Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere

As Iranian protestors use Twitter to communicate despite brutal government repression, and people around the world check Facebook for updates on the situation in Iran, it’s not surprising to hear that blogs are influencing political culture throughout the Middle East.

A study by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University shows that bloggers are also playing a role in the political culture of the Middle East. The study, called “Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture, and Dissent” looked at bloggers from the Middle East to see whether blogging contributes to the Internet’s influence on democracy in the region.

Check out the report and its conclusions here, along with an interesting graphic that maps out bloggers in the Middle East.

The Frightening Effects of Saudi influence in Pakistan

The Saudi political and religious influence on countries worldwide should not be underestimated, as it is a significant menace for international stability and security. President Obama faces a host of urgent global issues; yet the continued US support for the Saudi royal family only works against US interests and allows Saudi Arabia to continue denying basic human rights to the Saudi people.

Saleem H. Ali, a Pakistani who is a professor at the University of Vermont, observes in this article for the Daily Times that the Saudi influence in Pakistan is shoring up the Taliban and feeding religious extremism. Saudi financing of institutions that preach intolerance and hate and the spread of its state-sponsored branch of Islam, Wahhabism, creates insurgencies, religious friction, and turmoil in regions all around the world, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Chechnya, Bosnia, Nigeria, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and even the United States. Americans and the international community should be extremely skeptical about the Obama administration’s willingness to embrace autocratic regimes, including the Saudi royal family.

Why is Empowering Saudi Women so Important?

CDHR is hosting a conference on July 29^th on Capitol Hill about the importance of empowering Saudi women. The people of Saudi Arabia lack basic human rights, women in particular. Saudi women cannot make basic decisions about their lives, but must have the signed approval of male guardians to travel, receive surgery, to study, or to have a job, among many other basic daily activities. Saudi women are not allowed to drive. Saudi Arabia’s severe, exclusionary branch of Islam, Wahhabism, is the foundation for the denial of rights to Saudi women by the influential religious establishment and the Saudi royal family.

 

Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia’s forceful spread of this ideology abroad fosters extremism and poses a dangerous, growing threat to the security of the United States and the international community.  Additionally, many Americans do not realize that the United States continues to support the Saudi royal family despite its denial of basic human rights. The United States, as a promoter of democracy worldwide, and because of its influence as an international leader, has the moral obligation to cease supporting the Saudi royal family and lead a call for reforms. 

 

These informative articles outline the importance of empowering Saudi women and give examples of the horrific ways Saudi Arabia denies women basic human rights. 

 

Perpetual Minors: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia

A report from Human Rights Watch drawing on more than 100 interviews with Saudi women to document the effects of these discriminatory policies on a woman’s most basic rights.

 

What Drives the Youth into the Arms of Extremists

An article from Arab News on why extremism continues to thrive in the Middle East.

 

 Book Sheds Light on Flaws in Education System 

A female Saudi professor describes the Saudi education system as a “locked box” that encourages aspects that foster terrorism.

 

 A former Jihadist explains in an article for The Washington Post how he realized extremism was not the way of Islam and calls for an Islamic reform. Losing My Jihadism: A Cry for Change

 Mansour al-Nogaidan, author of the above article, explains his personal journey and calls for reform of Islam in an op-ed for The New York Times. Telling the Truth, Facing the Whip: 

Finally, in The Jihadi Who Kept Asking Why, Elizabeth Rubin examines the background of several ex-Jihadists, including Mansour al-Nogaidan. This in-depth article for The New York Times is very revealing about the causes of extremism and ways to prevent it.

An article from BBC News on the death of 14 Saudi girls who tried to flee a fire in their school. They could not escape because the school gates were locked, as they usually are to ensure strict segregation of the sexes. Schoolgirls Die in Mecca Stampede

 

 Saudi Police 'Stopped' Fire Rescue The Saudi religious police refused to allow schoolgirls to leave a burning building because the girls were not wearing the required headscarves and abayas. This resulted in the deaths of 15 Saudi schoolgirls.  

Banning the Burka

Should France outlaw the burka?

Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, has stirred up controversy by speaking out against the burka, declaring that the symbol of subservience should be banned in France. Sarkozy argued that the burqa, a full-body, concealing garment, imprisons women and prevents them from participating in social life. Sarkozy stated, “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.” In 2004, the Islamic headscarf and other religious symbols were banned in state schools in France. There are about five million Muslims living in France. If France decides to ban the burka, this will be a significant precedent for other European countries. 

Should France enact legislation against the burka? Some see the burka as a sign of oppression, disfigurement, and humiliation that is forced upon Muslim women. It originates in Saudi Arabia, from the severe Wahhabi branch of Islam. Should President Obama and the US Congress enact a law to ban the wearing of the headscarf, veil, and burqa in the United States?

 Here is the article from BBC News and another from The National. The BBC News has a link with an explanation of different types of Islamic head scarves, including the hijab, the burka, and the niqab. 

Additionally, James Delingpole in his column for the Telegraph thinks President Obama has a lot to learn from Sarkozy's outspoken rejection of the burka and what it stands for. 

What do you think? 

Save the Date!

Wednesday, July 29th

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, CDHR

Presents:

How empowering Saudi women can undermine Islamist extremism

CDHR invites you to support and attend this very important and thought-provoking conference. Many of you are aware of the marginalization of Saudi women and its destructive impact on Saudi and Muslim societies as well as the international community. Empowering and including Saudi women in their country’s development and decision-making processes will tilt the balance in favor of religious tolerance, social and political balance and the building of a forward-looking society.

The US has had mutual financial and strategic close relations with the Saudi autocratic ruling family for decades. Unfortunately, this relationship has ignored documented gross violations of basic human rights in Saudi Arabia. In addition, a deadly Islamist (Salafi) ideology, Wahhabism, is gaining strength in Saudi Arabia and in most Sunni Muslim countries and communities, especially in South and Central Asia, Europe and now in the US.

Contrary to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia’s calls for religious tolerance among different faiths, none exist in his kingdom, and Wahhabism is being exported and gaining strength everywhere.

It is our firm belief based on our intimate knowledge of Saudi Arabia, its people, religious sects, ruling family and its institutions, that empowering Saudi women will undermine religious extremism and its byproduct: Terrorism and religious totalitarianism. The American people, regardless of national origins, ethnicity and religious orientation and backgrounds have a stake in supporting the Saudi women to gain their natural and human rights to counter the Saudi deadly religious ideology.

We encourage you to join us for two panel discussions and lunch in the Capitol Visitors Center Room HVC 201 A&B on Wednesday July 29th from 10:00am to 2:00pm. Seats are limited, please RSVP and for futher information contact Lauren Baker at lauren@cdhr.info or 202.558.5552

An Opportunity for a Different Approach to Saudi Arabia

By Ali Alyami

Many Saudis and others, understandably, have greeted King Abdullah’s replacement of some of his government officials on February 14, 2009 with euphoria. Many have thought that removing two of the country’s religious extremists, namely doctor Ibrahim Al-Gaith and Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan, and deputizing a woman to the second post in the ministry of education represent major reform undertakings.

Abdullah’s bold action holds hope for belated and badly needed changes in Saudi Arabia, but it is premature to expect an end to the Saudi royals’ control over every aspect of people’s lives and the decision-making processes. It would also be naïve to expect the imminent eradication of religious intolerance and extremism, marginalization of women, discrimination against religious minorities or the legitimization of other religions, specifically Christianity and Judaism. This level of reform will require a transformation of all Saudi institutions and public participation in the decision-making processes. Prudent and knowledgeable students of the Saudi ruling family should not have been surprised by Abdullah’s move as he has been trying to assert himself for many decades, particularly after he took over the country’s day-to-day operation in 1996.
At personal and authority levels, Abdullah has not been accepted by the exclusive club of the Saudi princes, dubbed the Sudairi Seven (seven brothers named after the tribe of their mother’s origin). This group has ruled the country in one capacity or another for the last seventy years. Their monopoly over power has angered many princes and led some of their brothers to condemn them, mostly privately, but not always.1

In an interview in 2007, Prince Talal, a reformer and confidant of King Abdullah, lashed out at his half brothers, the Sudairi Seven, and accused them of “holding executive power for some 70 years." This is a group which is not only blocking reform, but is also "trying to eliminate others and take everything in its hand," he said. "We, in particular the sons of Abdul-Aziz, should take part, both in expressing opinions and in decision-making."2

Even though Prince Talal is outspoken and the most liberal prince in the family, many Saudis felt Talal could not have attacked his powerful Sudairi brothers without King Abdullah’s acquiescence, if not outright encouragement. Talal is not the only royal who resents the Sudairi brothers for their control of the decision-making processes: King Abdullah’s son, Mitab, the commander of the Saudi National Guard, has complained about lack of support for his father’s programs.

The excluded princes’ acrimonious sentiments and frustration were not directed only at their powerful Sudairi brothers, but toward those who supported them, especially the US. After King Abdullah took over the country’s day-to-day operation in 1996, one of his first pronouncements was, "It is time for the US and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests."3

From the outset, Abdullah tried to seek support externally and internally. As an Arab nationalist, he tried to present himself as the new leader of the Arab world. He focused on Syria and Egypt initially, but that did not work. He turned to Muslims and had some success, but not enough to overcome his powerful brothers’ popularity and connections, especially Crown Prince and Defense Minister, Sultan, who is reported to be very ill now. His illness and possible death is said to be a major reason for Abdullah’s action on February 14th. Abdullah also turned to China and India and made headway, especially in trade.

Internally, Abdullah did things that were considered revolutionary by Saudi standards. He encouraged political reformers to petition the government and air their grievances. The reformers did so and met with the King in 2003 and 2004 to demand constitutional monarchy among other things. The meetings with the King and the demands by the reformers infuriated the Sudairi Seven, especially the powerful Minister of Interior Prince Naif. In a direct affront to the King, Naif unleashed his security personnel to round up the reformers and throw them in prison in 2003 and 2004. It is well known that the Sudairis, especially Prince Naif (but also Crown Prince Sultan and Selman, the powerful and ultraconservative governor of the Saudi capital, Riyadh) are opposed to Abdullah’s guarded reform pronouncements and the public support for him. [It is worth noting that Prince Naif is the head of the highly detested and feared religious police who are more loyal to him than to the King. By removing two powerful hardcore religious figures, King Abdullah weakened Prince Naif’s powerbase].4

In addition, Abdullah sought public support for himself personally and for his initiatives, albeit indirectly. During his annual speeches at the Consultative Council (appointed national assembly), Abdullah presented himself as one of the people who is there to save and serve them. Just three days before he decreed the replacement of some officials, he said "I am nothing without my people."5

The recent development in Saudi Arabia is seen by many Saudis as an attempt to consolidate power under Abdullah and to preempt a possible palace revolt over succession to Crown Prince Sultan’s positions. However, King Abdullah understands that in order for him to maintain domestic and global support, some political, religious and educational adjustments have to be explored warily so as not to endanger the continuity of royal family control.

Even though Abdullah, Talal and other princes have an ax to grind against the West, especially the US, because of its support for the Sudairi Seven, these rulers have one overriding item on their agenda – to survive and stay in power. They know that they cannot survive internal and external threats without a superpower’s protection. The Saudi royals may criticize or differ with the US on policies, but when it comes to their protection, they know they can depend on the US.
This is where President Obama and his foreign policy advisers can start a new page with Abdullah, Talal and other princes. The power shift from the Sudairi branch of the royal family to King Abdullah and his royal supporters should not be treated as a strategic setback. On the contrary, this shift could lead to positive political change. The United States can now resume calls for progressive reforms that include public participation in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, only by reforming Saudi institutions can the perils of palace coups and family fratricide be put behind this important country, and all of us affected by its stability, or lack thereof.

1 http://news.bbc.co.uk
2 Gulf States Newsletter, 23 Jan. 2004, page one, issue 726, volume 28
3 WSJ Oct. 29, 2001
4 http://www.alwatan.com.sa
5 http://www.alhayat.com

Saudi Crown Prince and Defense Minister Prince Sultan is reported near death from incurable pancreatic disease

Washington, DC (January 27, 2009). There have been speculative reports about Crown Prince Sultan’s deteriorating health. CDHR has recently received reliable information that Prince Sultan is close to death from advanced pancreatic disease. Prince Sultan, who was appointed Defense Minister in 1962, came to New York on November 23, 2008 to seek treatment. According to credible sources, Prince Sultan was told there was nothing that could be done to save him. He is reported to be resting in Morocco now, but no more information was given out as to why he is in Morocco. Some Saudi eye witnesses reported seeing a large number of Saudi security personnel wandering in the main cemetery in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, a few days ago. Such activities happen only when a senior member of the Royal Family passes away.

CDHR has also received information regarding a fierce competition between Prince Sultan’s sons and one of their uncles, Prince Abdul Rahman, who happens to be a deputy Defense Minister and has been rearranging the ministry to take over even before Sultan passes away.

Prince Sultan has maintained a strong alliance with the United States and is seen by many Saudis as a powerful and decisive figure. His death could create royal crises and a leadership vacuum in an important, but unstable country that is threatened by internal and external forces.

The newly elected U.S. President Obama, the world community, and the people of Saudi Arabia could be facing a very critical succession of power in Saudi Arabia. All those concerned with the welfare of the people of Saudi Arabia hope this succession will be peaceful, and that state affairs will be placed in able and prudent hands. The Royal Family has planned a process, by means of the Allegiance Commission (created in 2006), designed to help this occur. However, the process is supposed to take place after Sultan’s ascent to the throne. His departure before the process takes effect could trigger an unprecedented family feud and could strengthen King Abdullah and his wing of the ruling family, an event many Saudis, including some prominent royals, would like to see happen.

The basic problem is that Saudi Arabia is using an archaic family system for the control of the state, and the succession of power. Under the current plan, the focus of power is reserved for the Royals. If their system falters, the country can falter. The ruling family has banned the evolution of civil society, political parties and political alternatives. A breakdown of the current system could have grave consequences for Saudi Arabia, the world, and the United States because of its close ties to the Saudi monarchy.

However, the Saudi royal family has a habit of keeping senior royals on life support for years, as is the case of former King Fahd, who was struck with a heart attack in 1996 and was kept alive until 2005. This is normally done to allocate the power of the departing family member properly before they let him die.

CDHR promotes the peaceful evolution of more democratic forms of governance, including the spread of free elections which include women, the devolution of responsibilities to elected officials, and openness and public accountability in public affairs. We understand that this can take time, and that the citizens and the Royals would have to grow into their new roles. However, taking this direction, in the long run, will bring stability and peace to Saudi Arabia.

We hope the upcoming succession process will be peaceful, inclusive and productive. We have no favorite or enemy in the succession process. We want the best for the people of Saudi Arabia, but what we are promoting is a better and more participatory system where all citizens share in the decision-making processes.

CDHR Calls for the Suspension of the Saudi Membership in the Olympics

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia calls on the International Olympics Committee (IOC), President Bush, the U.S. Congress, human rights organizations, and the media to deplore the Saudi government's decision to ban Saudi women from participating in the Olympics, which will commence on August 8, 2008, in Beijing. Denying Saudi women's full citizenship at home and excluding them from participating in international events is not only morally wrong, but in defiance of accepted international norms and declarations on human rights, freedom of movement, and respect for basic liberties.

Saudi Arabia plays a major religious and economic role in the lives of Muslims and non-Muslim because of its oil reserves and historical importance to Islam. As a result, the actions of the Saudi government resonate significantly in Arab and Muslim societies. Barring Saudi women from participating in the Olympic Games is contrary to the I.O.C. rules, which state that "Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympics Movement." Furthermore, this decision re-enforces and perpetuates the already offensive Muslim systems of segregation and discrimination against Saudi women specifically, and women throughout Muslim and Arab societies.

The Saudi government's manipulations of universal treaties and declarations of human rights, as well as its continued violations of human rights at home, is not only unacceptable behavior in the 21^st century, but ample grounds to declare Saudi Arabia a pariah state and to have its membership in the Olympics suspended until it abides by the rules of the International Olympic Committee. The King of Saudi Arabia initiated and presided over an interfaith dialogue in Spain (June 16^th through the 18^th, 2008) where he emphasized tolerance of differences and respect for all peoples. The king and his family should start to reconcile differences and respect their own citizens, men and women. There is no better chance for the Saudis to change their disdainful and unjust policies toward women than to abide by international norms and let them participate in the Olympics in Beijing, in August 2008. As the birthplace of Islam and host to its holy shrines, Saudi Arabia has an enormous obligation to show that Islam is not a religion of intolerance, extremism, oppression, segregation, and exploitation.

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia condemns the Saudi government's decision to deny Saudi women the right to be full citizens at home and full members of the international community. The Saudi government is practicing an Apartheid-like system that is similar to that of South Africa a few decades ago, for which it was barred from global events, boycotted, and declared a pariah government. The international community, especially Western democracies, should treat the Saudi government as they treated the segregationist Apartheid government in South Africa.