dubai disintegrate; too many livelihoods are at stake. Dubai, like the rest of the Gulf states, is a necessity for millions of laborers and workers who come here carrying hopes and dreams of improving their lot. I can only hope that when this crisis passes the leadership of Dubai will come to their senses and create a place that does not only sing its own praises, but looks after those whose sweat and toil have made this emirate what it is today.

Norbert Schiller is a Dubai-based photo-journalist and writer

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Society

Al Hurra – Joaquin F. Blaya (Q&A)

by Executive Staff
written by Executive Staff

Joaquin F. Blaya is a member of the United State’s Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees US government run broadcasting networks like Voice of America and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, which includes Al Hurra Television. Al Hurra (meaning “the free one”) broadcasts to 22 countries in the Middle East, Iraq and Europes. Governor Blaya had a principal role in developing Al Hurra’s “Al Youm” (meaning “today”), a daily three-hour news and “infotainment” program broadcasting live from five cities simultaneously: Dubai, Jerusalem, Beirut, Cairo and Washington D.C.

The US government has funded the Middle East Broadcasting Network with around half a billion dollars since its launch in 2004, and requested $113 million from the US congress in the 2010 fiscal year budget. Governor Blaya previously served as chairman of Radio Unica, a Spanish-language radio network, and as CEO of the Telemundo Group, Inc., the US’ second-largest Spanish-language television network. He spoke with EXECUTIVE from the US by phone to discuss Al Hurra’s controversial past and its future in the Middle East

E Can you tell us what the mission of Al Hurra is?
I think Al Hurra’s mission is the same mission as all the US international broadcasting networks: to provide news and information in an accurate manner to the world, which people don’t have access to, or in places like the Middle East, Arab countries, where there is access to information but there are some subjects are not discussed on a regular basis, like women’s rights and gynecology and other elements.

E Why is Al Hurra prohibited from being broadcast in the US?
It goes back to the origins of America. The concern among members of congress was that the administration would use it as a vehicle to propagandize the population.

E No matter how the US spins its policies, it has always been viewed with suspicion in the Arab world. Why has Al Hurra continued to exist when evidence suggests that is has failed to penetrate the Middle East’s media landscape?
That is the language that is used by people who oppose the Al Hurra idea. I would offer you the numbers, and I live by the numbers. Al Hurra has up to 27 million weekly viewers, according to AC Nielsen [a US media research company], so someone is watching. And this, mind you, is a region where this was talked about as an American channel. 
In my [experience], people watch what they want to watch, and they particularly seem, in this part of the world, to watch news and information that can be credible. So when people say Al Hurra has been a failure, I say we’ve gone from 1 million [viewers] to 27 million. I don’t think that is a failure. Is there more to be done? Obviously, there is always more to be done. Therefore the importance of [Al Youm]… Al Hurra is not a one trick pony.

E With all due respect, those audience numbers have been called into question by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) and research done by Zogby and the University of Maryland. Even if the Nielsen numbers are accurate, Al Hurra is getting less than 10 percent of the market. 
The Zogby survey is not audience research. That is where confusion lies, because we are comparing apples and oranges.

E And the GAO report?
No, no, no. This was about three years ago, the year the GAO had some questions based on some of the methodology that Nielsen was employing at the time. That was corrected. Every number you see coming from Nielsen [meets] GAO standards. What I’m saying is that that is old news.

E But President Barack Obama chose to appear on Al Arabiya in his first interview with an Arabic language news channel. Isn’t that a signal that the White House doesn’t have much faith in Al Hurra?
Actually it’s not. The White House is very supportive of Al Hurra, as indicated by the budget, which is what really matters in Washington. I should not express a political point of view, but I think as a citizen. I would understand why Obama would select an Arab channel for this first approach to the Arab world. But… [Al Hurra] had Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton, Vice President [Joe] Biden, Senator [John] Kerry, this is what we do. One of the strengths of Al Hurra, for obvious reasons, is that they are the experts in Washington, and have access to all these people. So I would not think more of that issue.

E If Obama is appearing on Al Arabiya because it is an Arab network then what is the role of Al Hurra? Isn’t it supposed to be the mouthpiece through which the US government speaks to the Arab world? 
Sure it does, but not exclusively. I’m not a political figure, I’m a broadcaster, but I would think that [Obama] was extending himself to use an Arab-owned based media instead of an American media for his first approach.
 
E How do you make sure that US’s foreign and domestic policy stances don’t enter into the editorial line of the network?
Back to old history of Al Hurra; there were mistakes made, but they were mistakes not in content, but of the programming standards. It is not a good idea to put a speech from [Hassan] Nasrallah or anybody else for one hour on the air. It doesn’t make ‘audience sense,’ it doesn’t make for good programming. The questions was not whether we would put on-air opinions of people who disagree with us, we do that, but we do it in a balanced way.

E Al Hurra’s President, Brian Conniff, doesn’t speak Arabic. The Executive Producer of Al Hurra’s new program, “Al Youm,” Fran Mires, doesn’t speak Arabic and has only visited the region a few times on brief trips. If Al Hurra’s goal is to reach out to 300 million Arabic speakers, then why wasn’t someone who speaks the language and understands the nuances of the culture chosen to run “Al Youm?” 
We have brought in tens of producers and executive producers, but what we needed was someone who had experience putting together these kinds of programs, someone who spent 20 years doing shows like this, an Emmy winning producer. Having said that, we have brought in around 150 Arabic speakers to produce Al Youm who are contributing sensitivity to the issues in the region. Hiring 150 people from the Arab world [who are] professionals is quite an accomplishment.

E We all know about the problems Al Hurra has had in terms of credibility, what are you doing to change this image? 
When I was being [grilled] in [the] US congress… I said that we needed to put a structure in place that was not there, things as simple as an assignment desk.

E That seems pretty obvious…
Yeah, doesn’t it? For people like us who have worked in the [news] business, you don’t need any description of what that means. And Al Hurra didn’t have one. So [as] the first step… we implemented an assignment desk with standards where you know what it is your reporting. So, I cannot overstate the importance of that in Al Hurra, and what it has done to the operation. That’s why in the last two years these issues you were referring to have not occurred. Someone is minding the store, basically. That in itself was the first major step. 
Second, it took over a year and a half to put together “Al Youm,” first, because of complexity of the program, but as important, because of criticism [of Al Hurra] that occurred for those two years; Al Hurra had to reestablish credibility in Washington. So while we were being criticized, I was proposing these changes, and proposing this new window, but it took some time to build that credibility. So this has been a major effort on our part to walk the walk, to put the editorial controls in place, to run professionally, and then build the show in the region. So it goes beyond just a window to America, or world, platform, because I feel as important [as it is] to provide news and information, it’s important to serve as a vehicle so that people in the region can talk to each other, and argue with each other, and bring new ideas.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Executive Insights

Lebanon‘s election campaigns brash but empty of content

by Mark Helou & Ramsay G. Najjar
written by Mark Helou & Ramsay G. Najjar

The authors of Executive Insights have been invited by this magazine to offer their professional opinions and analysis to you, the reader. Executive magazine does not endorse the analysis of Insight authors, nor should the Insights be interpreted as reflecting the views or opinions of Executive or its editorial staff.

Never in Lebanon’s election history have the eyes and ears of citizens been saturated — some would even say jammed — with such an overwhelming quantity of colors, pictures, slogans and counter-slogans. Billboards, TV ads, YouTube clips and Facebook pages were ruthlessly employed to target the highest possible number of potential voters which, more often than not, ended up completely confused by the communication blitz. Now that the party’s over, many questions inevitably come to mind. What exactly led to this frenzy in political messaging, and to this particular type and style of communication? Was this an expression of a healthy democratic political scene or the symptom of an underlying fundamental dysfunction? What positive or negative impact did it ultimately have on Lebanese citizens in the context of the electoral process? And, most importantly, to what extent was electoral political communication reflective of the principle of accountability, which is a pillar of sound democratic practice?

It is no secret that the Lebanese political scene has been characterized lately by intensely polarized opinions, with a high proportion of citizens having already “made up their minds” concerning their vote. However, the existence of neutral or undecided voters coupled with reports that the election outcome would be fateful for Lebanon’s future and ultimately decided by a very narrow margin, kick-started an aggressive all-out campaign. Campaigns aimed to glean the crucial undecided swing votes and galvanize partisan voters, with each camp asking the citizen to “buy its products,” i.e., to vote for its candidates.

Though this analogy between a politician and a product might seem alluring at first, it is ultimately misleading. For although electoral campaigns were characterized by loud and incisive calls for action similar to the ones used to sell consumer goods, the campaigns (voluntarily or involuntarily) overlooked an essential difference between voting and shopping; shopping for a product could be a one-time purchase if you are unhappy with what you have chosen, while the act of voting could shape your life and that of your country for years. The hard-sell style that characterized pre-electoral communication resulted in the drastic downplaying of vital political content and substance which should normally translate into consistent electoral programs, clear political visions and concrete roadmaps. A glimpse at the pre-elections communication landscape indeed reveals the distressing scarcity of such elements.

Loud yet lacking

This void in ideas had a direct negative impact on all pre-electoral communication. An ancient physicist’s idiom tells us that “nature abhors a vacuum.” Unfortunately, nature does not always fill this vacuum in a good way, as the campaign has left us with the unpleasant aftertaste of a void filled by creative yet unsubstantiated slogans and counterproductive polemics. In other words, communication during the elections became an end in itself.

This does not mean, of course, that campaigns were lacking creativity, wit or humor. On the contrary, the ad professionals behind these initiatives demonstrated all these traits in sometimes amazing ways. Unfortunately, the excitement and buzz created by the creative campaigns resulted in the audience losing track of what is truly important, which is the need for consistent political content that has a strong message behind it. The slogans being plastered across Lebanon have thus become the trees that prevent us from seeing the forest.

Ad busting, which was often conducted with virtuosity by all political camps, gives another striking example of this lack of content. The “slogan wars” on billboards and on the Internet became a self fulfilling purpose, and had more similarities with a Byzantine quarrel than with a rational confrontation between ideas and programs which could fuel a healthy debate. Ironically, while the opponents were busy passing the hot potato to one another, they ultimately forgot about the “beef” of their communication and instead tried to compensate for this missing element by over-packaging their messages.

The reasons behind this anemic political substance are many. Without judging whether the political entities involved did or didn’t have any real content to deliver, one can try to explain this deficiency from a pure communication perspective. The first reason can be found in the absence of a communication vision emanating from consistent content which extends in time beyond particular events such as elections. Communicating such content and substance entails the deployment of constant and proactive communication initiatives (interactive websites, university conferences and publications) through which various stakeholders are targeted by consistent and regular messages. The strategy should also account for the existence of two-way communication channels (blogs, YouTube channels, Q&A sessions and town hall meetings) that will ensure that audiences’ concerns and ideas are heard and addressed through continuous dialogue and feedback.

Regular communication efforts would ultimately result in clearly conveying the position of the politician or party, the system of values they espouse and what their future candidates stand for. In the long term, this strategy would gradually build the party or candidate’s image and equity, and result in constant two-way liaising with stakeholders and audiences, ultimately entrenching positive perceptions while clarifying any possible misperceptions that stakeholders might have of the political group or politicians in question.

Masking the empty message

The absence of actual “beef” in their communication strategies has led political parties to entirely rely on advertising agencies in a bid to fill this strategic gap under the pressure of elections. Advertising agencies, in turn, have unleashed their creativity to successfully grab audiences’ attention. However, it is clear that this has generated scattered and ad hoc efforts that ultimately appealed to the voter’s primary reflexes — their ‘instinct’ — as opposed to their ‘mind.’ The lack of proactive and sustained communication has also forced parties to condense their ideas into the forms and channels that best met their tight time constraints, thus overly relying on catchy slogans and noisy billboards that did not express any political depth and, most importantly, did not showcase any realistic promise. Even the now famous “Sois belle et vote” campaign, which represented a much needed attempt to touch on the issue of women’s rights, was limited to a call for action that raised a prejudice and fell short of empowering Lebanese women.

This emotional and instinct-based approach to communication has obviously worked quite well, judging from the high voter turnout. Nevertheless, it remains short-sighted, as its impact is bound to be ephemeral and last only as long as the campaign itself. Moreover, this approach did not uphold a basic democratic principle underlying the concept of elections, which is the voter’s right to hold their politicians accountable for a specific program or vision. As a pillar of the democratic practice, the accountability principle should ideally be reflected in electoral political communication; it should inform citizens and empower them to hold a politician accountable based on his or her implementation of their program rather than on personal considerations, pure instincts and impulses or the politician’s ability to play on people’s insecurities and fears. By instituting a culture whereby politics is driven by programs and visions rather than tactical self-promoting considerations, short-lived alliances and even fear mongering, we would edge closer to a state-of-affairs in which representatives are held liable for their agenda and are voted-in on their ability to fulfill their set promises.

While political communication can become a precious tool in consolidating genuine democracy by promoting accountability, crude calls-for-action can have the exact opposite effect by transforming the democratic voting process into an empty shell and reducing the citizen to a mere ballot with no aspirations or rights. After all that is said and done, only when we elevate the democratic practice above the fray of political infighting and move toward a new social contract based on rights and responsibilities can we prove Oscar Wilde wrong when he said: “Democracy is the oppression of the people, by the people, for the people.”

With the June 7 election behind us, and despite its many imperfections, Lebanon should be proud of the feat it accomplished as it proved to be a role model for free elections when compared to neighboring countries. Lebanon has the potential to mature more and, as such, will remain an example to follow and an authentic and aspiring Arab democracy.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Banking & Finance

GCC – A currency shortchanged

by Executive Staff
written by Executive Staff

Political infighting has dogged attempts by Gulf Cooperation Council states to integrate their economies. Most recently the factious nature of GCC relations has been agitated by the planned monetary union.

With the United Arab Emirates decision in May to pull out, only four GCC members were left to sign the pact on a common currency — pegged to the dollar or a basket of currencies — when they met in Riyadh on June 7. The four members who signed-on were Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar; notably absent from the signing ceremony was the second largest economy in the GCC — the UAE.

Analysts say the UAE declined to participate due to the May 5 decision by the four other states to locate the headquarters for the prospective monetary union’s Gulf Central Bank in Riyadh. As the second largest economy in the Gulf region, the UAE’s move has created significant controversy and tension between itself and the rest of the GCC states, especially Saudi Arabia.

Pure politics

Eckart Woertz, program manager of economics at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, believes this quarrel has nothing to do with monetary policies. “It’s a pure political issue,” he said. “Obviously, there is a hurt ego on part of the UAE, [as it] was expecting [to host] the GCC Central Bank and they didn’t get it.”
After the UAE confirmed its plans to stay out of the proposed regional monetary bloc, Saudi Finance Minister Ibrahim al-Assaf said that the location of the GCC Central Bank was non-negotiable.
Meanwhile, UAE Central Bank Governor Sultan Nasser bin al-Suwaidi said, “We are out [of the GCC monetary union] for the moment.”

A week later, UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al- Nahyan further hinted at the possibility of the UAE rejoining the monetary bloc at a later stage, saying the Emirates would ‘consider’ returning to the union if the terms are altered and other GCC members authorize a joint central bank to be based in the UAE. Such suggestions came as Saudi Arabia made clear that no terms will be amended regarding the central bank’s location.
“There are certainly behind closed door negotiations going on,” said Woertz. “It’s difficult for both sides to compromise without losing face.”

No matter what, Woertz said the UAE cannot declare their return to the union and then expect Saudi Arabia to welcome them with open arms.
“Maybe they’ll find a compromise; perhaps an Emirati heading the GCC Central Bank, but the bank being in Riyadh, for example.”
For now, it seems Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi and Qatar are not worried about having to cut any sort of deals with the UAE.

Moving forward

But would a monetary union without the Gulf’s second biggest economy — the UAE — or Oman, make any sense? Woertz says the GCC monetary union without the UAE may never materialize.
“Oman’s withdrawal was manageable. But now, with the UAE withdrawing, there is considerable damage,” he said.
Tristan Cooper, a sovereign analyst at Moody’s Investors Service in Dubai, has doubts about the fate of the monetary bloc.

“I am not sure whether it is going to survive [the] setback [of the UAE withdrawing] and I am rather skeptical about when and whether the project will be achieved.”
But the union could go ahead, and set up a situation similar to that of the United Kingdom and the Eurozone in the late 1990s. When the UK decided not to partake in the EU’s single currency, the UK did not become politically isolated from the rest of Europe, as many had feared.
Giyas Gökkent, chief economist at the National Bank of Abu Dhabi, said that like the UK and the Eurozone, economic and political ties will move forward eventually.
The UAE’s decision to stay out of the monetary union is “really not a show-stopper,” he said. 

At the end of the day, the Gulf states still have the common market, which was launched on January 1, 2008. This common market grants national treatment to all GCC companies and citizens in every Gulf state. By doing so, all possible technical hurdles are removed between cross-country investments and service trades between Gulf countries.

Pros and cons

There are benefits and drawbacks for all countries, whether they sign onto the monetary union or not. A single currency allows members to bask in improved efficiency levels of resource allocation and increased access to markets — all of which facilitate investment. Also, being part of a monetary bloc lets members benefit from lower cross border transaction costs; but in the GCC, this gain is limited, as intra-GCC trade is quite minimal. But, without the UAE, the prospects won’t be as rewarding as they could be.
“The UAE’s absence means that the gains to be realized from the currency union will be lower for the bloc as a whole, because the UAE is the second largest economy in the GCC and has the largest banking system,” said Gökkent.

On the other hand, Woertz said by basing the GCC Central Bank in the region’s largest economy, the rest of the union members will be gaining. SAMA — Saudi Arabia’s central bank — is “the most experienced central bank in the GCC,” said Woertz.
In the particular scenario of the Gulf, any disadvantages of a possible monetary bloc seem to be balanced out by the benefits. Moody’s recently reported the union would be adversely affected by the UAE’s absence, but few other factors.

“[M]any of the common advantages of a currency union… are muted in the case of the GCC,” the report said. “At the same time, the disadvantages of a currency union — such as members’ loss of independent monetary and exchange rate policies — are also less applicable, given that the GCC already have fixed exchange rate pegs.”  
However Gökkent is a harsher critic of the monetary union.

“When you undertake a currency union you forgo independence on monetary policy,” Gökkent said. “If the UAE were to go into the GCC monetary union, then they would abandon that policy flexibility and they would give it to this GCC wide body. Policy-making would [thus] be subject to GCC input rather than being made from a UAE-focus.”
Dr. Abdul Rahman al-Sultan, an economics professor at the Islamic Imam Mohammed bin Saud University in Riyadh, kicked up a controversy when he said the GCC monetary bloc is more detrimental than beneficial.  

“The plan to issue a common currency in this scheme is quite different from previous economic integration moves, as its costs largely surpass its gains considering the fact that the GCC countries do not represent an ideal currency zone, nor do they meet any of its criteria,” Sultan said at a conference held by the Saudi Economists Association in the kingdom’s capital in late May. “Instead of wasting their efforts on issuing a common currency in a zone that lacks the minimum currency criteria, the GCC countries should concentrate on completing previous integration stages.”

In the end, the UK has retained its monetary independence while also maintaining political ties with its neighbors, and analysts predict the same of Oman and the UAE if the monetary union becomes reality. The underlying issue seems to be how these events will affect the long-term political relationship between the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

“The move is a blow to GCC unity more generally and could be interpreted as a sign of how the balance of power between Saudi Arabia and the smaller GCC states have shifted over time,” Moody’s Cooper said. “It remains to be seen what the ramifications of the UAE’s action will be for the UAE’s bilateral relations with Saudi Arabia, but clearly it is not positive.”

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Executive Insights

The oath of leadership

by Tommy Weir
written by Tommy Weir

The authors of Executive Insights have been invited by this magazine to offer their professional opinions and analysis to you, the reader. Executive magazine does not endorse the analysis of Insight authors, nor should the Insights be interpreted as reflecting the views or opinions of Executive or its editorial staff.

A few months back I was sitting in the audience at the Global Competiveness Forum in Riyadh when Angel Cabrera, dean of the Thunderbird School of Management, one of the top 100 international management schools in the world, walked up to the podium.
“I owe you an apology,” he said. This caught my attention as I wondered why in the world this man from Arizona would need to apologize to global heads of states and executives from top corporations.

“I, actually myself and the deans of the top business programs, owe the world an apology for the financial crisis,” he said. Cabrera pointed out that many of the corporate leaders that got us into this mess are graduates of schools like his and other top tier institutions. His lecture went on to point out the flaws in the curriculum that could lead to this type of self-centered and short-term thinking.

As I sat there stunned and admiring his humility it occurred to me to look at the book that is touted as one of the top business texts to see if it was right. My conclusion is that the title of “Good to Great” by Jim Collins should be changed to “Good to Great to GRAVE.”

The companies that are profiled in “Good to Great” and Collins’ other book, “Built to Last,” are held up as examples of success, and we are told to emulate them. But will we? They are leading the way in layoffs, lining up for government bailouts and their stock prices have plummeted. Many of the companies recently went into bankruptcy, were taken over by the government or simply turned off their lights and locked the doors for good. Are these the companies to look at as role models of success? They were. But what went wrong? Dean Cabrera says they all have one element in common: lack of responsibility.

These companies had mastered the game of business, which is putting out quarterly targets and beating them, thus they became the darlings of Wall Street. But in the midst of this they lost sight of society and a larger responsibility than just to their shareholders.
Something different needs to happen and it is not more government oversight. It is clearly time for a new approach that includes reforming management education and creating leaders who are responsible for the actions and impact of their organizations, not just the financial results to shareholders.

In light of questionable corporate practices and the global crisis, it is time for leaders to pledge to be responsible for the life of their organizations and society at large. Borrowing from the ancient practice of the Hippocratic Oath, perhaps all leaders should take an Oath of Leadership:

• I will be competent in my skills and actions while continually striving to improve my leadership.
• I will maintain and strengthen the vision of my organization and strive to create sustainable prosperity in a way that is respectful of the environment and contributes to social growth.
• I will respect the rights and dignity of all people; I will hold accountable those employees whom I have entrusted with leadership responsibility. And I will provide opportunities for their growth.
• I will conduct myself with the highest level of integrity and take responsibility for my actions while laboring for the good of my organization, keeping myself and my leadership far from all intentional ill-doing, especially from damaging the economy, society and environment. And I will oppose all forms of corruption and exploitation.
Being a leader is honorable and requires hard work, skill, rightful behavior, accountability and responsibility. By taking this oath, you are declaring to the world that you will act as a responsible and accountable leader. By putting the oath into practice, you will be respected and make a positive contribution to your employees, shareholders and society.
I make this oath freely and upon my honor. Will you?

Tommy Weir is managing director of Kenexa Leadership Solutions. His latest publication is “The CEO Shift”

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail