Middle East in Turmoil Pins Hope on Vaccine Rollouts

A Weekly Political News Magazine

2

Issue 1837- January- 29/01/2021

Issue 1837- January- 29/01/2021

Nancy Pelosi: The Most Powerful Female Politician in US History www.majalla.com

Middle East in Turmoil Pins Hopes on Vaccine Rollouts Politics

The Devil is in the Details: Biden’s Difficult Path to the JCPOA

Politics

Why Egypt’s Parliament is Grabbing the Headlines www.majalla.com

Society

Trial Marriage’ Sparks‘ Controversy in Egypt

Editorial

A Weekly Political News Magazine

www.majalla.com/eng The number of new coronavirus cases in the Middle East has exceeded 8 million as cold weather and the holiday season doubled confirmed cases in just two months. Countries in the region have started vaccination campaigns and imposed stricter preventive measures to limit the spread of the virus, hoping that this will be a “recipe” for recovery. While oil-rich Gulf Arab nations were among the first in the world to receive a vaccine, poorer and conflict-ridden countries must contend with vague timelines and complex distribution plans for the rollout. In this week’s cover story, Menna Ali Farouq shines a light on how the richest and poorest countries in the region are looking to vaccinate their people, and the challenges they face.

Since the early days of his candidacy for President, Joe Biden has been notionally committed to re-entering the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. However, a close examination of his and his subordinates’ public statements shows a surprising degree of ambiguity. In his weekly column, Joseph Braude writes that if the new President and his team hold firm to certain key commitments — particularly, Iran resuming compliance before the U.S. does, and expanding the agreement to include a ballistic missile embargo — it is easy to envision a protracted continuation of the status quo.

A ‘Trial Marriage’ contract published by a lawyer on Facebook has caused an uproar in Egypt. Ahmad Mahran says the agreement he drafted aims at reducing the country’s high divorce rate. But Islamic scholars have unanimously rejected the practice that unites man and woman as husband and wife for a limited time. In his report, Hatem Khedr explores why many people in Egypt view the initiative as unsuitable for their conservative society.

Read these articles and more on our website eng. majalla.com. As always, we welcome and value our reader’s feedback and we invite you to take the opportunity to leave your comments on our website.

2

29/01/21

Editor-in-Chief

Ghassan Charbel Editorial secretary Mostafa El-Dessouki HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd 10th Floor Building 7 Chiswick Business Park 566 Chiswick High Road London W4 5YG Tel : +44 207 831 8181 Fax: +44 207 831 2310

‫الوكيل اإلعالني‬ ،www.alkhaleejiah.com :‫موقع إلكتروني‬ hq@alkhaleejiah.com :‫بريد إلكتروني‬ + 9714 3 914440 :‫ دبي‬،920 000 417 : ‫من داخل اململكة‬ +44 207 404 6950 :‫ لندن‬+00764 537 331 :‫باريس‬ +966 11 441 1444 : ‫ومن مختلف الدول‬

- ‫ طريق مكة‬- ‫ حي املؤتمرات‬- ‫مرخص لها الرياض‬ ‫تقاطع التخصصى‬ +44 207 831 8181 :‫ لندن‬- 4419933 ‫ هاتف‬:‫الرياض‬

A Weekly Political News Magazine

16

The Case Against the Iran Deal

Issue 1837- January- 29/01/2021

26 Saudi-Armenian Relations: Lack of Diplo-

matic Ties Hinders Bilateral Cooperation

32

22

Fukuyama: Polarization Impedes Efforts to Thwart Covid -19

The Myth of a Responsible Withdrawal From Afghanistan

42 Know it When I See it

Tai Chi or Yoga? 4 52 Important Differences 3

29/01/21

46

How War Monuments Keep History Lessons Alive

S

napshot

4

29/01/21

Police personnel take a selfie after a full dress rehearsal for the upcoming the Republic Day Parade in Amritsar on January 24, 2021.) Amritsar, Punjab, India )AFP Photos( 5

29/01/21

S

napshot

6

29/01/21

People play in the snow on Primrose Hill in London on January 24, 2021, as the capital experiences a rare covering of snow on Sunday. London, , United Kingdom /AFP Photos

7

29/01/21

W

eekly news

on Saturday claiming responsibility via messaging platform Telegram. Reuters could not independently confirm its authenticity.

Saudi Minister of Energy Welcomes Russia’s Novak Reappointment

Saudi Arabia’s energy minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said he welcomes the reappointment of Alexander Novak as Russia’s energy minister adding it was important for Saudi and Russian cooperation within the OPEC+ group. “I’m so happy his term was extended,” he said after meeting Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russian Direct Investment Fund on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Dmitriev was also one of the key architects of Russia’s deal to join OPEC’s production cuts in

Arab and World Leaders Condemns Attempted Air Attack on Riyadh

Several European and Arab countries strongly denounced the foiled air attack against the Saudi Arabian capital Riyadh this week, expressing their solidarity with the Kingdom. In a joint statement, UK, France and Germany condemned the attempted aerial attack, stating that “Proliferation and use of missiles and drones undermine the security and stability of the region, to which we are strongly committed.

We reiterate our firm attachment to the security and integrity of Saudi territory.” Foreign min-

istries of UAE, Egypt, Bahrain issued separate statements condemning the attack, confirming their rejection of attempts to hinder the stability and peace of the region, while supporting Riyadh’s measures in defending its territories.

Earlier in the week, Saudi-led coalition fighting Yemen’s Houthi militia said it had thwarted an attack against the Saudi Arabian capital Riyadh on Saturday, Saudi state television reported, but the Iran-backed group denied any involvement.

A hitherto unknown group calling itself Alwiya Alwaad Alhaq, which roughly translates as ‘The 2017. Asked if he believed Russia would extend True Promise Brigades’, issued a statement late its deal to cut output in tandem with OPEC in March, Prince Abdulaziz said: “Only death will take us apart.”

Putin Warns of Worsening Global Instability

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the world risks sliding deeper into instability as the coronavirus pandemic combines with global rivalries and other international tensions.

Speaking by video link during a virtual meeting of the World Economic Forum, Putin pointed at growing inequality and unemployment and a rise of populism as potential triggers for new conflicts, AP reported “The pandemic has exacerbated the problems and disbalances that have been accumulating,” the Russian leader said. “International institutions are weakening,

8

29/01/21

regional conflicts are multiplying and the global security is degrading.” Putin hailed the decision by Russia and the United States to extend their last nuclear arms control pact as a positive move, but he added that spiraling tensions have come to resemble the situation before World War II. Putin attributed the worsening economic situation to a Western liberal economic model that he said “foments social, racial and ethnic intolerance with tensions erupting even in countries with seemingly long-established civil and democratic institutions.”

EU contract was based on a best-effort clause and did not commit the company to a specific timetable for deliveries. He added that vaccines meant for the EU were produced in four plants in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy.

AstraZeneca had previously announced a cut in supplies to the EU in the first quarter, which an EU official told Reuters last week amounted to a 60% reduction to 31 million doses caused by production issues at a factory in Belgium.

travel ban from countries of Muslim-Majority.

Other actions included rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, which Trump withdrew from in 2017, and the World Health Organization, which Trump withdrew from after he criticized the organization’s dealing with the worldwide spread of coronavirus. The latest environmental orders include an announcement that Biden will host an international climate summit on Earth Day April 22, the creation of new climate change positions and an inter-agency task force within his government, and measures to boost government procurement of U.S.-sourced clean energy and vehicles, boost science, and assist communities most affected by industrial pollution.

Biden Signs 37 Orders in First Week

More than any of his predecessors, US President Joe Biden signed a record number of executive Tensions are growing between EU and Astra- orders in his first week in the White House.

Zeneca, as the bloc is pushing the British-Swed- Biden’s first executive order was that requirish company to supply agreed upon doses of its ing masks and physical distancing in all federal COVID-19 vaccine from plants in Europe and buildings and the development of a testing proBritain after the company announced delivery gram for federal employees for COVID-19, in a delays, adding to frustrations over the EU’s in- first step to combat a pandemic that has claimed oculation programme. AstraZeneca and Pfizer the lives of more than 400,000 Americans. both announced delivery holdups recently due In reversal of two signature orders of Trump, to problems in the supply chains. AstraZeneca Biden halted construction of the southern border CEO Pascal Soriot said to newspapers that the wall between the US and Mexico, and lifted the

EU Pushes Back on Vaccine Delays

9

29/01/21

Italy’s PM Resigns in a Bid to Build New Majority

Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte handed in his resignation to the head of state on this week, hoping he would be given an opportunity to put together a new coalition and rebuild his parliamentary majority. The deepening political crisis is playing out against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 86,000 Italians -- the second highest death toll in Europe after Britain and the sixth highest in the world, Reuters reported.

Conte lost his absolute majority in the upper house Senate last week when a junior partner, the Italia Viva party headed by former premier Matteo Renzi, quit in a row over the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis and economic recession. Efforts to lure centrist and independent senators into the coalition to fill the hole left by Renzi have met little success, leaving Conte no choice but to resign and open a formal government crisis that will give him more time to find a deal.

C

over story

Middle East in Turmoil Pins Hopes on Vaccine Rollouts The Pandemic Struck a Region Already Battered by Conflicts and Economic Woes

by Menna A. Farouk The Middle East is pinning its hopes on the vaccine rollouts for an imminent economic recovery after the coronavirus pandemic hit a region already battered by conflicts and economic turmoil.

The number of new coronavirus cases in the Middle East has exceeded 8 million as cold weather and the holiday season doubled confirmed cases in just two months.

Countries in the region have started vaccination campaigns and imposed stricter preventive measures to limit the spread of the virus, hoping that this will be a

10

29/01/21

“recipe” for recovery.

Bassant Fahmi, an Egyptian economist and member of the Economic Committee at the Egyptian Parliament, said that Middle Eastern countries whose economy depends on oil and tourism have been hit hardest due to the decline in oil prices and tourism flows. Not to mention states that are submerged in armed conflicts, political unrest and economic failures, she said.

“I believe that with the vaccine rollouts in many Middle Eastern countries, the coronavirus crisis will start to have less impact on regional economies and will open the door for the return of tourism,” Fahmi told Majalla in a telephone interview.

In an updated forecast this month, the International Monetary Fund said that oil prices “will average just above $50/b in 2021, a more than 21 percent rise from 2020’s depressed level, as the rollout of vaccines and fiscal stimulus programs will help the global economy post a stronger-than-expected recovery from the pandemic”.

The World Bank also said that economic activity in the Middle East and North Africa is forecast to advance by 2.1 percent this year based on optimism vaccines will help return the world back to normal.

“Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are the top markets to focus on during the year. These markets have momentum as they have accelerated vaccine plans and have many foreign investments,” Fahmi said.

This picture taken on December 2020 ,17 shows Saudi Arabia’s Health Minister Tawfiq al-Rabiah waiting to receive the PfizerBioNTech COVID19coronavirus vaccine.

(Getty)

GULF STATES LEAD THE WAY According to the Oxford-based Our World in Data science website, Gulf countries are leading the region in inoculating their peoples.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman were the first countries to order doses from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Sinopharm, and launch their vaccination campaigns.

According to Our World in Data report, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are also among the world leaders in vaccination rates.

“The UAE has currently administered 9.52 doses per 100 people, a total of more than 941,000 vaccinations.

Bahrain is at 4.25 doses per 100 people, which would be around 66,000 vaccinations,” the report said.

Saudi Arabia has administered 0.29 doses per 100 people and is planning to level up its vaccinations quickly in the near future, the report added.

This month, Saudi Arabia also launched a new mobile application for vaccinations. Through the “Sehaty” or “My Health” app, citizens can sign up to receive the vaccine within 24 hours.

As the Gulf states get vaccinated, they are also work-

11

29/01/21

Middle Eastern countries are divided on vaccine preferences. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman, are relying heavily on the Pfizer vaccine, developed by the US company in partnership with Germany’s BioNTech, while the UAE and Bahrain, opted for Sinopharm, with the UAE assuring that the Chinese vaccine is “completely safe”. ing to ensure that life-saving vaccines are made available to the poorer, conflict-ridden countries during crises.

Saudi Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan announced on Tuesday that the Kingdom is negotiating with manufacturers to supply low-income countries with vaccines to prevent Covid-19.

In a virtual meeting during the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Saudi minister said that Yemen and some African countries, for example, will not be able to obtain enough vaccines through the COVAX program, which is a global mechanism for the purchase and distribution of Covid-19 vaccines.

COVAX has secured nearly 2 billion doses of coronavirus vaccines to be distributed across the 190 participating countries.

While Abu Dhabi’s Department of Health has launched a local collaboration called the Hope Consortium, which is scheduled to deliver 18 billion vaccine doses globally by the end of 2021.

Saeed Saleh, a professor of political sociology at The American University in Cairo, said that it is in the interest of wealthy countries to give a helping hand to poorer communities.

“It is a big challenge because countries are busy fighting the pandemic, ignoring underprivileged communities may come back to haunt them in the form of terrorist attacks or illegal migration, etc.,” he told Majalla.

ECONOMIC TURMOIL OVERSHADOWS VACCINE PLANS It is not only war-torn countries struggling to obtain

C

over story

adequate vaccine doses, countries hit by economic turmoil like Lebanon and Jordan are also suffering.

Lebanon now leads the Arab world in cases per million population. In early February, Lebanon will receive two million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, but they are expected to only cover around 20 percent of the country’s population.

Jordan is facing similar struggles. Although the Pfizer/ BioNTech and Chinese Sinopharm vaccination rollouts have begun, only a tiny percentage of its 10-million population has signed up to receive it.

In larger countries with struggling economies such as

The World Bank also said that economic activity in the Middle East and North Africa is forecast ‘to advance by 2.1 percent this year based on optimism vaccines will help return the world back to normal.

Egypt and Iran, with populations of 100 million and almost 85 million respectively, vaccine quantities also seem to be a huge challenge.

On January 24, Egypt began its vaccination campaign, with medical staff first to receive the Chinese Sinopharm jab.

The Arab world’s most populous country has signed a contract with GAVI, the vaccine alliance that coleads COVAX, to supply vaccines for 20 percent of its population.

The government also signed an agreement with AstraZeneca to receive 20 million doses of the vaccine, covering an additional 10 percent of the population.

Iran, meanwhile, said that it would produce its own vaccine while also relying on jabs from India, China or Russia. It will start vaccinating people on imported vaccines in February with officials saying that the country plans to import almost 2 million doses covering only 2 percent of the population.

VACCINE DIPLOMACY Middle Eastern countries are divided on vaccine preferences. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman, are relying heavily on the Pfizer vaccine, developed by the US company in partnership with Germany’s BioNTech, while the UAE and Bahrain, opted for Sinopharm, with the UAE assuring that the Chinese

12

29/01/21

A Kuwaiti trader wearing a protective mask follows the market at the Boursa Kuwait stock exchange in Kuwait City on March ,1 2020. (Getty)

A child wears a face mask as a precaution measures against the coronavirus on March 2020 ,22 in Sana’a, Yemen. (Getty)

vaccine is “completely safe”.

Professor Sadek said that countries are taking factors such as the speed of production, storage requirements and cost when deciding which vaccines to use.

“The Sinophram vaccine must be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius, while the Pfizer vaccine requires ultralow freezing temperatures, about minus 70 degrees Celsius. Not all country can afford or accommodate that,” he said.

Sadek also referred to the cost of Pfizer vaccine, which is far higher than Sinopharm, and therefore for less suitable for developing countries or those with huge populations.

However, he noted that relations between countries also play a role.

Some analysts say that China is gaining momentum in the region with its successful vaccine diplomacy.

In a Foreign Policy article, Steven Cook, a senior fellow for the Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that Beijing’s influence is on the upswing in an area that has long been one of American dominance.

“There is little doubt that the Bahrainis and Emiratis can afford the more expensive Pfizer and Moderna products, and they will likely use them as well, yet the fact that both countries have moved forward fairly quickly with the Sinopharm vaccine seems to reflect what is happening broadly in the

13

29/01/21

“It is a big challenge because each country is already busied with its handling of the crisis, but if they are going to avoid those underprivileged communities things can backfire.” Bassant Fahmi, Egyptian economist Gulf,” Cook said.

He added that countries “are hedging against a US withdrawal and the polarization of American politics that makes Washington a less effective diplomatic, military, and economic partner, leaving China and Russia as plausible alternatives”.

But Sadek believes that a new US policy under newly-elected US President Joe Biden can see a shift in vaccine orders in the Middle East. “The game is not over, but it still depends on what the US-owned Pfizer will offer,” Sadek said.

P

olitics

The Devil is in the Details: Biden’s Difficult Path to the JCPOA If the New President Holds Firm to Key Commitments, it is Easy to Envision a Protracted Continuation of the Status Quo

by Joseph Braude Since the early days of his candidacy for President, Joe Biden has been notionally committed to reentering the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. However, a close examination of his and his subordinates’

public statements shows a surprising degree of ambiguity. If the new President and his team hold firm to certain key commitments — particularly, Iran resuming compliance before the U.S. does, and expanding the agreement to include a ballistic missile embargo — it is easy to envision a protracted

14

29/01/21

continuation of the status quo.

THE STARTING POINT FOR NEGOTIATIONS Since well before his victory in the election, Biden campaigned on returning to the JCPOA on the condition that Tehran first abandon its policy of calculated noncompliance. In an op-ed published in September of last year, Biden offered a seemingly straightforward proposition: “If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations.” For its part, Tehran has always demanded the opposite sequence. As President Rouhani recently put it, “The ball is in the U.S. court now. If Washington returns to Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal, we will also fully respect our commitments under the pact,”

U.S. President Joe Biden prepares to sign a series of executive orders at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office just hours after his inauguration on January 2021 ,20 in Washington, DC. (Getty)

It remains to be seen whether Washington and Tehran can see eye to eye on sequencing at all, or if this challenge alone stalls the U.S.›s re-entry into the JCPOA. you could then begin to chip away at some of these other issues,” including ballistic missile program and Iranian regional expansionism.

During her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee this week, Biden’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Avril Haines, Early signs indicate the Biden administration is confirmed as much. She noted that “the presidentsticking to its guns. Incoming national security adviser elect has also indicated” that, while intending to rejoin Jake Sullivan doubled down on Biden’s original the JCPOA, he also intends to “have to look at the commitment in an interview with Fareed Zakaria, ballistic missiles you’ve identified and destabilizing saying, “Well, first, just to set the groundwork here, activities Iran engages in.”

President-Elect Biden has said that if Iran comes back into compliance with its terms under the nuclear DOUBTS MULTIPLYING IN WASHINGTON deal, that is to say it reduces its stockpile, it takes down some of its centrifuges and other measures Indeed, the complications sure to arise from an so that its program is back in a box, then we would attempt to proceed along these lines have already come back in. But that would become the basis for led to several of Biden’s close allies expressing this follow-on negotiation.” It remains to be seen reservations about the near term prospects for a grand whether Washington and Tehran can see eye to eye bargain. “In an ideal world, it would be great to have on sequencing at all, or if this challenge alone stalls a comprehensive agreement” at the outset, said Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat on the House the U.S.›s re-entry into the JCPOA. Foreign Affairs Committee. “But that’s not how these negotiations work.” Biden›s nominee for Deputy BROADENING THE AGREEMENT Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, who largely led When the JCPOA was originally negotiated, critics the American negotiating team during the original noted that it failed to address the crucial matter drive to achieve an agreement in 2015, recently said, of Iran’s ballistic missile program. The Obama “We’re going to work hard at this because we have administration responded, in essence, by claiming that lost credibility, we are seen as weaker.” attempting to do so would have led the Iranians to abandon the agreement en toto. As Sullivan put it to As Haines put it in her confirmation hearing, the U.S. Zakaria, “It was never fundamentally part of the Iran is “a long ways” from rejoining the Iran nuclear deal. nuclear deal that we had the expectation that it would” While responding to a question from Senator Susan Collins about President-elect Joe Biden’s commitment address the missile program. to rejoin the 2015 agreement if the Islamic Republic Now that Biden has expressed interest in broadening returns to compliance with its nuclear limitations, the JCPOA to cover missiles, however, Sullivan notes, Haines said, “The president-elect has indicated if Iran “If you had the Iranian nuclear program in a box, comes back into compliance,” he would rejoin the deal, but that things are “a long ways from that.”

15

29/01/21

P

olitics

The Case Against the Iran Deal Reviving the JCPOA Will Ensure Either the Emergence of a Nuclear Iran or a Desperate War to Stop It

by Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi Proponents of the Iran nuclear agreement are sounding the alarm. In 2018, the United States withdrew from

the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and since then, Iran has increased the quality and quantity of its uranium enrichment well beyond what the deal allows. Recently, it has even begun enriching uranium

16

29/01/21

An Iranian Saeqeh missile is launched during war games on April 2010 ,25 in southern Iran, near the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow strategically located waterway through which 40 percent of world›s seaborne oil supplies pass. (Getty)

to 20 percent, a short distance away from weaponsgrade. Iran, JCPOA advocates say, is closer today to producing a bomb than it was in 2015, when the deal was concluded. Only the deal’s renewal, they insist, can prevent the nightmare of a nuclear Iran.

“Five years ago, American-led diplomacy produced a deal that ensured it would take Iran at least a year to produce enough fissile material for one bomb,” Joe Biden wrote in September. “Now—because Trump let Iran off the hook from its obligations under the nuclear deal—Tehran’s ‘breakout time’ is down to just a few months.” More recently, he warned that if Iran gets the bomb, then Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt will follow.

Why, $ then, aren’t Israelis and Arabs—those with the most to lose from Iranian nuclearization—also demanding a return to the JCPOA? Why aren’t they panicking over its dissolution? The answer is simple: The JCPOA didn’t diminish the Iranian nuclear threat; it magnified it.

Iran needs to acquire three components in order to become a military nuclear power: highly enriched uranium, a functional warhead, and a missile capable of delivering it. The JCPOA addresses only the first of these efforts in any detail, and even then, offers merely partial and temporary solutions. The deal largely ignores the second effort, and actually advances the third.

The JCPOA did limit Iran’s immediate ability to enrich enough uranium for a bomb. It reduced the regime’s uranium stockpile by 97 percent, mothballed two-thirds of its centrifuges, and re-designated two of its major nuclear facilities as civilian research centers.

Uranium enrichment was capped at 3.7 percent, far short of weapons-grade. These concessions were intended to extend the time Iran needed to enrich enough uranium for a single bomb from approximately three months to a year. Should Iran attempt to break out and go nuclear, advocates explained, the international community would have enough time to intervene. The JCPOA, they asserted, blocked all of Iran’s paths to a bomb.

But the JCPOA allowed Iran to retain its massive nuclear infrastructure, unnecessary for a civilian energy program but essential for a military nuclear program. The agreement did not shut down a single nuclear facility or destroy a single centrifuge. The ease and speed with which Iran has resumed producing large amounts of more highly enriched uranium— doing so at a time of its own choosing—illustrates the danger of leaving the regime with these capabilities. In fact, the JCPOA blocks nothing.

If the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment were inadequate, they were also designed to be short-lived,

17

29/01/21

The JCPOA was supposed to provide Iran with the time and the incentive to moderate; instead, it gave Iran the means and the legitimacy to intensify its aggression now, while enabling it to go nuclear later. some sunsetting as early as 2024. Meanwhile, the deal allowed the regime to develop advanced centrifuges capable of spinning out more highly enriched uranium in far less time. Less than a decade from now, Iran will be legally able to produce and stockpile enough fissile material for dozens of bombs. The 97 percent reduction of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile achieved by the JCPOA would be swiftly undone. Breakout time would no longer be a year, or even three months, but a matter of weeks.

This isn’t just the assessment of the deal’s opponents, but also that of its principal architect. “If in year ,13 15 ,14 [after making the deal], they have advanced centrifuges that can enrich uranium fairly rapidly, the breakout time would have shrunk almost down to zero,” President Barack Obama acknowledged in an April 2015 interview with NPR. Realizing that the JCPOA guaranteed Iran’s future ability to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey accelerated their search for nuclear options as soon as the deal was signed.

The JCPOA’s opponents never feared that Iran would violate the deal, but rather, they feared that the regime would keep it—waiting out the sunset clauses and emerging with the ability to produce enough uranium for a nuclear arsenal.

The deal, then, allows Iran to eventually possess the first component for a bomb: a stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Next it needs a warhead. Despite Iran’s insistence that it has never tried to build a bomb, Western intelligence officials have long determined that it did, but believed that the regime suspended its efforts in 2003. The weapons program was directed by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a nuclear scientist and general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who was assassinated in November. In a recording obtained

by Israel and shared with the United States in 2008, Fakhrizadeh explained that the secret efforts in fact continued and that Iran intended to initially produce five nuclear warheads.

P

olitics

The possibility that Iran might still be trying to build a bomb did not, however, preoccupy the framers of the JCPOA. Of the deal’s 159 pages, only half of one page addresses Iranian weaponization, and it contains no mandate for international action. Although there are provisions for inspecting enrichment-related facilities, none exist for inspecting potential bomb-making sites or punishing Iran should any be discovered. Instead, there is merely an Iranian declaration that it will not try to make a bomb—a promise that Iran, which has systematically lied about its nuclear program for decades, has repeatedly broken in the past.

The recklessness of this omission became even more glaring three years ago, after Israel exposed Iran’s secret nuclear archive. Among its many thousands of pages were documents detailing undeclared nuclear sites and radioactive materials, as well as blueprints for a missile-borne bomb. More damning, the archive confirmed that Iran’s nuclear-weapons program did not stop in 2003 but was merely split into overt and covert channels, some of them embedded in prestigious universities, and both aspects of the program were headed by Fakhrizadeh. The goal, he states in the documents, was to maintain “special activities … under the title of Scientific Development” that “leave no identifiable traces.”

These revelations underlined the fatal flaws of the JCPOA. The very existence of a secret archive was a flagrant violation of Iran’s obligation to come clean about its previous weaponization work. And it was exposed not by international inspectors, but by Israel’s Mossad. Advocates of the deal are hard-pressed to explain why Iran would keep, conceal, and repeatedly relocate designs for a nuclear weapon unless it wanted to preserve the option of someday making one.

With its nuclear infrastructure intact, its work on advanced centrifuges proceeding, and restrictions on enrichment ending with the sunset clauses, Iran’s future nuclear stockpile of enriched uranium is ensured. And

The reimposition and intensification of American sanctions has placed enormous pressure on the Iranian regime.

with its weaponization-related efforts unimpeded, the regime needs only a system for delivering a bomb. The regime already possesses Shahab3- missiles, based on the North Korean No-dong, capable of hitting any country in the Middle East and even nations as far away as Romania. The archive contains detailed plans for fitting a nuclear warhead on the Shahab3-.

Iran aims to expand its threat to Western Europe and the United States by developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Intelligence sources agree that the rockets Iran has already developed for its space program can easily be converted to ICBMs. Iran’s missile development violates a UN ban on its missile program—a prohibition the international community has failed to enforce. In 2023, however, the JCPOA will lift that ban entirely.

The JCPOA, then, has not substantially blocked any of Iran’s efforts. The violations that Iran has committed since America’s withdrawal from the deal, and more intensively in recent months, will pale compared with the industrial-scale enrichment program the JCPOA ultimately permits. Combined with its weaponizationrelated work and its missile development, this will

18

29/01/21

An Iranian nuclear power plant stands March 2005 ,30 some 200 miles (322 km) south of Tehran, in Natanz, Iran. (Getty)

Why aren’t Israelis and Arabs - those with the most to lose from Iranian nuclearization - also demanding a return to the JCPOA? The answer is simple: The JCPOA didn’t diminish the Iranian nuclear threat; it magnified it.

position Iran to become a global nuclear power.

In return for merely postponing that outcome, the deal rewards Iran extravagantly. The JCPOA infused the Iranian economy with tens of billions of dollars in immediate sanctions relief and trade deals and promised to provide hundreds of billions more. Yet rather than invest in its decaying infrastructure, the regime used portions of this windfall to expand its international terror network, enhance the offensive capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah, and further assist the Syrian regime in massacring and uprooting its own people. In addition to extending its dominance of Lebanon, Iran has consolidated its influence in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza. Rather than buying Iran’s moderation, the JCPOA helped fund its quest for regional hegemony.

Exporting terror and instability, massacring and expelling Syrian Sunnis, and trying to kill Israelis—all of these Iranian activities were blandly subsumed by the JCPOA’s framers under the term malign activity.

The deal was intended to serve as a precedent for international cooperation in addressing these crimes, but in practice, little has happened. Instead, desperate

19

29/01/21

to preserve the agreement, signatories have ignored the regime’s aggression. The failure to address this “malign activity” reflects a near-total unwillingness to confront Iran and signals that the regime generally has little to fear from international interference.

The sermons and military processions accompanied by chants of “Death to Israel”; Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, calling for the elimination of the Israeli “cancer”; even a recent bill proposed in the Iranian parliament that would commit the government to “eliminate” Israel by 2041—all of these outrages and more are taken for granted by the international community. Yet no other country today so publicly and repeatedly declares its intentions to annihilate a fellow UN member state, linking its national purpose to that goal. At the same time, Iran has committed enormous resources and paid a staggering economic and diplomatic price to develop the means to fulfill its genocidal vision. The weaknesses of the JCPOA only deepen Israel’s fear that the international community is taking the inevitability of Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability for granted, too.

Israel has vowed to prevent the regime from going nuclear, so the Iranians are investing in massive deterrence. In the Middle Eastern countries under its domination, Iran has deployed tens of thousands of missiles, a growing number of them highly accurate and capable of hitting anywhere in Israel. Though some observers now claim that Iran’s missiles, rather than its nuclear program, most endanger the region, they have it backwards. The missiles are a tactical means to a strategic nuclear end. They are intended to deter Israeli efforts to stop Iran from moving toward breakout. Even so, Israel can handle the conventional missile threat, however costly, but the nuclear threat could be existential.

The flaws with the JCPOA are painfully obvious to both Arab and Israeli leaders. Why, then, did the international community ever agree to such a deal?

For Europe, in particular, financial interests were

P

olitics

involved. For America, though, the impetus was more complex. The Obama administration seemed to genuinely believe that Iran was capable of change. If it were treated respectfully and reintegrated into the international community, Obama maintained, Iran would lose interest in a nuclear bomb long before the deal expired, choosing instead to become “a successful regional power.” The regime would finally begin addressing the needs of its restive citizens and cease supporting terror. From the very beginning of his presidency, Obama pursued reconciliation with Iran, along with Palestinian-Israeli peace, as the centerpiece of his Middle East policy.

The JCPOA was supposed to provide Iran with the time and the incentive to moderate; instead, it gave Iran the means and the legitimacy to intensify its aggression now, while enabling it to go nuclear later. Much of the American public, meanwhile, exhausted by two Middle Eastern wars, feared becoming embroiled in another overseas conflict. Many Americans believed Obama when he insisted that “all options are on the table,” and that the only alternative to the deal was war.

In fact, the alternative to the president’s approach was tougher diplomacy, aimed at producing a better deal. But that would have required pressing Iran with even harsher sanctions and posing a credible threat of military action, neither of which the administration was willing to do. The “punishing sanctions” for which the administration took credit, and which brought Iran to the negotiating table, originated in Congress and were approved over the administration’s objections.

Rather than forcing Iran’s hand, the administration made far-reaching concessions at the very outset of the secret talks in 2012. American negotiators effectively recognized the regime’s “right to enrich,” overriding UN resolutions denying it that right, and even dropped

America must consult its Middle East allies about what they think a better deal would look like.

Such a deal would verifiably and permanently remove Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons.

their previous demand for a temporary freeze of enrichment. This essentially reduced the rest of the negotiations to wrangling over the details.

From the outset, the Obama administration was so wary of antagonizing Iran that it consistently overlooked the regime’s outrages and the routine harassment of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. No reckoning was sought for Iran’s complicity in the Syrian civil war, which has left some 500,000 civilians dead and 11 million homeless. Obama’s refusal to uphold his own red line regarding the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in 2013 was viewed by Israel and by Arab governments—and no doubt by Iran—as a further sign of his determination to placate Tehran.

And yet, even if America had the will, denying nuclear weapons to Iran was always fraught with risk. For religious and nationalist reasons, the regime sees itself as the Middle East’s rightful ruler, as well as a global force. More than anything else, though, Iran’s nuclear program is about the regime’s survival. Its leaders saw how the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi terminated their nuclear-weapons programs, and were later toppled and executed. They

20

29/01/21

An Iranian cleric walks past a mural on the wall of the former U.S. embassy, apparently undaunted by media reports of potential airstrikes by the US if relations between the two countries deteriorates further February 2007 ,22 in Tehran, Iran. (Getty)

see how North Korea’s deliverable bombs have won Kim Jong Un power and immunity. They know which example to emulate.

Still, Iran can be stopped.

Although every new administration seeks to distinguish itself from its predecessor—and this incoming administration all the more so—President Joe Biden should not squander the leverage he has inherited. The reimposition and intensification of American sanctions has placed enormous pressure on the Iranian regime.

After waiting out the old administration in the hope that 2021 would bring a new one, the regime is now trying to intimidate Biden into renewing the JCPOA. It is hardly a coincidence that the regime waited two years before approaching 20 percent enrichment— which it could have done at any time—but is doing so only now, with the onset of the new administration.

The regime responds to pressure and acts defiantly when it senses hesitation. Biden must not give in to this nuclear blackmail.

The JCPOA allowed Iran to both maintain its nuclear program and revitalize its economy. Biden must make clear to Tehran that it can have one or the other,

21

29/01/21

but not both. Tragically, spokespeople for the new administration are proposing to return to the JCPOA and lift sanctions, and only afterward negotiate a longer, stronger deal. Such a course has no chance of success. Even a partial lifting of sanctions would forfeit any leverage that could compel the regime to negotiate a deal that genuinely removes the danger of a nuclear Iran. At best, the regime will agree to cosmetic changes—for example, extending the sunset clauses— but not to dismantling its nuclear infrastructure. A fatally flawed deal would remain essentially intact.

The Biden administration must resist pressure from members of Congress and others who are urging an unconditional return to the JCPOA. Even the deal’s fervent supporters need to recognize that its fundamental assumptions—that Iran had abandoned its quest for a military nuclear option and would moderate its behavior—have been thoroughly disproved.

At the same time, America must consult its Middle East allies about what they think a better deal would look like. Such a deal would verifiably and permanently remove Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. This means not merely mothballing the nuclear infrastructure, but eliminating it. It means empowering international inspectors with unlimited and immediate access to any suspect enrichment or weaponization site. It means maintaining economic and diplomatic pressure on the regime until it truly comes clean about its undeclared nuclear activities and ceases to develop missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. A better deal will deny Iran the ability to commit the violations it is now committing with impunity.

Achieving these objectives will require close and candid cooperation among the United States, Israel, and concerned Arab states. Such cooperation was not possible in the negotiations leading up to the JCPOA, which America initially conducted behind the backs of its Middle Eastern partners. In the final stages, U.S. officials misled their Israeli and Arab counterparts about America’s negotiating positions. This displayed not only bad faith, but a patronizing presumption of knowing the vital security interests of the countries most threatened by Iran better than they knew those interests themselves.

The incoming administration has declared its determination to restore the trust of America’s allies, along with promoting peace and human rights. But those objectives are incompatible with renewing a deal that betrayed America’s allies, strengthened one of the world’s most repressive regimes, and empowered the Middle Eastern state most opposed to peace.

This article was originally published in The Atlantic.

P

olitics

The Myth of a Responsible Withdrawal From Afghanistan Counterterrorism Without Counterinsurgency Is Impossible

by Laurel Miller President Joe Biden is now the fourth American leader to oversee the U.S. war in Afghanistan. He inherits a fragile peace process that members of his team have wisely signaled they will work to advance. In February 2020, then President Donald Trump struck a deal with the Taliban to withdraw all U.S. and NATO troops by May 2021 ,1. In exchange, the United States received security assurances and a commitment from the Taliban to begin peace talks with the Afghan government. After 40 years of bloodshed and nearly 20 years of direct American involvement in

Afghanistan, there is no question that Biden should give these talks a chance. Reaching a comprehensive settlement that ends the Taliban insurgency would be by far the best way for the United States to wind-up its military engagement in the country.

But the slow-moving Afghan talks remain a long shot for peace. The Taliban and the Afghan government still disagree on fundamental issues, including whether the country should remain a republic or even retain any features of electoral democracy. And both parties have been hounded to the table; neither believes it has exhausted its military options.

The Biden administration will therefore have to

22

29/01/21

The Biden administration faces essentially the same choice that bedeviled its predecessors: an indefinite military mission that isn’t clearly making Americans safer versus a withdrawal that U.S. government analysts won’t declare risk free for the United States. ground idea has come to dominate Afghanistan policy discourse: “responsible withdrawal,” a conveniently malleable concept that holds out the promise of ending an “endless war” while continuing counterterrorism operations. Biden himself seemed to endorse a version of “responsible withdrawal” on the campaign trail, before the Trump administration struck its deal with the Taliban. In a February 23 interview on Face the Nation, Biden said the United States should maintain a “very small” counterterrorism footprint dedicated to preventing the resurgence of al Qaeda and ISIS. But as attractive as splitting the difference may seem, it is almost certainly impossible. Regardless of what happens with the peace process, the Biden administration will soon find that it must choose a more decisive course in Afghanistan.

VANISHING MIDDLE

Eight American flag-draped caskets line the floor of a C17- Globemaster III from the 15th Airlift Squadron, Charleston Air Force Base, S.C., awaiting transport home at Bagram Air Base February 2004 ,2 in Afghanistan. (Getty Images)

decide quickly whether to honor Trump’s agreement to withdraw all troops this spring or to extend the military mission, perhaps indefinitely. Some analysts advocate calling it quits regardless of what happens with the peace talks, arguing that the primary U.S. objective of decimating al Qaeda was achieved long ago. Others, including some former officials, call for the continued use of U.S. troops and firepower to prevent the Taliban from overrunning the Afghan government—at least until a peace settlement can be reached.

Given the shortcomings of both options—leaving promptly and staying indefinitely—a seeming middle-

23

29/01/21

There is virtually no chance that the Taliban would agree to allow the United States to maintain an indefinite counterterrorism footprint on Afghan soil. Doing so would require the group to abandon its number one demand and the rationale for its insurgency: the removal of all foreign forces. Because they prize cohesion, Taliban leaders wouldn’t make an agreement that they couldn’t sell to the group’s commanders and rank and file—especially since the Trump administration already agreed to withdraw all U.S. troops by May. One can’t entirely rule out the possibility that a future Afghan government that includes the Taliban would agree to cooperate with the United States on counterterrorism, but Washington certainly shouldn’t count on it.

Nor are the Taliban the only obstacle to an indefinite U.S. counterterrorism presence. To negotiate and

P

olitics

implement any peace deal, the United States would need the support of regional countries such as China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia—none of which want to see permanent U.S. military bases in Afghanistan.

To the extent that these countries support U.S. peace efforts, they do so because they expect a resultant agreement to herald a U.S. military departure. The U.S.-Taliban deal reinforced those expectations. If the United States jettisoned that deal in order to keep troops in the country, Pakistan in particular might decide to increase its support for the Taliban.

Of course, the peace process could fail, in which case the issue of regional support would become moot.

But even then, the United States wouldn’t be able to maintain an exclusively counterterrorism footprint.

Having gained and then lost a U.S. commitment to withdraw, the Taliban would once again violently contest any U.S. presence. In such a scenario, just protecting U.S. personnel would require offensive operations against Taliban insurgents. And if the Taliban go back to fighting the United States, they would have little reason to sever their remaining ties with al Qaeda as they promised to do in the February 2020 deal—thereby sustaining the very terrorist threat that the United States seeks to counter.

Finally, the United States wouldn’t be able to maintain bases in Afghanistan purely for its own purposes while withholding operational support from its host and counterterrorism partner. The United States would need to continue providing the Afghan military with at least some essential backup in its

One reason for skepticism about the severity of the threat is the lack of public reporting in recent years of ISIS or al Qaeda plots against the United States originating from Afghanistan

existential fight with the Taliban. Absent that support, the Taliban probably wouldn’t sweep rapidly through the country, but the war would intensify and Kabul would lose ground. And if Afghan government forces felt abandoned, the risk of insider attacks against U.S. personnel could rise. In other words, it is impossible to disentangle counterterrorism from counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. If the United States wants to keep any forces at all in the country, it will have to maintain a footprint that looks a lot like “staying the course.”

BUYING TIME The Biden administration should accept that there is no feasible middle way for a “responsible withdrawal.” Washington should instead attempt to reach an agreement with the Taliban to extend the May 1 troop withdrawal deadline—using this step to gauge the group’s commitment to reaching a peace deal that, however unlikely, would be the best outcome for Afghanistan and for the United States.

Three months is not enough time to reach any kind of deal—except, perhaps, one that grants extraordinary concessions to the Taliban, relies on support from

24

29/01/21

Activists of Jamiat Ulema-e Islam Nazryate party shout as they celebrate the signing agreement between the US and the Taliban during a rally in Quetta on March 2020 ,1. (Getty Images)

Washington should instead attempt to reach an agreement with the Taliban to extend the May 1 troop withdrawal deadline—using this step to gauge the group’s commitment to reaching a peace deal that.

opportunistic members of President Ashraf Ghani’s political opposition, and involves the United States essentially greenlighting a coup against him. That kind of deal would not leave the United States feeling confident that its security concerns are assuaged.

Washington has been the primary driver of the peace process, so talks are unlikely to survive a near-term U.S. withdrawal. Nor are they likely to survive if the United States simply ignores the May 1 withdrawal deadline, since the Taliban are liable to walk away from the negotiating table in that case. The Biden administration must therefore explore the extent of the Taliban’s patience and seek at least a six-month extension.

The Biden administration should spend those six months thoroughly assessing the terror threat emanating from Afghanistan and determining whether U.S. boots on the ground are necessary to neutralize it. Much of the threat analysis in the public domain focuses excessively on tabulating the numbers of militant groups and their members, measures that say little about their intent or their ability to carry out successful external operations. One reason for skepticism about the severity of the threat is the

25

29/01/21

lack of public reporting in recent years of ISIS or al Qaeda plots against the United States originating from Afghanistan; another is that most successful attacks in the United States and Europe in recent years have been linked to militants in Syria and Iraq or perpetrated by local “lone wolves” inspired by jihadi media.

For the long term, the United States will need a counterterrorism capability that doesn’t depend on a permanent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

The Biden administration should work swiftly to develop such options, enhancing counterterrorism cooperation with other countries in South and Central Asia, ensuring U.S. capacity to mount operations in Afghanistan from outside the country, and putting in place covert arrangements for monitoring and countering transnational terrorist activity. Some of these undertakings will be politically charged, and together they may not be as effective as the current U.S. setup in Afghanistan. But the only alternative is an indefinite, intertwined counterterrorism and counterinsurgency mission.

“Responsible withdrawal” is not a real option for the United States in Afghanistan, to the extent that it means leaving a residual counterterrorism footprint in the country for years to come. As a result, the Biden administration faces essentially the same choice that bedeviled its predecessors: an indefinite military mission that isn’t clearly making Americans safer versus a withdrawal that U.S. government analysts won’t declare risk free for the United States and that would likely precipitate the Afghan government’s undoing. The unpalatability of both options may be enough to persuade the Biden administration to push ahead with a low-probability peace settlement for as long as possible. Eventually, however, it will have to make a choice.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

Saudi-Armenian Relations: Lack of Diplomatic Ties Hinders Bilateral Cooperation Yerevan Offers an Attractive Environment for Investors with Tax Exemptions and Lenient Ownership Rules

by Motasem Al Felou Arab-Armenian relations have been lukewarm throughout history. In the early quarter of the 16th century, both the Arab World and Armenia were invaded by the Turks and became part of the emerging Ottoman-Seljuk Empire. After four centuries, the falling empire committed horrifying atrocities against Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians & Greeks in a series of genocides between 1914-1923. After the Armenian genocide, Arabs welcomed and naturalised tens of thousands of survivors in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan & Egypt. Today, the GCC is home to thousands of Armenians from the Levant, but only three Gulf states have full diplomatic and political relations with the former Soviet republic.

Saudi Arabia is not one of them.

While Saudi-Armenian relations have never been

antagonistic, the absence of diplomatic representation between the two countries has translated into missed economic and political opportunities.

Nerses Isajanyan, a Yerevan-based Armenian economic and legal expert, shares his insights on Armenia’s economy post the Karabakh war and the countless potential opportunities for Saudi investors.

SAUDI-ARMENIAN RELATIONS In September 2020, Saudi Arabia’s official press agency (SPA) released a statement in which the Kingdom called for the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan to be resolved by peaceful means. However, the Armenian political community wanted the Saudis and other Arab countries to take a stronger position against Azerbaijan and its main ally, Turkey, which is trying to

26

29/01/21

Armenia’s economy relies on tourism, agriculture, mineral exploitation, and industry, and has become one of the biggest emerging economies in Europe be changing now and, hopefully, the visa regime will be removed after formal ties are established between the two countries,” he added.

WHAT DOES ARMENIA OFFER SAUDI INVESTORS Located at the crossroads between the Middle East, Europe and the Caucasus countries, Armenia has become increasingly attractive for foreign investors.

“Armenia is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), a Russia-led economic block, with a single market of 180 million people. It also benefits from the human and financial resources of the Armenian diaspora - Armenian communities around the world numbering an estimated 7 million people. (Like Lebanon, Armenia’s diaspora population significantly exceeds the landlocked country’s resident population of just 3 million.) The adult literacy rate is 99.7%. The average monthly salary in the country is around $380,” Isajanyan explains.

Nerses Isajanyan, Armenian legal and economic expert.

(Supplied)

revive their Ottoman ancestors’ past glory.

“Armenia has visa-free regimes with the UAE and Qatar, while nationals of Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman can get a visa on arrival (or an e-visa). Visas on arrival are also available to Indian nationals who hold a residence permit issued by one of these countries,” Isajanyan told Majalla.

Armenia’s economy relies on tourism, agriculture, mineral exploitation and diamond-cutting, and has become one of the biggest emerging economies in Europe. In October 2020, the World Bank report on Armenia stated that the Caucasian country’s GDP is estimated at USD 13.7 bn.

“The situation with Saudi Arabia is somewhat peculiar and is probably due to the lack of official diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Saudi Arabia backed Azerbaijan’s position in the Karabakh conflict. The political climate seems to

“Armenia has an open market and nationals of all countries are welcomed to visit the country and invest in it. It is possible for foreigners to own real estate, land, and practically no industry is closed to foreign investors. In 2019, Armenia’s

27

29/01/21

P

olitics

GDP grew by 7.6% - the highest rate in all of Europe”, says the Armenian expert who specialises in immigration and business law.

Foreign investors typically look for a transparent and stable business environment. Isajanyan explains why Armenia’s business climate is particularly attractive to Saudi investors: “Foreign business owners and investors appreciate the pace of the economic reforms, Armenia’s safety, freedom, and openness. Zero-tax status is available to micro-businesses, IT companies, companies operating in free economic zones, industrial zones, certain border towns, and villages. Armenia generally does not tax capital gains on the sale of securities, real estate, or other assets. Insurance and pension payments are also exempt from taxes. There are no taxes on gifts, inheritance, net worth, etc. Armenia guarantees free repatriation of invested capital and profit. Foreigners are allowed to own land. Investment projects are encouraged with tax benefits and government assistance programs.”

“Practically all sectors are open, including real estate, agriculture, infrastructure and energy projects, mining, healthcare, and financial services,” he added.

Saudi Arabia has stepped up its investments in

“The political climate seems to be changing now and, hopefully, the visa regime will be removed after formal ties are established between the two countries” Nerses Isajanyan, Armenian lawyer.

food security and agricultural infrastructure in several countries, including Argentina, the US, Australia, Brazil, Ukraine, and Egypt. Therefore, the topic of foreign ownership is of interest to many potential investors.

“The laws on foreign ownership of property are very lenient. There are no restrictions on owning buildings, residential, or commercial land. Ownership of agricultural land is generally reserved to Armenian nationals and special residents.

However, it is possible to own agricultural land through a local or foreign legal entity controlled by foreign nationals,” Isajanyan assures.

28

29/01/21

Mnatskan Muradyan, the grandson of Martiros Muradyan, works in a field outside the village of Pokr Vedi, south of Yerevan, near the Ararat mountain, seen in background, in Armenia on February 24, 2015 shows (Getty)

THE ARMENIAN ECONOMY AND THE KARABAKH WAR

risks,” the lawyer said.

In the long-term however, Isajanyan predicts that Although it too early to tell to what extent the the economy will bounce as the country returns fierce battle between Azerbaijan and Armenia to relative stability. “The presence of Russian has impacted Yerevan’s economy, Isajanyan be- peacekeepers in the region and the opening of lieves that the conflict has scared away potential borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan should play investors. “It is probably too early to assess the a positive role in stabilising the region and boostconsequences of the war on the investment cli- ing economic growth. Russia guarantees Armemate in Armenia. In the short-term, the impact nia’s security, and it is important to note that no will certainly be negative because the investors military actions took place on the territory of Arwill perceive the Armenian market as vulner- menia itself. The government predicts a moderable to both external threats and internal political ate growth of 3.2%,” he said.

29

29/01/21

P

olitics

Why Egypt's Parliament is Grabbing the Headlines MPs Rail Against Information Minister and Renew Nationwide State of Emergency

by Amr Emam After convening for just two weeks, Egypt›s House of Representatives (lower chamber of Parliament) has been grabbing the headlines for good and bad reasons.

The legislature held its first meeting on January 12, bringing together 596 lawmakers, including 28 appointed by the president, for the first time since the elections in October and November of last year.

Farida El Choubachy became the first woman to

30

29/01/21

preside over the Egyptian Parliament›s opening session in its two-century history. MPs elected Hanafi al-Gibali as the new speaker of the House. Two other lawmakers, business tycoon Mohamed Abul-Enein and Parliament›s former secretary-general Ahmed Saadeddin were elected deputy speakers.

But soon after the inauguration, the Egyptian Parliament found itself embroiled in a series of controversies. One MP accused actors and singers of promoting immorality, while another accused the majority party of bribing voters. As a result, the al-Wafd MP was kicked out of the House and referred to a disciplinary committee.

The House also summoned top government officials, including the prime minister and cabinet ministers to listen to their views on addressing Egypt›s problems.

Members of Egypt›s parliament meet for a session in the country›s parliamentary hall.

«Parliament has a big responsibility to take into consideration the aspirations of ordinary Egyptians who hope for improved living conditions,» Tarek Fahmi, a political science professor at Cairo University, told Majalla.

«Ordinary people need jobs and better services.»

Egypt›s Mostaqbal Watn (Nation›s Future) Party, which strongly backs President Abdel Fattah alSisi, makes up nearly 55 percent parliament, the remaining seats are held the Republican People›s party and independents. More than a quarter of the 596 members are women after a record number of female lawmakers were elected in last year›s parliamentary polls following the introduction of a new women›s quota.

«MPs will do their best to meet voter›s expectations,» MP Mohamed Safieddine Kharboush told Majalla. «We will use all the tools at our disposal to achieve this.»

Parliament grilled the minister of information Osama Heikal on January 19 for failing to revamp state-owned media during his two years in office. MPs said it was unlawful for Heikal, who is also the chairman of the Egyptian Media Production City (EMPC), to simultaneously hold two posts.

«Why should the same man hold two posts at the

31

29/01/21

MPs said it was unlawful for Heikal, who is also the chairman of the Egyptian Media Production City (EMPC), to simultaneously hold two posts. same time?» Nation›s Future MP Ashraf Rashad asked. «Aren›t there people qualified to relieve the minister of this heavy burden?»

The MPs also summoned the ministers of education, trade and industry and environmental affairs for discussions on their respective ministries› Plan of Action for the upcoming period.

Parliament has a long list of bills to discuss in the coming days to address some of the nation›s pending issues, including a bill regulating relations between landlords and tenants, another on the settlement of marital disputes and a third that introduces amendments to the Investment Law. On January 17, the House approved amendments to a law regulating a fund that honours military martyrs. The amendments allow the cabinet to add beneficiaries to the fund, other than military personal and police officers.

Four days later, the House approved a renewal of a nationwide state of emergency in effect since October 2014.

These discussions come as Egypt grabbles to contain the pandemic and reports of a potential cabinet reshuffle.

«Parliament›s agenda is full of important issues that must be discussed,» independent political researcher Mohamed Rabie al-Dehi told Majalla. «Egyptians expect parliament to defend their interests and solve many of their problems, but whether the parliament will meet all these expectations will be become clear in the coming few days.»

R

eport

Fukuyama: Polarization Impedes Efforts to Thwart Covid -19 In light of the Capitol Riots, the Famed Political Philosopher Warns that Society Must Regain Control of Powerful Technology That Shapes Media Consciousness 32

29/01/21

by: Majalla In an interview with Foreign Policy, the famed political scientist Francis Fukuyama revisits his view of liberal democracy as the end of ideological progression. He reveals that “the end of history may not be one form of government, but it may be the eternal return to the same,” noting that we have tried all the different variants, from democratic to authoritarian governments. In his theory, the end of history is “a perpetual recycling through these different variants,” rather than pushing for a new kind of society.

Still, he doesn’t think those variants are stable.

The violent events that erupted at the US capitol on January 6 reflect the power of identity politics driven by resentment which Fukuyama anticipated as a hindrance to democracy in his book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. However, he thinks that a transition has taken place from polarization based on political issues to a polarization that pivots on identity affiliations.

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama.

Fukuyama also refers to new kinds of loyalties based on “crazy conspiracy theories.” Though he says it is not unique to Trump, he admits that when a US president promotes these theories, they are difficult to contain. In a way, he acknowledges the significance of some outstanding Republicans parting with Trump and America’s corporations standing against him. Fukuyama describes the impact of suspending the former President’s Twitter account saying, “He really knew how to feed that beast regularly. Once it gets starved of that kind of fuel, I think the phenomenon could weaken…. That’s an important guardrail that will help marginalize them.”

As for the effect of polarization on the survival of democracy, Fukuyama says: If you have a decisive electoral defeat or

33

29/01/21

The violent events that erupted at the US capitol reflect the power of identity politics, driven by resentment, which Fukuyama anticipated as a hindrance to democracy in his book Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. a series of electoral defeats or a series of defeats, where Republicans going down this route just isn’t going to snowball into something bigger, then have to reassess.”

“And frankly, going from holding the presidency and both houses of Congress to holding none of those institutions is not a success. As they start thinking about the future, that’s got to sink in. I probably shouldn’t say this for attribution, but in a certain way that change isn’t going to happen without even more overreaching,” he said Talking about a new form of authoritarianism that “figured out a way to political power”, the political philosopher recalls former Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi as one of its most prominent figures to gain political power by combining political power with economic power. As for Trump, his “Berlusconi formula” was to “control the narrative” through his TV station Fox News, then his social media platforms. Hence, most of his supporters think Trump legitimately won, and all they are doing is defending American ideals.

Asked about the fate of populism driven by theories of conspiracies, Fukuyama

R

eport

hopes this wave will weaken, and points out to Trump being “de-platformed” by social media companies, warning that “society has to regain control of such a powerful technology that shapes media consciousness”.

On the international system and the expectation that countries such as China and Russia could change, Fukuyama says that realistically the strongest power sets the rules. “That’s exactly what the United States did… (and) there’s ab-

“People have tried out all the different variants of governments, and end of history is a perpetual recycling through these variants.”

– American Political Scientist Francis Fukuyama.

solutely no reason to think the Chinese won’t do that,” by trying to “infiltrate” every international institution, he said.

Fukuyama admits the Chinese are doing that within the existing world system, but they will ultimately have the ability to use these organizations to serve their own interests. Eventually, something can be done about setting standards and their ability to reach societies in the West.

As he previously said in a Foreign Affairs article, Fukuyama believes that the covid-19 crisis has uncovered the “weaknesses” of institutions. In the interview, he explains that effective responses greatly depend on politics. In contrast to countries that “hold onto (social) consensus” and trust, those which are polarized “are not going to do well”. He believes that Biden is lucky as the vaccine rollout has already begun, which will help with the economy and strengthen his legitimacy. Still, he says, polarization will not consequently recede.

34

29/01/21

Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 2021 ,6 in Washington, DC. (Getty)

S

ociety

‘Trial Marriage’ Sparks Controversy in Egypt Islamic Scholars Unanimously Reject the Initiative Proposed by an Egyptian Lawyer

by Hatem Khedr A ‘Trial Marriage’ contract published by a lawyer on Facebook has caused an uproar in Egypt. Ahmad Mahran says the agreement he drafted aims at reducing the country’s high divorce rate. But Islamic scholars have unanimously

rejected the practice that unites man and woman as husband and wife for a limited time. Al-Azhar, the highest Sunni Muslim religious institution, was first to reject the initiative, declaring in a statement that a stipulated time-period renders a marriage contract “void and prohibited”. Dar AlIfta, Egypt’s top Islamic body, also declared the contract as

36

29/01/21

Image shows an example of a trial marriage contract.

“invalid” for the same reason, asserting that the practice is strictly prohibited and goes against Sharia Law. It also noted that incorporating a condition that prevents the husband from divorcing his wife deprives men of their rights under Islamic sharia.

In response to the wave of criticisms, Mahran defended the initiative, saying that the document is not a marriage contract, but an agreement of reconciliation between quarrelling couples that includes a list of conditions agreed upon by the two partners.

Mahran proposed that couples sign a separate agreement to the marriage contract that sets out the rules that both parties are obliged to stick to during the length of their marriage.

Egyptian journalist Hajar Saeed told Majalla that trial contracts are an insult to women and compromise the fundamental principle of stability in marriage.

“Marriage is a strong bond based on love and compassion, while a ‘trial marriage’ can end in divorce if it becomes unsuitable for the two partners after a certain period,” Saeed, a mother of two children, told Majalla.

She also noted that following the fatwa, (a formal ruling or interpretation on a point of Islamic law) discussions surrounding trial marriages should end as the controversial issue contradicts religious and cultural norms.

Rasha Daba echoed Saeed’s sentiments, saying that marriages of this nature augment the sense that women are a commodity. Daba added that her husband was equally as surprised as she was at the news.

She also highlighted that children face an uncertain fate in temporary marriages, and it will only make Egypt’s already high divorce rate even higher.

“The initiative is an attempt to imitate foreigners and open the door for people who want to live together without

37

29/01/21

“The initiative is an attempt to imitate foreigners and open the door for people who want to live together without marriage and abandon our religious customs and traditions,” Daba said angrily marriage and abandon our religious customs and traditions,” Daba said angrily.

Nutritionist Taghreed Al-Zamly called the initiative trivial as it fails to address the main reasons behind the growing divorce rate in the country, asserting that the idea is unsuitable for Egyptian society.

She advised those planning to get married to seek family counselling services designed to support couples in understanding their responsibilities within a relationship and achieving marital harmony.

Couples tend to enter marriage ill-prepared as much of their focus leading up to the wedding is given to preparing for the party, honeymoon and house, rather than working on things that will lead to a fruitful relationship, Zamly explains to Majalla.

Young people searching for a stable marriage should deal with difficulties with patience to avoid problems that can lead to divorce, she said, adding that parents can play a vital role in helping newlyweds resolve any issues they may have.

o

pinion

The Battle of Information

by: Elie Fawaz

This is one understanding of the reasons behind why 75 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020

Targeted media campaigns are no longer a regional issue, but a pressing global one. A newspaper’s mission has long been to search for the truth, deliver facts to its audience, and express opinions freely and professionally. But in the West today, particularly in the US – so often looked to as an example of true freedom of expression - we find that the digital era has transformed the profession into a tool for campaigning and spreading false news.

There are many examples in this regard. One of the most prominent examples of where the media was used to propagate misleading information is the confession of former US official in Obama’s administration Ben Rhodes, to the New York Times’ David Samuel in an interview before Trump was elected president. He admitted to creating an “echo chamber” which depended on fresh correspondents. This chamber has effectively pushed the mostly anti-Mullahs public opinion to accept his country’s deal with Iran. The same echo chamber helped silence and sometimes intimidate the deal’s critics.

Ben Rhodes and his colleagues perceived that newspapers’ role has declined in favour of the social media giants. Given the huge losses they incurred, newspapers underwent a restructuring that resulted in the closure of overseas bureaus. “All of these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Since then, Obama’s staffer understood how to use newspapers to move forward with his political agenda.

After a long history of being an independent authority to be reckoned with by any government official, newspapers have become a mere echo of the administration. If it were not for serious newspapers, Americans would not have heard of “Watergate”, which took Nixon down, or even the “Iran-Contra Affair”, the secret trilateral deal between Israel, US and Iran.

In fact, the opposite took place during Obama’s administration. Ben Rhodes promoted a narrative in which the administration started negotiating with Iran after moderate Hasan Rouhani was elected president in 2013.

However, the truth is, negotiations began at an earlier point with the hardline decision-makers, and a framework for the agreement was reached even before Rouhani’s election. The decline of newspapers hindered the uncovering of the incident.

Unfortunately, along with the digital revolution, we have all entered an age of misleading and false news. In contrast to newspapers’ decline, social media rose to greater significance. The problem with the social media giants is that they are owned by people whose political views and identities are mostly pro-democratic, and they apply a kind of censorship against the content they disapprove.

Throughout his four-year term, Trump faced accusations of Russian intervention. Even after these claims were proved false, the rumours continued to haunt him. If social media can control what people publish and see, how much influence does it have on their lives and choices? For example, in the case of Joe Biden’s son – who was accussed of accepting bribes from Chinese businesses – was largely obscured to American voters who were prevented from learning about its details due to internet censorship.

One of the downsides of this approach is that the people in power cannot listen to other voices.

Hence, a large portion of the US feels marginalized, not only concerning foreign policy but also in gun and abortion laws and other sensitive issues.

Therefore, dysfunction is not limited to newspapers; it extends to economic and social arenas. Dysfunction of this nature brings the community to a state of imbalance; the biggest problem currently facing the US. This is one understanding of the reasons behind why 75 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020. It is a huge number that should not be ignored by US decision-makers and the intelligence community. This large group is not a terrorist supremacist mob, as they have been superficially described. On the contrary, they are people who feel marginalized. 75-million people reflect the size of the US problem. If Trump is the manifestation of the problem, neither Obama nor Biden can solve it.

38

29/01/21

A Weekly Political News Magazine

2

Issue 1837- January- 29/01/2021

Nancy Pelosi: The Most Powerful Female Politician in US History www.majalla.com

A

rt

Know it When I See it

How to Define Theater in the Digital Era? I›ll Theatre as an Art Form Seems to Have a Problematic Future

by Charles McNulty Since the advent of motion pictures, the question of what distinguishes the stage from the screen has been a bone of contention among a small subset of intellectuals. The issue may seem academic, but

savvier theater practitioners have recognized that it›s really a matter of survival.

The theater has long felt cinema breathing down its neck. Susan Sontag, taking up the matter in a 1966 essay, «Theatre and Film,» declared that,

42

29/01/21

Granted, it›s getting harder to find the proverbial theatrical needle in the haystack of online readings, computerized gimmicks and thinly disguised TV pilots. a more fatal challenge through streaming services that have disrupted long-held orthodoxies about delivery systems. Even before the COVID19pandemic closed the cineplexes, Amazon and Netflix were bringing anticipated new releases to audiences› living rooms.

The size of a screen is no longer a deal-breaker.

Even that bastion of moviemaking tradition, the Academy Awards, has been forced to reevaluate the centrality of the movie house to cinema›s identity.

The Approach by Mark O’Rowe received its world premiere in Project Arts Centre, Dublin on 2018 ,6 February

despite the ingenuity of the most resourceful experimental companies, «theatre as an art form gives the general impression of having a problematic future.»

Such dire predictions have more to do with cultural primacy than with any real existential threat. «The fabulous invalid,» as George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart dubbed the theater, has managed to hold on for millennia despite chronically shaky health. The secret to longevity can be found in remaining true, in or out of fashion, to what has set the stage apart.

Meanwhile, film, no longer the cultural upstart, has been facing intense competition from its more accessible rival, TV. After usurping some of film›s prestige during the golden age of cable, the everexpanding medium known as television is posing

43

29/01/21

Digital performance has only exacerbated the definitional crises during this year of hard and soft quarantine. At a recent UCLA roundtable on the subject of the future of theater, I came to the conclusion that, even in this pioneering moment in which artists from different time zones can collaborate without ever coming into direct contact, place still matters.

I was basing this assertion on empirical evidence.

After spending so many hours of home confinement watching plays and performance pieces on my laptop, I discovered that I›m more wholly engaged when a virtual offering is anchored in a location, be it geographical or cultural, that has resonance for me.

Those works that have attempted to embrace a more hybrid form, that are «staged» in a liminal space, not quite theater and not quite film, have been less successful in holding my attention. Just as I have preferred films of musicals and plays recorded inside their venues, such as «Hamilton,» «American Utopia» and «What the Constitution Means to Me,» to more traditional movie adaptions, such as «The Prom,» I have been more

A

rt

receptive to digital offerings set in theaters than those splayed across Zoom tic-tac-toe boards.

As a theater critic, I›m naturally more invested in the future of the theater than in technological offshoots that have sprung up in an emergency.

But this preference for work that isn›t placeless reveals something at the heart of theater›s uniqueness.

In his classic two-volume work, «What Is Cinema?,» film critic and theorist André Bazin argues that there «can be no theater without architecture,» by which he means there can be no theater without a demarcation between art and life. The stage establishes an «aesthetic microcosm,» a zone «materially enclosed, limited, circumscribed,» which becomes the site of our «collusive imagination.»

In the theater, when an actor exits, we›re aware that the performer is either going to the wings or to the dressing room. What lies outside the playing area is divested of magic. This is not true of the movies. An actor outside the frame has merely moved beyond our vision; the life of the character is unaffected.

The overwhelming realism of film induces a kind of hypnotic passivity. Theater, which demands a more active suspension of disbelief, relies on conscious collaboration. Bazin›s thinking illuminates something I›ve frequently observed in myself. At the movies, I tend to lose to myself in the unfolding fiction whereas at the theater I›m

In the theater, the text commonly takes precedence over the miseen-scène. In film, the visual has priority over the verbal.

rarely not aware of myself and those around me taking in the stage experience.

I›ve chalked this up to film being more of a leisure time activity for me. But even when I›m not on duty, I find my analytic faculties are at higher alert when watching a play than when sitting in my sealed solitude at the movies.

In the theater, the text commonly takes precedence over the mise-en-scène. In film, the visual has priority over the verbal. When actors are on stage, I›m often tracking an argument. When they›re on screen, I›m usually tumbling around in a dream.

For Bazin, these distinctions are a function of

44

29/01/21

People walk outside Jagged Little Pill at the Broadhurst Theatre in Times Square as the city continues the re-opening efforts following restrictions imposed to slow the spread of coronavirus in 2020 ,23 on December )New York City. (Getty

«insubstantial pageant» — is what separates the theater from its screen cousins.

Granted, it›s getting harder to find the proverbial theatrical needle in the haystack of online readings, computerized gimmicks and thinly disguised TV pilots. But I had a recent memorable rendezvous with the stage courtesy of a livestream performance from Dublin, Ireland, of «The Approach,» presented by Landmark Productions, in association with St. Ann›s Warehouse and Project Arts Centre, where the work was staged.

Available on demand through Sunday, this hour-long play, written and directed by Mark O›Rowe, is elevated by a cast of three unerring Irish actresses (Cathy Belton, Derbhle Crotty and Aisling O›Sullivan). From a dramaturgical perspective, there›s nothing remarkable about this series of tête-à-têtes, except that I found myself listening harder with each turn of the conversational carousel.

My interest was provoked by the desire to fit the narrative pieces together. But it was the haunting humor and pathos of the acting that ensnared me.

«The Approach,» which had its premiere in Dublin in 2018, is built expressly for the boards. O›Rowe is writing not to lull but to intrigue.

the handling of space. «The basic principle of cinema,» he writes, is «the denial of any frontiers to action.» The screen›s movement is «centrifugal» — it keeps expanding outward. The theater by contrast, he argues, finds «infinity» by pressing inward, moving from the decor to the human soul.

The physical limits of theater, to put it another way, are the source of the art form›s imaginative freedom and power. It›s from scenic constraints that visual metaphor arose, from the paltriness of special effects that dramatic poetry learned to dazzle. The ruthless economy of playwriting — tasked with capturing the imagination of a group of strangers, confined to the same physical space, through what Shakespeare›s Prospero calls an

45

29/01/21

The elliptical play deepens in retrospect, and the author expects audience members to assemble the whole in the darkrooms of their minds.

This invitation to be imaginatively active while simultaneously bewitched by unassuming acting brilliance charges a small-scale virtual offering with theatrical significance.

According to Bazin, «The cinema calms the spectator, the theater excites him.» This excitement can happen anywhere, but even in a staging as abstract as this, it must happen somewhere.

I›ve never been to the Project Arts Centre, but I recognized the milieu in which the ensemble is steeped. Although I was once again staring at a computer screen, I was grateful not to be floating aimlessly in the ether. I was home again, at the theater.

Originally published in the Los Angeles Times.

C

ulture

How War Monuments Keep History Lessons Alive Time Proves That While Statues Never Change, What’s Considered Heroic Does

by Jacqueline Cutler “Prisoners of History: What Monuments to World II Tell Us About our History and Ourselves” by Keith Lowe; William Collins A pedestal is a risky place to take a stand.

In America, official tributes to leaders from Robert E. Lee to Abraham Lincoln have been destroyed or defaced. In Europe, memorials to Communist dictators have been torn down.

Keith Lowe’s “Prisoners of History: What Monuments to World II Tell Us About our History and Ourselves” examines how different countries’ statues and museums about the war resonate today. It’s a study in how memorials and memories don’t always match.

What time proves is that while statues never change, what’s considered heroic does. And this varies from country to country.

America’s view of World War II, naturally, differs from other nations. When the war changed on Dec. ,7 1941, with the bombing of the USS Arizona, it was our military not our civilians who were attacked. That

experience shows in our statues.

“America makes monuments to its heroes,” Lowe writes. “Europe much more often makes monuments to its victims. American monuments are triumphant; European ones are melancholy. American monuments are idealistic, while European ones – occasionally, at least – are more likely to be morally ambiguous.”

Fittingly, America’s most famous World War II monument – the Arlington, Va. statue commemorating the flag-raising on Iwo Jima – isn’t named after the war. The Marine Corps Memorial isn’t about a battle, but the people who fought it and those who came before them. It puts all their pride and sacrifice into a simple symbol: The Stars and Stripes.

Other nations’ monuments are more complicated.

The most important World War II site in London is the Bomber Command Memorial, dedicated to the pilots who brought the war to Germany. It’s also the most controversial, like the missions it commemorates.

Although the Royal Air Force initially limited its raids to military targets, it later bombed civilian populations, vowing to destroy “what is left of German morale.” Although he once praised the RAF,

46

29/01/21

Some government memorials are outright propaganda, like the Monument to Brotherhood in Arms, erected in Warsaw in 1945.

Designed by a Russian officer, it floridly announced ‘Glory to the heroes of the Soviet Army’.

Cover of the book «Prisoners of History: What Monuments to World II Tell us About our History and Ourselves» by Keith Lowe

as not just a military symbol, but a political one. Its columned design was Victorian, recalling Britain’s lost days of empire. Its figures were white and their posture resigned. It not only saluted a war that was won but mourned a past that was gone. And its statues seemed to know it.

“They are a group of heroes who appear to have nothing heroic to do,” Lowe writes. “They merely stand there, gazing across London’s Green Park, waiting stoically to see what new disappointments might be looming on the horizon.”

The more complicated the country’s role in World War II, the more conflicted its memorials can grow.

Initially, Italy’s government stood with Hitler. Once the Allies landed, though, chaos reigned, with an anti-fascist government taking over in the South and dictator Benito Mussolini moving his pro-Nazi regime to the North.

Today, the country’s memories are similarly split.

In Bologna, the Shrine to the Fallen salutes the resistance’s left-wing martyrs, with portraits of some 2,000 murdered heroes lining a medieval plaza.

In tiny Predappio, Mussolini’s birthplace, rightwing pilgrims regularly trek to his family’s crypt, after the firebombing of Dresden incinerated 25,000 approaching the unofficial memorial waving fascist people, Winston Churchill raged against its “acts of banners and sporting black shirts in honor of his terror and wanton destruction.” The about-face left brutal militia. some feeling betrayed.

“This place is our Bethlehem,” one supporter “Most people were very pleased with Bomber explained.

Command during the war and until it was virtually Some government memorials are outright propaganda, won,” the Command’s official historian later dryly like the Monument to Brotherhood in Arms, erected noted. “Then they turned around and said it wasn’t a in Warsaw in 1945. Designed by a Russian officer, it very nice way to wage war.” floridly announced “Glory to the heroes of the Soviet Promoted by Britain’s right-wing newspapers, Army,” praising those “who gave their lives for the funded by private donations, the Bomber Command freedom and independence of the Polish Nation.”

Memorial predictably emerged at its 2012 unveiling There was no mention of the Soviet Union’s invasion

47

29/01/21

C

ulture

of Poland, of course. Or its massacre of Polish officers in 1940. Or its decades-long denial of that nation’s true independence.

The pro-USSR statue was finally taken down in 2011.

It is slated to eventually be displayed in a museum, with other dusty artifacts.

Perhaps because the Soviet Union wanted to forget its early, friendly relationship with the Nazis, its memorials were particularly good at rewriting history and emphasizing its later suffering. In modern Russia’s Volgograd – Stalingrad, during the war – there are dozens of monuments to the nation and its dead. The largest statue, a depiction of Mother Russia waving a sword, is nearly twice the size of the Statue of Liberty.

Unveiled in 1967, she not only paid tribute to the country’s stoic sacrifice but announced its birth as a world leader. Today, in a shrunken nation, her defiance seems less convincing.

“We used to be a superpower,” as one Russian later explained. “Now we’re Bangladesh with missiles.”

Far more impressive than Russia’s massive memorials are the silent, haunting remains of a town. On June 1944 ,10, a unit of the brutal Waffen-SS invaded the tiny town of Oradour-sur-Glane. The officer in charge accused the residents of hiding guns. When no one confessed, he demanded the mayor select hostages from among the townspeople. The mayor refused, offering himself and his sons instead.

Enraged, the SS officer ordered his men to round up the entire village. The Nazis quickly machine-gunned 642 men, women, and children. Their homes, schools, and church were set on fire. Then the Germans marched out. Only five young men, hiding under a The ruins have not been touched since. A literal ghost mound of corpses, survived to escape and tell the tale. town, it stands in mute witness to war’s horror.

It’s painful proof that sometimes the most affecting memorials are the simplest. In downtown Seoul, South Korea, there’s an unassuming bronze monument known as the Peace Statue. It depicts a young girl sitting on a bench, a small bird perching on her shoulder. The girl stares straight ahead, fists clenched in her lap.

The statue is unremarkable, but the context, and its placement, is devastating. The Peace Statue is dedicated to the comfort women, the tens of

The book examines how different countries’ statues and museums about the war resonate today.

48

29/01/21

Ruins of the martyred village Oradour-surGlane (Limousin region in west-central France) /Getty

thousands of Korean females who were forced into military brothels, as sex slaves for the Japanese army. And what this statue is staring at, so intently, so unforgivingly, is the Japanese Embassy across the street.

The provocation is deliberate, and many would say, necessary. Although Germany has confronted its war crimes, Japan avoids the subject. Its history books downplay or deny the nation’s atrocities. Japan’s significant memorials either salute its own victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or, at Tokyo’s Yasukuni Shrine, honor its military – war criminals included.

49

29/01/21

Japan chooses to remember only some of its past.

But memory is one of the things that memorials, even detested ones, serve. That is something Lowe hopes modern iconoclasts remember.

“Tearing monuments down does not solve our history,” he writes. “It simply drives that history underground. While a movement still stands, it will always need to be confronted, discussed. In this way, our monuments hold us to account.”

This article was originally published in New York Daily News.

Po

rt

ra

it

Nancy Pelosi: The Most Powerful Female Politician in US History Majalla – London Nancy Pelosi is the 52nd Speaker of the House of Representatives, having made history in 2007 when she was elected the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House. On January 3, the California Democratic Representative was elected to another term — her fourth — one she has promised will be her last. The congresswoman plans to set aside by 2023, spelling the end of a 20-year reign as the topranking Democrat in the chamber.

Pelosi was born Nancy D’Alesandro on March 26, 1940, in Baltimore, Maryland. She carries on the family tradition of being involved in politics. Her father served in Congress and was the mayor of Baltimore for 12 years, and her brother Thomas later served as mayor of Baltimore as well. As a young girl, she managed her father’s book of people who owed him political favours.

Pelosi graduated from Trinity College in Washington, D.C., in 1962. While a student there, she met Paul Pelosi. She was a mother of five by 1969, when the family moved to San Francisco. Paul worked as a banker, while Nancy raised their children and started a Democratic Party club at her home.

Focused on raising her family, Pelosi got into politics slowly, starting out as a volunteer for the Democratic Party. She rose up the party ranks and by 1976, she worked for the presidential campaign of California Gov. Jerry Brown. In 1981, she became the Democratic Party chair for the state of California.

At age 47, after her youngest child had left for college, Pelosi was encouraged by a dying congress-

woman to run for her seat. She threw 100 house parties, recruited 4,000 volunteers, and raised $1 million in seven weeks. She narrowly won a special election and was reelected in 1988 to a full term.

Pelosi easily won subsequent elections in her overwhelmingly Democratic district.

Pelosi got a big promotion in 2001, when she was named the House Democratic whip, the No. 2 job in the party. After raising $1.8 million for Democrats through her leadership PAC in 2002, she got the top job when Dick Gephardt stepped down as minority leader. She was the first woman to ever lead a party in Congress.

After the Democrats won majorities in both the House and the Senate in the 2006 midterm elections, Pelosi was chosen to become the first woman to take the post of speaker of the House. In the first 100 hours of being speaker in 2006, Pelosi raised the minimum wage, enacted the 9/11 commission report, ended many tax subsidies to oil companies, and made new rules about lobbying.

She was sometimes a divisive figure. A vocal critic of President George W. Bush’s stance on the war in Iraq, she advocated for the withdrawal of troops from the region. Pelosi found herself at the center of a controversy in 2009 when the CIA asserted that she had been made aware of its use of waterboarding of terrorism suspects—a technique that Pelosi had vocally opposed. Pelosi denied the CIA’s claims.

After Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, Democrats controlled Congress and the White House for the first time in 14 years and Pelosi was in a position to work with a president

50

29/01/21

of the same party.

Pelosi remained House speaker until November 2010, when Republicans gained control of the House and elected John Boehner to the role, relegating Pelosi to minority leader. Despite her diminished role, Pelosi was still a major power player in DC, having spent a decade as the top House Democrat.

Pelosi once again became House minority leader and remained a close ally to Obama during his second term. But after Democrats reclaimed control of the House in the 2018 midterms, Pelosi was once again elected House speaker at the beginning of 2019.

Pelosi has clashed with former President Donald Trump in the last few years. She was on the front line in the battle with Donald Trump over his demand for $5.7 billion for a wall spanning the U.S.Mexico border. The stalemate turned into a contentious 35-day government shutdown, After months of resisting calls from progressives to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump, in September 2019, Pelosi announced that the House would launch a formal impeachment inquiry. The investigation concluded in early December 2019, and several weeks later the House voted to impeach the president.

Her frayed relationship with Trump was on display during his televised State of the Union address on February 4, with the president seemingly snubbing her attempted handshake and the speaker ripping up a copy of his speech afterward. The following day, the impeachment saga came to an end when the Senate voted along party lines to acquit Trump on both charges.

H

ealth

Tai Chi or Yoga? 4 Important Differences

Here s How to Determine Which is Best for Your Needs ‘

Harvard Health Tai chi and yoga have many similarities. Both are gentle, low-intensity exercises that have been practiced for hundreds of years. Both are good for your mind and body (see «Tai chi and yoga benefits»). And both have been shown to be beneficial for older adults in particular. How do you choose one over the other? Several differences can influence your choice.

TAI CHI AND YOGA BENEFITS

Tai chi and yoga share a long list of health and wellness benefits. Both can improve your balance, flexibility, strength, mobility, mood, quality of life, range of motion, reflexes, and thinking skills. They also reduce pain and your risk of falls.

How do two exercises accomplish all that? «Rather than targeting just one aspect of health -- like an aspirin for a headache -- yoga and tai chi movements address many

52

29/01/21

health systems and work synergistically,» says Peter Wayne, faculty editor of the Harvard Special Health Report An Introduction to Tai Chi.

1-FLOWING VS. STATIC MOVEMENTS

Tai chi and yoga use different types of movements to challenge your muscles and balance.

Tai chi is like a graceful dance of flowing motions. As you perform a series of slow, choreographed movements, you breathe deeply, focus on body sensations, and gradually shift your weight from one pose to another.

Yoga is a series of focused, mostly static (still) strengthening and stretching postures combined with breathing techniques.

2-STANDING VS. SITTING

Both tai chi and yoga can be adapted for people who want or need to sit in a chair while exercising. But generally speaking, tai chi is performed while s t a n d i n g .

Yoga can involve standing, lying down, sitting on the floor, and kneeling on all fours. Some positions require you to bend, reach backward, or even turn upside down.

These are important considerations if you don›t have access to a chair-based program and you either can›t stand for long periods or have difficulty getting up and down off the floor .

3-A LOT TO REMEBER

Tai chi and yoga both have an instructor who leads you through the exercises. Still, some people have trouble following or memorizing tai chi choreography.

The good news: «Many modern tai chi programs have been simplified to include only a small number of movements that can be done in an easy-to-learn, repetitive manner,» explains Peter Wayne, faculty editor of the Harvard Special Health Report An Introduction to Tai Chi and director of the Osher Center for Integrative

53

29/01/21

Both can improve your balance, flexibility, strength, mobility, mood, quality of life, range of motion, reflexes, and thinking skills. They also reduce pain and your risk of falls.

Medicine at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women›s Hospital.

4-STAND-OUT DIFFERENCES

While tai chi and yoga have similar benefits, each has a particular effect that stands out in scientific studies. «Tai chi improves your balance, and that leads to a %20 to %60 reduction in falls. The exercise sharpens all of the skills you need to stay upright -- leg strength, flexibility, range of motion, reflexes, and awareness of bodily sensations and mental focus,» Wayne says.

Yoga appears to reduce pain -- especially back, neck, and other musculoskeletal pain. This could be from the gradual stretching and strengthening of muscles that support the back (such as the paraspinal muscles that help you bend your spine and the multifidus muscles that stabilize your vertebrae). Yoga also may reduce pain by reducing mental stress: stress tends to increase the perception of pain.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Choosing between yoga and tai chi often comes down to personal preference and practical considerations. «Try them and see what you like,» Wayne suggests. «You might enjoy flowing movement more than being still.»

You can always let your abilities guide you. If you have memory challenges, you might want to try yoga first; if you have severe arthritis, tai chi might be an easier option than yoga.

But both types of exercises can be adapted for your ability, even if you have Parkinson›s disease or other physically limiting conditions. And that makes the instructor an important consideration. «You want a teacher who will adapt protocols to ensure that they›re safe and the appropriate level of challenge for you,» Wayne says.

«If you have a health condition, it can help to have an instructor who also has medical training, such as a nurse or physical therapist.»