Saudi Arabia to Overturn Ban on Camera Phones
Abeer Mishkhas, Arab NewsJEDDAH, 17 December 2004 — Saudi Arabia will overturn a ban on the import and sale of mobile camera phones in the Kingdom, press reports said yesterday
This looks like a stupid story, the “legalization” of camera-enabled cell phones, but it isn’t. It marks an important shift in Saudi thinking about behavior that could have ramifications far down the road.
For the past two years, the issue of “photo phones” has been a controvery. Saudi society greatly values privacy, particularly that of women. The ability to take photos surreptitiously was creating a problem because it was violating that privacy. Women were being photographed without their permission and the resulting photos were being used in a variety of way, many of which were socially unacceptable. Vulgar and obscene “photoshopped” images posted on the Internet were perhaps the most egregious misuse. But simply having their likenesses floating around beyond their control was very troubling.
What’s important about this ruling–if it in fact comes through–is that it is a distinct break with the theory of social controls and crime that has prevailed in the country. Up to now, the general principal was to prevent sin rather than to punish sin. If something “might” cause a problem, banning it was the automatic solution.
Here, though, misuse of the technology will be punished, not the technology which indeed has benign uses. This is a big step in moving responsibility for behavior to the individual and taking it away from society. It suggests that the idea of individual rights and liberties is making some headway, while the belief that individuals must be protected against themselves is losing ground.
Islamic Web Site Posts Alleged Bin Laden Tape
CAIRO, Egypt (Associated Press) — A man identified as Osama bin Laden, speaking on an audiotape posted on an Islamic Web site Thursday, praised an attack earlier this month on a U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia and criticized the Saudi regime as weak and controlled by the United States.
The tape, which was more than an hour, was posted on a site known as a clearinghouse for militant Islamic comment. The identity of the voice could not be independently confirmed.
The tape appeared the same day another dissident had called for anti-monarchy protests in the kingdom.
Lest anyone forget that the Saudi government is also a target of UBL, he offers this timely reminder in the form a a tape that was posted to an Islamist website. You get a sense that things are changing in the country, in a way he doesn’t like, when he goes out of his way to condemn the upcoming municipal elections as un-Islamic. According to his (and other radical fundamentalists’) interpretations of Islam, democracy is an usurpation of the role of God. That, thankfully, is not a view universally held in the Islamic world.
This tape can be viewed as laying down a marker for all pending elections in the Muslim world, including Palestine and Iraq.
Terror Suspects Deny Al-Hair Torture Reports in Televised Confession
Mahmoud Ahmad, Arab NewsJEDDAH, 16 December 2004 — Seven jailed terror suspects have made a televised appeal to extremists in the Kingdom to surrender, denying reports of torture in Al-Hair prison, with one — on the list of 26 most wanted terrorists — saying his jailers were nicer than his parents.
Something interesting I learned while in Saudi Arabia is that it’s approach to countering terror doesn’t use the same techniques that are used by the FBI, for instance. But the success rate is at least as high. When terror suspects are being interrograted, for instance, an imam is almost always present. He provides religious arguments against the behavior of the suspect, undercutting many of the supposed rationales for commiting acts of terror. This is not only more culturally appropriate, but it’s also more effective because it pushes the right buttons, something not obvious to foreign law enforcement officers.
The Saudis put the fathers and brothers of suspected terrorists on TV because Saudi society runs very much upon familial relationships. A father’s heaping scorn on a son, in public, is a very heavy weapon.
This article discusses another aspect of tailor-making anti-terror programs. By having the individual suspects repudiate their crimes in public, in clear view of mass audiences, the government can demonstrate that its methods are not those portrayed by the rumor mills. The young men involved are exactly the same demographic as those of most concern. They have credibility that no government press release or ministerial statement can have. Audiences can tell of they are speaking through coercion, or if they’re drugged. And when it’s clear that they are neither, their words hold import.
Just because a particular investigative technique works in Chicago or Denver does not mean that it’s the best technique to use in other cultures. The Saudis do know how to use the pressure points of their own society to reach desired ends.
Environmentally Incorrect
Abeer Mishkas, abeermishkhas@arabnews.comOn a visit to Makkah last month, when I passed through a crowded street where the air was polluted with emissions from all the cars, I noticed how environmentally unfriendly our streets are. As we drove to the Holy Mosque, the air was thick and unbearable — so much so that the traffic police were wearing masks even as unfortunate pedestrians and others inhaled all the poisons being emitted. How much of what we were breathing, I wondered, was oxygen?
I’ve written before on the environmental problems that are plaguing the city of Jeddah. This article by Abeer Mishkas does a good job of capturing the scope of those problems. People do tend to forget that even if it has a lot of the flashy symbols of development, Saudi Arabia is still a developing country. It has the same sorts of problems as any number of countries in Asia, Africa, or Latin America in trying to cope with exploding populations and limited governmental budgets, as well as a bureaucracy that is not always of the highest professional caliber. Worth reading.
Putin’s Old Habits Aren’t Dying
Dr. Mohammed T. Al-Rasheed, comments@d-corner.comRussia has, or would like to project, a new face to match the new post-Soviet era. Yet President Putin is proving the adage that old habits die hard to be precise. A KGB man, he has yet to shake off his genetically modified behavior to suit the new era. Not long ago he used the school incident to deny his citizens democratic procedures to elect their governors. The Kremlin would appoint them, he declared. And that, as if by magic, will solve his problems.
Dr. Al-Rasheed is pretty certain that the attempt to poison the Ukrainian candidate for prime minister Yushchenko. He makes his case in this article and notes that terrorism is terrorism, whether it is one or a multitude of victims.
Sacrificial Sheep Coupons to Cost More This Time
Habib Shaikh, Arab NewsJEDDAH, 16 December 2004 — The sacrificial sheep coupon, which is part of the Project for the Utilization of Sacrificial Animals During Haj managed by the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), will cost SR75 more this year than last. This year’s coupon, available at Al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corp., will cost SR450 compared to SR375 last year.
Dr. Ahmad Ali, president of the IDB, emphasized that the bank made every effort to keep the price down but that the increase reflected market conditions. As for camels, the market is open and pilgrims can negotiate a price including all services from slaughter to transport.
Every year, at the end of the Haj in Mecca, tens of thousands of animals are ritually sacrificed. The Saudi government has established an official selling price for sheep in order to prevent price gauging. It is also working to improve the system by which sacrificed animals make their way to the tables of the poor, in Saudi Arabia and abroad. This is an interesting article about a problem that doesn’t affect any other country in the world.
The previous article, discussing how new housing development for the Eastern Province was announced at a conference of charitable organizations, is a strange one. The bulk of the article is actually a discussion of how the Saudi government has taken over control of activities conducted in the name of charity in order to ensure that money is not being diverted into terrorist channels:
The conference is being attended by representatives of philanthropic associations from all over the Eastern Province to discuss the prospects for charity work in light of the constraints facing Islamic charities under the prevailing conditions.
Minister of Labor Dr. Ali Al-Namlah said the number of charity bodies in the Kingdom was on the rise and that 306 such organizations are currently active in the country including 25 run by women and 38 operating on a private basis. The combined revenues of these societies exceed SR1.34 billion ($357 million). He described the road to charity as a long and extremely difficult one but appeared upbeat about the public and private support that charity organizations continue to receive.
He said the ministry was keen on ensuring that charities operate under strict regulations and would not allow charity work to be infiltrated by some having underlying purposes. In a move intended to streamline Saudi charities abroad, the government last year dissolved Al-Haramain Foundation, which has been accused by the United States of funding terrorism.
The management of the foundation was asked to close its doors, shut down its foreign offices and dismiss its personnel, who at one point numbered 5,000, most of them volunteers, working to assist the poor all over the world. Al-Haramain figured among a number of Muslim charities accused by Washington of financing terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
The foundation and other private groups that have been dissolved had their international operations and assets folded into a new body named the Saudi National Commission for Charitable Work Abroad. Saudi officials said the commission would be subject to strict financial legal oversight, and will operate according to clear policies to ensure that charitable funds intended to help the needy are not misused.
Two years ago the government set up the Charitable Fund to Combat Poverty following the visit of Crown Prince Abdullah to a slum area in Riyadh when he called for a national strategy to wipe out poverty in the country.
Dr. Al-Namlah told the Alkhobar conference that the fund has now changed its name to National Charitable Fund and that it is currently implementing five national projects to fight poverty and reintegrate needy families in different parts of the Kingdom.
2,000 New Homes for the Poor in Eastern Province
Abdul Wahab Bashir, Arab NewsJEDDAH, 16 December 2004 — A conference of charity organizations currently under way in the city of Alkhobar was told the Eastern Province would soon witness the launch of a major housing project to provide homes for the poor. Eastern Province Governor Prince Muhammad ibn Fahd told the gathering that under the project 2,000 houses will be built for the poor and needy in the region.
The Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia has historically been pretty far down the totem pole when it came to development projects. This appears to be an attempt to rectify that situation. Now that the Shi’i of the Eastern Province are being welcomed back into the fold of Saudi society, through their inclusion in national reconciliation projects, this is an important step to show that the government’s words are being backed in earnest.
One of my frequent commentors is persuaded that Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Arabian government is the source of all terrorism. Consistently quoted are sources that raise angry voices, but back their allegations weakly if at all. There is a truism: “Some sources are more reliable than others”.
When it comes to assessing whether or not the Saudi Arabian government is cooperating with the US government in the war against terror, I tend to take US government sources more seriously than I take non-governmental sources with clearly identifiable agendas. The linked piece is a product of the Saudi-American Forum, a group which is sponsored by the National Council on US-Arab Relations (NCUSAR). That group receives its funding from a variety of sources, including the Saudis. I consider it a benign organization, you may differ. Yes, the group itself has an agenda. What it is citing, however, is official testimony, by serving US officials, not opinion.
In any event, the linked article is testimony before the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee by representatives of the FBI, Treasury Department, and State Department. I think it can be stated fairly that their testimony represents the official thinking of the US government, where it concerns Saudi Arabia.
I fully realize, too, that not every government employee concurs with the assessment made in this testimony. While I was in Saudi Arabia it was clear that there was wide divergence of opinion, particularly between those currently serving in the country and those who had been there some years earlier. There was even wider difference of opinion between those who were serving there and those who had never set foot in the country. Unfamiliarity with the subject matter, however, is apparently not a disqualification for writing books, nor from proclaiming oneself “expert”.
Saudi Arabia is a difficult country for non-Saudis to live in, for numerous reasons. Many US officers and representatives who have served there had miserable times, again for numerous reasons. They also tend to lock in their view of the country based on the time they were there. That’s not at all surprising; it’s perfectly natural. But they do need to take into consideration that things change. Saudi cooperation with the US in fighting terror is not what it was in 2000, or even 2003.
Saudi culture and political life are not what they were in 2000, either. They’re certainly not what they were in 1989.
This interview with Usamah Al-Kurdi, [Ed: Also a product of NCUSAR] is a good exposition of some of the changes. Al-Kurdi is a member of the Majlis Al-Shura. In the interview he discusses the evolution of the Shura Council and where it’s headed. He talks about the reforms now taking place in the country as it faces the challenges that it must surmount to remain a viable member of the world community.
In Italy a court has ruled that the deportation of an imam last year was unlawful. In the UK, an imam has been held in prison since May and is due to appear in court next week on a range of charges. In France, several imams have been deported and the government plans to change the law so that imams must be fluent in French and have studied French law, culture and history. In the Netherlands, such a law has already been introduced and imams now have to learn Dutch and attend courses on Dutch values. In Germany, a similar law has been suggested by politicians.
All these moves are seen by some Muslims as a deliberate assault on Islam and as proof absolute that Islam is under attack in the West. That opinion is wrong. The attacks on mosques and schools are without question acts of Islamophobia — but they are the acts of twisted individuals and not of governments.
In fact what is being proposed in France and happening in the Netherlands should be welcomed by Muslims worldwide. Islam needs to indigenize across Europe….
Once again, the Arab News comes up with an excellent editorial. It calls for assimilation on the part of Muslim immigrants into their new societies. The writer sees it as a way to spread Islam. It might do that. But it will also expose Muslims to cultures that worked so successfully that it attracted them to emigrate in the first place. I truly don’t see the point in leaving a country with serious problems–political, economic, legal, whatever–and then trying to recreate the culture that suffers those problems.
Assimilation is hard, there’s no question about that. It’s hard on individuals, it’s hard on parents, it’s hard on children, each in their own painful ways. But it the absolutely necessary step to be taken if anything other than a recapitulation of failure.
For at least the first half of its history, the US was a country that grew and changed through assimilation. New immigrants arrived. They often lived in ethnic ghettos while earning a living and often didn’t have much time to assimilate, even to learn English. But their kids certainly did. They were put in public schools, did the things that their peers did, and were already part of America by the time they graduated high school. Granted, there weren’t a lot of options (though parochial schools were built around ethnically-oriented churches). But the education those children received were generally uniform, no matter where in the country they lived.
Equally, unions played a major role in easing assimilation–once they got past their nativist, racist problems. A worker, from no matter where, worked under the same conditions for the same pay, doing the same work.
[Yes, I realize this glosses over anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism, as well as disparate treatment of women, but I consider those problems that were resolved almost as soon as it was possible to resolve them; those arguments are for another day and another place. ]
Assimilation takes some time. I grew up in a city in Massachusetts that was very ethnically mixed, and geographically segregated. Italians lived in one part of town; French-Canadians in another. The Irish (who predominated) had several areas, while the Poles had several pockets. The English-descended were in one small part of town. Each group had its own church; each had its own parochial and public schools. The curricula were essentially the same–excepting religion classes–in all the schools. The factories and offices tended to hire along ethnic lines for quite a while, but that segregation broke down.
My parents’ generation was really the first to break through the ethnic barriers. With their adulthood came Irish marrying Poles and Italians; Poles marrying Italians and English. That generation was also mostly second-generation Americans, who had assimilated and accepted the basic ideas of what America was about.
There were almost no Black Americans in my town; they lived in the next, bigger city. But in the 60s, a new group came in–and it caused some social frictions–the Puerto Ricans. This was the first new group to enter the area in at least two generations. Then, in the 80s and 90s, it was Punjabis–both from India and Pakistan. Again, their differences were more apparent than their similarities… at first.
While there is no need to give up cultural identity as a price of immigration, it cannot be maintained in a pristine state if assimilation is to take place. As the editorial notes, you cannot be a citizen if you can’t speak the language or can’t understand the underlying ethos of a community.
How Effective Is Censorship?
Abdul Wahid Al-Humaid • Al-RiyadhIs it possible to have effective censorship at a time when people can so easily access banned material? It is very doubtful if censorship could be an easy task. Censors are rapidly losing their authority to influence people and events because censorship is no longer the effective tool it once was. In the past, censors enjoyed considerable power since they could easily control what people read and saw. With the Internet, satellite TV and other modern means of communication, it is now easy for people to access a site and read newspapers and magazines which may be banned. In addition, readers can now access major libraries where the contents of millions of books and other publications are available on the Internet for a very small charge.
Good article from the Arabic daily Al-Riyadh! The writer notes that once upon a time, censorship made sense, but in a world with global communications, it’s simply impossible. He argues for maintaining censorship in matters of religion–a debate that’s going on the the UK and other parts of Europe–but I of course disagree. Religion is a relationship between man and his God. It should be as open to criticism as any other aspect of life. Anti-blasphemy laws are an acknowledgement that any given religion cannot defend itself through its superiority.
Criticism can be ill-founded and simply wrong. It can be hurtful and hateful. But it should not be prohibited by law or censored by government. If you don’t like it, don’t listen. If you think it wrong, then speak up and say why you think so. If it’s published in a magazine or broadcast on TV, then don’t read that magazine, don’t watch that channel.
I do believe the US Constitution got it right. As the axiom goes, “the best defense against bad speech is more speech.” Don’t stop others from voicing an opinion; argue against it if you don’t like it. If it’s hurtful, then that’s rather a pity; life does not come with a “no-pain” guarantee. If it bruises your sensibilities, then toughen those sensibilities and realize that not everyone sees the world in the same way you do.
Certain kinds of speech can and should be limited by law: those whose utterance causes physical injury or death to others. But those that merely make people unhappy, uncertain, or offended should be protected vehemently.
Arabs and Globalization: Encroaching Identity Crisis
Ramzy Baroud, Aljazeera.netThanks to “Western imperialism†and the “shrewd ways of international Zionism†Arabs, we are told, remain out of touch with an array of social and cultural crises that have plagued their societies.
Problems and challenges in the Arab world are molded in so clever a way that the blame for them falls on someone else.
Contextualizing social diseases within a larger political framework is often helpful, but in the Arab world this practice is grossly misused.
This is an interesting article from Al-Jazeera, reprinted in Arab News. It’s written by an Arab-American journalist who’s the head of the Research & Studies Department at Al-Jazeera TV. While I certainly don’t agree with his assessment of US foreign policies as “abusive”, he still makes good points. He states that Arab identity is being crippled by failed institutions and feeble policies, overlaid with a strong dose of corruption. He throws a wet blanket on the too-common assertion that a conspiracy is at the heart of Arab failures. Certainly worth reading, particularly his prediction of what will happen if changes aren’t made.