Millions have stood up to help.
Europe’s citizens are its biggest strength and the key to change the current political impasse on migration. We are coming together to launch a European-wide campaign in order to put pressure on politicians, in particular as part of the 2019 European Parliament elections, and put forth our demands.
We want the European Commission to directly support local groups that are willing to welcome and integrate refugees because we should have the chance to sponsor refugees.
We want the European Commission to stop those governments that are punishing volunteers because no one should be prosecuted for offering humanitarian help and shelter.
We want the European Commission to guarantee more effective ways to defend victims of exploitation, crime and human rights abuses in our countries and at the borders because everyone in Europe – whatever their status – has the right to seek justice.
The initiative claims that citizens across Europe want to sponsor refugees to offer them a safe home and a new life.
Visit the website
Yemeni tribes as collective entities have not backed or allied with AQAP, agreed to give its fighters safe haven, or endorsed its radical ideology; to the contrary, tribes have tended to see the group as a potentially serious challenge to their authority
This timely report by Nadwa Al-Dawsari unpacks the dynamics between tribes and AQAP to explain that Yemeni tribes are not an inherent part of the problem, but instead could represent a key to countering the group effectively. The report describes the evolution of al-Qaeda in Yemen since the late 1980s; what tribes are, the government’s relations with tribes, and tribes’ governance and value systems; and AQAP-tribal interactions before and during the civil war, when some tribes have coordinated with AQAP against the Houthis, a common enemy.
The report goes on to discuss how the excessively militarised U.S. counterterrorism approach has worsened some of the conditions on the ground that fuelled al-Qaeda in Yemen in the first place.
Finally, the report offers four broad recommendations for U.S. policy including 1) Work to end the war as soon as possible; 2) Do not wait until the end of the war, however, to help Yemenis strengthen security and improve living conditions; 3) Limit the use of airstrikes and raids against AQAP, especially in areas where clashes between Houthis and tribes are ongoing; and 4) Explore the possibility of rehabilitation for some tribesmen who joined AQAP for economic, political, or social reasons, not out of ideological commitment.
AQAP exploited the security vacuum created when Yemen’s military and security forces split into pro-and anti-Saleh factions, or simply disintegrated.
We are concerned to hear that the government has invited the Egyptian dictator, Field Marshal Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, to visit the UK. We believe it violates the British values which the government claims to champion to welcome a ruler who has overthrown an elected government and instituted a regime of terror which has thrown back the cause of democracy in Egypt and the wider Middle East many years.
While not necessarily supporting deposed President Morsi or the policies of his Freedom and Justice party, we note that he was democratically elected, and that his removal from office was effected by means of a military coup led by Sisi.
Since then Sisi’s military-directed regime has massacred thousands of civilians. Hundreds of supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, including President Morsi, have been sentenced to death in mass trials that were a travesty of justice. Almost all independent political activity has been suppressed, including that of liberal and leftwing organisations. Women’s rights have been violated across the country.
Sisi was “elected” president in 2014 in a vote that did not meet the most minimal democratic standards. The parliamentary elections currently taking place in the absence of any real opposition have been shunned by the vast majority of Egyptian voters with record low turnout, in the expectation that the new Egyptian parliament will be no more than a fig leaf for Sisi’s authoritarian regime.
Meanwhile, security and police forces have illegally arrested, detained and tortured Egyptian citizens, media freedoms have been suppressed and many journalists arrested and abused.
Such renunciation of democracy and human rights has surely contributed to the upsurge of terrorism in Egypt, which we repudiate but regard as a consequence of, rather than a justification for, Sisi’s barbarism.
Under these circumstances, we regard any visit to the UK by this despot as an affront to democratic values. No considerations of commerce or realpolitik can justify such an invitation. We urge the government to withdraw it.
Diane Abbott MP
Caroline Lucas MP
John McDonnell MP
Lindsey German Stop the War Coalition
John Pilger Journalist
Dr Anas Altikriti The Cordoba Foundation
Andrew Murray Chief of staff, Unite
Dr Daud Abdullah British Muslim Initiative
Ken Loach Film-maker
Dr Abdullah Faliq Islamic Forum of Europe
John Rees Counterfire
Dr Maha Azzam Egyptian Revolutionary Council
Prof John L Esposito
Victoria Brittain Writer
Salma Yaqoob Former councillor
Peter Oborne Journalist
Bruce Kent CND peace campaigner
Aaron Kieley Student Broad Left
Kate Hudson CND
Chris Nineham Stop the War Coalition
Michael Rosen Author and political activist
Carl Arrindell Broadcaster
Dr Omar el-Hamdoon Muslim Association of Britain
Dr Farooq Bajwa Solicitor
Reverend Stephen Coles St Thomas the Apostle Church
Steve Bell Treasurer, Stop the War Coalition
Carol Turner Labour CND
Dr David Warren University of Manchester
Tanya Cariina Newbury Smith
Ibrahim Vawda Media Review Network
Nabeweya Malick Muslim Judicial Council
Hilary Aked University of Bath
Alastair Sloan Al-Jazeera columnist and investigative reporter
Dr MF ElShayyal Visiting professor, King’s College and SOAS
Asim Qureshi Author, Rules of the Game
Shaykh Abu Sayeed Da’watul Islam UK & Eire
Dr S Sayyid University of Leeds
Dr Muhammad Feyyaz University of Management and Technology, Pakistan
Dr Haider Bhuiyan University of North Georgia
Dr Osama Rushdi National Council for Human Rights, Egypt
Prof Mohammad Fadel University Toronto, Canada
Prof Scott Poynting University of Auckland, New Zealand
Maher Ansar Sri Lankan Islamic Forum-UK
Dr Alain Gabon USA
Dr Muhammad Abdul-Bari
Imam Ajmal Masroor
Dr Sarah Marusek
Sameh Shafei Stop Sisi
Anne Alexander Co-Founder, MENA Solidarity Network and Egypt Solidarity Initiative
Medea Benjamin Code Pink
• Join the debate – email email@example.com
Is the Arab Spring dead? Certainly not according to Dr Anas Al Tikriti, the British-Arab founder of Cordoba Foundation, who was one of the panelists on 20 March 2014 at the Skeel Lecture Theatre (Queen Mary University of London). Dr Anas came to prominence in the UK when he participated in mobilisation for the historic “Don’t Attack Iraq” march in London ( March 03).
In a forceful presentation he argued that the Arab Spring was a process not an isolated event. As such it is bound to have ups and downs; but its line of movement is now irreversible. The people can’t be subdued by force. They no longer fear their rulers and know that change is possible. The struggle for democracy deserves Western democratic support and Solidarity. He mocked the myth that people in the Arab countries deserve and need only authoritarian rule. Poverty has nothing to do with the new awareness.
To read more, please click here
A recent post in the Colombo Telegraph by the ‘PM of the TGTE’ expressed solidarity with the Muslim community whilst “extending our fullest support to the Muslim people, we also extend our solidarity to the Muslim community, as a community whose mother tongue is also Tamil, asking them to join the Tamils in their struggle to build a secure future for all in the Tamil state”. The article was written on the back of rising incidents of attack against the Muslim community by extreme Buddhist groups.
I not only found this article laughable but highly delusional in the assumptions that the Muslim community would entertain any notion of an alliance with the TGTE, whose singular premise has been to extend the LTTE mantra and campaign on a separate Tamil state. Making this statement, the TGTE was not necessarily ‘concerned’ about the Muslim community per se, but it was aimed at showing the ‘intolerance’ of Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism. At quite a crucial time for Sri Lanka, during the anniversaries of the Black July pogroms 30 years ago, the article aims to draw parallels with then and now and to show that nothing has changed. Yet interestingly it seems to have taken the TGTE 4 years since the end of the conflict (and the occasions of these incidents) to publicly reach out to the Muslim community
To read more, please click here
If there is one thing that consistently defines this era that we are living in, it is the role of the media in how it not only shapes our politics, ideology and world view but also how it seeks to manipulate issues and narratives for its own goals. We all remember the concerted media campaign that preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The political establishment and a large proportion of the general public were convinced that Iraq had a viable nuclear and chemical arsenal. The orchestrated media campaign by traditionally respectable media outlets like the BBC and the Sky Middle Eastern coverage tended to stoke-up fear in the hearts of the population. Some politicians genuinely believed that unless there was a pre-emptive attackon Saddam Hussain, our civilisation and our way of ’’life’’ were in mortal danger. We all know too well the consequences of the invasion. Likewise the Leveson Inquiry in the UK has called to question media ethics.
With the crises and incidents unfolding in Egypt, truth is once again the main victim — in the absence of real democratic institutions and an inherently-corrupt and unprofessional media. The loss of life over the past week — whilst utterly shocking — veers into insignificance compared to the web of lies that have been spun around to justify these killings by the government officials and those who back the military operation. What is even worse is the reception these lies seem to be getting in the West as figures are misquoted and justifications reiterated.
The flow of information from the official sources should not be taken at face value. Western leniency with the coup leaders in Egypt encouraged the army and security services to massacre hundreds of demonstrators in the streets of Cairo. These crimes were preceded by an unbelievable array of propaganda willingly reiterated by American and British officials in their briefings in the past few weeks. Take for example the American official who reaffirmed the outrageous Egyptian claim that 30 million people took to the streets of Cairo on the eve of June 30th to call for a military intervention and end Morsi’s rule.
The influence of the mass media on ordinary people in the Middle East is widely acknowledged. In the Egyptian case, money from the UAE and Saudi Arabia has fuelled a frenzied media attack on the nascent democratic institutions in Egypt to the extent that ordinary citizens were willing to sacrifice theirvote and political freedoms in order to end their miserable economic and social situation, so they were led to believe. Paradoxically the Saudi and the Arab Gulf states concentrated in their media campaign on the issue of the Western conspiracy with the Muslim Brotherhood to destabilise Egypt and sell its assets to foreign investors. They played on the ordinary people’s sentiments and religious sensitivities. They even claimed that the new democratic government in Egypt is in cahoots with the West and the Israelis.
Unfortunately most of the information about opposition movements in the Arab and Muslim world available to Western circles was amassed from security services and academic institutions linked to it. It was only in the last 30 years when large number of political activists and academics took refuge in the West that we saw certain changes in attitude towards a relative understanding of political Islam. At the same time the exposure to Western political theory and practice had a huge influence on the politics of the proponents of contemporary political Islam. The same strategy is followed by monarchic regimes and sheikhdoms in the Arab Gulf region. Although these regimes are considered pro-West, they support and give sustenance to religious clergy faithful to the regimes to demonise all what the Western democracies stand for. In the case of Egypt, we have witnessed how traditionally apoliticaland rejectionist trends like the Salafists have been used to defend and justify the military coup. Similarly, the head of Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious religious institution in the Muslim world, has not been spared. Here again, Western political, cultural and ethical ideals are the target. A barrier is erected between their people and international concepts such as democracy and free will.
The Egyptian military and the Gulf regimes used religious and cultural cleavages with the West to end the infant democratic experience. Unfortunately, they succeeded with an undeniable tacit approval by democratic governments in the West. This is evident of Western ancient religious sensitivities being undoubtedly intertwined with their contemporary politics.
Dr Fareed Sabri is head of the Middle East and North Africa Programme for The Cordoba Foundation
I expect people reading this to be quite busy and so I will forego the usual essay style and use a point format. As a preamble, there are two arguments I will not make. I will not argue that the President’s first year in office was mistake-free. There were many and the President alluded to some during his most recent speech before the coup. The second argument I will not make is that the coup has no popular support. Without a doubt, there is significant resentment among a considerable portion of the Egyptian population towards the President. Nevertheless, neither of those considerations – mistakes and alienating part of the electorate – constitutes reasonable grounds (if ever such an adjective could be used) for a military coup.
Coup apologists are using a number of accusations to justify the coup.
a. Egyptians lack the “basic mental ingredients” for democracy
b. President Morsy was not inclusive during his year in government and was unable to unite the country. But for the military coup, the country would have descended into chaos and civil war.
c. The President, and the Muslim Brotherhood, were intent on building an “illiberal” democracy, one where there was voting, but were human rights including freedom of speech and express as well as women rights are limited.
d. The economy was imploding due to the poor management of the country and the Army had to intervene.
e. This was not a coup. This was a popular uprising and the army merely supported the people a la February 11, 2011.
I will not distinguish (a) above with a response. The remainder of those arguments, even if there is some truth to them, is entirely without merit as a justification for a military coup that derails the democratic transition of the country.
To read more, please download the paper from here
Only 29 months ago, Egyptians were united in celebrating the removal of Mubarak’s 30-year rule and the triumph of what seemed a glorious revolution that had inspired many around the world. This week, the Egyptian people, back on the streets in their many millions, were deeply divided almost down the middle over the question of legitimacy.
Mohammed Morsi, the first democratically elected president in the history of Egypt, stated in his last official speech that he would defend ‘legitimacy’ with his life. To his supporters and most neutral observers, he clearly meant defending the civil democratic elections, reflecting the will of the people in the face of an overriding military intervention. Without this the entire process would be defunct. To his opponents, it was a thinly-veiled threat and ultimatum threatening civil conflict, for which he lost all claim to his privileges to office.
To read more, please click here
In a previous piece for Fair Observer, I wrote about the plight of internally displaced persons (IDPs) who were victims of the Sri Lankan conflict at the hands of the LTTE, and who still remain without much hope of any viable solution today.
These victims, who have languished in camps for the last 23 years, have barely elicited a response except at election time when they become pawns of politicians. Recently, the politicisation and the ethnicisation of this agenda have pitted a Muslim politician against a Tamil religious leader in terms of who gets priority for resettlement — and effectively the bigger share of the resettlement pie. This development does not bode well for relations between the two communities
To read more, please click here