I – Prelude

They have lined up, several years ago now, a new range of so-called non-lethal weapons, designed mainly for riot control. Of the controversial non-lethal weapons that have been produced and tested, but not yet put in the market, are ones called directed-energy weapons (DEW). By using electromagnetic pulses, sonic emissions, and particle beams, DEWs can physically or psychologically paralyze human beings; not only crowds of protesters, but entire cities. In addition to paralysis, they deliver excruciating, unbearable pain by heating up the human body like a microwave oven does with food. Should the weapon activation intervals exceed the time limits, people will turn into roasted ducks.

The reason why DEWs have not entered the riot-control market has less to do with governments’ concern for human rights and the Geneva Conventions, and more to do with the psychological unpreparedness of the public to yet accept images or stories of such horror unleashed against, usually, unarmed protesters.

The current legal methods of dealing with popular uprisings (tear gas, rubber bullets and rubber shrapnel, water cannons, stun grenades, batons, and the occasional use of live ammunition) seem to effectively deter enough people from participating in contact zones. But in some cases; in certain conditions, the uprising goes out of control. The most recent events in Egypt and Libya have proven that not even horrific body mutilation at the hands of thugs and mercenaries, nor the shelling and bombing from the ground and sky (nevermind non-lethal weapons), could stop a people bent on accomplishing revolution. The reason for riot-control failure has everything to do with the failure in acquiring and updating a unique weapon that is infinitely more potent than the deadliest DEWs and WMDs combined; the ultimate weapon: information.

II – Information

Contemplate, for a minute, the marvel of human creation. From microchips and computers to high rises and man-made islands. It began thousands of years ago, when a man observed how a fire starts. Now we have put satellites in outer-space for scientific research, telecommunications, and weapon activation. A science fiction super hero might have the ability to telekinetically move knives and light sabers, but we have figured out how to move over a ton of aluminum and steel at a speed of 500 km/hr by applying slight pressure on a foot pedal. X-Men may be able to harness thunder and magnetism to flip cars in the air, but we have built electric grids that generate enough electricity to power entire cities with millions of sophisticated machines, by flipping a tiny switch. There is a subtle, yet undeniable conclusion: the human mind is infinitely more powerful than all of X-Men’s powers combined.

More important and more potent than conquering electromagnetism, gravity, and solar energy is the human mind’s capacity to create and recognize information (in the sense that Vilém Flusser conveys in his Philosophy of Photography). Originally, to inform means to communicate or instill a form into the human mind by utilizing reason and sense perception. A form is an image, a product, a construct, a frame of understanding, a concept, or an idea. It is still arguable whether humans are capable of producing truly original information without synthesizing previous information, but that is beside the point. Superiority belongs to the one who conquers the weapon of information.

One might ask: are you saying that information is more powerful than a nuclear weapon? Yes it is. A nuclear weapon as a deterrent, being unaware (uninformed) of its presence and effects defeats the whole point of deterrence. As a weapon of terror (i.e. kill some to subdue others), the survivors of the attack can only be inhibited by the informed horror and fear they witness. Otherwise it would be like killing zombies in order to convince other zombies to back off. Moreover, should this informed fear subside (with counter information), plots for revenge would be underway. As a weapon of annihilation and genocide against a foreign country, there will be need for profound information to get the public’s support, or else it will be grounds for ousting (by force if necessary) and prosecution. As a weapon of annihilation and genocide against one’s own people (assuming they can actually get away with it), they’d have no one left to rule and enslave, not to mention that they’d end up killing themselves in the process.

The 9/11 terror attacks failed to achieve their aim because their perpetrators have not informed the American public that it was an act of desperation and vengeance to end US hegemonic presence in the Middle East. The United States government quickly launched a counter-information campaign on its own people through its most potent apparatuses (schools and the mainstream media): “They attacked us because they hate freedom; because Islam teaches to kill infidels; because they are evil; because they can’t stand western culture and values; etc.” Had the 9/11 attacks been a nuclear one, the only difference is that the US reaction (in Afghanistan, Iraq, and probably other countries) would have been a hundred times deadlier.

The 2004 Madrid train bombings, in contrast, led to a very different response from Spain. The great majority of Spaniards seem to have been informed in advance; that their involvement in the Iraq bombing, invasion, and occupation was very likely going to invite a deadly reaction. The train bombings, one year after the war on Iraq started, and three days before general elections, led the Spaniards to oust the incumbent prime minister, and vote in another whose promise to fully withdraw from Iraq was his elections campaign slogan. Unlike most Americans, the great majority of Spaniards, over 90% of whom opposed the Iraq war, openly accept that they had it coming. Thus, instead of an unquenchable thirst for revenge, the Spaniards hastily pulled out of Iraq.

Understand that when information is used by who we perceive as an oppressor, we refer to it as brainwashing, indoctrination, propaganda, false advertisement, etc. But when information is used by who we perceive as an emancipator, we refer to it as enlightenment, empowerment, revelation, deliverance, and so on. Thus, one vital information is the recognition of who’s who, because unlike comic books and movies, the bad guy isn’t always the one who has reptilian features, and the good guy isn’t always the hot one in spandex.

To understand, in depth, how the ultimate weapon is (and has been) used, we must first review the objectives of oppression and emancipation, and what is it that every oppressor (whether imposed or democratically elected, religious or secular, rightist or leftist, local or foreign) seek? Why do oppressors oppress?

… continue reading >>>

Last Friday in Yemen. Photo: Abubakr Al-Shamahi.

Contributed by Abubakr Al-Shamahi.

He’s ruled for 32 years.

What’s another month?

That’s what Ali Abdullah Saleh has apparently agreed to, as part of the GCC deal to end the unrest in Yemen.

Well, try asking those in the squares of freedom and change throughout Yemen. Try asking the millions who came out on Friday, in Sana’a, Taiz, Aden, Ibb, Mukalla, Baida, Hodeida, Hajja, Saada and Mahra, all calling for the immediate downfall of the regime. Try telling that to the families of at least 120 peaceful protesters killed at the hands of the Saleh regime since the protests started.

Speaking to these protesters it is quite clear why they want him gone immediately.

They simply do not trust him.

Saleh once described ruling Yemen as akin to ‘dancing on the heads of snakes.’ I’ve never done this before, but in Saleh-speak it means that in order to rule Yemen one must play different sides against each other, an advanced form of divide and rule.

The protesters see the same old games being played, only this time they are one of the snakes.

The President has made grand speeches before, announcing that he has had enough of power, that rule is a ‘chore and not a gain,’ that he was tired and wanted to retire.

But he kept coming back.

Saleh spent 2010 attempting to change the constitution to allow him to stand for office again once his term finished in 2013. Then came Bouazizi and Tunisia, Tahrir Square and Egypt, the liberation of Benghazi.

He publically dropped his attempt to continue past 2013, and promised that his son, Ahmed, would not run for office. He made grand gestures; talk of a real parliamentary democracy, a unity government, and other carrots. In effect he admitted that his rule has been a sham.

Yet at the same time he talks of constitutional legitimacy, of the rule of the law. The protesters, who have no faith in the constitution, remind Ali Saleh of their legitimacy. They remind him of this in their millions. Their legitimacy comes from being the true voice of the overwhelming majority of the people.

Huge crowds came out on Friday to show the Gulf countries that the people want change. In Sana’a alone, whilst stood for Friday prayers, they stretched for a mile.

The protesters want a complete change, complete reform. They have not protested continuously since February for the same faces to reappear post ‘revolution’.

They have not fought for freedom only to see the same oppression and the same corruption appear again.

Looking at the Gulf proposal, that which has been accepted by Saleh, it is clear that it is very favourable to the President, an overwhelming compromise to him. We must not forget that he is in the weaker position here.

It gives his ruling party 50% of the interim government, when they have nowhere near that support amongst Yemenis. It gives the President 30 days before he must resign; Yemenis are truly worried about what will happen during those 30 days. It gives him, his family, and his officials, immunity from any future prosecution. It calls for elections to be held only two months after Saleh resigns, leaving only the old parties time to prepare. It calls for the protesters main source of strength, their protest camps, to be removed.

It has been argued that these compromises are necessary, that Saleh holds key installations and, most importantly, the Republican Guard, the Air Force, and the Central Security Forces.

However, these groups are not for Saleh’s personal use. They are the property of the people, there to defend them. The Gulf, and the West, should acknowledge this.

Support for the revolution in Yemen is no different to that of Egypt and Tunisia. The Yemeni people are in overwhelming support of the youth led calls for change. The only difference is that, in his 32 years of rule, Saleh has managed to entrench himself in power, and put family members in charge of some of the most important factions of the armed forces.

Saleh’s control over these armed groups is what brings fear to many Yemenis. There are reports of jet fighters being flown to various parts of the country. The Republican Guard hold vital positions in and around Sana’a. Weapons have been seen going through customs at Sana’a airport, being flown to all the major cities in Yemen.

There is also talk of a deadly plot being hatched by Saleh and his close relatives, one that would see the military forces controlled by Saleh crush the brigades that have defected, and then the opposition and the protest camps.

It might seem far-fetched, but Saleh has agreed to peace deals before, seemingly in the national interest. The last time was 1994. A civil war was to follow.

For a President who is seemingly stretching his hand out in the hope of reconciliation, Saleh is using very strange language. On the day that he accepted the proposal, Saleh warned that the opposition wanted to lead the country to a civil war. In his speech to his supporters on Friday he spoke of confronting the opposition “in any way possible.” At the same rally there was a very visible banner proclaiming, “who does not accept dialogue, death is his fate.” Saleh is still sending his security forces and his thugs to attack the pro-democracy protesters.

Then there is the question of the Gulf. It seems very strange to me that a group of countries, run by autocratic monarchs, should be overseeing democratic transition in Yemen. Saudi Arabia is not exactly known for its positive influence in Yemen, and a fully functioning democracy next door would not be the al-Saud’s idea of a good neighbour.

My own prediction is that Ali Saleh knows that the protest movement will not accept the GCC plan. This gives him the opportunity to accuse them of not working in the national interest, and then attack them at will.

This may seem like a pessimistic outlook, but it is only pessimistic when looked at in the context of the GCC proposal. The world needs to understand that only one side has legitimacy in Yemen, and it is the Yemeni people. Saleh has only learnt to respect the ‘constitution’ in the past few months, when it has suited him.

For their part, the youth committees have already rejected the GCC proposal for the reason that has been outlined, a complete and utter lack of trust in Saleh and his regime. A continuation of the protests may seem troubling for Yemen’s future, but the protesters only wish the best for Yemen. They are just not counting their chickens before they hatch. Mainly because they do not know where they’ll come home to roost.

Even now, Saleh continues to release confusing statements. Yesterday, in an interview with the BBC, he said that he would only be removed by the will of the majority of the Yemeni people, something that, despite all the evidence, he is still trying to pretend he has. What does he exactly mean by his agreement to the Gulf proposal? I think the answer is only available in Mr.Saleh’s head.

Abubakr Al-Shamahi is a Politics student at SOAS, University of London and is the editor of Comment Middle East. He is currently in Sana’a.

“We must break the cycle of fear for Syrians—wherever they live,” stated Mhyar al-Zayat, the organizer of the Syrian Solidarity Protests in Washington, DC.  A decade after the Damascus Spring of 2000, the next generation of Syrians and Syrian-Americans organize to call for solidarity on the following points:

1. End the authoritarian regime;
2. End human rights abuses sanctioned by the regime; and
3. Participate in free and open elections.

A badly needed call for justice.

June of 2000 kicked off the “Damascus Spring” as Syrian intellectuals and activists seized an opportunity to ignite a political and social debate following the death of President Hafez al-Asad, the man responsible for disappearing several thousands of Syrians.

About a couple hundred have gathered in front of the White House every Saturday for the last two months to echo what Syrians, Libyans, Yemenis, and Bahrainis have shouted from the Middle East.  Like the Syrian Facebook page, al-Zayat encourages anyone to join the public Facebook page to participate in Saturday protests.  Al-Zayat remains in contact with Fadi al-Tarabulsi, the DC organizer for Libyan protests, to overlap their timings and show support for the larger goal of bringing down authoritarian regimes like al-Asad and Gaddafi.  http://www.facebook.com/Syrian.Revolution

Since 1963, Syria’s authoritarian regime has implemented Emergency Law to inculcate a self-fulfilling prophecy of mistrust among neighboring countries, like Israel and Lebanon.  Whether Hafez or Bashar function as the dictator, Emergency Law serves as the doctrine to:

1. Justify suspending Syrian citizens’ civil liberties;
2. Suppress alternative voices, internet, and impose censorship;
3. Oppress non-Arab minorities, like the Kurds; and
4. Reward those who demonstrate “patriotism” and report on others.

Consequently, the neighboring country mistrust translates into neighborly mistrust within Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs.

End the Republic of Fear

Al-Zayat is a Syrian American, who emigrated to the US in 1996, and repeats what his engineer father imparted to him shortly after the Syrian regime thwarted his father’s business efforts and the Mukhabarat, the Syrian intelligence, punished Mhyar’s father for his opinions on politics and civil society.

Al-Zayat speaks to Al Jazeera

When asked why Syrian Americans refuse to provide names in interviews with Al-Jazeera English and other news sources, Mhyar explains that the biggest challenge in organizing protests is getting Syrian-Americans to participate.  Many Syrian-Americans fear that the Syrian regime will punish their relatives still residing in Syria.  The “Republic of Fear” characterizes the Syrian regime to the extent that Syrians know of at least one person who has been interrogated, detained, imprisoned, tortured, or “disappeared”.

This familiar scenario parallels what Kanaan Makiya, exiled Iraqi writer, emphasizes in his analysis of a repressive regime, Republic of Fear.  Makiya accounts how the Ba’aath and Saddam Hussein oppressed political dissent.  Makiya, revisited this regime of fear for Iraq, and hinted at the similar dilemma shared by Syrians: “state power always rested on a monopoly of the means of violence”.  Extracted from Hobbes’ Leviathon, a “Hobbesian” state employs fear to control its people — and maintain the explicit exchange of freedom for security.    Therefore civil society fails to exist within the political realm.  Makiya argues that citizens need to distinguish themselves from the state’s realm—via intellectual thought and cultural pursuit.

Makiya’s point is “actualized” a decade later and then some.  The protests initiating in Homs and Darrah over the last month defy what both al-Asads and Hobbes argue is the natural state for Syrian existence.  For young activists, like al-Zayat, Suhari Atassi, and Kamal Cheiko, to organize protests and utilize Facebook networks defies the “state-centralized network of relationships”—the essence of what Makiya argues was the Republic of Fear’s umbilical cord to define Iraqi society under oppression—led by another repressive dictator, Saddam Hussein.  Similarly, the younger al-Asad sees how the umbilical cord is disintegrating as each Syrian breaks away from fear.

Human Rights Watch Monitors the Republic of Fear

On the protest movement’s second point, human rights abuses range from imprisoning dissenting voices to torture, according the Human Rights Watch 2010 report.  The al-Asad regime has imprisoned at least 30 known political and human rights activists to stifle Syrian’s civil society.  For example, the father-son regime imprisoned Riad al-Seif, a former member of parliament, and Dr. Kamal Labwani, a physician and founder of the Syrian Democratic Liberal Gathering.

According to Human Rights Watch, both al-Seif and Labwani,  are serving prison terms for publicly criticising the authorities.  Bashar al-Asad sentenced human rights activist, Muhannad Al-Hasani, to three years for delivering a human rights report before the State Security Court.  Al-Hasani is the President of the Syrian Organization for Human Rights (Swasiya), which the Syrian authorities refuses to accept its official registration as an organization.

Torture and “disappearances” operate as other tools of the regime to suppress dissidence.  Although the Syrian Constitution prohibits torture under Article 28, both al-Asad presidents sidestepped this law by arguing that political prisoners present a security threat, and thereby, hold vital information that must be obtained for state security.

Amnesty International cites that Syria’s Tadmur Prison holds mainly military and political prisoners and reports that,“Tadmur Prison appears to have been designed to inflict the maximum suffering, humiliation and fear on prisoners and to keep them under the strictest control by breaking their spirit.

Bashar’s father, Hafez, died knowing the whereabouts of at least 17,000 “missing” Syrians. Since the early 1970s, the Syrian government refuses to acknowledge its security force involvement in disappearing about 17,000 persons, mostly Muslim Brotherhood members and other Syrian activists detained by the government as well as hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinians detained in Syria or abducted from Lebanon.

Satellite Phones Confront Censorship and Communication Challenges

Former editor of state-run newspaper Tishrin, Sameera Masalmeh, serves as one example of how the Syrian regime censors print media and censures reporters/editors.  Recently, Tishrin fired Masalmeh because she told the Al Jazeera satellite station that Syrian security forces were responsible for the April 7^th violence in Dara. The AP corroborated Masalmeh’s firing after the interview.

Moreover, the Syrian regime has attempted to infuse fear through the virtual media as well.  Specifically, Karim Arbaji blogged for akhawia.net, an online youth forum, as a moderator.  Nonetheless, on September 13^th, the Supreme State Security Court (SSSC) sentenced Arbaji to three years in jail for “spreading false information that can weaken national sentiment.”

In another virtual media case, Suhair Atassi is being detained by the Syrian regime for running the Jamal Atassi Forum group on Facebook since her interview with Al-Jazeera English.  She organized sit-ins and participated in the Egypt’s February Revolution.

What lessons may be learned from the Tunisian and Egyptian successes as well as the current Libyan Revolution?  “Get satellite phones into Syria,” asserts al-Zayat.  Satellite phones confront the regime’s attempt to cut phone lines and disrupt internet communication.  Specifically, Al Jazeera English received updates from organizers in Egypt when Mubarak’s regime turned up the heat reflects al-Zayat.

“Our cause is the same as the rest of the Arab and Middle Eastern worlds: freedom from dictatorship; freedom to participate in free and open elections; and recognizing and enforcing human rights,” concludes al-Zayat.  Ironically, to illustrate al-Zayat’s point that Syrians know at least one other Syrian who has been harassed, censored, tortured, or disappeared by the regime, I learn at the end of my interview with him that the DC café that we are using for the interview is actually owned by Atassi’s relative.

Mehrunisa Qayyum, International Policy and Development Consultant, based in Washington, DC, received her MPP from Georgetown University.

With Saudi, Qatari and UAE forces augmenting Bahrain’s mostly foreign police corps, the country has seen countless violations of human rights. The plight of Bahraini protesters is made worse by the fact that most foreign media is banned or heavily restricted, while Aljazeera Arabic, champion of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions and cheerleader for the uprising in Libya, has deliberately and shamefully censored any coverage of Qatar’s tiny neighbor to the north.

The propaganda spewed to defame Bahrain’s democracy activist has been equally shameful, as the worst falsehoods about Shiism have been dredged up to paint anybody who wants equality and freedom in Bahrain as an evil, disloyal Iranian agent. But if you’d been paying attention years before the ‘Arab Spring’ became sexy, you’d know that Bahrain has had one of the most organized opposition movements in the Arab world, with political parties, media and civil society organizations active there despite past crackdowns by the Al-Khalifa monarchy.

The monarchy is not content with cracking down on the protests, but is now seeking the abolishment of opposition political parties. Apparently, the Al-Khalifa’s don’t believe being the least totalitarian Gulf State is a good thing.

One of these civil society organizations is the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, currently headed by Nabeel Rajab who is facing a court summons in Manama for publishing pictures of two men who died in the last 9 days while in custody. The pictures show signs of torture, but the authorities say they are doctored. Two other men have also been killed in that period while detained-their bodies also showed signs of mistreatment.

One of Rajab’s predecessors at the Bahrain Center for Human Rights is Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, a well-respected human rights campaigner who was arrested four days ago by masked men from his daughter Zainab’s home.  Zainab spoke to Aljazeera English soon afterwards to describe how her father was beaten unconscious before he, her husband and her brother in law were all taken away. Despite the high profile nature of this particular case, the Bahraini authorities have refused to comment on the condition or whereabouts of the three men.

Zainab is now on her fourth day of hunger strike, which she says she will continue until her family members are released-even if it costs her her life. While some may consider this act reckless, especially since Zainab is mother to an infant daughter, she maintains that such a sacrifice is needed to bring about real change and justice in Bahrain.

The brutality manifests itself in ways that remind me of Israel’s everyday treatment of Palestinians. Bahraini’s are stopped at checkpoints manned by foreign troops, who beat and detain them based on their religious sect. There are reports and accounts everyday of masked soldiers breaking into homes, beating and detaining people, or of troops firing tear gas and ammunition into quiet neighborhoods. Many activists are sleeping in their day clothes, expecting at any point to be arrested during the night.

The shockingly rapid pace of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions masked the tragic price many paid during the uprisings, a price all too apparent in Bahrain.

–

If you are interested, you can follow Zainab al-Khawaja on Twitter @angryarabiya. Her sister Maryam, also an outspoken activist, is @maryamalkhawaja. And Nabeel Rajab is @nabeelrajab.

Contributed by Abubakr Al-Shamahi. He wrote this piece late last night.

Today, I’m not even going to pretend to be neutral.

Today I witnessed, and was part of, one of the biggest protests in Yemeni history, and definitely the biggest Sana’a has ever witnessed.

This is supposed to be Saleh’s city. This is supposed to be his heartland, his base, his stronghold.

We marched through his ‘stronghold’. We marched through places which were supposedly 100% Saleh. We marched through districts that our typically Arab elections had given overwhelmingly to the ruling party.

All this after a night where I was woken up by heavy gunfire and explosions. A night where we were warned on state TV that it was completely forbidden for citizens to join unauthorised protests. A morning where fighter jets flew low over the city. A morning where I questioned what I had gotten myself into. I suspected a civil war was imminent, and it still might be. But after the sights I witnessed today I doubt it.

This was an afternoon march, scheduled for 4pm. I arrived at Change Square, the heart of the protests in Sana’a, to find the tents practically empty. A few men were left in their tents, chewing qat, the Yemeni’s narcotic of choice, but many of even these hardcore chewers joined in after being shamed by women chanting that “this is a time for revolution, not for chewing.”

The protesters did not go down the same streets, due to the numbers. There were a least three different routes, which eventually met up. Women left to go on their own separate march. The numbers were simply too huge to have them on the same route in this conservative country.

To stress the point, Yemeni women are not submissive. The average person looking at Yemeni women will see figures, mostly dressed in black, mostly covering their faces, and assume that this is Taliban Afghanistan. It is not. These women shout louder than the men, are more heartfelt than the men, and often more politically active than the men. Look at the woman who started the protests in Yemen, Tawakkol Karman.

Mixing in the vast crowds I came across all the sections of Yemeni society. The youth, the country’s ticking time bomb, were present. But so were there parents and grandparents. I saw the poor and the well off. I saw men in traditional Yemeni clothing, dagger on their belt, and men in suits and ties. I saw every strata of Yemeni society making it clear that the people want the downfall of the regime.

The crowds were ecstatic to see a camera present; shamefully there has been poor coverage of this people’s revolution. Ahmed told me he was present because“ corruption has reached terrible levels, and there was one man to blame.” That man’s name was in graffiti all over the city, ‘erhal ya ali’ – Ali, leave.

We carried on. I saw the most amazing image of a man dressed in traditional Yemeni attire carrying a huge picture of Che Guevara. The revolution will be globalised.

Eventually we reached al-Qa’, an area notorious for its supposed support of the President. Here, we did meet his supporters. In reality though, they barely reached a hundred souls. Many carried pictures of the Saleh, chanting that they had no one apart from him. The crowds swarmed past, and this is where it potentially could have gotten ugly. We are always warned that Yemenis are armed to the teeth. State TV report that the opposition and the protesters are violent thugs, constantly attacking the security forces.

Well, here were crowds of hundreds of thousands, passing by provocateurs, and yet simply carrying on with their chant of “peacefully, peacefully.” Even when passing men threatening them with rocks they refused to be provoked. I was threatened myself by a youth carrying a large stone, my response was to take his photo. Not the reaction he expected.

Going over one of the main overpasses in the city I met Khaled. He told me of the start of our Yemeni revolution.

“We came here on February 11, when Mubarak was deposed. You could count with your fingers. People laughed at us, and told us that nothing was going to happen here. Look at us now. Look at the people now.”

We continued past the Ministry of Oil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the unfinished Parliament building, and the Vice-President’s mansion. All were plastered with graffiti denouncing the regime. ‘Go, murderer, go.’ ‘The people want the trial of the regime.’ And the simple ‘Get out.’

We carried on. We were now in the heart of Sana’a, near the pro-government camp in Tahrir Square. Here there was a large security presence. Riot police and Republican Guard members, units who had previously attacked protesters in many places that we passed on the protest route. Yet today they stood passively, the large crowds making it impossible for them to launch any kind of attack.

Civilians linked arms in front of them, defending the people from the regime. Many of the government’s men looked uncertain. They are normal people. Here they were being handed roses, and being kissed on the forehead by protesters. The demonstrators chanted that the people and the army were one, that the people and the police were one. They invited them to join. None did, but their reactions make me hope that they will not agree to being used to attack the people again.

On we went. Reaching a high point I looked back to try and see if I could see the end of the protest. All I could see was the stunning backdrop of one of the many mountains that surround Sana’a, and an apparently unending sea of people.

As nightfall fell we started to approach areas controlled by the 1^st Armoured Brigades, who joined the revolution after the Sana’a Massacre of the 18^th March. They waved from their tanks and took photos with the protesters. The chants continued, “the people and the Brigade are hand in hand.”

Youssef and Mohammed approached me and insisted to speak to the camera in English. “We want freedom,” was their simple message.

Turning the corner off the one of the main highways we started passing through a busy shopping street. Here the protesters chanted for the shopkeepers to close their stores, and made a general call for civil disobedience. Some of the shopkeepers heeded their call, closed their shutters and, fists pumping, joined the march. Others stood outside their stores, cheering in support, and raising their fingers to display the victory sign.

Families watched from the videos, with children waving Yemeni flags and cheering. At one stage a family poured confetti on us, eliciting applause from those passing by.

Getting back into Change Square meant going through eight lines of civilian checkpoints. There are very real fears of infiltration, and they are well-founded. Over 250 people have already been killed by the regime in our peaceful revolution. At least two were killed today in Aden, they do not have the protection of the army.

The square itself felt like a festival. Music was being played, with children singing on the main stage. A large crowd of women came past, all holding candles. Pictures of the martyrs of the revolution are strung up everywhere in this square, alongside photos of President al-Hamdi, widely regarded as the best President Yemen ever had. He was assassinated in 1978, the year Ali Abdullah Saleh came to power.

I am tired. I am hoarse. I am hungry. I am thirsty. I am dirty. But today, I am truly proud of my people who have finally risen up against the regime that has robbed them for 3 decades and left them in poverty. Today, I am proud that they have found their voice. Today, I am proud that they have persisted and remained peaceful. Today, I am proud of their inspirations, our Tunisian and Egyptian brothers and sisters. Today, I am proud to be Yemeni.

Abubakr wrote about Sana’a in an earlier post. Now, he shares these photos from the site of the protest encampment in Sana’a's Change Square. These photos were taken late April 7th.

We have more photos and will post them in the coming days.

Abubakr Al-Shamahi is a Politics student at SOAS, University of London and is the editor of Comment Middle East. He is currently in Sana’a.

Twitter is lighting up with reports of government brutality from Homs and Daraa, and surrounding villages:

Protests apparently took place in other cities as well, for example:

Tweets about demonstrations in Hama, Latakia and elsewhere are coming in to.

The despotism of the Syrian regime is clearly untenable, and no petty reforms are going to prevent the fury of a people living in a crushing police state.  The protesters, whether espousing progressive views or not, represent the best potential Syria has for carving itself a new path to a better future.

Syrians sympathetic to the regime try to justify support for Bashar Al-Assad by suggesting he’s surrounded by bad people who keep him from reforming. In other words, they channel their hope and dissatisfaction into a convenient and blind myth. Even if it were true, this is hardly justification for keeping him in power.  Syrians must follow the footsteps of Tunisians, Egyptians and Yemenis, all of whom faced their own dictators, and take their fate into their own hands. Rid the regime of all oppressive elements.  The protests offer the best chance at accomplishing this.

The danger is that the Syrian regime grows so brutal and unreasonable that a Libya-like armed rebellion ensues. This would mean the insurgents invite outside intervention out of desperation in the face of the regime’s superior fighting forces.  Then, they would lose control of their fate as their external debts accrue to the point of sheer dependency.

My fear is that the regime’s obstinacy pushes people to that level. In the process, the government risks the future of their country. They know there are external enemies who salivate at the sight of Syrian instability.  The foolish mistake the regime makes is pretending that the unrest is sparked by them rather than the legitimate gripes of a people living under the the regime’s thumb for too long.

The best way to save Syria is to reform fundamentally, to work with the protesters to build a free Syria.  A truly free Syria that embraces the potential of its people would be a strong Syria.  It would just require the end of a mafia-rule defined by surveillance, coercion and fear.  The shame is that the regime’s inflexible, reactionary oppression will increase the human cost of the obvious — the drastic need for fundamental change.

... and Assholes

With Gaddafi on the ropes, and Ben Ali and Mubarak relegated to the history books, we are getting a better sense of the delusions that Arab dictators propagate to justify their authoritarian powers.

Usually, the first big lie is something like, “I do not want to be president, I am just doing this for you.” They all think they’re benevolent despots, or at least they like pretending to be. That lie’s an obvious one, no one cracks down on dissent, rapes their country’s resources and puts billboards of himself all over the country out of the good of his heart. So we will include the more interesting lies in our 15 point list:

1. If I go down, Al Qaeda and extremists will take over the country (which is SO MUCH worse than the extreme idiots in power now)
2. The country will go into civil war and break apart (as they effectively attack protesters and try to turn the country against them)
3. Life is good for my people! (despite 40% unemployment and everyone complaining in private all the time)
4. The economy will collapse (if you mean the bribe-based economy and dysfunctional oil operations)
5. The protests are an American-Israeli-Iranian-Qatari-Hamas conspiracy (even used by allies of the US)
6. My people love me!!!!!!! (like they’d love a plague)
7. I promise major reforms (bigger prisons!)
8. The protesters are all foreigners. See we caught one with a foreign passport! (she works for the local IHOP)
9. I love this country too much to actually listen to the people who live here (“plus, what the hell do they know?!?!?”)
10. The opposition drinks, gives people free money and uses crazy drugs (because they have no legitimate qualms whatsoever)
11. I have done so much for this country (a monkey at a typewriter could have done a better job)
12. The protests are Facebook/the internet/Al Jazeera’s fault (no, it’s your’s)
13. I’ll step down at some named date in the future (yeah, right/ Inshallah)
14. I am not the president, I do not have any real authority (yeah, just like those really old Wal-Mart door greeters)
15. I am in firm control of the country! (if you exclude my obnoxious family members and the millions on the streets)

BONUS

16. This country is not like Egypt or Tunisia (yeah because his policies have put this country in a different universe.)
17. I can’t leave as I come from the Hashimite lineage of the prophet Mohammad (oookkkkaaaaaaayyyyy)
18. I can’t be dethroned for I am not a king, I am the “servant of the holy sites” (And heck I just gave every Saudi close to a million dollars in bonuses).

[Taboush Tip: Will, Ghassan, Aref for 17 and 18]

A psychopath, but still a bad-ass

Remember the closing scene in Scarface? After killing his best friend, Tony Montana (Al Pacino) retreats back to his gratuitously gaudy mansion and desperately shoves his face into a mountain of cocaine. He watches in utter disbelief while his little sister is killed before his eyes by one of his enemy’s armed henchmen. And while Montana clearly knows that his own death is imminent – most of his friends have either defected or been killed, and the ones that remain will only be able to protect him for so long – Montana still refuses to accept his mortality. Picking up his fully-equipped M16 assault rifle, Montana boldly confronts dozens of Latin American assassins. Frenzied, stoned, and totally delusional, Tony Montana turns his foyer into a pool of blood, until he is finally killed by a single shotgun shot to the back.

After having remained conspicuously quiet since protests against Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year-long rein began in Benghazi, Libya a little more than a week ago, Barack Obama finally commented on Gaddafi’s madness. Although Obama towed a more balanced line when he publicly discussed Egypt’s revolution against Hosni Mubarak, Obama described Gaddafi’s brutal repression of largely peaceful demonstrations as “outrageous” and “unacceptable.” He even said that violence perpetrated at the hands of Gaddafi’s loyalists violated “every standard of common decency.”

While we certainly don’t need Obama – who has a questionable moral compass of his own – to help us understand that Gaddafi is a pathetic excuse for a human being, we don’t often hear such strong language from the US Army’s commander-in-chief. Although foreign news correspondents have had to overcome serious obstacles in order to report on Libya’s revolution, millions of people have been aware of Gaddafi’s wanton disregard for protesters’ lives since the uprising began. What, then, was so special about Tuesday that compelled Obama to vociferously condemn Gaddafi on Wednesday?

In my post yesterday, I briefly discussed the speech Gaddafi gave Tuesday evening, highlighting several quotes that unequivocally illustrate Gaddafi’s insanity. However, after watching the televised broadcast of his speech again, I noticed certain subtleties that further betray how demented Gaddafi actually is.

Gaddafi appeared to record his speech in isolation. Having spoken from inside a dilapidated army barracks – the building remains in disrepair after the US shelled the compound in 1986 in reaction to Libya’s alleged involvement in the bombing of a German discoteque and features a bizarre statue of an iron fist crushing a US fighter jet in its courtyard – Gaddafi’s voice conveyed a peculiar sense of urgency, as if he was intentionally trying to come off as isolated, haphazard, and persecuted. Then, when Gaddafi stated that he is not Libya’s “president”, that there is no “post” from which he can be overthrown, and that he is the only person that can “rule” Libya, I could only think of one thing.

The same way that Tony Montana tried to make himself look like the victim in his famous “Say goodnight to the bad guy” speech, Gaddafi showed the world that he also sees himself as a victim. Like Montana, Gaddafi feels persecuted because the only cause he ever really cared about was himself. For the two of them, anybody that impedes their ability to accumulate wealth, power and status is infringing on their natural right to freely enjoy all three. In Montana’s words, “I want what’s coming to me…the world and everything in it.”

A psychopath that needs to get his ass kicked

For those of us that are sane and enjoy a functioning conscience, Gaddafi’s message on Tuesday was nothing short of ominous, foreshadowing a bloody curtain call by a man who truly believes that the world belongs to him. Is it possible that Obama’s comments were triggered because he could no longer pretend to be ignorant of how fucked up Gaddafi really is? Is it possible that Obama became legitimately concerned with the safety of hundreds of thousands of Libyans?

Maybe. What’s more likely to have happened, however, is that Obama listened to Gaddafi’s speech and became increasingly worried about the long-term consequences Libya’s uprising will have on the region, and how Gaddafi’s psychopathy will surely make the situation worse. Either way, whether he’s concerned with Libya’s safety, rising oil prices, or Iran’s regional repositioning, Obama realized that he must try to prevent Gaddafi from realizing his genocidal ideations.

As Gaddafi’s government continues to crumble around him, he has hunkered down in Tripoli surrounded by an “irregular” military force composed of ruthless foreign mercenaries. Over the years, Gaddafi grew increasingly distrustful of the army and fellow governmental officials, and quietly prepared a personal militia loyal to nothing but dollar bills. Now, Tripoli is at the mercy of a deranged despot and his bloodthirsty minions.

Nevertheless, protesters remain committed, vigilant, and hopeful, as their efforts have brought independence to Libyans all across the country. Gaddafi has lost Eastern Libya, and people, like Benghazi’s inhabitants, are beginning to put the pieces of their lives back together following 42 years under the Arab world’s most notorious dictator.

The international community must meaningfully support protesters’ efforts. Libya’s borders must be monitored and protected so as to prevent more foreign mercenaries from entering the country. At the same time, Libyan refugees must be absorbed by neighboring countries with the help of the United Nations. They must also be treated with respect and dignity. This is not the time to confront Libya with sanctions; there is no longer a government for the United Nations Security Council to hold accountable. All that is left is an evil tyrant that cares about nothing except himself.

Gaddafi’s presence in Tripoli is more than just an obstacle to Libya’s democratization; he puts all Libyans at risk. Gaddafi has made his intentions clear, and we should not doubt his desire to massacre protesters until he has exhausted all available resources. While there are obvious limits to the parallels that exist between psychopaths Tony Montana and Muammar Gaddafi, Montana’s enemies realized the same thing that we all must realize about Gaddafi: he will not stop until he is dead.

This madman must be stopped

For what cause does Gaddafi consider himself a martyr? The cause to promote his own self-indulgence? His own lunacy? As he rants and raves about his leadership over the “popular revolution,” a real revolution against his tyranny is taking place. Reports indicate that Gaddafi has lost control over the eastern half of the country to protesters, and numerous governmental officials – including Libya’s interior minister General Abdul-Fatah Younis – that have defected from his murderous regime are imploring the United Nations to intervene. At the very least, the UN Security Council should help impose a no-fly zone over Libya in order to prevent additional fighter jets from attacking civilian protesters.

While nobody is certain how many people Gaddafi has killed in his senseless battle with reality, the International Federation for Human Rights estimates that the death toll is somewhere between 300 and 400 people. Unfortunately, this may only be the beginning of a brutal bloodbath. According to Gaddafi, “I have not yet ordered the use of force, not yet ordered one bullet to be fired … when I do, everything will burn.”