Qais Ghanem, MD2013-05-18T12:18:26-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=qais-ghanem-mdCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Qais Ghanem, MDGood old fashioned elbow grease.Why Shouldn't the Clergy Be Allowed to Marry?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27728712013-02-27T12:32:57-05:002013-04-29T05:12:01-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/resignation of Pope Benedict XVI has evoked active commentary lately, and produced varying interpretations as to the underlying cause or motive. The last time that happened was more than 600 years ago.
I thought it was a great idea, because the Pope himself recognized the danger of continuing in that very elevated position at a time when his mental capacity was undergoing significant deterioration. As a qualified neurologist, I know that dementia is usually a very insidious process which the victim and sometimes his inner circle, do not recognize until sufficient atrophy and damage have occurred. Now we read in the press speculation that the real reason for this resignation has to do with some financial and other irregularities within the Catholic Church, which may culminate in a criminal investigation. No doubt, the truth will eventually be known with the passage of time.
Would it not be a great idea if such voluntary changing of the guards occurred in all countries and institutions? The queen of the Netherlands recently abdicated in favour her son. On the other hand, Silvio Berlusconi is contesting the elections in Italy, as we speak, at the age of 80! It is safe to say that people in power do not want to give it up.
But, irrespective of the achievements of such people, would it not make sense for the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan and the British Queen, and the Mufti of Al-Azhar to abdicate in favour of a younger replacement at the appropriate age? What stops them from doing so? Is it vanity? Is it the huge drop in status? Is it the call of duty?
The other current hot subject surrounding the Catholic Church is that of the necessity or otherwise of celibacy. After all, celibacy was not demanded of the clergy before the 12th century. The justification of celibacy which I have read is that it is a wonderful voluntary sacrifice by the clergy, made willingly to God, allowing them to devote all their time and thought to serving Him without the distraction of the desires of the flesh. And yet we all know that those carnal desires have been too frequently exercised against young boys and girls throughout history. How is that surprising when we know that so much conflict and crime occurs among the non-clergy precisely because of that innate insurmountable sexual desire that resides within every woman and man, however much they may deny it?
The recent clamour to permit Catholic priests to marry is an excellent development, which should be encouraged. After all, non-Catholic clergy, who do marry are presumably equally dedicated to God and their church. The clergy of other religions too are meant to be dedicated to serving God, and their own sexual experiences do not seem to prevent such dedication. Indeed they do not have to suffer that deprivation which builds up just like thirst and hunger do with the passage of time, and can therefore concentrate on their missions in life without abusing little boys and girls under their supervision and in their trust.
When I was a child, my father, a highly educated man with a Ph. D. from London University, used to repeat this story: A Catholic priest invited a Muslim imam to dinner to break down barriers. At dinner, he offered the imam a glass of excellent wine, which the imam declined, explaining that his religion forbade him to drink it. The priest said to his guest "You don't know what you're missing!" At the end of the dinner, the imam thanked his host profusely and asked him to convey his compliments to his wife on her excellent cooking; upon which the priest explained that he did not have a wife and was not allowed to have one. The imam turned round and said "You don't know what you're missing!"
In Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who submitted his resignation on Monday, raised the issue recently, pointing out that such celibacy was not part of the teachings of Christ. The current discussion about annulling celibacy rules for catholic priests will probably go on for several years, but I would predict that the church will eventually relent, and cancel the celibacy requirement. But what I have noticed during these debates is that celibacy discussions revolve round priests, with little or no discussion about nuns who harbour similar desires. Is that because nuns play a lesser role, or because their husbands are more likely to influence their behaviour, to the detriment of their function in society?
]]>At Last, Some Good News From Syriatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21214102012-11-13T17:13:12-05:002013-01-13T05:12:01-05:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/Syrian National Coalition (SNC) with an elected president is an event of monumental importance, in my opinion. I was therefore somewhat puzzled by the ambivalent opinions expressed by some well known pundits as to the future of the national uprising in Syria. For, irrespective of how strongly we feel about the need to end the Assad dynasty, I believe that the end is very close, and one would venture to say that it is a matter of weeks, rather than months!
Why would a relative novice of Middle Eastern politics say that? First, the coming together of so many different factions under one umbrella, and one leadership, in a war torn country, where meetings had to be held abroad, in circumstances of fear and instability, and possible treachery, is in itself a miracle by Arab standards. The Yemenis, in contrast, are having great difficulty persuading their own disparate factions to come together under one roof in their own capital.
This could not have happened without the prestige, political power and persuasion of Qatar. It is ironic that a benevolent dictatorship, consisting of a one man show, has succeeded in consolidating the process of ending a malevolent dictatorship, which could be described as a one family show. Qatar, of course, has its own reasons for taking on this huge task, but the end result will enormously advance the process of democracy.
Second, the SNC has continued to insist that while foreign military equipment would be most welcome to redress the current marked imbalance in armaments between the rebels and the government, foreign boots on Syrian soil would not be welcome or tolerated. To the proud Syrian nation, this is crucially important. Third, is understanding the psychology of human survival. Although I am board certified in psychiatry and neurology, I have not studied this specific issue. But I did try to imagine myself as a member of the third tier of Assad's supporters.
In the second tier, let us assume, there are a dozen top brass military and security men. The first tier would be a handful of the closest family members. Someone in that circle of say one hundred, would hear about the formation of the SNC, and its recognition by the Arab League and Turkey, followed closely by the "west," and unless he is dumb or blindly dedicated to his president, would be making plans for future long term survival. Thus, he could only come to one conclusion, namely that he has one last chance to jump ship, just like rats have learnt to do for millennia.
But because the regime also knows that psychological fear, it would be watching its different circles of supporters even more carefully than before, and would make an example of the first one or two who attempt defection. It will be a calculated brutal punishment for letting the side down.
However this will be a fluid situation and the rebels will be making advances, and scoring successes with the help of newly acquired more sophisticated armaments. With each announced success, the temptation to save one's skin will become stronger and more urgent, and eventually irresistible. Elimination of so-called "traitors" by the regime will become more vicious.
At one point, that classic snowball phenomenon will commence, and within days rather than weeks the iron grip of ruling apparatus will unravel. President Assad who had vowed to either live or die in Syria will have his jet or jets on 24-hour stand-by at the military airport to whisk him and his family to Iran, and all that talk about dying on Syrian soil will suddenly evaporate.
There will be the usual misgivings and apprehensions about the chaos that is expected to follow the collapse of any of these very long Arab dictatorships, as was expressed in Libya and Egypt, but again none of that will materialize, and the Syrian nation as a whole will do quite well, with a little help from its friends. The New Year will dawn on a new very different Syria. Another Arab nation, shackled for decades, will have broken its chains and will head fairly rapidly towards democracy, albeit imperfect, and some measure of prosperity. The only question at that point will be "Who's next?"
]]>This Woman Could Ruffle Middle-Eastern Featherstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19740672012-10-17T12:41:23-04:002012-12-17T05:12:02-05:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/Alhiwar Almutamadden, i.e. "Modern Dialogue." None of her personal details are revealed, but the article reveals a lot about her very progressive thoughts, which are bound to ruffle some feathers in the Middle East. They constitute a breath of fresh air in the ongoing debate about Muslim women and their rights.
I translated some of what she said:
"I don't believe in everything mentioned in religious books. Although it may have been appropriate for women in ancient times is no longer suitable for women in this day and age. I am not a source of shame called "awrah" in Arabic, and am not impure like a black dog, or even a white dog. I am not so impure that I annul the ablutions of a man by touching him. I am not less important or less wise than a man.
If my husband dies why should I remain cloistered in my house for four months and ten days upon the death of a man at whose hands I experienced horrendous cruelty? Why should I avoid being seen lest I be desired by men, by staying within the walls of my home? And yet, when I die, I am told that I would go to hell if my husband was unhappy with me? And why do the angels only curse me if I reject his sexual advances, but do not curse him, when it is the other way round? Why am I being told that I am but a rib of a man, and why am I being compared to a beast? Why am I being treated like one of four concubines of my husband? And why does my husband have the legal right to beat me physically?
If we go through a divorce, why does my son, at the age of only seven, have the choice of living with either parent, but my daughter has no choice but to remain in the household of her father? Why does the dowry system convert us women into pieces of property of men?
If my husband disappears from my life without letting me know, why do I have to wait four years before a judge can give me the right to re-marry, whereas he can take four wives any time he likes?
When my father dies, why do I receive half of the estate which my brother gets, even if my brother is already very wealthy and living abroad with his American wife, and even though it was I who nursed my dying father, at my expense, during his dying days?"
Such a courageous challenge to the prevailing system in most Muslim and Arab societies has not been so eloquently stated, in my own experience, by a woman, although smaller protests demanding the right to drive a car or the right to travel have occurred. This, therefore, is a very encouraging sign that the "Arab Spring" may soon be followed by the "Muslim Emancipation of Women" (MEW), and that just as the Arabs lost their fear, even in the face of the bullets of their dictatorial rulers, Muslim women are losing their fear of their oppressive stick wielding men.
Afifa admits that the apparent submission, without challenge, of so many women to their lot in life is both puzzling and contributing to the continuation of the status quo. She recognizes that part of the reason is ignorance, because a lot of these women think that all these rules are part of Islam, and therefore challenging them might be considered an attack on Islam itself, thus bringing about immediate and severe repercussions from the establishment.
However, I truly believe that change is on its way. Just as the Arab revolution was simply unthinkable as late as the end of 2010, the revolution in the status of Muslim women has begun. It is very unlikely that Afifa's letter would be published widely in the Arabic press, given the level of censorship in the Arab world, but if it does go viral, I am likely to be right. Let us hope that this blog starts the ball rolling.
Available from Amazon]]>If the Europeans Can Make a Union Work, Maybe the Arabs Cantag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15512062012-05-29T18:06:38-04:002012-07-29T05:12:04-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/numerous articles written about the proposed union of the Arab Gulf states, with a spectrum of opinions about the desirability, feasibility and survivability of such a project. One more, I thought, would do no harm. I felt that I had an interest in the issue: partly because my country of origin, Yemen, is next door, and partly because I spent a few years of enjoyable employment in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar back in the 1980s, where I was shown kindness, hospitality and respect. I have continued to observe the region on my return trips there, including this year.
It is no secret that the idea of amalgamating into a single country, which was farthest away from the minds of the rulers of these countries, was only contemplated as a direct result of the Arab Spring which toppled several Arab dictators who were thought to be completely invincible. "Who will be next?" the rulers must be wondering, especially given the serious uprising taking place in Bahrain -- too close for comfort.
The total amount of people who might claim to be citizens of a union of Arab Gulf states, comprised of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, would amount to about 30 million, just a little more than the population of Yemen -- a much smaller population than Iran, with its 80 million citizens and a GDP per capita of $12,000.
It makes a lot of sense, therefore, to form a united Arab Gulf state out of these six countries. They certainly have a lot in common, including ethnicity, language, traditions, culture, dress, climate and Islam, although the Sunni-Shia rivalry is apparent in some communities. They also enjoy similar wealth, something that clearly separates them from destitute Yemen, with a per capita GDP of $2,500.
You would think that such a union would be easier than the one between Egypt and Syria which failed; or between Egypt and Sudan which was talked about many years ago, or even between north and south Yemen, which is currently hanging by a thread. Why would it not work, then?
What stands in the way of this is what Arabs have suffered from since the two World Wars: autocratic, usually hereditary, governments which have gone unchallenged ever since. And if they ever were challenged, they managed to nip resistance in the bud by whatever means necessary. Not only that, but in the case of Bahrain, the emir was not content with his title and all the trappings and authority that went with it; changed his title to that of "king," a title which he may have to shed, because there can only be one king in the new state or federation, and that king can only be Saudi. That of course applies to all the other current heads of state who do not have to report to anyone above.
There are also other differences which will make it virtually impossible to form a union. We need only compare the modern westernized UAE and the Wahhabi to see the glaring incompatibility of the two systems of daily life for people on the street. Is alcohol going to be banned in Dubai, or is it going to be licensed in Riyadh and Kuwait? Are women in Dubai going to have to stop driving, or are Saudi women going to rejoice in their newly found freedom behind the wheel. Are women going to require a muhram (a male family member companion) wherever they travel in Abu Dhabi, or are the Saudi mutawwa's (morality police) going to be retired en masse? I am certain that the idea of a rotating presidency will come up, but can anyone see the KSA being ruled by the Emir of Qatar, even for a rotational period of six months? Is there going to be one single armed force, and if so, under whose command?
It is of course in the interest of the smaller nations, especially Bahrain, to rush into such a union, but only to preserve some of the authority of the ruling family there, where the ruling minority must have realized that the status quo cannot last forever. Reuters reports political activist Abdulnabi Al-Ekri as having said "This is an attempt to escape a political resolution by putting Bahrain under the hegemony of Saudi Arabia, which wants to show it is the big power in the region. I think it will be a failure."
On the other hand, it is not in the interest of the ruling families of the UAE to do so, given their obvious stability, and their genuine popularity amongst their subjects, which I have personally observed. This goes without mentioning their economic prosperity as well as the open choice of living a secular, or at least progressive way of life, especially in Dubai and Sharjah. Furthermore, in 2009, the UAE withdrew from a monetary union over Saudi insistence that Riyadh host the central bank. It is also not in the interest of Qatar with a per capita GDP of over $100,000 to share that wealth with the less affluent Omanis. For its part, Oman said that it would not join the single currency project.
Finally, if the whole idea is to have closer cooperation than currently, then the system already exists, and could be fine tuned further. But if internal issues will be dealt with by individual governments, then why was the military help of Saudi Arabia necessary in confronting the revolution in Bahrain? And if it was by invitation, then how often is this invitation going to be issued by the different countries in the group.
Unfortunately for Arabs in the Gulf, any comparison with the European Union will raise eyebrows, if not derision; given that the European Union is the coming together on the basis of many interests of fully democratic countries with highly educated populations who insist on human rights, the rule of law, and strict separation between church and state. Yet these populations have different languages and religions and histories. The glaring difference is of course that of democracy, which recently smoothly removed Sarkozy and installed Hollande as president.
Would it not make sense then, for the governments from the Gulf to read the writing on the wall, and gradually offer their citizens small incremental, yet genuine, steps to democracy, starting with the Kuwaiti model, and progressing over a defined and declared period of time into full democracy, which can also incorporate a British style constitutional monarchy, or even one closer to that in Morocco? I believe the pragmatic and peaceful Arab citizens of the Gulf will greet such changes with effusive enthusiasm and great gratitude, because they have seen what happened in Yemen and what is happening now in Syria. They would rather not go that path, I would imagine.]]>A Doctor's Practical, Doable Solution for Fixing Healthcaretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14725382012-05-13T00:39:02-04:002012-07-12T05:12:13-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/
This issue has come to attention yet again because of the dispute between the Ontario physicians and the provincial minister of health, Deb Matthews, who according to Pauline Tam of the Ottawa Citizen, is threatening to impose a pay freeze, given Ontario's $15-billion deficit.
We should never allow the privatization by stealth of our health care system, and we should make certain that the Canadian taxpayer never foots the bill of a "Two-Tier System." We should be constantly improving our existing single payer national health system to keep up with the ever increasing demand of the ageing population estimated to double within 20 years, and with exploding new technologies, in genetics, imaging and neuroscience, to name just a few.
There is a serious shortage of primary care physicians in the whole country, and it is very difficult if not impossible to find a family physician these days. In the past few years I myself had to see patients who did not, and could not find a primary care physician to follow up on the treatment and advice I gave them.
You would think that the leaders in medicine from both sides would strike a joint committee and solve the problem, but it does not seem to have happened, otherwise the problem would not be front page, yet again. Very briefly, here is a proposed nation wide plan:
A: We have a nationwide shortage of 26,000 family doctors, not to mention para-medical staff. On the other hand, there are 7,000 foreign trained physicians, who need to be fast tracked, after ensuring their competence. Licensure requirements should be identical in all provinces. It would make accreditation streamlined, allow immigrant physicians to settle in the province of choice, and would make the annual licensure fee I pay as a doctor cheaper by reducing the overhead of the 10 or so different licensing bodies. There is no excuse at all for having different standards of competence in medical practice, in Saskatchewan and Ontario. The life of a Canadian in Saskatchewan cannot be cheaper than one in Ontario. It is all about power and about groups of people guarding their own turf. Intake into medical schools needs a significant boost. We need to make up for the misguided policies of the past, when medical school intake was reduced, and for which we are paying today.
B: While these medical students and foreign medical graduates are being prepared, retired physicians, like me, may be persuaded to do part time tel-medicine or e-mail consultations, as long as they have medico-legal protection. A retired physician may not brave the winter weather to report to a hospital or office any more. But she could give an opinion from the comfort of her desk using e-mail or Skype or other format.
C: Doctors spend up to 30% of their time on paper work. Most of this could be done by non-physicians, at a fraction of the fee. The electronic medical record (EMR), a fact of life for all Taiwanese today, should help greatly. Any minor problems of confidentiality should be ironed out. Doctors do not need to measure blood pressure or syringe waxy ears themselves. Nurses can do a much better job. Delegate! Delegate! But delegation can be used further down the line too. In the sleep laboratory, where I was director, I learnt to my horror that appointments were given on the phone by the sleep technologists who actually record sleep at night, and who are board certified in that very technical field and who are paid around $25 per hour. Would it not make sense to have an ordinary receptionist do that at less than half that hourly rate?
D: Family physicians (F.P.) see so much anxiety, depression and insomnia, the discussion of which takes many minutes. At my own family physician's practice, a regular visit is allotted only 15 minutes; the annual check-up, 20-25 minutes, while counseling takes 45 minutes. We need to train more psychiatric social workers and physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. This system is already working well within the Canadian armed forces, where I was consultant for years. It takes seven years to produce a family doctor, 10-11 a specialist, and four for a nurse. A survey in the U.S. estimated that 17% of war veterans exhibit post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Canadian figure cannot be too different, as I noted when I worked as a consultant at the National Defense Medical Center over the past 18 years. Why are we in combat role in this war in the first place? And why are we spending over $20 billion a year on war, when we claim that we cannot afford to upgrade our health service? Priorities! Priorities!
E: Patients often expect and even pressure their F.P.s to order investigations. But the Canadian Association of Radiologists estimated that only 84% of radiology referrals were appropriate. The cost of the inappropriate referrals is half a billion dollars! Imagine what can be done with that money every year. We need to do something about this. Family doctors need to be consulted about this, not just the radiologists, or some bureaucrat at the Ministry of Health.
F: The cost of drugs can be astronomical. And yet there are ways of reducing the total drug bill by buying generic, and varying the source of purchase, including buying from foreign countries which produce cheap but safe and reliable drugs; and by bulk negotiating with drug companies, for all our provinces; another reason why health standards should be the same for all provinces. This strategy has already been partially adopted.
G: Physicians are well paid for the work that they do, compared with other university graduates with the same intelligence and even similar working hours. Minister Matthews pointed out their average annual income of $385,000, with many making twice that figure. Over the past nine years their income has increased by 40%, which the minimum wage has not! Quite rightly, she said, "If I spend it on paying doctors more, increasing their income when they are already the highest paid, that's a dollar I cannot spend on home care." But their working conditions could certainly be improved and their stresses thus diminished, to lessen their burn out. Their working hours are long and they are constantly expected to think on their feet. When they leave the office, often late for their dinner at home, they still take some of their work home.
H: There are major differences between the incomes of different specialists, whose training is almost identical. That makes absolutely no sense, and it contributes to jealousies and frustrations, because some fees assigned to certain specialties, are astronomical and highly inflated. It depends on whether that specialty has a money-generating "gimmick." The time spent performing EMG is well rewarded at hundreds of dollars per hour, and yet the same neurologist performing a potentially dangerous lumbar puncture gets only $50, the last time I checked. A sleep specialist, like me, interpreting sleep tests would make $1,280 per hour. No, it is not a typo! How can a psychiatrist, also with a fellowship of the same Royal College of Physicians, be happy about that when she/he would make $150? How can that be, you may ask? It comes from pre-computer days when interpreting the data collected over eight hours of sleep did take an hour to analyze. Now, it is all computer-generated, and it took me an average of six minutes to analyze and dictate a full report when I was working last year. Don't expect these specialists to demand that you reduce their fee. What should happen, of course, is to put doctors on salary, a very good one, which rewards their long training and arduous daytime work and horrendous night call. That way, sleep specialists with the cushiest job, cardiologist, nephrologists, and neurosurgeons will have equal pay, and stop vying with each other for more money and appreciation, on the pretext that their specialty is harder than all others, or that they are somehow more clever or more deserving.
I: Go Green! How about a big and sincere campaign for prevention of disease, by living healthy lives, including the elimination of air and water pollution and radiation, adopting a healthy diet, buying local, promoting exercise by providing more bicycle paths, spacious parks, and by eliminating sales taxes on sports equipment? Think of how weight loss alone could reduce the morbidity of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and sleep apnea, to name just a few.
I hope the ministry of health is paying attention, but I am not holding my breath.
Obtainable from: iUniverse]]>Would You Vote if $25 Was on the Line?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14430272012-04-26T15:38:45-04:002012-06-26T05:12:01-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/elections in France, commentators were saying there is so much apathy in the French population, the old leader of democracy in Europe, that only 40 per cent of eligible voters were expected to exercise that sacred right last Sunday.
And yet this apathy is by no means confined to France. Here in Canada, voter turnout at the federal level has been declining since the late 1980s and is now just over 60 per cent.
The rate also varies according to age groups and social class and perhaps other factors. In Canada, voter turnout for those under 25 years is around 25 per cent only, a factoid which is easy to remember! Average voter turnout is much worse in lower income ridings (45 per cent) versus wealthier ridings (62 per cent).
What this means is clearly that voluntary voting further disadvantages the already disadvantaged and disempowered segments of society. Right-wing governments would love to leave the status quo undisturbed. But all incumbent governments of any colour would oppose any new system, including proportional representation, if it could threaten their hold on power.
Now let us look at the alternative. Mandatory voting is already in effect, in more than 30 countries, such as Australia, Belgium and Switzerland. Not surprisingly, Australia routinely garners voter participation rates of 95 per cent. Most other countries can only dream about such figures. So, how does Australia do it, considering there are so many similarities and shared values with Canada?
Is it conceivable that a fine of $25 is such a significant threat that it can produce such wonderful results? I wouldn't have thought so; however, once the population becomes used to the idea, I believe that it takes a life of its own. It would be interesting to find out how many people actually incur the fine, which would amount to the price of three beers at the pub, once every four or five years!
There are those who would object to mandatory voting -- on the principle of allowing people a free choice -- who would say "you can take the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink." On the other hand, there are good reasons to enforce voting. Having the right to vote is only meaningful if you use it.
It can also be argued that citizenship means you have a duty to fulfill; and that this is the price for living in a prosperous democratic society, such as paying your taxes. We have also heard some say that mandatory voting may not change the outcome. Of course it may not; but the surest way to remain in the current mess is to keep the current flawed and skewed system. Besides we already have ample evidence from the Australian experience that it can make a difference -- a huge difference, in fact.
Perhaps the most outrageous objection I have so far read is one published in the Globe and Mail stating, without a shred of evidence, that "Canadians are less tolerant of state intrusion than people in Australia."
There is a lot that governments can do to make voting more attractive, in addition to public education, such as:
1. Select a day when the weather in that country is not extreme. This is already followed in Canada, where voting in winter is avoided.
2. Declare that day a public holiday, so that there is no excuse about missing work, which may be a huge disincentive for the poor.
3. Make all bus/train rides free on that day.
4. Instead of the $25 "stick," give a "carrot" of a tax credit of $50 or $100 to those who do vote.
5. In today's social media world, allow electronic voting, which has already been used numerous times for the young and those who wish to use it. At the same time, permit the standard ballot marking for the elderly, and anyone else who is intimidated by the computer.
Some skeptic is going to ask "and who is going to pay for those extra expenses?" The answer is not difficult at all: buy one less F35 fighter jet, poised to defend us against Iceland! Who needs them, anyway?
Obtainable from: iUniverse]]>It May as Well be the First Day of Arab Springtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13562722012-03-21T14:53:58-04:002012-05-21T05:12:01-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/
But more recently, many of these same friends have been more concerned about the negative developments taking place in the wake of this momentous revolution. As one might imagine, my friends point to the success of the Islamic groups in Tunisia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the rule of the militia in parts of Libya, and the daring military successes attributed to Al-Qaeda in Yemen, now ruled by a coalition of two main groups, one of which was nothing but the arm of its deposed dictator.
When Assad is eventually killed or pushed out of Syria into Iran, I anticipate that some people will lament his departure, while pointing to the resultant Sunni-Shiite strife which is likely to occur, mainly as the settling of scores. There are early signs of the rats jumping the Assad ship, a phenomenon that has a habit of snowballing once it starts.
I try to point out to such friends that all these complications notwithstanding, we now have a changed situation which is better than the status quo, which also has the potential to improve, now that decision making is being shared by more than one single person or family. All revolutions, from the Bolshevik to the French to the American one against British rule, went through horrendous and violent stages of correction, and maybe over correction. It's the nature of any monumental change which involves large populations. At least now, we have the opportunity to establish justice and human rights and the rule of law, even if it was partially Sharia, hopefully only very transiently.
In all the Arab countries which have gone through this upheaval, one factor was or will be crucial: the complete removal of the elements of the previous corrupt and cruel regime. Just as it was unthinkable that Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi would be left in any position of power, Maher Al-Assad will not be spared, let alone given any role in running the country.
This is where Yemen has been the exception. Not only did party chief Ali Abdulla Saleh get away with scott-free murder because of the ridiculous terms of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) accord, but his son and nephew are wielding enormous power, with the blessing of the United States, which is using the highly inflated threat of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) as its justification for keeping them in power. The Yemenis, in my opinion, will not be able to turn a new leaf while Saleh's henchmen, whether military relatives or civilian ex-ministers, wield power and escape the accountability and justice that must be meted against them.
Therefore, talk about unity and moving forward and reconciliation is quite premature, and will not occur until Saleh's thugs lose their positions of power. That will not happen any time soon, if ever. Unity between the different regions of North Yemen will be extremely difficult, even if it is forced at the end of a bayonet, and or by bribing key individuals.
True unity with South Yemen will be impossible until its people see justice for all the crimes committed against their families, officials, infrastructure, and property. The appointment of a southern prime minister, and the so-called election of a southern president will not alleviate their resentment, as they continue to recognize such individuals, and others like them, for what they are -- remnants of the Saleh regime, almost totally powerless, still taking orders from Saleh and his son and nephew, who remain in the country, wielding enormous power, without fear of retribution because of the Saudi-GCC brokered agreement.
As recently as March 20, the BBC Arabic program reported that after Prime Minister Basindwah criticized former President Saleh for releasing Yemeni soldiers known to have shot dead peaceful demonstrators, Saleh sent former prime minister Abdul-Kareem Al-Iryani to President Hadi, ordering him to have PM Basindwah arrested. To his credit, as the BBC reports, Hadi refused to arrest the Prime Minister. However this incident confirms the extent of meddling in government affairs by Saleh, as long as he is in the country. It is also reported by the BBC that those members of the coalition cabinet, who belong to Saleh's People's Congress Party, for example the foreign minister, were ordered to boycott the cabinet meeting called by PM Basindwah.
It is true that today water and electricity are partially restored, and that no one is being killed. This is no different from Yemen a year ago, before the huge demonstrations in Tagheer Square. In other words there has been no fundamental change; and what is worse is that Yemenis do not see any prospect of a way out of this impasse. In a chat with a cousin of mine in Sanaa, I was told that people are expecting "war" any minute now.
In any situation of uncertainty, conflict, albeit low grade, lack of food and services, and disintegration of infrastructure, there are always those very few opportunistic millionaires and potential millionaires who will make a killing without regard for the starving millions. They are the ones who have the ears of the Yemeni media which, with very few exceptions, has been government controlled.
So, do not be surprised to hear of huge new contracts, investments, and potential jobs. Knowing what we know about the level of corruption in Yemen, it is a foregone conclusion that millions will be made by a happy handful of Yemenis, and they are not going to rock the boat, are they?
And so, in Yemen, the sacrifices made by the thousands of students and other martyrs will have been in vain, due to the intransigence and megalomania of Ali Abdullah Saleh, and all those who consciously chose to support him, be it his minister of national security, foreign affairs, or information. It is only a matter of time before the killing recommences, and this time it will be on a more vicious scale, as Saleh reclaims his throne.
If the United States truly cared about democracy in Yemen, it would make certain that Saleh and his clique physically leave the country, never to return, reminding them of what a wonderful deal they have been given, despite the documented crimes they perpetrated against the Yemeni people for three decades.
Obtainable from: Chapters-Indigo]]>Springtime for Assad and Syria...tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13021682012-02-28T12:28:41-05:002012-04-29T05:12:01-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/
Looming power, just like power itself, has an enormously intoxicating effect which alters the expectations, aspirations, and behaviour of those it affects. The faster the gain, the worse the behaviour. This is further complicated by that difficult-to-resist need for revenge, which is provoked by the unmitigated brutality, torture, and mutilation by the dominant party.
What could be a better example of this scenario than the unfolding story in Syria?
On January 26 of last year, the Syrian demonstrators did not ask for much. They wanted an end to the state of emergency that had been in place for many long years, and the government to control its rampant corruption. Syrians waited anxiously to hear their president agree to at least some of those modest demands.
When the speech came, in the midst of orchestrated fanfare, and with the president surrounded by his hundreds of sycophants, it was a display of arrogant defiance. Assad assured his listeners that all was well in Syria, and that he had instructed his cabinet to look into possible reform. That, of course, never came.
One year later, Syrians voted on what has been called a new constitution, while Rome burns. The ploy to legitimize Bashar al-Assad's regime had 89.4 per cent approval.
But this comes after thousands of unnecessary deaths and many more arrests with torture; thus the population is severely divided in its response to this late overture. We hear that the new constitution stipulates a maximum of two seven-year terms for the president of the country.
Somehow that reminds me of the exactly the same clause inserted by President Wade of Senegal into that country's constitution, and yet the 85-year-old Wade insists that he has the right to run a third time, because he claims that the rule comes into effect, not retrospectively, but only after it was adopted.
Thus the question that comes to mind is: Is it even remotely conceivable that Syria's president is planning to resume his ophthalmological practice at the end of his current term? Or is he saying he would step aside in 2026, by which time who knows what the Middle East will look like?
The vast majority of people would say he meant 2026. I would too, because dictators all insist on "too little, too late." If only the other Arab regimes would learn from the past and take initiative to gradually introduce electoral reform, phased over a predefined period of two to three years, that are genuine enough to avoid the inevitable rebellion that is bound to envelope them in the coming decade.
I would dare to bet that if they did so, their own people would ensure that they remain on their thrones, as constitutional kings or emirs for ever, just as the British, the Sweden, and the Danish monarchs do.
Obtainable from:
In Canada: Indigo-Chapters Books
In England: Waterstones Books]]>The Arab League: A Dictator's Paradisetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12936032012-02-26T00:04:08-05:002012-04-26T05:12:01-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/ backing of the United Nations in stationing thousands of monitors throughout Syria, after their own 200 or so observers failed to effectively monitor, let alone control, the brutal acts of the Assad regime against civilians.
At this stage in the game, it is very unlikely that Syria will allow such monitors in, at a time when it seems bent on physically eliminating what it calls "terrorists," a label that has been so abused by the United States that it has become virtually synonymous with anyone who resists anything, including tyranny in this case. At the same time no one, at least publicly, is advocating military intervention of any kind, although arming the rebels is now being talked about.
So, what are the reasons for this impasse?
It is nearly always useful to go back and look at the protagonists in any conflict to understand the dynamics of any problem. On the Syrian side, it is plain to see that yet another Arab dictator, who was counting on remaining in power for the usual 30 years or so, before passing the "throne" to his son, has no intention of giving up that enormous and absolute power or even a fraction of it.
But, what of the League of Arab States? Well, I went to its website. It has 71 different sections, ranging from what they call "Woman Unit" to "Intellectual Property unit." I also went to the section of my own interest, namely human rights. It had five subsections, including "about human rights department," "permanent committee," "expert team," "mechanisms of Arab human rights," and "related sites." The last one led me to the International Declaration for Human Rights, while the other four were totally empty; repeat: totally void! Thus, an organization which was formed on February 22 in 1945 has not managed to provide such information about its most urgently needed work.
On reflection, however, it should not have been all that surprising. Why? Because this is a grouping of dictatorial regimes, the majority of which are ruled either by monarchies, or worse, by military regimes that came to power by killing or removing the previous rulers of those countries. We are talking here about a rulers' club which has nothing to do with the Arab people, and that is why the use of the name "The Arab League" is extremely misleading. What it should be called is "The Arab Rulers' League," or TARL for those who like acronyms.
The contrast with the European Union (EU) is very obvious. That's why when this league urges Ali Abdullah Saleh or Bashar al-Assad to step down, those two might turn around and ask, "And who are you to tell me to step down?" or perhaps "Is this not the case of the pot calling the kettle black?" The fact that some regimes, in the Gulf for example, are less dictatorial or oppressive matters little.
There is a lot more criticism which can be directed at this League. For example, why is it always run by an Egyptian secretary general? There is no justification now or previously for such monopoly. The secretary general of the EU is not always from the country of the headquarters, e.g. Luxembourg or Belgium, or from the most powerful country, e.g. Germany.
My prediction is that this League is on its way to disintegration, which will start with fragmentation into blocks of like-minded regimes, such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and possibly the Arab States of North Africa which are already meeting as the 5+5 with European countries on the Mediterranean. There may also be a conglomeration of monarchies.
And as the new democracies go through the difficult and inevitable upheavals of transformation to true democracies, as we witness today in Egypt, the monarchies will no doubt point a finger and warn their own subjects of the dire consequences of seeking democracy. Some might be persuaded that partial democracy, if there is such a thing, under a benevolent sheikh may be better than all the mayhem we have witnessed in the past year.
But such disbanding of TARL is not necessarily a bad thing! The European Union, despite the marked differences in language and history and even culture, managed to achieve unity of purpose only because its members share so many qualities and principles, the most important of which being transparent democracy and commitment to human rights and the rule of law; the very ingredients currently lacking in nearly all Arab countries.
And when such Arab countries agree to commit to these principles, there is nothing to prevent them from joining a true democratic Arab League in a decade or two or three. When the decisions are in the hands of people, it might be much more likely that Arabs in Jordan and Syria and Lebanon, now separated by artificial Anglo-French colonial borders, might see advantage in coming together, knowing that adherence to the rule of law and commitment to human rights would protect them from those who would want to rule and oppress them.
It would also make it possible to keep the five major segments of Yemen: Saada region, Sanaa region, Hujariyyah, Hadhramaut, and Aden region together under one truly cohesive Yemen, no matter who the president might be.
Maybe it is a pipe dream, but the current impotence will not be tolerated much longer by the young, educated and twitter savvy Arab masses.
Obtainable from: Chapters-Indigo-Canada and Waterstones-England]]>A Sham Referendum for a Sham Futuretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12813642012-02-21T15:38:30-05:002012-04-22T05:12:01-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/ For many, getting rid of Saleh was worth any compromise, including the blanket immunity he and others in his regime, were given. Saleh, who secured the best deal of any Arab dictator, must have felt re-assured that he would leave the presidency to one of his own men, who has served him faithfully and meekly since 1994, when a secessionist southern movement was defeated in a civil war with the Northern central government.
The terms of the agreement stipulate that Hadi would be president for only two years, at the end of which Yemenis would elect their own president according to the standard formula; from a slate of presidential candidates. Saleh is reported to be asking Yemeni institutions to remove his photographs from their wall and to substitute ones of Hadi! I have always thought that it would be fantastic if the menacing photos of all such unelected rulers were forever banished.
So, why is it necessary for Yemenis to go through this sham election, when it is nothing but a referendum for a man with no competitors? Former president Mubarak went through so many of these referendums, and was returned to power with the blessing, we were told, of 99% of Egyptian citizens. Furthermore, when President Kennedy was assassinated, Vice President Lyndon Johnson stepped smoothly into his shoes, without any referendum, because that is what a vice president is for.
My own opinion is that Hadi's role will be a lot longer than a two year term, and that is exactly what Saudi Arabia, and possibly the United States, wants to see happen, because the conservative devil you know is better than the progressive devil you don't know. Such a so-called election will give him the legitimacy he will need for a two-year term, and then allow him to seek the presidency for a full term of five or six years, at which time his chances of success will have been markedly boosted. By then, who knows what will happen? Will Iran still be there in its present state? Will Saudi oil production have significantly diminished, or at least peaked? Either way it will buy time for Yemen's neighbours.
Furthermore, this referendum is estimated to cost a minimum of $48 million, which which would be better spent on improving the collapsing infrastructure in the country, which is rumoured that, within a handful of years, will run out of water.
For citizens of the former People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, such a referendum would only help to legitimize what they see as the armed conquest, and plunder of their country, which was planned by the two undemocratic leaders of the two Yemens, without their approval, and against their wishes.
As always, one cannot discuss the problems of Yemen without addressing of other countries in the Middle East. In this instance, we must speak of Syria. Commentators have recently stated that the surge of wanton brutality of the Assad regime is a sign of desperation that should indicate the final chapter of the president's crumbling rule.
When that happens, the remote possibility of Saleh's return to Yemen will vanish. The other consequence will be that Bahrain will become the next trouble spot in the region, which will drag Saudi Arabia into the melee, since it was the KSA that sent its fleet of tanks to quell the peaceful protests of the Shia majority in Manamah.
The other Gulf Arab countries are less likely to be affected because of their smaller populations, but also because of a certain level of democracy enjoyed in Kuwait, the presence of a much more open society in Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, and the near absence of vocal discontent in these "benign and benevolent" dictatorships.
In Yemen, those who enthusiastically support the referendum on Hadi are those whose lot will improve with his presidency, or at least will not be threatened, or who will also gain legitimacy under the Hadi government, despite any crimes they have committed under his predecessor Saleh.
Among these will be members of the People's Congress Party who now hold cabinet posts in the so-called coalition government, and continue to represent Yemen locally and abroad. How can that situation be tenable, especially if the policies of Hadi were going to be different? But this is precisely why I do not believe that they will be different.
If these predictions prove to be accurate, then the problems of Yemen will not improve any time soon, but will continue, and may indeed end up in significant violence, especially if the legitimate aspirations of the inhabitants of Aden and the former People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY)
are not dealt with early and genuinely.
Dr. Ghanem's books are available in the UK, and in Canada .]]>A Much-Needed Muslim Education for the Westtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12448982012-02-01T09:15:46-05:002012-04-02T05:12:01-04:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/Muslims for Progressive Values is a newly formed North American organization, with a smaller Canadian chapter, which has been gathering momentum for the past two years. Their website states, "MPV endorses separation of religious institutions, whether church, mosque, synagogue, or otherwise, from state institutions. The imposition of religious codes by the state prohibits citizens from exercising their moral agency. We believe that secular government is the only way to achieve the Islamic ideal of freedom from compulsion in matters of faith."
They have just published a must-read book for those who truly wish to understand modern progressive Islam. This wonderful book is an anthology of interesting, and some riveting stories of brave progressive Muslim women and men, which I strongly recommend. I admit that I am biased, because so many of the issues discussed are also the very issues which I provocatively portray in my new novel Final Flight from Sanaa; and which revolve round how Muslims deal with sexuality.
We are talking about treating women as second class citizens, dating, teen rebellion, virginity, interfaith marriage, pregnancy, homosexuality, honor, hijab, accepting others as equal and acting as a citizen of the adopted country; in other words, all the factors that seem to set Muslims apart from the rest of humanity, and cause 22 per cent of Americans to not want a Muslim for a neighbour, 44 per cent to claim that Muslims are too extreme in their religious views, and 55 per cent of Canadians to claim that Muslims do not share their values. In this review I can only sample some of the critical statements by some of the 20 contributors.
Ameerah Saleem states:
There was a constant focus on differences in our dress. I wore a scarf to cover my hair, and pants underneath my uniform. These outward statements of faith became an issue. It was scary how quickly someone could decide and believe you aren't acceptable over religious differences. I wanted to show that faith and modesty live in the heart; you can see them in a person's character, not in her head wrap. One time I posed the Q: Why is it unacceptable to not wear hijab, and be in a natural state of beauty, yet acceptable to wear our scarf as a large colourful display, and be in an enhanced state of beauty?...Why don't Muslims confront the poor treatment of women in the U.S. and elsewhere?
She observes that traditional Muslims engage in inter-religious dialogue, but rarely entertain intra-religious dialogue; something that I have observed too, and came to the conclusion that the latter nearly always results in accusations and counter accusations of being "not Muslim enough."
Sumaya Cole, speaking from personal experience, complains that no imam was willing to perform a marriage ceremony between a Christian man and a Muslim woman, and reminds readers that children of such marriages will make their own choices about religion, in the end.
Patricia Dunn, who calls herself a feminist Muslim and immediately wonders if that is not an oxymoron, defines the often abused word of Jihad as personal and inner struggle to live a just life, and defend those who cannot defend themselves -- a great definition to my mind.
Daayiee Abdullah courageously challenges the strong adherence to ancient rules of Islam, reminding us that Islamic history covers 1,450 years, and that we should not adhere to them as if they are appropriate for modern times; adding that we cannot as thinking individuals, mindlessly and blindly apply ancient teachings.
Ismail Butera, originally from Albania, counsels Muslims to dress as others do in their country of residence, not in exotic and different clothes, as if to say, "Look at me; I am Muslim."
Mona Eltahawy, who gained fame during the Egyptian revolution against Mubarak, is typically not afraid to raise taboo issues, such as hymen reconstruction and sexuality. She admits, "There was a time when I, too, thought I should wait until marriage before I had sex -- but then it took forever, and I got fed up waiting!"
Sahira Traband wrote the chapter "The Emperor is Naked," a 16-page critique of Islam as practised today. If you only had time to read one chapter, this is the one to read. I liked her candid conclusion, "I completed reading the Quran in Arabic, fulfilling an obligation, and not understanding a single word."
Sixty-two per cent of Americans do not personally know any Muslims. Reversing that trend will be a formidable task. Publishing this book is a small step in that direction.]]>The Worst Initiative in the History of All Revolutionstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11780562012-01-02T15:25:03-05:002012-03-03T05:12:01-05:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/Yemeni Nobel Laureate Tawakkol Karman gave an impressive presentation, and answered questions at Chatham House in London. I heard her say that the Gulf Initiative, which called for Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to resign from presidency but that has led to violence, was the worst initiative in the history of all revolutions. My old classmate from Aden College, now retired lawyer Awadh Mabjar, told Tawakkol, "The Saudi people, and I am talking about the people, not the regime, are waiting for the Yemeni people to succeed, for them to start their own revolution."
Her principal reason for saying so was that the initiative, while only partially solving the conflict, gave Saleh carte blanche immunity. It also allowed men who aided and abetted him in oppressing the Yemeni nation for three decades to continue to hold the same sensitive positions they previously held while executing the orders of their master. What she said was in fact not profound at all if one makes a simple comparison.
What if the Arab League, of which the GCC is a major component and of which Saudi Arabia is the undisputed leader, now offered the same "initiative" to Syria, giving Bashshar Al-Asad complete immunity, and three months to gradually relinquish power to Vice President of Cultural Affairs Najah Al-Attar? This would leave Walid Muallem, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bashshar's brother Maher Al-Assad, chief of the Republican Guard, and Reem Haddad, spokesperson for Syrian Information Ministry, to continue spouting out Bashshar's propaganda.
Most people reading such news would probably dismiss it as insulting window dressing. It would simply be unthinkable. Well, that is exactly what happened in Yemen. What we hear and read indicate that Saleh has not stopped playing the role of President, and that his son Ahmed Saleh the commander of the Republican Guard, and nephew Yahya Saleh, chief of central security forces, are as powerful and active as ever. In fact, they have been purging any rebellious elements under their commands.
There is a report that a ship, owned by these two military officers, has just sailed from my city of Aden for the United Arab Emirates, laden with Arabian horses, rare animals, and other precious antiquities that had been kept in the family's palaces in Sanaa.
One wonders whether that includes gold bullion, which would be far less visible. Recently, one of Saleh's loyalists, tribal chief Sheik Mohammed al-Shayef who is also a leading member of Saleh's People's Congress Party, announced that the president had decided to remain because of the unrest, as if there was no unrest before today.
Perhaps the saddest part of this fiasco is the naïve role played by the so-called opposition, led by an old Adeni friend of my own family, namely the interim prime minister Muhammad Salem Basindwa. From what I know of him, he probably genuinely believed that in accepting the role he might hasten the handover of government, and thus save lives.
Now, however, it is quite clear that Basindwa is dealing -- in the words of Saleh -- with snakes, and has been duped. Therefore what he must do now is to resign and take with him all those in the opposition who still have some dignity. Anything less would be shameful collaboration with "familiocracy" at the expense of the revolution, which was started by the youth of Yemen while the opposition slept for decades.
For information about Qais' books available in the UK, and in Canada .
]]>Butt Out: U.S. Ambassador to Yemen Interferes With Proteststag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11696432011-12-28T18:13:25-05:002012-02-27T05:12:01-05:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/demonstration in Yemen's capital on Christmas Eve, killing at least nine protesters, and injuring many others. The demonstration, which started in the city of Taiz, was against the immunity given to President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his associates by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreement signed in Riyadh.
For Yemenis, Saleh's continued violence is not surprising. Hundreds of lives have already been lost. And yet another giant demonstration is being organized in the Red Sea port of Hudaida to march all the way to Sanaa.
What is surprising Yemenis, indeed enraging them, is the blatant interference in their constitutional right to protest peacefully by the United States Ambassador to Yemen, Gerald M. Feierstein. He recently said that the hundreds of thousands of protesters were "not peaceful" and seemed intent on traveling to the capital in order to cause "chaos" and "provoke a violent response," thus justifying in advance any violence they might be met with by Saleh's troops.
On Oct 17, 1995, the Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan called for "a million man march." What if the Ambassador to Yemen in Washington at the time had made similar, or indeed any, remarks about the Million Man March in Washington?
I have a few questions for Ambassador Feierstein, if he has the time to answer: Should he not now apologize to the families of the nine killed and the 200 injured victims of Saleh's brutality?
Did he pass that statement by the interim Yemeni Foreign Minister Dr. Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, a staunch supporter of Saleh for decades? ]]>One of These Brutal Dictators Is Not Like the Otherstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11382262011-12-11T13:43:09-05:002012-02-10T05:12:01-05:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/
So, why is the brutal dictator of Yemen different? His supporters will tell you that it is because he is very cunning and scheming, for to an average Yemeni, and I am one, that description is considered to be a compliment. If you can get away with it, good for you. That would be their sentiment.
But, as I said in a previous blog on Yemen, Saleh's sons and nephews command very sensitive positions in the armed and security forces, which have been left intact since the signing, and have in fact shown evidence of renewed brutality especially against the residents of the beautiful city of Taiz. It would appear that the Riyadh agreement did not ensure the dismantling of the command in the Republican Guards or National Security, which has thus emboldened the triumphant Saleh to exact revenge against his enemies, especially in Taiz.
Second, whereas the Arab League, in which Saudi Arabia is a major player, has escalated punitive actions, including sanctions, according to the degree of defiance by Bashshar Al-Assad, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) effectively did nothing when Saleh returned to Sanaa, only to resume acting as the president of the country, as if nothing had happened.
The GCC seems to have washed its hands of the whole thing, and left it to the Yemenis to sort it out for themselves, despite the asymmetry between the three sides in this dispute, namely the government, the opposition coalition, and the unarmed peaceful youth in the city squares.
Third, because of one and two above, the opposition, now led by 78-year-old Aden-born Mohammed Salem Basindwah, in the face of Saleh's renewed defiance, and for lack of any other effective means, has chosen to share a government with the General People's Congress (GPC), whose leader remains none other than Saleh himself, and whose members have for years been the henchmen of Saleh, and complicit in his crimes. Thus the deputy minister of information and the foreign minister are now occupying the exact same positions, from which they should have been removed, and possibly prosecuted.
In his interview with Al-Jazeera, Prime Minister Basindwa appeared weak and diffident. Asked what he would do in the face of the defiant continuation of ruling the country by Saleh, as if he was still president, he simply shrugged his shoulders and agreed that Saleh was not abiding by the very agreement he signed. Many in Yemen and ouside are now beginning to blame the opposition for granting their blessing to the apparent carte blanche immunity given by the GCC, not only to Saleh, but all those in his camp. We are talking about many thousands here. Despite this sweet deal, and perhaps because of it, Saleh is manifesting total intransigence.
There can be no doubt that the GCC countries, led by King Abdulla, are fully aware of all this. Yet, there has been no condemnation of Saleh's defiance let alone action such as sanctions, asset freezing or limitation of travel of Saleh's inner circle. "Why" is the question many Yemenis are asking; why this blatant double standard?
My own conversations with friends and family in Sanaa reveals that all the Riyadh signatories we saw on TV allegedly received three million Saudi Riyals each. When I asked my informant how he could possibly know that, he simply said, "In Yemen there are no secrets."]]>Yemen's Saleh Has Signed at Last. Now What?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11118162011-11-29T17:36:18-05:002012-01-29T05:12:01-05:00Qais Ghanem, MDhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qais-ghanem-md/
On Nov 23, President Saleh signed a power transfer deal to give up power after 33 years, under the watchful eyes of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, his close ally for decades, and a large bevy of Gulf royals as well as several members of the cabinet and of the opposition, some of whom I happen to know personally.
While the representatives of the government and of the opposition signed in glum seriousness, Saleh appeared to smile and joke throughout the process of signing his documents. He had every reason to be so cheerful. Ali Abdullah Saleh's regime was living on borrowed time anyway, but because he has been doing the bidding of the Americans and the Saudis, he was given a reward none of the other deposed dictators could dream of. Tunisia's Ben Ali had to flee the country with a few bars of gold, again to Saudi Arabia; Mubarak lost his absolute rule within days of the uprising on the Egyptian streets; Gaddafi and one son were apparently summarily executed shortly after capture, and Saif is likely to be hanged after a Saddam-style trial in Libya. Thus, by comparison, Saleh has received a very sweet deal indeed. Not only that but his loyal supporters, whether sons or nephews, or whether ministers of information or foreign affairs or interior, will be covered by the same immunity clause.
So, what is that going to say to Bashshar al-Asad of Syria? Should he not also be offered the same level and extent of immunity, despite the 1,500 deaths caused by his security service and army, also lead by a family member, this time his brother? And what about the next Arab or non-Arab tyrant that kills his people? It is clear that those who paid with life and limb, i.e. the students in Change Square in Sanaa and the cities of Taiz and Aden, are not happy about the way they were betrayed, not only by Saudi Arabia, which was not surprising, but also by the opposition, as represented, among others by Mohammed Salem Basindwah, a leader of the opposition, and a friend of my own family.
The powers retained by the president over the transitional period have not been spelt out in the agreement, and thus it would be very difficult to predict what will happen in the next month or so, but I will dare predict what is likely to happen: President Saleh used his post-signature defiant speech to point a finger at those unknowns who tried to assassinate him, blaming outsiders, bringing hate from the West, as he put it, even mentioning Zionists in the process! He will return to Sanaa very triumphant, and with zero risk of being accountable, irrespective of what the small print of the Riyad agreement might say, he will rule Yemen with unprecedented brutality, covered by total impunity. His suspected enemies will be assassinated or will disappear. His son Brigadier General Ahmad Saleh, commander of Yemen's Republican Guards, and nephew General Yahya M. Abdullah Saleh, director of the counter-terrorism unit will be given a carte blanche to arm themselves to the teeth, and to annihilate any armed opposition. They will seek to remain in their current positions in any future government, and from a position of military superiority, will try to extract such concessions. That is not to say that Saleh will re-establish his dictatorship, but he will have taken the revenge he has been seeking since the assassination attempt.
During the remainder of his rule, he will move huge amounts of wealth to his next country of refuge, almost certainly one or more of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, as well as Western banks and American real estate. His inner circle will be moving large amounts of U.S. dollars in large suitcases, and gold bars in diplomatic bags, to Dubai and Kuwait and Jeddah. This has already been reported, and I have learnt of such huge transfers by two of his ministers. Some in his inner circle already have Canadian, American and European passports, which will make it easy to leave Yemen days before the 30 day limit, just as happened with the relatives of Ben Ali of Tunisia, moving to Montreal in Canada.
What is less obvious is what will happen to Ahmad Saleh, who was reported to have acquired a lot of real estate in the U.S. He can use his fire power to stay in power. But his fate will depend on the upcoming elections. If the people return a government which is bent on prosecuting him, as is happening with Saif Al Islam Gaddafi in Libya, he will escape just before any action is taken against him. He might also decide to stay outside the country during election week, but return to his troops and influence if he can cut a deal with the new government. Either way, a very affluent future awaits him.
Between now and Christmas, watch Sanaa Airport for rapidly increasing activity, especially of private jets carrying special gifts from Santa, heading out of Yemen!]]>
