Some good articles and blog posts on issues covered recently here at Brains Like a Shoe.

On Darfur, Alex de Waal takes on the chatter among some Darfuris about self-determination. He discusses the various arguments in support of self-determination in the context of current Sudanese politics. And this week in the medical journal The Lancet researchers concluded that about 300,000 people died over the past six years in Darfur, but that disease, rather than violence, killed at least 80 percent of them. This is probably the most reliable mortality study to date. I am sure people like Mahmood Mamdani will make as much hay as they can with this study to argue that the conflict in Darfur has been exaggerated by activists. He and others will no doubt in the process conveniently ignore the fact that roughly 3 million Darfuris fled the violence and still remain in displaced camps.

On Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood elected its new leader this week amid reports of much internal dissent. The Economist has a good summary of what the elections mean for the Brotherhood and Egypt. Meanwhile, last week the Project on Middle East Democracy held an event on Capitol Hill to assess the Obama Administration’s first year. A prominent Egyptian blogger, Bassem Samir, provided a pessimistic account of the situation in Egypt, reflecting upon his recent arrest and detainment for 30 hours in advance of his flight to the United States. In explaining prospects for reform, he posed the question, “What do [Egyptians] want?” He answered, “We want Egypt to be better by ourselves, not by others – but we need help.”
that about 300,000 people died, but that disease, rather than violence, killed at least 80 percent of them.

On the United Arab Emirates, The New York Times ran a more analytical than normal piece on the now crumbling image of the Emirates as an Arab model of modernity: “Then the crash came and revealed how paper-thin that image was, political and financial analyst. That realization, not just in Dubai but also in Abu Dhabi, the oil-rich capital of the United Arab Emirates, has cast a harsh light on an opaque, top-down decision-making process, not just in business but in matters of crime and punishment as well, political and financial analysts said.”

And here are some quick recommendations of other interesting pieces:

, ,
I am unusually struck by the lack of good news in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East. So before I list the stories on human rights violations, civil conflict, and war that grabbed my attention, lets begin with two stories that could – if spun skillfully – seem like positive developments.

First, Mike Smith at Dipnote (the State Department’s blog) discusses how peacekeeping offers new opportunities for U.S.-China relations. In the long-run, greater Chinese involvement in UN peacekeeping seems like it could help fill critical capacity gaps – and if China would do this in coordination with the United States so much the better. With such a bright horizon, we will therefore today focus on China’s commitment of engineers to the UN/African Union hybrid peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID) – and not its diplomatic and military support of the Khartoum regime.

As for the other encouraging item, Claudio Guler for ISN Security Watch argues that “a spate of recent international judicial actions is nipping at heels of the some of the world’s most powerful states and suggesting that although a culture of impunity persists, getting off scot-free is little by little on the wan.” This article helps confront the recent rhetoric by some governments and academics that the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other mechanisms of international justice are new tools of western imperialism. The ICC prosecutor’s interest in crimes committed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the recent Goldstone report help undermine this claim. I would also add the British court’s surprise arrest warrant for Israeli former foreign minister Tzipi Livni to the list.

But now to the news that is difficult to put in a positive light.

Three recent articles on Eritrea reveal “a lonely nation under a glass.”  For the Washington Post, Stephanie McCrummen writes two compelling pieces this week about life in Eritrea and the political strategy of the regime to insulate itself and defy the world. The BBC then highlights the disappearance of the entire Eritrean soccer team in Kenya. This is the young men’s third attempt to flee their country.

News on Monday that airstrikes killed at least 35 civilians in Northwestern Yemen. It is strongly suspected that the Saudis were responsible – which “could amplify anger against the Saudis among Yemeni tribes” and escalate the conflict. What’s worse, the Houthi rebels in the North have blamed the United States for the attack. Waq-al-Waq does not believe American officials though would act so foolishly. And what’s even worse than that, the BBC reports that Somali refugees in Yemen have been forced at gunpoint to join the civil war.

, , , , , , ,
Mr. Zaidi dodges like Mr. Bush

Mr. Zaidi dodges like Mr. Bush

Given the title of the blog, I thought it was appropriate to highlight  a shoe-throwing incident that took place today in Paris but involving Iraq. This time, the most famous shoe-thrower in the history of the world dodged a screaming projectile-shoe hurled at him by a fellow Iraqi journalist:

An Iraqi reporter imprisoned for throwing his shoes at President George W. Bush found himself on the receiving end of a similar footwear attack in Paris Tuesday.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, whose flare-up against Bush last December turned into a symbol of Iraqi anger, was speaking at a news conference to promote his campaign for victims of the war in Iraq when a man in the audience hurled a shoe at him.

It hit the wall next to his head and a scuffle ensued in the audience, television footage showed.

French media said the attacker was an exiled Iraqi journalist who spoke in defense of U.S. policy, accusing Zaidi of siding with a dictatorship, before throwing his shoe.

Zaidi’s own outburst summed up the feelings of many Iraqis about the U.S. military invasion of their country and the ensuing bloodshed and sectarian killing.

Millions of people around the world saw images of him shouting “this is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog,” during a news conference by the former U.S. leader, before throwing his shoes at him.

Zaidi, a television reporter, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for assaulting a head of state. This was later reduced to one year and he was released in September.

He has alleged that he was tortured by guards after his arrest.

This article also reminds me that I need to think of creative ways to celebrate the anniversary – December 15, 2008 – of Mr. Zaidi’s throw at our ignominious former president. Ideas are welcomed!

, ,

What an interesting week.  I was not able to blog on much of it, but here is what I was reading:

It’s not just Sudan…more on China in Africa: The New York Times highlights political implications of a Chinese scholarship program for Namibia’s elite; China and Senegal hope to enhance military cooperation; and at the Globalist, two authors convincingly argue that “China is currently pursuing oil resources in unstable countries without regard for the political risk entailed. While that might play well in the short- to medium-term, it could cost China dearly down the line.”

It’s not just China increasing influence in Africa: Saudi Arabia held the first meeting of the Saudi-East Africa Forum in Addis Ababa this week. Representatives from seven East African countries attended: Ethiopia, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, Uganda and Rwanda.  A Saudi minister stated, “Saudi Arabia is committed to combating hunger, to provide support for the host country but also to generate exports. We are not to impose our needs above the needs of local population.” Sudan did not participate in the forum; however, the Saudi Development Fund announced this week that it was donating 15 million dollars for development and rehabilitation in Darfur.  The money will go to the “model villages” that the Arab League has pushed as an effort to help IDPs in Darfur return to normal lives.

Whither Yemen? Thats the title of a good blog summarizing the current challenges facing Yemen’s leadership.  It concludes that “the period ahead for Yemen is likely to be, to paraphrase Hobbes, ‘nasty and brutish.’” Another blog challenges the notion that Saudi Arabia’s recent intervention in Yemen’s conflict with the Houthi rebels could be good for the US because it will lead to the further militarization of the Gulf and a strong Sunni and Gulf alliance against Iranian encroachment throughout the Arab world. Ian Bremmer at Foreign Policy tends to agree that greater militarization and more proxy wars are usually not constructive anywhere and argues that a failed state next to the world’s largest oil exporter is reason enough for Americans to care about the conflict.

Read the rest of this entry

, , , , , , , , ,

Its been a crazy last two weeks, so my blogging schedule has been curtailed…but here is an attempt to get back on the horse.  Just a few items of interest…

Waq-al-Waq has “the scariest thing you will read today”: that Yemeni are now asking al-Qaeda to teach in their schools because of a lack of teachers.

… if al-Qaeda in Yemen ever turned itself into a positive organization, by which I mean an organization that could be for something instead of only against things, if it could provide services and be a force for good in people’s daily lives in Yemen then its growth potential would be nearly unlimited. I have always added the caveat to that statement that there was no evidence to support the idea that AQAP was looking to go that way, and this is a pretty flimsy piece of evidence but it is still evidence. Whether it is a one-off item or a precursor is impossible for me to know, even with my magic 8-ball.

The Mbeki report didn’t make a splash but it is having an interesting effect.
The report came at a big moment for news in Sudan. For the last two weeks the big story in the Sudanese newspapers has been the rift in the Govt of National Unity between the NCP and SPLM and the threat of secession. There is no bigger story in Sudan and just about every newspaper every day has been dominated by this. Story number two has been US policy and number three is the Mbeki Panel.
Thumbing through the papers this is what I find. On 25 October Sadiq al-Riziqi who is the owner of Al-Intibaha the most strident paper against the SPLA and the Darfurians, rejected the Panel and especially the hybrid courts proposal. Al-Riziqi is exceptionally well informed about the goings on in the inner circles but he has his own views too. For the ordinary citizens of Sudan, al-Riziqi’s rejection is a good endorsement! But read the same paper three days later and we see a columnist hinting that if the procedures in the hybrid courts are correctly done then the NCP will accept.
This is pretty much the double line taken by other well-known columnists too. Ahmad Al-Sharif (Al-Watan) lambasts Mbeki’s report as targeting national sovereignty and going beyond its mandate by putting into question the competence of the Sudanese judiciary. Kamil Idriss (formerly of the World Intellectual Property Organisation) in Al-Sudani, says that the idea of hybrid courts strike to the heart of the credibility of the Sudanese judiciary and is a humiliation. But read carefully what others are writing. One government spokesman, writing in Al-Ahdaf on 1 November, says that ICC Prosecutor’s welcome of the Panel’s proposal for hybrid courts should be bracketed: any mechanism set up in the wake of the AU decision will proceed without reference to the ICC. That is a way of setting the Mbeki recommendations apart from the joined-up three pillar process that the ICC is helping to set up in Kenya. In the Kenyan case, the ICC is joined at the hip to the hybrid courts and so also to the local courts, but this isn’t the case for the Darfur proposal. And most interesting, the leading Islamist Tayib Zain Al-Abdeen, writing in Al-Sahafa on 2 November advised the NCP to accept the hybrid courts proposal, saying that its own failure to prosecute anybody gives it no credibility to object, and it also cannot accuse the African Union of being a colonial conspirator.

One of the best commentaries was done by Khalid al-Tijani, for Al-Sahafa. He put his finger on the government’s basic dilemma. On the one hand, Khartoum cannot reject the Mbeki Report because any such action will threaten the cohesive African stance supporting Khartoum’s position on the ICC, while on the other hand the acceptance of the report would equally conflict with the latter’s principled rejection of the intervention of the ICC. This puts the front men for the government policy in an awkward situation and luckily the two men in question, Ghazi Salah Al-Din and Ali Osman Muhammed Taha are able to exercise self-restraint and avoid either outright acceptance or outright rejection, playing the game of watering down the recommendations in the implementation stage.Khal

At

The always insightful Hannah Allam based in Cairo and Baghdad has a great piece on Beyonce versus the world famous Egyptologist Zahi Hawass.

In the Darfur file, Ethiopia announced that it would send 5 long-awaited attack helicopters to Darfur.  This is good for the UNAMID force and helps Ethiopia’s already stellar image in the eyes of the West.  Such moves are one reason why the international community, as the Sahel Blog explains, ignores the repressive politics at home.

Bec Hamilton writes about Save Darfur’s partnership with the State Department this week to launch AskUS — a web 2.0 initiative to connect the Obama administration with citizen activists.  Jerry Fowler asked a number of incisive questions to the US Special Envoy for Sudan Scott Gration.

Finally, Khalid Nur responding to a post by Alex de Waal at Making Sense of Darfur provides a good summary of the coverage of the Mbeki report in the Sudanese press.  His analysis matches up with my own scouring of the Sudanese newspapers everyday:

Thumbing through the papers this is what I find. On 25 October Sadiq al-Riziqi who is the owner of Al-Intibaha the most strident paper against the SPLA and the Darfurians, rejected the Panel and especially the hybrid courts proposal. Al-Riziqi is exceptionally well informed about the goings on in the inner circles but he has his own views too. For the ordinary citizens of Sudan, al-Riziqi’s rejection is a good endorsement! But read the same paper three days later and we see a columnist hinting that if the procedures in the hybrid courts are correctly done then the NCP will accept.

This is pretty much the double line taken by other well-known columnists too. Ahmad Al-Sharif (Al-Watan) lambasts Mbeki’s report as targeting national sovereignty and going beyond its mandate by putting into question the competence of the Sudanese judiciary. Kamil Idriss (formerly of the World Intellectual Property Organisation) in Al-Sudani, says that the idea of hybrid courts strike to the heart of the credibility of the Sudanese judiciary and is a humiliation. But read carefully what others are writing. One government spokesman, writing in Al-Ahdaf on 1 November, says that ICC Prosecutor’s welcome of the Panel’s proposal for hybrid courts should be bracketed: any mechanism set up in the wake of the AU decision will proceed without reference to the ICC. That is a way of setting the Mbeki recommendations apart from the joined-up three pillar process that the ICC is helping to set up in Kenya. In the Kenyan case, the ICC is joined at the hip to the hybrid courts and so also to the local courts, but this isn’t the case for the Darfur proposal. And most interesting, the leading Islamist Tayib Zain Al-Abdeen, writing in Al-Sahafa on 2 November advised the NCP to accept the hybrid courts proposal, saying that its own failure to prosecute anybody gives it no credibility to object, and it also cannot accuse the African Union of being a colonial conspirator.

One of the best commentaries was done by Khalid al-Tijani, for Al-Sahafa. He put his finger on the government’s basic dilemma. On the one hand, Khartoum cannot reject the Mbeki Report because any such action will threaten the cohesive African stance supporting Khartoum’s position on the ICC, while on the other hand the acceptance of the report would equally conflict with the latter’s principled rejection of the intervention of the ICC. This puts the front men for the government policy in an awkward situation and luckily the two men in question, Ghazi Salah Al-Din and Ali Osman Muhammed Taha are able to exercise self-restraint and avoid either outright acceptance or outright rejection, playing the game of watering down the recommendations in the implementation stage.

, , , , ,

Just a few items of note…

First, the problems in Yemen have escalated quickly.  Waq al Waq reports:

The news that Saudi Arabia is bombing targets inside Yemen and is becoming much more intimately involved in the Huthi conflict is sparking, as it should, a great deal of speculation and numerous stories.

The Yemeni government is denying that Saudi Arabia is bombing targets in Yemen, although I have my doubts. The border is demarcated, but the lines tend to be drawn in sand and I think the potential for Saudi bombs straying across the border whether intentionally or not is high.

This is, as numerous people suspect, a major escalation in the war. What Saudi Arabia will do is still an open question, but sending ground troops across the border would be, in my opinion, a huge mistake.

Second, Michelle at Change.org hits the perfect note on what at first seems like a great story…

Did the UK just endorse racial profiling of refugees?

According to a decision announced on Tuesday by Britain’s Interior Ministry, all “non-Arab” Darfuri asylum-seekers will be allowed to remain in the country, contingent upon periodic reviews of the situation in Sudan:

“All non-Arab Darfuris, regardless of their political or other affiliations, are at real risk of persecution in Darfur and internal relocation elsewhere in Sudan is not currently to be relied upon,” the Interior Ministry’s UK Border Agency concluded in its operational guidance note.

Yes, non-Arab Darfuris were the targets of Sudan’s genocidal violence, and return from abroad is a very dangerous prospect. But while the situation in Darfur is perilous for those groups singled out by the government, the human rights situation is pretty crummy (in my professional opinion) across the entire country — for Arabs and non-Arabs and mixed races and foreigners and really anyone who happens to be there.

I’m certainly no lawyer, but I thought that an individual’s asylum claim should be evaluated on the specific merits of his/her case. While its laudable for the British government to recognize the need to ensure of asylum to Darfuris, that protection should be extended to all Sudanese fleeing abuse in their home country.

Also read her piece about the shameless new movie, entitled Darfur:

The man “widely considered to be the worst working director today” + Darfur = Disaster.

You don’t even need to see the full film to tell — here’s all you need to know: White journalists in a gun battle with the Janjaweed.

Finally, my friend Maggie at ENOUGH has a great post from south Sudan about how the voter registration process is going.  It just started on November 1.

, , , , ,
(Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

(Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

On this Halloween weekend, I have been catching up with some reading in between watching the Gators take down the Bulldogs and partaking in some of the weekend festivities.

Here are a few items of interest and a few interesting pieces I have collected over the last week:

  • In yesterday’s post, I mentioned the great coverage that the J Street conference received. Before the conference, a former AIPAC and Israeli embassy official Lenny Ben-David questioned “Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be ‘pro-Israel?’” A friend of mine, Rebecca Abou-Chedid, wrote an exceptional response in Foreign Policy to the distasteful accusations that her donation, because she is of Lebanese descent, “clearly indicates that…[her] dollars must be intended to advance some pernicious anti-Israel agenda — and that J Street must be the vehicle for those aims.”
  • Michael Kevane writes a post taking on the claim by J. Stephen Morrison and Jennifer G. Cooke at CSIS that ”Lack of consensus within the [Obama] administration has confused potential partners who have for some time seen the United States policy as hostage to zealous domestic pressures (emphasis added).”  It’s always amazing to me how much clout some people think that the Save Darfur Coalition and other Darfur organizations and activists have in the creation of U.S. policy.
  • Lastly, I continue to follow the rumblings surrounding Egyptian presidential elections in 2011.  The big questions, of course, are (first) will Hosni Mubarak run again;  and (second),  if not, will his son Gamal take his place.  This week, the noted Egyptian historian and philosopher Mohammed Hassanein Haikel expressed the common opinion of most Egyptians whom I know –  Gamal is “unfit” to be the next president.  He added, “They tell us we have elections, but is it a coincidence that the president’s son is portrayed as the most worthy to be the leader of Egypt?” Laura Rozen at Politico and others commented about intriguing statements from both Amr Moussa, the current head of the Arab League, and Mohamed El Baradei of the IAEA regarding their interests in running in 2011. Al Ahram Weekly (an English language state-owned newspaper) though ran a “news” story revealing that most ordinary Egyptians aren’t concerned about rumors or even who there next president will be.
, , , , , , , ,

First, a powerful photo essay at Foreign Policy of Somalis fleeing the carnage of Mogadishu for the safer northern parts of the country, including Puntland and Somaliland.

One of the pictures from Somalia by ROBERTO SCHMIDT

One of the pictures from Somalia by ROBERTO SCHMIDT

Second, a piece by Bec Hamilton in The New Republic on “why aid for Darfur’s rape survivors has all but disappeared.”

Third, Jim Zogby reports on Arabs and Jews coming together in Washington for peace.

And finally, breaking news from Sudan’s Second Vice President Ali Mohamed Osman Taha,  ”The devil (has been contained) in Darfur”!  He made this declaration after a reconciliation meeting yesterday between two Darfuri tribes, the Misseriya and the Rizeigat.  One tribe agreed to pay the other tribe the traditional blood money – and both agreed to peaceful relations going forward.  For Taha, this was evidence that the devil’s doings may finally be stifled in Darfur.  Its convenient of course to blame the six years of chaos on the devil – and not, of course, Taha’s friends in the Sudanese government.

, , ,