Gulf: Iran's the Enemy, America's OK
By Bashir Goth
It is human nature for disadvantaged people to hate anybody with absolute power or unlimited wealth. America has both absolute power and unlimited wealth. It may, however, be the U.S.’s foreign policy and muscle flexing which attract the wrath, rather than its wealth or power per se.
In the Arab world, Palestine is the predominant issue that has shaped the Arab view of the outside world. America was therefore always painted as the enemy due to its enduring support for the state of Israel. Arab nationalists supported by the religious establishment never failed to use every opportunity to accuse America of being the source of everything wrong with the Arab world, from Israel’s occupation of Palestine to Hollywood’s invasion of Arab culture, even the pathetic state of education in Arab schools.
Traditionally it is from the mosque’s pulpit that most of the public agitation against America originates. Earlier it was the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and later the ayatollahs of Iran who painted America as the Great Satan. The latest developments in Afghanistan and Iraq have just added fuel to fire.
Despite this negative image, America always maintained good friends in the Arab world with the petrodollar Gulf countries, as well as Egypt and Jordan acting as custodians of the Arab-American friendship. This is why Islamic extremists led by Al Qaeda view the leaders of these countries as traitors of the Arab and Islamic cause.
Regardless of the rhetoric in the media, the Arab political landscape has taken a seismic shift since 9/11 and the emergence of Al Qaeda. A new Arab powerhouse led by the house of Saud and the other wealthy Gulf countries, traditional friends of America, have taken the reins of regional leadership. The new, young and educated leaders of these countries, which rely on America for their prosperity and protection, have learned to masterfully play the global political game. It is through them and the thousands of youth graduating from American affiliated universities, plus the overwhelming Hollywood influence and the power of the Internet in the Gulf countries that have watered down the impulsive traditional animosity. The ugly fratricide taking place in Iraq and the senseless factional fighting in Palestine have also shown the bankruptcy of the nationalist-Islamist philosophy that claims America as the cause of all evil in the region. It is indeed Iran, with its growing influence and ambitious nuclear programs, rather than America that is viewed as the enemy by Arab Gulf countries.
It is therefore safe to say that with a little more foresight, more sensitive and humanistic foreign policy and less saber rattling, America is guaranteed a long-lasting friendship in the Arab world. Newsweek.Washington Post/Postglobal
Friday, May 18, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
In on a Stallion, Out with Tail between Legs
BY BASHIR GOTH
Tony Blair came into power like a hero on a galloping stallion, young and zealous to change the Labour Party and the world. He was a man shedding his youthful socialist ideals and coming to grips with Thatcherite economic realities. He clicked with his equally media savvy and more politically suave counterpart in the White House, Bill Clinton.
Riding on the wave of New Labour, Blair transformed the UK into one of the most robust economies in Europe, and struck a partnership with Clinton in following the Third Way philosophy. He embraced globalization with full faith and ushered in the 21st century with grand dreams, and has through his charisma won the 2012 Olympic Games to be hosted in London.
In foreign policy, Tony Blair showed a statesman’s leadership in the Kosovo crisis. He also showed his political mettle and tenacity in Africa by committing British troops to end the civil war in Sierra Leone and by his relentless campaign to end Africa’s poverty.Read more in Newsweek.washingtonpost/Postglobal.
BY BASHIR GOTH
Tony Blair came into power like a hero on a galloping stallion, young and zealous to change the Labour Party and the world. He was a man shedding his youthful socialist ideals and coming to grips with Thatcherite economic realities. He clicked with his equally media savvy and more politically suave counterpart in the White House, Bill Clinton.
Riding on the wave of New Labour, Blair transformed the UK into one of the most robust economies in Europe, and struck a partnership with Clinton in following the Third Way philosophy. He embraced globalization with full faith and ushered in the 21st century with grand dreams, and has through his charisma won the 2012 Olympic Games to be hosted in London.
In foreign policy, Tony Blair showed a statesman’s leadership in the Kosovo crisis. He also showed his political mettle and tenacity in Africa by committing British troops to end the civil war in Sierra Leone and by his relentless campaign to end Africa’s poverty.Read more in Newsweek.washingtonpost/Postglobal.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Elected Islamists Can Be Tamed
BY BASHIR GOTH
For most of the Arab and Islamic world, the Bush administration’s boycott of the Palestinian Hamas-led government stands as the epitome of hypocrisy. America pushed for democracy in the Middle East, and in Palestine that’s what it got. But contrary to what it envisioned, elections across the region have brought Islamists to power.
It’s no secret that democratic elections sometimes bring out odd bedfellows, and the Islamists are undesirable bedfellows to many. It is, however, in the best interest of America and the West -- and indeed for the good of the peace in the Islamic world -- to accept Islamists when they come to power through the ballot box. The secret should be to tame them, not to shun them.
The West committed the original sin in Algeria when the Algerian military denied election victory to the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which had won an overwhelming majority of 231 seats out of the 430. Instead of condemning the military’s obstruction of the democratic process, the West applauded it. It was this miscalculated step that reinforced the Islamists’ claim that the West is against Islam. It was here that the clash of civilizations started long before Samuel P. Huntington wrote his ominous article of the same title in Foreign Affairs in 1993.
Read More in Newsweek.WashingtonPost/PostGlobal.
BY BASHIR GOTH
For most of the Arab and Islamic world, the Bush administration’s boycott of the Palestinian Hamas-led government stands as the epitome of hypocrisy. America pushed for democracy in the Middle East, and in Palestine that’s what it got. But contrary to what it envisioned, elections across the region have brought Islamists to power.
It’s no secret that democratic elections sometimes bring out odd bedfellows, and the Islamists are undesirable bedfellows to many. It is, however, in the best interest of America and the West -- and indeed for the good of the peace in the Islamic world -- to accept Islamists when they come to power through the ballot box. The secret should be to tame them, not to shun them.
The West committed the original sin in Algeria when the Algerian military denied election victory to the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which had won an overwhelming majority of 231 seats out of the 430. Instead of condemning the military’s obstruction of the democratic process, the West applauded it. It was this miscalculated step that reinforced the Islamists’ claim that the West is against Islam. It was here that the clash of civilizations started long before Samuel P. Huntington wrote his ominous article of the same title in Foreign Affairs in 1993.
Read More in Newsweek.WashingtonPost/PostGlobal.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Nostalgia for Swords and Heroes
BY Bashir Goth
I am not a fan of hereditary rule. I would rather live in a place where every child can dream of being able to reach the highest position of power. A place where even immigrants and children of immigrant parents such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy can find an open field to compete and achieve their goals through ambition, merit and hard work and not through the mere chance of being born into it.
Having said that, I can understand why the British people should hold on to their queen. I once asked a British friend whether the British would ever get rid of the royalty. “I can’t imagine Britain without the queen,” was his reply. Later, I realized that he was not alone in his nostalgic attachment to the British crown. Even citizens of former British colonies felt the same way about the British royalty. I saw elderly men of my own country, Somaliland, a former British colony, proudly adorning swords, medals and other royal mementoes awarded to them during British rule. Even today the surviving elders still hold dearly their royal memorabilia and flash them around with pride on special occasions. Despite the agony of colonialism, people who lived under the British crown saw the queen as being beyond reproach. They attributed the evils of colonialism to anyone but the queen.
The British people also have more reason to have faith in the queen. Apart from being apolitical, the queen stands out as a noble and divine person; a mother to all people at all times. She has been a rallying point, a unifying force and an emotional anchor at times of national disasters for more than 50 years.
It is also quite palatable why the queen should be revered now more than ever. The world at large is bereft of national leaders with the status of tall historical figures such as Roosevelt, Kennedy, Churchill and De Gaulle. Political dwarfs who do not meet people’s basic expectations of national leaders dominate our modern era. It is no wonder, therefore, that the queen is set on a pedestal by people in search of heroes. She symbolizes the last badge of Britishness for a nation in identity crisis due to globalization and mass migration. She also stands as the last memory of good times for millions of Africans living in Commonwealth countries that haven’t reaped but misery from their independence. They recall their old days under the British crown with sweet memories.
It is unbecoming, however, to compare the situation of the British queen to the unconstitutional despotic dynasties emerging in the Arab world where, for example, former military dictators anoint their sons as heirs under the guise of bogus democracies. The British monarchy is in a class of its own; it draws its strength and glory from the long and checkered history of the British Empire -- although one might question its survival beyond Queen Elizabeth II.
MORE
BY Bashir Goth
I am not a fan of hereditary rule. I would rather live in a place where every child can dream of being able to reach the highest position of power. A place where even immigrants and children of immigrant parents such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy can find an open field to compete and achieve their goals through ambition, merit and hard work and not through the mere chance of being born into it.
Having said that, I can understand why the British people should hold on to their queen. I once asked a British friend whether the British would ever get rid of the royalty. “I can’t imagine Britain without the queen,” was his reply. Later, I realized that he was not alone in his nostalgic attachment to the British crown. Even citizens of former British colonies felt the same way about the British royalty. I saw elderly men of my own country, Somaliland, a former British colony, proudly adorning swords, medals and other royal mementoes awarded to them during British rule. Even today the surviving elders still hold dearly their royal memorabilia and flash them around with pride on special occasions. Despite the agony of colonialism, people who lived under the British crown saw the queen as being beyond reproach. They attributed the evils of colonialism to anyone but the queen.
The British people also have more reason to have faith in the queen. Apart from being apolitical, the queen stands out as a noble and divine person; a mother to all people at all times. She has been a rallying point, a unifying force and an emotional anchor at times of national disasters for more than 50 years.
It is also quite palatable why the queen should be revered now more than ever. The world at large is bereft of national leaders with the status of tall historical figures such as Roosevelt, Kennedy, Churchill and De Gaulle. Political dwarfs who do not meet people’s basic expectations of national leaders dominate our modern era. It is no wonder, therefore, that the queen is set on a pedestal by people in search of heroes. She symbolizes the last badge of Britishness for a nation in identity crisis due to globalization and mass migration. She also stands as the last memory of good times for millions of Africans living in Commonwealth countries that haven’t reaped but misery from their independence. They recall their old days under the British crown with sweet memories.
It is unbecoming, however, to compare the situation of the British queen to the unconstitutional despotic dynasties emerging in the Arab world where, for example, former military dictators anoint their sons as heirs under the guise of bogus democracies. The British monarchy is in a class of its own; it draws its strength and glory from the long and checkered history of the British Empire -- although one might question its survival beyond Queen Elizabeth II.
MORE
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Somali untouchables
By Bashir Goth, 24 April 2007
IF YOU think that Dalits (untouchables) exist only in India think again. We have them in Somalia. But what makes the situation of ours even worse is that unlike India where people belong to different races, languages and colours; Somalia is the most homogenous country in Africa with people belonging to a single race and sharing a common language, a common religion and a common skin complexion.
To find a dehumanised group of people in a third world country may look normal, despite its gravity, but the real tragedy is when international human rights organisations ignore the plight of such people.
One such blunder that went unnoticed appeared in the March 2007 report of the Minority Rights Group International (MRG), which placed Somalia above Iraq as the world’s most dangerous country for minority groups. For anyone familiar with Somalia, this assessment will conjure up images of clans who suffered for centuries from sub-human treatment. We Somalis know them; UN organisations on the ground know them and anyone with Internet access will have no difficulty to find them.
Amazingly, however, the MRG, which brags in its website of listening to minorities and indigenous peoples to avoid prescriptive and patronising approaches, and having some 130 partners in some 60 countries, has not only failed to find them but has shockingly confiscated their only right of being a minority and adorned it to their tormentors.
The MRG described the Somali clans of Darood, Hawiye and Issaq as minorities who were under threat. These three clans are the most numerous, most dominant and most powerful clans of the Somali race, but by an absurd twist of fate they have become the most threatened minorities in the books of the imminent MRG, thus negating the true minorities such as the Gabooye, Midgaan, the Bantus, the Xamar Cad and others.
Coming across this enormous gaffe, I found myself obliged to take the awesome responsibility of teaching this imminent organisation a lesson or two about the Dalits of the Somali race.
Ladies and gentlemen of the MRG, we have a clan that we Somalis do not even allow them to share the name Somali with us. We call them Sab and we call ourselves Somali; we call them Midgaan and we call ourselves Aji (blue blood). It is ironic that the word Sab has the same pronunciation as the English word Sub which among other things means below; under; beneath, subordinate; inferior, less than completely or normal. And by a strange coincidence the Somali word Sab has the same meaning and even worse. Read more in Khaleej Times
By Bashir Goth, 24 April 2007
IF YOU think that Dalits (untouchables) exist only in India think again. We have them in Somalia. But what makes the situation of ours even worse is that unlike India where people belong to different races, languages and colours; Somalia is the most homogenous country in Africa with people belonging to a single race and sharing a common language, a common religion and a common skin complexion.
To find a dehumanised group of people in a third world country may look normal, despite its gravity, but the real tragedy is when international human rights organisations ignore the plight of such people.
One such blunder that went unnoticed appeared in the March 2007 report of the Minority Rights Group International (MRG), which placed Somalia above Iraq as the world’s most dangerous country for minority groups. For anyone familiar with Somalia, this assessment will conjure up images of clans who suffered for centuries from sub-human treatment. We Somalis know them; UN organisations on the ground know them and anyone with Internet access will have no difficulty to find them.
Amazingly, however, the MRG, which brags in its website of listening to minorities and indigenous peoples to avoid prescriptive and patronising approaches, and having some 130 partners in some 60 countries, has not only failed to find them but has shockingly confiscated their only right of being a minority and adorned it to their tormentors.
The MRG described the Somali clans of Darood, Hawiye and Issaq as minorities who were under threat. These three clans are the most numerous, most dominant and most powerful clans of the Somali race, but by an absurd twist of fate they have become the most threatened minorities in the books of the imminent MRG, thus negating the true minorities such as the Gabooye, Midgaan, the Bantus, the Xamar Cad and others.
Coming across this enormous gaffe, I found myself obliged to take the awesome responsibility of teaching this imminent organisation a lesson or two about the Dalits of the Somali race.
Ladies and gentlemen of the MRG, we have a clan that we Somalis do not even allow them to share the name Somali with us. We call them Sab and we call ourselves Somali; we call them Midgaan and we call ourselves Aji (blue blood). It is ironic that the word Sab has the same pronunciation as the English word Sub which among other things means below; under; beneath, subordinate; inferior, less than completely or normal. And by a strange coincidence the Somali word Sab has the same meaning and even worse. Read more in Khaleej Times
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Why Ethiopia is welcome in Hargeisa, not in Mogadishu?
By Bashir Goth, April 12, 2007=
Somaliland opposition leaders seem to have lost their political campus since the Ethiopian-backed Federal Transitional Government (TFG) routed the Islamic Courts in Mogadishu.
Forgetting that Somaliland depends on Ethiopia for its bread and butter, they started criticizing it albeit indirectly for what they call the Ethiopian invasion of Mogadishu.
Kulmiye leader Ahmed Mohammed Silanyo has compared the onslaught of the Ethiopian-backed Somalia Federal Transitional Government (TFG) forces against insurgents in Mogadishu to Siyad Barre’s bombardment of Hargeisa and other Somaliland towns. Faisal Ali Waraabe, Leader of the Justice and Welfare Party (UCID), also branded Ethiopia’s military actions in Mogadishu as Xaraan (illegitimate).
Hearing these statements coming from leaders of a country that was founded on Ethiopian support and owes its geopolitical existence on Addis Ababa makes us wonder whether these men have been hit by amnesia.
One may therefore be obliged to refresh their memory by reminding them that Somaliland’s recognition goes through Addis Ababa; that it was Ethiopia which had sheltered Somaliland refugees for years and provided them arms and ammunition to fight and eventually defeat the tyrannical regime of Siyad Barre. One may remind these gentlemen that it was Ethiopian military officers and political representatives who were present and blessed the rebirth of Somaliland at the conference of Buroa on 18th May 1991 and indeed it was the first day that the Ethiopian flag was raised with reverence on Somali soil. One may remind them that it is Addis Ababa that embraces Somaliland politicians and gives them the opportunity to sell their story to African officials and foreign diplomats. It is indeed Ethiopia that trains Somaliland’s military and extends to it arms and uniforms.
One may be perplexed as to why these men are acting so emotionally about what is happening in Mogadishu as if Somaliland is still part and parcel of Somalia. Why can’t they understand that Somaliland, like Djibouti, like Kenya and indeed like the rest of the African countries should subscribe to the position of the African Union that supports the TFG and understands the reasons that led to the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia. One may find it hard to comprehend the motives of Somaliland opposition leaders who seem to just have woken up to the suffering of the residents of Mogadishu. Why we didn’t hear their loud voices, their lamentations and their condemnations of crimes against humanity over the last 16 years when ruthless warlords were committing all kinds of atrocities against the people of Mogadishu. Weren’t they singing lullabies with the warlords and deriving pleasure from the mayhem and bloodshed in Mogadishu. If this is not true then why the notorious warlords such as Muse Suudi Yalahow, Osman Atto and Bashir Rage were welcomed with red carpets in Hargeisa, while Somaliland-born figures who committed no crimes against the nation such as Jama Yare were detained and deported from their homeland.
Why this sudden feeling of brotherhood towards the Hawiye one may ask? Did Faisal Waraabe forget his famous words when he said: “ A man who is born in Addis Ababa has closer cultural ties to Somaliland than a man born in Mogadishu…” Do the sympathizers of Mogadishu insurgents really believe that the Hawiye would support Somaliland’s independence? Don’t they remember the unambiguous rejection of Ali Mahdi, Abdiqasim Salad, Mohammed Ghedi of Somaliland secession? Don’t they recall the repeated threats of the Islamic Courts of invading Hargeisa?
If we assume that these men are honestly against the Ethiopian occupation of brotherly Somali people why don’t they feel the same about the Somali people under Ethiopian occupation in the Ogaden region? Why didn’t they condemn the Somaliland authorities when they arrested members of the Ogaden people and deported them? How come the blood of the Somalis in Mogadishu is dearer to Somalilanders than the blood of Somalis in Qabridaharre, Foolxeex, Farmadow, Gurdumi, Madax-Maroodi and Karin-Bilcille?
How come they lament about the departure of Islamic Courts when they know that had the Somali Taliban clerics had their way they would have been in Hargeisa today and that Silanyo and Waraabe wouldn’t have postured themselves as presidential hopefuls in a democratic Somaliland.
It is awfully wrong and indeed regrettable to see Somaliland opposition leaders criticizing Ethiopia albeit indirectly for giving support to the TFG government when Somaliland itself thrives on the political and military support of Ethiopia. It is time that Somaliland people have to realize that they cannot have it both ways. We cannot enjoy peace and stability and deny our brothers in the south to enjoy the same because if the TFG collapses Somalia would descend into a dark age. We cannot refuse others to interfere our internal affairs and allow ourselves to meddle with the affairs of others. We cannot claim to be an independent and sovereign state and act as if we are still a region in Somalia whose fate hangs on the fate of Mogadishu. Why can’t we take cue from Djibouti, an independent Somali state that has fully exercised its sovereignty to stay neutral of what is happening in Somalia? Why can’t Somaliland people do the same and let their country’s national policies be dictated by their national interest and not by emotional outbursts. Also read in Awdalnews Network.
By Bashir Goth, April 12, 2007=
Somaliland opposition leaders seem to have lost their political campus since the Ethiopian-backed Federal Transitional Government (TFG) routed the Islamic Courts in Mogadishu.
Forgetting that Somaliland depends on Ethiopia for its bread and butter, they started criticizing it albeit indirectly for what they call the Ethiopian invasion of Mogadishu.
Kulmiye leader Ahmed Mohammed Silanyo has compared the onslaught of the Ethiopian-backed Somalia Federal Transitional Government (TFG) forces against insurgents in Mogadishu to Siyad Barre’s bombardment of Hargeisa and other Somaliland towns. Faisal Ali Waraabe, Leader of the Justice and Welfare Party (UCID), also branded Ethiopia’s military actions in Mogadishu as Xaraan (illegitimate).
Hearing these statements coming from leaders of a country that was founded on Ethiopian support and owes its geopolitical existence on Addis Ababa makes us wonder whether these men have been hit by amnesia.
One may therefore be obliged to refresh their memory by reminding them that Somaliland’s recognition goes through Addis Ababa; that it was Ethiopia which had sheltered Somaliland refugees for years and provided them arms and ammunition to fight and eventually defeat the tyrannical regime of Siyad Barre. One may remind these gentlemen that it was Ethiopian military officers and political representatives who were present and blessed the rebirth of Somaliland at the conference of Buroa on 18th May 1991 and indeed it was the first day that the Ethiopian flag was raised with reverence on Somali soil. One may remind them that it is Addis Ababa that embraces Somaliland politicians and gives them the opportunity to sell their story to African officials and foreign diplomats. It is indeed Ethiopia that trains Somaliland’s military and extends to it arms and uniforms.
One may be perplexed as to why these men are acting so emotionally about what is happening in Mogadishu as if Somaliland is still part and parcel of Somalia. Why can’t they understand that Somaliland, like Djibouti, like Kenya and indeed like the rest of the African countries should subscribe to the position of the African Union that supports the TFG and understands the reasons that led to the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia. One may find it hard to comprehend the motives of Somaliland opposition leaders who seem to just have woken up to the suffering of the residents of Mogadishu. Why we didn’t hear their loud voices, their lamentations and their condemnations of crimes against humanity over the last 16 years when ruthless warlords were committing all kinds of atrocities against the people of Mogadishu. Weren’t they singing lullabies with the warlords and deriving pleasure from the mayhem and bloodshed in Mogadishu. If this is not true then why the notorious warlords such as Muse Suudi Yalahow, Osman Atto and Bashir Rage were welcomed with red carpets in Hargeisa, while Somaliland-born figures who committed no crimes against the nation such as Jama Yare were detained and deported from their homeland.
Why this sudden feeling of brotherhood towards the Hawiye one may ask? Did Faisal Waraabe forget his famous words when he said: “ A man who is born in Addis Ababa has closer cultural ties to Somaliland than a man born in Mogadishu…” Do the sympathizers of Mogadishu insurgents really believe that the Hawiye would support Somaliland’s independence? Don’t they remember the unambiguous rejection of Ali Mahdi, Abdiqasim Salad, Mohammed Ghedi of Somaliland secession? Don’t they recall the repeated threats of the Islamic Courts of invading Hargeisa?
If we assume that these men are honestly against the Ethiopian occupation of brotherly Somali people why don’t they feel the same about the Somali people under Ethiopian occupation in the Ogaden region? Why didn’t they condemn the Somaliland authorities when they arrested members of the Ogaden people and deported them? How come the blood of the Somalis in Mogadishu is dearer to Somalilanders than the blood of Somalis in Qabridaharre, Foolxeex, Farmadow, Gurdumi, Madax-Maroodi and Karin-Bilcille?
How come they lament about the departure of Islamic Courts when they know that had the Somali Taliban clerics had their way they would have been in Hargeisa today and that Silanyo and Waraabe wouldn’t have postured themselves as presidential hopefuls in a democratic Somaliland.
It is awfully wrong and indeed regrettable to see Somaliland opposition leaders criticizing Ethiopia albeit indirectly for giving support to the TFG government when Somaliland itself thrives on the political and military support of Ethiopia. It is time that Somaliland people have to realize that they cannot have it both ways. We cannot enjoy peace and stability and deny our brothers in the south to enjoy the same because if the TFG collapses Somalia would descend into a dark age. We cannot refuse others to interfere our internal affairs and allow ourselves to meddle with the affairs of others. We cannot claim to be an independent and sovereign state and act as if we are still a region in Somalia whose fate hangs on the fate of Mogadishu. Why can’t we take cue from Djibouti, an independent Somali state that has fully exercised its sovereignty to stay neutral of what is happening in Somalia? Why can’t Somaliland people do the same and let their country’s national policies be dictated by their national interest and not by emotional outbursts. Also read in Awdalnews Network.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Even First World Pardons Their Kings
By Bashir Goth
In my opinion there is no judicial system in the entire world that is independent of political influence. Yes, hypothetically, the expression judicial independence is beautifully written into almost every constitution of the UN member states. But experience has taught us that it is politics that rules in the provision of justice.
If anything, Third World governments – including Arab states – don’t brag about the independence of their judicial systems. Everyone knows that judges may be appointed or dismissed at will by the political leadership and that “justice for all” is nothing more than an empty slogan. The good thing, at least, is that people have learned to live with it. They know that political power, not the judicial system, determines justice.
It is a well-known fact that the judicial system exists to protect the politically powerful and the rich. Members of ruling elites and their families never face trial; they are simply above the law. A political figure only faces justice when he crosses over to the wrong side of the political fence. Zimbabwe’s Morgan Tsvangirai and Egyptian Ayman Nour, leader of the Al-Ghad party, are good examples. Read More in Newsweek.Washingtonpost/PostGlobal.
By Bashir Goth
In my opinion there is no judicial system in the entire world that is independent of political influence. Yes, hypothetically, the expression judicial independence is beautifully written into almost every constitution of the UN member states. But experience has taught us that it is politics that rules in the provision of justice.
If anything, Third World governments – including Arab states – don’t brag about the independence of their judicial systems. Everyone knows that judges may be appointed or dismissed at will by the political leadership and that “justice for all” is nothing more than an empty slogan. The good thing, at least, is that people have learned to live with it. They know that political power, not the judicial system, determines justice.
It is a well-known fact that the judicial system exists to protect the politically powerful and the rich. Members of ruling elites and their families never face trial; they are simply above the law. A political figure only faces justice when he crosses over to the wrong side of the political fence. Zimbabwe’s Morgan Tsvangirai and Egyptian Ayman Nour, leader of the Al-Ghad party, are good examples. Read More in Newsweek.Washingtonpost/PostGlobal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)