Erdogan And The "Al-Gaddafi Prize"

From Daniel Pipes.org:

Erdoğan and the "Al-Gaddafi Prize"


by Daniel Pipes

February 28, 2011

Cross-posted from National Review Online



http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/02/erdogan-accepts-al-gaddafi-international-prize



Send Comment RSS Share:

Be the first of your friends to like this.

The slogan of the "Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights" is "As the sun shines for everyone, freedom is a right for everyone." Lovely, no, especially at a moment when Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi's war planes are raining down death and destruction on his own subject people and when foreign mercenaries are brutalizing the population?



The prize description includes such gems as these:





The prize is awarded every year to one of the international personalities, bodies or organizations that have distinctively contributed to rendering an outstanding human service and has achieved great actions in defending Human rights, protecting the causes of freedom and supporting peace everywhere in the world. ...



The Prize categorically believes that freedom is an indivisible natural right for Man ; it is not a gift or grace from anybody, and that safeguarding it is a general human responsibility.



Past recipients of the prize have included Nelson Mandela (1989), "The Red Indians" (1991), Louis Farrakhan (1996), Fidel Castro (1998), and Hugo Chavez (2004).





Logo of the "Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights."







But it's the current recipient who is the most interesting: none other than the prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. He accepted the prize in Tripoli, Libya, on Dec. 1, 2010, for his "distinguished service to humanity." In his acceptance speech, Erdoğan said that the award will further encourage him to fight for human rights and that "Islamophobia" is a crime against humanity.





Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accepted the prize in Tripoli, Libya, on Dec. 1, 2010, for his "distinguished service to humanity."







The report on this event in the pro-Erdoğan Zaman newspaper goes on:



[Erdoğan] reiterated that Turkey will not remain silent on the killing of nine innocent people by Israel in the Mediterranean, which he described as a sea of "friendship and brotherhood." The Turkish prime minister added that he will continue to protect the rights of people in the Middle East and all around the world. …"The only thing we want in our region and in the globe is peace and justice."



After receiving the award, Erdoğan reported on his meeting with Qaddafi, indicating that ties between the two countries are growing.



Comment: Accepting "Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights" three months ago says all one needs to know about Erdoğan. (February 28, 2011)



Related Topics: Libya, Turkey and Turks



This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Defund the U.S. Institute of Peace?

by Daniel Pipes

February 16, 2011

updated Feb 26, 2011



http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/02/defund-the-us-institute-of-peace



Send Comment RSS Share:

Be the first of your friends to like this.

In an article today ("Small Budget Cuts Add Up"), Reps. Jason Chaffetz (Republican of Utah) and Anthony Weiner (Democrat of New York) call the U.S. Institute of Peace a "case study in how government waste thrives" and calls its $54 million in public funding in 2011 a "misuse of taxpayer money." To which I respond:





The USIP logo.



As a former board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace, I enthusiastically endorse the Chaffetz-Weiner initiative to defund the USIP. I became aware during my tenure on the board, 2003-05, that the organization performs little worthwhile service to the taxpayer but rather that it forwards a political agenda. Americans who wish to fund such an organization are free to do so, but it should not be a public burden. (February 16, 2011)





Feb. 19, 2011 update: Bravo to the House for cutting off all funding to USIP.



Feb. 24, 2011 update: Al Kamen reviews the bidding at "U.S. Institute of Peace loses all federal funds under House spending plan."

Tuesday Iran Talking Points

From Antiwar.com Blog:

Tuesday Iran Talking Pointsfrom Antiwar.com Blog by Eli Cliftonfrom LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for February 15th, 2011:




The Heritage Foundation: The Heritage Foundation’s Ted R. Bromund and James Philips make their against a U.S. policy of containment against Iran, preferring the “military option.†Their argument appears to defy the historical pattern of containment against the Soviet Union and China, asserting, “A serious containment policy will require the U.S. to maintain a credible threat of force against Iran. This will be even more difficult if Iran goes nuclear because the U.S. will have lost credibility.†Bromund and Philips say, “The U.S. therefore cannot rule out military action to stop the development of Iran’s nuclear program. If the U.S. fails to present a convincing threat of military action and thus effectively acquiesces in the Iranian program, it will encourage the Iranian regime to believe that it can continue to advance without fear.†The authors prefer this strategy over the “repetitious, content-free, and ill-informed mantra of containment.â€



The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin blogs that the Obama administration has been distracted by the new federal budget and is failing to support pro-democracy protesters in Iran. “There is no call for regime change and there is no indication we are planning any increased assistance for the opposition,†she says. Rubin repeats House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s (R-FL) call for tightening sanctions, and concludes, “Perhaps some oversight hearings are in order. The chairwoman and her committee should probe whether besides tweeting in Farsi the administration is offering anything more than lip service to the protesters.â€



National Review Online: Michael Barone opines, “[M]ost of us would probably prefer to have seen a victory of people power in Tehran or Pyongyang than in Cairo… Mubarak’s Egypt was an ally of the United States, at least somewhat helpful in our own efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, and a nation at peace, albeit a cold peace, with Israel.†He continues, “In contrast, the mullah regime in Iran is developing nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and other American allies within missile range.†He goes on to blame the Obama administration for the failure of June 2009 protests in Tehran to bring about regime change: “The people of Iran did take to the streets in opposition to the mullahs’ election-rigging in June 2009. But Barack Obama and his administration gave a cold shoulder to this green movement, and there was no regime change.â€

What Next In Egypt? A Detailed Assessment

From Middle East Affairs Information Center:

What Next in Egypt? A Detailed Assessment


Posted on Tue, February 15, 2011 at 21:40 pm, in Democracy, Egypt, Egyptian Revolution, Muslim Brotherhood, The Middle East .

Tue, Feb 15, 2011
The Rubin Report
By Barry Rubin





Key opposition leaders? Muhammad ElBaradei (left), Amr Mousa (middle) and Ayman Nour (right).



What Next in Egypt? A Detailed Assessment

The Egyptian political situation has now entered a new phase. The first order of business is to write a new constitution, a process that should take months (some military spokesmen have said two months). Who is going to be assembling this new governing document and what are the parameters? Nobody knows. But this is the first point at which the joyous consensus that the tyrant is gone, everyone agrees, and all is new may begin to erode.



It isn’t possible to say much about the constitutional process but the other major process, the election of a new president, is more possible to analyze. I’d guess that these elections will be held in September and the military will rule until then.



The army does not want to rule the country. But it does want to have a major role in designing the new system, trying to ensure that Islamists don’t take over and that Egypt does not sink into chaos. In this respect, it will probably want — with backing from the establishment — a strong presidency, say along the French model, with relatively limited power for parliament.



Mission number one for the army, behind the scenes, is to prevent Muhammad ElBaradei from becoming president and help find someone who can satisfy wide-ranging aspirations without doing anything too extreme. This is especially important because, although we don’t know for sure, it seems quite possible that the constitution will create a very strong presidency, more like France than the British or U.S. system.



Why does the army not like ElBaradei? Because he is an unknown quantity, having been out of the country for thirty years and is in their eyes too close to the Americans. He also has no political experience at all. But most of all he is the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate and that is enough to taint him in their eyes. The Brotherhood would never run a candidate of its own openly for president.



Fortunately for the military — and for Egyptians generally — ElBaradei is not very popular for many of the above-mentioned reasons plus the fact that he is too westernized for the tastes of many Egyptians. Remember, despite his prominence in the Western media he was never the opposition leader.



So who else is there? One candidate who already seems to be mounting a behind-the-scenes campaign is Amr Moussa, former Egyptian foreign minister and Arab League secretary-general. If ElBaradei is dangerous because of his connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, radical impulses, and lack of experience, Moussa is dangerous because of his mercurial personality and very radical views.



There must be other possibilities politicians who have had experience of high office as prime minister or cabinet members in past governments yet have avoided being tainted by corruption or repression. We will no doubt soon be hearing a number of such names.



Regarding the emergent political blocs, they should be four main ones, though each of these could be split into many factions and rival forces.



“Establishment” Reformers: Muhammad ElBaradei has been practically coronated by foreign observers yet his appeal is untested and his organization almost non-existent. One of the most important “secrets” of Egypt today is the degree of his dependence on the Brotherhood. Indeed, of all the possible opposition candidates he is about the closest to the Brotherhood. That’s no coincidence: that’s precisely why he has flourished. And the Brotherhood will run on a joint ticket with him.



Incidentally, the previous opposition candidate for president, Ayman Nour, has similar problems. And he also now says the Egypt-Israel peace treaty should be amended or voted on in a referendum, which would surely abrogate the agreement. Remember that Nour’s Kefaya group was taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood who put Egypt’s leading antisemite as its leader, though he has died.



The idealistic democracy advocates of the April 6 and other movements are already split over whether or not to trust the army. It is unlikely that they will be able to build a major party.



Another question is whether a reformist candidate could emerge independent of association with the Brotherhood. The “Catch-22” here is how would such an urbanized, westernized, figure without an organization appeal to massive numbers of Egyptians? If the man is found it might happen.



The Islamist Party: The Muslim Brotherhood will not take power and Egypt will not become an Islamist state overnight. The Brotherhood is not stupid. While wealthy, secularized, urban Egyptians may look at them as a peasant rabble — just as the equivalent Iranians viewed their Islamists and such Lebanese saw Hizballah — this group has maneuvered very skillfully in the past.



It will seek a front man for president and then either form its own sheep’s clothing party or dominate another party from behind the scenes. But that is also its weakness: it has probably chosen the wrong man for its presidential candidate.



Nevertheless, it will be a very important factor in any future parliament, a drive beginning with the Brotherhood starting to discuss plans to become a political party. At the barest minimum the Brotherhood can expect 15 percent in a very divided parliament and perhaps double that amount. They will be a player and a force to be courted by anyone who would want to rule, meaning concessions to its demands.



Incidentally, does anyone else think it rather strange that after ridiculing the point I and others have been making about the Muslim Brotherhood being strong and radical, the New York Times just drops this sentence into the middle of an article:



“Egypt’s revolution is far from decided, and the Muslim Brotherhood remains the most popular and best-organized opposition forces in the country, poised to play a crucial role in the transition and its aftermath.” (emphasis added).



An Establishment party: The ruling NDP, even if it changes its name or appears in a totally new guise, might get no support at all, tainted as it is by association with the old regime. But there will doubtless be a new party of the establishment. Enjoying backing from existing institutions and wealthier segments of society, this party could win if it finds the right candidate.



The Left: Quasi-Marxists and extreme nationalists who may fragment or produce a joint ticket. These parties might not run a presidential candidate, yet they will be a factor in parliamentary politics. They could never take power in their own right but could be important in a coalition with nationalists and the Brotherhood. Don’t assume such a partnership couldn’t happen.



The nationalists: Ironically, despite the apparent repudiation of the regime, these are people who want a return to the regime, not of Mubarak but of a romanticized Nasserist era, which most of the population is too young to remember. Of course, this would be different from the historic Arab nationalism, a blend of Arabism, Egyptian patriotism, with anti-American and anti-Israel flavorings.



This is the kind of thing Moussa represents. He’s more popular than ElBaradei, knows how to be a demagogue, is familiar to Egyptians, and seems more of a known quantity, and is anti-Israel and anti-American enough to galvanize the masses.



The problem is that both outcomes are bad: with ElBaradei you get the possibility of growing Islamism; with Moussa there is an updated form of radical nationalism. The idea of some idealistic, good government reformer winning seems slim at best, partly because it is hard to find someone like that and it is hard for someone like that to appeal to the masses.



And here’s a possible paradox. If the Muslim Brotherhood was going to take over the government altogether and make Egypt an Islamist republic, the army would take action but that does not apply to a radical nationalist Egypt, with which many younger officers would sympathize.



But the situation favors demagoguery. Already, Egyptians are demanding pay raises and higher subsidies. Where’s the money going to come from? The situation is ripe for someone to say: loot the rich, undo privatization, create plenty of useless government jobs, hate the Americans who are exploiting us, and it’s all Israel’s fault.



You can start worrying because the Washington Post has just declared Amr Moussa to be a moderate.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the author,



Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: Click here. His blog, Rubin Reports, Click here.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top Muslim Brotherhood Leader: Islamists Have Been Directing Protests In Egypt

From Gateway Pundit:

Feb 20, 2011 10:34 AMTop Muslim Brotherhood Leader: Islamists Have Been Directing Protests in Egyptfrom Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftWell, this is reassuring.


Top Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt Kamal Helbawi told the Iranian News Agency this weekend that Islamists were directing the protests in Egypt.




(IRNA)


The Islamic Republic News Agency reported:



Top Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt Kamal Helbawi underlined the Islamic nature of revolution in his country and said the young generation of Muslim Brotherhood had a very good role in taking people to the streets and protecting them in Tahrir Square.



Helbawi, who is in Tehran to attend the International Conference on Islamic Unity, in an exclusive interview with IRNA on Saturday said Egyptians’ demands come from their interest in Islam.



‘People of Egypt are seeking human dignity, social justice, and their human rights none of which has any contradiction with Islamic principles,’ said Helbawi.



Stressing that the west is trying to downplay the revolution of people in Egypt, Helbawi said, ‘Organizing several million-strong rallies shows that some leaders, many of whom are Islamists, have been directing people.’



Responding to a question about Camp David Accords, the former spokesman of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said, ‘People of Egypt cannot accept an agreement which is based on injustice and has ignored the rights of Palestinians.’



‘We cannot respect such agreements and won’t approve of them,’ he said.

Helbawi expressed hope that the military council, ruling Egypt after Mubark, will heed legitimate demands of Egyptians and respond positively to them.

The Settlements Are Neither "Illegitimate" Nor "Illegal"

From The American Thinker:

February 20, 2011


The settlements are neither, 'illegitimate' nor 'illegal'

Ted Belman

Secretary Clinton delivered a speech at the Brookings Institution in December 2010 in which she said, "We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity."





In her recent interview with Christine Amanpour, she said, "I think it is absolutely clear to say, number one, that it's been American policy for many years that settlements were illegitimate."





So America's position has progressed from considering "continued settlement activity" as illegitimate to considering the settlements themselves as illegitimate. Is this a change in US policy? Time will tell.





One must ask whether there is a distinction to be made between settlements and settlement activity and between illegal and illegitimate.





The Oslo Accords were silent on the settlements other than to say they were a final status issue. No mention was made of "settlement activity."





The Roadmap provides, "GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001." and "Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)". Clearly here the settlements themselves are not illegal or even illegitimate.





But what about, "settlement activity"? To be "consistent with the Mitchell Report" for this recommendation to be adhered to, the Palestinians would have to adhere to Mitchell's' recommendations for them, namely,





- "The PA and GOI should resume their efforts to identify, condemn and discourage incitement in all its forms.





- "The PA should make clear through concrete action to Palestinians and Israelis alike that terrorism is reprehensible and unacceptable, and that the PA will make a 100 percent effort to prevent terrorist operations and to punish perpetrators. This effort should include immediate steps to apprehend and incarcerate terrorists operating within the PA's jurisdiction."



Clearly the PA, which includes Hamas, has not in any way complied. Thus Israel has no obligation to comply.





Dictionaries do not make a distinction between "illegal" and ‘illegitimate" and in fact define ‘illegitimate' as ‘illegal' or ‘unlawful'. To be so, there must be a law that makes such activity unlawful or illegal or illegitimate. But there is no such law. And why is Obama and everyone else placing so much significance on a non existing difference? Clearly the rest of the UN including Europe has no such qualms.





The Road Map describes itself as a process, a roadmap if you will. Even if acceptance of it amounts to a contract, which it doesn't, the failure to perform or the violation of any obligation would never be anything more than a breach of contract. It would never be called unlawful of illegitimate.





Nor are the settlements or settlement activity, illegal or illegitimate by international law. (See: The Truth about ‘the Occupation' and ‘the Settlements' and Alan Baker and the Government of Israel Concede too much.)





Both the Oslo Accords and the roadmap required a negotiated solution





Ambassador Susan Rice agrees. In defense of the veto, she did not take a stand on whether the settlements were illegal, but did say,





"It is the Israelis' and Palestinians' conflict, and even the best-intentioned outsiders cannot resolve it for them....





"Therefore, every potential action must be measured against one overriding standard: Will it move the parties closer to negotiations and an agreement?





"Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides. It could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations and, if and when they did resume, to return to the Security Council whenever they reach an impasse."





This is bottom line. So why doesn't Obama take her advice and leave it to the parties. Instead he has inserted himself into the negotiations and has predetermined the outcome save for minutia to be negotiated, Borders, settlements and Jerusalem are all final status issues to be negotiated.





The problem has been that the Quartet keeps supporting the demands of the PA and financing it, and thereby removes any incentive the PA might have to compromise. In effect, they make it possible for the PA harden its demands.





The Quartet used to argue against any steps by Israel which would predetermine the issues. But they are continually doing so by calling the settlements "illegal" and supporting the armistice lines as the borders and requiring Jerusalem to be divided. Is not the act of bringing this matter to the Security Council such a step by the PA? And they voted for it making them complicit.





The truth of the matter is that the Arab world, supported by the Quartet, wants no part of a negotiated settlement. They want Israel to accept the Arab Initiative, otherwise known as the Saudi Plan.





Although Obama vetoed this resolution, he also doesn't really want to leave it to Israel to decide what to hold out for in negotiations. He wants to pressure Israel to make concessions in its negotiations to make an agreement more likely. Its just like an imposed solution, only better. It certainly isn't what is meant by a ‘negotiated settlement".





Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and editor of Israpundit.com. He made aliya two years ago and is now living in Jerusalem.

Posted at 03:19 PM

Tuesday Iran Talking Points

From Antiwar.com Blog:

Feb 22, 2011 (5 days ago)Tuesday Iran Talking Pointsfrom Antiwar.com Blog by Eli Cliftonfrom LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for February 22nd, 2011:




The Wall Street Journal: The Journal’s editorial board writes that the Obama administration needs a “new freedom agenda,” and should take notes from George W. Bush’s second inaugural address. They accuse Obama of “[O]ffer[ing] no support for Iranian demonstrators after [the June 2009] fraudulent elections” and calls on him to “meet publicly with dissidents from places like Libya, Syria and Iran, as Mr. Bush did in Prague in 2007, to lend a Presidential seal of approval to their struggle.” (See Jim Lobe’s blog post on the 2007 Prague conference.) The administration could be more supportive of the Green movement by authorizing the CIA to “provide Iranian workers with a strike fund—hard cash smuggled into the country to allow Iran’s workers to sustain a strike—thereby replicating the conditions that brought down the Shah.” The editorial endorses the administration publicly backing the Green movement’s leaders and suggests, “The Administration could also assemble prominent exiled leaders of the Green movement to sign a declaration of principles against the regime.”



Commentary: American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin opines on Iranian claims over Bahrain and warns that Iranian authorities have “repeatedly spoken of Bahrain in the same manner in which Saddam Hussein once spoke about Kuwait,” and, “When Iranian officials talk about their desire to transform the Persian Gulf into a Persian lake, they envision sending Bahrain’s Sunni ruling elite packing and returning Iranian dominance to Bahrain in order to rid the region of American influence.” Rubin says that Iran will never gain the upper-hand in Bahrain because “Whenever the Iranians have supported Shiite insurrection and riots, Saudi troops have quietly crossed the causeway to help Bahrain authorities put down the uprising.” He concludes that the U.S. should back constitutional reforms in Bahrain but preserve the monarchy.



The New York Times: Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, asks, “will Egypt be a partner in peace?” and warns, “We have seen what democracy without tolerance and openness can yield — in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.” Oren reminds readers of the Iranian threat, writing, “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran hailed the Egyptian revolution as a step toward creating a Middle East ‘without America and the Zionist regime,’ and celebrated by dispatching warships to the Suez Canal. Meanwhile, Iran continues to spin out enriched uranium — ‘producing it steadily, constantly,’ according to Yukiya Amano, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency — to achieve nuclear military capacities.”




National Post: Former George W. Bush administration speech writer David Frum opines, “The obvious thing to worry about in Bahrain is that the current unrest could invite meddling by fellow Shiites across the Gulf in Iran. (And in fact Iran has meddled in Bahrain since the days of the shah.)” He observes, “Always and ever: Iran is the big play in the Middle East. A democratic Iran may not be an entirely congenial presence,” and advocates for democratic reforms in both Iran and Bahrain. “But a more democratic Iran would be a less dangerous place for everyone, including its own people, than today’s theocratic, terrorism-supporting Iran. Every regional decision has to be measured against the test: Is this moving us closer to — or further from — a positive change in the Iranian political system?”

Opposition Leaders Mousavi And Karroubi Beaten And Kidnapped By Iranian Regime

From Gateway Pundit:

10:49 PM (3 minutes ago)Opposition Leaders Mousavi and Karroubi Beaten and Kidnapped by Iranian Regimefrom Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftEarlier this month hundreds of Iranian Parliamentarians chanted death threats against the opposition leaders following mass protests against the regime.





 
The regime officials chanted, “Down with Mousavi, Karroubi, Khatami,” and “Mousavi and Karroubi should be executed.”




The two opposition leaders were beaten and kidnapped this past week.



Michael Ledeen reported:



Yes it is true, not exactly as any one source has been reporting, but the two top leaders of the Green Movement, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, were kidnapped on Thursday night — when the streets of Tehran were full of armed men. It was a typical Mafia-style snatch. The two men — already under house arrest — were beaten and bloodied, and then were led out of their homes in blindfolds and handcuffs, stuffed in the trunks of the cars of their captors from the Revolutionary Guards and, along with their wives, taken to a location in Tehran, then, on Friday, to another in Parchin, and finally to a third location, a heavily protected private residence.



So far only a few voices, most notably that of Ayatollah Dastgheib (sorry for the link in Persian, but I can’t find a translation online yet), have been raised to denounce the action and call for the release of the hostages.