The dynamic of democratic, nationalist and class struggles throughout the Muslim world has set in motion a new constellation of alliances between the imperial West (US and European Union) and Islamist parties, leaders and regimes, dubbed "moderate" by US officials, propagandists and academics.

This essay analyzes the changing contemporary context of imperial domination, especially the demise of longstanding client regimes. It then examines the previous significant ties between western imperial powers and Islamist movements and regimes and the basis of 'historical collaboration'.

The third part of the paper will outline the political circumstances in which the imperial powers embrace "moderate" Islamists in government and utilize "armed fundamentalists" in opposition to secular regimes. We will critically analyze how "moderate" Islam is defined by the Western imperialist powers. Is this a tactical or strategic alliance? What are the political "trade-offs"? What do imperialism's neo-liberal clients and their new 'moderate' Muslim allies have in common and how do they differ?

In conclusion we will evaluate the viability of this alliance and its capacity to contain and deflect the popular democratic movements and repress the burgeoning class and national struggles, especially in regard to the 'obstacles' posed by the Israel-US-Zionist ties and the continued IMF policies which promise to worsen the crises in the Muslim countries.

The Transition from Neo-Liberal Client Rulers to Power-Sharing with Moderate Islamists

The key motivation in Washington's and the European imperial troika's (England, France and Germany) embrace of what their press and officialdom hail as "moderate" Islamist parties has been the collapse or weakening of their long-term client rulers. Faced with the ouster of Mubarak, in Egypt, Ali in Tunisia and Saleh in Yemen, mass protests in Morocco and Algeria, the US-EU turned to conservative Muslim leaders who were willing to work within the existing state institutional framework (including the army and state police), uphold the capitalist order and align with the empire against anti-imperial movements and states. In Egypt, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) (the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood), in Tunisia the Renaissance Party, in Morocco the Justice and Development Party have all indicated their willingness to serve as reliable partners in blocking the pro-democracy movements that challenge the socio-economic status quo and the long-standing military-imperial linkages.

The Islamist collaborators are called "moderate and respectable" because they agree to participate in elections within the boundaries of the established political and economic order; they have dropped any criticism of imperial and colonial treaties and trade agreements signed by the previous client regions - including ones which collaborate with Israel's colonization of Palestine.

Equally important "moderate" means supporting imperial wars against nationalist and secular Arab republics, such as Syria and Libya, and isolating and/or repressing class based trade unions and secular-left parties.

"Moderate" Islamists have become the Empire's 'contraceptive of choice' against any chance the massive Arab peoples' revolt might give birth to substantive egalitarian social changes and bring those brutal pro- western officials, responsible for so many crimes against humanity, to justice.

The West and their client officials in the military and police have agreed to a kind of "power-sharing' with the moderate/respectable (read 'reactionary') Islamist parties. The Islamists would be responsible for imposing orthodox economic policies and re-establishing 'order' (i.e. bolstering the existing one) in partnership with pro-multinational bank economists and pro US-EU generals and security officials. In exchange the Islamists could take certain ministries, appoint their members, finance electoral clientele among the poor and push their 'moderate' religious, social and cultural agenda. Basically, the elected Islamists would replace the old corrupt dictatorial regimes in running the state and signing off on more free trade agreements with the EU. Their role would keep the leftists, nationalists and populists out of power and from gaining mass support. Their job would substitute spiritual solace and "inner worth" via Islam in place of redistributing land, income and power from the elite, including the foreign multi-nationals to the peasants, workers, unemployed and exploited low-paid employees.

Why the Empire Arms Fundamentalist Anti-Secular Muslims

While the US and EU have backed respectable "moderate Islam" in heading off a popular upheaval of the young and unemployed, in other contexts they have enlisted violent, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to overthrow secular independent anti-imperialists regimes - like Libya, Syria - just as they had done earlier in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. The US, Qatar and the European troika financed and armed Libyan fundamentalist militias and then engaged in a murderous eight months air and sea assault to ensure their client's 'victory' over the secular Gaddafi regime. Fresh from NATO's success, the US, the European 'Troika' and Turkey, with the backing of the League of Arab collaborator princes and emirs, have financed a violent Muslim Brotherhood insurrection in Syria, intent on destroying the nationalist economy and modern secular state.

The US and EU have openly unleashed their fundamentalists allies in order to destroy independent adversaries in the name of "democracy" and 'humanitarian intervention', a laughable claim in light of decade long colonial wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. All target regimes have one crime in common: Using their national resources to develop modern secular states - independent of imperial dictates.

NATO implements its campaigns through conservative 'moderate' or armed fundamentalist Islamist movements depending on the specific needs, circumstances and range of options in any given target nation. With the fall of pro-Empire 'secular dictatorships' in Egypt and Tunisia, pliable conservative Islamist leaders are the fall back "lesser evil". When the opportunity to overthrow an independent secular or nationalist regime arises, armed and violent fundamentalist mercenaries become the political vehicle of choice.

As with European empires in the past, the modern Western imperial countries have relied on retrograde religious parties and leaders to collaborate and serve their economic and military interests and to provide mercenaries for imperial armies to savage any anti-imperialist social revolutionaries. In that sense US and European rulers are neither 'pro nor anti' Islam, it all depends on their national and class position. Islamists who collaborate with Empire are "moderate" allies and if they attack an anti-imperialist regime, they become 'freedom fighters'. On the other hand, they become "terrorists" or "fundamentalists" when they oppose imperial occupation, pillage or colonial settlements.

Contemporary History of Islamist-Imperial Collaboration

The historical record of western imperial expansion reveals many instances of collaboration and cooptation as well as conflict with Islamist regimes, movements and parties. In the early 1960's the CIA backed a brutal military coup against the secular Indonesian nationalist regime of Sukarno, and encouraged their puppet dictator General Suharto to unleash Muslim militia in a veritable "holy war" exterminating nearly one million leftist trade unionists, school teachers, students, farmers, communists or suspected sympathizers and their family members. The horrific 'Jakarta Option' became a model for CIA operations elsewhere. In Yugoslavia the US and Europe promoted and financed fundamentalists Muslims in Bosnia, importing mujahedeen who would later form part of Al Qaida, and then backed the Kosovo Liberation Army, a known terrorist organization, in order to completely break-up and ethnically 'cleanse' a modern secular multi-national state - going so far as to have Americans and NATO bomb Belgrade for the first time since the Nazis in the Second World War.

During President Carter's administration, the CIA joined with Saudi Arabia's ruling royalty, providing billions of dollars in arms and military supplies to Afghan Muslim fundamentalists in their brutal but successful Jihad overthrowing a modern, secular nationalist regime backed by the USSR. The murderous fate of school teachers and educated women in the aftermath was quickly covered up.

Needless to say, wherever US imperialism faces leftists or secular, modernizing anti-imperialist regimes, Washington turns to retrograde Islamic leaders willing and able to destroy the progressive regime in return for imperialist support. Such coalitions are built mainly around fundamentalist and moderate Islamist opposition to secular, class- based politics allied with the Empire's hostility to any anti-imperialist challenge to its domination..

The same 'coalition' of Islamists and the Empire has been glaringly obvious during the NATO assault on Libya and continues against Syria: The Muslims provide the shock troops on the ground; NATO provides the aerial bombing, funds, arms, sanctions, embargoes and propaganda.

These Islamist-Imperialist coalitions are usually temporary, based on a common secular or nationalist enemy and not on any common strategic interest. After the defeat of a secular anti-imperialist regime, militant Muslims may find themselves attacked by the colonial neo-liberal regime most favored by the imperial west. This happened in Afghanistan and elsewhere after the overseas Islamist fighters (Afghan Arabs) returned to their own neo-colonized, collaborating home countries, like Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Egypt and elsewhere.

Contemporary History of Islamist-Imperial Conflict

The relation between Islamist regimes and imperialism is complex, changing and full of examples of bloody conflict.

The US backed the "modernizing" free market dictatorship of the Shah in Iran, overthrowing the nationalist Mosaddegh regime. They provided arms and intelligence for the Savak, the Shah's monstrous secret police as it hunted down and murdered tens of thousands of nationalist-Islamists and leftist resistance fighters and critics in Iran and abroad. The rise to power of the fundamentalist-anti-imperialist Khomeini regime fueled US armed attacks and provoked retaliatory moves: Iran backed and financed anti-colonial Islamist groups in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (the Shia parties).

Subsequent to 9/11 the US invaded and overthrew the Islamist Taliban regime, re-colonized the country, establishing a puppet regime under US-European auspices. The Taliban and allied Islamist and nationalist resistance fighters organized and established a mass guerrilla army which has engaged in a decade long war with armed support from Pakistani Islamist forces responding to US military incursions.

In Palestine, Washington, under the overweening control of Israel's Zionist fifth column, has armed and financed Israel's war against the popularly elected Palestinian Islamist Hamas government in Gaza. Washington's total commitment to the Jewish state and its colonial expansion and usurpation of Palestinian (Muslim and Christian) lands and property in Jerusalem and elsewhere reflects the profound and pervasive influence of the Zionist power configuration throughout the US political system .They secure 90% votes in Congress, pledges of allegiance from the White House, and senior appointments in Treasury, State Department and the Pentagon.

What determines whether the US Empire will have a collaborative or conflict-ridden relation with Islam depends on the specific political context. The US allies with Islamists when faced with nationalist, leftist and secular democratic regimes and movements, especially where their optimal choice, a military-neo-liberal alternative is relatively weak. However, faced with a nationalist, anti-colonial Islamist regime (as is the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran), Washington will side with pro-western liberals, dissident Muslim clerics, pliable tribal chiefs, separatist ethnic minorities and pro-Western generals.

The key to US-Islamist relations from the White House perspective is based on the Islamists' attitude toward empire, class politics, NATO and the "free market" (private foreign investment).

Today's 'moderate' Islamist parties in Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco (and elsewhere), which have offered their support to NATO and its wars against Libya and Syria, uphold 'private property' (i.e. foreign and imperialist client control of key industries) and repress independent working class and anti-imperialist parties: They are the Empire's "new partners" in the pillage of the resource-rich Middle East and North Africa.

The US-brokered counter-revolutionary alliance among moderate Islamists, the previous military rulers and Washington is fraught with tensions. The military demands total impunity and a continuation of its economic privileges; this includes a veto on any legislation addressing the previous regime's brutal crimes against its own people. On the other hand, the Islamist parties uphold their electoral victories and demand majority rule. Washington insists the alliance adhere to its policy toward Israel and abandon their support for the Palestinian national struggle. As these tensions and conflicts deepen, the alliance could collapse ushering in a new phase of conflict and instability.

Emblematic of "moderate Islamiist" collaboration with US-EU imperialism is the role of Qatar, home to the 'respectable' Arabic media giant, Al-Jazeera, and the demagogic Qatari "spiritual guide" Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi. Sheik Youssef quotes the Koran and Islamic moral principles in defense of NATO's 8-month aerial bombing of Libya, which killed over 50,000 pro-regime Libyans (themselves Muslims). He calls for armed imperial intervention in Syria to overthrow the secular Assad regime, a position he shares comfortably with the state of Israel. He urges the "moderate Islamists" in Egypt and Tunisia to cease any criticism of the existing economic order, ( see "Spiritual guide steers Arabs to moderation", Financial Times, December 9, 2011 - p5). In a word, this respectable Muslim cleric is NATO's perfect Koran-quoting "moderate Islamist" partner - a dream come true.

The Strategic Utility of "Moderate" Islamist Parties

Islamist parties are approached by the Empire's policy elites only when they have a mass following and can therefore weaken any popular, nationalist insurgency. Mass-based Islamist parties serve the empire by providing "legitimacy", by winning elections and by giving a veneer of respectability to the pro-imperial military and police apparatus retained in place from the overthrown client state dictatorships.

The Islamist parties compete at the "grass roots" with the leftists. They build up a clientele of supporters among the poor in the countryside and urban slums through organized charity and basic social services administered at the mosques and humanitarian religious foundations. Because they reject class struggle and are intensely hostile to the left (with its secular, pro-feminist and working-class agenda), they have been 'half-tolerated' by the dictatorship, while the leftist activists are routinely murdered. Subsequently, with the overthrow of the dictatorship, the Islamists emerge intact with the strongest national organizational network as the country's 'natural leaders' from the religious-bazaar merchant political elite. Their leaders offer to serve the empire and its traditional native military collaborators in exchange for a 'slice of power', especially over morality, culture, religion and households (women), in other words, the "micro-society".

For their part, they offer to marginalize and undermine the left, anti-imperialist secular democrats in the streets. In the face of mass popular rebellion calling into question the imperial order, a 'moderate' Islamist-imperial partnership is a 'heavenly deal' praised in Washington, Paris or London (as well as Riyadh and Tel Aviv).

Conclusion: How Viable is the Imperial-Islamic Coalition?

Those who thought that the spontaneous pro-democracy movements spelled the end of the imperial order left out the role of organized "moderate" Islamist electoral parties as able collaborators of Empire. The brutally repressed mass mobilization of unemployed youth was no match for the well-funded grass roots community organization of the moderate Islamists. This is especially true when politics shifted from the street to the ballot box, a process that the Islamist parties facilitated. In the absence of a mass revolutionary party, seeking state power, the existing military-police state was able to work around the mass protesters and put together a power sharing agreement at least in the short-run.

In the November 2011 elections, the radical Egyptian Islamist party, Nour, gathered one-quarter of the vote in Cairo and Alexandria. Their showing was even higher among the urban poor districts, which promises even greater support among poor rural constituencies in the coming elections. Essentially a Salafist Islamist party, Nour, unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, combined denunciations of class abuses and elite corruption with mass appeals to a return to a mythic harmonious life. They used effective grass roots organizing around basic services in order to gain a greater proportion of the working class vote than all the leftist parties combined. Nour's message of "class retribution against the ...abuses of Egypt's elite fueled Nour's new found popularity", (Financial Times December 10, 2011 p6).

Despite the successes of the Islamist-Imperial partnership, the world economic crises and especially the growing unemployment and misery in the Arab countries will make it difficult for the 'respectable moderate' Islamists to stabilize their societies. They are inextricably constrained by their alliances to function within the confines of the 'orthodox neo-liberal framework' imposed by the Empire. For that reason, the "moderate" Islamists will try to co-opt some secular liberals, social democrats and even a few leftists as 'minority partners', so that they won't be held solely responsible for dashing the expectations of the poor in their countries.

The fact of the matter is that the pro-imperial Islamist parties have absolutely no answer to the current crises: Charities delivered from the mosque during the dictatorship won them mass support; now more austerity programs imposed from their ministerial posts will certainly alienate and infuriate their mass base. What will follow depends on who is best organized: Liberals are limited to media campaigns and tied to economic orthodoxy; the leftists have to advance from protest movements in the downtown squares to organized political units operating in popular neighborhoods, workplaces, markets, villages and slums. Otherwise radical fundamentalist, like the Salafists, will exploit the people's outrage with moderate Islamist betrayals and promote their own version of a closed clerical society, opposing the West while repressing the Left.

The US and EU may have 'temporarily' avoided revolution by accommodating electoral reforms and adapting to alliances with "moderate" Islamists, but their ongoing military interventions and their own growing economic crisis will simply postpone a more decisive conflict in the near future.

* James Petras is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals. Petras' latest books, Global Depression and Regional Wars (Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2009) is the third in a series, including Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2006), analyzing the influence of militarism and Zionism in American foreign policy.

By Lawrence Davidson * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Cartoon by Frederick Deligne, Nice-Matin, Nice, France

Mr. Mubarak suffers from the same syndrome as did Louis XVI just prior to the French Revolution. Louis lived in the royal complex of Versailles. He rarely visited Paris, which was just 25 miles away, and knew almost nothing of the daily lives of his non-noble subjects. Like Louis, Hosni too lives in isolation from the people who go about their business beyond the walls of his presidential palace. Thus, when Mubarak says he loves Egypt and will never run away from his country, he is talking about a place as distant from that of the ordinary citizen as the moon.

A sure sign of this disconnect came with the February 3rd report of an interview he gave with ABC's Christiane Amanpour. According to the correspondent, Mubarak said he was "fed up with being president and would like to leave office now, but cannot, he says, for fear that the country would sink into chaos." This is surely a sign that the Egypt he knows is not the Egypt commonly recognized by his people or the rest of the world. From outside the presidential palace it is starkly clear that a sort of popular chaos is what already besets Egypt and the only way to calm it is for Mubarak to leave office and probably the country as well. The vast majority of Egyptians can see that this is so. President Obama can see this is so and has probably emphasized the fact to Mubarak. Even the King of Saudi Arabia can see what is happening and has offered Mubarak asylum in his country. So why can't Hosni Mubarak see it?

Along with the isolation that rulers, and especially dictators, experience comes the phenomenon of "groupthink." In his book Victims of Groupthink (Houghton Mifflin, 1972), Irving L. Janis shows how governing political elites create self-reinforcing decision making circles. In other words, in the last 30 years Mubarak has surrounded himself with like minded advisers and aides. These are people who have a vested interest in his regime. They constantly reinforce his world view and second his decisions. There are no devil's advocates here. Being a military dictator also probably drives the groupthink outlook. Generals give orders, they do not normally take them. And, all too often, it is the orders given that are meant to shape reality and not the other way around. It is assumed that whatever deviation there is between the two can be swept away by force.

Up till now this has been the Egyptian dictator's expectation. His choice of vice president, Omar Suleiman, is a product of Mubarak's artificial groupthink world and no doubt selected to keep that world intact. Therefore, Suleiman's initial impulse was to reflect his master's preferences. Days and days of demonstrations by tens of thousands of Egyptians demanding Mubarak's immediate departure were deemed impractical and disrespectful of a man who has so long "served his country." But Suleiman, until recently head of the regime's intelligence services, now appears to have his doubts. Making reality match Mr. Mubarak's fantasy will almost certainly require such force as to guarantee the radicalization of the protest movement.

Most of the conservative talking heads both in the U.S. and in Israel fear the potential of an Iranian style outcome for Egypt. That is why everyone from Glenn Beck to Benjamin Netanyahu have called on Mubarak to get tough lest we end up with ayatollahs on the Nile. But Egypt is not like Iran, neither the Iran of 1979 nor 2011. There is no rational reason to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood will suddenly turn into the Sunni version of a Republican Guard. However, if the Egyptian government does "get tough" and ends up applying force, there is yet another scenario that presents itself, and that is the recent history of Algeria. Back in 1991-1992 the Algerian military crushed the country's Islamic political movement, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), just at the moment when it had won democratically conducted national elections. A military dictatorship was established which proceeded to arrest or kill all the moderate FIS leaders (those who had "worked within the system"), thus opening up the movement to much more violent factions. Indeed, these factions were ready to be as violent as was the country's military. The result was decades of vicious civil war.

One assumes that Omar Suleiman knows of the Algerian experience, and one assumes that someone from the State Department has filled in Barack Obama. Maybe they are both hoping that all the Egyptian protestors will just get tired and go home now that negotiations are said to be underway. This is unlikely to happen. With thousands of protestors still in the streets the opposition is most likely telling Suleiman that their reality is much more real than that of his dictator boss. If Suleiman is wise he will get the message and make it crystal clear to Mr. Mubarak that he has quite suddenly become a liability his nation can no longer afford. For unless Mubarak can shake off the groupthink, Egypt risks spelling liability, A l g e r i a. Now that will be chaos for you.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

It seems that football fans might be able to do what Arab governments have miserably failed to achieve or even address: lifting the illegal inhuman Israeli siege off Gaza!

Players line up before a football match on the first day of Gaza's version of the World Cup, in Gaza City, on May 2, 2010. Photo Xinhua/Wissam Nassar

Get involved!

Efforts like the Gaza World Cup, as cliché as it sounds, are only as strong as those who choose to seize the opportunity and get involved. Some have joined because they live in Gaza and know what the siege is doing to the long-term hope for peace. Yet so have many foreigners, as, whether they live in Gaza or have never been here, they can identify with what it feels like to suffer. Many others of varying religions are getting involved because they believe that faith should steer us towards respecting each other's humanity, not discourage it. And finally, a lot of newcomers to the Middle East are taking an interest simply because they're dumbfounded that none of the traditional powers have made any progress in the region over the last 60 years - and they want to help try something new - anything new - in the hopes that we can finally start to change direction in the Middle East. So for whatever reasons you're interested in supporting the Gaza World Cup, your involvement is warmly welcomed.

BRIDGING THE GLOBAL GAPS

Forming the core of the Gaza World Cup will be a partnership between 16 professional football clubs in Gaza and an equal number of foreigner amateurs residing in Gaza for various humanitarian purposes. The 16 Gazan clubs include each of the 14 first-level teams, and, if needed, the two highest ranking second-level teams. The availability of these 352 players will provide the backbone to ensure that the tournament is successful in both the caliber of play, as well as ensuring the event retains a strong local character.

Balancing out the teams begins with 250 international humanitarian workers and journalists from primarily Western countries currently residing in Gaza. Non-regional internationals currently based in Gaza and participating in the tournament include citizens of Britain, France, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States. Including these 125 potential players, along with encouraging outside journalists and other professionals with travel coordination residing abroad to journey to Gaza specifically to participate, the non-Arab participation goal is 100 players.

Regional participation will add a further layer of international solidarity to the tournament. With considerable numbers of Algerians, Egyptians, Jordanians, and Turks living in Gaza, a further six teams will play alongside the Palestinian team. The goal for regional participation, beyond Gazans, is 100 players.

In total, 400 players comprising 16 teams are planned, with 200 holding Palestinian nationality and 200 from other countries. And while a non-political event, it should be noted that a wide variety of Palestinian political factions are expected to join together and contribute players within the Palestinian half, promoting national unity over their own political agendas.

The teams involved are Algeria, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Palestine, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, and the USA.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Beyond direct player participation, the tournament will also extensively involve and unite many unique communities within the larger Gazan society. First off, each of the 15 matches will be free and open to the public, welcoming both men and women. And while all events will be confined to Gaza City for logistical reasons, it is widely believed that each of the 16 club teams from throughout Gaza will attract their own local fan base to the events.

A second goal of the tournament is to highlight the resilient strength and culture of Gaza, with a special focus on partnering art and technology with sport. Each aspect of the project, from designing logos, to billboards, to each of the 16 "national" jerseys, will be supported by local artists and graphic designers. And the winning team members will find themselves honored by a trophy hand-crafted from the reclaimed iron of Gazan wreckage, as well as intentionally celebrated by the skilled local tradition of urban graffiti. Each step will then subsequently be featured technologically, with a considerable effort to promote all aspects of the tournament online and in the media, supported extensively behind the scenes by local university students and recent technological graduates.

http://gazaworldcup.org/

Players of Palestine and a foreign team compete during the opening football match on the first day of Gazas version of the World Cup, in Gaza City, on May 2, 2010. The Gaza Strip kicked off its own version of the World Cup with teams of Palestinian footballers and foreigners representing foreign countries on Sunday. The trophy is made out of twisted metal and rubble from last year war with Israel. Photo Xinhua/Wissam Nassar

I admit I have missed the news when it was announced end of last July, but better late than never.

Honored to be Bahraini by soul for living in Bahrain for the last four years, I am very happy to know that Wafaa Ganahi, a 23-year-old teacher from the Law Faculty of Bahrain University, won the title, while the first runner-up was Miss Egypt Shaimaa Mansour and Miss Lebanon Rula Bahij, 23, was the second runner-up. Out of seventeen women from 15 countries attended the final competition.

On the other hand, what does this contest and these photos tells us other than the general perceptions about such events? Well, for me they mean a lot.

First, let me congratulate Miss Arab World, Miss Bahrain. She deserved it, and this leads me to my first note. As you can see from the attached photos, Miss Bahrain is a veiled lady, which leads to the conclusion that Miss Arab World - as well miss world - does not need to be unveiled to win a beauty contest. At least in beauty standards if you agree with me that veil does not hide beauty. I know that bikini show in such beauty contests is suppose to be a standard event, which probably every male in this universe are looking for :-) but Miss Arab World, and Miss Bahrain broke this rule - if I may consider it as a rule - and won for her beauty, real beauty. Not only that, but she also received official tribute which reflects how open Bahrain is.

Second, I'm not surprised to see some unveiled beauties from the last place one can expect, such as Saudi Arabia. The girl is gorgeous, but I bet that she is on the 'top wanted list' by Saudi religious men now, not for anything related to terrorism, no, but for her unveiled beauty and daring to show up. In my terms, Miss Saudi Arabia won Miss Arab World for her braveness to participate with all what we know about how she was perceived in her home country. Most probably she lives outside Saudi and her dreams to visit her homeland vanished forever.

Third, I'm really surprised and happy to see beauties from other conservative Arab countries such as Miss Yemen and Miss Sudan. They are setting new standards along with Miss Saudi Arabia and breaking all the stereotypes that we hear day and night by the Western media. Yes, behind the Hijab's, Niqab's and Burqa's we have very pretty ladies and we are not ashamed of showing them, in a modest way. A new generation will always fight the taboos for better life.

Last but not least, as a Palestinian, I'm proud to see Miss Palestine participating in this event despite all what Palestinians and the occupied lands are going through day and night by the Israeli terrorist occupation. Unlike Miss Israel, just imagine how many crosscheck she had to pass to reach an Israeli occupied port to be able to travel to Cairo for the event. Even if she lives in Israel, her journey will be under the same rules that govern the travel all Arab and Palestinian from Israel (more humiliating example).

Alright, enough blah blah... back to business, here are some photos I gathered from different sources around the web. In no particular order, take a look at Miss Bahrain, Miss Libya, Miss Saudi Arabia, Miss Lebanon, Miss Tunisia, Miss Egypt, Miss Morocco, Miss Kuwait, Miss Iraq, Miss Jordan, Miss Syria and Miss Algeria.

(Click thumbnail to enlarge)

In the fifth annual Reporters Without Borders Worldwide Press Freedom Index, in between 168 indexed countries, our beloved Arab countries makes sure to be among the worst.

Here is the list in order from "best" to "worst":

Kuwait - 73
United Arab Emirates - 77
Mauritania - 77
Qatar - 80
Morocco - 97
Lebanon - 107
Jordan - 109
Bahrain - 111
Algeria - 126
Egypt - 133
Palestine - 134
Sudan - 139
Tunisia - 148
Yemen - 149
Libya - 152
Iraq -154
Syria - 153
Saudi Arabia - 161
Oman - ?

Yemen (149th) slipped four places, mainly because of the arrest of several journalists and closure of newspapers that reprinted the cartoons. Journalists were harassed for the same reason in Algeria (126th), Jordan (109th), Indonesia (103rd) and India (105th).

But except for Yemen and Saudi Arabia (161st), all the Arab peninsula countries considerably improved their rank. Kuwait (73rd) kept its place at the top of the group, just ahead of the United Arab Emirates (77th) and Qatar (80th).

[...]

Lebanon has fallen from 56th to 107th place in five years, as the country’s media continues to suffer from the region’s poisonous political atmosphere, with a series of bomb attacks in 2005 and Israeli military attacks this year. The Lebanese media - some of the freest and most experienced in the Arab world - desperately need peace and guarantees of security. The inability of the Palestinian Authority (134th) to maintain stability in its territories and the behaviour of Israel (135th) outside its borders seriously threaten freedom of expression in the Middle East.

Reporters Without Borders compiled the Index by asking the 14 freedom of expression organisations that are its partners worldwide, its network of 130 correspondents, as well as journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists, to answer 50 questions about press freedom in their countries. The Index covers 168 nations. Others were not included for lack of data about them.

- Questionnaire for compiling a 2006 world press freedom index
- How the index was compiled

Evaluation of Middle East can be found here (and Middle East Index - PDF).

The United States has tied with Myanmar (the former Burma) for sixth place among countries that are holding the most journalists behind bars, according to a new report by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Each country is jailing five journalists. The United States is holding four Iraqi journalists in detention centers in Iraq and one Sudanese, a cameraman who works for Al Jazeera, at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. None of the five have been charged with a specific crime.

This year, a total of 125 writers, editors and photojournalists were held in jails around the world on Dec. 1, 2005, the report said.

Among the listed countries that are holding journalists behind bars, Algeria 3, Tunisia 2, Libya 1 and Morocco 1.

Unfurling banners and handing out leaflets, a score of Reporters Without Borders activists demonstrated outside the Algerian embassy in Paris today to mark Algerian newspaper editor Mohamed Benchicou�s 500th day in prison.

Sorry, Israel, the clash of civilizations will not happen. Despite all your efforts and the Zionist money to pit Arab against Americans, Arabs Do Not Hate Americans. Contrary to that, Arabs Care About Americans. Have you heard of the donations from Arabs to Katrina victims?

From Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, Bahrain, Syria, Morocco, Lebanon and Palestine. Almost $ 3 Billion worth of aid from Arab countries!

That�s not all:

The 22-member Arab League called on Arab nations to provide relief to the U.S. Its secretary-general, Amr Moussa, sent a cable of "deep condolences and regret to the U.S. administration over the effect of Hurricane Katrina."

Even Libya that was bombed by the US because Israel killed Americans and then forged a "message of confession" from Libya. Even Syria that Israel wants America to invade.

Not only that, even Iran Offers to send humanitarian aid to a country that has labeled it part of the "axis of evil".

In spite of all that, U.S. Government gave the Israelis a wall, while New Orleans gets flooded!

The Israeli wall is 455 miles

To put a wall around New Orleans would be 50 miles

Bush knew he had to build a wall, but he didn't know where so they decided to put it in Israel in the middle of the Palestine land.

The U.S. government gave $10 billion from the American taxpayers in 1991 to relocate millions of Russian Jews. The U.S. government gave Israel an apartheid-enforcing wall, built them scores of house in Gaza, and now they get $2.2 billion to move out of their illegal settlements. People are dying in New Orleans while these Russian Zionists get $ 300,000 houses - paid for by the taxpayer.

Now, federal troops are sent in with 'Shoot to kill' orders because people are stealing blankets and baby food and other necessities from Wal-Mart stores...

The U.S. government spent OVER $300 Billion for a regime change in Iraq because of Israel.

Will Americans please stop believing Israeli lies about Arabs and Muslims? Will Americans finally stop trusting Israelis?

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20050608_eberstadtNBRreport.pdf (PDF File - 828KB)

This report from the US-based National Bureau of Asian Research takes an unusual look at the HIV/AIDS situation in the Muslim world, highlighting the poor surveillance and inadequate knowledge of the extent of HIV/AIDS.

Excerpt:

What is especially troubling to behold is the reluctance to admit that Muslims engage in exactly those same dangerous behaviors that support the transmission and spread of HIV/AIDS elsewhere. This attitude of denial is deeply rooted in the cultural and religious attitudes of Islam and supported by the many authoritarian regimes that populate the Muslim world. This reluctance even to recognize the problem will only accelerate the epidemic and make it more difficult for the international community to provide meaningful support and treatment. Another sobering implication is that HIV/AIDS is now truly a global crisis in terms of both geography and impact.

In North African, Middle Eastern, and Asian Muslim societies, as in many other places affected by HIV, the disease first became common among IVDUs, homosexuals, and prostitutes and their clientele before spreading into the wider community. In 1999 14% of intravenous drug users in Bogor,Indonesia were infected, and 4.5% of people under treatment for a sexually transmitted infection in Qatar were also found to be HIV-positive. In 2000, twenty percent of female commercial sex workers tested in Dhaka, Bangladesh were found to be HIV positive. Most alarmingly perhaps, in that same year one percent of women reporting to a prenatal health clinic in Tamanrasset, Aalgeria for routine checkups tested HIV positive. This indicates that HIV has already become established enough in the community to infect married women with no known risk factors.

Shamelessly from the Political Musings of intectus

For years now, British Petroleum (BP) has published a fascinating annual report entitled Statistical Review of World Energy. Publicly available on their website, this report provides excellent insight into the sources and uses of fossil fuel energy around the world. Now what does this report have to do with the political issues canvassed on this blog? As it turns out, quite a bit.

When dinner party talk around the world turns to the behaviour of the neo-con controlled Bush regime, people tend to fall into two broad groups, pro-Dubya or anti-Dubya. The pro-Dubya group believes Bush's desire to spread neo-con democracy and freedom is unadulterated altruism of messianic proportions. On the other hand, the anti-Dubya group believes that Bush uses the cloak of democracy and freedom to further an agenda driven by oil.

Certainly, in so far as the illegal invasion of Iraq is concerned, the sound trashing of the original claims of Saddam's NBC weapons laid open the bare-faced pack of lies Dubya and his mates, Blair and Howard, peddled around the world over this war. But now that Team Neo-Con has well and truly trashed Iraq, who do we think is next on their agenda?

We all have our suspicions that Iran is more likely to be next to get it in the neck than North Korea. But we may not have evidence beyond our gut feelings. Or do we? Judge for yourself, after reviewing the following analysis based on BP's goldmine of information.

Let's travel back in time to the year 2000 when Dubya moved into the White House after stealing the presidency through a finagled Florida ballot. His neo-con priests would have impressed upon him, the need for America to control directly or by proxy, global oil supplies.

For a modern industrial society like America cannot allow others to dictate terms of America's very existence by possessing the ability to turn off the oil tap. Don't believe this? Remember the oil crisis in the 1970s? That was sparked by an Arab oil embargo against the US for supporting Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

By the way, there is nothing wrong in a nation wishing to obtain energy security. But when does legitimate protection of energy supply become an excuse for controlling global energy supply through illegal acts of war? Not an issue, I hear some say - it's part and parcel of global politics. Remember one of the key reasons for Japan going to war in the Pacific? It was because they were denied access to oil and other raw materials by the Western powers of the day, including the US.

Japan believed they had legitimate reasons to launch their four year campaign of rampage, pillage and terror throughout the Western Pacific. If it was wrong then for Japan to go to war over blockades, then surely it must be even less justifiable for the US to launch a war based on a pack of lies.

But I digress.

The pie graph below shows the regions around the world from which the US imported oil in 2000. Notice that nearly 50% came from the Middle Eastern and Central & South American regions combined. North America (ie domestic US, Canada and Mexico) accounted for just under a further 30% of oil imports.

Source: BP p.l.c.

Now the following pie graph below shows proved global oil reserves by region in 2000. Notice that the US drew only 27% of its oil from the Middle East despite the region having a whopping 63% of proved global reserves. Contrast this with the fact that the US drew 20% of its oil from Central & South America despite that region having only 9% of proved global oil reserves. So you can see that back in 2000, the Middle Eastern region didn't have overwhelming leverage over the US in terms of oil supply. But the rest of the world was in fact far more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US.

Source: BP p.l.c.

Just how dependent other countries are on Middle Eastern oil (in contrast to the US) is easy to see in the following table of exports against imports by region. In this case, the data are from 2003, as 2000 figures are no longer available. The standout dependencies on Middle Eastern oil are China (40%), Japan (79%) and Other Asia Pacific (72%).

Remember what Dubya said of China when he first gained office? For those who've forgotten, he identified China as a strategic competitor to the US. Only China has shown itself to be prepared to shove back when shoved by America. With China on a path to becoming a superpower capable of challenging US control of the Pacific inside this century, it's now obvious why the neo-cons are so eager to resort even to illegal wars to ensure America controls directly or by proxy, Middle Eastern oil supplies.

If the neo-cons succeed, they believe that they can control China by threatening to turn off the Middle Eastern oil tap. Don't believe this proposition? Then stay tuned for more evidence.

As for Japan, it looks like they aren't going to pursue a less obseqious foreign policy towards the US any time soon, huh? And if any of the other Asian and Indian sub-continent natives get too uppity, well they'll just have to be reminded who controls their energy lifeblood.

Turning to Europe, notice that it imports about the same proportion of its oil as the US, from the Middle East. A far greater proportion of oil sourced is from within Europe (Norway) and Eurasia (Russia and former Soviet Republics such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan). So it's more difficult for Europe to be influenced via the oil lever.

Source: BP p.l.c.

The next table shows proved oil reserves by country in the Middle East region in 2000. Countries politically unsympathetic to the US are highlighted in red text while those that are politically sympathetic or under proxy control are highlighted in blue text. Notice that Iraq and Iran have the second and third largest proved oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. We all know what happened to Iraq in 2003. Guess who controls their oil resources now?

Since seizing control of Iraq, isn't it interesting how Team Neo-Con has now been emitting bellicose noises at Iran? Officially, the Bush regime claims that Iran's nuclear program is capable of military applications. But why is this more of an immediate threat than North Korea's admitted possession of nuclear weapons and very public test firings of missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads?

If it was good enough for Dubya to fabricate evidence of NBC weapons to invade Iraq, why isn't it good enough for him to invade North Korea, given their admissions? Instead, we find the neo-cons' focus is on Iran with its probable nascent nuclear program. Interesting lack of consistency, isn't it?

That's why we shouldn't be surprised if and when some sort of confrontation with Iran occurs before the end of Dubya's presidency. And if, perish the thought, another Republican sits in the White House, expect more of the same.

By the way, even though Syria is one of the founding members of Dubya's Axis of Evil, they can still sleep easy. They are very, very unlikely to be invaded by the neo-cons any time soon. Just like that bleak death camp, North Korea, I suspect Syria has little of something called oil to warrant an invasion. I mean, Team Neo-Con doesn't just go to war over a small drop of oil, you know!

Source: BP p.l.c.

As the table below shows, Venezuela has the absolute lion's share of proved oil reserves in the Central & South American region. What's the significance of this fact? Well, as the very first pie graph in this post shows, the US imports a fifth of its oil from Venezuela. This means that the US would have particularly strong reasons to ensure a politically pliable Venezuelan leadership holds office down south.

But in 1999, Venezuelans voted to replace a corrupt pro-US leader with a leftist ex-paratrooper. Sickened by corrupt politicians and the elite lining their own pockets, voters decided to back Hugo Chavez because he promised tough political and social reforms. After taking office, Chavez began to pursue a foreign policy far less aligned towards the US.

Unsurprisingly, the Bush White House then began to run a line that Chavez wasn't acting in the best interests of Venezuela. Along the way, an unsuccessful Right wing led coup against Chavez fortuitously arose out of nowhere but sparked little adverse comment from the neo-cons. Strange, huh?

Source: BP p.l.c.

Now to Africa. As the very first pie graph of this post shows, the African region accounted for 15% of America's oil imports in 2000. And as the table below shows, Nigeria and Libya together have 70% of the region's proved oil reserves. And what a surprise to find American involvement or interest in both countries' affairs to the exclusion of attention on other more wretched humanitarian disasters in Africa. No significant oil in those other places - that's their problem.

Source: BP p.l.c.

The last region of note is collectively known as Europe and Eurasia. Here, Russia has the lion's share of proved oil reserves. Now as the red text highlights, the Russian government isn't politically pliable nor sympathetic to the neo-con agenda. So why not cosy up to the Russian oil companies that control the drilling rights?

Unfortunately for the neo-cons, Putin wised up to their support of the former Yukos chief, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and found a way to remove him. Now before we get all teary-eyed over the anti-democratic actions against Khodorkovsky, as Team Neo-Con wants us to be, we need to understand how this man became an oil tycoon in the first place.

When the former USSR disintegrated into its various new republics, state assets such as oil exploration and production rights, were bought for ridiculously low prices by individuals like Khodorkovsky with no proper legal and financial frameworks to ensure Russian citizens (in this case) received commercial prices for their former state-owned assets.

Often, the individuals buying the assets were the same officials charged with selling the assets, or were close relatives of those officials. After all, how else could a 30+ year old man in a country where individual private wealth didn't exist, suddenly become a multi-billionaire overnight? Through his family fortune and business talents previously non-existent in a command economy? Give us a break! We should save our tears for someone more deserving.

Source: BP p.l.c.

Notice that even though the US sourced only 7% of oil imports from this region, Eurasia (comprised of a number of former Soviet republics) has about 35% of proved global gas reserves (in addition to significant proved oil reserves). So why is it that despite not importing significant quantities of gas or oil from Eurasia or Central Asia, the US still has military bases in Kyrgyzstan (landlocked country which borders China), Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan; and has struck direct unspecified military cooperation agreements with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan?

What is the underlying strategic intent behind this unprecendented move into a region of zero historical connection and interest to the US?

Is it really in support of the so-called "War on Terror" in Afghanistan, as claimed by the Bush regime? Isn't it a little odd that so much money is being spent on bases all around this region, to find one guy - Osama Bin Laden? And despite the enormous resources expended, they still can't find this guy. Maybe they don't want to find him. After all, if Bin Laden is found, what publicly acceptable reason is there for the US bases to remain in Central Asia?

On the other hand, if these bases remain, direct or proxy control of these resource rich countries places a powerful choke hold on energy supplies to the neo-cons' next big future enemy - China. Now there's a really plausible reason for spending billions of taxpayers' dollars...

Don't see the point? Take out a map of the Asian continent. Make sure you can see from China and Japan in the east, to Iraq and Turkey in the west. Imagine you are President Hu Jin Tao sitting in Beijing. You know your fast growing economy needs reliable energy supplies to fuel its growth.

At present 40% of your oil is from the Middle East, a region under the American thumb. Another 30% of your supply is from the Asia Pacific region, another American lake. While only 10% is from Eurasia (Central Asia), this region has vast resources which could supply a far greater proportion of your energy needs than it does now. And since this region is adjacent to your western borders, perhaps you can achieve better security over these supplies. After all, Middle Eastern oil must pass through waters controlled by the US Navy, as does oil from the Asia Pacific. You know it but unfortunately, so do the Americans.

So their Central Asian bases not only pose a threat to your desire for greater energy security, they also pose a threat of military encirclement. You see, US bases on your western borders (Central Asian republics), US bases on your southern borders (Pakistan, Thailand and Singapore) and US bases on your eastern borders (Taiwan, South Korea and Japan) aren't there to spread neo-con democracy and freedom. They are there to contain you. But ironically, if the shoe was on the other foot - ie Chinese bases in Mexico, Cuba and Canada, to name a few countries, imagine the McCarthy type campaign that would be running rampant in Fort Dubya now!

In summary, Team Neo-Con has a deep agenda in relation to oil. This agenda extends beyond legitimate protection of US energy supply, over to direct or proxy control of global energy supply in the form of a publicly unrecognised Cold War. Under the guise of promoting freedom and democracy, the neo-cons believe they can forestall the inevitable decline of Pax Americana through fair means or foul.

They have already demonstrated their preparedness to prosecute illegal and immoral wars to achieve their ends, and have duped most of their own citizens in the same way Big Brother did in George Orwell's classic novel, 1984. Even though the neo-cons have succeeded in subverting the high principles upon which their own nation was founded, they haven't yet accomplished the same mission outside America.

Let's hope they fail miserably.

That is the plea of the 408 Moroccan prisoners of war currently held by the Polisario Front in the Western Sahara. With many having been incarcerated for over two decades, they are currently the longest-serving POWs in the world. Six recently released POWs who met with The Washington Times told their tragic tales of torture, mutilation and starvation at the hands of their captors. All had been prisoners for more than 20 years. "We have lost everything," said one.

The conflict between Morocco and the Algerian-backed Polisario Front goes back to the 1970s. The Polisario Front represents the Saharawi tribe, who claim sovereignty of the region today known as Western Sahara, and includes portions of southwestern Morocco and western Algeria, where they are based at the city of Tindouf. Beginning in 1975, Morocco and the Polisario fought a bloody guerrilla war over the disputed region. In 1991, both sides agreed to a U.N.-brokered cease-fire under which they agreed to release their thousands of POWs as required by the Geneva Conventions. Instead, the Polisario Front has used Moroccan POWs as political leverage to elicit aid and funds from non-governmental organizations.

At the present, Polisario's cause seems to be lost, their troops are outnumbered by Morocco's, Libya's and especially Algeria's support for Polisario a precondition for their continued fighting has dwindled quicker than international and African attention to the claim on independence for Western Sahara has disappeared from the news headlines.

Here's some good news from the Jordan: Israel, Iran, Syria, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Palestine Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Algeria, Jordan and many other countries from around the globe (click below graph for a list of other countries), need no "Open SESAME magic" to be able to cooperate on an advanced scientific project.

In Al-Balqa' Applied University, just north of Amman - and at a comfortable distance from the spotlight thrown by political conflicts - representatives of these countries are involved in developing SESAME, an acronym for Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East.

It's a rare and possibly unique example of scientific cooperation between Israel and so many Arab countries. Libya is expected to join soon as an observer. The UNESCO umbrella had been used in much the same way in the years following World War II to bring together two initiatives: one originating from physicists, the other pushed by politicians to use science as a pathway for regional cooperation and cohesion in Europe. That early "science for peace" effort built the European Particle Physics Laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland-CERN. Schopper states that the Council originally created by UNESCO for the project retains a symbolic presence in the "C" in CERN, which is still governed by a Council with ultimate authority in all scientific, technical and administrative matters.

The political importance of the project cannot be underestimated. Scientists in the region work together in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of developing the Middle East.

SESAME, the Middle East's first major international research center, is a synchrotron accelerator. It uses magnets to create a circular path for electrons traveling at nearly the speed of light, producing a beam of bright ultraviolet and X-ray light, about the diameter of a human hair, that is directed down beam lines to end stations.

An international synchrotron-light source in the Middle East was first proposed in 1997, when peace seemed to be on the way. European and Middle Eastern scientists worked together, and with the contribution of an old German synchrotron, SESAME got underway.

Official website of the project in Jordan is here.

While you celebrate victory over Nazi Germany on May 8, 1945, will you admit the massacres of 45,000 Algerians?