Saturday, April 30, 2011
ما لا يقال عن منع المواطنات من المشاركة في الانتخابات البلدية
Friday, March 18, 2011
Pictures by Mark Tenally
Follow the link:
http://www.demotix.com/news/620182/support-day-rage-saudi-arabia-washington-dc
Islam is against Democracy
Rattled by the unprecedented and contagious revolts befalling Arab despots around them, the Saudi monarchy has realized that bribery is not enough to placate their disenfranchised citizens. The notorious Saudi Minister of Interior, Prince Naif, issued a stern warning against any public demonstration by anyone at anytime in the repressive desert kingdom. As usual, his royal warning was immediately echoed by the top religious clerics including the Saudi Mufti, Al-Ashaikh. According to the Imam of Prophet Mohammed’s Mosque in Madinah, Al-Hudaifi, “Laws and regulations in the Kingdom totally prohibit all kinds of demonstrations, marches and sit-in protests as well as calling for them as they go against the principles of Shariah and Saudi customs and traditions… There is no place for chaotic demonstrations in this country of monotheism because Shariah is the dominant force in this country.”* This is the first time the religious establishment has unequivocally asserted that Islam is against individual liberty and freedom of expression. This means that as long as the Quran is the country’s constitution and the Shariah is its law, there can be neither political participation nor personal freedom.
Given the sweeping Arab uprisings against their autocratic ruling elites, it is unlikely that the Saudi royals will be spared. Their people have suffered more from social, political, economic, religious, gender, and ethnic oppression than any other Arab society. Segments of Saudi society have expressed displeasure with the ruling family since the 1950s, a time when the oil industry’s maltreated employees conducted massive demonstrations in Eastern Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi ruling family has been able to survive and thrive until now because Western countries, especially the United States, are committed to protect it from external and internal threats. Attempts to protect Saudi Arabia from external threats include Egypt’s 1964 invasion across the Southern Saudi border and Saddam Hussein’s assault on Kuwait and subsequent march into the shared Saudi-Kuwait Al-Khafji oil field in 1991.
Since the inception of the Saudi state in 1932, the US-Saudi relationship has produced mutual economic and strategic benefits at the expense of the Saudi people. However, relations have been severely scarred by recent developments, particularly by Saudi nationals’ vicious attack on the US on September 11, 2001. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been a major breeding ground for anti-American religious sentiments and an exporter of extremism. Furthermore, State Department documents publicized by Wikileaks suggest that Saudi Arabia has been a major financier of extremist groups worldwide.
The Arab World, including countries bordering Saudi Arabia, is being swept by public revolts against oppressive regimes. What should the United States do when the Saudi people demand drastic political reforms or the overthrow of the ruling family altogether? Should America stand by the Saudi people as it stood with the Tunisians and Egyptians (and to a lesser degree with the Bahrainis, Libyans and Yemenis)? Should it send its uniformed men and women to defend the last absolute monarchy in the world? The prudent, pragmatic, and morally correct response is to stand by the Saudi people.
To continue supporting an oppressive regime loathed not only by the Saudi people but by the international community, would be costly to Saudi people, American interests worldwide, the international economy, and established order.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Saudi Arabia: Dawn of New Era or Replay of Repressive Domestic Policies?
Saudi Arabia: Dawn of New Era or Replay of Repressive Domestic Policies?
By Ali Alyami
The recent illness of King Abdullah generated media and analysts’ sensationalized speculations and prognostications about Saudi Arabia and what the future may reveal regarding the succession if King Abdullah’s back pain renders him unfit to rule. This reaction is typical among Westerners many of whom lack basic understanding of the nature of the Saudi royals’ first priority and their tribal “do or die” methods of settling differences amongst themselves. Their machinations in choosing the next King may not be discernible, but a king will be announced and the ruling family will continue to hold power. This is a given under the present circumstances. The issue will be whether a new king will continue the traditional absolutist ways of ruling or will he introduce a more participatory system of governing.
Saudi Kings have been overthrown, assassinated, fallen terminally ill and been replaced in the past. Each time this occurs Western pundits revisit their old notes, rehash their analyzes of the Saudi princes and speculate whether the next probable King would be a friend or foe of the West and its economic and strategic interests in Saudi Arabia. Absent from these speculations are the interests and well-being of the Saudi people, even when realities in and around Saudi Arabia demand deeper investigation of how domestic factors and changing variables would play in determining the Saudi royals’ policies and behavior.
Saudis’ expectations have been rapidly changing, albeit suppressed by the government, during the course of the last twenty years. The change in expectations can be attributed in part to the globalization of information and substantial increases in the number of educated Saudi men and women. Moreover, a large percentage of the Saudi population is now below the age of 25. These young people, including some royals, feel increasingly disconnected from old traditions due to their exposure to world cultures, languages, internet technologies, lifestyles and liberties. Such contacts have not only changed the Saudis’ perceptions of themselves, but forced them to look inward and focus their attention on their political, social, religious, educational and economic institutions. Given these realities, it is disingenuous and dangerous to expect them to settle for less than what they know are their rights, which have thus far been marketed to them as gifts from the ruling family.
During his reign, King Abdullah has demonstrated fractional awareness of the new realities in Saudi society which astute Saudi observers credit to trusted advisors like Prince Talal and Abdullah’s own offspring, especially activist daughters Adela and Sita. Although Abdullah has been dubbed a “reformer”, his “reforming” initiatives consist of royal decrees that cannot be enforced and can be easily dismissed by him or his successors. For example, Abdullah decreed the formation of a governmental human right association and commission. However, unlike democratic civil society, these associations’ members are appointed and paid for by the government whose abuses they are supposed to investigate and correct. Instead, they gather complaints and forward them to the respective government agencies involved. This is evidence that Abdullah was more interested in rallying public support to undermine his arch enemies, the Sudairi branch of the family, than embarking on true reforms that could have led to power sharing with his unreservedly disenfranchised subjects.
Another example of Abdullah’s decreed initiatives was the formation of a royal Allegiance Commission which was supposed to determine procedures for future succession to the throne. Before the appointed princes could institute a mechanism to layout succession procedures, Abdullah negated the purpose for which the Commission was established by appointing his brother, Prince Naif, as second in line to the throne. Such actions demonstrate that Abdullah’s reputation as a reformer is misleading and diversionary.
Given Abdullah’s poor health and age, estimated at 87, his departure from the scene is said to be imminent as evidenced by his transferring of substantial powers, including control over the formidable National Guard, to his son Prince Miteb. Moreover, his designated and possible successors, brothers Sultan, Naif and Salman are also aging and ailing, especially Crown Prince Sultan. This inescapable reality will create a new political environment with the passing of the last power wielding second generation.
Even though the passing of the remaining powerful ruling sons of the founder of the state, King Abdul Aziz, is fast approaching due to illnesses and age, it would be naïve to assume that the royals will demonstrate anything but unity once they carve up the political pie behind fortified palace walls away from the public eye. The process of coaching replacements starts as soon as a prince is assigned a government post. This is primarily done to protect the prince’s position but also serves the princes’ jockeying for political influence at national and international levels.
Given this ongoing intrigue, it’s safe to predict who among the third royal generation will succeed their parents. The Defense Ministry will go to Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid, the son of the gravely ill Defense Minister Prince Sultan. Prince Naif’s son Mohammed is predicted to inherit his father’s post as Minister of Interior if Naif becomes the next King or is declared unfit to rule due to deteriorating health. Naif is currently designated as second in line to the throne after Crown Prince Sultan who is terminally ill. However, Naif could be bypassed if King Abdullah re-activates the royal Allegiance Commission to select a King and a Crown Prince. If this happens then the throne will pass to the third generation, most likely to Prince Khalid Al-Faisal, currently the governor of Mecca.
Prince Khalid has the intellectual and experience capabilities to rule and to reconcile family differences which are expected to be more cut throat than their parents’. Like his father, former King Faisal, he is decisive and has strong support among many of his powerful cousins in the Sudairi branch of the family. No doubt that different factions within the royal family will continue to promote their varying agendas and oppose any hint of reforms that might undermine the family’s total control over every aspect of people’s lives. However, the royal family can no longer ignore the rising expectations and demands of the Saudi people.
The risk to third generation royals will be costly if they do not respond to the increasingly bold and unprecedented public yearning and demands for changes including power and wealth sharing, accountability, transparency and freedom of expression and choice. If the third generation rulers do not take tangible and timely steps to respond to the new realities in Saudi Arabia, people could be propelled into taking violent actions, joining extremists, collaborating with external forces to create mayhem inside the country or committing economic collateral damage.
Finally, no matter what king rules Saudi Arabia, he will be obliged to maintain close ties to the West, especially the US. Regardless of Saudi royals’ overt complaints and criticism of the US and its policies, they don’t trust any other country to protect them and defend their country. This situation will continue to put the US on the side of despotism against the Saudi people’s yearning and demands for freedom. This is not only contradictory to US ideals, but will increase anti American sentiment in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.
This can only lead to greater instability which could draw the US into undesirable direct interventions to protect its substantial economic, strategic and political interests in the tyrannically ruled and defenseless Arab Gulf. States.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Conference October 26, 2010
In collaboration with Human Rights Advocates and Religious Freedom Defenders
-The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia-
Invites you to this timely conference
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2010 – 12:00 (noon) to 4:30 P.M
U.S. Capitol Visitor Center (South), Congressional Meeting Room 80
Notwithstanding reported concerns in some Islamic lands about our armies deployed abroad, many Arabs and Muslims chafe under the restraints of despotic regimes, and long for the freedoms and opportunities afforded all citizens in the United States. One can find intense and desperate yearning for US support among democracy advocates, women, minorities and expatriates.
It is well documented, by reputable NGOs, media outlets and many Western governments’ agencies, including the State Department and The US Commission on International Religious Freedom, that rampant violations of minorities and expatriates’ rights occur in countries considered allies of the US and other Western democracies. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the small oil rich Arab Gulf States, Iraq and Sudan are notoriously known for their ubiquitous abuses of women’s, minorities’ and expatriates’
We commend President Obama for portraying dictators as adversaries and praise democracies as America’s best friends and trusted allies during his second annual address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 23, 2010. He declared, “Freedom, justice and peace in the lives of individual human beings” are {for the United States} “a matter of moral and pragmatic necessity. So we need to stand up for universal values because it's the right thing to do. But we also know from experience that those who defend these values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights -- whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments -- have chosen to be our adversaries.” The President went on to say, “Part of the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others…That belief will guide America's leadership in this 21st century”.
This conference is designed to address gross injustices committed against women, minorities and expatriates in Arab and Muslim countries. Maltreatment of these groups is often committed in the name of Islam and the Sharia law.
This conference is not about debating Islam in any comprehensive way. However, it is impossible to understand the plight of minorities, women and expatriates without understanding what the Quran and Sharia (and their current interpretations in some countries) say about abuses and marginalization of these groups.
Dr. Ashraf Ramelah
Founder and President, Human Rights Organization “Voice of the Copts”
“Copts between persecution and perpetration”
William Murray
Chairman, Religious Freedom Coalition
“The Plight of the Church in the Middle East”
Professor Ramesh Rao
Human Rights Coordinator, Hindu American Foundation (HAF)
"From malignant neglect to harsh discrimination: The plight of Hindus in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Afghanistan"
Dr. Dwight Bashir
Deputy Director for Policy and Research, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
http://www.uscirf.gov
“Repression of Minorities in the Arab Middle East and Iran”
Shastri Purushotma
Human Rights Officer, National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States
“The experience of Baha’i communities in the Middle East and implications for the future”
Carole Basri
Former member of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq
Adjunct Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School
www.corporatelawyeringgroup.com
“The Status of Arab Jews”
Clare Lopez
CDHR Board member, former CIA Officer and Professor at the Center for Counterintelligence and Security Studies
“The Impact of Shariah Law on Women’s Rights”
Fatima Thompson
Co-chair, Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV)
“Shariah Law and the US Judicial System”
Katrin Michael
Consultant, Kurdish Human Rights Watch
“Status of Minorities in Iraq”
Dr. Robert Mikhail
Founding member, National American Coptic Assembly
- Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom -- www.hudson.org
- National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the U.S -- www.bahai.us
- Hindu American Foundation -- www.hafsite.org
- Muslims for Progressive Values -- www.mpvusa.org
- Kurdish Human Rights Watch -- www.khrw.org
- Religious Freedom Coalition --www.rfcnet.org
- Endowment for Middle Eastern Truth -- www.emetonline.org
- Alliance of Iranian Women -- allianceofiranianwomen.org
- Voice of the Copts -- www.voiceofthecopts.org
- National American Coptic Association -- www.nationalamericancopticassembly.webs.com
- Reform party of Syria -- www.reformsyria.org
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Governors, Beware of Saggy pants and logos
The danger of permitting such behaviour might cause the youth population to become less obedient and enable them to start thinking out of the box. He warned parents to make sure their offspring behaved properly and encouraged the governors to find ways to keep the youth occupied. Naif among other recommendations, Naif instructed the governors to create regimentally controlled government clubs, which translate to close management of youth behavior and movements.
Incongruously, the saggy pants and logo wearers are the ones who defy and undermine the power and dictate of the religious extremists and their rejectionist ideology. Could it be that the ruling family feels safer with religious extremists than with a new a generation of globally minded young Saudis who are open to new ideas, lifestyles and acceptance of other peoples’ values and contributions? Ask educate and prodemocracy native Saudis and the answer will be unequivocally yes. Something to think about and re-evaluate. Read article (in Arabic.)
http://www.alwatan.com.sa/Local/News_Detail.aspx?ArticleID=19215&CategoryID=5
“Shift in Arab Views of Iran”?
The pollsters who collected the data specified below never asked Saudis or Egyptians how they feel about their ruling autocratic, theocratic dynasties and their oppressive policies. They never asked how Saudis’ and Egyptians’ perceptions of themselves, the West and the wider international community were formed. One can only hope, that decision-makers who read these polls, are both aware of the realities in the Arab world and the agendas of the pollsters themselves. The pollsters operate under the Saudi and Egyptian rules and close supervision. Read article
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/opinion/la-oe-telhami-arab-opinions-20100814
Unabated War Against Saudi Women
Case in point is a recent decision taken by the Panda supermarket chain, to hire 16 women cashiers in a store in Saudi Arabia’s most liberal city, Jeddah. Members of the religious establishment immediately protested against the company’s decision. They called it “ungodly” and urged people to stop patronizing the supermarket. Despite the fact that the women were covered from head to toe (except for their eyes) and are only allowed to serve families, the store was empty of customers, and cashiers were sitting idol as of last reporting on August 31, 2010. Not surprisingly, there was no word from King Abdullah to support the supermarket’s decision to hire women cashiers or to instruct his religious zealot to quit harassing people.
These duplicitous political maneuvers employed by royals, usually result in an unfair blame of society for rejecting women. Religion is also blamed for denying women their basic citizenship rights. In reality, neither society and/or religion are responsible for denying women their natural and human rights to feed themselves and support their families. It is politics and the Saudi economy that are responsible for denying women their right to work. Allowing women to work would challenge the country’s economy as well as its sterile, patriarchal ideology. These same policies exonerate the system from meeting its obligations toward all members of society.
The attached article explains the regime’s methods of playing genders against each other by blaming it on society, tradition and God. Read article
http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article106238.ece