Tunrout in Egypt's General Strike: Apathetic or Afraid?

Analysts disagree as to whether the protest's dismal turnout was due to apathy (of which Americans are probably the most guilty, since unlike in the Egyptian case mass protests in the US could bring about some response other than police massacres) or fears of reprisals. AFP is reporting small demonstrations and a few arrests, but nothing substantial.

Iran's reformist presidential candidate?

I would be interested to know if Mousavi's comment on returning to the principles of the revolution included the adjective Islamic? If he characterizes the principles of the revolution as Islamic then he's playing to the Council of Guardians who could probably just have him tarred and feathered if they decided his beard was too short. On the other hand, if he just said "principles of the revolution" this means something entirely different, since most of the principles of the revolutionaries (feminists, leftists and intellectuals) had little to do with Islam.

The Daily Star has an article here on Mousavi, which seems to suggest that he is playing to religious sentiments. The Middle East Report devoted its most recent issue to looking back at the revolution, and confirms the strong participation of decidedly non-religious elements. One can only hope it's these principles on which Mousavi is waxing nostalgic . . . .

Obama replaces war games with diplomacy: what a novel idea

POMED's wire service reports:

"On Thursday (4/2), H.Con.Res.94, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), a bill which would encourage the negotiation of an "Incidents at Sea Agreement" between the United States and Iran, was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The bill calls for negotiations on not interfering with ship formations, maintaining safe distances, not permitting simulated attacks, as well as other measures. Such an agreement would mark formal engagement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and decrease the likelihood of an accidental military incident between the two in the Persian Gulf."

Agreements like this should exist between all countries, which would have prevented the incident between Iran and the UK last year. If military ships are going to be operating very near the territorial waters of a country with which you don't have good relations some sort of legal framework for acceptable behavior always helps to avoid possible hostilities.

I hope this song doesn't launch a generation of portly rappers from Dubai releasing records called "Bedouin Bling" . . . .

NPR's Marketplace has the story here:

Rapper feels 'Arab Money' isn't funny

Iraqi expat and hip-hop artist Yassin Alsalman used to be a big fan of Busta Rhymes. That was until the rap star released a controversial song called "Arab Money." Sean Cole reports.

Why do Arab leaders feel compelled to use stupid casual sex analogies to questions that would clearly be better answered using standard prose? Thankfully they replaced Shara with Mouallem before anyone was able to get a tape recorder in his immediate vicinity.

"Farouk al-Shara, the Vice-President of Syria, was, as Foreign Minister, his nation’s chief negotiator at Shepherdstown. When he was asked whether Syria’s relationship with Iran would change if the Golan Heights issue was resolved, he said, “Do you think a man only goes to bed with a woman he deeply loves?” Shara laughed, and added, “That’s my answer to your question about Iran.”

Syria Making Serious Efforts at Peace with Israel

The excerpts from Assad's exchange with Hersh offer yet more evidence that the regime is trying to engage seriously with Israeli peace and contribute productively to issues in the region. Assad has become famous for his ability to speak the language of Western ideals (which is why grouping together Assad and Ahmadinijad is like comparing Chavez to Kim Jong Il - just because Assad and Chavez don't worship at the altar of American imperialism doesn't make them raving lunatics. Ahmadinijad and Kim Jong Il on the other hand are fairly scary characters). So far Netanyahu's rhetoric is not very promising and neither is Lieberman's, but when responding to criticism Obama made about Syria in the run up to the Presidential election Assad said, “We do not bet on speeches during the campaign.” Hopefully that goes for Israeli campaigns too . . .

Winning the War on War?

Professor Joshua Goldstein recently presented his newest research project, "Winning the War on War," as part of the Middle East Seminar Series at the University of Maryland.

His talk is advertised with the following blurb:

"The number and size of wars is near an all-time low. From the killing of tens of millions in the World Wars, to millions in the Cold War, hundreds of thousands in the 1990s and tens of thousands today, war appears to be waning. Is this a stable trend or merely an interlude, and what explains the decline in war over recent decades?"

The most interesting part of the talk was Goldstein's point that the oft-quoted statistic that the majority of deaths in the 19th century were military but that the majority of deaths today are civilian is the result of a measurement error and in fact civilians have always been the source of most casualties. He frames the research project as a response to reports that emphasize the increasing incidences of civil conflict and generally increasing global levels of violence that are assumed to characterize contemporary society.

There were of course a lot of critiques of Goldstein's thesis, among them that levels of indirect deaths from conflict did not reflect this general downturn in battle deaths; that large conflicts are being replaced by smaller ones that are more diffuse and more difficult to track; and that although wars may be less lethal they are not less disruptive to society. I would agree with all of these, although Goldstein does point out an interesting quantitative trend.

I would argue the source of the trend is the increasing sophistication of technology that allows militaries to avoid civilian casualties - but which may also make war more likely (Iraq would certainly be evidence of this). And that this increasingly sophisticated technology probably isn't driven by international norms regarding the sanctity of civilian life so much as the increasing participation of communications and IT companies in the production of defense material. They can't exactly get new contracts for weapons that are less-precise and involve less engineering and technological implements. . . .

Perhaps as weapons get increasingly accurate incidences of attacks will increase. Casualties may also decrease, but living with the imminent threat of being a target won't, and therefore neither will the indirect effects of war like psychological trauma and low levels of economic investment.

Pink Taxis in Beirut: Women-Only!

I think there should be more businesses that cater to women and are operated by women. If male religious leaders and chauvinist politicians are going to continue to dictate the terms of life for women then we should just create our own society and shut them out as much as possible. Besides, women are in charge of something like 80% of family budgets so any business catering to them is bound to do better. Although this might put a lot of Syrian secret police out of a job now that demand for male-driven taxis in Beirut will go down . . . . .

Article here:

Write some new legislation already! If Congress can give the President unlimited power in waging war, why not in canceling contracts?

If the Administration can get GM's CEO to step down why can't they get the AIG financial services division employees to give up their bonuses?

Can't they just have a shareholder meeting and vote on these contracts? And isn't the government now the single largest shareholder?

Ending Diplomacy Before It's Begun?

The Times reports that:

"At a Gaza donors’ conference in Egypt on Monday, Mrs. Clinton told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates that she did not believe that Iran would respond positively to the Obama administration’s offer of direct talks."

Everyone knows (presumably including Secretary Clinton) that the UAE is embroiled in a conflict with Iran over ownership of a small chain of islands, and that the UAE would be interested in de-railing any US rapprochement with Iran. So why make a comment like this? Was it calculated? - to signal to Israel and other allied states (Egypt and Saudi Arabia) that their interests were still more important than healing the rift between Iran and the US? True, Iran has made far fewer "good faith" demonstrations than has Assad's regime in Syria (which has lost significant domestic capital each time it did so). Either way, comments like these damage diplomatic efforts - even before they've begun . . . .