Sweden as the top story

One morning last week, Sweden was the first word on the lead article on the BBC's English page:

And among the top stories on the BBC Arabic television, though I did not have a chance to watch that in depth:

These are pictures of a sunlight, spacious white house in Sweden.

In the meantime, it was later in the day that Mosul fell. Fida Bassil did a program on it, which I wanted to hear, but my computer starting acting feverish, and I had to give it up.

Climate Change awareness in the Arab World

Twice during the months of March and April, 2014, the BBC Arabic had reports about climate change, and how it is expected to affect Arab countries.

First, they showed footage of the coral reefs in danger. 

And of the droughts we can expect:

 

As well as floods:

The BBC Arabic coverage coincided with a global report released by the IPCC, which is a UN-sponsored panel monitoring climate change. Here is the report's chairman presenting the urgent matter. 

The coverage was led by Fida Bassil. She interviewed an Arab climate change expert, so she could get the Arab side of the story. Fida asked why, if the UN is using strong language in its reports, have there not been steps taken to dampen climate change, and why are there no tangible results?

She also asked him, why has the world failed in this? But the Arab expert said the world hasn't completely failed.

The name of this Arab expert is Azzat Abd Al Hameed.

Then, a few weeks later they did more climate change reporting, this time about efforts Saudi Arabia is making in the field of solar energy. According to the BBC Arabic, Saudi would like to transform from being an oil-exporting country to a country that exports sustainable energy. Not bad!

This man was explaining all about solar energy:

This is a plant I think that produces solar panels in Saudi. 

And I think these are fields of solar panels soaking up the sunlight.

I think they said: Saudi Arabia would like to keep their oil underground, and just export solar energy and stuff. 

 And I think they said further that Saudi Arabia will soon get 30% of its energy from solar energy.

France's elections

(March 24, 2014)

I think this blog is going to turn into the Fida Bassil fan-club. Here she is again, this time discussing recent French elections that swung to the far-right, and what this means for Muslims living in France.

This is Fida after the show was over, wishing us all a good day.

And this is the French lady winning the elections:

Fida spoke with a couple of people. First, an analyst said that it was bad politics to be defined by what you are against. In the case of the far-right French, they are against immigration. The analyst said that they'd had to branch out some: they now had positions on all issues and not just immigration.

Then Fida spoke to a man named Eli. Eli is originally Lebanese, but he supports France's far-right parties.

How is that possible? Fida asks him. You are an immigrant yourself.

Eli: yes, but this party is not against immigrants, it is just against the politics of immigration. If you invite someone into your home, would you do so without having enough food for them to eat? Right now in France, we have economic problems, and few jobs, and the immigrants coming in are all ...

Fida asked him: your far-right party has been in power before, but was quickly voted out. What are you going to do differently this time?

Eli: France is a democracy. We don't want to control how people vote. They vote for whom they choose.

Fida: okay, but what's your strategy?

Eli: babbled on.

Alice

(March 25, 2014)

ABC Family, the American television company, wanted to run a show called 'Alice'. It was a show that was kind of stereotyping of Muslims. Alice goes with her family to live in Saudi Arabia and I guess the show was supposed to be about how she deals with life there. There was an outcry, and the show was canceled. The BBC Arabic with Fida Bassil took a look.

First, they showed clips of other ABC shows. Yes, Modern Family ended up on the Arabic news. Weird, right?

Then they had a special report by BBC correspondent Wafa Ishbay.

Here is Fida Bassil introducing the segment. I guess that is Alice sitting behind her.

Fida spoke with an analyst, asking: it's been almost thirteen years since September 11, why are Americans still so smitten by Muslim stereotypes that they would even think of producing such a show?

Well, I think thirteen years dotted with lots of other explosions (not necessarily in the US) might be part of the problem, but the analyst didn't say that. He said the reason stereotypes about Muslims persist is due to three factors:

1. Some people still think it's the time of the Crusades, and are locked into a west versus Islam vision of the world. 

2. The media and Hollywood go out of their way to reinforce stereotypes. I'm almost positive he said 'Jews in Hollywood', but with my Arabic skills, I wouldn't necessarily bet lots of money on that. 

3. Arabs in the US don't do enough to paint a different picture. 

They interviewed another Muslim-American who talked about how unfair it all was. He said something like: it's so unfair that Americans don't understand how much Arab culture respects women, and Arab-Americans should do more to demonstrate that. 

That's all good and well, but might I point out that the BBC Arabic runs an in-depth program practically every other week about how very disrespected women are in the Arab world? And now this guy wants to override all that?

Arab League meeting

(March 25, 2014)

The BBC Arabic, hosted by Fida Bassil, held a discussion over the Arab League meeting that recently took place. The Arab League was trying to figure out what to do about Syria.

This man connected to the studio live from Kuwait.

He said: we need more negotiations between the Syrian government and the Syrian rebels.

Fida says: but the head of the Arab League disagrees with you. He says that the last negotiations in Geneva failed, that it was all the government's fault, and that the two sides need to keep fighting, and that they should receive foreign weapons.

Man on live video from Kuwait: more foreign help with lead to a new Somalia!

Fida: but right now the Syrian government is winning on the ground. Why should the Syrian government negotiate if they have the advantage on the battlefield?

Man on live video from Kuwait: they would be forced to negotiate if the Arab League presented a unified front and a unified plan!

Syria has been kicked out of the Arab League, so another point of controversy I gathered was if they should be allowed at the Summit - where should the Syrian representatives sit?

But this journalist to the right, who was talking with Fida in the studio, said she didn't care where Syria sat. She just wished that there could be talks, cooperation, and that something could get done.

And then she said: this bloodshed in Syria cannot continue forever! Suppose in the next few months the total death toll reaches 200,000 (I mean, I hope that doesn't happen of course!) but the point is, if many more Syrians die, the US and Russia will have to do something! They can't just sit and watch!

Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar at each other's throats

(March 11, 2014)

Another day, and another blow-up at the BBC Arabic. And yet again, Fida Bassil was presiding and had to diplomatically wind her way around her inflamed guests.

This time around, it was Iraq versus Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The Iraqi guest was late, so at first, it was just two men, one each from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and a third man who was an independent analyst. The Saudi and Qatari are friends. But they don't like Iraq, especially in light of what the Iraqi Prime Minister said recently.

The Iraqi PM is called Al-Maliki. He flatly said that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are waging a war against Iraq, because of all the young Qatari and Saudi men that cross the border into Iraq and blow themselves up. Qatar and Saudi reject this. Says the Saudi guest:
We do not support terrorism in the least. Al-Maliki is the one who's got American support, and now he's making claims against Saudi and Qatar.

It was very boring while just the men were talking.

Cue the Iraqi guest, an Iraqi lady called Ms. Hanan who is a member of the Iraqi Parliament.

 All the guests gathered either in the studio, via TV, or by phone

Fida asks her: what caused Al-Maliki to make these claims that Saudi and Qatar are waging a war?

Hanan: Hi (in a very flat tone). I'm very sorry I did not hear what happened so far, I don't know what your other guests have been talking about.

The other guests had been talking junk about Iraq, but Fida smoothed all this over: "just general background stuff, don't worry, you didn't miss much."

Hanan: today, we Iraqis are playing a price: kids, women, men, sheikhs, Muslims and non-Muslims. The people causing problems are not Iraqis.

Fida: alright, if this has been going on for a long while, then why did Al-Maliki wait till two days ago to accuse Saudi and Qatar of being behind all of these bombs?

Hanan: (getting a bit worked up) This is not the first time the government has made these accusations! We've addressed these concerns to the UN, to the Arab League, to the EU. About the Saudis, we have arrested so many Saudi men within our borders who were trying to blow themselves up. Those who say there's not cause for anger are delusional.

Fida: you're not answering, I'm asking about the indications, the evidence for what Al-Maliki is saying, and why he's saying it today. This is the first time he's said something with so much clarity, going as far as to say that Saudi and Qatar are waging a war against Iraq.

Hanan: No evidence? I just told you about all the people we've arrested. When you have people coming from another country intent on destruction, that country should be made responsible. We're talking about waves of people with foreign passports. The Iraqi has a report with the firm numbers, and no one can be doubtful of the Saudi and Qatari support underpinning all this.

Fida: Others say that even if you are arresting Saudis in Iraq, does that mean the Saudi government is behind it? Could it be those individuals are acting of their own free will?

Hanan: okay, and can we ever hear any condemnation from the Saudis about terrorism, about suicides, about explosions?

Fida: yes, they just came out with a strong condemnation two days ago.

 Fida trying to remain calm as her guests go haywire

Hanan: (about to go apoplectic) two days ago?? Just two days ago?? Why two days ago?? Was Al-Qaida created two days ago? Was Da-ash created two days ago? And Nusra was created this morning at dawn, I suppose? (Da-ash and Nusra are all terrorist groups, and I'm sure you've heard of al-qaider.) The Saudis didn't release their condemnation until they saw the problems coming to their own door, after American pressure and because of Obama's visit, and because they finally got ashamed of themselves. I welcome this condemnation but it is late! (yelling now)

Fida: let me ask my Qatari guest. Is it possible all these Saudi terrorists can be operating in Iraq without the Saudi government behind them? People say that the sheer numbers defy the argument that they're all acting on their own.

Qatari guy: Actually, we've been against terrorism all this time. People think terrorism started with September 11th, but actually it started with explosions in Riyadh (the Saudi capital) in the 1990s, and we've been working against it all this time, unlike Al-Maliki. In fact, al-Maliki is not doing anything good for Iraq.

Fida: he was elected by the Iraqi people.

Qatari guy: no, he was appointed by the court! And he is eager for fraud and corruption and impersonation and something called 'tazweer'.

Fida: People say that you try to suppress terrorism within your own borders, but you support it elsewhere.

Qatari guy: Not true! We work against terrorism inside our borders, and we also work regionally, through religious avenues. In the meantime, al-Maliki isn't doing anything for the advantage of Iraq. He is just trying to become good buddies with Iran. In fact, he is supporting terrorism by all the people he released from prison and who are now fighting in Syria.

Then the Saudi guy got to chime in.

Saudi guy: First, I'd like to thank Ms. Hanan for being here, and I would like to urge her to find a new way of expressing herself.

Fida: Mr. Saudi, everyone has a right to express themselves as they choose.

Saudi guy: I know, but she needs to calm down. Al-Maliki has failed with his own internal administration so he's trying to blame the rest of the world. Iraq needs today a government that is ... and I lost him.

Fida: alright, back to Ms. Hanan. When Al-Maliki says that Qatar and Saudi are waging a war against Iraq, why did he forget Syria? The Syrian president has said that the Syrian war is going to blow up and ruin Iraq and Lebanon. Why isn't your Prime Minister worried about the threat from that direction?

Hanan: I wish you would share the time equally between all of us.

Fida: I am.

Hanan: Listen to me! (starts asking rhetorical questions) Did Nusra start in Iraq? Did al-Qaida start in Iraq? Al-Qaida, which was armed and financed by the Gulf countries of Saudi and Qatar and ...

Fida: and where did Da-ash start?

Hanan: are you suggesting that Da-ash started in Iraq?

Fida: yes, it did.

Hanan: No, it didn't.

Fdia: listen to me, I'm trying to ask you a question.

Hanan: Listen to me! You gave your other guests plenty of time.

Fida: I'd like to ask you a question.

Hanan: No. Who put the Saudi or Qatari guest in charge of Iraq? None of you are in charge! None of you ought to interfere.

Fida: we can't get any result if we keep going this way.

Hanan: yes, we can!

Fida: Please, I need you to answer the question.

Hanan: I will commit to saying exactly what your guests are committed to saying!

Fida: okay.

Hanan: who was it who put all the money and support into terrorists, who are blowing up buses and trains in Europe and America? It was all the Saudis. The Saudis have a problem with Iraq because we are 65% Shia. Well, you're all going to have to get over it. We are Shia and that's just the way it's going to be.

(By the way, the Prime Minister al-Maliki is Shia as well. Saudi is mostly Sunni. Sunni/Shia are branches of Islam.)

Fida: alright Ms. Hanan, this is not just a place for you to air your opinions. I want you to listen to others, and answer my questions, please. You said that Saudi supports terrorists, but does that mean they're doing it in Iraq? and when you say that Iraq is 65% Shia, doesn't this contribute to the sectarian problems?

Hanan: the only people who talk about sectarian issues are the neighboring countries. Iraq is a democracy, we discuss things, and we all live together and we can solve our problems without anyone else's help. We don't want Arab interference nor Turkish. We are a rich country, we can solve things on our own. Also, if you read the recent report from Saudi, they make it obvious that they've been behind all the bombings in Iraq. The report says, not the terrorists, not the criminals, but the killers! It says, to all the killers, if you return within one month to Saudi you will be granted amnesty. Isn't this the biggest proof that the Saudis know there are thousands of people they've sent out to do mischief?

Qatari guy: it's quite clear that Ms. Hanan read the report incorrectly. Also, Qatar and Saudi are friends and united in all the principle issues. (not sure what point he was trying to make.)

Fida turns now to her independent analyst: What led to Al-Maliki making these claims now?

Analyst: I was taking a nap!

Fida: (laughs) it's clearly a hot issue!

Analyst: we have a problem in the Arab countries, and I think it's too bad that Hanan, although she talks in a good way, had to add that in Iraq, 'we are 65% Shia'. This is the sectarianism that is creating the problem and destroying ourselves and destroying Iraq as well. I hope they can stop that kind of thinking, and the Saudis, too, because who is going to Twitter, and Facebook, and online news channels, saying all sorts of nasty things about Shias? I am Sunni msyelf, but I tell you amongst my fellow Sunnis are those who say absolutely awful things. It is a known thing that they are interfering ...

I am Sunni, but I tell you the Saudis are provoking!

Fida: Does that mean they are interfering in Iraq?

Analyst: of course.

Fida: If they are doing all that, can we show all the evidence?

Analyst: Just listen to me.

Fida: is the norm that we should show evidence first, or that we make accusations first?

Analyst: Listen to me! Just a bit! (in a tone that said, "shut up, you silly little girl!")

Fida: okay.

Analyst: the evidence is the mufti of Saudi Arabia, who said he urges for a jihad outside of Saudi's borders. So there's a non-official jihad. If you're monitoring Twitter, you will see that all these muftis have suddenly disappeared. (maybe I didn't follow this right, but he was describing the evidence.) But all this does not take away that Al-Maliki has a crisis. I think he doesn't have a lot of support in the Parliament right now. His old supporters have accused him of corruption. And the Kurds have accused him of sectarianism. And so have the Sunnis. So who are Al-Maliki's friends, who is going to vote for him, who will support him in Parliament? He lost all that support himself. If he worked in an open way with the Kurds and the Sunnis and even the Shias, in a transparent way, then Iraq wouldn't have come to this crisis.

Fida: al-Maliki says that he is not sectarian, and the biggest proof is that he fought against his former Shia ally, Sadr.

Analyst: no, that's just because you still get splits in your own house. Sadr might be Shia, but he wasn't toeing the party line. al-Maliki's political party is the Dawah party, and there's not a single Sunni in it. It's always been a sectarian party. So what we want from al-Maliki is that he represents all of Iraq.

Saudi guy: we are not trying to interfere. It's the Iraqis who are going to go vote.

Some where in all this talk, the Saudi or Qatari guy, or maybe the analyst, insinuated that Iraq was getting too buddy-buddy with the US. 

Fida: Ms. Hanan, people say that al-Maliki has lost all internal support, so now he's stirring things up abroad by making these aggressive statements in order to bolster support back at home.

Hanan: the only thing that will prove this is the elections which are scheduled for the end of May. Also, your guest twisted my words. I didn't say we wanted the worst for the other Arab countries. We started embassies in all the countries, but they all refused us. (starting to raise her voice) Whenever a government counterpart in Saudi dies, we send a whole delegation to pay our respects, we are always trying to show manners to the other Arab countries. We try to have trade with the Saudis. Also, as to being too close to the United States, al-Maliki has said often that yes, it was the US who attacked, but what of the neighboring countries (Saudi) who gave the US the launchpad for the attack? So before you blame Iraq, blame yourselves! And these are the same countries who refuse to open embassies in Iraq but talk about opening them with Israel. And for that matter, I don't think that Russia has a sectarian, Sunni-Shia agenda when even they accuse the Saudis and Qatar of supporting terrorism. And the other day dozens of innocents died in a bomb ... !

Fida: (raising her voice to be heard) Ms. Hana! the fact that there's danger in Iraq is because Iraq itself cannot properly govern and administer itself and provide law and order. Iraq is responsible for what is happening. Also, as to what the other guests have said, al-Maliki has enemies amongst Kurds and everyone. Who is al-Maliki's friend?

Hanan: al-Maliki's friend is the Iraqi street. Those same Kurds and Sunnis have withdrawn their support in the past, on two occasions when we've had previous crises. But then in the end we talked it out and they gave their support again. Just because right now we have problems is not justification for anyone to interfere ...

Fida: the other day, the Kurds were demonstrating in the Iraqi street. The Sunnis have been demonstrating for months, people are demonstrating about a new law. What street are you talking about?

Hanan: listen, those Kurdish demonstrators have issues with other stuff, it's not against al-Maliki personally. As for the Sunnis, there's thousands of Iraqi Sunnis who are fighting for al-Maliki and against the terrorists and in Anbar they rose up against the terrorists. You report the news in a certain way to show sectarianism. I agree with the analyst that I hate sectarianism and we don't want it!

Fida: yes, the analyst was accusing you of employing it.

Hanan: keeps yelling!!

There's not much time left, but Fida turns and gives a final chance for comments to the rest of her guests, and everyone is so wrapped up they lose track of time and she doesn't even have time to reel off the names of all her guests before the hour is up. They ended as far in disagreement as they started, but I think it's good to air these sorts of things in the open.

I like that Fida always smiles after these shows, no matter how wild. See, y'all, y'all can stay calm and work it out and smile, too!

Watch the program on Youtube by clicking here.

Fida Bassil and the Astonishing Israeli

(March 3, 2014)

Fida Bassil, fearless BBC Arabic presenter, has been doing lots of debates between Israelis and Palestinians recently.

She had this Israeli official on the show live from Tel Aviv:

He was quite astonishing. He said:

First of all, we need to remember that this land (the West Bank) was occupied before 1967. At that time, it was occupied by Jordan. Today, according to international law, it is actually not occupied land. So if we build settlements on it ...

Fida: what are you talking about? Your own prime minister says that two lands - that this piece of land should be split into two. Are you now talking about one land? Is that what we've come to?

TelAviv: yes. First of all, the land is already split. There's a Palestinian country in Gaza. Now, there is no one in the world, not in Washington or Amman or London or anywhere, that can tell us that if the West Bank is removed from Israeli control, that it will not become a new Hamasistan.

Fida: alright, let me put that to my guest from Palestine.

Guest from Palestine: reiterates that they want land based on the 1967 borders, and they want no more settlement building.

Fida and women

(November 18, 2013)

Back in November, the BBC Arabic did another show all about women. It was 'härligt', because all the participants were women. That meant that no one started yelling, no one interrupted, there were hardly even any pointed fingers! Different opinions, yes, but no one chomping at the bit and insulting others for thinking a different way. Ah, peaceful!

The show was helmed by the very capable Fida Bassil.

The basis for the show was a poll which had ranked Arab countries based on how women are treated. Egypt ended up really low in the poll.

This is an Egyptian activist for women's rights.

She says: probably the reason Egypt fares so badly in the poll is because it focused on violence. Maybe in other areas related to women's rights Egypt does pretty well, but when it comes to violence, it's really bad.

Fida: not so fast. The report did not just focus on violence. It looked at violence, but also at the role of women in families, involvement in politics and economics; and also besides violence, it also focused on sexual harassment.

Lady in the blue sweater: yes, the report did also focus on early marriages for girls, female genital mutilation, harassment and sexual assault. Yes, Egypt is right now seeing lots of these violations against women. And yes, I agree that we are not involved enough in political arenas, though we are present.

Fida: the report looked at four areas: violence towards women; how much of a choice a woman has in her reproductive rights; how women are treated inside a family, and the inclusion of women in politics and economics. Do you agree that those were the right metrics?

Lady in the blue sweater: I agree that these were the right standards to go by, and they follow what the UN and what Unicef would say the standards are. However, I think we should remember that the research team behind the report ignored political movements that are in fact happening. But when it comes to violence, the report is entirely correct; yes, we Egyptian women do suffer from violence.

Next a Tunisian lady, Ms. Fatoom, joined the conversation. She is a member of the political assembly in the Tunisian Nahda party.

Ms. Fatoom: We say that in spite of some things, the Arab Spring helped the status of women, because women were actors in the revolutions, part of the protests, and it is our right to enjoy our accomplishments of overturning the governments. I think this report revealed the fears that perhaps in the years to come, women won't continue to progress, but when it comes to Tunisia, Tunisia was ranked pretty high amongst all the Arabs, and was the first out of the North African countries, so we think we're doing pretty well, especially compared to the other countries who recently had revolutions.

Fida: what do you make of the fact that the role of women in society went backwards in some cases under the Arab Spring, for all that women participated in the revolutionary process?

Ms. Fatoom: it is a basis of Middle Eastern societies to revere men at the expense of women; and to be lacking in giving women true opportunities to distinguish themselves.

Sweden

This is my 100th post, so I am going to make it all about Sweden.

The BBC Arabic ran a story a few weeks ago about Syrian refugees in Sweden. Sweden said, whoever of the refugees can make it to our shores doesn't have to worry, they can stay.

Here is the Swedish Parliament:

Here's a lady helping to register a Syrian man. I wonder what that blinking contraption is for.

Glad Swedish sunshine, as the BBC reporter speaks to a refugee. The refugee said: we went to Italy first, but they kicked us out. So we came to Sweden.

A kid swinging his legs:

A man teaching a Swedish language class! My darling, angel Sweden has the most Syrian refugees out of all of Europe.

Still registering:

This is the BBC reporter, but don't pay him no mind. Just feast your eyes on Stockholm in the background.

About Sweden: "this is a country of peace," says the Syrian man's shadow.

This ran maybe in late October or early November. I really don't remember. A few weeks after that, I opened the BBC Arabic halfway through a show hosted by Fida Bassil:

This is Fida Bassil, but not, however, from the day of the show in question. I didn't get a live picture. I wanted to include this one, because aren't her dress and necklace pretty?

Any case, when I checked into the show halfway, Fida was interviewing the foreign minister or someone in the government from Bulgaria, asking him why Bulgaria was not accepting more Syrian refugees (Bulgaria had promised to take 1000.) The Bulgarian minister said, "well, we don't have any money to do any more."

I think I gathered that Fida was interviewing government officials from all across Europe, asking them about their response to the Syrian refugee crisis. I thought, for sure she must have interviewed an official from Sweden. I can't be positive, but they would want to show a range of response, from lots of asylum granted to hardly any asylum granted. But if she did indeed interview a Swedish person that day, I missed it. SHUCKS!

Violence in Iraq

(late October, 2013)

The BBC Arabic had a show about all the violence in Iraq.


First, the guests talked about everything that is wrong with Iraq these days:

1. sometimes schools are blown up, and the kids are all really stressed

2. one Iraqi man said: we are raising a generation of children who think everything is based on killing someone

3. People are so stressed out that their hair is falling out and they can't sleep, so says this professor:

4. Everyone is too scared to let their kids go outside, not only because they might be killed by a bomb, but because apparently there is a roaring drug trade happening on the streets.

5. Lots of people have stories as follows: I was ten minutes late to class, but in my absence, it was blown up.

Then the presenter Fida Bassil asked a very provocative question: "There's people who say that Iraqi society is at its roots a violent society. That's why we're seeing so much bloodshed."

The Iraqis she was interviewing denied this.

The man said: no, it's not a question of being genetically disposed to violence.

Fida said: but even before the American occupation, Iraqi society was violent. There's never been a transfer of power without bloodshed. It always happens through killings.

The man said: but that's always going to be the case in a society when you don't have elections.

I think he has a point, and if you are going to consider Iraqi society violent, then you'd also have to consider Germans and people in Rwanda as super-psycho and violent. The only thing I really don't like is when Iraqis, in spite of everything happening, still going around talking as if they are the best thing ever. No, you're not!!! Please don't go around calling other countries 'corrupt' when your society is producing a bunch of people willing to blow themselves up and kill dozens of people at mosques, schools, and markets.

Then they started talking about Sunnis and Shias. Both the Iraqis on the program denied that there was going to be a war between the two sides. They said that your everyday Iraqi, no matter from what stripe, rejects violence directed at the opposite group in that way.

And, they said that the people who blow things up have a special tactic. No matter what their true identity is, they go blow up a Shia mosque, and say a Sunni did it. Then they go blow up a Sunni mosque, and say that a Shia did it. So there are people who purposefully aim their targets to cause the greatest rage. But the two guests said that Iraqis understand all this and refused to be fooled.

Fida asked, then why is it the case that you see Sunnis moving to areas with only Sunnis, and Shias moving to areas with only Shias, if the two sides are indeed getting along in spite of the bombs.

I think the man said: well, people are moving to feel greater security, but in their hearts they don't want to.

Watch the program here.

Update January 11, 2014:
I know people who know people who live in Iraq, so I've heard from them, in a second-second-hand way, that they stay out for all hours at night. In fact, one guy never comes home before midnight, and one girl is also always everywhere at restaurants and coffee shops. And one person went to visit four weeks ago and was amazed at how the streets were full of people coming and going.

Illegal immigration

(October 9, 2013)

Here is one of the many discussions the BBC Arabic did regarding illegal immigration, stemming from the capsizing of a boat last week off the coast of Italy that led to the deaths of over 300 people coming from Africa.

I wanted to let you know right away that Sweden's decision to grant asylum to all refugees from Syria was mentioned, a message straight from the lips of this lovely lady:

Fida Bassil, fearless BBC Arabic presenter

This guest below said that in the past, Europe called illegal immigrants 'irregular immigrants', or 'non-systematic' immigrants. But recently this has evolved to 'illegal'.

 

Dr. Osaam Ghazooli, Director of the Arab Institute for Immigration Studies

Then he said that in the past, the numbers of illegal immigrants from the eastern and southern Mediterranean coast making their way to Italy had been about seven thousand to nine thousand per year. But there has been deep upheaval in the Middle East these past years! In this year alone, from January to September, thirty thousand illegal immigrants have arrived in Italy. And most of them are Syrian.
 

He said that in the past, Libya and Tunisia used to function as guardians of the southern European border. They would catch illegal immigrants before they left the African continent and convince them to work for Libya's oil sector (but how many oil jobs did Libya really have? Enough for whole companies of migrant workers?)
Then he tried to blame everything on NATO: "Now the situation in Libya has imploded. After NATO's operation, may God bless them (or did he mean may God damn them?), Libya became awash in terrible weapons, which have reached the hands of the anarchists and now there's nothing in place to police the gateway into southern Europe as there used to be."

Then Fida moved on to her next guest, Dr. Tariq, the one on the TV split screen wearing the blue tie:

 

The guy to the right of the split screen is Dr. Tariq Shendub from Beirut, professor of International Law

He said that in 2000, the UN passed a treaty against the smuggling of humans, and against the international trafficking of humans. That was probably a good treaty to pass; but it legislates against the maneuvers through which illegal immigrants try to transplant themselves.

On the other hand, the treaty also stipulates that countries should treat their refugees and illegal immigrants in a humane way, because, as Dr. Tariq puts it, no one leaves their countries unless they are forced to do so, because of wars, or from trying to find a better life. Also, countries should not treat their refugees and illegal immigrants as criminals, unless they actually commit a crime there. And finally, the only criminal investigations should be targeted not at the refugees/immigrants themselves, but at the underground networks that arrange the smuggling and the trafficking.

Then it was Mr. Osaam's turn again. He said that in spite of the United Nations treaty, immigrants get treated with less and less humanity. The sole example he gave was: the treatment in the US of immigrants from Mexico and further south. But since he is Arab, I really think he ought to have given an example of Arab countries treating immigrants and refugees poorly.

He mentioned Frontex. I've never heard of that before. Apparently, they are the border guards for the European Union. Mr. Osaam said: the budget of Frontex has shrunk from €118 million to €85 million over the last three years. In order to get more money, according to Mr. Osaam, Frontex exaggerates various crises to make out that they need much more monetary support. All this feeds into more and more scapegoating of immigrants.

Fida asked the professor of international law: suppose an illegal immigrant arrives in a country. We hear about military personnel placed on the borders, we hear that there are agreements to ship immigrants back to the countries they came from, where there are wars and human rights violations, but even so, the immigrants are sent back. So for such a country, a country that places military on its borders and misses any chance of treating people humanely, don't such countries get consequences from international law?  

The international law professor said: the UN treaty is above all things not a statutory commitment, but an ethical commitment. Some countries give lots of help to illegal immigrants. However, if any government breaks international law by sending immigrants back to a dangerous situation where they might be killed, in such cases, international law can criminalize those governments and will consider those officials responsible for carrying out the decisions in violation of international law. And they can be question in a criminal court over their role in deporting immigrants or refugees who might have been killed upon return. The specific example he later gave was that Lebanon had sent some Syrian refugees back to Syria, that this is clearly in violation of international law, and that the people who took the decision would be judged, perhaps not in an international court, but rather .... And I did not quite follow him to the end. He did not sound very definite, at any rate, as to what the exact consequences would be.

Fida noticed a surprised look on Mr. Osaam's face when the international law professor was saying all this. She asked him if he could see evidence in practice of these provisions in international law.

Mr. Osaam said: in fact, the main goal of countries with lots of immigrants is figuring out how to stop them. Either through positive ways, like helping economic and political stability in the immigrants' home countries, or in negative ways. For example, according to Dr. Osaam, right now in Lampedusa, the town in Italy near to where the boat with 300 dead people sank, they have a new rule for illegal immigrants. The rule is that you have to pay a €5000 fine. This is on top of the thousands each migrant paid to their smugglers to stick them on a rickety boat and be taken across the sea, and just barely survive the watery depths of death, to find yourself with a new €5000 fine. I wonder if anyone is going to pay? You can't exactly force anyone to pay anything when you have no money.
 

Mr. Osaam said that these fines, and the use of the word "illegal" in referring to immigrants show that the goal is not protection of immigrants, but rather in deporting and getting rid of them. 
On the other hand, a third guest said that even with the rise of far-right extremists wholly opposed to immigration, such political parties have not been able to get a grip on European parliaments and force many of their ideas through. In Great Britain, for example, he pointed out that there has not been a single law passed recently to restrict immigration. Fida pointed out that in spite of this, fewer political refugees are granted asylum in Great Britain today than in former years. The third guest said this was a security issue, and that some people who are not refugees at all, but instead of affiliated with Al-Qaeda, go around applying for asylum. He said it's not the fault of immigrants, nor the fault of the authorities, but the fault of people who are lying on their applications and making it more difficult for everyone.

Here is the third guest:

 

Adil Darwish, journalist at Britain's Daily Mail newspaper

He speaks with an Egyptian accent. How am I supposed to understand him when he slurs every word abominably?

Fida wanted a different point of view, so she turned back to Mr. Osaam: do you see a general movement towards greater strictness in how immigrants are treated in western countries?

Mr. Osaam: on a cultural level, yes. Wow, and he thinks the cause was the institution of a "cultural studies" program at Birmingham University in 1964, and since that moment, you have seen emerge the politics of identity, and looking at gender and ethnic perspectives, and other divisions. He thinks this led to exaggerated fears of Muslims and of people below the southern borders, and it was the creation of a culture hostile towards immigrants, and if you please, he would go so far as to call it a sickness, because there's a lot of exaggeration in it. However, he concludes, the general opinion in Europe is democratic in its government, cultures and history, and this is what leads most people to defend the rights of immigrants. Mr. Osaam said, getting very passionate and holding up his hands in a prayerful pose, that the general opinion in Europe is getting to be more and more humane regarding immigrants and this will stand in defense of immigrants in the coming years.

They started talking about migrant workers from Lebanon seeking visas to Gulf countries like UAE and Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Fida was hinting that Gulf countries will only grant visas to Lebanese of certain religions, and is this legal? I think she was hinting that Sunnis would get visas, but not Shias. Dr. Tariq of international law said that such favoritism would not be legal, but that he had not known of any such stories. The only thing he was aware of was that it was easier for Lebanese Christians to get visas than it was for Muslims, and that the Gulf countries treated everyone with respected, and made their visa decisions on an individual basis, not on a ethnic or religious basis. 

And the last point was Fida asking: with economic problems how should all these western countries be expected to take in so many refugees and immigrants?

Mr. Osaam said, but oh! these western countries are in dire need of refugees and immigrants to improve their economic positions, the only question now is how to bridge the cultural differences.

The end.

If you want to watch the program, you can find it on YouTube by clicking here.

New Arabic words:
رهيب = rehiib = terrible
فوضويون = fow-thow-ii-oon = anarchists
معاهدات = mo-aa-hidaat = treaties
تهريب = tih-riib = smuggling
يسهم = yu-sehim = contributes
معادية = mo-aa-diya = hostile

Debate on Darfur

Seven UN peacekeepers in Darfur were killed recently. The peacekeeping force there is called 'Unamid'.

The government says that the rebels in Darfur did it; the rebels say the government did it.

Fida Bassil was doing the moderating honors. 

She started by asking the guy representing Sudan’s government: this isn’t the first time Unamid (the name of the UN peacekeepers) have been attacked and killed in Darfur. Every time it happens, the government says it’s going to investigate the true cause, and then it never does. Why?

Government guy: how are we supposed to do an investigation if the rebels are running amok and we can’t even track them down fast enough to pin the blame on them?

Fida: okay then, if the government has found itself incapable of carrying out an investigation, why do you promise each time that you’re going to carry one out, anyways?

Government guy: stutters. Then repeats what he already said: "we go to the place of attack, we try to save whoever was hurt; we try to catch up with the rebel groups running around, but they all flee to the mountains, so what are we to do?"

Fida: so, in other words, your promise of an investigation is just manipulation, an empty maneuver.

Government guy: "no! It’s not a maneuver!" Then he repeats himself all over again.

Fida: alright then, even if the government can’t get all the information, then it should at least publish what it does get. For example, all the circumstances, all the results, and all the evidence that the government is able to gather.

Government guy: yet again, he repeats himself! “We go to the site of the attack! We help the wounded! The rebels flee to the mountains, they live in the mountains (those backwards people) …”

Fida (speaking really slowly to help him out): I’m not talking about the groups who are fleeing, I am talking about the government publishing all the material that it can gather and that sheds light, transparently, on who exactly is responsible for all these attacks.

Government guy: oh, that’s what you meant! Yes, indeed, we’ve determined that the blame is all due to the rebel groups, we’ve already published and advertised that, and why won’t the international community cooperate with the Sudanese government (to help us annihilate the nasty rebels)? I mean, to bring them to justice. And to top it all off, the international community knows where the leaders of these groups live!

Fida gives up on the government guy, and turns to the guy sitting right next to him, with a completely opposite opinion. This guy is part of the rebels. It’s amazing to see him and the government guy sitting side by side.

Rebel guy: it’s the government’s fault the UN peacekeepers were killed.

Fida: but Sudan’s government allowed these peacekeepers into its territory. Why would Sudan attack peacekeepers that it’s invited?

Rebel guy: I’m not sure how his response answered Fida’s question; all I caught is that he accused Sudan’s government of having kidnapped an Italian, a Norwegian, and a Bulgarian. They’re probably aid workers. Now, that ain’t right.

Then the third guest, a former UN spokesman, got into it. He was very critical of Sudan’s government. Woah. How’s the Government Guy going to react now??

The former UN spokesman said: Sudan’s government only allowed UN peacekeepers into the country after 3 years of dragging their feet. They did it under pressure, and put a bunch of conditions as obstacles to their work. For example, Ethiopia sent 5 armed helicopters to the peacekeepers that the government objected to, were never used, and were eventually sent back to Ethiopia.

He said further: the UN peacekeepers are being attacked by three sides: the government militias, rebel groups, and other random armed groups and thugs. (I don’t know why everyone would do that when the UN peacekeepers are just trying to help out and keep the peace, but if you watch the news at all, then you know by now that when it comes to Muslims and Arabs, this is just what we like to do. It’s our favorite pastime. We just can’t help ourselves.)

The former spokesman concluded by saying: every time there is an attack, each of the three sides just blames the other. And he ended by mentioning that the UN had come out with a report recounting all the attacks against the peacekeepers since they got on the ground in 2007. They put down all the details and known facts as far as they could, and Sudan’s government is found to have a large share of the responsibility for many of the attacks.

Of course, when Fida put all this to the government guy, he objected. "No! It’s all lies! They’re making it up. Everything he said is false! And by the way, how dare a UN spokesman attack Sudan! I’m surprised!"

Fida: he’s a journalist now, he doesn’t work there anymore.

Government guy: stutters. 

Fida: tell me exactly what was wrong about the specific examples of Sudanese obstruction you just heard. 

Government guy:  (being very exact) it was all lies! We had no pressure. We didn’t buckle under pressure. We weren’t forced into allowing international peacekeepers. We just had to study the position first.

Fida: Why did you put conditions, like you didn’t allow them to have heavy weapons? What about those Ethiopian helicopters?

Government guy: No! We have put no conditions! We expect Unamid to defend itself! The rebel groups are attacking Unamid and we, the government, are very surprised: why doesn’t it defend itself?!

Fida turns back to the former UN spokesman turned journalist: how can Unamid protect civilians if it can’t protect itself?

UN journalist: yes, Unamid can’t protect itself because it was never allowed to use the strong weapons, technology, communications equipment, etc, that would help. Also, between January and May of this year, 300,000 people in Darfur were kicked out of their homes. This was not covered on the Arab news, nor was it brought to discussion on the Security Council. So Unamid also doesn’t want to broadcast this because it would be broadcasting its own failure, and it is unable to protect anyone; and the Security Council really needs to sit down and make a new resolution that really gives the peacekeepers the tools to protect people in Darfur.

I’m putting the picture of this guy in here. It is good to highlight Arabs willing to speak out about Darfur, since they seem so few and far between.

The former UN spokesman continued: the only action about Darfur that the Security Council has recently taken is that the number of peacekeepers was reduced from 19,000 to 14,000, and the international police force was reduced from 6000 to 4000, as if to show that there has been improvement on the ground, and progress in negotiations between the government and the rebels.

Then another guy spoke via video link-up. He lives in Darfur right now. He said how horrible it was for the peacekeepers to be attacked. I couldn’t really hear all else that he said, the sound was pretty bad.

Then Fida asked the government guy a new question, but he quickly thwarted her. He was still thinking about the UN journalist and how he needed to refute him. He said: no, no, the peacekeeping troops do have the full potential to defend themselves, but they just don’t do it!!! And we are all so surprised about it.

Fida: so, logically, is there anyone who just allows someone to kill them without trying to defend themselves? 

Government guy: stutters. Then: "I’ve been to Darfur myself and I saw for myself all the arms and weapons they have. So why don’t they use them? Unamid will have to answer to that!" Then he goes on to say that the situation in Darfur is getting more and more stable. 

Fida: how? When you have 300,000 people displaced in the last few months? There’s apparently also been assassinations, and now the latest attack on Unamid. And the UN’s humanitarian operations have announced that they will be scaling back their work because it is so unsafe. So how can you say the situation is stable? 

Government guy: I’m going to reply to all this! Those 300,000 you keeping bringing up, part of them fled because of attacks that the rebel groups are responsible for! Another part fled because of tribal fighting that has been going on since before the government rampaged in. And by the way (pointing at the Rebel guy) the reason the tribes are fighting each other now is all because of the actions of the rebel groups, who have allowed weapons to flow to all the tribes so that now everyone has a weapon.

Fida turns to the Rebel guy: aren’t the armed rebel groups partly responsible for some of the devastation you say is going on in Darfur today?

Rebel guy: wheels and deals away from answering the question. Didn’t catch how, or if, he finally answered.

Well, honestly, it just got really boring from there. You got the impression that no one was answering any question, they were just propagandizing. But I still liked the former UN spokesman; his name is Abdel-Hamid Siyam. So I skipped ahead of all the other blabbers to listen to him towards the end. He said that part of the problem in the Security Council is that China gets so much oil from Sudan. So China is loath to put any real pressure on Sudan’s government to cooperate with Unamid (but I thought that the new country of South Sudan, and not Sudan, had most of the oil). And in answer to the Government Guy who had accused him of being unbiased, Mr. Siyam answered, “no, I am not biased towards any side, it’s just that I happen to follow very closely what happens in Darfur, I probably know more about what is happening in Darfur than most people in Sudan.” A good man. Here is his picture again.

Then the government guy got to talk again. Fida brought up a human rights report from a group in Geneva that was rather negative about Sudan’s government. The government guy got quite feisty. “We are so tired of hearing that Geneva, and Kampala, and who knows what other cities, all have it in for Sudan. Sudan, Sudan, Sudan. Doesn’t Sudan have the right to hear its name called without fifty accusations tacked on?”

This guy says so many spectacular things, we really should take a look at his picture:

Fida reminded him that although Sudan dismisses all those other cities, that it was cooperating with Qatar.

Government guy: ah! Well, we trust Qatar. 

Fida: but not Geneva? 

The Government guy waves his arms wildly. “No, no, we don’t trust Geneva! And by the way, the real problem in Sudan is the West. It’s all the West’s fault that we went around killing people in Darfur, FYI.”

Rebel guy: We’ve been hearing this kind of talk, and the perpetual blaming of everyone else, from Sudan’s government for a long time, what is there left to say in response?

           

After that it was a lot of trading insults. Says the Rebel Guy: Sudan’s government thinks it has been sent down from Heaven, they want all the power, everything.

Fida: Yes, it sounds like Sudan’s government believes everything is a conspiracy, but don’t they have a legitimate concern when there are rebel groups with weapons running around?

Oh, dear, it just goes on and on and on.

This debate happened at some point between July 17 and July 23, 2013.
Disclaimer: I don't mean to attribute any of these words to any one; everything was said in Arabic, I am not an official Arabic-English translator, and I am paraphrasing (and in the case of the Government guy, I added some sarcastic comments, but in parenthesis. Basically, he himself said most of the stupid stuff he said.)